2003-07-28 TBLASMAN (6) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

OÓTOOLE:Thank you. You were questioned yesterday, I think, about your recommendation for denial and how this would, might affect the price of the property in the event of any kind of condemnation action. Is your recommendation at all based upon a desire to affect the price? YUEN:No. This was an attempt to reduce the problem of the intru site, that this project presents into an important historic site. OÓTOOLE:Are you aware of any evidence that the State ParkÓs recommendations are made to affect the price as well? YUEN:No, at the time, and I only discuss this because this was argued by the ApplicantÓs attorney. At the time State Parks wrote that letter, IÓm sure they had no funds to purchase the site; and I, itÓs clearly written as a letter that is motivated by the same desire to reduce the intrusiveness of this proposed project. OÓTOOLE:Thank you. I have no further questions. GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Yuen, as I understood your yesterday, I thought you said that, excuse me, I thought you said that when we were talking about 205A-26(2)(A) and your opinion as to the existence of any potential, substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, that in your opinion, there was one potential adverse economic or environmental effect, and that was the visual impact of the project on the nearby Keakealaniwahine site. IsnÓt that correct. YUEN:Yes. VITOUSEK:Okay. So when you were asked by Ms. David whether ther whether the proposed mitigation measure was intended to address all impacts, what were you referring to? I mean, were you referring to other potentially substantial adverse environmental effects that you have not previously identified? YUEN:No. When you asked about substantial adverse effect, the visual effect is a substantial adverse effect. There are other impacts on the project. Noise is an impact. I would not, in the context of this application or the context of this site, I donÓt think the noise is a substantial adverse impact. VITOUSEK:So, I just want to be clear that, then based on your testimony yesterday and not withstanding your response to Ms. DavidÓs question, that the only potential substantial adverse environmental and ecological effect, which you have identified and on which you are basing your recommendation, is the visual impact of the project when viewed from the Keakealaniwahine Complex? Is that correct? 11