2005-12-08 TLava Kuakini - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LIM:-my last comment on this issue is that you know I havent done a lot of the rezonings for, recent rezonings for projects along the Parkway alignment but that runs from Keauhou all the way up to this project and up to Queen K. And Im, at least Im not aware of any similar conditions that require the project developers to, to pay for the cost of sound abatement measures that would be required to qualify the Parkway for Federal construction funds. I mean I, I know that there are numerous projects even just across the street that these, that the parkway, runway, parkway, right-of-way runs through and none of those people are being asked to pay for that. So, you know with respect to the overall attempt by us to provide affordable housing Id ask that this portion of the condition be deleted. ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler or Mr. Yuen response? YUEN:As far as other rezonings, most of the ones that Im aware of along the Parkway are mid to late 80s and I dont know that they paid as much attention to this issue of sound.Im,asabottomlineonourrecommendationIamdefinitelyagainsteliminating,Imfor keeping the requirement that the apartment owners bear the responsibility of any necessary soundproofing as a condition of allowing this project to move forward before the construction of the Parkway. If you look at the rec-, as far as what is likely to happen, if you look at the recommendation theres as much as we really can say about this at the present time. The analysis based on the 1996 EIS makes it, it looks like nothing significant would have to be done. If anything the current, if the Parkway were built according to the current plans it should be, the sound level should be not even as bad as, as indicated in the 1996 EIS. Being that this is still something that is going to take place much in the future, its difficult to, to be, to make any absolute statement about this. They do have, this is partially a function of distance from the Parkway itself. They do have 4 buildings under their site plan that are really quite close to a right-of-way. The remaining buildings are not, are not that close. And distance will reduce the impact. But I do, you know Im sticking by the condition. I think that a rewrite as I did is in order to make it clear that any soundproofing is related to protecting the project. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners we also have a opportunity to comment on the Directors condition. We can disagree or agree. We also are, you know we can also have opinion so feel free to come forward. Mr. Emler any thoughts or final comments? EMLER:Pau. Thank you. ALAMEDA:All pau. Mr. Lim, yourself as well as your applicants can also speak if they need to. LIM:We ask to defer after the public witnesses. I know theyve been waiting all morning so Id like to get them on. ALAMEDA:Also please, please note that I just checking on the protocol again making sure that were following protocol. So after, if we allow public testimony then Mr. Torigoe and then the applicants will come back. Can they again continue to present their case if you will? Or should we do it right now and let them get it all on the table? EXHIBIT B 29