|
and I felt real comfortable with it, and I really liked that idea because it would not tax the present
<br />infrastructure we had. You know, like the roadways, the schools, and so forth, and so on. I'm a
<br />strong, I really, I still like Condition D, I think. That is the right one. I have a hard time
<br />accepting the change of Condition D.
<br />FUKE: Are you referring to the residential density?
<br />IKEDA: That's right.
<br />FUKE: Yeah, the reason why the additional residential density was, is being proposed is that it's
<br />primarily to accommodate the additional residential uses on the Puna side of Alenaio Stream
<br />whereas in the beginning, you know, with the road, if you could build a bridge then the
<br />residential density could have been kind of like spread out, you know, among the entire project,
<br />but because based on the developer's consultant's recommendation, having that area purely for
<br />residential kind of like increased the density, and so that's the reason why the cap was raised. It
<br />doesn't mean that they foregone the opportunity for senior housing on the area, you know, the
<br />bulk of the property, which is immediate—the thought was immediately mauka of, you know,
<br />the commercial area. That is still in their program, part of their program. To compensate for the
<br />additional residential density, what they're saying is that we're going to reduce also the
<br />commercial area as well.
<br />IKEDA: No, I understand. My problem is that the increase to 700 units because, you know,
<br />prior to the building of the Mohouli Extension and that Puainako Extension, I think you realize
<br />that the traffic used to back up almost to Chong Street, and right now, it's up to Aipuni Street
<br />without the development. So, developments—the area is growing, and so traffic is increasing
<br />and by putting 700 units and especially if its, you cutting down on the senior housing, it's going
<br />to make a, I think it's going to make a big difference.
<br />FUKE: It was, there was no talk about like diluting the senior housing portion. The other thing
<br />to remember is that with this project over here, true, you might have like movements, you know,
<br />from that project to go up Kaumana Drive and maybe try to go to, you know, like over the
<br />Daniel K. Highway, you know, but I think that's going to be far and few between in terms of the
<br />volume of traffic. What you're referring to is, you know, the makai traffic coming down on
<br />Kaumana. You know, and then there's like a bottleneck usually during school time or like the
<br />a.m./p.m. peak hours, so, but this property is located makai of that. You know, if this property
<br />were, if this project were situated on the mauka side, you know, where like Regency and all that
<br />area is, then I think that the concern you're raising would be very, you know, applicable.
<br />YEE: You know, a reminder that this is a project district development, and so, you know,
<br />especially for the newer commissioners that weren't around for 2010, and I certainly wasn't here
<br />then, the project district allows us to take a look at a project, you know, from a much more
<br />holistic point of view. Otherwise, because if they didn't want to do a project district, they could
<br />do whatever, you know, cut it up, do subdivision, just follow that code.
<br />So, by going into a project district, you—you try to strike balances over many different things.
<br />So, I think part, part of what I have a rub is to try to isolate and say in this issue I just want to
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />16
<br />
|