|
kind of help recoup the infrastructure costs in developing the property. But for all intents and
<br /> purposes it's a local boy trying to do something for his family, so, and hence the request.
<br /> We appreciate, you know, Mr. Chairman, your asking the staff for some history behind the
<br /> Kaloko-Mamalahoa Highway intersection issue, and as you can see, the State response has kind
<br /> of like gone all over the map. And so what we are essentially proposing is to have that condition
<br /> relieved and pretty much like be in tandem with the last rezoning request, which is essentially to
<br /> have the fair share funds be specifically earmarked towards the improvement to that intersection.
<br /> I think the staff's report, you know, to the Commission noted that at this point in time there is
<br /> like about, you know, nearly 677,000 dollars available on the fair share, and with the applicant's
<br /> proposed development and contribution of an additional 90,000 dollars or so, you know, you will
<br /> really, the County will essentially have like, almost like about three quarters of a million dollars
<br /> in terms of trying to do, make some improvements to that area. One of the, I think the last memo
<br /> from the State kind of suggested to the County that, hey, why don't we all get together, you
<br /> know, form a task force and figure out how best to use these funds. And I think the best way
<br /> right now is that, you know, armed with, you know, nearly three quarters of a million dollars,
<br /> the, my recommendation essentially is to have the County and the State get together to figure out
<br /> like what three million, what three quarters of a million dollars can do, you know, to improve
<br /> this particular area. So I think the staff s condition is fair. The applicant has no objection.
<br /> The staff had also recommended several other conditions, you know, one dealing with, you
<br /> know, Conditions P, Q, and F [sic] relating to the protection of the nene, the outdoor lighting,
<br /> and adhering to the Rapid `Ohi`a Death protocols, and, you know, all of which are totally
<br /> acceptable. You know, there was a Condition K regarding the call for an archaeological field
<br /> inspection, as recommended by SHPD; well, that study, that inspection was already done and,
<br /> you know, to the relief of everyone, nothing was found on the property that was worthy of
<br /> preservation.
<br /> And finally, I think like, you know, the earlier testifier, public testifier noted that, you know,
<br /> with the potential of not only seven lots but doubling down of density with the construction of an
<br /> `ohana or a second dwelling, to which I'd like to kind of note that you have a Condition F that
<br /> specifically prohibits the construction of any additional dwelling. So essentially, what you see
<br /> are seven lots and seven dwellings in terms of an impact standpoint.
<br /> Other than that, I don't have any more to add, and I don't know whether Mr. Hinchcliff has
<br /> anything more to add, but, you know, we'd be more than happy to respond to any questions the
<br /> Commissioners may have. Oh, one final thing, I noticed that earlier that Commissioner Kanuha
<br /> mentioned that he lives in the Kaloko Mauka area, and also Ms. Campbell had indicated that she
<br /> has property in that area, you know, we would like to kind of like clearly note that we don't find
<br /> any conflict, you know, in either of them participating in this application and leave it at that.
<br /> Thank you very much.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, Commissioners, do we have questions for the applicant or for County staff?
<br /> Commissioner Paishon-Duarte.
<br /> S
<br /> EXHIBIT C (DRAFT)
<br />
|