2008-10-06_Chris Yuen_v_Board_of_Appeals_and_Edmund_Jin_and_Eva_Lu_-_Answering brief-Civil_No_07-1-261K

Home

measuring rainfall other than what is provided for in Rule 22-4. Appellants Jin and Leis argument was based on the following excerpts from the testimony of Daryn Arai, an employee of the Planning Department, as provided in their Opening Brief at 16-17: 1) Only a single rain gauge was used to measure rainfall averages when the rule called for comparable rain gauges. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 541). 2) No USGS rainfall map was used either since they did not possess such a map (R:CV07-1-261 K Doc. 004 at 541). The rule called for use of a USGS rainfall [map] as an alternate form of measurement. 3) The department also used what has been referred to as an isohyet line, (a line on a map or chart connecting areas of equal rainfall)to determine how much rainfall the subject property received. [ ] The isohyet line running north-south dividing the two rainfall areas was relied upon to determine whether the subject property received 60 inches of annual rainfall or not. If the subject property was left or makai of the line, it resulted in a denial of the water variance since it assumed the property received only 50 to 60 inches of rainfall. If the property was to the right. or mauka of the line, the variance would be approved since it was presumed that the property received 60 to 80 inches of annual rainfall (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 536). Isohyet lines as rainfall measurements are not part of Rule 22-4 either. 4) Finally, the department's witness stated that they consider only long-term rainfall records as well, something not part of Rule 22-4 either(R:CV07- 1-261 K Doc. 004 at 555). However, based on the record, the Circuit Court correctly found that excerpts 1 through 3 above were mentioned in Appellants Jin and Lds Revised Proposed COL Nos. 6, 7, and 8 (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 686-687), which were specifically deleted by the Board for the following reasons: Revised Proposed COL No. 6 was deleted by the Board because it found as follows: `[It] is refuted by the precise language of Rule 22-4 which says that the annual rainfall can be proven by rainfall record at comparable rain gauges or by the USGS rainfall map. It doesn't say [the Director] will utilize a USGS rainfall map" (R:CV07-1-261 K Doc. 004 at 686.) 21