2013-09-26 Leeward Exh B - Hualalai Partners

Home

You should not allow yourselves under the guise of home rule to have 96 acres. You’ll notice that it all, it covers all of the road from, all of Hualālai Road from Kuakini up to this area. Now, Mr. Barrett’s application stated his development would have access from south, from the Sugar Cane road. At the last hearing and again today Mr. Lim admitted Mr. Barrett’s development has no rights over the Sugar Cane road. And our information is that he can’t get any right. That makes his traffic study invalid, which assumes access to the south of the Sugar Cane road. That puts more pressure on the access that goes onto Hualālai Road. There will be no access to the south. Mr. Arai tries to cover this by saying, well, eventually, eventually. But there is no guarantee it’ll ever exist. GIFFIN: Excuse me. I take great umbrage in your attitude in terms of your verbiage. Please do not continue in that vein. VAN PERNIS: When Mr. Arai used the word “eventually,” there is no guarantee that that eventually will ever come true. All of the surrounding properties are greater than 10,000 and 15,000 square feet. And I believe it’s the job of the Planning Department and this Commission to protect the public. And they represent the public and neighbors, not, not the private developer. Finally, that’s the area designated under the Kona C.D.P. for agricultural use. All of the area around it is agricultural use. Mr. Lim has said, well, it’s a mistake, that should really be considered Urban. Mr. Arai referred to Planning Commissioner (sic) calling that, well, paint it as broadbrushed, ignore it. I point out that that’s Planning Commissioner (sic), Bobby Leithead Todd, not the present Planning Director, who made that decision. And Ms. Todd has been shown to be wrong in litigation, not, in her interpretation of when the C.D.P. applies or when does not. Please restore the integrity of the C.D.P.. If they want to develop, let them develop in a non-C.D.P. area, 20,000 or greater ag lots above. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Hearing none, thank you very much for coming forward this morning. Is there anyone else who would like to testify who did not take the time to sign up? Seeing none, hang on just a minute. Knowing that everyone who has, who wanted to testify this morning has come forward, and you were part of the six that testified, if there is no one else who would like to testify this morning, I would like to close this section of our hearing. So as of right now public testimony is closed. COMMAND: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Mr. Director. COMMAND: I’d just like to make one quick comment about improvements, or, I guess, impacts to the schools. GIFFIN: Yes. COMMAND: Department of Education has proposed an impact fee ordinance or has the ability to propose to impose impact fees upon new development on significantly, development that has not gone through the Land Use process. Normally, those impacts are, those impacts are normally addressed at the Land Use level, right, the State Land Use level in terms of education? 20 EXHIBIT B