|
previous clients. I don't think that there's any conflict there. This project doesn't have anything
<br /> to do with the property they're involved with, but there was a relationship there.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Do you feel as though you can be fair and impartial?
<br /> ARMBRUSTER: Yep, absolutely.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Cool. Does anybody have any objections?No. Okay. I would also make a
<br /> disclosure on page 517 of our background report I noticed a correspondence from the Planning
<br /> Department to my dad, Randy Vitousek, who served as legal counsel for, I think, a third party
<br /> that was looking into buying a portion of the property, and they, he didn't represent the
<br /> landowner in any way, and I don't feel as though it prevents me from being fair and impartial.
<br /> Does anybody have any objection to me staying on? (No objections.)Thank you.
<br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: I also have a disclosure, Chair. So, I don't know, in the late 90s, early
<br /> 2000s, Garduque Architects was one of the architects for the initial development. He is my, Ted
<br /> Garduque, the principal architect of his, of that firm is my, my uncle. And so, I just wanted, I
<br /> worked for him while in college for a few years and do not work for him anymore. And I don't
<br /> feel like, I feel I can make objective decisions pertaining to this topic.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Cool. Any objections?No. Okay. Thank you, everybody, for disclosures.
<br /> Okay,we're ready to go now that everybody's on board. Okay, and so,procedurally, are we
<br /> going to discuss this in a similar fashion? We're going to do all in one for the discussion and
<br /> then separate it out,potentially for motions?
<br /> SCHLUETER: Chair, I think that would be appropriate. I know it's kind of challenging since
<br /> it's all in one. It seems that there's a separate background and recommendation for the Agenda
<br /> Item 3, and then a separate background so, I don't, if there's crossover, I think we can discuss it
<br /> as is appropriate. And then separate motions for each agenda item.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yeah, I think there was one background recomm—report and then several
<br /> recommendations. Is that right?
<br /> KAY: So, Mr., Mr. Chair, I can speak to that. This is Christian Kay. So, there were two
<br /> background reports and several recommendations. There was a background report and
<br /> recommendation separately for the SMA 25 amendment, and then a background report and five
<br /> different recommendations, four different recommendations for the other requests. If it's helpful,
<br /> as we were determining how to present this today,we thought we would do one presentation,
<br /> probably rather lengthy, more lengthy than you're used to, but as it's all about the Kumu Hou at
<br /> Waikoloa master plan project and the requests are all land use entitlements that need to happen to
<br /> facilitate this development. We thought we could do it holistically and then procedurally, when it
<br /> comes time to vote, we can vote on everything as the agenda indicates, if that's okay.
<br /> VITOUSEK: That sounds good to me. Later on, we can get into the questions of why we are
<br /> doing it this way. But we'll wait for that.
<br /> 3
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|