|
things. I mean, or are we just saying, you know, go look at it and that's something that the
<br /> Commission will have to be comfortable whether they're okay and delegating to the Planning
<br /> Department the analysis of the shoreline public access and carrying capacity resource use, those
<br /> kinds of things.
<br /> KERN: I think that can be similarly tied to a condition and maybe Sid can have some language
<br /> around that so it's not necessary, you know, it's something that's, that's there. It's fixed in a way,
<br /> right?Kind of like a TIAR, you have to do this at a certain point and based on that, these
<br /> mitigation measures, right? I believe that--
<br /> VITOUSEK: What I'm saying is that we wouldn't be reviewing those mitigation measures as a
<br /> commission if, if we're giving that up for later. It's not, we don't have that information now so,
<br /> we're not able to consider it as part of this SMA application because we just don't have it. So, the
<br /> question is, do we need that?That's for my fellow Commissioners. Do we need that information
<br /> now, or do we, are we comfortable deferring that to the Planning Department?
<br /> FUKE: Mr. Chairman, if I can kind of just address the coastal issue. I agree with the Director in
<br /> the sense that the connectivity issue kind of relates more to a zone change matter. Relative to the,
<br /> the workforce housing that'll probably also has to be tied in with the zone change. On the matter
<br /> of the coastal access, I think it's, I agree with the Director that it's definitely germane relative to
<br /> the SMA considerations. I think that you know, coastal access has been like traditional criteria or
<br /> requirement for all SMA permits. What is new in terms of what you're suggesting is the so-
<br /> called, and you know as, as probably amplified by Commissioner Paishon-Duarte is the so-called
<br /> carrying capacity, and I don't know whether there's any template or model, you know, been done
<br /> to, to establish what is the desired carrying capacity or the acceptable level of carrying capacity.
<br /> However, I discussed it informally with the, Mr. Plunkett and I do have proposed language that
<br /> specifically at least attempts to address this notion of carrying capacity and incorporate same,
<br /> fine tune the updated public access plan. If you're willing, I'm kind of, I'd be more than happy to
<br /> share that with you and the Commissioners.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yes,please do.
<br /> FUKE: Chair, so if you look at Condition number five, which specifically relates to the
<br /> responsibility for the applicant to update the public access plan. So, it would read the applicant
<br /> shall update the approved public access plan because there already is an existing public access
<br /> plan. The applicant shall update the approved public access plan, taking into consideration the
<br /> carrying capacity of the areas coastal use, and incorporate public access facilities,proposing that
<br /> Kumu Hou, Kumu Hou Waikoloa master plan is submitted for review and approval of the
<br /> Planning Director and so-on and so-forth. But basically, what it does is just introduces the
<br /> element of now we'll have to take into consideration carrying capacity. We don't know what it is,
<br /> but maybe we can generate data in terms of the number of people that are using the coastal area
<br /> and put it into the public access plans. And I know that, like, relative to the Lava Lava area when
<br /> an updated public access plan was prepared there were additional signage done to specifically
<br /> address some of the coastal resources like don't take sand, watch out for like you know when you
<br /> have like the turtle is coming around, you know those kinds of things. And those are kind of like
<br /> a new and, new requirement relative to the access component of the Lava Lava area, and I'm
<br /> 46
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|