|
FUKE: Sure. Mr. Chairman, before responding specifically to some of the
<br />questions that Commissioner Rho raised, I’d like to just kind of provide the Commission with
<br />some of the generalized background, you know, regarding this application. Very briefly, as the
<br />staff had indicated, the subject area consisting of 6.7 acres consists of two parcels. It was zoned
<br />back in 1967, 68, thereabouts in resort. So just given the size of the property, it’s capable of
<br />supporting approximately 230 multiple family residential units. However, you know, during the
<br />course of the, the applicants had secured interest in the property about a year ago. And prior to
<br />finalizing its development plan, what it had to do is go through like a number of studies. And, in
<br />addition to that, meetings with the community were held, as well as with specific individuals
<br />within the community, just to get a sense as far as what some of the issues were. They
<br />conducted an archaeological inventory survey. They commissioned studies relating to drainage
<br />and the floodway. They had flora and fauna work done. In addition to that, they had studies,
<br />you know, relating to the coastal water impact and the groundwater impact. So some of these
<br />technical consultants are here today. So if during the course of the presentation or subsequent to
<br />it, if there are issues that the Commissioners may have, or for that matter public testimony, then
<br />they’re prepared to respond to them.
<br />Basically as the staff had indicated the project is a single family residential lot subdivision. It’s 8
<br />lots, as opposed to the maximum of 233. And as indicated earlier the applicant was very
<br />sensitive about the density issue, the traffic concerns, and not wanting to really intensify any
<br />excessive residential activity in that area. And, as a result, they limited the project to just 8
<br />single family residential lots. The lot sizes are to be ranged between 23,000 to about 31,000
<br />square feet, you know, a little bit more than half acre in size. As reflected also in your staff’s
<br />report, they wanted to essentially retain the residential character rather than go ahead with what
<br />the existing zoning would allow them. So, specifically, they proposed within the, their CC&Rs
<br />they would have restrictions relative to the height. They would use all the single family
<br />residential standards as opposed to the resort standards relative to heights.
<br />In specific reference to the coastal access, they were mindful of the need, given that this is an
<br />SMA Permit, for a mauka-makai as well as lateral access kind of considerations. And as the
<br />Planning Director had indicated, rather than having another mauka-makai access through the
<br />property given the fact that the properties immediately to the north of it is zoned by the State
<br />where you already have public access, the applicant felt that it would be much more prudent to
<br />work something out with the State, with DOBAR. It’s called Division of Boat and Recreational.
<br />And so there is a condition that states that, I believe that’s Condition Nos. 6 and 7, that requires
<br />the applicant to work together with DOBAR and improving the parking and related
<br />improvements at the Puako boat ramp. And so what that means is that rather than, you know,
<br />specifically having a mauka-makai access, what would be better for the public and which the
<br />Director had suggested in which we totally agree, is to improve a parking area so that there
<br />would be more access to the coastal area.
<br />There was obviously some drainage kind of issues; and that was one of the reasons why this
<br />matter was continued for a number of meetings. You know, we had prepared a drainage study,
<br />we had drainage studies done. We had to actually go back to the drawing board, largely because
<br />we had a meeting with the community; and some of the community, during the course of the
<br />community meetings, some of the community members raised concerns relative to the overall
<br />flooding in this area. And so the developer had elected, pursuant to also discussions with the
<br />Planning Director, to go back to the drawing board, do more evaluation. And as a result they
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />4
<br />
<br />
|