2021-07-15 Leeward Exh D (Amend SMA 286)

Home

VITOUSEK: Okay, motion and second. I'd like to open it up to discussion at this time. Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: It's clear that this project is going on and on for many years since `89, without any adequate public input on needed infrastructure. The current applicant purchased the property for, I assume, millions and millions of dollars, which primarily was money added to the price by the county rendering the SMA and other permits. What does the county get in exchange to that? Well, we are supposed to get a bunch of infrastructure that now is not going to happen, if at all, for up to 40 years, and we are not going to get—it's a bad deal the county has made, a real bad deal, given them millions, they purchased for millions, and the county gets nothing back, not even for this extension, there is no give-back for this further extension. And I think Mr. Vitousek was barking up the right tree when he said, or when he pursued the matter of what outside influence caused this delay. There is none. It's their desire for profit(indiscernible– muffled) as a profit margin that dictated whether and when they were going to build after the original applicants got millions of added values. This is not something I would say their circumstances, the volcano eruption and COVID, this is a shibai that I've been in, is just a the Planning Department has not looked into, and it's not adequately shown, that there is an outside influence that dictated this need for an extension. The need for the extension is purely want of, they want the adjusted profits. I would suggest that we put a sunset provision on this application. Mr. Fuke says, well, he can come in and, to the Planning Commission, if you want a further delay; I tell you, terminate the matter and start over again. I don't think the county should have said, well,just do this extension; I think it should have been an original application all over again so the matter of infrastructure could be addressed. I think allowing a sale and adjusting for profits, or delay for profits, is inappropriate. I would suggest that we, all permits be terminated at a certain future date, that the matter be approved as to the extension, but if everything is not under construction and completed, let's say, in three years, all permits are cancelled. Thank you. KERN: Mr. Chair, I'd like to opine real quick. VITOUSEK: Go ahead. KERN: This is an SMA permit. Whether it was a new permit application submitted or whether it was a time extension that they have, we wouldn't be going over the infrastructure side of it; that's not criteria that we review in the SMA. There is quite case law that relates to this. We do that for rezonings. So there is no, there is, we would be at the same place regarding infrastructure. So that's really not relevant to the SMA. We are here looking at the impacts to the Special Management Area on their, this existing legacy zoning. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Well, you know, I just look at this is we are here now with this project, and I do see the history of it, that they did build out some units, that it has taken them a long time. I understand by listening to Mr. North that they have the money to go forward with this project, that he is the new guy on the block. You know, building in Hawaii is not—it's even harder building in California because of the cost of materials. But, you know, the point is for me it's like I appreciate the idea that they might look at the project and give the seniors home a view; I 25 EXHIBIT D