COM 0018.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Sir. AU: So, Mr. Rock you mentioned that you had some issues with the Director's proposed amendments. Did you share that with us? ROCK: I'm happy to do so now if that's appropriate. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. ROCK: Sure, so if I can do the quick recapture or the run through of=the conditions under discussion. So, for Conditions G, P, and R I think we are all in agreement on the recommended changes. The two (2) conditions that I believe were under discussio one relates to the traffic control devices and the other relates to parking. So, is there assue thatthe Commission would like to address first between traffic control or parking? Okay, for the traffic control devices there is a couple of different components. `endo ^understand the need for safety, the need for meeting the standardaesign b =the County as to" f affic levels and levels of service. So, currently with our project designs_ add -With the traffic studies that have been prepared the proposed development it should not decrease levels of service below the County's standards and there are also th&- xisting conditionslas-were mentioned before by Christian. The right turn in and out on K4q@#n Street to add t o_nal help mitigate the traffic concerns related to the development. The r gf-torr%==tn =and out we "think that's kind of appropriate and reasonable response but as mentione_d_ri _the _presentation as well. The concern that we have is that if there is a requirement taTsignalize-ari� (er ection perhaps Kapi`olani and Kukuau or maybe one of1001-1 t e yintersections=Wthe neighborhood. The way that the affordable housiri&nancing is sfructured is that it's very difficult and it's a very slow-moving train to�y_to obtain additional resources. So from our studies and from the County Codes nothing thatvie are see ould_ ose a requirement to install traffic control devices and e' do' ;pian on going=through the -Department of Public Works and having the traffic department review the project to cor%firm that we've met those standards. The concern that we had though is that if for soiH_Z_jeasot =the=requirement is established thru a zoning ordinance that we instdItVatraffic control device we'll end up having almost two (2) different similar requiremer is � So, you have tt e County Code requirement that we go through the Department of Public Works ariciyou have A—— licate of that requirement also in the ordinance. As we go through tl e_devdlopment if we find that traffic control devices are not needed thru the County Code and the Department of Public Works there's still the risk that I might have to come back again to the Planning Commission and now install a device because of the wording in the resolution. So, from our standpoint the County doesn't necessarily lose anything or degrade standard for traffic controls by removing some of the language requested in Condition J. It does offer more flexibility for affordable housing, it allows Public Works to continue its review during the permitting process and we do believe that the proposed development will maintain satisfactory levels of traffic in the area. So, regarding traffic are there any questions? Okay. EXHIBIT A (DRAFT) 11