The state Land Use Commission (LUC) has scheduled a hearing on the show cause motion related to the development of Pi'ilani Promenade and Maui Outlets, two proposed malls in Kihei, for Friday, Aug. 24, at the Royal Lahaina Resort in the Maui Ballroom. The LUC will take public testimony--both oral and written--at that time.
The show cause motion determines if there is sufficient reason to reopen the file and further examine status of the disputed use of the property. According to Daniel Orondecker, LUC executive director, "If the motion is granted, the next step will be a full-blown evidentiary hearing."
If the motion is denied, he said, the appeal process is to the state Circuit Court.
Orondecker said the nine-member body expects to hear testimony, review the file and hopefully take a vote that day. A quorum is five of the nine members.
Residents who wish to send testimony by email should address their comments to LUC Chief Clerk Riley Hakoda (firstname.lastname@example.org) in a timely fashion.
The start time for the meeting has not yet been posted, but Hakoda said they usually begin around 9 or 9:30 a.m. Information will be available shortly on the LUC's Website (luc.state.hi.us/2012_calendar.htm).
The matter is listed by its original name, Ka'ono'ulu Ranch, with the docket number A94-706. Portions of the property are also referred to as Pi'ilani North and South, and Honua'ula (formerly called Wailea 670).
The project is headed by Eclipse Development of Irvine, California.
According to the Eclipse's Website, "Pi'ilani Promenade is made up of roughly 68 acres on Pi'ilani Highway in Kihei... [It] is currently in the pre-development phase and doing pre-leasing for spaces from 1,000 square feet to 160,000 square feet."
Opponents of the project claim it has not received any public review for more than 17 years and has changed significantly from its original purpose--so much that it no longer complies with conditions as then stipulated by the LUC when the entitlements were originally granted.
Advocates say that all the entitlements received in past years remain legal and that the current project, although somewhat different, remains within the law and complies with the original conditions. They assert that the case should not be reopened and the motion denied.