|
commitments, then you don't have to do it. The language that Christian has provided normally
<br />would be, on the face of it, no problem, you know, assuming that you don't have your required water
<br />commitments, and then you have to purchase. But, if to, you know, modify the Department's, you
<br />know, Planning Department's concern, you want that language, - - - I think we can kind of work
<br />around it.
<br />KAY: Yes, I, and I'll just point out that the reason that that language is suggested is because
<br />specifically in Water Supply's comment letter, they required the payment of water commitments. So
<br />to be consistent with what the department is asking for, that's why we added that.
<br />FUKE: That's fine.
<br />VITOUSEK: Yeah, that sounds, that sounds good to me. And it: seems like the applicant is okay
<br />with that. Can we move on to the next condition item that you- .have a concern with?
<br />KAY: So, it's really Condition C, and this is the timing component. ' YYou,know, the, this isn't
<br />consistent with our standard condition for rezones; the start within, or commence within five years
<br />and substantially complete within ten. The applicarthas indicated that projects.of this size take
<br />longer to develop than the standard rezone because the applicants' Suffolk Development and Puaa
<br />Development project is one project referfed to as Pualani Makai; however, as we talked about
<br />before, the ordinance approving the zoning_were separate,fof,the properties, which can be developed
<br />independent of one another, and at the same time '-Thereforei ij think, We think the five years is
<br />sufficient time to develop each independent propertybecause the'proposed project size is smaller
<br />than other rezones for which.five-years is provided to complete.. construction. So we suggest
<br />replacing it with our standard condition language that. -says; ``i..shall be completed within five years
<br />from the effective date of the ordinance," ank you;; know, requiring Plan Approval, and so on and so
<br />forth. If the Commission decides thatthe, you know, the ten years is more appropriate, we would
<br />like to have some kind of definition of what. -substantial completeness means, because that is very
<br />subjective; the-dpplicant.',s definition of substantial completeness could be very different from what
<br />the Department, or the -County's definition of substantial completeness is. At any rate, that's, that's
<br />our initial. thought.
<br />CARR SMITH: What is the County's definition of it?
<br />KAY: Well, when we talk about_ completeness, we talk about what's being proposed, so the
<br />proposed development'. This gets,into a little bit of a tricky area because once, once entitlement is
<br />granted, the applicant or. subsequent owner could develop something that is permitted in that zoning
<br />district. So, so we stay away from contract zoning; it's hard to lock them down to what's proposed.
<br />So there is a lot of wiggle room in substantial completeness, a lot of wiggle room in what can be
<br />built. So that's, I would say that, you know, if they are proposing to develop 226 units of affordable
<br />housing on the Suffolk property and 60,000 square feet of commercial and 100 units—which, again,
<br />there's somewhat of discrepancy between what's in writing and what's on their site plan—I think
<br />it's like 160 units for the Puaa property, then that should be complete within that time frame. I
<br />would defer to, or I'd like to understand what the applicant's definition of substantial completeness
<br />is. And that's why I'm asking for, to come to a more specific agreement as to what that looks like.
<br />KEO
<br />DRAFT
<br />
|