2020-12-17 Leeward Exh B (AMEND SMA 388)

Home

First of all, in terms of the nature of the project, Ione of the testifiers said that the, you know, the plans that accompanied the notices were like somewhat different from the 2017 plan; it is true, but, you know, it's not necessarily significantly different. What was provided was the plans that were originally approved, and generally, the plans that were approved in 2017 under the plan approval, were not significantly different in terms of the size and the scope, so on and so forth. Related to that was the question about, well, you know, in 2000-you know, when the initial estimate was granted, it was supposed to be for a residence as opposed to like a timeshare. At that time when it, what, the proposed use was going to be a condominium. Now the most recent iteration is to have a timeshare. But, nevertheless, what we are talking about is the form of ownership; you know, a condominium is owned by one, multiple, whereas like the timeshare, you have multiple ownership, nevertheless, it's one unit that's being now considered. So the plans in concept were approved. The more detailed plans were approved in 2017. And essentially, that is, the current thought of the applicant right now is to proceed with a plan that generally follows along those lines. Those plans were found in the applicant's, you know, submittal I think dated November 13''. But, and they were also found in the Planning Department's Exhibit number 7, you know, off your report. So if you want to see a little bit more details as far as what was approved back in 2017, I think those are your two primary references. Essentially, those plans kind of reflected a four-story, no higher than 45-foot structure, 46 three-bedroom units. The original plan called for like 48 two- and three-bedroom units. So what it amounts to right now is the approved plans in 2017 approved plans reflect like a two-unit reduction. I think the other thing to consider is that the approved plan now does not contain a 7,000-square foot retail, commercial retail area, whereas like the original plan called for like a retail kind of component, so you would have like traffic from the surrounding neighborhoods visiting, you know, the site, sort of like the, how the King Kamehameha shopping center, you know, the King Kamehameha Hotel is now operated by the Marriot, you know, you would have like a shopping area where it's not only caters to the occupants of the hotel but also visitors from outside. There may be like a small little sundry area for occupants of the project, but at this point in time they have abandoned the thought of having like a commercial area for, that would be geared for outside people coming into the complex. The approved plan back in 19, 2017 rather, you know, reflected 119 parking spaces; the minimum required for, you now, 48, or 46-unit condo is essentially only 58, but what they are proposing is 119. So essentially, they are having 60 more stalls. And, you know, as we pointed out at the last public hearing on this matter, you know, the applicant is going through like a value engineering, and they are trying to see like whether they really can construct the building as was approved back in 2017, and they are doing that right now. And they are going to make some adjustments to it, you know, based upon the value engineering, and nevertheless, they are going to have to come back again to the county Planning Department for recertification or new approval on a plan approval. So this relates to the second question that the commissioners had raised; that's the issue of the timetable. So based on the staff's recommendation, you know, they have a five-year window to complete. Now, obviously, they are going to do their best to complete it, because, you know, within that window, because they do not wish to reappear before this Planning Commission and, you know, like face also the, any adverse public or agency kind of comment relating to the project. They have an obligation to complete it, and that's, that's their goal right now. You know, like, we have to add a little bit of qualifier in terms of like the specific timetable, I mean, you know, the applicant's attorney did 5 EXHIBIT B