|
all, like, neither of the Applicants had any part in creating that subdivision before you.
<br />Back in June of 2004, a 5-lot consolidation and resubdivision action was approved by the
<br />Planning Director. And the 5 lots essentially, if you, if I can direct you to the map on my
<br />left, the farthest to, on the mauka side. There are actually, that area consists of
<br />approximately 64, 65 acres of land, and its this general area. And there was a
<br />consolidation and resubdivision application which resulted in a creation of one lot which
<br />was like this, this is one lot. The second lot was over here. This is the third lot; and this
<br />th
<br />is the fourth lot. There was the 5 lot, which is this little guy over here; and thats the
<br />road lot. So there was a 4-lot consolidation and resubdivision.
<br />After that was done, Puaa Development acquired three parcels - This top portion over
<br />here, and these two gray colored parcels. Suffolk Investment bought this property over
<br />here. Thereve been a lot of communications between Mr. McCabe and Mr. Cook,
<br />largely from an infrastructure standpoint; and Ill go into that to some detail a little bit
<br />later. But just in terms of trying to address the Land Use Commissions condition, it was
<br />not as though that, you know, neither of these, first of all, neither of these applicants had
<br />anything to do with the creation of this lot, trying to, you know, so-called undermine the
<br />intent of the land use law. They bought the properties as is.
<br />Secondly, as Mr. Takemoto pointed out, neither of these applicants have any relationship
<br />aside from a desire to do what they believe might be suitable for the community and try
<br />to specifically address both in terms of the affordable housing issue as well as the
<br />infrastructurequestion.TheLandUseCommissionsletteralsotalkedaboutaPualani-
<br />Makai master planned community. And I looked through the files, and there was nothing
<br />formally filed for a Land Use Boundary Amendment for that area. So these concepts
<br />were like independently developed and had no relationship with whatever was developed;
<br />and if it were filed, I dont believe there was any action on that.
<br />And, as Mr. Takemoto had indicated, I think, and thats partly the reason why I had made
<br />the request earlier that both of these applications should be more appropriately reviewed
<br />collectively, so at least the Commission and the public would have a better understanding
<br />of the cumulative impact of both projects.
<br />Having said that, I think that the staffs recommendation at the last meeting, you know,
<br />was deferred because they were waiting for Department of Transportations comments. I
<br />think that during that time, over the last month-and-a-half, it was a good period because
<br />both applicants have had a chance to sit down and discuss some of the more critical
<br />issues that the Planning Department, particularly that the Planning Director had. And,
<br />you know, we acknowledge, you know, the insights and the input provided by the
<br />Director, particularly the issues relating to infrastructure and, also, the affordable housing
<br />issues.
<br />So after we complete the presentation, I would hope that, you know, its not as though
<br />that neither of these applicants are not concerned with the infrastructure, not concerned
<br />with affordable housing. But I think that as we go through this presentation, we would
<br />7
<br />
<br />
|