|
PLUNKETT: Is that a question for us, or is that, for your staff? Because I know what we can
<br /> control. We can control the condition that we do have, and certainly would honor whatever
<br /> condition we do have. I, we can't control Mauna Lath, obviously.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Of course. Absolutely. But, at the same time, if, you know, we can consult with
<br /> them and see what, what we can do to make it happen. To make it real. And whether that means
<br /> we go ahead and build out to that existing road, I don't know. I don't know what the best
<br /> solution is to make that connectivity happen because I think that would be a huge benefit.
<br /> Lastly, you know, looking at this, where we have put in some requests that we're then gonna
<br /> we're, the idea from Director Kern was that we're putting in these requests for consultation, it'd
<br /> be done prior to going to the Council. So, it's something that we wouldn't necessarily be able to
<br /> see. Even though we would be the authority, the approving authority for the Special Management
<br /> Area permit. So,my question, I guess, this is probably primarily for County staff, is, does it
<br /> make sense for us to issue a recommendation on the zoning with the conditions for the added
<br /> consultation with the idea being that once that's accepted by the County Council, then we can
<br /> review the SMA Permit to determine if everything's in line with what was agreed on, with what
<br /> we think should happen?
<br /> KERN: I believe, I'm gonna have Corporation Counsel back me up on this, but my
<br /> understanding is the SMA criteria, we don't review the traffic components. That, what you're
<br /> basically referring to is primarily based on the rezoning side of it, which is the, you know, the
<br /> authority of the Council, and decisions based on the SMA is not based on that, based on previous
<br /> legal cases around that, so I would caution tying those two together. Myself, I'm happy—I
<br /> already sent out the email to Rachelle to schedule the meeting with Chief Ferreira on my end.
<br /> I do know that the Council does read the minutes, I do know there'll be aware of it. I think there
<br /> would be a certain expectation set by this that we follow through with the, with the discussion.
<br /> But I also, I just want to throw out there, I know there's a lot of discussion going on out there.
<br /> The fair share component, I do think it's kind of a big deal. Prior, the units didn't have fair share
<br /> and by them coming in with the new rezoning they're actually now subject to that fair share, so
<br /> that's a big deal for the whole area,right? Via parks, roadways, etc, so, I think that's--it's really
<br /> important. By cautious, let's caution tying those two together.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Yeah, so, I hear what you're saying about the road, and the connectivity,
<br /> that that thing,but you know elements, like the shoreline public access and resource use, those
<br /> are SMA issues.
<br /> KAY: That's correct.
<br /> KERN: That's correct, yes. Yeah, those ones are, and if you wanted to put those into the con--,
<br /> you know as you guys kind of talked about that condition, then that would be something that
<br /> could be underneath the SMA condition. Because that would be the proper place to house that.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Right. And then, you know, in the interest of time trying to figure out how we can
<br /> do that. Let them keep moving forward, but still give us the opportunity to actually review these
<br /> 45
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|