2020-11-05 Exh A Ikaika Ohana (Amend REZ 09-103)

Home

actually see today like in our properties and around the County it's about one to one. Some of that might be economically driven, some of it might be socially driven, where they prefer just taking mass transit or riding a bike. Whatever the conditions may be the adverse is one to one. So, as a County's threshold having 1.25 as a site requirement that just seems to make sense. You are not going to go too low where you are going to harm your residents for not providing sufficient parking but also you are not going to high where I'm over parking my site at the very real cost of open-space and community center and the opportunities for kids to play on the site. And so, for our balancing effectively at 116 stalls I think the ratio is right around 1.8 which is the recommended minimum. That becomes problematic because what happens if I have to go to a hundred and fifteen (115). So, we mentioned traffic controls devices what was the spacing again needs to be increased coming off the street. I might lose another couple of parking stalls and in that case if I have the zoning ordinance requiring 1.8 then my entire project is now in jeopardy. So, I lose the ability to go to a hundred and fourteen (114) stalls or a hundred and thirteen (113) stalls. For our standpoint, we do want to provide sufficient parking for the residents, for guests, and reality, we think that that number to provide parking for residents plus additional units is probably somewhere between 1.25 and 1.5. But. again, establishing a fora at 1.8 it really ties our hands and makes it much more difficult where if we had these continuing conversations with the rest of the County department that should something change I'm very restrictive on what I can do and respond. All of our financing is tied to the production of 64 units. I don't have the opportunity of going to sixty-three (63) and somehow reducing that side of it and it also just seems contrary to the County's goals of providing affordable housing. So, in general the parking we have take a look at it we do prefer the range of results approach and we do have a degree of confidence that as we go through Plan Approval we will be able to continue our discussions with the Planning Department. And show that the existing uses for affordable housing and the anticipated uses for parking on site it should be able to address our immediate concerns with adequate parking onsite and satisfy the County that we met their requirements. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Any other questions from the Commission? AU: Chair Raffipiy, I have a question. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Sir. AU: So, Mr. Rock just want to clarify your original proposal for Condition E was for 1.25 stalls is that correct? ROCK: Right, I believe the original proposal is to set the minimum and that's the County Code 1.25 stalls per unit and our intent is to do more than that. AU: So, your intent is not really so, for the record what we are doing for this condition is where the Director is recommending 1.8 stalls, you the Applicant originally is proposing what the Code EXHIBIT A 18