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

Home

provide a specific timetable, but we don't know exactly like what the impact of the pandemic and the overall condition of the global economy we'll have in terms of project financing, and, which could affect the development schedule. But, notwithstanding those situations, this is where the applicant is coming from, their hope. Their hope is to secure like a final plan approval by the end of next year or maybe the first quarter of 2022, but definitely no later than 2023, because they have to work backwards in terms of having it completed by December of 2025. So they are kind of like working backwards from that. So if you assume that they can get your final plan approval maybe by the first quarter of 2022, then the building permit would be secured by the end of 2022 or earlier part of 2023. They would begin construction in 2023 but definitely no later than the start of 2024 because, you know, you are looking at maybe a good, you know, 12-to 18-month construction window because their deadline is to have it completed by December of 2025. The last issue I think was raised, you know, specifically in regards to the onsite maintenance, and it's a concern that the owners are very aware of, I mean, like everybody, I mean I would feel the same way, if I were a resident of the Kona Reef condo or any of the surrounding areas. So even like C. J. Kimberly, you know, who is a good friend of mine as well, you know, I would have some concern of, you know, having this homelessness or this litter, the graffiti. So, what, what they would like to do is like you know, what was contained in the letter is just saying like this is how (technical issue–echo)you know, we would address it by having maintenance security to address like graffiti, the grass, the litter, fence, the homelessness—so what we would like to do is, you know because I think one of the commissioners mentioned about like, well, what specifically are you referring to, so I can understand that because the letter was not necessarily clear—what we would like to suggest is that the condition, I'm sorry, that the Commission impose an added condition that requires the applicant to provide a site maintenance program, you know, to the Planning Department so that it gets reviewed and approved by them, and that maintenance program would have to address things like how you are going to secure the site, who is the contact information, and how long it's going to last, what's your implementation timetable, so on and so forth, you know, and that gets provided and approved by the county Planning Department, and once it gets approved, then, you know, they can start to really begin to aggressively address this issue. If there is any infraction on that, then there would be cause for the Planning Commission to bring this whole permit up again, you know, for consideration for - - - comply it with the appropriate condition. So, that is a condition that we would like to suggest to the Commission that you, you know, strongly consider just to specifically address the issue of homelessness and maintenance. It is a concern to the applicant, too, because they've tried to secure as best as they can, you know, to prevent the area from homeless people from coming in, but as one of the testifiers, or probably I think Commissioner Van Pernis, noted that people were kind of like squeezing in, you know, like through the gates. Other situation they've kind of like broken the gate, you know, like through, finally, you know, somehow find their way to get into that area. So it requires the aggressive maintenance, aggressive security, and that's the idea; to have a program submitted to the county, let them approve it, and then you have, you know, a very legitimate enforcement program. Other than that, I mean, you know, if you have questions to whatever I presented or questions of either of the attorneys, we are more than happy to respond. 6 EXHIBIT B