2010-06-04 T-MALOOF - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Map is a very general map. This is not inconsistent in that there is an area identified for commercial growth along the Orchidland issue -. The inconsistency is that the line is being interpreted as a very specific lot to boundary line. Now you know that in many cases that interpretation is done loosely, that itÓs an indicator, not a hard line. In most cases, LUPAG Map is interpreted as an indicator rather than as a hard tax map property boundary line. So inconsistent with the General Plan? No, IÓd say this is consistent with the General Plan in that they say that there should be a growth, a commercial node, at the Orchidland area. Now how do you get that to happen, how do you make that, where do you locate them specifically, the community has simply been more articulate than the GP was about where that can be. And thatÓs, I think, what the role of the CDP is, is to be more specific and to be more engaged in, you know, community dialogue to define whereÓs that area is. And thatÓs the difference. Is it inconsistent? Only because I think in this case theyÓre interpreting that boundary as being a fixed hard boundary. The details of why that came through, Plann better. But this one apparently is, been perceived as a fixed boundary as opposed to indicator of potential area for use, which is what the rest of the LUPAG Map is. WOODWARD: Thank you. Any further questions? Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, you know, Commissioner Domingo has brought up a question that we did not analyze it. And I think what staff is going to have to look at in the future when we look at special use permits, is that if this had been an application for a rezoning we would have had to look at the concurrency issue; and the main, one of the principle issues on concurrency is the level of service on the roads in that area. On the one hand a special permit gives you an opportunity to allow something and put limitations on it that could perhaps mitigate -. But I am uncertain as to whether if this were an actual application to rezone the property to commercial, whether it would pass the County Council because of those provisions of concurrency, which is going to be an on-going problem throughout Puna, is that if the main corridor that services a community here is, you know, looking at the KeaÒau-Phoa Corridor. You do, do we look at the Level of Service at those intersections? Do we look at the level of service at the exit to, letÓs say, Mr. MaloofÓs property, or some other, you know, property thatÓs interior in, letÓs say, Hawaiian Paradise Park? And IÓm uncertain as to what the answer would be on those. But it also means that weÓre going to be caught in a situation in which if the infrastructure has not, which you were talking, if the infrastructure has not caught up can you approve anything? And if you donÓt approve anything, then you failed to implement what the vision of the plan is. And I donÓt know what the answer is. IÓm just saying that there are all these constraints here. When staff looked at this they were concerned about the fact that they felt that most of the traffic that was going to come to the development was going to be coming off of the KeaÒauhoa; and they viewed that as the main access. And they looked at that Level of Service; and thatÓs what theyÓre concerned with. And, you know, you talked about having a condition to wait for the light. But, you know, thereÓs no guarantee that that light is going to be in place in 2012. So that condition if you were to implement such a condition could be substantially further down the road than 2012. MELROSE: You know, in our conversation about that, we understood thatÓs true. And the only way we, thatÓs why we spoke to the project manager, you know, this week several times on it to 15 EXHIBIT A