2007-03-16 TSUNSTONE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Division. And we have a burial treatment thats been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Division. We had a cultural impact assessment done by Curtis Tyler, and his conclusions are also in the application. The viewplane issues, I think Dr. Terry did a very good job in the viewplane analysis, which is a part of the application; there are some graphics that demonstrate that there will be a minimum impact on viewplanes toward the shoreline or from the shoreline mauka because of the existing developments that occur along Alii Drive. This project is really designed to be consistent with all the other projects you see in the area. This is part of Urban-Core. Its going to be 2- and 3- story buildings. They are going to be multi-family dwellings interspersed with the landscaping. So what you see on the surrounding areas would be very similar to what this project would look like. There are some criteria stated in your Rule 9-7, B. (sic) that requests that no development be allowed unless certain things have been found. And I dont want to go through each one of these,butwehaveaddresseditinourapplicationonapointbypointbasis.TheDirectorhas reviewed that on a point by point basis, and the conclusion has been that we do comply withall criteria for Chapter 205A and your Rule 9. It appears clearly in the contested casewe had and in the testimony today that there is considerable concern about drainage. And I would like to defer the discussion of drainage issues to David Bills who is our civil engineer and I think one of the top drainage guys in the state. So I think he will be very clear about what the situation is currently, what we propose to do, how that will be accomplished, how those studies will be reviewed and approved by government agencies. So I will not pretend to offer his comments at this time. I think he will be far better suited to do that. I did want to make one last statement procedurally about the notification. As you know, there was a problem with notification. We initially notified about 650 people when we filed the application, and that was the properties to the north. And when we were asked to relocate the road to the south, we ended up notifying about another 450 people to the south. And then at the last hearing you recall there was found to be people they were within 500 feet of the project site, they were in fact living on the project site the Sea Villas people. So at that time we did notice them. I did meet with them in person this week to review questions that they had. And they have, as you see in your file, submitted a letter today saying they have no objection to the project as proposed. One of the notification issues I noticed in Ms. Scotts letter she made some indication that she was concerned with a lack of notification to her about the change of the location of the roadway. I have researched my files and find that she was given notification on two occasions with the correct map showing where the road was being proposed. And Im not sure if there was misunderstanding, but those lists have been certified by the U. S. Postal Service, and the County has copies of those notifications and the list when they were mailed. Hopefully now we have addressed all of the notification issues. As Ive indicated in the past on a couple of occasions I think at some point it would be wonderful if the County assumed the notification process and charged the applicant a fee, so that there will never be any question about who was notified or why, because it is always problematic and particularly in areas where there are high concentrations of multi-family units because the turnover is such that the change in addresses, the joint ownerships of project and stuff, there always seems to be some problems. I can truthfully say we always do the best job we can to 18EXHIBIT C