HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-04 PL-REZ-2023-000053 Gail Rhoades Response to Sidney Fuke's March 3, 2024 Letter From: Gail Rhoades
To: Andrews.Jessica; Lee Loy.Sue; mbrestovanskyCabhawaiitribune-herald.com;Sidney Fuke; Robert Hamilton;
Jackson. Maiia; Kalysa Hamilton; Kamaluhiaokalani Mauna
Subject: MANONO CORNER LLC
Date: Monday,March 4, 2024 1:17:19 PM
Aloha Jessica. This email contains my comments in response to Mr. Fuke's
letter dated March 3, 2024 to Mr. Zendo Kern in response to my letter dated
February 20, 2024. As my testimony is limited to three minutes, I can't
possibly address all issues at the commission meeting. Please upload a
cony of this email to the March 7th Planning Commission Agenda
packet.
1 . Mr. Fuke's proposed "condition" language for the landowner to contact
the Department of Health is vague and does not address the issue in
its entirety. The presence of an underground petroleum storage tank
that more than likely has corroded over time is a major issue. If
rezoning is approved prior to this issue being addressed and resolved
then the commission is indemnifying the landowner for any potential
environmental hazards. I do not believe the commission has the
authority to do this as I believe it would violate the County Charter.
Unless the Planning Commission is going to accept any and all liability
for the environmental remediation, instead of the landowner, then the
Commission should pause or reject this rezoning matter until the issue
is resolved.
2. My letter to Mr. Zendo Kern dated February 20, 2024 clearly asks for
speed bumps to deter motorists from cutting through the proposed
parking lot from Lanikaula Street to Manono Street in order to avoid the
intersection. I never said nor implied that vehicles exiting the property
could not exit onto Manono Street.
3. The restriction of "right turn only" movements for outbound traffic onto
Manono Street from the property is the recommendation of the Public Works
Department, which I concur with.
4. Prohibiting vehicle inducing entities on the proposed site in my opinion
is not "cherry picking" commercial/ industrial uses. The lot size is finite so
"additional parking" would not be possible if the applicant builds according
to the site plan
that was submitted.
5. Placing a sunset clause on the limitation of hours of operation is self-
defeating. We ask that hours of operation be limited to 6am to 10pm
without a sunset clause.
Thank you for your attention in this important matter.
&ail Rhoades