|
he has a valuable piece of property that he's got parking stalls for, there is a benefit to the
<br /> landowner; theoretically, he is getting compensated for, I mean he is not getting direct payment,
<br /> but patrons of his business or his building parking stalls arguably. So, it's a little bit attenuated for
<br /> me. I mean not that we are tasked with that, I don't think, but I am, it's a little bit tricky, I think,
<br /> because you are basically saying he has no benefit in that lot.
<br /> FUKE: So, if I can respond just generally to that. Like if, if this were like part of the basic
<br /> parking requirement, then that's one thing, you know, to be able to control, even to be able to
<br /> assess, you are going to be wondering like why should you assess parking for something that's
<br /> already required. He already has the required parking on the mauka side of the building. This is
<br /> all extra. This is not, this is not part and parcel of the project's requirement. This is a requirement
<br /> that came about as a result of the SMA condition. So, it's, you know, if you want like, you know,
<br /> it's hard to come up with a specific plan right now, but, you know, because as I mentioned earlier,
<br /> it's kind of like evolving, you know, he has to look at the cost considerations. The original, when
<br /> we submitted the original request, the request was initially intended to enable him to exercise
<br /> control to the point of being able to have some fees assigned to that to neutralize the cost. He did
<br /> not want to have like the total deletion. And I spoke to him earlier, and he said like he is willing
<br /> to go back like to exactly what we had proposed in our application, and that application called for
<br /> the retention of that and just saying appropriate controls, which may include fees to address public
<br /> safety enforcement, and its maintenance may be instituted by the owner and/or operator of this
<br /> parking area. So, that makes it clear that, number one, it's going to be set aside for parking, so
<br /> fulfill directly or indirectly, you know, but, you know, Commissioner Vitousek was talking about
<br /> like coastal objectives, okay, so, and number two is the ability to exercise control that was
<br /> primarily what his primary intent was, as I think your staff, you know, Alex Roy kind of pointed
<br /> out, you know, up until 2017 he said unfettered control, and that led to all these kind of problems.
<br /> So, he said give me the ability to control, I'll still have it set aside for public.
<br /> KNOWLES: And I guess that is the question, right, because he owns the property, but he is not
<br /> able to enforce any controls.
<br /> FUJIMOTO: Exactly, exactly.
<br /> KNOWLES: Which is yeah.
<br /> DEFRANCO: Commissioner Vitousek.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Sure. I just want to reiterate that having a public access and parking plan is what
<br /> gives them control that doesn't step on the beneficial use by the public, having these mutually
<br /> agreed upon terms of a plan that we can all agree, says, okay, this is how they can regulate parking
<br /> and still provide the beneficial use of the SMA.
<br /> As far as the taking now, I'm not the attorney, maybe Sinclair would weigh in but I don't think
<br /> we can argue a taking in a case where the owner purchased the property knowing that the
<br /> condition exists, and that the condition was agreed upon by the previous owner. It's not like
<br /> something that was imposed on them.
<br /> 15
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />
|