My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021-07-15 Leeward Exh D (Amend SMA 286)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2021
>
2021-07-15 Leeward Exh D (Amend SMA 286)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2021 11:24:35 AM
Creation date
8/19/2021 11:24:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ARMBRUSTER: Thank you. <br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, is that it for commissioners? Okay, I'll ask my questions—one second. <br /> Okay, the criteria that we have to evaluate a time extension request is: A, the non-performance is <br /> the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the <br /> applicants, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence; B, <br /> granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan and zoning code; and C, <br /> Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of <br /> the permit. I think items B and C have been addressed through questions by previous <br /> commissioners that it's not contrary to the General Plan or zoning code, and that the extension is <br /> not contrary to the original intent. So I'd just like to ask a couple of questions on item A as to <br /> the non-performance to date. So it's stated in our application that the 2015 SMA, where Plan <br /> Approval was received, their reason that was not actually built was because "bids for the <br /> development proved too costly." Is that correct? <br /> FUKE: That is corre-that is correct; Like, you know, Alii Architect was the architect, and they <br /> did a preliminary design, you know, to address the Plan Approval requirements, and as well as <br /> had to modify some time to address some of the design commitments, or parameters, that was <br /> agreed upon with the Homeowners Association at Kaulana. So he came <br /> VITOUSEK: So <br /> FUKE: I'm sorry? <br /> VITOUSEK: I just keep asking the questions, sorry about that, Mr. Fuke, but who hired the <br /> architect to design <br /> FUKE: Pacifica Big Island LLC. <br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, the developer. <br /> FUKE: Yeah, so the developer then and the developer today, yes. <br /> VITOUSEK: So then it was designed, it was hired by the developer to do the design. <br /> FUKE: Correct, yeah, and <br /> VITOUSEK: But(indiscernible–simultaneous speech) <br /> FUKE: I'm sorry? <br /> VITOUSEK: They couldn't afford the design that they created. Is that right? <br /> FUKE: Well, the design that the architect prepared was a preliminary one, and then after that <br /> was done, then they did some preliminary so-called like cost study analysis. And because of the <br /> 13 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.