2010-07-08 THNMP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

out from Kahakai Boulevard shall be a channelized acceleration lane with a paved striped island.Ñ You guys feel that this would perhaps address the concerns you have? YEH: Mr. Domingo, if I can kind of respond to that. You know, part of the comments that we made was that it is good that the DOT has now recommenced that. We were, never saw that up until about a month ago. One of the issues that weÓve raised is that the concurrency requirement says that when you have this kind of an issue come before you with these changed circumstances, you really need to have a pretty good traffic impact analysis that provides not only assessment of what the conditions are now or will be, say, five or ten years from now, but also a presentation of what alternative mitigation measures might be. Now it sounds pretty good to us that thatÓs the case. But in the absence of a proper TIAR itÓs very difficult for us to be able to talk in a vacuum. But I will say this, is that even assuming that, you know, we come to the conclusion that that is the best option at this point in time, it still behooves the Commission and the Council to say, okay, that sounds really good, but youÓve got to do it now. DOMINGO: I think this rezoning was acted upon in 1991, thatÓs a long time ago. And certainl within that time until the present many changes have taken place; and the entire picture or major part of the picture has changed from 1991. So what youÓre saying is that a traffic impact analysis should be done, a study should be done, and that the concurrency requirements as provided for in that ordinance be applied to this application so that all the concerns that you folks have expressed can be addressed? Is that what you guys are saying? YEH: ThatÓs correct. And thatÓs, if you take a look at the purpose section of the concurrency ordinance, thatÓs exactly the spirit and intent because it specifically and expressly applies to extension requests. DOMINGO: I can understand also, youÒve mentioned that as you read the ordinance should there had not be an application for extension then all of this wouldnÓt come into the picture. And if they had then built the project and completed the project and met all the conditions, all the deadlines, then they wouldnÓt have been saddled with this whole requirement. YEH: Perhaps. Except I suspect that by, as a result of whatever they needed to do or whatever they needed to do that deal with traffic impact kind of issues, they would have had to talk to the Planning, to Public Works, as well as DOT. Part of the reason that we submitted that letter was to require them to come before this body and the Council, to be able to provide the kind of scrutiny or level of scrutiny that was required given the fact that they had already gone past basically two extensions. Cause if the Commission recalls, this ordinance was adopted in 1991. There was, I believe, another extension in 2000, and then subsequently another extension in 2003. And so the Council in recognizing that when you have these changes and circumstances you then need to reassess what the then existing conditions are. And thatÓs why itÓs good that weÓre now before you having this opportunity to be able to raise these issues. Because if we hadnÓt done that, where would we have been at that time? DOMINGO: Well, as I look at it, if the project was already completed and built and now weÓre faced with this, with this situation, then I would assume the County or the State would have to step in and then through tax payersÓ dollars put in those improvements. 7 EXHIBIT A