2020-10-15 Leeward Exh E (AMEND SMA 388)

Home

K. YOSHIMOTO: Would that have been satisfied? I think - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: Right, their concern was—hold on, one second their concern was that the proposed, the permitted project was too expensive, and if that feasibility study was done prior to the 2017 Plan Approval, one would assume that the project that they submitted for a Plan Approval would be a project that they could afford to build. K. YOSHIMOTO: Right, so I was assuming it was done before, but I need to confirm. But they were looking for financing options during the entire process. VITOUSEK: So I believe that that's completely material in the justification for nonperformance in that either they submitted a Plan Approval application for a project, and then when they got that Plan Approval back, they realized, wow, we can't afford that, which means they designed the project that they can't afford, which is no one's fault but their own. K. YOSHIMOTO: Well, they didn't design it; they inherited the project. So they did the feasibility project once they acquired the project. VITOUSEK: So the Plan Approval that was submitted in 2017 was submitted by the current applicant, correct? K. YOSHIMOTO: Correct, but again VITOUSEK: So the design had changed from the applicant, the previous Plan Approval by the previous applicant to the current Plan Approval by the current applicant, correct? K. YOSHIMOTO: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay, so the applicant submitted plans K. YOSHIMOTO: But let me, let me VITOUSEK: for their construction, and those plans were approved by the county. The discussion in hand is whether it's the applicant's fault whether they could afford those plans or not. And my contention is that they've either redesigned that application and submitted a plan that they can afford or they designed something that they can't afford; in either case, in my opinion, that's the applicant's fault as a developer. FUKE: I can, if I can kind of add to that—am I muted? CARR SMITH: No, you are good, Sid, go ahead. FUKE: If I can add to that like, Commissioner Vitousek, you know, Plan Approval they did retain the services of an architect, and so the architect basically just did the design taking off of the existing foundational work, or the original plans, and so they had omitted like a significant portion of the, you know, the proposed retail area,but the basic configuration was the same. So 12 EXHIBIT E