PL-REZ-2022-000017 D. KAMAKA TESTIMONY 11.14.2022

Home

It appears that even though the applicant had specifically agreed in the Court decision to "front" the costs associated with subdividing, they now want to avoid paying. It also appears that the Court's recommendation on subdividing the parcel between the owners as the easiest solution was implied by LPH to be "Court -ordered." In fact, and as noted in the Court document, the Court can only recommend, not require or "order," a zoning change. Request to Avoid Department of Transportation (DOT) Safety Standards The DOT specifically requested that the applicant only access the property from Pomaikai Street, not Kuakini Highway, for safety reasons. LPH continues to push for Kuakini Highway access, stating, 'As the lot layout has not been finalized, the applicant wishes to retain the possibility of access to Kuakini Highway by one resulting lot if required by other factors. There are two concerns here. The first, obviously, is public safety. The second is that LPH also represents out-of-state landowners who have applied to build a cul-de- sac subdivision off Kapukapu Street. LPH has already stated in writing that they have contacted owners of the parcels between the Kapukapu property and Kuakini Highway to explore options to access the site. Special Management Area (SMA) Application Deferral The application states they want to apply for a "minor" SMA for each of the subdivided parcels AFTER a rezoning. Why? A "major" SMA requires more extensive public notice, signage, and hearing at the Leeward Planning Commission. An after -the -fact "minor" SMA, requires only the approval of the Planning Director (or should it be the Deputy Director, in this case?). Necessity of 6o-foot easement? The proposed subdivision map indicates a large historical easement adjacent to the northern ahupua`a boundary. The benefit of this large easement to the property owner, with the exception of access for additional developments makai, is unclear. Five Years Extension Language Included, Again The Planning Director's Recommendation again includes language to potentially extend the application approval from 5 years to io, for a variety of reasons that usually are rotely approved. This follows the letter but not the intent of Bill 194, introduced by Councilperson Inaba and approved by both Planning Commissions. The intent was to stop having projects go dormant and be revived years later. All this language does is bypass the Planning Commission directly to the Council — which may have the unintended consequence of removing, not adding, oversight and public input. It would seem that if standard language can be changed from "Planning Director," to "Deputy Planning Director," — in acknowledgement of the conflict of interest with the current Director's former firm being this applicant's representative — then surely the language on extensions can be removed. Genealogy /Mookuauhau