Laserfiche WebLink
SPRINGER:This goes to the Planning Director and perhaps Mr. Emler. I€m <br />looking at Exhibit C, the second page, Item 3, which indicates Palani Road, the County <br />road serving Pamahoa Place, is a primary arterial road.‚ And it goes on to say that It is <br />substandard based on width, alignment and roadside hazard clearances. Palani Road <br />should be improved to an 80-ft. right-of way according to the County€s General Plan. <br />Average daily volume was 15450 vehicles per day in 2002. This will be identified as a <br />deficient link based on daily volume under criteria established in the 1998 Hawaii Long <br />Range Transportation Plan.‚ I€m wondering if I might have a discussion of that comment <br />with regard to this application and a statement by the Applicant that this application does <br />nothing to increase the density that has already been approved. <br />FUJIKAWA:Mr. Emler? <br />EMLER:Well,becausetheissueofconcurrencyontrafficissueshavecome <br />up in the recent past on other applications, we thought we should make a comment <br />regarding what the daily traffic volumes were or are on Palani Road and make a <br />statement about what, in comparison to what some traffic volume standards have been <br />established in the, and, using some type of source as like a guideline to determine what, <br />how it compares. And there is a table in the 1998 Long Range Transportation Plan that <br />gives a very basic comparison of daily traffic volumes to level of service; and it indicates <br />that this would be deficient link based on those traffic volumes. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Emler -. May I continue? <br />FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Emler, the Applicant€s representative has indicated that this <br />application does nothing to change the population density. And so there, I imagine, the <br />implication is so there would be no increase in numbers of cars on the road. Is that <br />accurate to the Applicant? <br />HARLOW:That would be true if the four lots, the four existing lots, were <br />developed with two homes, a primary dwelling and an ohana dwelling. Because the <br />Applicant owns all four lots and has the necessary water commitments from the <br />Department of Water Supply, that is completely within the realm of possibility now. <br />SPRINGER:Thank you. So, Mr. Emler, I guess, and maybe Mr. Yuen can enter <br />into this discussion as well, I€m just trying to understand how to take the Department of <br />Public Works€ observation that we have conditions of substandards and deficiency with <br />what the Applicant is representing. <br />EMLER:Well, given the Applicant€s response to that issue, I don€t disagree <br />or Public Works would not disagree with that assessment, that if they were to develop <br />ohana dwellings on these lots, in other words, two dwellings per existing lot, it would not <br />increase the potential traffic generation from the properties to subdivide them, otherwise <br />6 <br /> <br />