|
development of actual housing. They are asking for relief from that requirement as well so that there
<br /> is no tying the actual having to build housing to commercial development. So I will let them address
<br /> that as to what their intentions are, moving forward. On the record they've stated they intend to
<br /> develop affordable housing. But looking at the request for relief of conditions that they've
<br /> submitted, it would really decouple the development of housing from the development of
<br /> commercial, and there would be nothing holding them to developing housing, if those conditions
<br /> were, amendments were granted. Part of going through the Project District process includes a
<br /> phasing plan, which speaks to when housing would be developed relative to commercial, relative to
<br /> other type of uses. So that's another reason that we are recommending going that direction, as is
<br /> consistency with the CDP - - -
<br /> VAN PERNIS: - - - developing affordable housing, I'd like to use the word "construct" affordable
<br /> housing. So you are understanding that they are proposing to delete any requirement to construct
<br /> affordable housing and instead submit some undefined property at some undefined location and
<br /> some undefined price?
<br /> KAY: Again, maybe I would, I would let the applicant to address that. I don't want to get into what
<br /> their intent is or however it is. All I'm saying is, based on the types of amendments that they are
<br /> requesting right now, there would be no conditions holding them to actually developing or
<br /> constructing housing, other than time conditions for Suffolk saying that they would develop, you
<br /> know, if granted their amendments, in the next 20 years, some type of housing development. And if
<br /> they go with what the standard language is for affordable housing, then they could use in-lieu
<br /> housing credits or things like that where they wouldn't actually have to construct onsite housing.
<br /> But, again, that's something that I'll let them address. Because we haven't seen a kind of a detailed
<br /> development timeline or any other type of assurances that housing is going to be built and when, I
<br /> can't answer that.
<br /> CARR SMITH: - - - sorry, I was muted. Do other Commissioners have questions? Mike. We are,
<br /> we are questioning staff.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yes. Yeah, pretty complicated deal here. But, basically, if we could boil it down to
<br /> being looking at the project as being proposed, right, does the staff have issues with the project
<br /> itself? Or are the issues with the process to get to that project?
<br /> KAY: I would say that the development as is currently proposed in the site plan and as is, as would
<br /> be allowed by the, by continuation of the existing zoning, would not allow the type of development
<br /> that is envisioned and recommended by the Kona Community Development Plan for a mixed use,
<br /> walkable—I'll go ahead and, if I can reshare my screen, I'll throw back up the - - - site plan, and
<br /> maybe it will help kind of address what I'm looking at, or what we are looking at, sorry, not quite
<br /> sure how to do this, otherwise, okay, oops. So, again, what you see here in their, the proposed site
<br /> plan for the Pualani Makai Master Planned Community you guys can see this, okay—is really
<br /> what is allowed under the existing zoning. For the Neighborhood Commercial, you have the ability
<br /> to do both commercial and multiple-family residential, which is being proposed, but then completely
<br /> separate from the other multiple-family residential that's being proposed on the Suffolk lot that, you
<br /> know, requires setback separation that requires, you know, whatever density is allowed for
<br /> development on that property; as you can see here, for these folks to access the commercial area,
<br /> 13
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|