2015-02-19 Leeward Exh A (Amend SMA 286 and Revoke SMA 456)

Home

FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. I’ve been here to assist with the processing and the preparation of the report. I’d also like to acknowledge the presence of the owner’s representative, Ms. Andrea Raynal. In terms of the staff’s background report and the recommendation, the background report, as I always say, is very comprehensive and on point. The recommendations as the staff had indicated, the applicant has no objections with the proposed conditions, the added condition. I would, however, like to describe some of the additional amendments that we are proposing to which, as Ms. Jackson had indicated that the Director had reviewed and had no objections to them, but just for your information, as well as the public’s information, I’d like to go over the reasons for them. We had passed out, you know, through the staff, the proposed conditions and also like a map that accompanied that. And just for the purpose of giving you some back ground, I’d like to direct your attention to the map. You know, this, the original SMA Permit really covered all the units, the colored area is the existing Kaulana at Kona project, and the original SMA Permit covered the area, as well as the area identified as Areas A and B and the proposed development right up to the road that intersects with Kamehameha III Road and leading into the healthcare facility. So that was one original SMA Permit. One portion was developed, which is the Kaulana at Kona project; it was developed, and then was subsequently subdivided. The balance of the project was never developed as sought, and received approval for additional time extensions. In the meantime, if you, looking at the same map again, on the left hand side of that road that leads into the healthcare facility, you see another smaller parcel, that parcel was approved for also another Special Management Area Permit. Since that time, the current applicant had secured the properties of both the smaller property, as well as this property, and the larger property, and are now in the process of developing one comprehensive project. In that light, the applicant is requesting, therefore, you know, subject to the approval on the proposed amendments, that the SMA Permit for the smaller parcel be deleted because everything else would be contained in one major SMA, so it makes it easier for tracking purposes and monitoring of conditions. In terms of the proposed amendments, I would like to kind of like go over them. If you look at the staff’s proposed condition, and what we have proposed here, it’s basically the same. Looking at Condition 2, what we are suggesting here is that it would read like consisting of no more than 184 units. The way it currently read right now is it just read like consisting of 184 units. We did not want to suggest that the project would be a 184-unit project. As proposed right now, it’s only 179; so we did not want to have any misunderstanding down the road that if you don’t have 184, then you would be in violation of the permits. And so we thought it was appropriate to include no more than 184. The other proposed amendment, you know, relating to that is that we wanted to have inclusion of this term, “landscaping and security fencing for structure situated less than 75 feet from the Kaulana at Kona project identified by TMK: 7-8-010:092. And the reason behind that is that subsequent to the submittal of the application, Mr. Ghalamfarsa and myself, and Mr. Ghalamfarsa separately, had met with the homeowners, you know, a number of times to just hear out their concerns, and as a result of their concerns, you know, it related to security measures and lighting and landscaping, so on and so forth. And so this is a proposed condition that we believe addresses the homeowners’ concern. The other proposed condition is Condition No. 3. Currently, it just reads like construction for Phase II shall commence within two (sic) years. What we are suggesting here is that you include the term, which includes site work. The reason why we are suggesting this is a couple of reasons: One is that when the, you know, for time extensions, in the previous situations there has been some misinterpretation that when you take out a grading permit for the site, you know, for the site work, whether that actually constituted construction as opposed to taking 4 EXHIBIT A