COM 0106.037 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Councilpersons Pilago and Hoffman May 2, 2005 Page 4 5. Other Related Issues Relative to azchaeolo¢ical considerations, there is a DLNR-approved Archaeological Inventory Survey. The survey noted that none of the features on the property contained any burials or other significant features requiring preservation. The same survey did note, however, that there were burials and/or other significant features on the adjoining properties that required preservation. There was a question raised relative to the State Land Use Commission's comments. In that regazd, I would appreciate your taking the following into consideration: a. First of all, neither of these applicants -Suffolk Investment, LLC (hereinafter "SIL") and Puaa Development, LLC (hereinafter "PDL") - had anything to do with the creation of the subject parcels. They acquired their respective interest in the parcels after the properties were subdivided. As such, there was no covert intent by these entities to create smaller pazcels in an effort to by-pass the State Land Use Commission boundary amendment process. b. Additionally, these entities are two distinct entities. SIL is based in Denver, Colorado, while PDL is based here in Hawaii. None of the principals of these entities have any ownership interest in both entities. Their business relationship extends only to the point of a common desire to share the needed infrastructure cost for their respective projects, but to accelerate the completion of a mauka/makai connector road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. This roadway, when completed, would also address some regional transportation needs. Furthermore, neither of these entities is aware of a Pualani Makai master planned community. Their projects were conceived with an eye towazds addressing their perception of the community's commercial and rental housing needs and implementing the County General Plan and not necessarily any specific private master plan. c. While it is true that the azchaeological report covered both and adjoining properties - suggesting an application to cover the entire azea - neither of these entities was aware of the former property owner's plans to develop the entire property or to file a boundary amendment with the State LUC. Furthermore, you might also want to note that the master plan consultants for each of the projects were not the same.