|
hotel, itÓs intended to be an airport hotel, donÓt fee-, nor does the residential-commer -, the
<br />commercial industrial, although it is zoned currently for industrial -. Second one, that was the
<br />second one, excuse me.
<br />The third point I want to bring up is when we look at our grounds for approval of special
<br />management area use permits, basically, you know, we see, ÐThe A
<br />proposed development only upon finding that:Ñ and then, the gist of it is, ÐThe development will
<br />not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect except as such adverse effect
<br />is minimized to the extent practicableÈ.Ñ So, you know, we do h
<br />have the traffic effect, we are adding nutrients to the ground. You know, we have some adverse
<br />environmental effects and ecological effects, but they need to be minimized to the extent
<br />practicable. I think the developer is trying to do that and I think he has worked to minimize the
<br />site plan and all that. However, we still have some adverse effects. And then it says these must
<br />be Ðclearly outweighed by public health, safety or compelling public interest.Ñ Well, I havenÓt
<br />heard of any public health values, any safety values or compelling public interest values.
<br />Whereas, if I looked at the SMA permits preceding this one, which is the Kona Coastal Park,
<br />thereÓs tremendous public value there. When I look at the one coming afterwards, the Kohanaiki
<br />thing where theyÓre developing access to the ocean, restrooms and all that, again, I see a
<br />tremendous value to weigh against any of the detrimental effects. I donÓt see that value at all in
<br />this application.
<br />Also, just speaking, you know, without regard to any of the laws and all but just the way this
<br />application, this is my fourth point, struck me when I first read it, it seemed to me that whatÓs
<br />makai of Queen K Highway is really valuable because of its more ocean orientation. So with
<br />regards to the Ooma parcel or this parcel, these two parcels we have now, to be looking at the
<br />mauka parcel before we look at the makai parcel, if the developer chooses to bring it to us that
<br />way, we will look at it that way. But, basically, thereÓs a limited amount of what we can do
<br />without endangering the ocean and without there being too much traffic. And it feels like what
<br />we want to do is make use of the assets first, which are the ocean assets. So by doing a large-
<br />scale development, at this point, weÓre really tying our hands for what we can do later along the
<br />ocean because weÓve already built in a lot of impacts. And when I read HRS 205A, it says,
<br />ÐEncourage those developments which are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas,Ñ
<br />which, again, it seems to me thatÓs what weÓre doing with your, that locating where it is so near
<br />the ocean is restricting real values that can come from what we do along the ocean.
<br />Finally, just on pure density, the original Ooma project, which was passed back in 1986, back in
<br />the days when coastal projects were hotels, and residential and golf course built around them,
<br />even that project was 900 units on 300 acres, more than 300 acres. So the density was really less
<br />than three units an acre. When we look at this project, weÓre talking about 640 units on only 83
<br />acres; and I think thatÓs what the Planning Director is making reference to. Here weÓre talking
<br />almost eight units an acre; and weÓre not even touching the real value there, which is along the
<br />coast. So itÓs very dense, itÓs at a place that doesnÓt need to be. It doesnÓt agree with the plan,
<br />we have the K-to-K Plan. And it certainly is not planning directed by our Planning Department,
<br />itÓs planning directed by the Applicant.
<br />14
<br />
<br />
|