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

Home

(R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 021 at 909.) The Circuit Courfs COL Nos. 4 and 6 are supported by the following findings in the record: I 1. Jin and Lds Water Variance application stated that the sixty inch rainfall (or isohyet)line utilized by the Planning Department in reviewing water variance applications is located approximately`50 feet maukd'of the boundary of the Property, evidencing that the Property does not meet the rainfall requirement of Rule 22. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 44 and 86.) 2. During the contested case hearing before the Board, while under cross examination, Appellants Jin and Lds expert witness, Steve Bowles, testified to the following: (1) He does not know whether the Property receives an average annual rainfall of at least 60 inches or more per year. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 513.) (2) Rainfall has declined in the past 20 years. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 513.) (3) He authored a chapter in a report [ ] that states that as a result of this decline in rainfall in the past 20 years,"the total amount of rainfall is less than half due to drought conditions" (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 513.) (4) The rainfall at Ocean View has diminished over the years, particularly since 1983, and that it has resulted in an increase in reliance on water hauling. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 514.) (5) He has conducted studies in South Kona for various clients, but he did not conduct a study for Appellants Jin and Lu to determine if there would be adequate rainfall for,catchment. (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 004 at 519.) 3. By letter dated February 12, 2007, the Director denied Appellants Jin and Lds Water Variance application, which provided the following statement of factual findings supporting his decision: 27