2023-04-20 Leeward Exh A (Items 1 D&L Fujimoto PL-SMA-2023-000027)

Home

KNOWLES: I think it sounds reasonable. I just have a question, I guess. When we are thinking about parking in the context of the SMA or, you know, attendant to a development, for example, like Mauna Kea Beach Hotel and the parking stalls, public parking requirement there, this notion of whether the parking is free or not, does that come into play? I'm a little bit,just don't totally understand those parking lots are required to be free? Is that correct? VITOUSEK: That's because their KNOWLES: If we are applying that same principle. VITOUSEK: That's because their management plans determine that they are going to be free, right? That's part of their condition. KNOWLES: Right, to protect access. But that same argument theoretically applies here. VITOUSEK: It could, I mean if you look at the development of an area like Mauna Kea Beach Resort or another big resort where they have a large development that encompasses a large shoreline area and triggers the need for shoreline access and the delegation of a public access for shoreline access. Here in this area, we don't have a large resort; we have lots of small developments that have cumulatively reached the point of causing a larger adverse effect to the environment. One of the ways that adverse effect is mitigated is by enhancing the beneficial use of the coastal zone through parking and access. And this particular parcel has a condition on that that mitigates that impact for the surrounding areas. It's free for the community, so, I mean for me I wouldn't have a problem charging tourists or that kind of thing, but I would rather see it have reasonable enforcement and reasonable public access free for local families, local people. DEFRANCO: Director Kern. KERN: To add to the conversation. DEFRANCO: Yes. KERN: So, it's determined that requiring these with case law now would not be appropriate in the Planning Department's opinion, but because this condition exists, that we are going for a greater discussion. I want to make sure thatobviously, this is a little different because this condition exists, we are just talking about that. However, this conversation can get much larger if this is the road that we are going down, and what does that look like? For example, Holiday Inn is right across the street from that; do they have a requirement? Do we start doing that? Do we start going, how far mauka do we go? And this is a challengeI am a surfer, I want to access the coast, I grew up here where, you know, same thing, where it's changed a lot, right—so there is a lot of challenges that we face, and so, how do we, you know, find that balance? But I'm also trying to have some guardrails on this and also maybe even get a little from our legal side that, because this condition was there, and curious, too—Sid, was this condition essentially agreed to or was it imposed? DEFRANCO: Is that a question? Mr. Fuke? 22 EXHIBIT A