My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-10-27 tcr
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2006
>
2006-10-27 tcr
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 11:17:14 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 11:17:11 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FUKE:Correct, yeah. <br />SIRACUSA:So I didnt count it. Besides it goes right from 54, then the ADA <br />van parking, and then 55 is the next one on the other side. So it didnt seem to be, there <br />didnt seem to be missing a number, which would have counted that ADA van parking; <br />and, yet, at the very end, if you look, it keeps on going to -. <br />FUKE:You are correct, Commissioner Siracusa, because I had to take off <br />my glasses to see that small number. But it goes all the way up to -. <br />SIRACUSA:Well, see, I put my glasses on. <br />FUKE:It goes all the way up to 72 stalls; but the Plan Approval indicated <br />69stalls.And,quitehonestly,Idontknow,honestly,Icantsaywhetherits69or72. <br />This plan shows 72, the Plan Approval sheet that was approved by the Planning <br />Department reflected 69 stalls. <br />SIRACUSA:So, Id like, before we make a motion or anything on this, Id like <br />to clarify what were going to have here, whether were going to go by the map Figure 4 <br />or whether were going to go by whats written down in Plan Approval. And the <br />difference seems to be the 3 stalls that were talking about accessibility as to whether <br />theyre included or in addition to. I would like that clarified in any motion that we make <br />on this so that theres no mixed messages. <br />ALAMEDA:Right, but 69 would be more of a conservative estimate, correct? <br />SIRACUSA:Pardon me? <br />ALAMEDA:Sixty-nine would be a conservative estimate then, more of a <br />conservative estimate. Since the Applicants already testified to 69, maybe we should <br />just consider it as 69. Commissioner Watanabe? <br />WATANABE:Im wondering if were not micro-managing this at this point <br />because I believe, typically, this is handled administratively. And if in the event in the <br />future someone else says I want to combine these two spaces, then create a second use, <br />then that may require more or even less stalls, then we should leave it up to the <br />administration to handle that and hope that they would follow through with their own <br />rules. Im thinking were kind of splitting hairs here. <br />ALAMEDA:Okay. Lets ask our counsel. Mr. Torigoe, are we in line with our <br />role or are we micro-managing? <br />TORIGOE:Well, you have your recommendation where the 69 parking stalls <br />are set out, right? The recommendation is just that; and its kind of a general basis for <br />the, for what youre going to send it up to the Council. What the Council is going to <br />15EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.