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

Home

says which is 1.25 stalls but your intentions is to come in somewhere in between. I just want to clarify what we are dealing with in this condition. Because the Director wants something, Applicant wants something, but your intentions is one thing. Maybe if you can give us a proposed request other than the Commissioner then maybe we can deal with that rather than just, you follow me? ROCK: I think I do, and we have discussed this internally with our development team. One proposal might be to try to split the difference and perhaps set a minimum standard of 1.5 stalls per unit. If I may do the math, I had that in my mind and now I forgot. Let's say it's around a hundred (100) anybody has a calculator. I apologize I should have had that in front of me. Anyway, at a 1.5 ratio it is somewhat of a compromise position where we can increase the minimum, but we can maintain the window of results that are acceptable for the affordable housing development. Again, our preference is to keep the window so that the County Code establishes the floor, and the ceiling can be anything. Apparently, having as much parking as possible is also a good thing. So, where is the ceiling in that. But as a compromise position I think it would be reasonable from our standpoint if we did a 1.5 parking ratio requirement because I think with our current site plan what we anticipate for the review process it should offer enough flexibility that we can make modest changes if it's necessary and satisfy all the County's conditions. At 1.5 on the stalls I think we are in very good shape for the needs of our residents. AU: So, 1.5 stalls would be off of 64-units would be ninety-six (96). I don't know if the Manager's unit would count but, 64-units would be 96 stalls. So, if that is what the Applicant is requesting my next questions is to Christian. How would we move forward if he is verbally saying he is requesting if the "—" 1.5 how would we move forward? Or is that an official— YEE: Christian, let me chime in Christian. KAY: Sure. YEE: So, on this discussion around parking we were left with something from the original ordinance that said there would be zero to 60% more than "—"the minimum requirement. I wished they would not have opened it up to so much vagueness around that could be 1% or there could be 60%. Right, somewhere in there or even zero right. So,part of it was did they mean thirty (30)percent, did they mean forty-five (45)percent we landed on the number of 1.8 which was something they had shown us that we thought was reasonable and so that's what I put in, Clearly what I wanted was to move away from the vagueness of zero to 60% and to put some kind of harder number in there. Whether or not its 1.5, whether its 1.8 the Commission concern and decide. You heard James's arguments for it. I'm a little concern if we, I know his intentions as that we look at it, I know they are going off their experience in Hawaii and what that number needs to be. I know they want to be able to serve their residents. So, it's this balancing act of us trying to have a crystal ball over where we think the parking needs to really be right. Whether its 1.5 or 1.8 I can't tell you. EXHIBIT A 19