|
KAY: Just really quickly. Before we get to the applicant, I did want to point out that we did receive
<br /> a significant number of correspondences after the February meeting in terms of public testimony
<br /> from neighbors, the evidence of the administrative time extension, and we also got response from
<br /> State Department of Transportation relative to their review of the traffic impact analysis report. And
<br /> so I just want to point that out and also to address the possible reopening of public testimony so we
<br /> could accept those testimonies. That's all.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you. All right, we'll get to the public testimony after we hear from the
<br /> applicant, as we usually do, right? That was the plan anyway, Christian, correct? Thank you. All
<br /> right, Mr. Fuke, you and your guys are there and ready to go? We need to swear you in. Is
<br /> everybody okay? Do we need any breaks at this point? - - - Okay. All right, everybody raising their
<br /> right hand,please. Mr. Fuke, Mr. Cook and Mr. Van Bergen, and Mr. Okaneku, thank you. Do you
<br /> swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission?
<br /> APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVES: I Do.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. Can you one at a time please state your name and where
<br /> you reside for the record?
<br /> FUKE: Good afternoon, Commissioner, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Sidney Fuke.
<br /> I'm aplanning consultant. My residence address is Hilo, Hawaii. My role is essentially to assist
<br /> the applicants with the processing of the time extension and - - - amendments. With me today are
<br /> Brian Cook, the landowner, representing the landowner developer, and also Ken Van Bergen who is
<br /> representing the developer - - -. You want me to just kind of continue on or?
<br /> CARR SMITH: Go ahead, yeah, go ahead.
<br /> FUKE: There have been a lot of material that have been already sent to the Commission, a lot of
<br /> internal discussion, you know, among the, between the Commission and the staff. And before like,
<br /> kind of like going on further, I'd like to just kind of indicate, as the staff had noted, one is that, you
<br /> know, this is a neighborhood shopping complex that has about 380-plus housing units of which we
<br /> propose like 226 would be in the rental market. There is a transit station. There is a new
<br /> mauka-makai road, which would be developed by the landowner, complete with curb, gutters and
<br /> sidewalks. They are going to be doing expanded signalization at the Puapua`anui intersection, so on
<br /> and so forth.
<br /> Now, there are like two, I think, like discourses, I get it, like one was the whole notion about like all
<br /> or nothing on the conditions. True, the applicant has proposed like about ten or eleven different
<br /> amendments. Now, it's the responsibility I believe of not only the staff but also the Commission that
<br /> if you like ten and you don't like the eleven, then your obligation would be to recommend its
<br /> approval or denial on certain things. So please do not regard this as being like an all-or-nothing. So,
<br /> specifically, as it relates to the affordable housing condition, that is true, the applicant had proposed
<br /> that as far as the rental unit, the demarcation of certain percentage be set aside for 80 percent and
<br /> below and the rest in the pool are like rental area; that language was being proposed to be deleted.
<br /> Now, if on the other hand, based on all of your considerations, that you believe that that condition
<br /> 22
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|