|
<br />how to make your determination, and, unfortunately, we weren’t able to find anything in the
<br />record on that first question as to whether or not a formal time extension should be required.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay, and, again, just to read it, “This project area shall be called the Kaūpūlehu ʻ
<br />Project District. The development period for the Kaʻ
<br />from the effective date of approval of the Project District Ordinance.”
<br />
<br />KAY: That is correct. That’s—
<br />
<br />UNGER: And so that’s what we are trying to determine if that’s indeed a 20-year time limit, do
<br />they have to come in for another 20 years, etcetera, etcetera?
<br />
<br />KAY: That’s correct.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay, well, I guess, we’ll, and your opinion is yes, this does—
<br />
<br />KAY: Our opinion is yes, based on our review of the overall development, or the overall status
<br />report, which, again, was required under Condition BB, and, again, it compels the Director to
<br />make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and County Council for review and
<br />ultimately action. Again, the record didn’t give us any kind of idea as to what that
<br />recommendation looks like, but—
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay, so this is your recommendation.
<br />
<br />KAY: This is our recommendation is ultimately at a 20-year time extension based on our review
<br />of where they are at in the development process.
<br />
<br />UNGER: And just from a procedural point, is this an opportunity then for the Planning
<br />Department to go back in, review and make changes to the conditions? Is this a legal question or
<br />is this -? If, if, say, they did not have, say, it was agreed that they don’t need a 20-year extension
<br />and they are just coming in for an update.
<br />
<br />KAY: So, yeah, I mean, it—
<br />
<br />UNGER: I mean they come in for an update and we take this opportunity to, because, I mean,
<br />and reviewing the changes, it looks like the most substantial change is the traffic analysis; I
<br />mean, there is not a lot of changes in here other than the opportunity to update or modify the
<br />conditions, which is probably a good thing. But, is this from, I guess, from a legal standpoint, is
<br />this the opportunity for the Planning Department to comment and require additional changes to
<br />the original agreement?
<br />
<br />KAY: It could be an opportunity. We didn’t see anything here that was out of the ordinary
<br />where it would require it. So, basically, all of the proposed changes to the language that we have
<br />are to allow for the 20-year time extension, and then just really updating older conditions so that
<br />are bringing up the standard language that we have now.
<br />
<br />6
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />
<br />
|