|
CAMERO: I'm as well, and I think Christian is as well, too.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. And we've got, we've got what we've got so far?
<br /> KAY: We do. I would make one change, and I think it was related to the workforce housing; it
<br /> should be a minimum 140-"unit"workforce housing development. And that's just a clarification
<br /> on the language that was out there.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco.
<br /> DEFRANCO: Yeah, I know this isn't a discussion thing, but my only thought about tying this
<br /> road, it feels like building a bridge that goes nowhere. You know, I mean it's an expensive thing
<br /> to build an extension of a road that may never connect to anything, so—and I understand, Mike,
<br /> that you want, we want to get it done, I'd like to see it get done. I wish there was a road that
<br /> connected those two resorts now that was functional, and I, I just don't—anyway, I just wanted
<br /> to share that thought.
<br /> VITOUSEK: No, I hear you, and I just think that creating performance requirement tying it to
<br /> the construction of the Kumu Hou that means we are covering our side at this time. We are
<br /> covering our side of what we can do, and if it preempts what they do, so be it, but we have before
<br /> us the opportunity to require this construction, and I think we need to take advantage of that.
<br /> DEFRANCO: Well, I agree with you, you know,but this is money spent, I mean what if you
<br /> took whatever that cost was and put it to some other part of community empowerment? I'm
<br /> just—anyway, it's just a resource, I'm just looking at it that way.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Any other—we've got, the last one I believe was the updated public access
<br /> plan?
<br /> FUKE: Yes. So again, Tracie, can I request you to put the language that was discussed by the
<br /> Commission and never acted upon as an amended version? So Mr. Chairman, I think the
<br /> underscored was the, you know, as a result of the discussion at the last meeting, then the
<br /> underscored where the, you know, description of the additional thing that I think has resulted at
<br /> the discussion that the Commission wanted. So, as it is, the applicant is prepared to accept this
<br /> as a condition and have this applied to all of the three SMA premise that are out there.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioners, any questions on this? [No response] Okay, seeing
<br /> noneactually, while we are, since we are going back and forth on this, I would like to return
<br /> briefly to the project timeline, if we could. I just want to see if there is any chance that we can
<br /> tighten down the project timeline because—and I understand it, the purpose of it, for the zoning
<br /> requirement of trying to change the zoning now, I get that, that's trying to establish what can be
<br /> done and re-shifting the units allowable under the existing SMA to make it so they are possible
<br /> to be constructed, and I get that, creating a Project District, that makes sense, and I don't see the
<br /> necessity in doing the strict timeline on zoning but when we are dealing with an SMA permit,
<br /> we are talking about the assessment of impacts of the project on the current conditions of the
<br /> 19
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|