2018-08-16 Leeward Exh B (AMEND REZ 1049)

Home

MOORE: And I want to apologize. I’m a policy planner. If you ever want to laugh, have me draw a plan. I am not a physical planner, and my handwriting reflects it. So I apologize for, and what I have is unreadable, the writer can read; what you have, I tried to print out a little carefully. But I’m happy to go through the discussions that we’ve gone back and forth with the Planning Department — UNGER: Okay, maybe I can summarize to see if we have a good understanding of what the issue is. So you went through your initial traffic impact study and it was done last year, correct? And the, one of the changes that the Planning Department is recommending is that before Phase 2 happens, and before Phase 3, an additional traffic impact study, not an additional, an updated traffic impact study be implemented with the approval from Planning Department, Public Works and State Highway Department. And I think your argument was in your opinion these traffic studies are good for 20 years and it shouldn’t be required. So maybe, maybe you can extrapolate a little bit on that or my understanding. MOORE: Sure, sure. Let me step back. The original Condition G was adopted, you know, there was a traffic impact analysis done as part, in 2004, as part of the EIS, State Land Use boundary amendment. So there was an analysis done when we came in, so we kind of knew what the roadway improvements were going to be like. The zoning condition then was adopted, required to look at another traffic impact analysis. In 2009 we submitted that traffic analysis, the Planning Department approved it, and we have complied with Condition G, we can move on and build everything that we needed. When we applied for the Change of Zone, we triggered the concurrency requirements in Chapter 25-2-46, the Zoning Code, so we had to do another traffic study and, which we did, that traffic study specifically addresses mitigation measures tied to two things: One, if there is existing deficiencies or if your five-year review says that there is a deficiency, then you need to do the mitigation measures. Our traffic, but the traffic study is required to go out 20 years, so we looked out 20 years; in five years with these improvements, there is no impact; in ten years, which is our Phase 2, with the North and South Access Road improvements and Kanalani, there is no impacts; and then our 20-year build-out, we have to do some striping work, I mean, that’s the mitigation measure identified. So we looked at that. That is in compliance with the concurrency requirements. What this then did, and again, keep in mind that we have Kamanu, the goal is to build Kamanu Street, it’s designed, ready to go, we don’t have the financing, so with this sales hopefully we can build Kamanu. The original condition would require us to do another traffic study before we could implement, even if we had the money today, we’d have to do another traffic study, which is a 40 to 50 thousand dollars, that’s not a big deal but it is a significant impact; we’d have to do another traffic study even though the road is fully designed. And the same thing if we move to increment 3. And, but that also, the traffic study requires us, the way the language worked is to look at the regional requirements – our current traffic study looked at, I think, eleven off-site intersections – and analyze that, and we have to mitigate that; if there were impacts there, we’d have to mitigate that. In fact, one of the mitigation measures was turning lanes on Kealakehe Parkway, that we needed a right-turn lane, which thankfully the State built as part of its Ka‘ahumanu improvements, so the mitigation requirement has been addressed. What we felt was unfair is if, in looking at the Phase 2 and Phase 3 one, if there wasn’t change in circumstance, we don’t need to do the study, to looking at these regional requirements and facing potential mitigation measures again over and above 10 EXHIBIT B