Laserfiche WebLink
person here or there that says, well, sorry I don’t want anybody coming on my land even though <br />I’ve got coqui frogs going. Does that sound reasonable to you, or unnecessary, or -? <br />SHALLENBERGER: Yeah, we haven’t experience that problem in Puako, I think because most <br />of the people have heard the frogs, they know what the issue is, and there’s sort of a common <br />support to try and deal with it. We’re also working with Mauna Lani, and Hapuna, and Mauna <br />Kea on the other sides of us; and they tend to have more problems than we do I think because of <br />much more landscaping. But anything that you can do to condition so this doesn’t become a <br />source of coqui would be great. <br />GRAHAM: And as far as the work on the Puako Boat Ramp, you know, that these <br />folks would cooperate with the State on that, do you have any sense that that means that they do <br />anything? <br />SHALLENBERGER: I think they recognize that there is a parking issue. We’ve talked with <br />DOBAR about it. You know, frankly, if it were up to me I’d see the developer as part of being a <br />good neighbor would cost share some projects involving fire protection and improvements to the <br />ramp. I know that you can’t require that. But that seems to me if you want to protect the value <br />of their investment as well as dealing with, you know, the relationship to others in Puako it <br />would be a good motion. <br />GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? Thank <br />you, Mr. Shallenberger. Mr. Fuke, you may return if you would. And do you have any response <br />or further comments to make, please. <br />FUKE: Yes, I do. I think, first of all, in terms of the keawe tree, if you’ll note on <br />the conceptual landscaping plan which is also over there, and I think a copy was also provided <br />individually to all of the Commissioners, the so-called that keawe tree is proposed to be retained. <br />It’s, if you look at the map it’s on the Kona end of the, mauka Kona end of the property. So that <br />will be definitely retained. <br />The applicant has no objection and would welcome really like Dr. Shallenberger’s group to do <br />any coqui frog control if it happens, you know, within the subject property. If you also, again, <br />look at, you know, the landscaping plan, you can see that much of the proposed landscaping <br />activity that the developer is suggesting is not only on his property but also on State land. And <br />there’s also a sliver of State land between portions of the subject property and Puako Beach <br />Drive. It’s the intent of the applicant to eventually work with the State in procuring the property <br />and possibly improving that sliver of area between the project and Puako Beach Drive and <br />further landscaping it. And in conjunction with that then they would like to address the traffic <br />. <br />calming issue that DrShallenberger raised. We realize that we still have to work with the State <br />relative to possibly developing an environmental assessment and securing the appropriate <br />permits to implement the lateral shoreline access and the landscaping program. <br />Relative to the no further subdivision aspect, it’s already contained within the CC&Rs that, you <br />know, this is limited to only 8 lots. In the unlikely event that a person proposes to do further <br />subdivision then obviously they would have to come in with another SMA Permit application or <br />possibly an amendment to the existing SMA Permit, which would thus require another public <br />hearing, and the community would be able to weigh in on such a request. <br />EXHIBIT B <br />11 <br /> <br />