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

Home

for a traffic impact analysis report, that is called for because you are trying to amend the zoning. As it relates to SMA, however, there is no statutory requirement for a traffic study, you know. So that's - - - is a major difference. So, essentially, what you are looking at here is now, looking at the guidelines for, you know, for an SMA permit, and take - - - lenses for a zone change. So the reason why I say this is it's very critical, I mean, you look for a time extension as it relates to SMA versus time extensions for zone change, you have different kind of lenses that you pretty much, you know, must wear. So I say this because like the public's, you know, comments both the written as well as this morning's testimony, they generally, you know, follow along the line of like visual, you know, it's going to block my view, from whether it's Kona Mansion or Kone Reef, it's excessive traffic, the noise, we don't need more commercial developments, it's unsightly, and there is some safety issues; I think that, you know, the applicant has had a chance to review all of these concerns, they understand them, and but the critical issue, you know, from an SMA standpoint, do those kind of concerns necessarily rise to the level that, you know, that this project violates the SMA goals and policies and objectives? And we would say no. You know, like, specifically, if you look at from an archaeological, cultural perspective, you know, there is, none of those issues. We don't have a sea level rising or erosion concerns because this is definitely not a shoreline parcel. I do recall like one of the testifiers saying that, you know, it's going to have an effect on Honl beach; but Honl beach, that area, is located south of the Kona Reef project, and so it's away from this, so it has none of this kind of coastal erosion sea level rising issue. In terms of like shoreline access, this is not a coastal access; however, the fact that the project, the existing conditions already require that the project, before it can get occupancy, have curb, gutter, sidewalks fronting Alii Drive and also down on Kahakai, you know, I think, would help out rather than deter the public access question. I think that the planning director's recommendation is really like on point because you are looking at it purely from the standpoint of whether the project meets the SMA guidelines. Now come to kind of explaining a little bit to, you know, the entitlement issue on the project. The first SMA permit for the project was approved in December of 1998, so it was granted a five-year construction window. They didn't do it,but in the meantime in 2002 the property was then purchased by a group called Pacific Monarch Resorts. So they came in for a time extension that was the first-time extension, administrative time extension, in 2002. They secured final Plan Approval, and then they got the planning commission extend it, which would have been the second-time extension in 2008. But Pacific Monarch did not necessarily sit still; what they did was they made quite a bit of improvements to the waterline along Walua Road, it paid water commitment fees, they also applied for a foundation building permit, they had, built an elevated slab. Those all occurred, as your staff had indicated, from about 2007 to 2009, during that general period. The plan sets that were reviewed at that time showed that the access would come in from the makai side of the project, and so that's where would be the entrance to the project, and so that's the parking lot entrance. So the parking lot is not coming from Alii Drive, it's not coming from the mauka-makai road to Kahakai; it's basically coming from the, you know, makai side of the building. So in the meantime Pacific Monarch Resorts, you know, they had some financial problems, and the one that picked up the ball is the applicant, Diamond Resorts International. So they came in and purchased, or acquired, the total interest back in 2013. 8 EXHIBIT E