My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-01-20 TTotah
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2006
>
2006-01-20 TTotah
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 9:26:18 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 9:26:14 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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:Other Commissioners questions for Mr. Gimpel? Seeing none Id like to <br />thank you for your testimony. <br />GIMPEL:Thank you. <br />ALAMEDA:Will the applicant please come back? Or its representative, Mr. Mooers? <br />Hearing testimony and some of the discussion you have any additional comments or thoughts? <br />MOOERS:Yeah, I would like to respond a little bit. <br />ALAMEDA:Sure. <br />MOOERS:I appreciate Mr. Gimpels comments as always he makes a strong case. <br />Just to remind the Commission the resolutions that were grafted to support the change of zone to <br />thisareareallydoonething,welltheyredesignedtoonethingandthatistopreservetheforest. <br />And because it, there are forest restriction conditions that are pretty stringent in these that restrict <br />the amount of the land that can be used for other than forest activities. The second thing that has <br />been a policy of the Council has been to collect funds for the intersection improvements at <br />Kaloko. And repeatedly we hear from Department of Transportation and from the community <br />that this intersection needs improvement and I think the applicants will always stipulate to the <br />fact that yes it does. And yet for all the comments that come from the Department of <br />Transportation this improvement has never appeared on their STIP program, you know the State <br />Transportation Improvement Program. And I would suppose that theyre not being disingenuous <br />when they make the comment that its not a safe intersection I think what theyre saying is that <br />there are other intersections that may be in more dire need of attention. Am I getting louder or? <br />Could happen. So I think the policy has been then is to collect funds from these change of zone <br />applications and apply them towards that intersection and I think that has been the policy. I <br />would have to say that I probably agree with Mr. Gimpels statement regarding the level of <br />improvements and I would echo the sentiment that I think signalization should be pursued for 2 <br />reasons. One is I think it will help alleviate the wait for the intersection and the second thing I <br />think what it will do is it will provide a pulse and traffic along Mamalahoa Highway for <br />driveways and other unsignalized intersections that will create gaps in traffic where other people <br />who would then be allowed to get out onto the highway. I have not had the privilege of seeing <br />the study done by Mr. Fleming and the amount of work it does. Im a little surprised at the cost, <br />having costed other intersections. Im looking at one on Kawaihae Road right now, a <br />channelized intersection with no signal thats, our bids are coming in around $600,000. So I <br />hope hes, his numbers are right. I dont, as I say Im not an engineer, Ive not seen or had the <br />opportunity to look at those. But Im pleased that Star Market has fulfilled their obligation and <br />has engineered improvements in making recommendations. Cause remember they were one of <br />the applicants who agreed to do this, this study or this analysis at the intersection which is I think <br />something that needs to be done. I did want to echo what Commissioner Graham said about the, <br />theres no ohanas, were not looking at increasing the density. And the fact that we brought up <br />both of these at once I will mention that the Gesling application, the four units are 4 CPR units <br />that presently exist that are going to be converted into subdivided lots if the application is <br />successful. I think that, thats all the response I would have now than the fact to say that the <br />policy has been for the County to collect these funds and to use those funds, earmark them <br />EXHIBIT C <br />7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.