2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

State; and, if not, shouldnÓt the State recommendations be a part of this application process for assessment? Another provision states that the Applicant may create a new mauka-makai access; and this certainly will impact upon the Mamalahoa Trail. And with that regard, will this action, the mauka-makai proposal, breach the trail, in fact, or, and where is the location of this proposed new mauka-makai trail? How will the impacts be identified or assessed, in accordance with 205, with respect to preserving and protecting the trail if the application itself states that they may create it, when, in fact, I think on one of those maps in the file shows the location of where the new mauka-makai trail is planned? So, in this case, how will interested parties, native Hawaiians and the Kona community, have an opportunity to have their concerns about the potential impacts regarding this breach addressed? Once the permit application is granted and th been closed, apparently, how will these issues and concerns be addressed? Because theyÓre not being addressed now. These are important issues that have to come before this body and before any permit can be granted. The developer has the, the property on the market for sale. He doesnÓt have funds to move forward with his plan or build what heÓs proposing, basically. So why is the application even being considered at this time, given the general nature of the Project District zoning in comparison to the much stricter SMA laws? I suggest that the, at the minimum, the Project District zone change be allowed, because I believe the recommendation has gone ahead with that to submit it to the Council, but that the approval of the SMA Permit application should be done when the developer can come forward and knows what his definitive plans are. In that way, the specific impacts can be addressed at that time. I can see no hardship on the developer because he will have his zone change. But I do see great hardship upon the people who have expressed their concerns if this SMA Permit is granted. The application is for a proposal that may change in makeup anytime within a 10-year period. Imposing conditions to address issues that may come up after a permit is granted sets a very bad precedence and practice. How can conditions be meaningfully addressed when the project itself might tend to change in the future? I see that, I see this as a shift of our agencyÓs burden and responsibilities to determine matters upfront as required by Section 205 to conditions of approval that no one will be able to monitor once the permit is granted. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. David. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. David? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:IÓm wondering if we might ask the Planning Director to respond, in particular, to Ms. DavidÓs concerns about monitoring? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? 18