|
should still be retained, then that should be your recommendation. But don't let that one condition
<br /> be the downfall of the rest of what the applicant is requesting.
<br /> Secondly, the whole notion about walkability, mixed-use, so on and so forth, I tend to disagree with
<br /> the staff's finding that you can't integrate the two properties to achieve the walkability and the
<br /> mixed-use style - - -. True within the Multiple-Family zoned area; it's going to be limited only to
<br /> Multiple-Family activities. But within the commercially zoned area, you could have like a
<br /> combination of multiple-family and commercial uses, which is what the tentative plan calls for right
<br /> now. Further, the distance between the two area is not like two miles; I mean you're basically
<br /> talking only like about 100 or 200 yards differences. So if there is a desire to kind of integrate both
<br /> areas, then it can easily be done through what it's called administrative process of plan approval. So
<br /> which is one item that, you know, in my discussion with the Planning Department, I'm saying like,
<br /> look, if you want to achieve like some of these TOD kind of objectives, it can be done short of
<br /> adequately vetted by the Kona Design Center, which sometimes can take you like so, so long, but
<br /> you can do it through the plan approval process; you can require like there be, you know, this kind of
<br /> physical integration - - - happens. I know that for a fact because there have a number of projects that
<br /> I've worked on in the Hilo area, but it kind of like mandated driveway accesses and pedestrian
<br /> accesses - - - - adjoining properties, then in the beginning the adjoining properties objected but at the
<br /> end of the day they agreed like how it's, you know, like how it's functioned.
<br /> Now, having said that, I think a couple of things I wanted to speak to relative to the regulatory end.
<br /> The General Plan was adopted in, you know, like in 1970-71, and the most current one, which is
<br /> what we are operating today, was adopted in February of 2005. The zone change was adopted in
<br /> August of 2005. So at that time it was a decisionmaker, and the Planning Commission and the
<br /> planning director, they all concluded that this project meets the requirements of the County General
<br /> Plan. Then we had the CDP, the Kona Community Development Plan, which was adopted in 2008.
<br /> When we went through, the applicant went through for the initial time extension in 2001, excuse me,
<br /> 2011, at that time the planning director concluded, number one, you are, the project is consistent
<br /> with the General Plan; number two, the project is consistent with the Kona CDP.
<br /> Now, what has happened on the Kona CDP since the adoption in 2008, there have been some
<br /> amendments that occurred in 2019,just last year. And the specific amendments as it relates to the
<br /> land use component basically said that it's not a mandate in terms of going through the Project
<br /> District, but it would encourage the developer to go through the Project District process, because,
<br /> you know what, we'll help you guys out, we'll speed it up, we'll support you guys all the way, and
<br /> we'll take it through the Kona Design Center, and we'll get it through very quickly.
<br /> Now, usually, when the Department or the Commission considers a recommendation for denial, the
<br /> denial is, you know, on the General Plan, you say like, well, it's not consistent with the General
<br /> Plan, so if you want to propose a resort activity in an area that's not shown on the General Plan, then
<br /> obviously you are out, you know; there is no way that statutorily you can recommend its approval.
<br /> And then, you know, you look at, in this case, the case, you know, you have a Medium Density and
<br /> Urban Expansion on the General Plan. The zoning is already consistent with that, as approved in
<br /> 2005 and as approved by another planning director in 2011. So how can you tell me in 2019 this is
<br /> not consistent with the County General Plan?
<br /> 23
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|