COM 0188.000 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

County Council - Committe on Planning Testimony for 1-21-97 re: Communication 123, Kohala Makai's rezoning application The following testimony was presented to the Planning Commission on August 1, 1996. It is as germane now as it was then. RE: New Business, Item # 6 -Kohala Waterfront Joint Venture (Formerly known as Kohala Makai One or KMO) From Richard Boyd of Hawi, North Kohala, Co-Chair Hui Lihikai Chairman Balog and Commission members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. The project before you has a long and dubious history. The EIS for this project was approved by the County Planning Dept. r, in 1982. It is highly doubtful that this EIS would pass muster under the more stringent environmental concerns of 1996. Twice the County Council i~passed Ordinances rezoning this land. Ordinance 878 in 1983 needed 6 o j ~ votes to pass as then Mayor Matayoshi had threatened a veto. It passed 6- > m ~ ~ 1-2. In 1984, Ordinance 84 54 was passed 8-0-0, rezoning this land to it's y present zoning. Then Council Chairman Steve Yamashiro, instructed Councilman James Dahlberg, a General Partner in this project, to vote on Ordinance 84-54, inspite of his obvious conflict of interest. The SMA permit was issued in 1984. That this permit, was allowed to F stand as is for 12 years, is a testament to either well connected owners or lax county regulations or possibly both. Hui Lihikai has followed the progress of this project with considerable interest since it was approved by the Planning Commission(PC) in July 1984. In July 1985, citing poor market conditions KMO requested a two year extension of its start/completion time as required in Ordinance 84 54. The Planning Dept.(PD) responded in May of 1986 that an extension was not needed. In December of 1987 KMO asked if they could develop half of the parcel with the other half developed later under the same conditions. They were told yes by the PD, if they could abide by Conditions B and C as listed in Ordinance 84-54 (Section 2, p.3.), "subject to County Council approval". No approval was sought or received. KMO's file at the PD has about 8 or 9 other communications between 1989 and 1992 mostly relating to submitting plans (which the present Planning Director said were misplaced), time limits, and so on. Then in April 1995 (perhaps at the prodding of a January 1995 letter from Hui Lihikai's Toni Withington to Keola Childs and cc'd to Virginia Goldstein) the Planning Director wrote Bob Cole of KMO and acknowledged the "receipt of the plans for plan approval review dated March 7, 1989". The point of bringing up all this past history,is to make clear to this Commission that a lot of very questionable events occurred during the years from 1983 to 1995 from which one might conclude that this project was as they say, " a done deal since it's inception in 1982. One is forced to ask, `could the average Joe Blow get away with the same shenanigans and receive the same treatment by the powers that be?' Let us hope that in the future such questionable ikaso? Ya 1n. a. ZN~~K1~ 20~ prosented ~L lest. Date JAN 2 1 _~a