|
parking across the street so now all the people, of course have to cross the street. You know, it's
<br /> a, and to be sitting there for years like this, it seems like we should have a master plan in place
<br /> for this area. Anyway, that's just my comment.
<br /> VITOUSEK: As far as the, the applica the vote goes, would be in favor of approving this? Or
<br /> would you be more in favor of, of deferring the application?
<br /> DEFRANCO: Well, I, you know, I think that they have the application in for the environmental
<br /> study, the small study, and it would probably be approved, and I think we do need to change the
<br /> bathroom facility, and to put it into ADA compliance. So, based on that, I, I would approve it.
<br /> But I would also like to approve it with a request of looking at the bigger picture here for Kona.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates? It's on mute, Commissioner Yates.
<br /> YATES: I would not be voting yes on this because I think, as you said, that we need to be more
<br /> clear on what needs to be done as far as the SMA and all of theseI know, we always can use
<br /> better beaches and bathrooms, of course, but it just kind of seems like we're missing something.
<br /> So, for me it's a no.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Personally, I feel like we don't have the information entirely in order to make a
<br /> comprehensive review of this. I feel like without the preservation plan, and without knowing
<br /> what the boundaries are for the sites that are there,we don't know how this application fits
<br /> within the parameters of the approved preservation plan. I have a, I have concerns that the, that
<br /> they are segmenting the impacts on the SMA by proposing a portion of the project here and
<br /> saying that La`aloa Beach Park is a separate project even though they're completely connected
<br /> and the, the same. I do understand the purpose and need of the project. The ADA compliance is a
<br /> good, a good thing. I'm concerned that the location of it, I think with all the space with the, on
<br /> the north side of the existing parking lot, if any of that could be utilized. Now I guess I do have
<br /> another question, if I could ask the County, it says in the packet that the area south of the existing
<br /> comfort station can't be utilized because of County zoning, on page 17, but the zoning is Resort?
<br /> And I wondered what prevents the area on the north side of the parking lot from being developed
<br /> as a, as a restroom facility.
<br /> KOMATA: Sorry, Mike, what? South and north side, what are you--?
<br /> VITOUSEK: So, it says on page 17 of the application, "in terms of the location of the property
<br /> makai of Alii Drive, the comfort station cannot be relocated farther from the southern boundary
<br /> of the property because the existing location is the only buildable area per County zoning".
<br /> KOMATA: Right.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Is that referring to can't be located farther north on that existing property?
<br /> KOMATA: Right, you look at the, the parcels, how the parcels are set up that comprise Magic
<br /> Sands Beach Park, there's three sets of parcels. I think one is owned by the County, two is
<br /> owned [indecipherable] by the State and are yield to the County. So, you know, we're limited to
<br /> 15
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|