2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FUKE:Just before that, can I just respond very briefly to like, I guess, Commissioner McCallÓs question? GALDONES:Yes, you may. FUKE:Not, I guess, the comment that he had made. I think that t Planning Director is accurate in his comment about thereÓs very little that can be done, you know, on the makai section Òcause youÓre dealing with two separate parcels. I think that he has tried and, you know, we have tried also to kind of allay that fear. And, you know, in his recommendation to you on page 11 is already kind of that donÓt let the development of this area kind of lend credence to what may happen on the makai side. But inspite of that comment, if you look at Ooma as being in the same context as the property to the south, which this Commission just passed, the Kohanaiki property, we know that that property was zoned for like 11-plus years; and it was just kind of stuck inspite of like the well intention efforts by the community and, particularly, by the developers. And what it showed is that it took a lot of give-and-take and participation between the government, the community and the landowners in coming up with what is called like maybe perhaps like a community-oriented type of program. And I think that this is kind of like the new wave, so, relative to this particular parcel, you know, on the makai side. ÒCause, bearing in mind that any development on that area you would have to go to the State Land Use Commission to try to change it from Conservation to Urban. That would also be subject to a contested case hearing; and even if youÓre successful then one would also have to go through, possibly, if you donÓt get it settled at the Land Use Commission level, you probably have to go through a similar type of hearing before this body under the SMA application. So itÓs like 11-plus years on the Kohanaiki one. So I donÓt think itÓs going to be very simple for any developer to come in and expect to get fast entitlement on the makai side without community type of support. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, IÓm referring to Jim SogiÓs letter. And if you have a copy of it or have had a chance to read it, IÓm wondering if you can respond to a statement therein. We just received it this morning. FUKE:Okay. Thank you. SPRINGER:YouÓre welcome. Thank you. IÓm looking at the cover page which is fairly brief. The last three lines read, ÐChris, hereÓs our position on the Ooma CliftoÓs requests. Please recommend denial of the SMA and zoning change unless he enters into a written agreement with us. So a written agreement as we did with Rutter KW.Ñ Is your client prepared to at least enter into discussions and a possible written agreement as was in the Rutter case? FUKE:I guess like, first of all, like weÓre not necessarily dealing with the makai property. You know, weÓre dealing with the property thatÓs about three-quarters of a mile or a mile away from the shoreline, as the Director and the record indicated. But 16