|
VITOUSEK: Okay. I agree with Deputy Director Darrow. To me it does seem like this parcel
<br /> was intended to have an urban use judging from its size and location within Kohala's urban
<br /> corridor. I think that the proposal that we're looking at for food trucks, yeah, that's a pretty
<br /> limited use of an area, and you know, not a permanent impact. But again, we're not necessarily
<br /> looking at the project, we're looking at the zoning.
<br /> So, if nothing changes, I suppose the option on the table is, would be for us to withdraw the
<br /> motion on the floor and then propose a new motion to defer this to allow consultation with the
<br /> South Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee. I'll leave that up to the motion-
<br /> maker.
<br /> DEFRANCO: I guess I'm the motion-maker. But again, I, you know, looking at all of these, I'm
<br /> just trying to get us to give a favorable recommendation with the caveat of when we, if we can
<br /> all agree to recommend it to go forward with the caveat that a continued level of outreach would
<br /> be appreciated. I'm not really sure--anyway, so this was a question to Commissioner Duarte, if
<br /> she's considering, if she would consider something here. If not, then I will withdraw the motion.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Perhaps if Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, the possibility that Mr. Arai suggested
<br /> including a condition wherein plan approval on the property would have to go through the
<br /> Action Committee, that's a, that's a pretty direct community involvement. That's a condition that
<br /> would tie anything that they do on the property to some pretty high-level scrutiny from the
<br /> Action Committee about whether this is going to have an impact on Kohala. I think, we're fairly
<br /> in agreement about the zoning being appropriate and there's still some concerns about the
<br /> project, and this would really allow them to develop that project in real high-level consultation
<br /> with the Action Committee. So, if we were to include a condition where plan approval would be
<br /> required to have consultation with the Action Committee, is that something that you'd be in
<br /> favor of?
<br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Yeah, thank you, Chair and Vice Chair for your suggestions and helping
<br /> us move through this conversation. My understanding is that when I, Ms. Jackson had shared that
<br /> it, this, we could, we could approve and make a recommendation for approval to the Council,
<br /> however, it would be a suggestion. I did not hear that we could tie it to an actual condition. I
<br /> might be misunderstanding. So, someone from the staff, can you please clarify if that is indeed
<br /> tying a condition of, of a consultationI don't know exactly what the term is with the Action
<br /> Committee members of the North Kohala CPD. Please help me understand.
<br /> JACKSON: Yeah, so you, the commission can always add conditions to the, the draft ordinance
<br /> to do some type of action further down the line. So, my response to you, Commissioner Paishon-
<br /> Duarte was, it sounded like you wanted some kind of consultation to occur between Planning
<br /> Commission and before it got to County Council, so that's why I was suggesting that there's,
<br /> there's no method to do that other than just asking them to do that. But, but, you can always add
<br /> a condition to the draft ordinance, and in the draft the condition would be implemented further
<br /> down. So, as Mr. Arai had suggested, if you condition a trigger at plan approval to where they're
<br /> required to do some type of consultation with the Action Committee, that could just be added as
<br /> a condition to the ordinance.
<br /> 12
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|