Jesse Souki, director of the state Office of Planning, rebutted the County’s argument that the Pi’ilani Promenade Megamall is in compliance with County rules. Souki said:
“It is about whether the proposed project is substantially compliant with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order issued over 17 years ago on February 10, 1995,” Souki said.
“The state will show that if the petitioners are to proceed with their proposed Piilani Promenade and housing developments, as indicated for the first time in approvals drawn from the county, they would not be acting in accordance with the representations they made to the LUC in 1994 and ’95.”
Souki added: “Consequently, the question for the commission is not whether a shopping mall is a good idea for the region or whether affordable housing is needed in the region. . . . The crux of the matter is that the commission, the parties and the community were never presented with the project that the petitioners are proposing today. We shouldn’t be trying to avoid the process.”
Tom Pierce, attorney for the interveners, said the differences are “profound” between what was presented in 1995 and what is being proposed today.
“What this case is about is an attempt by developers to push a project through that will have significant impact for South Maui for decades to come without there having been an opportunity for county or state review . . . and certainly no opportunity for this Land Use Commission to review it,” Pierce said.
Read the whole article at Maui News