|
And the August 3rd letter I submitted, I hand-delivered the applicants' position and proposed
<br /> recommendation and, with conditions, and that pretty much like summarize our position. And I'll
<br /> kind of like just highlight what I noted in that. And first of all was that the time extension is
<br /> consistent with the General Plan and the Community Development Plan. This is kind of like, you
<br /> know, beating a dead horse; we know that the, when the Council considered the General Plan and
<br /> the Planning Director considered the CDP and the General Plan on extensions, everybody else
<br /> concluded it was consistent. The plans haven't changed. And yet today we have the current
<br /> planning director to say, hmm, stop, it's not consistent. So it kind of like boggles our mind in terms
<br /> of why now, and, where we have documents that have not changed, but now you can take a position
<br /> contrary. We've also, I also kind of pointed out in that brief letter that this project provides much
<br /> needed infrastructure in terms of having a new mauka-makai road, and also provides much needed
<br /> affordable housing - - - more detail, and not to say provides much needed construction, as well as
<br /> post-construction employment. And I think that we are at the stage, you know, when you deal with
<br /> the COVID pandemic, I kind of implore in the decision-making like this to kind of like look at the
<br /> consequences of your decision relative to the message, which you communicate to the broader
<br /> development community.
<br /> We also heard at the last two Commission meetings, the Commissioners had expressed concern
<br /> about the need for affordable housing. As a result, in the August 3rd letter, what I kind of wanted to
<br /> point out- - - affordable housing. In the beginning what the developer wanted to do was to delete all
<br /> references to affordable housing obligation that, obligations that were committed to back in 2005.
<br /> And one of the reasons why was we were saying that just, you know, there is now an affordable
<br /> housing code which was not present back then. So why don't you have that code be the guiding
<br /> force? And that was, you know,predominant position on the part of the applicant. However, what
<br /> was represented then obviously is substantially more than what the code, if you, if the code were
<br /> strictly applied, what the code would require. The code currently, housing code currently requires
<br /> 20 percent of the units to be, you know, you need to generate 20 percent affordable housing credit
<br /> for your total density. Now, that affordable housing credits can be generated in one of three ways:
<br /> One, it can be on site; two, it can be off site; and, three, if you have credits, you can purchase those
<br /> credits and use those credits. Now, on this particular property, Mr. Cook already has 40 affordable
<br /> housing credits that's - - - for this property. He has chosen, and the conditions have also clearly
<br /> indicated that, number one, you cannot use those credits; number two, you cannot go off site;
<br /> number three, you are back to square one, you have to development all of your housing, you have to
<br /> satisfy all of your housing obligation on site. Now, relative to that, in the beginning on the Suffolk,
<br /> as I think, you know, the staff had mentioned, the existing conditions call for at least—the project is
<br /> going to be rental housing on Suffolk, it's clear, it's going to be rental housing you've got to rent it
<br /> for 20 years, and of these units at least 20 percent of those units would have to be targeted at
<br /> 80 percent of AMI, the balance would be whatever the housing - - -. On the Puaa property, the
<br /> original request was to say, okay, let's not talk about any housing obligation over there, but the
<br /> existing condition already called for having a minimum of 50 housing units on the Puaa site, which
<br /> is a commercial site; we are saying, fine, restore that, you know. The Commissioners have raised
<br /> concern about the need for affordable housing in this particular area. They've responded, like
<br /> coming back and saying, look, we'll do it, we will not, we will not seek any relief from whatever
<br /> was represented - - -.
<br /> 19
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|