2014-05-01HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CONNECTIONSCBESSSPP12-138

Home

The other thing, too, is like you know the police, the police comment, it’s kinda clear, you all have it on the record. This is what the Police Department said. The development is being placed in a residential area that will likely affect the quality of life for residents that border this proposed site. There will be an increase in noise, crime, and traffic. The applicant’s provided discussion on traffic, but there was no evidence to address specifically the quality of life, no evidence to discuss the crime, no specific evidence to talk about noise. So unlike the areas like traffic and archaeology, they did have specific studies to that. But ask yourself, if you look on the application, or even through the contested case process, there were no technical studies that dealt specifically with noise and social impact. And the noise component is critical because noise—you’re relating to like traffic, you’re relating to the activity itself, and the impacts to the community. True, on the traffic, the TIAR does state that the level of service operates on an acceptable level. As Mr. Hong had indicated, I’m somewhat familiar with that kind of standards given my profession—yes, I can agree with that. But you know what? Seventy percent of the community still disagrees with that because they say, they question first of all, the date of the study. The data was compiled in May of 2009, almost four years ago, and even the traffic consultant conceded that the University, the KSBE schools and the high school had ended and there was no examination of other streets kind of approximate to there, particularly Chong Street. Phillip Rowell, the traffic consultant, he did concede that he was aware that the schools were closed, but he concluded rightfully so that may—not rightfully so—but he concluded that, that should not affect his analysis or conclusions. He also said that he was not aware, however, of a number of residential developments in the Kaūmana area and subdivisions that would utilize Edita Street. But, he then continued that based on his experience, if the application were to be considered by the State Land Use Commission, an updated TIAR would probably be required for two reasons. The traffic counts were done four years ago, and the list of related projects and background forecasts needed to be updated. So the question, then, I would have of this Planning Commission--you have the authority to deny. You also have the authority to recommend its approval. Why wouldn’t updated traffic be appropriate for the State Land Use Commission and not this Commission? Ron Thiel, the County Traffic Division. Admittedly, he concurred with the TIAR but if you go through the transcript, one of the things he said was that having traffic counts after the University, community college, and Kamehameha Schools ended could have made a difference in the TIAR. And he actually even added, it actually could make it even worse. So what’s—from the community standpoint, and if you look at the General Plan policies, the Use Permit, Special Permit criteria, as I mentioned earlier, they all focus on the notion of community. Now, the former Planning Director’s testimony regarding like how this project could be very supportive you know of the community, her comment was that more and more students will come if you build like more and more, you know like, the field of dreams type, you know, more and more students will come and then they will reside in South Hilo because that has been the trend. So, the question that Jeff and the community is raising is that well, who is the community then in this particular instance. Do you define the community as Kaūmana? Or do you define the community as being the regional South Hilo? So, at the same time there was no evidence 19 EXHIBIT F