|
new application. I mean, you folks saw Wailani, right? I mean, that was pretty radical for an
<br />amendment, but it was a number of amendments that took a lot of time to go through and try to
<br />address each and every amendment request.
<br />But, anyway, so that's something we'll be working on as far as staff goes, but yes, we try to ask
<br />that they submit an updated status report on conditions `cause that's important.
<br />RAFFIPIY: Thank you. So, if we don't have anything in place right now where as the, let's say
<br />a project is ongoing where the developer will submit a, some kind of status report that we have
<br />met these conditions. We had a, you know, as they progress through, or is that way to much to
<br />ask?
<br />DARROW: We, and thisI'm glad you brought this up `cause it just triggered something else I
<br />wanted to talk about. The, when we look at a project, some projects are manini, right? They're
<br />small, and so we're like, it's not that big of a thing. There are other projects that are larger that
<br />we feel we need to keep a handle on this project. So, the Commission or the Council will put in
<br />an annual progress report conditions, and so every year on the effective date of the permit, they
<br />have to submit an updated annual progress report that addresses each condition. Unfortunately,
<br />some times, for the first four years or so, its applicant will comply, applicant will comply,
<br />applicant will comply, and there hasn't been any action. Others, other times you see, you know,
<br />they're moving. And, so we get an idea which projects are moving and which ones are kind of
<br />stale.
<br />But the other thing I wanted to bring up in light of that is the fact that our typical time condition
<br />on our developments and our ordinances is five years. And, so, what we, what we want to try to
<br />do is keep in mind that our time really should be relevant to the project. So, it's something
<br />small, then, yeah, maybe we can keep it at five years or three years, and they have the
<br />administrative for the additional time. If it's something very large, five years isn't—they're
<br />going to, they're not going to meet their conditions. So, Kaupulehu which was in Kona just
<br />recently, they had a 20 -year timeframe. So, it was because that project was so big that, you
<br />know, they realized that this was going to take 20 years to get to the point where they could
<br />finish the project, and even in that 20 years, they were only half done, so they had to come back
<br />and ask for an additional 20 years.
<br />But, again, so we're going to try as staff when an applicant comes in, normally their request is
<br />five years because they just think that's the standard request. We're going to try to see if we can
<br />keep in mind that there needs to be a correlation between the size of the project and the time.
<br />But thank you.
<br />RAFFIPIY: Thank you.
<br />YEE: So, comments from the Planning Director. First of all, I appreciate Jeff and his staff,
<br />Maija. Ever since I've arrived here and, you know, in early 2017, the question around time
<br />extensions has been out there. Again, you have to appreciate that Jeff and his division is all
<br />application based, right? They get an application in, and they got so many days to move it
<br />through. So, that that's first priority. Then we have the line-up of projects coming in to us that
<br />EXHIBIT E
<br />13
<br />
|