|
FUKE:Well, specifically in relation to, you know, I think partially,
<br />though, the question that, I mean, the comment that Mr. Fulks had raised regarding the
<br />location of the standpipe and making it available to the general community, the Applicant
<br />would have had no, has no objection in siting that standpipe at a location that the County
<br />determines to be, you know, more appropriate. You know, this is in relation to the water
<br />issue, because the original package of proposal called for the standpipe to be on Ainaloa
<br />Development Corporation, excuse me, on Ainaloa Associations property, which was
<br />kind of like right down the road. Mr. Fulks had raised the issue that well, since the
<br />County acquired this property, what about putting it there, so, which is actually closer to
<br />the Applicants property. So relative to that end, you know, they would have had no
<br />objection.
<br />In terms of the -.
<br />SIRACUSA:ThepublicplayiswhatIwasmorethinkinginlinesof.
<br />FUKE:Yeah.Overall,theApplicantwasjusttryingtodevelopaprogram
<br />that would address not only the Ainaloa Community Association, but in terms of
<br />preferential rates really like for the, basically, the local rates. And if it needs to be, you
<br />know, if youre referring also to the, making the community facility, you know,
<br />accessible or provide the same so-called preferential treatment that the Association,
<br />Ainaloa Association is granted, you know, to the Hawaiian Acres Community
<br />Association, my last conversation with the owner was that, you know, he didnt have any
<br />objection -- Largely because the way that he had seen it is that the more activity there is
<br />of the land, you know, or of the facility, then it helps the project overall. So, specifically,
<br />to respond to your question we would have no objection.
<br />SIRACUSA:Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
<br />GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Graham?
<br />GRAHAM:I have a couple of questions. I could start with Mr. Fuke or
<br />Ms. Song. My sense from attending the Contested Case Hearing and reading the material
<br />is that some of your current objection to the original conditions, especially, Im speaking
<br />of Condition No. 7 and No. 9, which youre asking for relief from, some of the problems
<br />there from your perspective is that really the magnitude of those conditions are, let me
<br />use the word, disproportionate to the project. And when I attended the Contested Case
<br />Hearing I was thinking that you might be providing information as to what the scale of
<br />the project was, you know, monetarily, or whatever otherwise is appropriate, so that we
<br />could sort of make this determination whether it was disproportionate. But, in fact, all
<br />that came forth, as I recall, was comparing it with the contribution by the developer if he
<br />chose to keep it in a sort of an Ag-Residential scenario. So, my question is Im kind of
<br />wondering why, you know, you didnt bring up the other half of the two parts if were
<br />going to try to scale the benefit package youre offering to mitigate your impact along
<br />with the scale of the project. We dont really have the scale of the project in mind to sort
<br />of do any kind of decision on whether its disproportionate or not.
<br />26
<br />
<br />
|