|
KEALOHA: I'd like to kind of echo what Max said, but add that I guess what I recognize is the
<br /> good faith efforts to put in place. And, you know, I, I work within a great organization with
<br /> land, and many times, even with best intentions, the development doesn't happen, and when you
<br /> put in your good faith efforts to, to provide the entitlements that were required, and then we stop
<br /> the process, reintroducing the process in the future will come with its own set with new
<br /> entitlements and additional burdens. So, I think recognizing the effort that has been in place to
<br /> comply with the County's needs, I think it's an important part when we examine whether or not
<br /> to extend, as we are.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you. Good points. It seems as though we, we don't know what we're
<br /> going to be looking at going forward in terms of repercussions from the virus, so, hard to know.
<br /> Any further comments? Mike, go ahead.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yeah, I mean just a couple things. I think, like in this case where we are looking
<br /> at a project that's gone through an upcycle in the market and basically missed that because of
<br /> their own inaction, I think that, you know, it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to, if we do agree
<br /> to extend this, to request the opportunity that in the event that it comes back for extension, it can
<br /> be reconditioned, because it seems to me like it's kind of like a rolling target, so to speak, with
<br /> this development, where, you know, they're initially coming in requesting 60 and then dropping
<br /> it down to 29, and now it could go back to, you know, triplexes or something like that. So the
<br /> idea is that, you know, if they don't meet this next extension that we're going to, we may grant
<br /> them, should we grant them the additional extension, that at that point, you know, it can be
<br /> re-examined and reconditioned, if necessary.
<br /> The next thing is kind of more of a specific item for the conditioning that's in place on this, on
<br /> this extension. The deletion of Conditions N and O, to me, I think that those Conditions should
<br /> be left in place. I think that the idea behind deleting them is that they're completed, but the
<br /> continued compliance with those conditions would kind of keep the County permitting married
<br /> with the State Historic Preservation compliance, so the developer can't separate them. And
<br /> basically, you know, if they become in violation of the mitigation plans or anything like that,
<br /> then they would only be incompliance, only be outside of compliance with SHPD and not with
<br /> their permitting, so then the County is losing some teeth on that.
<br /> CARR SMITH: That's a good point. Mr. Fuke, do you have any comments on Item N and O?
<br /> Conditions N and O?
<br /> FUKE: I don't believe like the applicant would have any, any objections to their retention. And
<br /> I believe that the staff had probably recommended their deletion, you know, because thinking
<br /> that it would have been, it's an item that has been addressed. So, it's an item, those two
<br /> conditions were not conditions that the applicant had requested that they be deleted, as such, if
<br /> the commissioners believe that it should be reinstated, we would have no objections.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Christian?
<br /> KAY: I, I can confirm that that's the case. Again, it was not requested by the applicant; we just
<br /> looked at the completion. We don't have any problem retaining them. There is the catch-all
<br /> 9
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />
|