2007-12-12 TKONAVISTAS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SAUER: Five more minutes or -, well, our reservation is at 12:00. GRAHAM: Okay, we’d better finish up as quickly as we can then. Can I have any questions for the testifiers? Yes, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: I won’t ask any questions to further delay our lunch. I just want to make a few comments. Nineteen eighty-four, seven extensions, and nothing has been done. The amount of development taking place in the surrounding area, and if I get the total region with an increase in density, but I don’t know how many percent, and with nothing has been done; has the Planning Director ever considered revocation of the zoning ordinance? Because I see here a situation in contrast with Kohala LLC, making Kohala LLC like a Mickey-Mouse issue. And when you look at this issue, it’s an impact on the total region that’s already overgrown; and then, you know, I just wanted to know if any kind of thought has been given to revoking the zoning. Now I’m not saying that we should, but I just want to know where the Planning Department is coming from on this one. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, do you have a comment you’d like to make? YUEN: Well, I’m going to try to, I can’t talk about Kohala LLC because it’s not in front of us right here. This is similar to a question that Planning Commissioner Siracusa asked about what is Department’s position on the time extension. And because we are, because of what we explained, we are not there to talk about, we are not present with our recommendation on the time extension. I would like to point out, though, there are a couple of things that I should point out with this is that there is a requirement that they basically channelize the existing floodplain on the property. There’re actually two natural flood zones through the property and, that used to continue on downward, and affect a piece of property that is on the makai side of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. That property -, and this is all part of a integrated development proposal, and what is now the folks are here testifying live in the Kona Vistas Subdivision, which is a part of the same rezoning actually. And the company that was developing this also own the property on the makai side of the Highway. Their affordable housing requirement was that, was satisfied by their donating about 12 acres to the County on the makai side of the Highway. There is an agreement in place for this donation, but the actual transfer hasn’t taken place. But this is an important affordable housing site for the County. That site is difficult to use at present because of drainage issues on the mauka property; the same drainage issues that need to be solved hopefully by the construction that I just talked about on the mauka property. So that’s a consideration here on whether the mauka side property should be developed. The other thing I’d like to mention, and this is just in a really general, like land use concepts and planning concepts, we’ve, the Planning Department has generally supported housing in the urban core of Kailua-Kona, including multi-family housing which is the only realistic option for a very large percentage of our population. So, and without, you know, committing to a position on the time extension, which is not before us and we haven’t taken yet, as a matter of a general practice, that has been the practice in the Planning Department. The gist and the thrust of the Community Development Plan has been to encourage actually higher density residential development, more compact residential development, which does also include attached types of houses, so that you EXHIBIT B 9