2007-03-16 TSUNSTONE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I do want to take this opportunity to point out what I think may have been a misrepresentation by Mr. Darrow in the presentation this morning. It factually was correct, but I think it implied something that was not correct. He made a statement about initially we had a plan to have the mauka-makai roadway be entirely on our property that we owned, and then he indicated that some contested cases had been filed and as a result of that we relocated the road. Those are all true statements, but that was not why we relocated the road. The road was relocated at a request of the County because the County had previously determined that the Alii Lani alignment would be where there would be the mauka-makai connector. And because the County had previously made the determination, they had given certain assurances to the developers of Alii Park Place that where we had proposed to build the road would not be where the road would be built. And so thats why they were understandably upset. We relocated the road at the request of the County so that it complied with their plans for the Alii Parkway. So I just wanted to clarify that. It made it sound like if people yelled and screamed, we moved the road; it only took one person to yell and scream. When Mr. Yuen told us thats where the County wanted it and thats where it hadbeenplannedtobe,thenitwasrelocated.Sothealignmentnowdoescomplywiththe alignment that was determined at the time that Alii Parkway was set up. This property was re-districted 36 years ago from Ag to Urban, and 24 years ago rezoned. And I think Jeff did a good job of pointing out all the various condominium projects in the area. They were part of this original parcel. The Sea Villas project, which is directly above this proposed project, was given an SMA in 1986. The Alii Park Place, which is a project immediately below us, was given an SMA in 1996. And Kona Sea Ridge, which is below and a little bit north of the subject property, was given an SMA in 2000. So this has been a process thats been going on for a number of years. The project at the subject property that we are requesting an SMA on is this is the last portion of this property that was rezoned in 1983 it is in conformance with all the State and County plans. State: Urban District. Medium Density Urban in the General Plan, and the Kona Regional Plan calls for multi-family dwellings between 10 and 20 units per acre. What we are proposing is slightly less than 7 units per acre. The zoning is RM-4 and RM-7, and a portion of the property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial CN-10. The SMA has some very specific criteria to review. I think Commissioner Graham at the last meeting had made a point that, gee, weve had a lot of conversation but we really havent ever gotten into discussing the SMA issues. Chapter 205A has some very specific guidelines, and the application as written and the background report as prepared by the staff itemizes each one of those criteria and explain why we believe and why the Department agreed that we did comply with all conditions of this SMA. I will mention a few of these. I dont want to read you a 50- page document as justification; Id rather just do an overview. And if you have any specific questions about any of the aspects of the SMA, then certainly I or any of the other consultants that are here today would be prepared to answer that. Essentially the SMA is an analysis of whether or not there are going to be significant impacts to the coastal resources, if there are going to be impacts on historic resources, if theres going to be impacts on the environment particularly the coastal environment. And we have in the application tried to systematically go through and point out our belief that we are not going to have any negative impacts, and that we are complying with Chapter 205A in all regards. We have done a number of studies: Dr. Terry did the visual impact analysis. Dr. Alan Haun did the historic analysis. We do have an archaeological inventory survey thats been reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Division. We have a treatment plan thats been 17EXHIBIT C