My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-05-04 Windward Transcript HU HONUA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2011
>
2011-05-04 Windward Transcript HU HONUA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2011 3:10:37 PM
Creation date
7/21/2011 3:10:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
permit, and we discussed that previously in our session prior to this. And then in 55, that Hu Honua <br />engaged SSFM to conduct a traffic assessment and SSFM orally informed Hu Honua that no action will <br />be required with respect to traffic as existing roads are adequate to handle anticipated traffic. So I just <br />want to clarify that this, what you are suggesting is for safety? You feel it is for safety issues as <br />supposed to traffic flow? <br /> <br />DOMINGO: Safety, safety issue. <br /> <br />MECKLENBURG: Okay. I think that we had discussed the Topliss case previously and the issues <br />with traffic and whether it is appropriate to consider that in accordance with an SMA permit. And the <br />guidelines that we have from the Court state that the Commission needs to determine whether traffic <br />generated by the development will or will not have a substantial adverse environmental or ecological <br />effect on the coastal zone. If the Commission finds that the traffic will not have such a substantial <br />adverse effect then the Commission should approve the permit petition without conditions relating to <br />traffic. So I think what we need to concern ourselves with in particular is with respect to the coastal <br />zone. So for looking at safety, well, if it’s related to traffic then it’s not proper for consideration within <br />the SMA zone. If we’re looking at safety, then again we need look at safety within the SMA zone. So <br />possibly, if you’re talking about safety, in terms of traffic on the main road, that may not be appropriate <br />for our consideration with an SMA permit. <br /> <br />DOMINGO: Well, as I look at it the use that has been presented here is a use away from the highway. <br />But in order for that particular use to be proper and well recognized as such, and to be successful, then <br />they need to use the highway for that. If it, what I am saying is it is related. If you don't put the plant <br />there, there is no need for bagasse, then there will be no need for use of trucks. So, you know, as I look <br />at it, it is related and it is important. <br /> <br />KERN: Is it technically out of our jurisdiction though? I mean, I agree, I think, you know, traffic is <br />always, is a concern. And if we cannot, then we cannot? We kind of need a little bit of guidance, I <br />think, on whether we really can or we cannot. We’ll take a five-minute recess, oh, if I could I’d like to <br />get a motion to move into executive session. <br /> <br />AU: I make a motion to go into executive session? <br /> <br />KERN: All those in favor? <br /> <br />COMMISSIONERS: Aye. <br /> <br />KERN: Oh, do we have a second on that? <br /> <br />ONO: Second. <br /> <br />KERN: Okay, motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor aye? <br /> <br />COMMISSIONERS: Aye. <br /> <br />21 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.