My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-12-06 tsunstone
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2006
>
2006-12-06 tsunstone
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 4:11:45 PM
Creation date
6/14/2011 4:11:41 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe? <br />TORIGOE: Yes. Your Rule 4-33 says that upon the filing of exceptions among <br />other things, the Commission may render its decision upon the record; or if oral argument has <br />been allowed, after oral argument; or may reopen the docket and take further evidence or may <br />make such other disposition of the case that is necessary under the circumstances. Basically <br />meaning that you have a hearings officer’s proposed findings and conclusions, and you also have <br />exceptions from Mr. Planning Director and from the applicant, and so you can basically modify <br />the hearings officer’s report if you want to take into account some of the exceptions, if that is <br />your decision. Or you can just adopt the hearings officer’s report, or you can make other <br />modifications as you see fit. It’s kind of wide open at this point. <br />ALAMEDA: Okay. <br />TORIGOE: Your Rule 4-30 also states that any exceptions not specifically raised <br />in writing by a party are waived. <br />ALAMEDA: All right. <br />SIRACUSA: And am I correct, also, in assuming that since I don’t see it in front of <br />me, that the intervenors did not submit any exceptions even though they were clearly ruled <br />against by the hearing officer? <br />TORIGOE: That you have to check with staff on. <br />ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow? <br />DARROW: We did not receive both the proposed Findings of Fact and <br />Conclusions of Law or exceptions from the intervenors. <br />SIRACUSA: Thank you. <br />ALAMEDA: Thank you Ms. Siracusa for that. Anybody, follow up questions? <br />Okay. Mr. Graham? <br />GRAHAM: I just wanted to ask Mr. Darrow, a sort of a, to give us a little feel for <br />the map there and substance. In the contested case hearing, there was lots of discussion about <br />the floodways and all that, and we’ve got Waiaha No. 2 and the nomenclature, but the general <br />understanding is floodwaters coming from mauka can enter the property, coming across Kuakini <br />Highway, and then this developer intends to channelize the floodwaters, and then perhaps as it <br />gets near Alii Drive, kind of release it back to the flow as current. Can you just give us a little <br />graphical sense of where all this occurs on the property? <br />DARROW: Sure. Taking a look at the site plan that has been submitted by the <br />developer, this is called the site development plan. This is Kuakini Highway running at the top <br />of the map, and we have Alii Drive at the lower part of the map. This here is the Kona Sea <br />Villas Condominium project that is constructed at this time. This is referred to as Block A <br />within the application. We have in brown identified a proposed road that goes from Alii Drive to <br /> EXHIBIT B <br />4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.