|
what’s required in this, the concurrency requirements, we felt, was not fair, not consistent with
<br />the Zoning Code. At the same time we acknowledge that for design elements, if Public Works
<br />wants a design traffic impact to look at how long should a turning lane be, what kind of
<br />improvements should be required, we have absolutely no objections to that and our proposed
<br />language included that. We also acknowledge that, you know, rather than the 20-year time
<br />frame, if there is a significant change in circumstances – and again, I know that there was some
<br />going background on significance, but significance is a term of art in the planning and legal field,
<br />it’s used in Chapter 343, if there is a significant impact, then you need to go do a full EIS, the
<br />same thing with the SMA, Rule 9, if there is a substantial significant impact, you need to go from
<br />a Minor Permit to a Major Permit, so that is a term of art, there is guidance, lawsuits on that – so
<br />we felt that, you know, and we offered this, if there was a significant impact or change in
<br />circumstances from what we analyze, then, fair, that we need to look at a regional TIAR. If the
<br />TIAR was looking at design turning-lane requirements that Public Works wants as part of their
<br />road design review, great, ask us of that and we shall do it. And that’s the changes that we
<br />suggested and that is the final language that is the handwritten language that I think Planning has
<br />agreed with. So stepping back again, we think we complied with the regional requirements. We
<br />have no objections to being required to do TIARs as we go through design elements, but not to
<br />have it done just because we move from a phase, like I said, if we move to construct Kamanu
<br />Street tomorrow, we couldn’t do it, we’d have to do a TIAR first.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Right, and I understand that and appreciate the discussion. That makes sense to me,
<br />and it’s almost ironic or counterproductive that you have to do a traffic impact study before you
<br />build Kamanu Street. That being said, I think the genesis of that recommendation was from your
<br />own report, the one of the recommendation, so why did, why did your consultant recommend an
<br />updated traffic study before each phase?
<br />
<br />MOORE: I think there is a, you know, we didn’t talk to the traffic, we will talk to him about this
<br />and, be careful about the language, but, you know, these are guidance and, you know, if needed,
<br />great, we’ll do it. But, you know, a lot of this is, there is a set of assumptions that you make and
<br />you are projecting out and, you know, it’s one where, you know, and again, if you look at the –
<br />and I looked at it and I should have brought with me – in the recommendation segment it is
<br />talking about the 20-year life of the TIAR and then talking about the impact in phases. So, you
<br />know, and generally, things happen way out over time, and again, if we are not built by 2020, or
<br />in 20 years, and again circumstances change, you know, then, fair, we’ve got to do it. But, you
<br />know, I think it was not intended to be used as a regulatory tool, which is, you know, how it was
<br />being applied here; you said this, therefore we are going to impose it on you. It’s a guidance
<br />tool. And we believe that as a guidance tool it’s great; as a regulatory statement it doesn’t work.
<br />And so that’s where we’ve been going back and forth with the Planning Director over specific
<br />language and specific requirements and what’s reasonable.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Thank you. We’re kind of doing this on the fly as we see, so there’s a good
<br />opportunity, we just got a chance to look at this. Has staff, or Director Yee, had a chance to look
<br />at this and what are your comments on their proposed language changes?
<br />
<br />KAY: So, if I may, I think generally, speaking for myself, I don’t have a problem with that. In
<br />my conversation with Public Works, which led to the email from Natalie Whitworth, we were
<br />11
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|