Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 1077.000 2018-2020
Harry Kim Mayor Roy Takemoto Managing Director West Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Phone (808) 323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 County of Hawai` i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Michael Yee Director April Surprenant Acting Deputy Director East Hawaii Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 Dear Chair Chung and Council Members: SUBJECT: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-000025) Applicant: Puaa Development LLC Request: Amendment to Condition B C, E, F, H, I, V, W, Y, Z, and BB Tax Map Key: 7-5-017:001 As directed by the County Clerk, we are transmitting a draft bill reflecting the applicant's request to change conditions of Ordinance No. 05-115. To be clear, the Planning Department and Planning Commission do not support the approval of these amendments. In their meeting held on August 20, 2020, the Leeward PC voted unanimously to uphold the Director's unfavorable recommendation. Should there be any questions, please contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158. e -Sincerely, lk�q � MICHAEL YEE Planning Director LPuaaAREZ05-025Ordinance Enclosures <6i11 a®® www.hiplanningdept.com Comm. No. 1 Di 1 Ref. TC; Ref. dote SEP 18 a Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planningzgbawaiicounty.gov :pry*�(;� September 17, 2020 :.;.Mid Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair 6 ...:.;.�� -� and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Chung and Council Members: SUBJECT: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-000025) Applicant: Puaa Development LLC Request: Amendment to Condition B C, E, F, H, I, V, W, Y, Z, and BB Tax Map Key: 7-5-017:001 As directed by the County Clerk, we are transmitting a draft bill reflecting the applicant's request to change conditions of Ordinance No. 05-115. To be clear, the Planning Department and Planning Commission do not support the approval of these amendments. In their meeting held on August 20, 2020, the Leeward PC voted unanimously to uphold the Director's unfavorable recommendation. Should there be any questions, please contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158. e -Sincerely, lk�q � MICHAEL YEE Planning Director LPuaaAREZ05-025Ordinance Enclosures <6i11 a®® www.hiplanningdept.com Comm. No. 1 Di 1 Ref. TC; Ref. dote SEP 18 a Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planningzgbawaiicounty.gov Harry Kim Mayor C�au�r��r n��AUM`i Roy Takemoto Managing Director Barbara J. Kossow Deputy Managing Director Wm/A a of fhr,nvor 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2603 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy., Bldg. C • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 323-4444 • Fax (808) 323-4440 September 9, 2020 Aaron S. Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Chung and Members: SUBJECT: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-000025) Applicant: Puaa Development LLC Request: Amendment to Condition B C, E, F, H, I, V, W, Y, Z, and BB Tax Map Key: 7-5-017:001 As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Leeward Planning Commission's letter and enclosures regarding the above -referenced requests. Sincerel , HARRY KIM Mayor TCouncilPuaaP,EZ04-025A05-115 Enclosures cc: Planning Department County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Harry Kim Mayor Roy Takemoto Managing Director tV - 7 2020 County of Hawai` i LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 9 Fax (808) 961-8742 Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Chung and Council Members: Nancy Carr Smith, Chair Perry Kealoha, Vice -Chair Scott Church Mark Van Pernis Michael Vitousek Faith "Faye" Yates SUBJECT: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-000025) Applicant: Puaa Development LLC Request: Amendment to Condition B C, E, F, I3, I, V, W, Y, Z, and BB Tax Map Key: 7-5-017:001 The Leeward Planning Commission, at its continued meeting on August 20, 2020, considered the above -referenced request for an amendment to Conditions B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental Traffic Study), Condition F (Roadway Improvements), Condition H (Location of Spine Road), Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Condition V (Requirement for a 5 - Acre School Site and Improvements), Condition W (Fair Share Contribution), Condition Y (Affordable Housing Timing), Condition Z (Housing), and Condition BB (Administrative Time Extension) to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115. The property is located west (makai) of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the Pualani Estates Subdivision, and about 1,400 feet north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway - Kuakini Highway intersection, Puaapuaaiki 1St and Puapuaanui 1St, North Kona, Hawaii. The Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council, ultimately adopting the Planning Director's reasons for the unfavorable recommendation as follows: The applicant, Pua`a Development, LLC, has submitted an application to amend numerous conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 15-115, which was originally Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 2 approved on August 5, 2005 to change of zoning from an Agricultural (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) district for 14.973 acres of land. Concurrently, Ordinance No. 05-114 was approved to change the State Land Use Boundary designation from Agricultural to Urban. As the subject Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 has time performance and infrastructure obligation conditions that the applicant has not met or reasonably fulfilled, the applicant is requesting time extensions as well as amendments to certain conditions of the ordinance, specifically Conditions B, C, E, F, H, I, V, W, Y, Z and BB of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115. These amendments are to the following conditions: ■ Condition B: (Time Extension to Pay Water Deposit) ■ Condition C (Time Extension to Complete Construction) ■ Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR) ■ Condition F (Modify/Delete Already Implemented Portions of Roadway Improvements) ■ Condition H (Modify Requirement for Location of Spine Road within Project Site) ■ Condition I (Modify Required Location of Kuakini Highway Intersection) ■ Condition V (Delete Reference to Fair Share In -Lieu Credit for School Site and Improvements) ■ Condition W (Modify Fair Share Provision) ■ Condition Y (Delete Housing Requirement) ■ Condition Z (General Plan — Affordable Housing) ■ Condition BB (Modify Condition to Allow Administrative Time Extension The applicant originally proposed to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to primarily serve residents of the neighboring residential subdivisions and was not intended to be a regional shopping center. The original proposal included a Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 3 93,600 square -foot complex which would house varied commercial uses, such as financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. Also proposed was 500+ parking stalls with appropriate accessibility requirements. According to the applicant, the shopping center project concept is part of this current proposal but includes a proposed reduction in the size of the commercial project from 93,600 square -feet to 72,600 square -feet. Also included in this current proposal is the inclusion of a "transit hub" in the form of a public bus transfer station, as well as the addition of 100 multiple -family residential units. There were several reasons cited for the amendment requests. According to the applicant, one of the reasons for not completing the project within a timely manner is that due to the global economic meltdown that occurred over a decade ago, securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented was too difficult to obtain and thus they decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses of the property, and exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current economic outlook is amenable, however time is still needed for the applicant to address the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the required financing. Another reason given is that they have worked on compliance for several conditions, including the conveyance of a 5 -acre site for a future school as required by Condition V, but it ultimately did not get approved. The subdivision of the school site from the subject parcel received tentative approval, however final approval was contingent upon making substantial infrastructure improvements that would be feasible only if the commercial and residential project were developed simultaneously. Lastly, although there has been no physical construction that has occurred, the applicant states that they have expended a considerable amount of "soft" funds. These funds include nearly $1 million spent for more detailed land use planning and the preparation of infrastructure construction plans for this project, as well as the adjoining residential project proposed by Suffolk Development, LLC. While the proposed requests meet the Urban Expansion LUPAG designation and are in an area served by existing infrastructure, several primary factors necessitate this unfavorable recommendation. First, the zoning of the subject property is not consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) and the General Plan. Second, the retention of the existing zoning would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time, therefore the Planning Director believes that a Project District zoning designation is more appropriate. Additionally, the Director feels that the requested time extension and amendment requests would support the continuation of a speculative entitlement of the subject property for the purpose of resale. Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 4 The zoning of the subject property does not conform to the goals, policies, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan and the General Plan and would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time. In considering time extension and other amendments to change of zone ordinances, the Planning Director must determine how the requests conform to applicable goals, policies, standards and courses of action of the current General Plan and adopted Community Development Plans. The subject change of zone ordinance was approved by the County Council on August 5, 2005, just over three (3) years prior to the adoption of the Kona CDP on September 25, 2008. The County Council also recently approved a slate of interim amendments to the Kona CDP September 18, 2019. The Land Use section of the Kona CDP serves as policy guide for County decisions regarding physical development in Kona. It establishes a suggested framework for future growth by identifying the County's major policies concerning the type and location of future development in order to meet the goals and objectives of the Kona CDP, which was created and approved with a tremendous amount of community input and involvement. The subject, property is situated within the Kona Urban Area (UA) as designated by the CDP. Within the UA, growth is to be directed to compact villages located along ,proposed transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development into the Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs). The CDP identified general locations of TODs within floating zones that are to become fixed pursuant to a Project District Rezoning process. The CDP identifies two (2) types of TODs based on type of urban core articulated for the area: 1) Regional Center which is intended to encompass larger population centers intended for a mix of residential, retail, commercial, employment and/or regional one -of - a -kind civic facilities like Kailua Village, Makaeo, and Honokohau and 2) Neighborhood Village, which are smaller in scale predominately residential, public/civic uses, or small- scale neighborhood- oriented commercial uses. The subject property and adjacent lands are situated within the Kahului-Puapua` a Village TOD, designated as a neighborhood village. CDP Policy LU -2.1 recommends that TODs be developed as compact, mixed-use villages, characterized by a village center within a higher -density urban core, roughly equivalent to a 5 -minute walking radius (1/4 mile), surrounded by a secondary mixed- use, mixed -density area with an outer boundary roughly equivalent to a 10 -minute walking radius from the village center (1/2 mile). Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 5 As previously stated, the suggested location of a TOD is fixed through a Project District (PD) Rezoning Application. According to the Zoning Code, the project district development is intended to provide for a flexible and creative planning approach rather than specific land use designations, for quality developments. It will also allow for flexibility in location of specific uses and mixes of structural alternatives. The planning approach would establish a continuity in land uses and designs while providing for a comprehensive network of infrastructural facilities and systems. A variety of uses as well as open space, parks, and other project uses are intended to be in accord with each individual project district objective. A project district is an amendment to this chapter which changes the district boundaries in accordance with the individual project district. Furthermore, the PD zoning allows for the flexibility to develop any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the RS, RD, RM, RCX, CN, CG, CV or V districts provided, that each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for residential and hotel uses are contained in a master plan for the PD and in the PD enabling ordinance. According to the CDP, the PD application process should further include the development of a conceptual master plan to comprehensively address a mix of permitted uses and density; street layout and standards, transit routes and facilities, and bike and pedestrian pathways; village center public facilities; infrastructure requirements and timing; neighborhood park and public space standards; a phasing plan; and calculation and treatment of density transfer area, if any. Additionally, the Project District would allow for an increase of permitted uses and densities versus the limitations of the existing zoning. The CDP also suggests the use of Village Design Guidelines (VDGs) as a guide to the development of the conceptual master plan(s). The intent of VDGs is to ensure that the TOD is comprehensively developed as a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian oriented development intended to increase transit use and manage traffic congestion. The VDGs encourage residences, shopping, employment and recreational uses located within close proximity with each other and efficiently organized to provide for the daily needs of the residents. The VDGs consider a range of housing types and affordability within pedestrian -oriented, human -scale neighborhoods, incorporate natural features, open space, and cultural features, provide efficient circulation systems for pedestrians, non - motorized vehicles, and motorists and motorists that serve to functionally and physically integrate various land use activities; and promote strong neighborhood identity and focus. The applicant has argued that the existing land use plans submitted with the amendment requests for the subject property and RM zoned property (Suffolk Investments LLC) adjacent to the west (makai) reflects the TOD concept by Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 6 incorporating a transit center on the subject commercially zoned property, providing roadway connectivity, providing housing, addressing drainage and providing goods and services to the proposed and immediately surrounding communities. Since the adoption of the CDP, single -district zoning (e.g. RM/CN) is not appropriate for development within a TOD. The CDP identifies the Project District zoning district as the mechanism to achieve the mix of land uses and required densities to support a Transit Oriented Development. Thus, retaining the existing zoning will not allow the integrated approach required to develop the compact, walkable, mixed-use village -style development recommended by the CDP for neighborhood village TODs. The recommended use of the Project District application process and development of an associated conceptual master plan in accordance with the Village Design Guidelines is the only way to fully achieve with the preferred development pattern of the Kahului- Puapua`a Village TOD articulated in the CDP. The applicant also stated that conditions of approval of the requested rezone amendment ordinance could further implement the TOD concept. First, the applicant suggested a condition of approval could designate the project area as a "Neighborhood TOD" site, which would act as a policy statement guiding the development of adjacent parcels should they ever request an entitlement change. A second condition of approval would require plans for Plan Approval to comply with the Village Design Guidelines articulated in the CDP. According to the applicant, these proposed conditions would allow the Planning Department to guide the gradual development of the TOD with multiple owners, without the need of a master developer or master plan. The Director feels that the CDP has already identified the property and surrounding areas as a Neighborhood TOD, so this does not need to be done through conditions of approval of individual rezone ordinances. Furthermore, this scheme would unnecessarily create a new development process through separate zoning ordinances, when a more appropriate, community -vetted, comprehensive master planning process has already been established in the CDP for development within a TOD. Additionally, the proposed process would shift the burden to the County to act as a de facto project manager for development across multiple parcels by having to monitor implementation conditions of multiple rezone ordinances rather than one Project District ordinance and associated master plan as recommended by the CDP. Furthermore, the existing CN -20 zoning limits density to 1,250 square -feet per residential unit and to 20,000 square feet per building site for commercial uses. Therefore, the mixed -uses and densities recommended for TOD cores cannot be established under the current zoning. Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 7 Finally, the applicant indicated that the requirement of a Project District is unworkable as the combined size of parcels making up the project area is approximately 29.85 acres (14.872 acres for Suffolk Investments, LLC and 14.973 acres for Pua`a Development, LLC respectively), which is less than the minimum 50 acres required by code for a Project District. Based on a review of County Real Property Tax (RPT) and State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) records, the subject 14.973 -acre property is owned by Pua`a Development, LLC. Pua`a Development, LLC is also the only listed managing member of Suffolk Investment, LLC, which owns the adjacent property. Pua`a Development, LLC also owns all the properties immediately surrounding the subject property, including TMK: 7-5-017:023, TMK: 7-5-017:026 and TMK: 7-5-017:039, which totals 46.87 acres. Adding the land area of the subject parcel would create a total of 61.74 acres between parcels owned by these two connected entities. As further discussed below, the Director feels that given the shared ownership interest of the subject and surrounding parcels, there is sufficient land area to accommodate the minimum land area required for Project District zoning. Another negative factor for this unfavorable recommendation is the past segmentation of this are in securing planning entitlements. Subdivision No. 7814 was approved in 2004, to create a five (5) -lot subdivision, in which four (4) of the lots resulted in an area just under 15 acres in size. Please note, the State Land Use Commission rather than County Council must approve State Land Use Boundary Amendments for properties 15 acres or more in size. In 2005, both Pua`a Development, LLC and Suffolk Investment, LLC applied for and received approval for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban designation for their respective properties. At the time of processing, these applications did not go to the Land Use Commission as they were represented by the applicants as separate entities and were under 15 acres in size. The Land Use Commission commented that while they had no specific objections to the proposed project, they had strong objections to the manner in which they were being processed under HRS §205-3.1 (Amendments to district boundaries). They believed that both the Village Center (Pua`a) and the rental housing project (Suffolk) were part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and the permitting was deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. Although the original 2005 boundary amendments were approved in an incrementalized manner, in order to implement the TOD concept and Project District Zoning recommended by the CDP, the applicant will be required to seek a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban district for the surrounding properties that under joint ownership from the State Land Use Commission. Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 8 The proposed time extension and amendments do not comply with General Plan Policy 14.3.5.7.2 of the Land Use — Commercial Development section, which states, "Controls to prevent speculative practices on commercially zoned lands may be established" In the case of the subject, CN -zoned parcel, the applicant has gone well beyond the time performance requirements of the existing ordinance, which required completion of the development within five (5) years (by August 5, 2010). The applicant did not apply for an additional five (5) years through an administrative time extension, but if they had been granted such an extension construction of the proposed project should have been complete by August 8, 2015. The applicant waited over four (4) years to attempt to revive their stale ordinance and is only doing so now to either sell the property or secure a development partner for this and the adjacent commercial development. The applicant is now requesting to amend Condition C to require construction to commence within five (5) years to be complete within ten (10) years of the effective date of the amended ordinance. In addition, the applicant is requesting the inclusion of our standard administrative time extension condition, which would effectively double the applicant's construction commencement timeframe to ten (10) years and completion timeframe to twenty (20) years. For both properties, the Planning Department requested that the applicant provide a detailed development timeline and plan for how they intend to complete construction within the extended timeframe requested, including any proposed phasing or trackable benchmarks. In response, the applicant provided the name and website of a potential development partner for the projects but did not provide the detailed documents requested. Although the applicant has developed some engineering plans for drainage and roadways over a decade ago, there has been no recent demonstrated performance of other conditions of approval, such as developing archaeological mitigation plans, finalizing highway access approvals, completing a sewer study and solid waste management plan, flooding/drainage improvements, water system improvements (or paid outstanding water commitments for 142 units), and executing an affordable housing agreement. Based on past these performance deficiencies and a lack of the requested development timeline, the applicant has not demonstrated, to the Director's satisfaction, the ability to develop the property in a timely manner. Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 9 Based on the preceding, the Director feels that the requested time extension and other amendment requests without any trackable benchmarks would support the continuation of a speculative entitlement of the subject property for the purpose of resale. Based on the Kona Community Development Plan, which was approved with a tremendous amount of community input and involvement and to achieve consistency with the broad goals of the General Plan and the more specific regional goals identified in the Kona Community Development Plan, the Planning Director does not believe retention of the current zoning is appropriate in this area and is recommending that the applicant(s) pursue a State Land Use Boundary amendment for the remaining two adjacent properties and submit a Change of Zone to a Project District for the approximately 60 -acre area to establish the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood Transit -Oriented Development. Based on the preceding findings, the Planning Director recommends that an unfavorable recommendation for the applicant's amendments to Conditions B, C, D, E, F, H, I, U, V, X, Z, and BB of Ordinance No. 05-115 be forwarded to the County Council. We have also enclosed copies of the Background Report, Planning Director's Recommendation, Powerpoint presentation, numerous correspondences from the Applicant's Consultant Sidney Fuke, Planning Department August 13, 2020 letter, email testimonies, transcript of the hearings held on February 20, 2020 and June 18, 2020. The draft transcript of the hearing on August 20, 2020 will be provided under separate cover for your information. Sincerely, Sept. 7, 2020 Nancy Carr Smith, Chair Leeward Planning Commission LPuaaAREZ05-0251pc2 Enclosures cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply John Mukai Esq., Corporation Counsel BP uaaD evelopmentLLCAinendREZ. aj r.2.10.2020 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 05-115 (REZ 2004-000025) PUA'A DEVELOPMENT, LLC has submitted an application to amend numerous conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115, which includes Condition B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR), Condition F (Roadway Improvements), Condition H (Location of Spine Road within Project Site), Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Condition V (School Site), Condition W (Fair Share), Condition Y (Housing Requirement), Condition Z (Affordable Housing Language), and Condition BB (Administrative Time Extension). Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 reclassified the 14.973 -acre property from Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a) to Neighborhood -Commercial 20,000 -square feet (CN -20) in 2005. The subject property is located approximately 1/ mile south of the intersection of Hualdlai Road and"the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (Route 11) and 1/ mile north of the Kuakini Highway/Route 11 intersection, Puapua' a 1St and 2nd, North Kona, Hawai'i, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:001. APPLICANT'S REQUESTS AND REASONS 1. Applicant's Requests: As the subject Change of Zone Ordinance has time perfonnance and infrastructure obligation conditions that the applicant cannot meet or reasonably, fulfill, the applicant is requesting time extensions as well as amendments to certain conditions of the ordinance, specifically Conditions B, C, E, F, H, I, V, W, Y, Z and BB of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115. The applicant is requesting amendments to the following conditions: ■ Condition B: (Tune Extension to Pay'Water Deposit) ■ Condition C (Time Extension to Complete Construction) ■ Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR) ■ Condition F (Reflect Approving Entity/Delete Already Implemented Portions of Roadway Improvements) -1- ■ Condition H (Modify Requirement for Location of Spine Road within Project Site) ■ Condition I (Modify Required Location of Kuakini Highway Intersection) ■ Condition V (Delete Entire Condition Relating to School Site) ■ Condition W (Modify Fair Share Provision to Remove Reference to School Site) ■ Condition Y (Delete Entire Condition Relating to Housing Requirement) ■ Condition Z (Affordable Housing Language) ■ Condition BB (Modify Condition to Allow Administrative Time Extension 2. Applicant's Reasons for the Requests: After receiving the zoning approval in 2005, the applicant did some work to address a number of conditions over the following 2-3 years, including conveyance of a 5 -acre site for a future school as required by Condition V. The subdivision of the school site from the subject parcel received tentative approval, however final approval was contingent upon making substantial infrastructure improvements that would be feasible only if the commercial and residential project were developed simultaneously. Due to global economic meltdown that occurred over a decade ago, the applicant believes that securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented was too difficult to obtain and thus decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses of the property, and exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current economic outlook is amenable, however time is still needed for the applicant to address the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the required financing. 3. Current Proposed Plan: The applicant initially proposed to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to primarily serve residents of the neighboring residential subdivisions. The original project was not intended to be a regional shopping center. The original proposal included a 93,600 square -foot complex that would house varied conunercial uses, such as financial institutions and office spaces. Also proposed was 500+ parking stalls with appropriate accessibility requirements. According to the applicant, the current proposal includes a proposed reduction in the size of the commercial project from 93,600 square feet to 72,600 square feet. Also included in this -2- current proposal is the inclusion of a "transit hub" in the form of a public bus transfer station, as well as the addition of 100 multiple -family residential units. 4. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the attached in support of the request: (Planning Department Exhibit 1 - Application for Time Extension and Amendments to Ordinance No. 05-115 dated November 12, 2019 and Planning Department Exhibit 2 - Letters dated January 22, 2020 and February 4, 2020 from Sidney Fuke) 5. Landowner: Pua`a Development LLC; c/o Brian Cook. Pua`a Development also owns the subject property (TMK: 7-5-017:001), TMK: 7-5-017:023, TMK: 7-5-017:026 and TMK: 7-5-017:039, which totals 46.87 acres. Suffolk Investments, LLC owns the adjoining parcel (TMK: 7-5-017:019), in which the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) records show that Pua`a Development, LLC and Brian Cook are managing members of Suffolk Investments, LLC. This property is 14.87 acres in size. The total acreage of these parcels owned by these two connected entities is 61.74 acres. (Planning Department Exhibit 3 — DCCA record and Real Property Tax Records for TMKs 7-5-017:001, 023, 026, 039) CHRONOLOGY OF LAND USE PERMITTING 6. June 4, 2004: Subdivision (SUB) No. 7814 was approved for recordation with the Bureau of Conveyances by County of Hawaii Planning Director. (Planning Department Exhibit 4 — Subdivision Map for SUB 7814 showing ownership of each parcel) 7. February 8, 2005: State Land Use (SLU) Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-009) to reclassify subject parcel from the SLU Agricultural to Urban zoning district was approved via Ordinance No. 05-114. 8. August 5, 2005: Effective date of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115, approved by the County Council to change the zoning of the subject properties from Agricultural - 5 acres (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial -20,000 square feet (CN -20). (Planning Department Exhibit 5 — Change of Zone Ordinance 05-115) -3- 9. August 13, 2008: The Planning Department issued tentative subdivision approval to consolidate Lots 1-5 and re -subdivide into eight (8) new lots (SUB -07-00610). The proposed consolidation and resubdivision included the subject parcel as well as surrounding TMKs. 10. March 2, 2010: Planning Department issued a time extension request for the submission of the final plat map, pursuant to Condition No. 10 of the Tentative Approval granted in III 11. September 6, 2011: Planning Department issued an administrative time extension until August 5, 2015 for Condition C (Time to Complete Construction) as allowed by Condition BB of Ordinance No. 05-115. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 12. State Land Use Designation Urban. 13. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: The subject parcel is designated as both Urban Expansion (ue), which allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial, industrial -commercial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined, and Low Density Urban (ldu), which allows for residential uses, with ancillary community and public uses, and neighborhood and convenience -type commercial uses; overall residential density may be up to six (6) units per acre. 14. Kona Development Plan (CDP): The Kona CDP, adopted by the Hawaii County Council by Ordinance No. 08-131 on September 25, 2008 affects the subject property. The subject property is located within the designated Kona CDP Urban Area and situated within the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood Transit -Oriented Development (TOD). 15. County Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 -square feet (CN -20). According to the Zoning Code, the CN district applies to strategically located centers suitable for commercial activities which shall be of such size and shape as will accommodate a -4- compact shopping center which supplies goods and services to a residential or working population on a frequent need or convenience basis. 16. Special Management Area (SMA): The SMA is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program regulated by the County. The property is situated approximately 800 -feet from the nearest shoreline and is not within the County's SMA. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA 17. Project Site: The subject parcel has a total area of 14.973 acres and is irregular in shape. The parcel is located on the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road (State Route 11), directly across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision. The Wai`aha drainageway bisects the subject parcel which has affected the configuration of the parcel boundaries. The majority of the subject parcel is overgrown with thick stands ofKiawe, with a small access road (paved) which enters the parcel along Route 11 that includes a utility pole line along its northern boundary. 18. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Lands in the vicinity of the proposed project are zoned as such: to the north and north-east there are large Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a) zoned parcels; to the west/south-west and across Kuakini Highway is a residential subdivision zoned single-family residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) (Kahakai Estates Subdivision); directly to the west is a multiple -family residential (RM -2.5) zoned parcel, also owned by the applicant. The subject parcel borders the Hawaii Belt Road; across the highway and to the east of the subject parcel is the single-family residential 7,500 square - foot (RS -7.5) zoned Pualani Estates Subdivision. Directly south, and adjacent to the subject parcel is agricultural zoned parcels varying between 1 and 5 -acres (A -la & A-5 a). 19. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): Approximately 90% of the property is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone X, an area considered to have a minimal flood hazard. The remaining portion of the property lies within the FEMA Flood Zone AE, which is a portion of the Wai`aha Drainageway Splitflow #2. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was submitted and adopted by FEMA on September 29, 2017. Currently Special Flood Hazard Areas AE -5- and X affect the subject parcel as designated by the updated FIRM. All development plans, drainage studies; and other related documents shall reflect the September 29, 2017 FIRM. 20. Archaeological/Historical Resources: The applicant submitted a letter from the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) dated August 27, 2008 regarding a revised Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) report. The AIS included revised and updated significance assessments and recommended general treatments. SHPD concurred with the revised and updated report as final and stated "[the applicant] may now proceed with preparation of a data recovery plan, burial treatment plan, non -burial site preservation plan, and monitoring plan for the project area." The updated survey of approximately 65 - acres identified 65 sites and 138 features. The sites include platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, walls, and a historic period roadway and ranching feature. Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant, however, they were given a "no ficrther world' recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their information content but required further work. The remaining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. Two (2) of the burials or possible burials may be within the project site (Sites 14048 and 14126). It is also proximate the possible habitation site (Site 14123). The applicant will be required by conditions to implement the recommended treatments and plans for the archaeological sites on the property. 21. Flora/Fauna Resources: A botanical study of the subject parcel and surrounding area was completed in October 2003 by and agent for the applicant. The report indicates that the property consists of thick stands of kiawe and opiuma forest with minor koa haole interspersed. There is a dense cover of Guinea grass that grows between the larger trees, and the report notes that there are a few native plants, most of which occur on the rocky outcrops. The native plants include uhaloa, ilihee, ilima, koali awa, and ala ala wai nui, however, none of the plants recorded on the property are considered threatened or endangered species of concern. Regarding faunal resources, no professional survey was - W completed. The applicant believes that the common non-native bird species (i.e., myna, dove, etc.) and common non-native mammals (i.e., cats, dogs, mongoose) are the only species that would be present on the subject parcel. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 22. Traffic/Access: On July 20, 2004 the applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) for the proposed rezone of the subject parcel in support of Ordinance No. 05-113. The TIAR made the following findings in 2004: 1) The project is expected to generate 118 AM peak hour trips and 145 PM peak hour trips to the roadway network. 2) A traffic signal is needed at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road with or without this project, and 3) The signalized intersection of Pualani Subdivision Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at a satisfactory LOS in 2008 with the additional traffic created by the apartment complex. During the original rezone proposal it was determined that the property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004-123556) in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 7814. The declaration states that the declarant is subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "1" (a 60 -foot wide easement for roadway and utility purposes) be completed as required by the Subdivision Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the property. In support of this proposed amendment, the applicant has submitted an updated TIAR, dated October 2019 for the Pualani Makai Mixed -Use Development project. The amendment request was sent to HDOT but did not specifically ask for HDOT to review the updated TIAR. In their comment letter dated January 16, 2020) HDOT recommends that the proposed deletion amendment for Condition E by the -7- applicant be replaced with "An updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR), dated October 2019, was prepared for the Pualani Makai Mixed -Use Development and will be provided to HDOT for review and acceptance prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval." HDOT concurred with the second addition to Condition E as well as the amendment to Condition F. According to the updated TIAR all traffic movements at the Pualani Makai access intersections on Route 11 and Kuakini Highway are expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at the full buildout and occupancy of the proposed development. Staff notes that the TIAR suggests that beyond the Year 2024, the left -turn movements from Hualalai Road and from Kuakini Highway onto Route 11 are expected to deteriorate to worse than acceptable LOS due to the overall growth in regional traffic. This may be remedied by proposed future widening of the bounding highways by HDOT, however those plans have yet to be finalized. The Hawaii County Dept. of Public Works (DPW) recommends that access to Kuakini Highway shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision or the applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the Sunstone Development located nearby so that the access to both developments are opposing each other on Kuakini Highway. Site access is proposed at the existing signalized intersection of Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway (Route 11) and Puapuaanui Street; however, there is a property (Parcel 39) located between the subject property and Highway 11. This property is also currently owned by the applicant but does not appear to include any easements over it to provide direct access from the subject property to the highway. Access is also proposed via a new mauka-makai roadway between Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway, hereinafter referred to as the "Spine Road". The Spine road will be stop -controlled at its four -legged intersection with Kuakini Highway, opposite Nakukui Drive, and will be the primary access point from Kuakini Highway. Access shall meet the approval of the DPW and shall have the provision of adequate sight distances. 23. Water: According to the Department of Water Supply (DWS), the subject parcel and parcels included in SUB -07-000610 (SUB 7814) are subject to the "Settlement Agreement and Release" of March 17, 2004, which provides a water commitment for 510 -8- water units [at an average of 400 gallons per day/per unit]. The water commitment consists of 368 units of water from the "Kealakekua Source Agreement" and 142 units of water that are subject to conditions in the 2004 settlement (with no expiration date). At least 100 units of water will be required for the multiple -family residential component of the proposed project. The DWS is requesting that the applicant submit estimated maximum daily water usage calculations, prepared by a professional engineer, for review and approval. Upon acceptance of the water usage calculations, the BWS will determine the amount of water units, water commitment deposits, facilities charges to be paid, and water system improvements required for water service. Staff inquired of the applicant regarding the use of the 510 water units and how they were going to be shared with the current proposed developments (Pua`a and Suffolk) and the other adjoining parcels. The applicant answered that there are no plans for the balance. As such, after water use calculation study done per DWS' requirement, the residual would be assigned to the other parcels. The exact division among those undeveloped parcels is unknown at this time. 24. Wastewater: The applicant proposes to connect the proposed project to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The applicant will perform an engineering study to detennine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. No alternative was provided for sewer or wastewater controls if capacity is unable to handle the additional inputs. By comment letter dated December 20, 2019 the Hawaii Dept. of Health (DOH) supports the sewer requirements made by the County for the proposed project. 25. Solid Waste: The applicant intends to utilize commercial haulers to dispose of refuse generated by the proposed development at the County landfill at Pu'uanahulu. A Solid Waste Management Plan, approved by the Department of Environinental Management, will be implemented by the applicant to handle solid waste during construction and operation of the proposed development. 26. Drainage: The applicant will comply with the requirements and recommendations of the Department of Public Works (DPW) which include the submittal of detailed drainage studies and following the requirements of Chapter 27 — Floodplain Management of the Hawai'i County Code. A culvert and related drainage improvements will be constructed within the AE designated area (Splitway #2) to allow for a road connection between the northern and southern sections of the property. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for this current improvement and adjustments to the FIRM has been submitted for review and approval by the FEMA. The applicant has prepared two (2) construction plans: 1) DOT Drainage Culvert Improvements, and 2) Picalani Makai Flood Channel which were developed and coordinated to address the road and drainage requirements of the project area. Currently, there is an 8 -foot wide pipe that crosses the extension of the Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway in the vicinity of the project site. This DOT installed system is undersized, therefore the DOT subsequently approved the DOT Drainage Culvert improvements plan that recommends a bigger culvert (20 -feet wide) and a 40 -foot wide concrete U-shaped channel from the Highway into a 2 -acre, 25 -foot deep retention basin near Kuakini Highway. According to the applicant, a culvert and related drainage improvements will be constructed within the AE designated are to allow for a road connection between the northern and southern ends of the property. The applicant acknowledges that there may be and added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, therefore, drywells or similar types of accommodations will be implemented, subject to the review and approval of DPW and the DOH via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit process. 27. Essential Utilities and Services: Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 -miles north of the project site. There are three (3) fire stations within five (5) miles from the site, including Kailua- Kona, Kealakehe, and Pu`uola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS - 28. State Dept. of Transportation: (Planning Department Exhibit 6 — Letters dated January 16, 2020 and January 21, 2005) 29. State Dept. of Health: (Planning Department Exhibit 7 — January 27, 2020 Memo) 30. Dept. of Water Supply: (Planning Department Exhibit 8 — January 8, 2020 Memo) -10- 31. Dept. of Public Works — Engineering Division: (Planning Department Exhibit 9 — December 18, 2019 Memo) ' 32. State Land Use Commission: (Planning Department Exhibit 10 — October 4, 2004 Letter; NOTE: Letter was in response to the original SLU Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009); to date no LUC comments have been received for the current application. AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 33. Dept. of Public Works — Traffic Div.; Dept. of Education (DOE); Charter School Commission; Fire Dept.; Office of Housing and Community Development; DLNR — DOFAW, Engineering, SHPD, & Land Division. AGENCIES - NO COMMENTS/ NO CONCERNS 34. Department of Environmental Management (DEM); Police Dept. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS 35. The applicant submitted the following in response to agency comments: • (Planning Department Exhibit 11— January 22, 2020 letter from Sidney Fuke) PUBLIC COMMENTS 36. As of the date of this writing, the Planning Department has not received any comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject request. J APPLICATION FOR A TIME EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS B. Cq E -` Fq Hq 19 V, W, Y. Z, AND BB, OF ORDINANCE NO. 05 115 APPLICANT': PUAA DEVELOPMENT LLC' Puapua' a 1St and 2nd North Kona, Hawai 'Ni TMK: (3) 7-5-17: 001 Prepared For: Puaa Development LLC Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant October 2019 Planning Dept. Exhibit .--L,- ' 1 r rr TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As landowner and applicant, I hereby authorize the submittal and processing of a time extension and other amendments to Ordinance No. 05115 relating to the development of a shopping center and multiple -family residential project on property identified by TMK: 7-5-017: 001. BRIAN R. COOK (Date) PUAA DEVELOPMENT LLC AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS B, C, E, F, H, I, V, W, Y, Z, BB ORDINANCE NO. 05 115 PUAA DEVELOPMENT LLC PUAPUA'A 1ST AND 2"d, NORTH KONA, HAWAII - 11 TMK: 7-5-017: 001 I. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2005, Ordinance No. 05 114 became effective resulting in the reclassification of a 14.973 acre area; identified by TMK: 7-5-017: 001 ("subject site") from the State Land Use Agricultural to Urban district. Subsequently and also on the same date, the subject site was rezoned via Ordinance No. 05 115 from Agriculture (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20). (Exhibit A) The purpose of those actions was to enable the landowner/developer, Puaa Development LLC ("applicant") to develop a neighborhood shopping center. At the same time, the landowner (Suffolk Investment LLC) of an adjoining property consisting of 14.87 acres and identified by TMK: 7-5-017: 019, had proposed to do a 250 -unit affordable rental housing project. Because the infrastructure requirements and the somewhat symbiotic land use relationship between the projects, that project was considered in tandem with the proposed neighborhood shopping center on the subject site. As such, the proposed housing site was reclassified into the State Land Use from the Agriculture to the Urban district (Ordinance No. 05 112) and rezoned from Agriculture (A -5a) to Multiple -Family Residential (RM -2.5) via Ordinance No. 05 113 (Exhibit B), which became effective also on August 5, 2005. The rezoning ordinances for both projects had time performance requirements which were not timely, fulfilled. They also had similar infrastructure related conditions. However, inasmuch as each of these projects is covered by its own separate and distinct ordinance, a separate report and request will be made for each ordinance. In this instance, this request applies only to the site of the proposed neighborhood shopping complex covered by Ordinance No. 05 115. The time performance requirements of Ordinance No. 05 115 related to Condition B (payment of water commitment deposit within 90 days); Condition C (project completion within 5 years); and Condition V (public input within 90 days on- the proposed recipient of a school site). As will be discussed below, although Condition V was complied with, the applicant is requesting its deletion. Pursuant to Condition BB, a 5 -year time extension to August 5, 2015 was granted by the Planning Director in a letter, dated September 6, 2011. (Exhibit C) The applicant and same owner of the property, Puaa Development LLC, is proposing to amend: a) Condition B by allowing payment of the water commitment fee, if necessary, within 120 days from the effective date of this amended ordinance; b) Condition C by requiring construction to commence within 5 years and completed within 10 years from the effective date of this amended ordinance; c) Condition E by deleting only that portion that requires a supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Report if deemed necessary by the State Department of Transportation; d) Condition F by modifying and/or deleting portions- that have already been implemented; e) Condition H by allowing the possibility of changing the location of the Spine Road within the project site and at its intersection with Kuakini Highway, subject to the approval of the County Department of Public Works; f) Condition I, because of the proposed amendment to Condition H, making some consistent editorial change; g) Condition V by deleting the obligation to provide and partially improve a 5 -acre school site; h) Condition W by making some editorial and related changes to the fair share provision to make it consistent with the deletion of Condition V; i) Condition Y by deleting the requirement that the project shall include housing with specific construction timetable tied in to proposed shopping center and instead let the site be subject to the requirements of Chapter 11 relating to Affordable Housing. j) Condition Z by changing the housing program approving authority from the County Housing Agency to the Administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development as required by Chapter 11 relating to Affordable Housing; k) Condition BB by allowing an administrative extension using the date of the amended ordinance. II. PROJECT LOCATION The subject property, consisting of 14.973 acres, is located on the makai side of the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway (Hawai'i Belt Highway), generally between the towns of Kailua and Keauhou in North Kona. It is situated within the land divisions of Puapua'a 1St and 2nd, North Kona and is identified by TMK: 7-5-17: 1. More specifically, the subject site is located approximately % mile southy,of the intersection of Hualalai Road and the Belt Highway and '/4 mile north of the Kuakini Highway/Belt Highway intersection. There is a self -storage facility on the south side of the subject property. The Pualani Estates Subdivision is located near the subject site on the mauka side of the Highway. (Figures 1 and 2) III. PROPOSED PROJECT AND EXISTING AND PROPOSED REZONING CONDITIONS A. Project Concept 1. Original Concept The applicant initially proposed to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to primarily serve residents of the neighboring residential subdivisions along the makai side of Kuakini Highway and the Pualani Estates Subdivision. While it would also capture some of the commuting traffic, it is not intended to be a regional shopping center. The 93,600 square foot complex,to would have included a number of structures, which would house uses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, convenience store, office space, and a gas station. Also proposed were 500+ parking stalls, inclusive of handicapped stalls and the required loading zones. Some of the structures were proposed to two-story in height, with a maximum height of 30 feet. The thought was to have multiple, rather than a single or two large structures to- reduce the overall visual impact of the project. The principal access from the Hawaii Belt Road would have been at the north end of the property. This intersection would have been fully channelized and signalized. A right -in, right -out only access at the south end was also proposed. Further, also proposed was a gonerg- Inez izts r arena �1 K�cal�na 1oh oCVs - L r- 01. Ohaz o •� `� �' Lul jc j Este a • 0 'Pi �' �- �,.� V, \ Y r _ c� a. d1anx uia mai `�``¢i Pl gailua Yle' Esti �I Z � ore° The Pines 'l Halewili PI Halewil Condos ®. QIjzzQ 'L1 yYekilat i P R = Places toe rllage `does aye _ Hualalai ems---- � �;, 14ranzAina� ' Colony ser 11�akalauna Pl Mahi'iu Land PI �ajoha• % MakanaAloha Plantation y a ono PI aka ono �oriae Mak p M p st JOIC rBona P rT Orchards ely ace Lo Q' Pua[ani Es VO 4 4 i ; • �- cam, 1 `o ub ect Site � - Hualalai � Heightso � r6- (under PI construction)10 ,�11a' � moo., •�- � '�� _ o ,�° View Est o �o Eahakai E _ _ bra y e t 1 Suakinz �.,e-ti�� 1Yfakai The Courtyard s c r - S�o'� o `� �'ti� at Iolani tp � . � _ . " �' --1tt1--- — -- _• - - --',�- —b-- Lq o U :. �� 4' d � ,r,�d o � � - - - ��e a�a� i(ari , Ialc CPO •� ,p �' eco r ✓ `�� h on set � o- "1 4' ti • ni d O P' .0901 tea: Su ,�1 ,pj1Z Q' C, - b 1 b B; �a 0 oma , 1a1as-e " o ti� 0 � Is _ •V a o 0 • -a n Co - � . kik .li .._ L w 0 5 - a o •-- ;;: - _ � � r° �a ks - �3g � �o lid � �e � °.,� *-o *� . b Aili a T + Xamana =��:- : •- --.� c-� - _ 5 �- Frees a�,' "y� T1� � ��se� co � �- ai14 IYG V RE i a e AV �:1 f , 4r ,n S'ubiect ,Site F4 Fi� AGI FIGURA' 2 new a major spine road with a right-of-way of 60 feet through the project. This roadway would connect to the Kuakini Highway. 2. Proposed Concept The neighborhood shopping center concept has not changed. What has, however, changed are the proposed size of the commercial project, introduction of the concept of a public bus transfer station, and inclusion of some residential units. As depicted in Figure 3, the project has been reduced from 93,600 to 72,600 square feet of commercial space. This represents a reduction of over 20,000 square feet. Further, pursuant to the Kona Community Development Plan ("CDP")`which was adopted in 2008, subsequent to the existing rezoning ordinance, the applicant has introduced the concept of a transit hub in the form of a public bus transfer station. This would be consistent with the CDP's designation of this general area as being part of the Puaa-Wai'aha Village Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development ("TOD"). -- Finally, Finally, because of the demand for residential units proximate to a shopping area, the project also proposes to include 100 multiple family residential units. There has been no change to the proposed ingress/egress points and their improvements. B. Existing and Proposed Rezoning Conditions As noted in the "Background" section of this report, because of the symbiotic land use relationship between the projects on the subject and the adjoining parcel, the project's respective rezoning ordinances consisted of almost all of the similar conditions. The only difference was the inclusion of an added affordable _housing obligation found I Condition Y. This section, however, will initially state and/or summarize the various conditions of the rezoning ordinance (Ord. No 05 115) affecting the subject parcel, its status, as well as — in some situations -the requested amendments. Where amendments are proposed, the suggested language is included incorporating brackets [ ] for items to be deleted and underscore ( ) for items to be added. A. The applicant, successors or assigns, shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. 4 r J The applicant today (Puaa Development LLC) is the same as when the original rezoning was approved. It intends to assume the responsibility of complying with all pertinent conditions and any amendments thereto of this rezoning ordinance. B. Prior to issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with its "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within ninety days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed development prior to Final Plan Approval. Since the subject and adjacent parcels had already been assigned 510 water units by the Department of Water Supply ("DWS"), the applicant assumed that a water commitment deposit was no longer necessary. As such, no payment was made. Further, since the project never got to the final Plan Approval stage where proposed uses would- have been established and from which water usage calculations can be more accurately determined, that study was not done. As such, through this process, the applicant is proposing that should the DWS determine that further water commitment deposit fee is necessary, the applicant shall be responsible for its payment within 120 days of the effective date of the amended ordinance. Proposed lanquage B. Prior to issuance of [a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer and a water commitment deposit, if applicable, in accordance with its "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within [ninety] one hundred twenty days from the effective date,of this amended ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed development prior to Final Plan Approval. C. Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the amended proposed .development from Lk the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai'i County Code.... While the applicant addressed a number of those conditions, as will be described below, plans for Final Plan Approval could -not be finalized. This was due in large measure to the collapse of the market associated with the recession in 2008. As such, the applicant applied for and secured an administrative time extension to August 5, 2015. (See Exhibit C) The applicant is now proposing to renew this extension request for an additional five (5) years, beginning the effective date of this amendment to commence construction and having it substantially completed within ten (10) years, be it either for the commercial or residential component. Furthermore as noted earlier, because of the need to still secure the appropriate financing (subsequent to receipt of any time extension); the need and time to address the multitude of conditions of the ordinance such as affordable housing, sewer evaluation, archaeological/cultural approvals, and the like; and the vagaries of the real estate market relative to commercial uses, the applicant may not be in a position to commence let alone complete the project within the next 5 years. As such, it is also requesting the possibility of an administrative time extension with a 10 -year completion window. Proposed lanquage C. Construction of the proposed development, whether the commercial or residential component shall [be completed] commence within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance and be substantially completed within ten 10 ears. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the amended proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code.... D. No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet in gross floor area. This will be complied with and verified during the Plan Approval process. E. If the Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR), it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to the M 4 issuance of Final Plan -Approval. All accesses including road and/or intersection improvements, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. The State Department,of Transportation ("DOT") will have an opportunity to comment on the requested amendments, including the review of the updated TIAR which is found in Exhibit D. During the course of its review, it can recommend certain improvements be made. Notwithstanding that ability, please note that the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway intersection falls under the jurisdiction of the State DOT, and its requirements must be complied with, with or without any rezoning conditions. Accordingly, since the DOT already has the ability to control the project's road and access infrastructure destiny relative to the State highway, the applicant is requesting that this portion of the condition be deleted. Further, as currently written, it would suggest that the DOT would have the ability to determine all road related improvement requirements for the project, including Kuakini Highway (which falls under the County's jurisdiction) and the proposed interior road. The applicant requests that DOT's jurisdiction be limited to only that portion of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway fronting the subject site. Proposed Language E. [if the Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR), it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval.] All accesses including road and/or intersection improvements affecting State highways, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. F. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal -access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K.: No. 7-5-17: 1 at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic. Said improvements, plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualalai road, shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. The applicant will comply with this requirement. However, it would like to propose some minor edits to reflect the road improvement approving entity (State DOT) as well as the already completed road connection. Proposed Language F. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K.: No. 7-5-17: 1 at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K. No. 7-5- 17: 1. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic meeting with the approval of the Department of Transportation and/or County Department of Public Works Said improvements, plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualalai road,] shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration .lane at the secondary entrance located at the south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all accesses shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance'of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. The applicant will comply with this requirement. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawai'i Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc. No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement I" to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for non-residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures, from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, Sub 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors, or assigns shall also complete the road connection from Easement "I" to the main project intersection, including bridging the floodway, to County dedicable standards, and from Easement "I" to the southerly project access to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. This relates to the project's obligation to construct the new 60 -foot wide spine roadway between Kuakini Highway and the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. While the concept of this new spine road will be complied with, the applicant would like to retain the ability to possibly relocate this road within the project site and its intersection with Kuakini Highway to enhance better connectivity with surrounding properties, as well as the proposed Ali' i Parkway. Nonetheless, its intersection with the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway — which would amount to the extension of Puapua'anui Street - would not change. Subject to the approval of the County Department of Public Works of the location of the spine road and its intersection with Kuakini Highway, and prior to its implementation, the Declaration and easement would be amended, if necessary and/or appropriate. Proposed Language H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc. No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement l" (spine road) or an alternative location approved by the County Department of Public Works to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a 60 -foot wide right-of-way meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for non-residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures, from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, Sub 78.14 (the frontage road lot). , The applicant, successors, or assigns shall also complete the road connection from Easement "I".. or an alternative location approved by the County Department of Public Works to the main project intersection, including bridging the floodway, to County dedicable standards, and from Easement "I" or an alternative location approved by the County Department of Public Works to the southerly or Kuakini Highway project access to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. Should the approved location of the 60 -foot wide right-of-way spine road differ from Easement 1, the applicant shall take appropriate measures, to amend the Declaration and Easement prior to its construction to assure access to all lots intended to be served by this Easement. 1. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and right turn deceleration lane shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Requirement improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, pedestrian activated cress walk lights, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures on the subject site. Inasmuch as the applicant wants to reserve the possibility of changing the location of Easement I as outlined in Condition H, this condition also needs to be amended. PROPOSEDLANGUAGE 1. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and right turn deceleration lane shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at Easement 1 or at an alternative location approved by the County Department of Public Works access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision or at an alternative location approved by the County Department of Public Works. Requirement improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, pedestrian activated cross walk lights, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures on the subject site. J. The applicant... shall provide an easement to the property to the north (TMK. 7-5-17: 2) to permit that property to access the- mairi 10 project intersection. The easement shall have a minimum width of 60 -feet, and be in a location meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. The applicant will comply with this requirement. K. The main spine mauka/makai road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements and, if accepted by the County, a bike path, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in favor of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 19 so that the property -can be developed independently of.T.M.K. No. 7-5-17.1. The applicant... shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. The applicant will comply with this requirement. L. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The applicant will comply with this requirement. M. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) clearances and approvals shall be secured prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE" zone or the corrected effective base flood map. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including -the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. The applicant will comply with this requirement. As additional information, however, please note that the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies more than 90% of the subject site to be within Zone X (areas outside of 500 -year flood), and the remaining area AE (floodway). The floodway is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 and bisects the middle portion of the subject property. - 11 A culvert and related drainage improvements will be constructed within the AE designated area to allow for a road connection between the northern and southern sections of the property. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for this improvement and adjustments to the FIRM has been filed. As there will be an added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, there may be an issue relating to potential increased run-off. In that event, drywell(s) or similar type of accommodations will be implemented, subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works and State Department of Health via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit process. With the proposed on-site drainage improvements, including the culvert and related improvements noted in the CLOMR application, all potential drainage and/or flooding issues could be reasonably addressed and mitigated. N. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The applicant will comply with this requirement. O. No residential or commercial structures shall be constructed within areas designated "AE" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by any applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all single-family residential lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction maybe" removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. If appropriate, a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. The applicant will comply with this requirement. Please also see response to Condition M. P. A....(NPDES) permit and an (UIC) permit, if required, shall be secured.... before the commencement of construction activities. 12 This will be complied with prior to the construction activity. This is required for drainage related improvements such as the drywell. Q. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. The applicant will comply with this requirement. It should be noted that as part of the Plan Approval process, the Applicant must submit a DPW approved site drainage plan prepared by a licensed engineer. Further, as part of the building permit review/approval process, civil plans relating to this requirement must also be prepared'and submitted for the approval of the DPW. R. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows, and shall upgrade the sewer line if necessary. Sewer lines shall be installed within. the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant will comply with this requirement. S. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Applicant will comply with this requirement. Again, this will be done prior to or no later than submittal of plans for a building permit. T. A Data Recovery Plan and an Archaeological Preservation Plan and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted for the review and '-approval of the Planning Director, in consultation with the Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of the approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. An Archaeological Inventory Survey ("AIS") was conducted of the requested and immediately surrounding areas by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. In response to the State Historic Preservation Division's 13 ("SHPD") comments, a revised report was prepared and subsequently submitted to SHPD. (A copy is on file with the Planning Department.) The SHPD, in its letter of August 27, 2008, approved the revised AIS. (Exhibit E) The survey of the subject and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres identified 64 sites consisting of 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C -shapes, walls, plus a historic period roadway and ranching features. The approved AIS noted that "no further work" were needed. for thirty four (34) sites; thirty one (31) sites were required "further data collection"; three (3) burial sites were to be preserved "in place"; while one (1) possible ceremonial site was also recommended preservation "in place." The burial sites (Site Nos. 14091, 14124, and 14132) and the possible ceremonial site (Site No. 14123) are identified on the map identified as "Location of Burial, Preservation, and Data Recovery Sites. (Figure 4) Two (2) of the burial sites and the possible ceremonial site with their proposed 30-f6ot wide buffers are located on the site plan (Figure 3). The other burial site which is not noted on the site plan is located on the same parcel as the possible ceremonial site. You will note that the two (2) burial sites with their with their proposed buffers are situated entirely on an adjoining parcel, whereas only a small area of the proposed buffer area of the possible ceremonial site falls within the subject site. In that area, residential uses are being proposed. At the appropriate time, the applicant or affected landowner intends to prepare the appropriate Burial Treatment Plan ("UP") and preserve the burials as is. Likewise, the applicant will have a Preservation Plan ("PP") for the possible ceremonial feature prepared. The site plan will be adjusted, if needed, to accommodate the requirements of the PP. The burial sites with their possible buffers and possible ceremonial sites are located on the site plan (Figure 3). Notwithstanding the above, the existing condition already requires that the project design accommodate the requirements of the approved BTP and PP in the form of buffers, access, construction protocols, and the like. All of this will be done prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval. As such, the condition provides adequate protection and accommodation of any cultural and archaeological features within and/or proximate to the subject site. U. Should any remains of historic sites such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the 14 FIGURE 4 Nm ',-=1 : r-- ,�: '•,�: a=te--,;; __ ', J N fj )/ I ilk _ `� /---�___-� �,1 { r �, � 1-",r---.- ` Rr- __ � -��', �' , �� 1, (, - -�•� - - Y pr 41 ,t{''i;ii 11 / r% --�._:rt• , ___ -� ,�' --- list ��F.� •'111` • r• nt• __�11}'' :Ig1111lLOC - l� L_9 � �! . 1�'l•1��� ( '1 � � • - __ �`' _ ==cif _ _ __ ___- -. ___ •' _ -_ _____ _ _ ill• ,•''-_'• _-'z SEI ii .,�''•• ' `- �'' A moo;- �� li ',����l.r_'--\�-1 �,•••''�,•'. '1 _-�, "ta e�sVP 'r t9 a •�=`1•.•.''•• • gds giosz �p£g� =v �n Lca •�`\--- i ___ �. 1 -0 B-•Dy CTINDOI i6v {`•_� �9 ��_��! •_'_ •••. CpNlavm p�A `SL=?`? 5 �-'S': "•_' SPT, FIGURE 4 Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR-HPD when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been taken. This requirement will be adhered to by the Applicant and its contractors. V. As represented by the applicant, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant shall solicit the input of the State Department of Education (DOE), community, and County Council to determine which government agency or entity, such as a DOE -certified "public charter" school, would be the recipient of this school site. The school site and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed via lease to the identified recipient for $1.00 for the duration of the lease, with the understanding that said entity or agency would be able to secure additional funds as may be necessary to have a school opened prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a residential occupancy permit on the subject property. Further, should the school use be terminated for any reason, the land and improvements thereon shall be conveyed in fee to the County of Hawaii at no cost within thirty (30) days of the date of termination. Within sixty (60) days of the, identification of the receiving agency or entity, a draft of an agreement reflecting the terms outlined in this ordinance shall be submitted to the County Council for its review and approval. As further represented by the applicant, the applicant... shall 1), prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential or commercial structures on the subject site, a) subdivide and dedicate or cause the dedication of 5 acres of land within T. M. K. 7- 5-17. 19 and/or T.M.K. 7-5-17:23 for a school site to the State DOE or a DOE -certified "public charter'; and b) provide the necessary infrastructure to the site, including vehicular access and utility systems, and 2) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential structures on the subject site, make the necessary on-site land improvements for the school and associated playground area, as well as construct or cause the construction of up to $600, 000 of building or structural improvements as may be mutually agreed to between the applicant and the receiving agency or entity These improvements are designed to facilitate the opening of a school prior to the occupancy of any residential structures on the subject property. 15 The applicant solicited input of the State Department of Education ("DOE"), County Council, and community. This resulted in a letter, dated May 17, 2006 from the applicant to the County Council transmitting a copy of a draft conveyance agreement of the proposed 5 acres school site to the Innovations Public Charter School Foundation ("Innovations"). (Exhibit F). At its meeting of July 7, 2006, the County Council approved the proposed agreement. The condition then required the land to be conveyed prior to issuance of a building permit for either the proposed neighborhood shopping center or a residential project on the subject site. However, because of the 2008 recession, the proposed project could not get off the ground. As such,, although tentative subdivision approval for the 5 -acre site was granted, it was never finalized. Infrastructure improvements such as access and water system,had, to be made as part of the subdivision process; and these required improvements would normally have been done together with the development of the commercial and/or residential project. ' As such, because the land was never subdivided, the conveyance to Innovations did not happen. In the meantime, Innovations elected to consolidate its campus on the mauka side of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, north of Hualalai Road. As such, the applicant is requesting that this condition be -deleted in its entirety. W. If the applicant... develop residential units on the subject property, the applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the project with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of the amendment to the ordinance, based on a percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit ($9,671.44 per single family residential unit). The total amount shall be determined by the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple -family residential unit (single-family residential unit) shall be allocated as follows: 16 1. $3,601.27 per multiple family residential unit ($4,663.74 per single-family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities,-.... 5. $27617.77 per multiple family residential unit ($4,143.81 per single-family residential unit) to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultations with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage system as it crosses under Kuakini Highway, the road improvements at the Kuakini Highway intersection, and the mauka/makai spine road up to the entrance of the proposed rental housing project shall be credited against the road fair share. Relative to the requirements for the school as outlined in Condition U, the value of land — which shall be based on the per acre purchase cost of the applicant -, the cost of the infrastructure (road and utility) to the subject site, and the cost of site preparation for the school and playground area shall be credited against the park and recreation fair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be credited against the balance, if any, of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance and/or any future park and recreation fair share requirement for T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 and 26. The applicant will comply with this requirement. However, because it is requesting the deletion of Condition U- relating to the 5 -acre school site, the fair share credit of the school site is not applicable. The last paragraph of Condition W should thus be deleted in its entirety. Further, please note that should the applicant construct residential units on the subject property, triggering this condition, the applicant will comply with this requirement. X. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fee Ordinance ...conditions included herein shall be credit towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. At this point in time, this is not applicable; as such an ordinance has not been passed as of -this date. However, should one be applicable to the project, the Applicant will comply. 17 Y. The project shall include housing. At least 50 residential units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial structures. An additional 50 units shall be constructed if all the commercial uses exceed 60, 000 square feet of gross floor area. The additional units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for commercial structures exceeding a cumulative total of 60, 000 square feet of gross floor area on the project area. The applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted in its entirety and instead let the prevailing code (Chapter 11 of the Hawaii County Code) relating to affordable housing apply. Inasmuch as the requirement of affordable housing is already found in Condition Z, Condition Y would be redundant. More critically, however, Condition Y would be inconsistent with the judicial principle of "equal application of the law" as only this and not all projects are being tagged with this obligation. Further, inasmuch as this additional requirement is not being requested by the applicant, the condition would be tantamount to "contract" zoning, which is legally frowned upon. Z. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. This requirement shall be approved by the County Housing Agency prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite and not by use cf any affordable housing credits generated off site or by any in -lieu fee. The applicant will comply with this requirement. However, editorially, it should be noted that the approving entity should be the Administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development and not the County Housing Agency. AA. Comply with all applicable County, State, and Federal laws, rules, regulations, and requirements. This is an on-going requirement, one which the Applicant and its contractors agree to comply with. 18 BB. An initial time extension of time for the performance of conditions within this ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original request for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year.) 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Department shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. The applicant is proposing to retain the prospects of having an initial administrative time extension. Because of the need to secure agency approvals on matters such as archaeology, FEMA drainage map changes, infrastructure improvements from the County and State, a process that the applicant has no control over, the ability to secure an administrative time extension would provide lenders with greater land use entitlement assurances. Proposed Language An initial time extension of time for the performance of conditions within this amended ordinance may be granted by the Director.... CC. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." No such action has been initiated, and it is the applicant's hope that with this time extension request, there, is no need for such action to be initiated by the Director. 19 IV. JUSTIFICATIONS OF REQUEST In situations where a rezoning ordinance allows consideration for administrative time extensions, the request is measured against three (3) criteria. As such, absent any guidelines provided in the Planning Department rules governing time extensions, the applicant's time extension request will be evaluated against those criteria. A. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. After receipt of the zoning approval in 2005, the applicant worked to address a number of conditions over the following 2-3 years. Most notably, it worked with the State and the Innovations Charter School over the possible conveyance of a 5 -acre site for a future school. A surveyor was hired to prepare and process the subdivision map to create this 5 -acre lot. The subdivision application received tentative subdivision approval, and final approval was contingent upon making substantial infrastructure improvements that could have been feasible only if the commercial and residential projects were developed as well. Concurrently, it had its engineer address the drainage issues that required interaction with both the State Department of Transportation and the County. Regrettably, because of the global economic meltdown and the financial crisis that precipitated the recession in 2008, securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project became a major problem, Much of the attention was then directed towards exploring alternative uses of the property, which now includes a residential component; doing the appropriate financial pro forma for a possible revised project; and exploring sources of construction financing. Understandably, this recession was clearly something that was not within the control of the applicant and certainly not one that the' applicant and so many others anticipated. Although there are signs that the economy is on an upswing and turning "north", time is still needed for the applicant to address the various conditions of approval, then incorporate and finalize its plans, as well as securing the required financing. .. B. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 1. GENERAL PLAN: The proposed request is not contrary to the General Plan's -Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") Map 20 that defines the subject property and its immediately surrounding area for Medium Density uses. The CN -20 zoning occurred subsequent to the most recent revisions to the General Plan (February 2005). At that time, the zoning was deemed to be consistent with the LUPAG map. The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan document. For one, it would provide limited short-term economic opportunities largely through the construction of any improvements required for the neighborhood shopping center project. Relatedly, longer-term opportunities could be created largely in the form of retail and office workers within the project. By serving as a potential transportation hub as noted in the Kona CDP, it would provide services to the surrounding residential areas and in.so doing, create a more stable community. Further, it should add revenues to the County and State coffers in terms of the various forms of taxes, such as general excise, corporate, real property, and personal income. In that regard, the request would not be contrary to and supportive of the following goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. Economic Element: • Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life through economic development that enhances the County's natural and social environments. • Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical, social, and cultural environments of the island of Hawaii. • Strive for diversity and stability in the economic system. • Strive for an economic climate that provides its residents an opportunity for choice 'of occupation. e Strive for full employment. Land Use Element: • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. 21 Commercial Sub -element: • Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. • Provide commercial development that complements the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. • Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands, of neighborhood, community and regional needs. (Policy) • Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central core area. (Policy) RtanrinM.-z • Commercial developments shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and amenities. Commercial developments shall provide for adequate internal circulation amongst commercial facilities in the area. Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided. Commercial development shall maintain or improve the quality of the present environment through the consideration of visual, access, landscaping, and other design elements in their development. Preference shall be given to commercial lands with a reasonably level topography. As for the residential component, it would provide much needed housing in the area and region. And with the development of the adjoining commercial complex, it would be quite convenient, creating a more walkable environment and community. In that regard and relative to the General Plan policies and standards, the pertinent ones are: Housing Element (Goals) • Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. 22 • Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice • Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people • Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock • Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals. Housinq Element (Policies) • Increase rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality, cost, amenity, style and size of housing, especially for low and moderate income households. Land Use Element (Multiple -Residential) Goals • To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. Policies • Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places -of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. Standards • Areas shall be protected from incompatible uses by transition zones. 23 • Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools, employment centers, and other services. • Development shall not be permitted in natural hazard areas unless proper on-site improvements are provided. • Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level of adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. • Recreational area and/or facilities shall be considered in multiple residential development. Further, the overall project is consistent with the policies of the Land Use element portion of the General Plan. These include: • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County • The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment • Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities,' access, and public need • The county shall encourage the development and Maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment The project intends to be energy conscious through the use and/or encouragement of solar energy and design features to take advantage_ of wind patterns. Maintaining and improving the quality of the environment is important to the success of this project. The General Plan identifies five (5) areas of environmental concerns - air pollution, water quality, soil pollution, solid waste disposal, and noise pollution. As proposed, the project would not be violative of any of those objectives. 24 Aside from vehicular transmission, air pollution associated with the project should be negligible. All wastewater systems would be disposed off in the County's system along Kuakini Highway. This should be sufficient to address any potential groundwater or coastal water impacts. As required, a solid waste management plan will be prepared and implemented. As a commercial project, there will be noise associated with vehicles and some use. Nonetheless, they will be governed by the State Department of Health's Noise Regulations. it should not be a noisy one. Any noise -generating facility - such as air conditioners - would be carefully placed to minimize their noise impacts to adjoining properties. Further, while the site has some on-site developmental constraints, they are not insurmountable. For the most part, the site is designated "X" on the FIRM map, and any activities within the "AU area will be drainage -related and pursuant to County and Federal requirements. While there are two possible burials on the site, their locations are such that they would not restrict the development of this project. It should be noted that the existing conditions, such as Conditions M, N, and O, already address this matter. Being partially disturbed and within an urban environment, the prospects of the site serving as a habitat for rare or endangered plant or animal life appear remote. Although there may be a potential for some endemic birds to visit this area, the development of this site would not remove a critical habitat. Then, too, there are alternative areas that would be more suitable for any habitats. An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) -was prepared for a 65 - acre area, of which the subject site is a part of. Relative to the subject site, the approved AIS noted that there were two (2) burials adjacent to the site of the proposed rental housing. The proposed buffer of a possible ceremonial site is situated on the subject site though. All of these features are generally noted in the project's site plan. Furthermore, if there are inadvertent archaeological features found on the site, work will stop and the State DLNR and County Planning Department will be consulted before further activities occur within the affected area. All of these protective archaeological and cultural protocols are already embodied in Conditions T and U. The Plan also emphasizes that developments be mindful of an area's natural beauty. In this situation, the project will be 25 developed in a manner where it blends with the existing terrain and enhances the natural environment through the introduction of landscaping. Although the project site is in excess of 800 feet from the ocean, it is also separated by other developments from the ocean. As such, some of the usual coastal resources concern would not be pronounced. There will be no interference with shoreline access. Then, too, by hooking up into the County's wastewater system, impacts to the coastal water should be minimized. There will be little impact to public facilities. The water system will be developed in a manner meeting with the requirements of the DWS. All required off-site improvements will be constructed by the applicant. Schools and other public facilities are also located proximate to the site, most of them being less than five (5) miles away. Additionally, the applicant is prepared to dedicate 5 acres of land for a school site. Another major infrastructure issue relates to traffic and road improvements. Inasmuch as the project will generate in excess of 50 AM/PM peak movements, a TIAR is required per the concurrency provision of the Zoning Code. In that regard, an updated TZAR, dated October 3, 2019, was prepared by The Traffic Management Consultant and found in its entirety in Exhibit D. In reviewing the subject project in conjunction with the proposed residential development on the adjoining parcel, the TIAR made the following recommendations: 1. Improvements at the intersection of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and Pua'puaanui Street. (This is already addressed in Condition F.) 2. Construction of the spine road. (This is already addressed in Conditions H, I, and K.) The estimated cost of these improvements is over $7.5 million. On other land use matters, it is noted that the existing CN -20 zoning is consistent with the Medium Density Urban Area of the LUPAG map. It would also be compatible with the surrounding areas. There are multiple -family residential and commercial uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 26 The soil of the site is classified "E" or very poor. While it does have some measure of agricultural potential, as evidenced by the existing vegetation on the site, the site does not have resource that is deemed to be critical from an agricultural perspective. Furthermore, this area is bounded by urban uses. The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that would render the land unusable for the proposed commercial and residential project. 2. KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOMENT PLAN: It should be noted that since the site was initially rezoned, the only significant land use regulatory change was adoption of the Kona Community Development Plan ("CDP"). As such, this discussion also includes the project's relationship to the CDP. Relative to the Kona CDP, Section 15.1 of the County General Plan called for the development and eventual County Council adoption of Community Development Plans. The General Plan states that the CDP "will translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas." The General Plan also notes that should the CDP require a General Plan amendment, it could be considered concurrent with the adoption of the CDP. However, "If there is a direct conflict between the Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling." Pursuant to the above, the Kona CDP was developed and adopted by the Hawaii County Council on September 25, 2008. It became effective on September 10, 2008 as Ordinance No. 08 116. One of the strategies outlined in the CDP to help address infrastructure and lifestyle objectives is the concept of Transit - Oriented Development ("TOD"). As defined in pages 4-6 of the CDP, the concept of a TOD encourages the "development of compact, mixed-use villages which would integrate housing, employment, shopping, and recreation opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit stations/stops which would reduce the need for daily trips and financially support the expanded transit system." The Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) identifies the Kona Urban Area, Rural Town TOD's, and — if within the Kona Urban Area — the applicable TOD (i.e., Traditional Neighborhood Development or Regional Center). 27 The subject parcel is situated within the Kona Urban Area, with a TOD designation. The project, with its mixture of residential and commercial components, plus an area for a bus transfer stop, implements this concept. For developments requiring rezoning, a TOD or Traditional Neighborhood Development ("TND") would be appropriate for areas greater than 20 acres. As this parcel is less than 20 acres, it would not qualify as a TND. Nevertheless, its rezoning would be subject to certain review guidelines. These guidelines and the project's relationship follow. a. Consistency with General Plan LUPAG map. The subject property is Medium Density Urban. As such, the proposed commercial and residential projects would be consistent with the LUPAG map. b. Infill. While this project would represent an in -fill within the Kona Urban Area, it would be more in the "bulls eye" of the TND. c. Greenfields Rezoning. This is not applicable, as its action does not trigger the HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review process. Another major component of the CDP is the concept of infrastructure concurrency. This concept is embodied principally in Figure 4-3 = Official Concurrency Map of the CDP. In that regard, the project's construction of a new mauka/makai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway implements this concept. C. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. Notwithstanding the modified conceptual change in the project — i.e., from a standalone neighborhood commercial center to one now incorporating a 100 unit multiple -family residential complex, the general reasons for the Planning Department's favorable recommendation would apply here. (Exhibit G) However, relative to time extension requests, Section 25-2-46 of the Zoning Code outlines the "Concurrency Requirements." Specifically, it requires that traffic, potable water, and civil defense siren concerns be addressed. 28 Relative to traffic, as noted earlier, the Concurrency provision requires a TIAR if more than 50 AM/PM peak hour trips are projected to be generated by a project. The TIAR and its conclusions were covered in the discussion above. On the matter of water, it is the applicant's understanding that the subject area (which includes the subject site) is entitled to 510 water units. At least 100 will be required for the 100 multiple family residential component. As for the commercial area, a water usage calculation study will be provided to the DWS to ascertain the amount required. Such a study should help determine the realistic amount of water units required for this project Based on this study, the applicant will adjust, if necessary, the number of units and/or commercial space for this project site. A rezoning condition to that effect could also be added to that effect. Finally in the area of civil defense sirens, there is a siren within earshot of the subject site. It is thus maintained that the reasons used to support the existing rezoning also apply to the requested time extension. 29 EXHIBIT A Ordinance No. 05,115 r COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII BILI. NO. 32 Draft 3 ORDINANCE NO. 05 3.1.5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI `I COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL - 5 ACRES (A -5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN -20) AT PIJAPUA`AIKI 1ST AND PUAPUA`ANUI ls'. NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-5-17:1. BE IT ORDAINED BY TI IE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAPI: SECTION 1. Section 25-8-3, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code. is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Puapua`aiki I" and Puapua`anui I", North Kona, I-lawai`i shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20): Beginning at the Northweslerly corner of this parcel -of land, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana.') to Kamaikui, the coordinates of' said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAHELO", being 792.90 North and 3,701.58 East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 2520 15' 50" 25.39 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B. Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2. 2470 49' 30" 51.21 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, band Commission Award 8516-B: Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 3. 2570 53' 30" 70.98 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; r Thence, along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the left with a radius of 1669.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 35. 1110 23' 00" 747.57 feet; 36. 980 26' 30" 37.85 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 37. 1850 25' 00" 181.16 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Phomas Sams to the point of beginning and containing an area of 14.973 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SI:,CTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-44. flawai`i County Code, the County Council finds the following conditions are: (1) . Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; or (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed with respect to: (A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or (13) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. A. . The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of" approval. -6- B. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended -by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within ninety days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed development prior to Final Plan Approval. C. Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date this ordinance. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2=70. Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai `i County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscapingshall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). D. No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet in gross floor area. }:. If Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR); -it shal l be- subnitt&dto the -Department -o -Transportation for - review and approved prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. All accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. F. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:1, at the l'ualani Estates Subdivision Road, including, but not limited to, a -7- deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M. K. No 7-5-17: 1. Intersection improvements shall be as required by the Department of Transportation. The applicant shall pay' for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic. Said improvements, plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualalai Road, shall be completed prior to the issuance of' a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If' DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial -development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise. the southern access ' shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential I structures or final inspection of any residential structures. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement 1" to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for non-residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures, from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, SUB 7814 (the frontage: road lot). The applicant, successors or assigns shall also complete the road connection from F,asement "I" to the main project intersection, including bridging the 11oodway, to County dedicable standards, and From Easement "1" to the southerly project access. to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. L Access to .Kuakini 1 lighway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration lane shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Requirement improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, pedestrian activated cross walk lights. drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of'drvwells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of' Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures on the subject site. J. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an casement to the property to the north'('-rMK: 7-5-17:2) to permit that property to access the main project intersection. The easement shall have a minimum width of 60 -feet, and be in ca location meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of' occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. K. The main spine mauka/makai road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements and if accepted by the County, a bike path, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.' The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in favor of T.M. K. No. 7-5-17,19 so that the property can be developed independently of T.M. K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. I,. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the M1S Department of Public Works. M. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) clearances and/or approvals shall be secured prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE'' zone or the corrected effective base flood plain. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. N. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. 0. No residential or commercial structures shall be constructed within areas designated "AE" or '`shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by any applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all single family residential lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. If appropriate, a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. P. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection Control (UIQ permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. -'10- (�. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. R. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows, and shall upgrade the sewer line if necessary. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of i?nvironmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of' Occupancy. S. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 1. A Data Recovery Plan and an Archaeological Preservation and Burial "Treatment Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director, in consultation with the Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DI,NR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's l: lawai` i Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of the approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Flan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting pians for Final Pian Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. U. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resource — State Historic Preservation Division (DI.NR-9,H110) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from Dl.NR-S11PD when it finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. -11- V. As represented by the applicant, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant shall solicit the input of the State Department of Education (DOE), community, and County Council to determine which government agency or entity, such as a DOE -certified "public charter" school, would be the recipient of this school site. The school site and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed via lease to the identified recipient for $1.00 for the duration of the lease, with the understanding that said entity or agency would he able to secure additional funds as may be necessary to have a school opened prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a residential occupancy permit on the subject property. Further, should the school use be terminated for any reason, the land and improvements thereon shall he conveyed in fee to the County of Hawai ` i at no cost within thirty (30) days of the date of termination. Within sixty (60) days of the identification of the receiving agency or entity, a draft of an agreement reflecting the terms outlined in this ordinance, shall be submitted to the County Council for its review and approval. As further represented by the applicant, the applicant, successors, or assigns shall, 1) prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential or commercial structures on the subject site, a) subdivide and dedicate or cause the dedication of 5 acres of land within the T.M.K. 7-5-17: 19 and/or T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 for a school site to the State DOf : or a I)OE-certified "public charter"; and b) provide the necessary infrastructure to the site, including vehicular access and utility systems; and 2) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential structures on the subject site, snake the necessary on-site land improvements for the school and associated playground area, as well as construct or cause the construction of up to $6001,000 of building or structural improvements as may be mutually agreed to between the applicant and the receiving agency or entity. These improvements are designed to facilitate the opening of a school prior to the occupancy of any residential structures on the subject property. -12- W_ If the applicant, successors, or assigns develop residential units on the subject property, the applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation. fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be, adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of thi s ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price index (RCPT). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit ($9,671.44 per single family residential unit). 'The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit (single family residential units) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $3,061.27 per multiple family residential unit ($4,663.74 per single family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $96.75 per multiple family residential unit ($224.98 per single family residential unit) to the County to support police facilities; 3. $297.62 per multiple family residential unit ($444.36 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $132.65 per multiple family residential unit ($194.55 per single family, residential unit) to the County to support solid waste facilities, and -13- 5. $2,617.77 per multiple family residential unit ($4,143.81 per single family residential unit) to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute lend and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, tire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and , approval of the County ,Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway, the road improvements at the Kuakini Highway intersection, and the maukalmakai spine road up to the entrance of the proposed rental housing project shall be credited against the road fair share. Relative to the requirements for the school as outlined in Condition U, the value of land — which shall be based on the per acre purchase cost of the applicant -, the cost of the infrastructure (road and utility) to the subject site, and the cost ol' site preparation for the school and playground area shall be credited against the park and recreation fair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be credited against the balance, if any, of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance and/or any future park and recreation fair share requirement for T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 and 26. X. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact lees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of enaction or the assessment of"impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. Y. The project shall include housing. At least 50 residential units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial structures. An additional 50. units shall be constructed if' all the commercial uses exceed 60.000 square feet of gross floor area. The additional -14- units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of r occupancy for commercial structures exceeding a cumulative total of .60,000 square feet ol' gross Boor area on the project site. Z. To ensure that the Cioals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11. Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. This requirement shall be approved by the County Housing Agency prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite, and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu fees. AA. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws. rules, regulations and requirements. BB. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of'zone. 4. The time extension shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). -15- 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. CC. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invaliditv shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: ail COUNCIL ljtMBER,�rY OF AWAP I COUNCIL MEM164 COUN'T'Y OF HAM-1 Hilo , I lawai`i Date of Introduction: July 7, 2005 Date of 1st Reading: July 7, 2005 Date of 2nd Reading: July 22, 2005 Effective Date- August 5, 2005 _ Ccr; m. 107.3 -16- �! RM -5 1 RS -15 -Z I RS -7.5 ; I A -1a _ -4 Rs45 A -5a A -5a RM -5 AGRICULTURAL (A -5a) RS -7.5 A-56 TO NEIGHBORHOOD gOMMERCIAL CN -20 A -5a I - I Rs�15 14.97 Acs, a Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. - %Rg 1 •,�i�C:''.',�.... ...... i G [1 I [7111:11:'[: x[11-12(•1 ..1717:. •1SQ[l ti .:Q '[ 11:7 1•t111:1•'•':111l I'::I:t'.:: tcr:i;��G�i:[u[cic �. - 1 i ::: f ' 1 t ;� f 1 1�1::1:=�:1 Kuaki n i Hwy. 11111 1G:11 fii 1 17111 `[x[[ IUL'11:L S.�' 71;17 li[rtiE t I[ 17:t�i1 it 2 ::::1 A -5a 1R11�1-5 :r.• ' at � :^r• iiy� r rs�t1[� • .t n�,rir::::r.::^_' _ i1 -iV�' A- _.... [�* [iti}1Sii;f #1�ia:Iar-1^ - t71 �.. , A -5a 1 A_ Rs t CN -10 792.90 N 3,701.58 E A -5a °I'�'-1 ! w " I ' RS -10 - I 4 ! , `; ' O RS -1 a A -5a i '. �; 7� 11 I r (I •f va n A-1 a • -' - k� i Hr�, to , -I I I �. l- � I ;, •' RS*�i0 RSrtO i 'Akoa St. i RS-' 01 I I-7.RS•ro 'R 5 1 1 RM -7 RS -1k, f CV -10 - J- a >d A -5a u e i d. i l i RS -10R- '1 1 I RM -4 ; A-�a ' kS 5 CV -7.5 CU 7.5 RM -1.51 I� RM -2 - - RS -7.5 870 435 0 870 1 740 2 610 3 480 4.3 I 3i AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE', AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP) ARTICLE S, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A -5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN -20) AT PUAPUA'AIKI 1st AND PUAPUA'ANUI I st, NORTH KONA, HAWAII PREPARED BY- PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII TMK: 7-5-017:001 EXHIBIT "A" Date: September 24, 2004 (Puaa Development, LLCA 14fi OFFI.CE OF THE COUNTY CLERK County of Hawaii Hilo, -Hawaii Introduced By: Pete Hotfmann/K . Angel Pilago Date Introduced: July 7, 2005 first Reading: July 7, 2005 Published: July 17, 2005 RE:' ARK.S- Second Reading: July 22, 2005 To Mayor: July 25, 2005 Returned: August 5. 2005 Effective: August 5, 2005 _ Published: August 11, 2005 REMARKS: ROLL CALL VOTE AYES AYES NOES ABS EX Arakaki X Higa X x Hoffmann X Hoffmann. X Holschuh X Holschuh Ikeda X Isbell X Jacobson X X Pilago X Jacobson Safarik X Pilago X 8 1 0 0 ROLL CALL VOTE I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council published as indicated alcove. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG�&ITY: F i - COUXCIRMAN EPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL COUNTY OF HAWAII L.. - �• COUNTYCLERK Date 32 (D ft 3) pprove Disapproved this S 1rY0R,XX'b'bU 20 dS TY OF HA WAI '1 Bill No.: Reference: Ord No. - J_" C-107.3/PC-27 a5 JUS AYES NOES ABS EX Arakaki X Higa x Hoffmann. X Holschuh X Ikeda X Isbell X Jacobson X Pilago X Safarik x 8 1 0 0 I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council published as indicated alcove. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG�&ITY: F i - COUXCIRMAN EPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL COUNTY OF HAWAII L.. - �• COUNTYCLERK Date 32 (D ft 3) pprove Disapproved this S 1rY0R,XX'b'bU 20 dS TY OF HA WAI '1 Bill No.: Reference: Ord No. - J_" C-107.3/PC-27 a5 JUS k EXHIBIT B I Ordinance N0.05 113 �ZY Os ly� COUNTY OF HAWAII •: '� r;•.•• art os•M��► STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. 30 Draft 3 ORDINANCE NO. 05 -1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CI IANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIVIC'ATION FROM AGRICULTURAL - 5 ACRES (A -5a) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, (RM -2.5) AT PUAPUA`AIKI ls' AND PUAPUA`ANUI 1sI, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-5-17:19. BE I"1 ORDAINED I3Y "I HI; COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII; SECTION 1. Section 25-8-3, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows - The district classification cif the following area situated at Puapua`aiki I" and Puapua`anui I", North Kona, Hawaii shall be Multiple Family Residential (RM -2.5): Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of this parcel of land, being also along the Easterly side of Kuakirli, Highway (F.A.S.P. No. 5-229(1)), the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation, Station "KAHI =L,O", being 578.53 North and 2,877.36 East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1. 2510 54' 00" 13 4. 10 feet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669. Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2. 252° 05' 061' 43.12 fleet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui. 3. 249° 53' 15'' 23.07 feet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669, band Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 4. 2600 35' 20" 31.24 feet along Lot 2, being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; I 40. 1660 37' 32" 69.87 feet; Thence, along the l ;asterly side of Kuakini Highway (l� .A.S.P. No. S-224(1)) on a curve to the left with a radius of 1677.02 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 41. 165° 01' 28'' 41.01 feet to the point of beginning and containing an area of' 14.872 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-44, 11awai`i County Code, the County Council finds the following conditions are: ( 1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; or (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed with respect to: (A) Protection of- the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or (B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated, conditions o f )approval. 13. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within ninety days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed 1 development prior to Final Plan Approval. -7- C. Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date this ordinance. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the: proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with - Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures. paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). D. As represented by the applicant, the project shall be restricted to the use of rental housing only for a�period of not less than 20 years from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any change to this condition will require an amendment to the change of zone ordinance. E. If Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), it shall be submitted to the Department- of Transportation for review and approved prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. All accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvemetits, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. F. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:1, at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including, but nvt limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K. No 7-5- 17: 1. Intersection improvements shall be as required by the Department of Transportation. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to -accommodate 4 -way traffic. Said improvements. plus the main spine read through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualalai Road, shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any residential structures on the subject site. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed }prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non- residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on .lune 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement 1" to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for nem -residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures. from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, SUB 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors or assigns shall also complete the road connection from l;asement "I" to the main project intersection, including bridging the noodway, io County dedicable standards, and from Easement to the southerly project access, to County dedicable standards. prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. RE I. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of -the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration lane shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Requirement improvements may include, but not be limited to. pavement and shoulder widening, pedestrian activated cross walk lights, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the maLika side of'Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy fbr any residential structures on the subject site. J. The main spine mauka/makai road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidevvulk improvements and it'accepted by the County, a bike path, prior to issuance of'a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in favor of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1 so that the property can be -developed independently of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 19. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. K. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. L. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. I f' deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) clearances and/or approvals shall be secured prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE" zone or the corrected effective base flood plain. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. M. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. N. No residential structures shall be constructed within areas designated -Al;" or "shaded' Ione "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM.) as amended by any applicable IIOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all single family residential lots shall give notice of the terms of ( this rezoning condition. No single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. If appropriate. a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be failed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. O. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection, Control (UIQ permit, if required, shall be J secured, from the State Department of' Health before the commencement of construction activities. -11- P. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. Q. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. If the offsite sev4-er line does not have adequate capacity, the applicant shall be responsible for necessary improvements. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of'the Department of; Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. R. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance o f' a Certificate of Occupancy. S. A Data Recovery Plan and/or an Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan, it'required, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director, in consultation with the Department of Land and Natural Resources — State I listoric Preservation Division (DI,NR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of the approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. T. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and -12- Natural Resource — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work, shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR-SHPD when it -finds that sufficient mitigation measures_ have been taken. U. ' As represented by the,applicant, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant shall solicit the input of the State Department of Education (DOE), community, and County Council to determine; which government agency or entity, such as a DOE -certified "public charter" school. would be the recipient of this school site. The school site and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed via lease to the identified recipient for $1.00 for the duration of the lease, with the understanding that said entity or agency would be able to secure additional funds as may be necessary to have a school opened prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a residential occupancy permit on the subject property. Further, should the school use be terminated for any reason, the land and improvements thereon shall be conveyed in fee to the County of llawai`i at no cost within thirty (30) days of the date of termination. Within sixty (60) days of the identification of the receiving agency or entity, a draft of an agreement reflecting; the terms outlined in this ordinance, shall be submitted to the County Council for its review and approval. As further represented by the applicant, the applicant, successors, or assigns shall, 1) prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential or commercial structures on the subject site, a) subdivide and dedicate or cause the dedication of 5 acres of land within the T.M.K. 7-5- 17: 19 and/or T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 for a school site to the State DOE or a DOE -certified "public charter": and b) provide the necessary infrastructure -13- to the site, including vehicular access and utility systems; and 2) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential structures on the subject site, make the necessary on-site land improvements for the school and associated playground area, as well as construct or cause the construction of up to $600,000 of building or structural improvements as may be mutually agreed to between the applicant and the receiving agency or entity. These improvements are designed to facilitate the opening of'a school prior to the occupancy of any residential structures on the subject property. V. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall be initially based on the representations contained within the change of zone application and may be increased or reduced proportionally if the unit counts .are adjusted. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval or within five years from the effective date of this change of'7one ordinance, whichever occurs first. The fair share contribution for each unit shall be based on the number of units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price index (HOPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit (59,671.44 per singly: family residential unit). Based upon the applicant's representation of intent to develop a total of 250 multiple family residential units, the indicated total of fair share contribution is $1,5517515.00 for the multiple family residential units. However, the total amount shall be increased or reduced in proportion with the actual number M of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit (single family residential unit) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $3,061.27 per multiple family residential unit ($4,663.74 per single family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities for a total of $765,315.50; 2. $96.75 per multiple family residential unit ($224.98 per single family residential unit) to the County to support police facilities for a total of $241187.50; 3. $297.62 per multiple family residential unit ($444.36 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities for a total of` $74,405; 4. $132.65 per multiple family residential unit ($194.55 per single family residential unit) to the County to support solid waste facilities for a total of $33,162.50; and 5. $2,617.77 per multiple family residential unit ($4,143.81 per single family residential unit) to the County to support road and traffic improvements for a total of $654,442.50. In lieu of'paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, tire, police. solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway, the road -15- improvements at the Kuakini Highway intersection, and the mauka/makai spine road up to the entrance of the proposed rental housing project shall be credited against the road fair share. 3 Relative to the requirements for the school as outlined in Condition U, the value of lana — which shall be based on the per acre purchase cost of the applicant -, the cost of the infrastructure {road and utility} to the subject site, and the cost of site preparation for the school and playground area shall be credited against the park and recreation fair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be credited against the balance, if any, of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance and/or any future park and recreation fair share requirement for T.M.K. 7- 5-17: 23 and 26. W. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exaction or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. X. I o ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the, requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. The affordable housing plan shall be approved by the County Housing Agency prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of -affordable housing onsite, and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu fees. Further, as represented by the applicant, a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the units will be rented at the 80%,or less than median income level and the remaining at the 120% or less than median income level. Affordable housing credits in excess of the basic requirement outlined in Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code. shall -16- a be credited to the applicant, its successors or assigns_ Y. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws. rules, regulations and requirements. Z. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circurn stances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or s negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. -17- AA. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: i COUNCIL M BER, Co T OF HA I'1 COUNCIL Ml-,ER, COUNTY OF HAWAII H; (-) . Hawaii Date of Introduction: July 7, 2005 Date of 1 st Reading: July 7, 2005 Date of 2nd Reading: July 22, 2005 Effective Date: August 5, 2005 Fcr`�ei_NCE: Comm. 106.71 an RM -5 RS -7.5 RS -15 A -la CIO CC RS -7.5 RM -5 C mn) Rlqi5 A-54 5a A -5a A - AGRICULTURAL (A-5 TO MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENIIAL M-2.5)1 A -5a 14.87 Acs. Queen Kaahumanu A -5a A -5a Kuakini Hwy. R*5 S__ Ll q, A-5a^:'Ng: . . ..:CJI Rs -1. 'L,- I "HE T A -5a ..R -1 CD 4V Rd -1 A -5a A -la RS;10 578.53 N hT6 P RSM i 2,877.36 ERS- Ol J f�R Sf. WHELOF" �0. 5 �R�4j I RM -7 < o Kornjlo�s t L4 Nj CV -10 -"'RSLI Ij L T 1 1. I -5a e U R*4 RS -10l. iR M-2 Fs5 CV-7.5FCV-7.51 RM -1.51 890 445_ 0 090 Vao 2.670 3.550 4 eet AMENDMENTT O TSEZONING. CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A -5a) TO MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.5) AT PUAPUA'AIKI I st AND PUAPUA'ANUI 1st, NORTH KONA, HAWAII PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII Date: September 29, 2004 TMK: 7-5-017.019 (SUFFOLK INV., LLC:1152: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY -CLERK County of Hawai `i Hilo, Hawaii introduced By: Pete Hoffmann/K. Angel Pilago Date Introduced: July 7, 2005 First Reading: July 7, 2005 Published: July 17, 2005 REMARKS: Second Reading: July 22, 2005 To Mayor: July 25, 2005 Returned: August 5, 2005 Effective: August 5, 2005 _ Published: August 11, 2005 REMARKS: ROLL CALL VOTE AYES % NOES ABS EX Arakaki X Higa X Hoffmann X Holschuh X Ikeda X Isbell X , Jacobson X Pilago X Safarik x 8 1 0 0 ROLL CALL VOTE AYES NOES ABS EX Arakaki X Higa X Hoffmann X Holschuh X Ikeda X Isbell X , Jacobson X Pilago X Safarik X 8 1 0 0 1 DCS HEREBY CERTIFY that the, foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council published as indicated above. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LE ALITY: COL CIL CHAIRMAN DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL COUNTY OF H/AWAI'l COUNTY CLERK Date - Bill No.: ateBillNo.: 30 (Draft 3) Clnprove 'Disapproved this r, f 20 OS AYOR, C YOFHAW,41`1 d,2y Reference: Ord No.. C-106.71/PC-25 05 1.3.3 EXHIBIT C Terre Extension Approval Letter September 6, 2011 William P. Kenoi Mayor September 6, 2011 County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Sidney M. Fuke Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr.- Fuke: Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 113 (Suffolk Investment, LLC) Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 115 (Puaa,Development, LLC) Subject: Administrative Time Extension Tax Map Key: 7-5-017: 001 and 019 BJ Leithead Todd Director Margaret K. Masunaga Deputy Thank you for your letter dated August 15, 2011 requesting an administrative time extension to comply with Condition C (complete construction within 5 years) of Change of Zone Ordinance Nos. 05 113 and 05 115. Condition Z of Ordinance No. 05 113 and Condition BB of Ordinance No. 05 115 allow for an administrative time extension for a period not to exceed the period originally granted. Based on the reasons stated in your letter, we will grant a 5 -year time extension until August 5, 2015 to comply with Condition C of the subject ordinances. Please be informed that should you need an additional extension of time to comply with Condition C of the subject ordinances, the request and reasons, along with 20 copies of that request shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a $250 filing fee. A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission, who will forward their recommendation to the County Council. The Kona Community Development Plan (CDP), which was adopted by the County Council in 2008, identifies the subject properties as part of the Puaa-Wai`aha Village Neighborhood Transit - Oriented Development (TOD). The Plan sets out various recommendations and requirements for developing properties within a TOD. Please contact our Design Center staff at 323-4776 for assistance in interpreting and implementing the CDP's goals as you develop your project plans. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Maija Cottle at (808) 961-8159. Sincerely, BJ LEITHEAD TODD Planning Director MJC:smn P:\wpwin 60\Mai j a\Letters\TER\LFuke-AdminTER-REZ04-024&04-2 5. doc cc w/letter: Planning Department — Kona Office Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer / SidheyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 - Cell: (808) 989-0640 E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net August 15, 2011 Ms. BJ Leithead Todd, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear'Ms. Leithead Todd. - Planning - Variance - Zoning . Subdivision - Land Use Permits • Environmental Reports Subject: Zoning Time Extension —Suffolk Investment, LLC (Ord. 05 113) and Puaa Development, LLC (Ord. 05- 115), TMK: 7-5-17: 1 and 19 Condition C of Ordinance No. 05 113 and Ordinance No. 05 t 15 required completion of the respective projects within five (5) years of the effective date of those ordinances. The ordinances became effective on August 5, 2005. As such, the completion requirement was about a year ago, August 5, 2010. Unfortunately, a number of factors have affected the start of these projects. One relates to the dismal global economic conditions that have affected the respective applicants' ability to secure the required financing for their projects. Furthermore, the market for their projects (commercial and residential) has not been strong enough to warrant construction. Notwithstanding market conditions, the applicants have been working together to address common infrastructural issues, particularly drainage and road access. Although not aggressively because of the poor market conditions, these discussions are on-going. Based on the above and pursuant to condition Z of Ordinance No. 05 113 and Condition BB or Ordinance No. 05 115, the applicants respectfully request an additional five (5) years, retroactive to August 5, 2010, to complete their respective projects. Should you have questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. ineerely, SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Puaa Development, LLC via email Suffolk Development, LLC via email EA"HIBIT Traffic Impact Analysis Report For The Proposed PUALANI MAKAI Kailua-Kona, aai' i Island TIVIK: (3) 7®5-17: 1 and 1 The Traffic Management Consultant October 3, 2019 r TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT S FOR THE PROPOSED PUALANI MAKAI KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII ISLAND TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-17: 1 &19 PREPARED FOR PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC OCTOBER 3, 2019 PREPARED BY TMC THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PUALANI MAKAI KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII ISLAND TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-17: 1 & 19 I. Introduction A. Project Description Pualani Makai is a planned mixed-use development in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii Island. The property is identified as Tax Map Key: (3) 7-5-17: 1 & 19. The project site is located between Kuakini Highway to the west (makai) and Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the east (mauka), opposite the Pualani Estates. Figure 1 depicts the project location and vicinity map. Site access is proposed at the existing signalized intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street. Access also is proposed via a new mauka-makai roadway between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway, hereinafter referred to as the Spine Road. The Spine Road will intersect Queen Kaahumanu Highway at a right-turn- in/right-turn-out only intersection, which will be located about 1,100 feet south of the Puapuaanui Street intersection. The Spine Road will be stop -controlled at,its four -legged intersection with Kuakini Highway, opposite Nakukui Drive. The site plan will consist of a network of interconnecting roadways and pedestrian paths to facilitate the internal site circulation among the various components of the development plan. The proposed site plan is depicted on Figure 2. Pualani Makai will consist of a total of 386 one-, two-, and three-bedroom multi -family dwelling units (DU), neighborhood commercial retail/office space, totaling approximately 72,600 square feet of gross floor area (SFGFA), a car wash, a convenience store/gas station, and 'a public bus transfer station. Pualani Makai is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the Year 2024. Table 1 summarizes,the Pualani Makai development plan. Table 1. Pualani Makai Development Plan Multi -Family Housing 386 DU Grocery Store 30,000 SFGFA Retail -Office Space 27,600 SFGFA Dru store 15,000 SFGFA Convenience Store/Gas Station 12 Fueling Positions/2,000 SFGFA Car Wash 1 car wash tunnel Bus Transfer Station 10 Parking Stalls 14, Pualani Makai TMC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September M, 2019 ,l!r r,�li5 LEoEND Gj<yrf,.Y.j (,.y.. :.�4Y�•5>... gY„^nr:CY _ ''.:J ` :�:Pi+._� Ya ,v '.., :<'a%f^H- •//%'tLM1Mfy^^�`,'•'�`.X,SS�:i •y�Y/= r:/F.;�:1j>' r.:i[' �•• :w<f w.....AO�'J.:1:. 1... V•n.,{/J(m; ^.<i9i.'. �t<•,';:. ini 's="%1' .,).` :i< %:..:�5:' .. C f 9n<y<.:'+%P.;. Y m• tf.y .:.. �a«..2' ':Y'.�'�" :ii.'.fi%::' `'4'J.f'' 1''orJ£s d�:. ,'Y,nl •' .}+ }/.•(c.•"'' . i'o; c(„�..,sLL?;: (s o: <t'���` /'�! ......... . .<H'3. .JF"'1"f: <tSsJ. ,..;.a ,. s'' t°:•`>rt%h;.„r �• �y'i,Y•%8:.,:i:; t.J:`.n , .•i�3. 5,. .(.�., v..N,,�,* i�)-"r' uib„CO.(.1«'..v inF x%'454...,: � ,Y. c•, w,.:>S: TL'.^ i,.•«3_...:;.',::�,>....s�%��:,.. .: ::':�z`;"s%n'3:. ' ..,�^>,:^ `..:y'�',P EFit.<'7`.r.<y,y°..,�%(:��><><�t._+dL;,••«'✓.�'r:.r�e''c%k:�,xz<^c..,�2:g:xiyy>�;','in�•itq?S;s;�::�l t::.r,?,H>y .rrr`ws�,�ti_<`::„iS,�;�vx r<;)ei;:; >,::'.• gyp• < A 'S, L1 i>>F ✓ C ) I �nGtCT ia'L>u.Tkk+ s %'• � Aft 71, "'. ir� 4�)”! h3�/Y t 2f5 d x '✓ +rn:a v< :r.u>.sc i <. ., i'Cif"<^U;>'s`�.. ,«, ;/r r - (r�1,•G!..ai i•T •` -`. i�, T�f _,uJ7...,nu .an,,.n r.x 1'r .<,xru3$fe§s,r, :;:rii ",i .=: u;g<;�s>, y.•>, eL(< •.fir:.-rvt:....y,';;,, s. •(ls�.;r'�'.:<:'::'S,: �;K-: usuw:xuunfyn. ?. •' :`°:Ti mit.'., ^%� :1%!k: ?.� .Ji<•o.r...,'•:%s�;:'��.;.$.;,';:i:;:�:�% ue.azanv .rG.ant L i,�i'�JA:i%�q?.< et£,, . •F.;.;ris T f'�<.i<':. <��>:/:5:; %•, ny ice: ^�.':;,/:: r: ,t,%>.. J,;i':""� {+'i,���;:_'F�5•l:S ::. .„%;;%3i :crt..'im:� +:1151. ( ay..inl:.• �rcC"ii`% >'i>^�isi;t t,•_r, s.:£,>:r :;#...A .> MasterPlan 4 Pua{ani Ma{Cai - A.Master Planned CommunitJ -.__. Ka:Lm•Nana. \rt;•9 Krnt Isiand n f}tun�<.r HawaL i - yes. fu:: A — 1.1. Figure 2. Site Plan 3 4J,� Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 r B. Purpose and Scope of the Study The purpose of this study is to analyze the traffic impacts resulting from the development of the proposed Pualani Makai mixed-use project. This Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) is prepared in accordance with the Hawaii County Code Chapter 25, Section 25-2-46 "Concurrency Requirements". The scope of the TZAR for the proposed project includes the following: 1. A description of the Pualani Makai mixed-use development. 2. An evaluation of existing roadways and traffic conditions. 3.. The analysis of the future traffic conditions without the proposed project. 4. The development of the trip generation characteristics of the proposed project. 5. The assignment of the site -generated trips onto the roadway network. 6. The identification and analysis of the traffic impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project within 5 -year, 10 -year, and 20 -year time frames of this TIAR. 7. The recommendation of roadway improvements, which would mitigate the traffic impacts identified in this study. C. Methodologies 1. Capacity Analysis The highway capacity analysis, performed in this study, is based upon procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6"' Edition (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board. HCM defines the Level of Service (LOS) as "a quantitative stratification of a performance measure or measures representing quality of service." HCM defines the six (6) Levels of Service from the traveler's perspective, ranging from the best LOS "A" to the worst LOS "F". LOS translates the complex mathematical results of the highway capacity analysis into an A through F grading system for the purpose of simplifying the roadway performance for decision makers. LOS's "A", `B", and "C" are generally considered to be satisfactory Levels .of Service. The Hawaii County Code "Concurrency Requirements" define LOS "D" as the minimum acceptable Level of Service. LOS's "E" and "F" are considered to be worse than acceptable Levels of Service. The intersection LOS is primarily based upon average delay, (d) in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh). The delays at unsignalized intersections, which include stop -controlled intersections and roundabouts, are generally shorter than signalized intersections, due'to the drivers' expectation and acceptance of longer delays at higher -volume signalized intersections. Table 2 summarizes the HCM LOS criteria. 4 M Pualani Makai _ Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 Table 2. Intersection Level of Service Criteria (HCN ) LOS Signalized Control Unsignalized Control Description Delay d (sec/veh) A d__<10 d<_10 Control delay is minimal. B 10<d<_20 10<d<_ 15 Control delay is not significant. C 20<d05 15<d<_25 Stable operation. Queuing begins to occur. D 35<d<_55 25<d<_35 Less stable condition. Increase in delays, decrease in travel speeds. E 55<d<_80 35<d<_50 Unstable operation, significant delays. F d>80 d>50 ` High delays, extensive queuing. HCM utilizes a peak hour factor (PHF) to convert the peak 15 -minute traffic volume into an hourly volume. For the purpose of this study, the peak hour traffic analysis is based directly upon the peak 15 -minute traffic flows entering the study intersections, which is multiplied by four (4) to convert the 15 -minute peak volumes into the peak hour volumes. Synchro is a traffic analysis software that was developed by Trafficware. Synchro; is an intersection analysis program that is based upon the HCM 6th Edition methodology. Synchro is used to calculate the Levels of Service for the intersections in the study area. Worksheets for the capacity analysis, performed throughout this report, are compiled in the Appendix. 2. Trip Generation The trip generation methodology is based upon generally accepted techniques developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in Trip Generation Manual, l Oth Edition. The :ITE trip rates were developed by correlating the total vehicle trip generation data with various land use activities/characteristics, such as the vehicle trips per hour (vph) per dwelling unit (DU). The Trip Generation Manual is based upon trip generation data that were collected at single -use, isolated sites. A mixed-use development, such as the proposed Pualani Makai, can provide the potential for interaction between complementary land uses, such as trips between residential origins and shopping destinations, which do not use the public roadway system. ITE defines these "internal capture trips" as the trips generated by the various components of a mixed -used development that begin and end entirely with the project site. The total external trip generation of a mixed-use 5 " Pualani Makai TMC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2099 development, i.e., trips entering and exiting the site, may be less than the simple sum of the trip generation from the individual components of the site. ITE recommends the use of a procedure that was presented in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684 "Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed -Use Development". The procedure was published by ITE in the Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition, dated August 2014. The Trip Generation Handbook also provides a procedure to estimate "pass -by" trips, generated by a retail land use, i.e., traffic already on the roadway stopping at a "secondary", destination en route to its primary destination. The percentages of pass - by trips were correlated with the gross floor areas of the retail land use activities, which were collected from traffic studies and compiled by ITE. The pass -by trip rate is applied to the -trip generation, after adjusting for the internal trip capture, to arrive at the external trip generation. II. Existing Conditions A. Roadways Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Route 11), also known as the Hawaii Belt Road, is the primary arterial highway along the west coast of Hawaii Island. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is a two-way, two-lane highway, in the vicinity of the project site. The posted speed limit on Queen Kaahumanu Highway in Kailua-Kona is 45 miles per hour (mph). Exclusive left -turn lanes are provided on Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Hualalai Road and at Puapuaanui Street. Right -turn acceleration/deceleration lanes also are provided on Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Hualalai Road and at Puapuaanui Street. A median refuge lane is provided on northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway to facilitate the left -turn movement from Hualalai Road. The intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street provides a protected left -turn -only phase in the southbound direction. South of the junction between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway, the Hawaii Belt Road continues as Kuakini Highway to South Kona. -Kuakini Highway is a two-way, two- to four -lane major collector street in Kailua-Kona. In the vicinity of the project site the posted speed on Kuakini Highway is 45 mph. Kuakini Highway is stop -controlled at its channelized Tee -intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Southbound Hawaii Belt Road provides right -turn acceleration and deceleration lanes at the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway junction. Northbound Hawaii Belt Road provides an exclusive left -turn lane to Kuakini Highway. A median refuge lane is provided on northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway to, facilitate the left - turn movement from Kuakini Highway. J Puapuaanui Street is a two-way, two-lane subdivision roadway, which provides access to Pualani Estates. Puapuaanui Street provides separate left -turn and right -turn lanes at its n TMC Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2099 signalized Tee -intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Puapuaanui Street extends in the mauka (east) direction to Hualalai Road. Hualalai Road is a two-lane, two-way roadway between Mamalahoa Highway and Ali' i Drive.' Hualalai Road intersects Queen Kaahumanu Highway at two offset Tee - intersections. The makai (west) leg of Hualalai Road intersects Queen Kaahumanu Highway at a stop -controlled channelized intersection. Nakukui Drive is a two-way, two-lane, gated roadway, which provides access to the Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Nakukui Drive intersects Hualalai Road at a stop -controlled Tee -intersection. An exclusive left -turn lane is provided on northbound Kuakini Highway at Nakukui Drive. B. Public Transit The Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency operates a public bus service on Hawaii Island Monday through Saturday. The Hele-On Bus routes in Kailua-Kona currently run along Ali'i Drive. The Hele-On Bus does not currently provide transit service to the project site. C. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions 1. Field Investigation and Data Collection Turning movement traffic count surveys were conducted during the week of May 205 2019 at the following intersections: a. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Hualalai Road (makai leg) b. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street c. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway d: Kuakini Highway and Nakukui Drive The traffic signal timing and phasing at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street were observed during the field investigation. 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic The existing AM peak hour of traffic in the study -area occurred from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM. Queen Kaahumanu Highway carried between 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) and 2,000 vph, total for both directions, during the existing AM peak hour of traffic, South of its junction with Queen Kaahumanu, Kuakini Highway carried about 2,200 vph, total for both directions. At Nakukui Drive, Kuakini Highway carried about 700 vph, total for both directions. Puapuaanui Street carried about 400 vph at Queen Kaahumanu Highway, while the makai leg of Hualalai Road carried about 260 vph. 7 TMC CN r Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 201 During the existing AM peak hour of traffic, the overall intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street operated at LOS `B". The left -turn movement from Queen Kaahumanu Highway onto Puapuaanui Street operated at LOS "E". The left -turn movement from Puapuaanui Street onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway operated at LOS "D". The other traffic movements at the intersection operated at satisfactory Levels of Service, i.e., LOS "C" or better, during the existing AM peak hour of traffic. The left -turn movement from the makai leg of Hualalai Road onto northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway operated at LOS "D", during the existing AM peak hour of traffic. The other traffic movements at the intersection operated at satisfactory Levels of Service. The left -turn movement from Kuakini Highway onto northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway operated at LOS "E". The other traffic movements at the intersection operated at satisfactory Levels of Service, during ,the existing AM peak hour of traffic. During the existing AM peak hour of traffic, the intersection of Kuakini Highway and Nakukui Drive operated at satisfactory Levels of Service. Figure 3 depicts the existing AM peak hour traffic volumes. 3. Existing PM Peak ]Flour Traffic The existing PM peak hour of traffic in the study area occurred from 3:15 PM to 4:15 PM. During the existing PM peak hour of traffic, Queen Kaahumanu Highway carried between 1,800 vph and 2,000 vph, total for both directions. South of its junction with Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Kuakini Highway carried over 2,300 vph, total for both directions. At Nakukui Drive, Kuakini Highway carried about 800 vph, total for both directions. At Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Puapuaanui Street carried about 350 vph, total for both directions, while the makai leg of Hualalai Road carried about 200 vph, during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. The overall intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street operated at LOS "B", during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. The left -turn movement from southbound Queen Kaahumanu onto Puapuaanui Street operated at LOS "E". The left -turn movement from Puapuaanui Street operated at LOS "D" at Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The other traffic movements at the intersection operated at satisfactory Levels of Service, during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. The other intersections in the study area operated at satisfactory Levels of Service. The existing PM peak hour traffic data are depicted on Figure 4. � � yt .E C CU i� Y Nakukui Dr 10--* T 10n -k c� �- LO CO C v S 3 w � � yt Q a NLO 0 C%4 N CO N v C 3 w z C R7 —4 E Cr) G7 C s C �LO Figure 3. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 9 4 ' TMCPualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 1 Sir g6-�k Mwlkl m Cr) CD 00 OD 3 tis E CU Cal to J CO " CO r n Cn -CD •t_ V V cis Nakukui Dr . (D (1 r 7-4 LO CD T- CO c sv e Sir g6-�k Mwlkl m Cr) CD 00 OD 3 tis E CU Cal to J CO " CO r n Cn -CD JD (D (1 r to e c ao E CO t= ID �. CN L C-3 of Figure 4. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic 10 M% Pualani Makai TC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 III. Future Traffic Conditions A. Background Growth in Traffic The Federal -Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Hawaii (TPDH) was prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT), , in cooperation with the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and` Planning Department. The TPDH developed long-range travel forecasts for Hawaii Island based upon future socio-economic conditions. The 2035 Transportation Plan projected an annual growth rate of about 1.7 percent in vehicle trips in Kailua-Kona. For the purpose of this traffic impact analysis, an annual average growth factor of 1.7 percent was uniformly applied to the existing (Year 2019) peak hour traffic to estimate the Year 2024 peak hour traffic demands without the proposed project B. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project The left -turn movements from Puapuaanui Street onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway and from southbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway onto Puapuaanui Street are expected to operate at LOS "E", during the Year 2024 AM peak hour of traffic without the proposed project. The left -turn movement from Hualalai Road (makai leg) is expected to operate at LOS "E". The other intersections in the study .area are expected to operate at the same Levels of Service as during the existing AM peak hour of traffic. The Year 2024 AM peak hour volumes without the proposed project are depicted on Figure 5. C. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Without Project During the Year 2024 PM peak hour of traffic without the proposed project, the intersections in the study area are expected to operate at the same Levels of Service as during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. Figures 6 depicts the Year 2024 PM peak hour volumes without the proposed project, respectively. D. Future Highway Improvements . The. County of Hawaii Department of Public Works (DPW) is planning to construct the Ali' i Parkway (also known as the Kahului-Keauhou Parkway and the Ali' i Highway) from Alii Drive, north of Kamehameha III Road, to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, south of Hualalai Road.. The State Department of Transportation (DOT) is planning to widen Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Henry Street to the Kuakini Highway junction, and continue the highway widening on Kuakini Highway in the southerly direction to Kamehameha III Road. The time frames for the implementation of the (DPW and DOT projects have not been established at this writing and is not included in this traffic impact analysis. 11 Pualani Makai Tnnc_ Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2099 35..* 61Y 'MW LOr'O _ C-0LO r C N E t6 N CO W M O -A. Cr CD CD I 00 �! W C Nakukui Dr _ 17-* Vi 11-� l r•�� sZ _ L 00 E �- --40)- 0-4 1 \ � - c Pualani Makai EN Tnn Traffic Impact Analysis, Report September 18, 2019 to 5-Wr 104-x J CY) -.t 00 rn m D --%w Y C Nakukui Dr 3 g.a + �' co E N)o cc '�i� cc Y t Pualani Makai + _" tone:- � r Traffic Impact Analysis Report IV. Traffic Impact Analysis A. Trip Generation Characteristics September 18, 2019 The trip generation characteristics for the proposed Pualani Makai were based upon the ITE trip rates for a 386 -unit low-rise multi -family housing, a 30,000 SFGFA grocery store, and a 15,000 SFGFA drugstore with drive-through service. The convenience store/gas station were analyzed using the ITE trip generation rates for a convenience store with gas pumps. The car wash was analyzed with the ITE trip rates for an automated car wash. The bus transfer station was analyzed using the ITE trip generation rates for a park-and-ride lot with bus service. The retail -office spaces were analyzed as two separate components. The four (4) 2,400 SFGFA pads in the parking lot were analyzed using the ITE trip rates for fast-food restaurants. Two (2) fast-food restaurants were assumed to provide drive-through service and two (2) fast-food restaurants were assumed to operate without drive-through service. The trip generation for the remaining:18,000 SFGFA of retail -office space was analyzed using the ITE trip generation rates for a shopping center. The ITE trip generation characteristics for the proposed project are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Pualani Makai ITE Trip Generation Characteristics Land Use AM Peak Hour (vph) PM Peak Hour (vph) (ITE Code) Units Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Multi -Family 386 DU 39 133 172 123 73 196 Housing (220) Fast -Food 4,800 Restaurants With SFGFA 98 95 193 82 75 157 Drive-Thru (934) %' Fast -Food 4,800 Restaurants W/O SFGFA 68 45 113 68 68 136 Drive-Thru (933) Grocery Store- 30.000 (850) SFGFA 69 46 115 163 157 320 Drugstore With 15 000 Drive-Thru (881) SFGFA ' 1 27 58 77 77 154 Retail -Office Space 185000 20 12 32 62 66 128 (820) ' SFGFA Car Wash (948) 1 Tunnel 31 18 49 39 39 78 14 TMC Pualani Pualani Makai V Ez� r Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 98, 2099 Table 3. Pualani Makai ITE Trip Generation Characteristics (Cont'd.) Land Use AM Peak Hour (vph) PM Peak Hour (vph) (ITE Code) Units Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Convenience Store 12 Fueling Restaurants 2 N/A 10 Retail -Office 1 With Gas Pumps Positions 125 125 250 1.38 138 276 (853) 25. Restaurants 18 N/A 59 Retail -Office 55 Bus Station (090) 10 Parking 5 1 6 1 3 4 Spaces Total Trips 486 502 988 753 696 19449 The internal trips within the mixed -used project are based upon the ITE internal trip capture rates. For example, ITE estimates that 20 percent of the trips, exiting the multi- family housing, will enter the restaurants. Similarly, 20 percent of the trips, entering the restaurants, will originate from the multi -family housing. The lesser of the two values is used to estimate the internal trip capture from the multi -family housing to the restaurants. During the PM peak hour of traffic, ITE estimates that 76 percent of the trips exiting the retail uses will enter the multi -family housing, while 55 percent of the trips entering the multi -family housing will originate from the retail uses. Again, the lesser of the two values is used to estimate the internal trip capture between the multi -family housing and the retail component of the mixed-use development. ITE further "constrains" the PM peak hour internal trip capture with proximity adjustments, which are based upon the weighted - average distances between the various components of the mixed-use development. ITE does not provide proximity adjustments for the AM peak hour internal trip capture are therefore "unconstrained". The AM peak hour unconstrained internal trip capture reduces the AM peak hour trips by about 10.5 percent. The PM peak hour constrained internal trip capture reduces the PM peak hour trips by about 14.6 percent. Table 4 summarizes the internal capture trips between the multi -family housing, fast-food restaurants, and the retail -office uses, which includes the grocery store and the drugstore. 15 Table 4. Pualani Makai Trip Capture Origins IDestinations AM Peak Hour Multi -Family Housing Restaurants Retail -Office - Multi -Family Housing N/A 27 1 Restaurants 2 N/A 10 Retail -Office 1 11 N/A PM Peak Hour Multi -Family Housing N/A 11 25. Restaurants 18 N/A 59 Retail -Office 55 44 N/A 15 M Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 About one-half of the AM and PM peak hour trips, generated by the fast-food restaurants are expected to be pass -by trips. The pass -by trip rates for the convenience store with gas pumps are estimated at 63 percent and 66 percent during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively. The PM peak hour pass -by trip rates for the grocery store, the drugstore, and the remaining retail -office uses are estimated at 36 percent, 49 percent, and 34 percent respectively. ITE does not provide AM peak hour pass -by trip rates for the grocery store, drugstore, or the other retail uses. Table 5 summarizes the trip generation, adjusted for the trip capture less the pass -by trips to arrive at the external trip generation. Table 5. Pualani Makai Adjusted Trip Generation Characteristics Land Use- Trips AM Peak Hour (vph) PM Peak Hour (vph) Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Multi -Family Housing Adjusted 36 106 142 50 41 91 Fast -Food Restaurants Adjusted 88 128 256 95 82 177 Pass -By 62 63 125, 48 42 90 Grocery Store Adjusted 63 40 103 118 105 223 Pass -By 0 0 0 42 38 80 Drugstore With Drive-Thru Service Adjusted 28 24 52 71 65 136 pass -By 0 0 0 27 25 52 Retail -Office Space Adjusted 18 11 29 45 45 90 Pass -By 0 0 0 16 16 32 Car Wash Unadjusted 31 18 49 39 39 78 Convenience Store W/Gas Pumps Unadjusted 125 125 250 138 138 276 Pass -By 79' 79 158 91 91 182 Bus Station Unadjusted 5 1 6 1 3 4 External Trips 152 169 321 94 81 175 B. Site Access Improvements The primary site access on Queen Kaahumanu Highway is proposed at the existing signalized intersection opposite Puapuaanui Street. The primary access on Kuakini Highway is proposed via the Spine Road at the existing stop -controlled intersection 16 TMc- Pualani Makai , INC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 Lf ` opposite Nakukui Drive. The Spine Road will extend in the mauka direction to provide a secondary access on Queen Kaahumanu Highway via a right-turn-in/right-turn-out only intersection. The following site access improvements are recommended for the proposed project: - 1. Construct the makai leg of Puapuaanui Street at its intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway to provide separate left -turn, through -only, and right -turn lanes in the mauka bound direction. 2. Widen makai bound Puapuaanui Street at Queen Kaahumanu Highway to provide a through -only lane, in addition to the existing exclusive left -turn and right -turn lanes. 3. Widen southbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Puapuaanui Street to provide right - turn deceleration and acceleration lanes. 4. Widen northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway to provide an exclusive left -turn lane to Puapuaanui Street. 5. Modify the traffic signal phasing on all approaches to the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street to provide protected -permissive left -turn phases, i.e., the left -turn movements have the right-of-way during the "green arrow" protected phase,, and must yield to opposing traffic, pedestrians, etc., during the "green ball" permissive phase. 6. Construct the stop -controlled Spine Road at Kuakini Highway to provide an exclusive right -turn lane and a shared through/left-turn lane. 7. Widen southbound Kuakini Highway to provide an exclusive left -turn lane to the Spine Road. 8. Widen northbound Kuakini Highway to provide right -turn deceleration and acceleration lanes at the Spine Road. 9. Extend the Spine Road to intersect Queen Kaahumanu Highway at a channelized right- turn-in/right-turn-out only unsignalized intersection. 10. Widen southbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at the Spine Road to provide an exclusive right -turn acceleration lane. Extend the acceleration lane from the makai leg of Puapuaanui Street to provide a right -turn deceleration lane at the Spine Road. C. Traffic Assignment The traffic assignments were based upon the existing traffic patterns along Queen Kaahumanu Highway .and Kuakini Highway. The extension of Puapuaanui Street and the Spine Road are expected to provide an alternative route between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway. The Spine Road is expected to divert traffic from the Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersections with Hualalai Road (makai leg) and Kuakini Highway. 17 kai Pualani I TrafficTMC Impact , I Reporter �..>_ � •,••a._a�, � ;��..�v�.....,.��ca.., u �s��c��... �a�,�.�...�� a.�:MEMO=�. ��...�.a�c�.��,.'ce..a.h�a-.���.:��.: � a.�.•�.�.�':. � �`v.:,..\..a.`.:. , ��� ::.:.... _...�......... >, �::v.:.>s„s��•s...>� a,.a.:.�<• • Figures 7 and 8 depict the AM and PM peak hour traffic assignments of the diverted traffic, respectively. The AM and PM peak hour assignments of site -generated traffic are depicted on Figures 9 and 10, respectively. D. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project During the Year 2024 AM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project, the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street is expected to operate at an overall -LOS "C". The proposed protected -permissive left -turn phases at the intersection are expected to improve the traffic operations to acceptable Levels of Service, i.e. LOS "D" or better. The left -turn movement from mauka bound Puapuaanui Street and the left -turn and through movements from makai bound Puapuaanui Street are expected to improve to LOS "D". The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The traffic movements at the intersection of Nakukui Drive and Kuakini Highway are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The Spine Road is expected to operate at LOS "A" at Queen Kaahumanu Highway, during the Year 2024 AM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project. The left -turn movement from Hualalai Road onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at LOS "E". The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. During the Year 2024 AM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project, the left -turn movement from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at LOS "F". However, the Spine Road is expected to significantly reduce the left -turn demand from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway'. The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. Figure 11 depicts the Year 2024 AM peak hour traffic with the proposed project. E. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project The intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street is expected to operate at an overall LOS "C", during the Year 2024 PM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project. The left -turn and through movements on both approaches of Puapuaanui Street at Queen Kaahumanu Highway are expected to operate at LOS "D". The left -turn movement on southbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to improve from LOS "E" to LOS "B". The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. 18 " Pualani Makai TMC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 98, 2099 Lf CN o C Ca Ca Y c IM w v s 10-x+' 0� a o � 0n I I / A. -I A! * �k -*-1 �J ca w Nakukui Dr 'Or0 ().�► Spine Rd Spine Rd 10- o + ;rsCO . 0 c�'�� s CO � TMC Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 98, 2099 c 00 T 00 T �. CIS E i C4' CO Y c CD a� Ci r *-10 Q KO r 19' A 04KG�.o� CO Y ^ k-47 .�. 'i*� <-1 e00 Nakuku.i Dr X -O y 0.f Spine Rd Spine Rd 7�k (D c� W ��, CO -J r 00vo:;� 10 + Oar 6-k N(T) Its ON) R-13 (-) . �Co X27 x-23 a � a 189 a 14- CD 75-* 0.� .�cc I Y N.)Co O tv 10 E- Nakukui Dr Ae-0 0-* Spine Rd Spine Rd 100-* 00 0* INfiK `n o co Co CN(D IIC CD LO 00T A Oo LO G 0� 7C' .,C Figure 9. AM Peak Hour Site Traffic Assignment 21 0 d 3 3 0000 OD E � Y X 0 .te 0a c v 11.49 Al + •F-0 Nakukui Dr �i 0'0 0-;f Spine R �S O N LO LO C] �S m x Spine Rd '137' 2 CO .0 d 3 0000 OD E c� X c v Z3 0 0" �i *13 180-* �S ` 23-> LO LO C] 116 CMD Spine Rd '137' CO .0 CD CD O CCn m y� r- o 0 Cf) a Figure 10. PM Peak Hour Site Traffic Assignment 22 01 - TMCPualani Makai ,:NTraffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 r (b N 0') 4 CO 3S.Jr 67-x C9i 195-+'. 'o 75y C9 n CO ooW. *-180 CO CnO i + lk X1 -rN,cp Nakukui Dr 0 17-* Spine Rd Spine Rd 110 1 Q� o r C CO , 1� rr--0 Cj r k7 C CD CD 2 O G R� ti CO LOM 2. 1< Figure 11. Year 2024 AM Peak Hour Volumes With Project 23 v Tnnc -- Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, -2019 RM I The left-turn/through movement from Nakukui Drive onto Kuakini Highway is expected to operate at LOS "D". The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The Spine Road is expected to operate at LOS "A" at Queen Kaahumanu Highway, during the Year 2024 PM peak hour of traffic. During the Year 2024 PM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project, the left -turn movement from Hualalai Road onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at LOS "D". The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The left -turn movement from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at LOS "E". Once again, the Spine Road is expected to significantly reduce the left -turn demand from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The Year 2024 PM peak hour traffic with the proposed project is depicted on Figure 12. F. Year 2029 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project Pualani Makai is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the Year 2024. While the site -generated traffic is assumed to remain constant beyond the Year 2024, the background growth in traffic is expected to continue to increase at an annual average growth rate of 1.7 percent to the Years 2029 and 2039. The intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street is expected to continue to operate at an overall LOS "C", during the Year 2029 AM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project. All the traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service. All the traffic movements at the intersection of Kuakini Highway and Nakukui^Street are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The left -turn movement from Hualalai Road onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to continue to operate at LOS "E". The left -turn movement from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to continue to operate at LOS "F". The Year 2029 AM peak hour traffic with the proposed project is depicted on Figure 13. G. Year 2029 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project During the 2029 PM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project, the left -turn movement from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to continue to operate at LOS "E". 24 :�C -- Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 1 � 1 0) tis CO /� * �k Nakukui Dr 9-f 7a 1 nk o� k96 -<-1 r0 � 4, LO O M "1t - O � .. - LO Cn CD Spine Rd Spine Rd 14 � if o civ r � CD CD w IN N) m �� c 34 coo MO z Figure 12. Year 2024 PM Peak Hour Volumes With Project 25 b i 1 " TMCPualani Makai ' IN r Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 37X �1� a r-- (0 2 N � C r CLS E .0 co M Y d corn 8-209 00 i- + $ -139 a = 1 99-). It It 01) 75 � M X21 - *-188 38 f Na.icukui Dr 'Aro 19a Spine Rd Spine Rd 111 11� o if 0 �n* r TTC). Ln T Y 1 CD CO 0Z Gc3ij �G D ,3)," / v Pualani Makai ENMrC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2099 The other intersections in the study area also are expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service. Figure 14 depicts the Year 2029 PM peak hour traffic with the proposed proj ect. H. Year 2039 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project The intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street is expected to operate at an overall LOS "D", during the Year 2039 AM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project. The left -turn and through movements on both approaches of Puapuaanui Street at Queen Kaahumanu Highway are expected to operate at LOS "E". The left -turn movement on southbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at LOS "E". The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service. The intersection of Nakukui Drive and Kuakini Highway is expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The left -turn movements from Hualalai Road and from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway are expected to operate at LOS "F". The left -turn movement from northbound Kuakini Highway to westbound Kuakini Highway also is expected to operate at LOS "F". The Year 2039 AM peak hour traffic with the proposed project is depicted on Figure 15. I. Year 2039 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis With Project During the 2039 PM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project, the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street is expected to operate at an overall LOS "D". The left -turn movements on all approaches to the intersection are expected to operate at LOS "E". The makai bound through movement on Puapuaanui Street also is expected to operate at LOS "E". The through movements in both directions on Queen Kaahumanu Highway and on mauka bound Puapuaanui Street are expected to operate at LOS "D". The left-turn/through movements from Nakukui Drive and from the Spine Road at Kuakini Highway are expected to operate at LOS "E" and LOS "D", respectively. The other traffic movements at the intersection are expected to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The Spine Road is expected to operate at LOS "A" at Queen Kaahumanu Highway, during the Year 2039 PM peak hour of traffic with the proposed project. 27 124-.x � T O N = r r c r c c� F24 c t K57 CO a � CB Y 0000 F24 K57 a � - 23-)- 116-* kf7 CY3 r dr7 O r - Ca a) Cr) .1h. vL100 o Nakukui Dr A'0 9-* Spine Rd Spine Rd 144- 7LO N 1n 0�0 C Ir- r Cf) r £% N O Sr n: c c �T rn r~ CO CO o � r Figure 14. Year 2029 PM Peak Hour Volumes With Project 28 M Pualani Makai Ez% r Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 43.* l m a� A� ��k �s 4103 lakukui Dr r3 �� ��� Spine Rd Spine Rd 112 12-� N 2 o)o C) 0 fv c �• '-' N CCD c = O MG) Ga. x m TMC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 ... . n- ..c_:. .a. `� ...V`a. � :<a�-.\'l.0 h�`'.�`a�;�a\:. ,y. o��\.. .. a��C�:-:\::.':`a.��'�V.\�\�.��u.. ��;��:n\N>:,:ti��:\�. :. �1�. �:.\�_,�',�.tN ea. i.• �.,,'.. '�;a,...i` .+a H`n�?��i..__4.: �..'�. 8. �"i.0'.� r'S .. a��:i The left -turn movement from Hualalai Road onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at LOS "D". The left -turn movement from northbound Kuakini Highway to westbound Kuakini Highway is expected to operate at LOS "D". The left -turn movement from eastbound Kuakini Highway to northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expected to operate at LOS "F". Figure 16 depicts the Year 2039 PM peak hour traffic with the proposed. V. Recommendations A. Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui'Street The following traffic improvements are recommended at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street to mitigate the traffic impacts with the proposed project: 1. Provide separate left -turn, through -only, and right -turn lanes on the proposed mauka bound leg of Puapuaanui Street at its intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 2. Widen makai bound Puapuaanui Street at Queen Kaahumanu Highway to provide a through -only lane, in addition to the existing exclusive left -turn and right -turn lanes. 3. Widen southbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Puapuaanui Street to provide separate right -turn deceleration and acceleration lanes. 4. Widen northbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Puapuaanui Street to provide an exclusive left -turn lane. 5. Modify the traffic signal phasing at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street to provide protected -permissive left -turn phases on all approaches to the intersection. B. Spine Road The following traffic improvements are recommended on the proposed Spine Road at its intersections with Kuakini Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway: 1. Provide an exclusive right -turn lane and a shared through/left-turn lane on the Spine Road at its stop -controlled intersection with Kuakini Highway, opposite Nakukui Drive. 2. Widen/restripe southbound Kuakini Highway to provide an exclusive left -turn lane to the Spine Road. 3. Widen northbound Kuakini Highway to provide right -turn deceleration and acceleration lanes to/from the Spine Road. 4. Provide a channelized right-turn-in/right-turn-out only intersection between the Spine Road and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 30 TMC Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 14� 10 + Ca E Ca w n� (D Ci 203- 23->- 1 6 3->- 16 s 1V 0-3 T. Spine Rd 145 43g � Figure 16. Year 2039 PM Peak 'Hour Volumes With Project 31 r -E Y Y Cr - o ---J *-107 cCn Wy�k E-1 Nakukui Dr r0 11 "' Spine Rd $� N C-0CSD CO RE < 14� 10 + Ca E Ca w n� (D Ci 203- 23->- 1 6 3->- 16 s 1V 0-3 T. Spine Rd 145 43g � Figure 16. Year 2039 PM Peak 'Hour Volumes With Project 31 Pualani Makai M% r TMC Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 98, 2099 5. Widen southbound Queen Kaahumanu Highway at the Spine Road to provide an exclusive right -turn acceleration lane. Extend the right -turn acceleration lane on Queen Kaahumanu Highway to provide a right -turn deceleration lane to the Spine Road. C. Construction Cost Estimates The following cost estimates for recommended traffic improvements were provided by E. M. Rivera & Sons, Inc. and Dempsey Pacific, Inc.: 1. Roadway improvements on Queen Kaahumanu Highway at Puapuaanui Street and at the Spine Road — $2,524,238.00. 2. Puapuaanui Street roadway improvements at Queen Kaahumanu Highway — $ 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway/Puapuaanui Street intersection traffic signal improvements 4. Kuakini Highway and the Spine Road intersection improvements — $519,416.00. Vl. Conclusions The proposed traffic improvements at the Pualani Makai access intersections are expected to mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed project. All the traffic movements at the Pualani Makai access intersections on Queen Kaahumanu Highway and on Kuakini Highway are expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service at the full buildout and occupancy of the proposed Pualani Makai, during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic through the Years 2024 and 2029. The Spine Road also is expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and at Kuakini Highway through the Year 2039 with the proposed project. Table 6 summarizes the measures of effectiveness (MOE) for the traffic impact analysis of the intersections in the study area. Beyond the Year 2024, after which the proposed Pualani Makai is expected to be fully built out and occupied, the left -turn movements from Hualalai Road and from Kuakini Highway onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway are expected to deteriorate to worse than acceptable Levels of Service due to the overall growth in regional traffic. However, the proposed Spine Road can be expected to divert traffic from these intersections. By the Year 2039, the regional highway capacity will need to be increased via the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway (Route 11) and/or the construction of the proposed Alii Parkway. The land use concept of Pualani Makai will provide shopping and dining opportunities and services for its residents within the mixed-use development, and thereby reduce the number of external trips generated by the proposed Pualani Makai. Furthermore, a significant portion of the external trips is expected to be pass -by trips, further reducing the number of "new" trips added'to the roadway network. Finally, the various retail -office components of the proposed Pualani Makai mixed-use development will provide necessary goods and services to South Kona, and thereby reduce regional traffic congestion in North Kona. 32 TMC � Pualani Makai r Traffic Impact Analysis %part September 18, 2019 v •von -ata Table 6. Summary of Capacity Analysis Scenario Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapunanui St Volume N/A N/A N/A 99 N/A 220 N/A 822 25 50 765 N/A 1,981 LOS N/A N/A NIA D N/A A N/A B A E A N/A B Delay N/A N/A NIA 51).6 N/A 0.2 N/A 13.7 2.8 69.5 6.1 N/A 13.7 v/c N/A N/A NIA 0.64 NIA 0.16 N/A 0.71 0.01 0.53 0.49 N/A Max. v/c: 0.71 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 32 NIA 56 N/A N/A N/A 152 974 N/A N/A 808 25 2,047 LOS D N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - A Delay 29.2 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 10.5 - N/A N/A - - 1.5 v/c 0.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.20 - N/A N/A - - NIA Existing AM Peak Hour Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 8 N/A 168 N/A N/A NIA 464 851 N/A NIA 769 66 2,326 LOS E N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 41.7 NIA 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 13.4 - N/A N/A - 3.0 v/c 0.04 N/A - NIA N/A N/A 0.53 - I NIA N/A - - N/A Kunldni Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume 16 N/A 10 N/A NIA N/A 11 513 N/A N/A 178 7 735 LOS C NIA A N/A N/A N/A A - N/A N/A - - A Delay 17.2 N/A 9.2 N/A NIA N/A 7.6 - N/A N/A - - 1.0 v/c 0.11 N/A D. D 1 N/A NIA N/A 0.02 - NIA N/A - - NIA Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume N/A N/A N/A 39 N/A 100 N/A 862 61 157 885 N/A 2,104 LOS N/A N/A N/A D NIA A NIA B A E A N/A B Delay N/A N/A NIA 51.5 N/A 0.1 NIA 16.3 1.8 55.2 4.8 N/A 13.6 v/c N/A N/A N/A 0.41 N/A 0.10 N/A 0.73 0.09 0.68 0.55 N/A Max. v/c: 0.73 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 5 N/A 96 N/A N/A NIA 89 886 NIA N/A 936 7 2,019 LOS C N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 20.9 N/A 0.0 N/A NIA N/A 10.9 - N/A N/A - - 1.4 v/c 0.02 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.10 - NIA NIA - I - N/A Existing PM Peak Hour Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 18 N/A 367 N/A N/A NIA 212 915 N/A N/A 874 37 2,423 LOS D N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 27.9 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 11.4 - N/A N/A - - 1.4 v/c 0.11 N/A - NIA NIA N/A 0.26 - N/A N/A - - N/A Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume 8 NIA 7 N/A N/A N/A 5 - N/A N/A 447 15 482 LOS C N/A B N/A N/A N/A A - N/A N/A - - A Delay 16.8 N/A 10.9 N/A NIA N/A 8.2 - N/A N/A - - 0.2 v/c 0.03 N/A 0.01 N/A N/A NIA 0.01 - N/A NIA - - N/A Legend MOE-Measure of Effectiveness Volume -vehicles per hour LOS -Level of Service Delay -Average Delay (seconds/vehicle) We -Volume -to -Capacity Ratio EBL -Eastbound Left -Tum Movement EBT -Eastbound Through Movement EBR -Eastbound Right -Tum Movement WBL-Westbound Left -Tum Movement WBT-Westbound Through Movement WBR-Westbound Right -Tum Movement NBL-Northbound Left -Tum Movement NBT -Northbound Through Movement NBR-Northbound Right -Tum Movement Pualani Makai ��? TraKc Impact Analysis Report September 1B, 2019 Table-. Summary of Capacity Analysis Scenario Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume N/A N/A N/A 107 N/A 239 N/A 891 27 54 830 N/A 2,148 LOS N/A N/A N/A E N/A A N/A B A E A N/A B Delay N/A N/A N/A 55.7 N/A 0.2 N/A 16.9 2.7 74.5 6.4 N/A 15.8 v/c N/A N/A N/A 0.71 N/A 0.17 N/A 0.79 0.01 0.58 0.53 N/A Max. v/c: 0.79 AMPeakHour Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 35 N/A 61 N/A N/A N/A 165 1,056 N/A N/A 876 27 2,220 LOS E N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 35.1 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 11.0 - N/A N/A - - 1.7 v/c 0.31 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.23 - N/A N/A - - N/A Without Project Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 11 N/A 170 N/A N/A N/A 452 908 N/A N/A 867 70 2,478 LOS E N/A A NIA N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 45.7 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 14.6 - N/A N/A - - 3.0 v/c 0.06 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.56 - N/A N/A - - N/A Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume 17 N/A II N/A N/A N/A 11 556 N/A N/A 193 7 795 LOS C N/A A N/A N/A N/A A - N/A N/A - - A Delay 18.6 N/A 9.3 N/A N/A N/A 7.6 - N/A N/A - - 1.1 v/c 0.13 N/A 0.01 N/A N/A N/A 0.02 - N/A N/A - - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume N/A N/A N/A 42 N/A 106 N/A 935 66 170 960 N/A 2,281 LOS NIA N/A N/A D N/A A N/A B A E A N/A B Delay N/A N/A N/A 46.1 N/A 0.1 N/A 16.1 1.5 62.4 4.5 N/A 13.7 v/c N/A N/A N/A 0.34 N/A 0.11 N/A 0.76 0.09 0.76 0.59 N/A Max. v/c: 0.76 PM Peak Hour Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 5 N/A 104 N/A N!A N!A 97 961 N/A N/A 1,015 8 2,190 LOS C N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 22.9 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 11.4 - N/A N/A - - 1.3 v/c 0.02 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.12 - N/A N/A - - N/A Without Project Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 21 N/A 394 N/A N/A N/A 206 980 N/A N/A 960 42 2,603 LOS D N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 12.1 - N/A N/A - - DelayP0.03 1.3 v/c N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.28 - N/A N/A _ _ N/A Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume N/A 8 NIA N/A N/A 5 - N/A N/A 485 16 523 LOS N/A B N/A N/A N/A A - N/A N/A - - A Delay N/A 11.2 N/A N/A N/A 8.3 - N/A N/A - - 0.3 v/c N/A 0.01 1 N/A N/A N/A 0.01 - N/A N/A - - i N/A d- � Pualani Makai -ter Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 -aecc�<�w.. eemsmnx�amm��aa �x�mser� ��n�aamewvaamo--�•x•••• � �:. Table . Summar` of Capacity Analysis Scenario Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume 195 9 75 130 9 194 IN 835 27 54 855 68 2,555 LOS D C A D D A A B A A B A C Delay 37.7 31.6 0.1 53.5 35.8 0.2 8.5 18.5 0.0 9.1 16.5 0.1 19.2 V•/c 0.62 0.04 0.05 0.80 0.05 0.14 0.37 0.78 0.01 0.27 0.69 0.07 Max. v/c: 0.80 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 35 N/A 67 N/A N/A N/A 157 1,153 N/A NIA 963 27 2,402 LOS E N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - NIA ' N/A - - A Delay 39.7 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 11.5 - N/A N/A - - 1.7 V•/c 0.34 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.24 - N/A NIA - - N/A AM Peak Hour With Project 2024 Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 1 N/A 148 N/A N/A N/A 537 966 N/A N/A 1,002 7 2,661 LOS F NIA A NIA NIA N/A C - N/A NIA - - A Delay 64.5 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 22.0 - NIA N/A - - 4.8 V/c 0.01 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.74 - NIA N/A - - N/A Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume 17 1 10 1 0 1 180 IU 471 108 43 171 8 1,020 LOS C A B A A - - A - - A Delay 16.9 9.2 14,8 0.0 7.6 - 8.7 - - 1.4 V•/c 0.14 0.00 0.00 - 0.02 - - 0.05 - - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Spine Road Volume NIA N/A 110 N/A N/A N/A N/A 967 N/A N/A 899 154 2,120 LOS N/A N/A A N/A NIA N/A NIA - N/A NIA - - A Delay N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.0 V•/c N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A N/A - NIA N/A - - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume 199 23 116 53 23 90 105 841 66 170 981 100 2,767 LOS D D A D D A B B A B B A Intersection LOS: B, Delay 51.4 36.6 0.1 41.8 43.4 0.1 13.8 18.4 0.7 12.1 19.6 0.6 18.7 V•/c 0.73 0.09 0.07 0.38 0.12 0.09 0.50 0.73 0.10 0.56 0.79 0.09 Max. v/c: 0.79 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 5 N/A 116 N/A N/A N/A 95 1,049 N/A N/A 1,124 8 2,397 LOS D N/A A N/A N/A NIA B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 25.5 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 12.2 - N/A N/A 0.4 V/c 0.02 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.13 - N/A NIA NIA PM r cct Withth Project 2024 Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 2 N/A 347 N/A NIA N/A 303 1,010 N/A N/A 1,132 4 2,798 LOS E N/A A N/A N/A N/A C - N/A NIA - - A Delay 39.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 16.3 - N/A N/A - 1.8 V/c U.02 N/A - NIA N/A N/A 0.47 - N/A N/A - - N/A Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume 9 7 1 0 1 96 4 294 112 113 426 16 1,079 LOS D B C A A - - A - - A Delay 25.3 10.7 22.6 0.0 8.1 - - 8.4 1.4 V•/c 0.08 0.00 0.01 - 0.01 - - 0.10 - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Spine Road Volume N/A NIA 144 NIA NIA NIA N/A 1012 N/A NIA 992 154 2.302 LOS N/A NIA A N/A NIA N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - A Delay N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A NIA - - 0.0 V•/c NIA N/A - N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A NIA - - NIA ", Pualani Makai Nr Traffic Impact Analysis Report September 18, 2019 . waxes Table . Summary of apacity Analysis Scenario Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume 194 9 75 139 62 209 104 904 29 58 919 68 2.770 LOS D C A D D A B D A B C A C Delay 50.6 34.3 0.1 41.7 41.5 0.2 20.0 36.1 0.0 16.0 25.1 0.2 28.7 Vlc 194 9 75 139 62 209 104 904 29 58 919 68 Max. v/c: 0.93 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 37 N/A 71 N/A N/A N/A 167 1,236 N/A N/A 1,032 29 2,572 LOS E N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Dela 48.6 N/A 0.0 NIA NIA N/A 12.2 - N/A N/A - 1.9 v/c 0.41 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.27 - N/A N/A - - N/A AM Peak Hour With Project 2029 Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 1 N/A 161 N/A N/A N/A 572 1,036 N/A N/A 1,070 8 2,848 LOS F N/A A N/A N/A N/A D - N/A N/A - - A Dela N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 29.7 - N/A N/A - - 6.4 �9.7 V/c 01 N/A - N/A NIA N/A 0.83 - N/A N/A - N/A Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume9 11 1 0 1 188 11 510 108 44 185 8 1,086 LOS C A C A A - - A - - A Delay 18.2 9.2 15.4 0.0 7.6 - - 8.9 - - 1.4 v/c 0.17 0.00 0.00 - 0.02 - - 0.05 - - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & - Spine Road Volume N/A N/A III N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,037 N/A NIA 967' 159 2,274 LOS N/A N/A A N/A N/A N/A NIA - N/A N/A - - A Dela N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.0 V/c N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume 200 23 116 57 24 98 105 913 71 184 1,056 100 2,947 LOS D D A D I D A C C A C C A C Delay 51.7 36.6 0.1 42.8 43.4 0.1 34.6 21.3 0.9 28.9 23.3 0.6 22.5 v/c 0.73 0.09 0.07 0.40 0.13 0.10 0.67 0.80 0.10 0.73 0.85 0.09 Max v/c: 0.85 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & HualaW Rd Volume 6 N/A 124 NIA N/A N/A 101 1,124 N/A N/A 1,203 3 2,397 LOS D N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 28.2 NIA 0.0 N/A NIA N/A 13.0 - N/A N/A - - 0.5 v/c 0.03 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.15 - N/A N/A - N/A PM Peak Hour With Project 2029 Kualdni Hwy & Queen Knahumanu Hwy Volume 2 NIA 377 N/A NIA N/A 319 1,087 NIA N/A 1,207 5 2,997 LOS E N/A A N/A N/A N/A C N/A NIA - A Dela 46.0 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 18.5 - N/A N/A - - 2.1 v/c 0.03 N/A - N/A N/A N/A 0.54 - N/A N/A - - N/A Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume 9' 1 7 1 0 1 100 5 318 112 114 463 16 1,146 LOS D B C A A - - A - - A Dela 27.9 110 24.7 00 8.2 - - 8.5 - - 1.3 v/c 0.09 0.00 0.01 - 0.01 - - 0.10 - - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Spine Road Volume N/A N/A 144 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,089 N/A NIA 1,067 157 2,457 LOS N/A N/A A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A A' Dela N/A N/A 0.0 NIA NIA N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.0 v/c N/A N/A - NIA N/A N/A N/A - N/A NIA - - N/A 44Ltl. Pualani Makai September 18, 2019 Traffic Impact Analysis Report a�a-s,a�o�w�wa Table . Sum ary of Capacity Anal sis Scenario Intersection MOE EBL EBT' EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT I SBR Intersection Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume 195 9 75 155 67 241 104 1,042 33 67 1,049 68 3,105 LOS E E A E E A B D A E C A D Delay 73.5 58.2 0.1 75.5 76.4 0.2 16.2 47.7 0.0 58.7 29.0 0.7 39.7 v/C 0.77 0.06 0.05 0.85 0.51 0.17 0.53 0.98 0.02 0.72 0.82 0.07 Max. v/c: 0.98 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume 43 N/A 81 N/A NIA N/A 187 1,400 N/A N/A 1,168 33 2,912 LOS F NIA A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A NIA - - A Delay 82.9 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A NIA 14.0 - N/A NIA - - 2.8 v/C 0.61 N/A - NIA N/A N/A 0.34 - N/A N/A - - N/A AM Peak Hour With Project 2039 Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Iiwy Volume 1 N/A 186 N/A N/A N/A 643 1,178 NIA N/A 1,206 9 3,223 LOS - N/A A NIA N/A N/A F - N/A N/A - - C Dela- N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 71.1 N/A N/A - 15.2 v/C - N/A - N/A NIA N/A 1.04 - N/A N/A - N/A Kualdni Hwy & Nakulcui Dr Volume 2I 12 1 0 1 203 12 586 108 45 214 9 1,212 LOS C A C A A - - A - - A Delay 22.9 9.4 16.6 0.0 7.7 - 9.7 - - 1.7 v/C 0.23 0,00 0.00 - 0.02 - - 0.06 - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Iiwy & Spine Road Volume N/A N/A 112 N/A NIA N/A N/A 1179 N/A N/A 1103 169 2,563 LOS NIA N/A A N/A N/A I N/A NIA - N/A NIA - - A Dela N/A N/A 0.0 N/A NIA N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.0 v/c N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A NIA - N/A N/A - - N/A Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Puapuaanui St Volume 203 23 116 63 25 114 105 1,055 82 210 1,205 100 3,301 LOS E D A E E A E D A E D A D Delay 64.4 51.3 0.1 64.2 70.2 0.1 75.1 43.3 1.4 74.1 37.3 1.3 39.7 v/c 0.72 0.10 0.07 0.50 0.26 0.11 0.85 0.95 0.12 0.89 0.95 0.09 Max. v/c: 0.95 Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Hualalai Rd Volume. 7 N/A 140 N/A N/A N/A 115 1,274 N/A N/A 1,361 9 2,906 LOS D N/A A N/A N/A N/A B - N/A N/A - - A Delay 34.9 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 14.8 - N/A N/A - - 0.5 v/C 0.04 NIA - N/A N/A N/A 0.19 - N/A N/A - - N/A PM Peak Hour With Project 2039 Kuakini Hwy & Queen Kaahumanu Hwy Volume 2 N/A 436 N/A N/A N/A 351 1,240 N/A N/A 1,357 5 3,391 LOS F N/A A NIA N/A N/A D N/A NIA - - A Delay 69.5 NIA 0.0 NIA N/A N/A 26.2 - N/A N/A - - 2.9 v/C 0.04 NIA - N/A NIA NIA 0.67 - NIA NIA - - NIA Kuakini Hwy & Nakukui Dr Volume 11 8 1 0 1 l 107 6 366 112 117 535 20 1,284 LOS E B D A A - - A - A _ 35.7 11.6 9.3 0.0 8.4 8.8 Dela 7 1.4 v/C 0.14 0.00 0.01 - 0.01 - - 0.11 - - NIA Queen Kaahumanu Hwy & Spine Road Volume N/A N/A 145 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1242 N/A N/A 1217 163 2,767 LOS . NIA N/A A NIA N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - A Dela NIA N/A 0.0 NIA N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A - - 0.0 v/C N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A NIA - N/A N/A I - - N/A EXHIBIT E Archaeological Invent® Survey Approval Letter g � State Historic Preservation Division TMK: (3) 7-5®17: 01, 19, 23, 26 and 26 August 27, 2006 i 4u � I.LN-DALINGLE C,OV=N tOFRAWw r. }.r STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 60I KAM0Ki1rA BOULEVARD, ROOM 365 KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 August 27, 2008 Paul H. Rosendabl., PhD. President and Principal Archaeologist Paul H. Rosendahl, PhD., Inc. 224 '%'aianuinui Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 97620 Dear Dr. Rosendahl: LAURAH.TMEM" BORita �FlAt+'D J�a23A7'!Al�L RMSEMY.Tn"A . FN<STrd9VM KE:V C_ KA.WARAItA �7'tfiYDEtFiICit-WATF7� AWAW 7�SOUR�4 ecw�n+o,�m ocE,N XPCRFhTlON SURU SOF c+ NVEYANM cororza�at: vH we7rn M+WACE+maT coN�.vnTIWtAND COlVrTAS.SJNmS C_GNsf7:cATQe+AUX) ams EKF0RC0Vaxr onNEO aiG z TxxAM. W¢UaVE MSTOW f SSMAMON r.Axim awESLAtmBFSMvEcoraas= "M SrATEPAK13 LOG NO: 2008.3252 DOC NO: 0808TD1 l Archaeology SUBJECT: Chapter 6E42 Historic Preservation Review = Revised Archaeological Inventory Survey Report, Pualani Makai Project Puapuea V and Vd Ahupus a, North Kona District, island ofHawaf i TALK:1317-5-17:01,19 23 25 and 26 - Thank you for sending copies of replacement pages for the inventory survey report entitled Archaeoloo cal Inventor} Survey, Pualanf Makai Project, TM.IC (3) 7-5-17.- 1, 19, 23, 25, 26; PHR-T Report 2290-030104 (Carlson and Rosendahl, June 2004). We understand that these pages were submitted to our office August 30, 2004, in response to our review ofyour revised report (P. Holly I&Eldowney letter to Paul Roseadahl, August 13, 2004; Log No_ 2004.2491, Doc No. 0408TVW09)_ We apologize for the delay in. responding to your submittal and appreciate that you have resent these pages for insertion into the revised report. The replacement pages include Table D-1, revised and updated significance assessments and recommended general treatments, and a portion of Table D-2, summary of work conducted at specific features since 1991. The bulk of the sites in -Table D-1 were first reported by your firm -in 1990 (Archaeological Inventory Survey, Pualani Development — Phase U,, Report 764-061190, Carlson and Rosendahl 1990). The recommendations in the updated -tables reflect J additional work that was conducted in the project area since 1991. At this time, we concur with the revised and updated significance assessments and recommended treatments, which consist of the following: no further work at 34 sites; ftu[her data collection at 31 sites (6601, 14079, 14081, 14090, 14092, 140947 140957 14100, 14101, 14102-14105, 14107-14109, 14111, 1411414119, 14121, 1412, 14124, 14126-14128, 14131 and 19837); preservation in place for three burial sides (14091, 14124, and 14132); and preservation as is for a possible ceremonial feature (Site 14123). We now accept this report as final and you may now proceed with preparation of a data recovery plan, burial treatment plan, non -burial site preservation plan, and monitoring plan for the pmj ect area. Thant. you for bringing the status of this project to our attention. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project further, please contact Theresa I_ Donham at 808-891-2979. Aloha, a Nancy McMahon, Deputy SHPOIState Archaeologist and Historic Preservation Manager State Historic Preservation Division :% I U ®! 7■ mm 43 4v C41 ifs Oy �• � 4 w a CS*ta -cis . cr d 44 rigit- V if T �Cn s CM O O cd _ 257m cn N N R ^ R 54 4 a C �� R ir a' a 3*3� 10 s o Era ae vl� Q t �'-�• uCk it II i m o-� o >' {7 z fD Al T N k� rp =iY a 3 R ((j T N rr it MO MW W O Tr � A/- 04 y s T D { N. ie 61 cis j $ s z ism C Q p qq -� -¢ z� N* a— arar N y ca S I ol:: I j col:: dw CA ap it Cok JLT �G �aC6 y L" Al JL k� rp =iY =:i ' ,`t`:� -�•--^ ..��\:•=?�........ '�.�\tea:\ +[087 �_ l �^ --ti..: ti=� .�.:.:�-.�:=.��:: X41 ..a.�.•4 -136 D-2 1�` .:`�\t._.v__��\::• _ �_� 'tip ::moi �J� _ . C 14092 ri•v `eaa :��:::_ _ ^'•_�,r.<•:.' - 14088 '�• ,.,.:=..�::s%�;�' ����:_:�. �-• .;rc.ti.._� 4osa 4091 741014096se 094 a- %1410001410-1 V.-tw j" � 14099 14 �5 141 •r'r 49 -%_•�• 14132 d 1 0214103 ^ 14 i07 14108 1 02 "tom• '"�"�r' z �14•i 71 � � � �`� \ 4173$ 3: f04 J ` �� 1,141'10 1410!?�. k \471+1 !f 14115 \� ---� ` 7-12 �- 1 14115 s. \ i• f 14-117 o i� 14121+® l 14122 ; S- 141-1,9 14124 � 14120 r ,14123 'st1412 r — 74 i21i�� 5143 f 814127 9.6 14929 `14730 .PUALANI DEVELOPMENT o 014128 _ PRASE 11 PROJECT AREA Iri � . - X3,5 514-4 ! 4837 l r 19836 PUAI_AN! ESTATES SUBDiV(SION WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PROJECT AREA " 0 sa 700 150 ea �= PROIEC AREA BOUNDARY O NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO LIST ON PAGE D- [ figure D -l. Locations of Subsequent Archaeological' Work EXHIBIT F ®raft Land conveyance Agreement to Innovations Public charter School Foundation May 17, 2006 SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 96977996 E-mail: sidfuke@verizon.net May 17, 2006 Planning • Variance • Zoning Subdivision • Land Use Permits • Environmental Reports - Honorable -Stacy Higa, Chairman and members of the Council HAWAI` I COUNTY COUNCIL = 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Honorable .Stacy Higa and members of the Council: Subject: Puaa Development, LLC .and Suffolk Investment; LLC Draft School Agregment — Ord. Nos. 05-113 and 05-115 TMK—: 7�5-17: 1 & 19 Pursuant to the referenced ordinance and the action of your Planning Committee at its meeting of March 21`, please ford -enclosed a draft of a conveyance agreement for your review -and approval: A.s you review this agreement; please dote that the drab suggests.that the land be conveyed in -fee rather than leased to the Innovatioris Public Charter School Foundation. In the event the. school use is terminated; you will note that there is a reversion or divestment clause that mandates the transfer of the land and improvements thereon, free of any .encumbrances or debts, within 30.4ay, s..of such termination. to. the County of Hawaii. The County would then be- in — a-position.to -utilize the site for whatever purposes it deems appropriate. I am also enclosing a copy of the Innovations Public Charter School Foundation's mission statement. This should give you some -idea of its financial goals in making the school a successful -one. - -Please _ feel free. to contact. me when this matter comes up for review. We will again have representative(s) of Puaa Deyelopment, LLC and Suffolk Investment, LLC and the Innovations Public Charter: School present -to answer any questions. Thank you very much. - cerel ;. :.. S :.. Y .M. -FUKE Planning Consultant :Enclosures . - Copy — Mr: Brian-Cook.w/o enclosures.- - Ms. Kate Jacobson, Innovations Public Charter School w/o enclosures Innovations -- - Public Charter School r Foundation 75-5815 Queen Ka'ahumanu Hwy, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 808-327-6205 www.IPCSJnfo MISSION STATEMENT Innovations.Public Charter School Foundation; is a tax free, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3); corporation formed in 2003 to encourage and accept gifts and endowments which advance the priorityneedds 'of Innovations Public Charter _ School.' Funds generated are used to 'assist in_:capital and operational projects: The foundation offers a tax-free avenue for donations, gifts, and bequests, which are administered in a manner consistent with the wishes of the benefactors. -: Our Mission The mission of Innovations Public Chartei -School Foundation is to provide a vehicle to -build;. over time; substantial endowed- funds through contributions both large and small of individuals, families, and organizations for the purpose of relocating the school to a new site; sustaining that site and providing support for the school's curriculum and programs. The IPCS Foundation fulfills its mission by: o Raising awareness and funds for :capital improvements and site' relocation through special events; ' grants and through education and publicity about planned giving. o Attracting donors of .philanthropic. funds, either' in the form of permanent. endowments or one-time contributions. o Maintaining the purchasing power. of funds entrusted to the Foundation while achieving maximum returns consistent with prudent investment. o Making wise and effective distributions to meet the school's needs while respecting specific directions of'donors. o Providing leadership to the: school. in identifying problems, opportunities, and appropriate responses. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made, executed, and delivered this day of May 2006, by and between INNOVATIONS. PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATION, a Hawaii non-profit corpotation organized and established pursuant to the provisions -of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and.sect. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, hereinafter called the "Buyer"; whose address is 76-147A Royal Poinciana Drive, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 and Piiaa.Development, LLC and Suffolk Investment, LLC, both Hawaii limited liability companies; hereihafier collectively called the "Seller", whose address is c/o 78=7021 Kewalo Street, Kailua=Kona, Hawaii 96740: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, County of Hawaii Ordinance Number 05 113 and Ordinance Number 05 115, attached hereto as, EXHIBITS .'W' and `B" and hereinafter referred to as "ordinances", rezoned two contiguous parcel a of land identified by TMK: (3) 7-5-17: 1 and 19, Puapua anui 1St, North. Kona, Island of Hawaa" i, State of Hawaii for the purpose of developing a multiple family residential and. neighborhood commercial complex; WBEREAS, Condition U of Ordinance Number 05 113 and Condition V of Ordinance Number 05 115, which are identical; .outlined a process for the development and use of 5 acres of.land within TMK:.7-5-17: 19.. and/or TMK: 7-5=17: 23 for a school; WHEREAS, ag part of this process, the applicant was required to solicit the input of the community and the Hawaii County Council to determine which government agency or entity, would be the recipient and operator .of this school site; P l WHEREAS, at the March 21, 2006 meeting of the Planning Committee of the Hawaii County Council, the Committee did not object to the Seller's recommended r selection of the Buyer as the recipient; and - W UREAS, this Agreement is. designed to outline the respective responsibilities and obligations of the Buyer and Seller- in accordance with the terms of the Ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED, by and between SELLER and BUYER' as follows: SELLER agroe�s .to do the following_ Prior to the issuance of a building.permit for any residential or commercial structures on TMK: 7-5-17: 02 and 19: .1. Identify and subdivide 5 acres of land.within TMK: 7-5-17: 19 and/or TMK: 7-5-17: 23 for the.purpose of this school. 2. Prepare the appropriate construction plans, secure the required governmental permits, and'subsequently construct the necessary infrastructure to the site, including vehicular access and utility systems, and as will be more fully described in a Development Agreement between the parties hereto. _ 3. Transfer to INNOVATIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATION the above-described 5 acres of land in "Fee Simple Subject to Divestment to the County of Hawaii" for the sum of $1.00 U.S. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any commercial structures or Final Inspection Permit for any residential structures on TMK: 7-5-17: 02 and 19, e Seller agrees to do as follows, as will be more fully described in a Development Agreement between the parties hereto: 1. Work with the Buyer in developing a site master plan of the 5 -acre school site. 2. Pursuant to the master plan, prepare the appropriate construction plans, secure the required governmental permits; and subsequently construct or make the appropriate on-site. land improvements. 3: Prepare the appropriate building plan(s), secure the associated and required governmental permits, and subsequently construct or cause the construction of up to $:60.0,000 U.S..-of building (vertical) or structural improvements as may be n tiaallyagceed to between the Seller and Buyer. BUYER L, : Shall cooperate fully with the S eller. in, the implementation of this agreement. 2. Shall operate a responsible and financially -solvent public -charter school and provide annual.reports of its operations and plans to the Seller.or the County of Hawaii, as will be more fully set forth in a Development Agreement between the parties hereto. 3. INNOVATIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATION shall hold title to the subject property for the sole benefit of INNOVATIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL. 4. Buyer agrees to keep Seller reasonably apprised of liens, mortgages and encumbrances placed -upon the property by Buyer, and to give Seller reasonable opportunity to make objection thereto, as will be more fully set forth in a Development Agreement between the parties hereto. It is understood and agreed to by the Seller and Buyer that, should the school use of the subject property be terminated for any reason, the land and the improvements thereon shall automatically divest to the County_ of Hawaii in fee simple, free .of all encumbrances and liabilities that have -a material adverse effect upon the value of the property. Buyer -and Seller shall be jointly and. severally responsible to the County of Hawaii for ensuring that the subject property is transferred to the County of Hawaii free of such encumbrances and liabilities. IN.WITNESS VaMREOF; the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed the day and .year first above written. BUYER INNOVATIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATION By: Barbara Woerner Its Authorized Agent Date: SUFFOLK INVESTMENTS; LLC A Hawaii Limited Liability Company. By: - BRIAN R. COOK DEVELOPMENT, INC. By: Brian R. Cook Its Authorized Agent Date: PUA'A DEVELOPMENT, LLC A Hawaii Limited Liability Company By: BRIAN R. COOK DEVELOPMENT, INC. By: Brian R. Cook Its President and Authorized Agent Date: i EXHIBIT G Planning Department's Favorable Recommendation Puaa Development LLC Change of Zone ,Application (REZ 04-025) January 1, 2005 C" RPuaaDev-REZ,04-025 jwd 01-12-05 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOM MNDATION PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation of the Change of Zone request be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of comments from the Department of Transportation, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public hearing, or because of later Department of Transportation comments. This .favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: - The applicant is requesting a change of zone for 14.973 acres of land from an Agricultural (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) district. The applicant is proposing to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas including Pualani Estates and the neighboring subdivisions along the makai side of Kuakini Highway, as well as the proposed 250 -unit rental housing, project adjacent to the subject property. The project would include uses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. Because the County administration is trying to promote housing in the Kailua-Kona area, one proposed condition of zoning would require some units of housing to be developed onsite (housing is a permitted use in a CN zone). In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed._ It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and- stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The proposed development may be permitted provided that applicable goals, polices and standards of the General Plan are met. -1- The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The project area is designated Urban Expansion Area, which allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. The proposed request is to allow a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas. The area under consideration is consistent with the urban form established for this section of the North Kona District as depicted on the LUPAG Map. The proposed request from an Agricultural -5 acre (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of the Economic and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Economic Element * Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. " * Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. * The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. * The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic .opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. * The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. The applicant's objective recognizes the growing development needs for the region.' The applicant is seeking to provide the community with further neighborhood commercial facilities that take advantage of the site's positive physical and regional attributes. -2- tr The proposed change of zone request would further the County's goals of providing an economic environment which allows new or existing businesses to expand and diversify the County's economic base, and thereby also increase the choice of occupations. The proposed change of zone request would be consistent with the Land Use and the Commercial Development Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. The request would be consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development, Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan: Land Use Element • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. • Zone urban- and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. • Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. •nce of communities The County shall encourage the development and maintena meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. • Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. -3- Commercial Development ® Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. ® Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities and neighborhoods. ® Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers and transportation systems. ® Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. • The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. LAND USE — MUL'T'IPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL • To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate that physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. ® Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, and recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. • The County shall encourage flexibility in the design of residential sites, buildings and related facilities to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix and innovative means of meeting the market requirements. • The rehabilitation and/or utilization of multiple residential areas, shall be encouraged. • Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. HOUSING ME } V • Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. • Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choice. • Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people. A Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs _and desires of families and individuals. Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital status, ethnic background and income. This proposed neighborhood commercial center would service the retail and office needs of the immediate surrounding areas, which includes, among others, the Pualam Estates and Kahakai Estates Subdivisions. With the extension of the Pualani Estates access road, this road will also provide a direct connection from the mauka Holualoa area to the proposed shopping area.Proposed uses include financial institutions, restaurants, a grocery store, office space, and possibly a gas station. Under the Commercial Development Standards component of the -General Plan, a. Neighborhood Center is identified as one of three basic types of shopping centers. Neighborhood Centers are comprised of 5 to 15 shops, offer convenience goods and personal services to a market of approximately 3,000 people and are developed on properties 5 to 10 acres in size. Although the property is larger than 10 acres, a portion of the property is located within a flood zone and a large portion of the property will be used for road improvements. Also, a portion of the property will be used for residential purposes. To avoid the larger "big box" type of commercial developments which might draw people from outside the region, a condition will be added limiting the gross floor area to 45,000 square feet for any single commercial business. This 45,000 square foot -5- Q limit will allow a large supermarket (generally in the 30,000 square foot range) but not a - "Home Depot", type "big box" (generally in the 100,000 square foot range). The commercial zoning also allows residential uses as permitted uses. As such, a condition will be added to require the applicant to pay the fair share contribution for any residential units that are developed on the subject property. There may be a concern that commercial development could sprawl along the Belt Highway. The property to the immediate north is currently zoned A -5a, and appropriate controls can be put in if that property comes in for zoning. To the south, there is the narrow triangular area containing the existing self -storage facility, then the Kuakini/Belt Highway Road intersection. To the south of the intersection, on the makai side, there is the Sadie Seymour Botanical Garden (Kona Outdoor Circle), then existing residential developments. There are issues with respect to the reimbursement of costs between this applicant and Suffolk Investment, LLC for shared infrastructure. These are not being made a condition of rezoning because there is a private agreement between the owners regarding reimbursements. Based on the above information, it is determined that the request conforms with the listed goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development and Economic Elements of the General Plan. - The Kona Regional Plan Land Use Concept Map designates this area for Residential uses (Res -8). This designation indicates residential uses, up to 8 units per acre. Although the requested change of zone and proposed development are not consistent with this designation, it should be noted that the General Plan allows consideration of commercial zoning to facilitate and/or accommodate the commercial needs of residential areas. As numerous residential subdivisions have been developed in the area of the subject property since the publication of the Kona Regional Plan in 1982, there is a greater demand for the types of services offered by neighborhood commercial centers. There are no significant adverse impacts that may be generated by rezoning of the project site to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district upon IRI m public -utilities and facilities. Potential impacts have been identified and assessed and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated within this favorable recommendation. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, police and fire protection. Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which has a 165 and 225 -foot right-of-way. The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) to address traffic impacts generated by the proposed development. The report concluded that there willbe a need for traffic signals with or without this project at the project's main intersection located directly across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road. There will be a need for a left -tum lane in the northbound direction on the Hawaii Belt Road and possibly a right -tum deceleration lane will need to be added to improve the operation and safety at the main intersection. The report also recommended that a right -turn acceleration lane be added at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection. The State Department of Transportation will also require roadway and/or intersection,improvementsto safely accommodate the proposed development. All roadways within the proposed development, including those connecting to adjoining parcels, will be required to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works, and include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. To provide further roadway connectivity in the immediate area, the applicant will be required to provide a roadway connection to the property to the north. If the property to the north is developed, the connection will allow access to the Hawaii Belt Road at the main intersection for this property-, thus minimizing the accesses along the Hawaii Belt . Road. The property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration. Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) in connection with the final subdivision. approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 (SUB 7814). The declaration states that the declarant is - n subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "1" be completed as required by the Subdivision -7- Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. A condition will be added requiring the applicant to comply with the conditions of the declaration. The AE Flood Way Zone, which is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow #2, affects a portion of the subject parcel as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The flood way crosses onto the subject property near the middle of the eastern boundary of the property and runs northwest .across the property to the west (makai) boundary. The applicant has filed a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodway on the subject parcel. The remainder of the property is located within Zone X, area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. Water is available for the development of a neighborhood commercial center. The applicant proposes to connect to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini " Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The applicant will be required to perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. As is typical of similar types of rezoning requests, approval of the accompanying change of zone request will require the applicant to prepare and secure approval of a Solid Waste Management Plan prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval for the proposed multiple family residential development. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 miles north of the project site. There are three fire 'stations within 5 miles from the site including Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Puuola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. The proposed request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The property is not located in the Special Management Area. The project site is located approximately one mile from the f- --� shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact recreational resources in the area. Therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. The proposed request will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "DASH" and "Ka Pa 'akai O Ka 'Aina " decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and.natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: The applicant has presented the following information for the Planning Commission and the County Council to determine the valued cultural, historical, and natural resources within the area sought for rezoning: ® An updated Archaeological Inventory Survey dated June 2004 conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl,,Inc. (PHRI), who revisited the project site to update`a previous study conducted by PHRI conducted in 1990. ® Response letter dated May 28, 2004 from Paul Rosendahl responding to DLNR- SHPD's review of the revised archaeological inventory survey (3Td Draft) letter dated April 20, 2004. ® A Botanical Survey dated October 2003conducted by Winona Char of Char and Associates. No professional survey was conducted regarding fauna resources. The valuable cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The updated archaeological inventory survey of the subject property and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres confirmed and identified 64 sites and 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C - shapes, walls, and a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites . were determined to be significant for their information content only with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their -9- d a_ information content but required further work. The remaining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. Two (2) of the burials or ry possible burials may be within the project site (Sites 14084 and 14126). It is also proximate to the possible habitation site (Site 114123). Regarding flora, the botanical survey reports that the property is no longer used for grazing cattle and Guinea grass now forms a very dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are uhaloa, ilihee, ilima (Sida fallax), koali awa, and ala ala wai nui. None of the plants recorded on the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern. Regarding fauna resources, the applicant believes that the faunal resources would . consist of bird species common to the area such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White - eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The applicant will be required by conditions to implement the recommended treatments for the archaeological sites on the property to preserve the valued archaeological resources of the area. Regarding flora and fauna, none of the identified plants are considered endangered or listed on the National or State Historic Registers. The botanical survey concluded that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. The property is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering .� of marine life, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There has been a survey and an updated survey conducted to identify and protect the resources located on site. In 'a letter dated April 20, 2004 from the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division to Paul Rosendahl responding to the 3rd Draft of the revised -10- archaeological inventory survey, DLNR requests additional information and recommendations for a final review and approval of the significance assessments and recommended mitigation treatments. Paul Rosendahl sent a response letter dated May 28, 2004 identified as the 0 Draft responding to DLNR's comments. DLNR has yet to send an approval letter. Conditions of approval will require the applicant to prepare a Burial Treatment-Plan and preserve the burials in place. According to the applicant, access to the burials by lineal descendants will be made available. Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from Agricultural (A-5a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map), Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. -11- January 22, 2020 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 ~' t_ Dear Mr. Yee: Subject: Kona Community Development Plan Time Extension and Amendments to Inez.. ®rd. Nos. 05-115 APPLICANT — Puaa Development LLC Puapua'a 1St and 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-017: 001 I would like to use this means to provide additional information regarding the project's compliance and/or relationship to the Kona Community Development Plan ("CDP"). In summary: ® The development of the CDP was driven by eight (8) guiding principles. These were o Protect Kona's natural resources and culture o Provide connectivity and transportation choices o Provide housing choices o Provide recreation opportunities o Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character o Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies o Promote effective governance While the CDP provided recommended processes — some of them through the use of incentives - to implement the objectives of the Plan, it did not dismiss the use of other conventional or existing processes. This was made clear in, the recent amendments to the CDP through the use of terms such as "encourage", "guidelines", and the like. In the end, realization of the guiding principles and broader community goals and objectives sought by the Plan was deemed to be paramount. • The subject proposed mixed use commercial -residential project, as well as its adjoining proposed rental housing project, were taken into account during the preparation of the CDP. During that process, it was recognized that this area and the proposed developments would be an ideal area for a Neighborhood Transient Oriented Development ("TOD") and hence so earmarked on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) of the CDP. (See attache _ ASD Planning ► .10N 2 4 2020 him - °�`' SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 - Planning - Variance - Zoning Telephone: (808) 969-1522 Cell: (808) 989-0640 *Subdivision- Land Use Permits AO E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net - Environmental Reports January 22, 2020 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 ~' t_ Dear Mr. Yee: Subject: Kona Community Development Plan Time Extension and Amendments to Inez.. ®rd. Nos. 05-115 APPLICANT — Puaa Development LLC Puapua'a 1St and 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-017: 001 I would like to use this means to provide additional information regarding the project's compliance and/or relationship to the Kona Community Development Plan ("CDP"). In summary: ® The development of the CDP was driven by eight (8) guiding principles. These were o Protect Kona's natural resources and culture o Provide connectivity and transportation choices o Provide housing choices o Provide recreation opportunities o Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character o Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies o Promote effective governance While the CDP provided recommended processes — some of them through the use of incentives - to implement the objectives of the Plan, it did not dismiss the use of other conventional or existing processes. This was made clear in, the recent amendments to the CDP through the use of terms such as "encourage", "guidelines", and the like. In the end, realization of the guiding principles and broader community goals and objectives sought by the Plan was deemed to be paramount. • The subject proposed mixed use commercial -residential project, as well as its adjoining proposed rental housing project, were taken into account during the preparation of the CDP. During that process, it was recognized that this area and the proposed developments would be an ideal area for a Neighborhood Transient Oriented Development ("TOD") and hence so earmarked on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) of the CDP. (See attache _ ASD Planning ► .10N 2 4 2020 him - °�`' Mr. Michael Yee, Director January 22, 2020 Page 2 Thus, even without an "official" designation via legislative action, its function as a TOD by the CDP is clear and unmistakable. The project, when allowed to be fully, implemented, will address the pertinent CPD's "guiding principles"'noted above. These include providing connectivity and transportation choices (with the construction of a new spine road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway); housing choices (rental and for sale); compact village (mixture of commercial and residential uses); appropriate infrastructure and facilities (sewer, water, and drainage — such as a new culvert at the extension of the Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway and a retention basin within the subject and an adjoining property); and opportunity for a more sustainable economy (through the creation of an employment base proximate to residences) Finally, if needed, to address other recommended "processing" guidelines for TODs, conditions can be attached as part of the rezoning process. In that regard, some suggestions will be noted later on. By way of background, the subject project was considered and subsequently entitled via the subject rezoning ordinance in 2005. This project — as well as the adjoining Suffolk Development, LLC multiple family residential project - was taken into account in the CDP, which was ultimately adopted on September 25, 2008 and its amendment in 2019. This is plainly evident in Figure 4-2d (Official Transportation Network Map — Nani Kailua Area) which identifies the project's interior spine road as a new connector road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka ahumanu Highway. Further Figure 4-7 (Official Kona Land Use Map) identifies this area as the Kahului-Puapua'a Village Neighborhood Transit Oriented, Development area. Clearly, then, its development would implement and/or fulfill, among others, the infrastructure and land use objectives of the CDP. The Transportation element (Section 4.1) notes that the CDP "serves as a guide for County decisions regarding transportation systems. Its objectives, policies, and actions establish a transportation -oriented basis for future, development that is integrated with the Land Use section, as well as the Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services section of the Kona CDP. In addition, it provides guidance for concurrency and connectivity of transportation facilities with future development to ensure that all communities are adequately served. " (Emphasis added) Further, in its Overall Strategy (Section 4.1.2), it notes that "increasing connectivity between and within existing and future development are necessary to enhance mobility in Kona" As noted above, Figure 4-2d (Official Transportation Network Map — Nani Kailua Area) identifies this new road connection between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway within the proposed project. It is specifically identified as road 29 on the Kahalui-Puapua'a Village Concurrency Table. Inasmuch as Mr. Michael Yee, Director January 22, 2020 Page 3 development of the project will result in the construction and County dedication of this road and at no cost to the County will unequivocally fulfill and implement this strategy and policy of the CDP. The preface of the Land Use element (Section 4.2) states that the CDP "serves as a policy g ide for County decisions.regarding physical development. It establishes syk.gested framework for future growth by identifying the County's major policies concerning the type and location of future development in order to meet the goals and objectives of the Kona CDP.'-' (Emphasis added) As with the Transportation element, this section also provides an Overall Strategy and makes the following points: • The overall strategy is to provide a regional framework that encourages urban and rural growth in the form of compact, village -style development. • The framework includes incentivized "tools" to encourage growth towards the TODs by providing design flexibility and facilitating processing. • The goals, objectives, policies, and actions "do not override or invalidate existing zoning". • The policies, however, may be implemented through a combination of changes of zone, time extension on existing zoning requiring County Council action, and a number of other land use entitlement processes. Pursuant to that strategy, there are Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions (Section 4.2.3). In that regard, the subject site is consistent with the County General Plan (Policy LU -1.4), Official Kona Land Use Map (Policy LU -1.1), and TODs Identified (Policy LU -2.3). Relative to the TOD, the subject property is identified as being a portion of the Kahului-Puapua' a Village TOD Floating Zone and while NOT MANDATED, should be encouraged to serve or function as a TOD. Policy LU -2:4 relating, to TOD Floating Zone describes how, through the use of the Project District rezoning process, can become fixed. The Project District process requires a minimum of 50 acres, which is considerably more than the 14+ acres of this project. And thus, this avenue is not available. Notwithstanding the inability to have this area "officially" designated a Neighborhood TOD through the Project District rezoning process, it was nonetheless recognized from its inception on the CDP as a TOD site and as such, can function as a TOD site. This is unlike other areas that were only broadly identified on the Official Kona, Land Use Map (Policy LU -2.3) such as Kalaoa Village, Kahalu'u Makai Village, and Pu' a-Waiaha Village where it becomes a bit more challenging to clearly establish or define a TOD. Mr. Michael Yee, Director January 22, 2020 Page 4 - In that spirit, the project's land use plan reflects this TOD concept. It incorporates a transit center, provides much needed connectivity, provides housing, addresses the area's drainage issue, and provides goods and services to the proposed and immediately surrounding communities. Like with the other broadly or amorphously defined TODs, in considering future land use actions surrounding the subject area, the TOD concept can be gradually implemented without having to rely only on one master developer entitled with a Project District zoning. - The point here is that the spirit and concept of a TOD can be realized not only by one master developer who has control over 50 acres but multiple landowners whose respective project and, under the guidance of the County planners, collectively arrive at the same land use destination. Such an approach or attitude could help implement the objectives of the CDP. In that regard, the following conceptual conditions could be considered in furtherance of implementing the TOD concept: • The subject site shall be considered a Neighborhood. Transient Oriented - Development site. (In so doing, this policy statement via an ordinance could then be used to when considering other land use changes adjoining or proximate to this area.) • Plans for Plan Approval shall address the Village Design Guidelines of the Kona Community Development Plan. To reiterate, if allowed to develop, this project will go a long way towards implementing the CDP by addressing the needs of the community in the form of much needed housing, road connectivity, drainage improvements, employment, and service to the immediate and surrounding communities. It will also initiate the process for the functional establishment and gradual development of the Kahului-Puapua' a Neighborhood TOD. _ Should you have questions on this matter, please feel free to direct them to me. Thank you very much. Sincerel , S NEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosure —Neighborhood TOD Map (Figure 4-213) Copy - Puaa Development LLC w/ enclosure arm � • _ .� 40�. �_'a�`', .:,, :.- ��'(� �--- - i - :moi, Q� . ` Y � ..- i.'• - _.. �`. ;� F'- , :.Q`Z ' - � `_ ,p�1:ly�` m;li 0011 OR o r 7i -o C- - w ' VANVd7 rn - sST, fir` z Legend Proposed Roads Classification* Proposed Transit Line - .'. :', =cr'`; :';�t., •, N. - �- -- '�`_ . •°• .gG IAF -c � '' � CDP Local .� �K Trunk _ - - ~ - x ���� �- °'.• y. R` s� `� " � 01 CDP, collector, major ®Secondary CDP, collector, minor Transit Hub*oma _ _ A3 a GP, arterial ` -.. _ ALuaRQ''.. GP, collector, major - Transit Station= GP, collector, minorTOO -- Pedestrian -Bike Paths (CDP) Type- .. r Neighborhood t10- Laneu:°Regional Center , �'•`�5�j,i, _ Path Kona Urban Area* Path -s ®Rural Town TOW ® Existing Roadway Pea-sw Ped -trail Shared Shoulder Policy Layer - i 0 900 1,800 3,600 f -,✓ _____ _ Feet 1 _ �u�•1tA 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official reap. ' x��: �- � •_ ':' Kona Community Plan Pleura 4m2d ® dal Transpol-tataon Network Map ®Nana Kaosua Area $idne��ia�e, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Sulte 21.2 ® Hilo, -Hawai`i 96720 Planning •Variance a zoning M Telephone:,(808) 969-1522 Cell: -(808) 989-0640 . Subdivision a Land Use Permits h* E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel:net Environmental Reports February 4, 2020 This. is in response to your staff s email request for additional information regarding the applicant and/or developer's ability to develop the property and .need for the additional time. Please be informed that the prospective and principal developer of this as well as the housing project proposed by Suffolk Investment, LLC is a diversified private investment company based in Eugene, Oregon called Spring Capital Group ("SCG''). Over the past thirty (30) years, SCG has developed, partnered, and invested in commercial, residential, and resort -related projects in North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, California, and Hawaii. Projects in Hawaii have included residential projects at both Kuki'o and the Mauna Lani Resort. More information regarding its developments can be found in its website at http://Nv-vvw.sprinaegl italaroW.com. If the rezoning time extension is approved, Puaa Development LLC may partner with SCG, although, as noted earlier, the principal will be SCG. The request calls for project commencement within. five (5) years and completion within ten (10) years. As with most developments of this size/scale, the 5 -year completion window is a difficult feat. There is a need for plans to be prepared and let alone approved by multiple government agencies. While the developer has- some measure of control over the plan preparation process, it has absolutely no control over its review/approval tune. In this situation, approvals will still be needed fiom a minimum of twelve (12) governmental entities before any construction can begin. These include the 1) State Historic Preservation Division; 2) State DepartmeAt of Transportation; 3) possibly Federal Emergency Management Agency; 4) State -Department of Health.;} County Department of Public Works - Engineering;. 6). County- Department: of Public✓ Works — Building; 7) County Department of WaterSupply; 8) County Fire Department; 9) County. Plahning D - artment; 10) County Department of Wastewater Management; Nanning De pt Mr. Michael Yee, .Director -7 Planning Department- epartmentCOUNTY COUNTYOF HAWAI' I 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 r; Dear Mr. Yee:' �. Z .. Sub,ect: Supplementary Developer Information Time E;Kte,gion' and Amendments - Rez. Ord. Nos. 05-1.15 APPLICANT — Pug -a Development LLC Pusipug'a Ist and 2"d, North bona, Ha.wari, TMK: 7-5-017: 001. This. is in response to your staff s email request for additional information regarding the applicant and/or developer's ability to develop the property and .need for the additional time. Please be informed that the prospective and principal developer of this as well as the housing project proposed by Suffolk Investment, LLC is a diversified private investment company based in Eugene, Oregon called Spring Capital Group ("SCG''). Over the past thirty (30) years, SCG has developed, partnered, and invested in commercial, residential, and resort -related projects in North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, California, and Hawaii. Projects in Hawaii have included residential projects at both Kuki'o and the Mauna Lani Resort. More information regarding its developments can be found in its website at http://Nv-vvw.sprinaegl italaroW.com. If the rezoning time extension is approved, Puaa Development LLC may partner with SCG, although, as noted earlier, the principal will be SCG. The request calls for project commencement within. five (5) years and completion within ten (10) years. As with most developments of this size/scale, the 5 -year completion window is a difficult feat. There is a need for plans to be prepared and let alone approved by multiple government agencies. While the developer has- some measure of control over the plan preparation process, it has absolutely no control over its review/approval tune. In this situation, approvals will still be needed fiom a minimum of twelve (12) governmental entities before any construction can begin. These include the 1) State Historic Preservation Division; 2) State DepartmeAt of Transportation; 3) possibly Federal Emergency Management Agency; 4) State -Department of Health.;} County Department of Public Works - Engineering;. 6). County- Department: of Public✓ Works — Building; 7) County Department of WaterSupply; 8) County Fire Department; 9) County. Plahning D - artment; 10) County Department of Wastewater Management; Nanning De pt M& f. Yee; :hecto ..� .: 'ebru- 4; :2020.:: T. q .2 1-1) County,, -€flee of otxsiig adoiizurity; leveloprnent-and 12) :post -County Council'for: any:.fair: share:c�edits: p otracted causttuction Wan re oration and approval Arid, n s ,iteafthis p p. p rocesses the;:developer mpst,als.o o,;' 61'94- Banti ;and the,va aries:ciftL e 1' bai' , p g g g economy that couldaffect tie . jest s copse action riabihty during certain periods;. For eainple :it:was. the. global„recession,that began in 2008 -which ,lasted dor a nu�ner of years .that adversely, a 'feeteel the applieai�:t's'initial ability to proceed with consttuction of ; the project, even after expending nearly a million dollars in construction plans. We have also witnessed the, -abrupt econorme sl6wdown--resulting from the severe acute respiratory s drome- .SATS° `e iceniic that be an` 2Qo3 ardno,:lts twin; the. cororiavirs. 'The yn - : ):: point .here is fiat eke e: are uripred stab e c eurnstances be it- geopo l -up.. pate i c, and so forth that affecfthe "global economy and in turn, any developer's ability to timely develop, let alone, complete. a project. That is the primat reason the, applicant is requesting -the 5 -year commencement and 5--yearl completionvindow: ' Such a phased in requirement would enable the ,County, to better monitor the progress and iritention-of tho� developer as opposed'to a flat "x= period” completion date. Finally; we. would like to emphasize that during :this period while no -physical construction has occurred, the applicant:has expended considerable "soft" funds. As noted earlier, nearly a.$l nillion.was spent formore detailed land use planning and especially preparation.of infrastructure constru tion plaris;for this as well as the adjoining, $1 residential project proposed:by Suffolk Development, L°LC.� Additionally; over. 3 millionin real property taxes was paid over the past. fifteen (15) years; with not a single year's payment being missed.. This year's payment alone is $104,000. We trust that the aforementioned adequately responds to your request for r...6i inion regarding thepotontial,:developer and added reasons for the requested time extension: if not or if there�.anIL y adclnanal tormen=ts .of; qusos; :please let me knot/ Thank you very much. cerely, SIDNEY M. FUKE Pja� Consultant C'3. _. P. De�velopine it LL C J DCCA State of Hawaii Downloaded on January 31, 2020. The information provided below is not a certification of good standing and does not constitute any other certification by the State. Website URL: littp:{/i�)be.ehawaii.gov/dOCLlnlents Business Information MASTER NAME BUSINESS TYPE FILE NUMBER STATUS PLACE INCORPORATED REGISTRATION DATE MAILING ADDRESS MANAGED BY AGENT NAME AGENT ADDRESS Annual Filings PUA'A DEVELOPMENT, LLC Domestic Limited Liability Company (LLC) 7258 C5 Active Hawaii UNITED STATES Apr 5, 2001 828 FORT STREET SUITE 310 HONOLULU, Hawaii 96813 UNITED STATES MANAGER(S) DENNIS M LOMBARDI 737 BISHOP ST STE 2600 HONOLULU, Hawaii 96813 UNITED STATES FILING YEAR DATE RECEIVED STATUS 2019. 3 Apr :, 2019. Processed :. .. 2018 Apr'13, 2018 Processed 2017 Jun, 7, 2017 Processed 2016 Jun 14 2016 Processed 2015 . - 'Apr 14, 201.5 - - _ Processed 2014 Oct 31, 2014 Processed 2013:r - A2 9, 2013 ' Processed 2012 ...p ..... Jul 26, 2012 Processed :Apr 16; ,2011_ . ,. :. Processed 2010 Apr. 5, 2010 Processed 2009.:: :Sep.::1;4, ;209 _ ..... ...... .... ... . . P.rocessed 2008 Apr 16, 2008 Processed 2007 �. ., _:.. ,,, - _: - Dec.'11 20Q7 _ . Processed 2006 Dec '11, 2007 Processed -2 5- y..� . , , - ,..May ::. -:. P`rocessed ::..:_..:::::P1-::.; 2004 . _ _..... -. ..:.-.. - ..-:..., 16, 2005 :...._:. .:..:....:..:::.: .:.:.:...:::..: Processed 3 :,:.,::. _ 200 . Jun, =25' ..e . e P `roc ss d 2002 Not Required :. 9 Jul `2 ` 2002 ., .:Processed Planning Dept., Officers��1 NAME OFFICE DATE I..:�.`....... .... .-.--t..u_.........._...... a.r._.._. .t...�. _...... r.--.......�_.......-.......-.wa............... .... ._.._.--... _..... a.....+: t...-....�.........e...-.........-.._......-.--......._........1..a.-.........re....-.,.-G....:.:... \......-. n. a...... f 2/13/2020 � i •t ! r s- 3 ;a t Parcel Information gPublic.net - Hawai'i County, HI - Report: 750170010000 Parcel Number 750170010000 Location Address Instrument Project Name Waiaha 1st - Puapuaanui 1st Property Class COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Code 7521-3 Legal Information LOT 214.973 AC DES POR RP 6716 POR LCAW 4887:2 Land Area (acres) 14.9730 Land Area (approximate sq ft) 652,224 View Map Total Plat (TMK) Maps Total Owner Information Owner Names Dedicated PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC Fee Owner Assessment Information Mailing Address PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC C/O BRIAN R COOK 75-5660 KOPIKO 5T STE C7 KAILUA KONA HI 96740 3122 Bldg Division Permit and Inspections Information Permit Permit Permit Permit Estimated Inspection Inspection Date Type Number Reason Permit Description Cost Date Status Permit Status 4/4/2006 Electrical E2006 -0437K New PUALANIESTATESS/DTRAFFICSIGNAL $197,600 9/15/2006 COMPLETED COMPLETED SYSTEM t Asa courtesy to the public, we provide building permit data as supplied by the Department of Public Works. As such, no warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, its use or its interpretation, and accuracy. Sales Information Sale Instrument Instrument 93 Show Historical Assessments Land Court Document Cert Conveyance Document Sale Date Amount Instrument# Type Description Market Number # Book/Page Tax Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total Grant of Land Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Year Property Class Value Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value 2019 COMMERCIAL $9,729,600 $0 $9,729,600 $0 $0 $9,729,600 $9,729,600 $0 $9,729,600 Market 03/01/2004 Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total CONVEYANCE Land Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Year Property Class Value Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value 2019 COMMERCIAL $9,729,600 $0 $9,729,600 $0 $0 $9,729,600 $9,729,600 $0 $9,729,600 2018 COMMERCIAL $9,445,500 $0 $9,445,500 $0 $0 $9,445,500 $9,445,500 $0 $9,445,500 2017 COMMERCIAL $9,259,000 $0 $9,259,000 $0 $0 $9,259,000 $9,259,000 $0 $9,259,000 2016 COMMERCIAL $8,902,900 $0 $8,902,900 $0 $0 $8,902,900 $8,902,900 $0 $8,902,900 2015 COMMERCIAL $8,902,900 $0 $8,902,900 $0 $0 $8,902,900 $8,902,900 $0 $8,902,900 2014 COMMERCIAL $8,902,900 $0 $8,902,900 $0 $0 $8,902,900 $8,902,900 $0 $8,902,900 2013 COMMERCIAL $9,326,800 $0 $9,326,800 $0 $0 $9,326,800 $9,326,800 $0 $9,326,800 2012 COMMERCIAL $11,479,100 $0 $9,392,000 $0 $0 $11,479,100 $9,392,000 $0 $9,392,000 2011 COMMERCIAL $11,479,100 $0 $11,479,100 $0 $0 $11,479,100 $11,479,100 $0 $11,479,100 2010 COMMERCIAL $13,044,500 $0 $9,962,200 $0 $0 $13,044,500 $9,962,200 $0 $9,962,200 2009 COMMERCIAL $13,044,500 $0 $13,044,500 $0 $0 $13,044,500 $13,044,500 $0 $13,044,500 2008 COMMERCIAL $13,044,500 $0 $13,044,500 $0 $0 $13,044,500 $13,044,500 $0 $13,044,500 Land Information Property Class Square Footage Acreage Agricultural Use Indicator COMMERCIAL 652,224 14.973 Bldg Division Permit and Inspections Information Permit Permit Permit Permit Estimated Inspection Inspection Date Type Number Reason Permit Description Cost Date Status Permit Status 4/4/2006 Electrical E2006 -0437K New PUALANIESTATESS/DTRAFFICSIGNAL $197,600 9/15/2006 COMPLETED COMPLETED SYSTEM t Asa courtesy to the public, we provide building permit data as supplied by the Department of Public Works. As such, no warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, its use or its interpretation, and accuracy. Sales Information https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=742395548&KeyValue=750170... 1/3 Sale Instrument Instrument Date Land Court Document Cert Conveyance Document Sale Date Amount Instrument# Type Description Recorded Number # Book/Page Tax Type 02/26/2010 $0 OTHER Grant of easement 03/05/2010 0 Grant of Basemen 06/04/2004 $0 OTHER Mapping Change 06/04/2004 .. Mapping Change 06/02/2004 $9,500,000 04-123557 FEE Warranty Deed 06/18/2004 9500 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 03/01/2004 $0 04-044170 FEE Correction deed 03/03/2004 0 Correction CONVEYANCE deed https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=742395548&KeyValue=750170... 1/3 2/13/2020 qPublic.net - Hawail County, HI - Report: 750170010000 09/27/2002 $2,626,715 02-173215 FEE Warranty Deed 09/30/2002 2626.7 Warranty Tax and Credits Penalty CONVEYANCE Other Due (D 2019 Deed 05/18/2001 $79,700 01-077927 FEE Warranty Deed 05/24/2001 79.7 Warranty $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CONVEYANCE . G 2017 $99,071.30 ($99,071.30) Deed 04/11/2001 $0 $0.00 F±) 2016 Mapping Change ($89,474.15) $0.00 Mapping $0.00 $0.00 CD 201 $89,474.15 ($89,474.15) $0.00 $0.00 Change 10/24/2000 $0 00-158978 FEE Warranty Deed 11/13/2000 462.00 Warranty CE) 2013 $93,734.34 ($93,734.34) CONVEYANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Deed 12/31/1992 $0 9400185932 FEE Quitclaim deed 11/14/1994 1.00 Quitclaim ($104,459.81) $0.00 $0.00 CONVEYANCE $0.00 93 2010 $118,704.95 deed 12/30/1992 $0 9300015806 FEE Warranty Deed 01/29/1993 2000.00 Warranty $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CONVEYANCE $117,400.50 ($117,400.50) $0.00 Deed 02/12/1988 $0 8800028346 FEE Deed 03/01/1988 21680/700 862.50 Deed $0.00 9) 2006 $84,528.00 CONVEYANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Current Tax Bill Information Original Taxes Tax Net Tax Period Description Due Date Assessment Credits Tax Penalty Interest Other Amount Due 2019-2 Real Property Tax 02/20/2020 $0.00 $0.00 $52,053.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $52,053.36 Tax Bill with Interest computed through 01/31/2020 $0.00 $0.00 $52,053.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $52,053.36 Pay online at http:!/p_yments.ehawaii.gov//propertytax/hawaii Other Payment Options Click Here Historical Tax Information Er.91 https://qpublic,.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=l 048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=742395548&KeyValue=7501 70. . . 2/3 Payments Amount Year Tax and Credits Penalty Interest Other Due (D 2019 $104,106.72 ($52,053.36) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $52,053.36 B 2018 7: $101,066.85 ($101,066.85) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 . G 2017 $99,071.30 ($99,071.30) ($50.00) ($11.00) $0.00 $0.00 F±) 2016 $89,474.15 ($89,474.15) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CD 201 $89,474.15 ($89,474.15) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 EB 2014 $89,474.15 ($89,474.15) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CE) 2013 $93,734.34 ($93,734.34) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 91 2012 $104,459.81 ($104,459.81) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 GD 2011 $104,459.81 ($104,459.81) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 93 2010 $118,704.95 ($118,704.95) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ED 2009 $117,400.50 ($117,400.50) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 B 2008 $117,400.50 ($117,400.50) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (D 2007 $103,311.90 ($103,311.90) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 9) 2006 $84,528.00 ($84,528.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 2005 $3,199.28 ($3,199.28) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 E) 2004 $100.00 ($100.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ED 2003 $100.00 ($100.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 F±) 2001 $100.00 ($100.00) ($5.00) ($0.55) $0.00 $0.00 ED 2()()1 $5,706.00 ($5,706.00) ($4.80) ($5.28) $0.00 $0.00 B 2000 $5,755.00 ($5,755.00) ($575.50) ($961.77) $0.00 $0.00 Er.91 https://qpublic,.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=l 048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=742395548&KeyValue=7501 70. . . 2/3 2/13/2020 Parcel Information gPublic.net - Hawail. County, HI - Report: 750170230000 Parcel Number 750170230000 Location Address i -- Project Name Waiaha 1st - Puapuaanui 1st Property Class AGRICULTURAL Neighborhood Code 7599-5 Legal Information LOT 414.915 AC DES POR RP 6716 POR LCAW 4887:2 Land Area (acres) 14.9150 Land Area (approximate sq ft) 649,697 View Maid Plat (TMK) Maps Owner Information Owner Names Mailing Address PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC Fee Owner PUNA DEVELOPMENT LLC C/O BRIAN R COOK l 75-5660 KOPIKO STSTE C7 KAILUA KONA HI 96740 3122 Assessment Information Market Land Year Property Class Value ,.2019 AGRICULTURAL ..::... ... ...: ... ... _...._ ..... $758,100 Land Information Property Class AGRICULTURAL Sales Information D Slunv Historical Assessinents Market Instrument Instrument Land Year Property Class Value 2019 AGRICULTURAL $758,100 2018 AGRICULTURAL $743,000 2017 AGRICULTURAL $747,900 2016 AGRICULTURAL $688,500 2015 AGRICULTURAL $752,800 2014 AGRICULTURAL $752,800 2013 AGRICULTURAL $743,500 2012 AGRICULTURAL $743,500 2011 AGRICULTURAL $836,500 2010 AGRICULTURAL $836,500 2009 AGRICULTURAL $929,400 2008 AGRICULTURAL $929,400 Land Information Property Class AGRICULTURAL Sales Information https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PageID=9878&Q=596778597&KeyValue=750170... 1/3, D Slunv Historical Assessinents Instrument Instrument Date Land Court Document Cert Conveyance Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value $0 $758,100 $0 $0 $758,100 $758,100 $0 $758,100 9500 Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value $0 $758,100 $0 $0 $758,100 $758,100 $0 $758,100 $0 $743,000 $0 $0 $743,000 $743,000 $0 $743,000 $0 $747,900 $0 $0 $747,900 $747,900 $0 $747,900 $0 $688,500 $0 $0 $688,500 $688,500 $0 $688,500 $0 $752,800 $0 $0 $752,800 $752,800. $0 $752,800 $0 $752,800 $0 $0 $752,800 $752,800 $0 $752,800 $0 $743,500 $0 $0 $743,500 $743,500 $0 $743,500 $0 $743,500 $0 $0 $743,500 $743,500 $0 $743,500 $0 $836,500 $0 $0 $836,500 $836,500 $0 $836,500 $0 $836,500 $0 $0 $836,500 $836,500 $0 $836,500 $0 $929,400 $0 $0 $929,400 $929,400 $0 $929,400 $0 $929,400 $0 $0 $929,400 $929,400 $0 $929,400 Square Footage Acreage Agricultural Use Indicator 649,697 14.915 https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PageID=9878&Q=596778597&KeyValue=750170... 1/3, Sale Instrument Instrument Date Land Court Document Cert Conveyance Document Sale Date Amount Instrument# Type Description Recorded Number # Book/Page Tax Type 06/04/2004 $0 OTHER Mapping 06/04/2004 Mapping Change 06/02/2004 $9,500,000 04-123557 FEE Warranty Deed 06/18/2004 9500 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 03/01/2004 $0 04-044170 FEE Correction deed 03/03/2004 0 Correction CONVEYANCE deed 09/27/2002 $2,626,715 02-173215 FEE Warranty Deed 09/30/2002 2626.7 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 10/24/2000 $0 00-158978 FEE Warranty Deed 11/13/2000 462.00 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 12/31/1992 $0 9400185932 FEE Quitclaim deed 11/14/1994 1.00 Quitclaim CONVEYANCE deed 12/30/1992 $0 9300015806 FEE Warranty Deed 01/29/1993 2000.00 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 02/12/1988 $0 8800028346 FEE Deed 03/01/1988 21680/700 862.50 Deed CONVEYANCE https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PageID=9878&Q=596778597&KeyValue=750170... 1/3, 2/13/2020 qPublic.net - Hawai'i County, HI - Report: 750170230000 Current Tax Bill Information Original Taxes Tax Net Tax Period Description Due Date Assessment Credits Tax Penalty Interest Other Amount Due 2019-2 Real Property Tax 02/20/2020 $0.00 $0.00 $3,544.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,544.12 Tax Bill with Interest computed through 01/31/2020 $0.00 $0.00 $3,544.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,544.12 Pay online at 11 ttP.;Z-/P-,1'/ 12L] -,g�v-/ Y LO,= /I laLv.) ii- 6-ther Payment Options".c.lick'Here Historical Tax Information Map https:gqpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=l 048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=596778597&KeyValue=7501 70... 2/3 Payments, Amount Year Tax and Credits Penalty Interest Other Due 201 i $7,088.24 ($3,544.12) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,544.12 9) $6,947.05 ($6,947.05) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 9) 2017 $6,992.87 ($6,992.87) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2016$6,368.63 ($6,368.63) -$0.00 $o.ob $0.00 $0.00 2015 $6,963.40 ($6,963.40) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 -1014 $6,963.40 ($6,963.40) $0.00 -$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 2013 $6,877.38 ($6,877.38) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 2012 $6,208.23 ($6,208.23) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ID ?011 $6,984.78 ($6,984.78). $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 M 2010 $6,984.78 ($6,984.78) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 * 2009 $7,760.49 ($7,760.49) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 *2008 $7,760.49 ($7,760.49) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 El 1007 $7,760.49 ($7,760.49) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (1) 2006 $8,623.05 ($8,623.05) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2005 $3,195.34 ($3,195.34) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 * 2004 $100.00 ($100.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 * 2003 $100.00 ($100.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 91 2002 $100.00 ($100.00) ($5.00) ($0.55) $0.00 $0.00 93 2001 $2,524.00 ($2,524.00) ($2.50) ($2.75) $0.00 $0.00 M 2000 $2,549.00 ($2,549.00) ($254.90) ($426.54) $0.00 $0.00 Map https:gqpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=l 048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=596778597&KeyValue=7501 70... 2/3 2/13/2020 gPublic.net - Hawai'i County, HI - Report: 750170260000 Parcel Information Parcel Number 750170260000 Location Address Instrument Project Name Waiaha 1st - Puapuaanui 1st Property Class AGRICULTURAL Neighborhood Code 7599-5 Legal Information LOT 314.964AC DES POR RP 6816 POR LCAW 4887:2 Land Area (acres) 14.9640 Land Area (approximate sq ft) 651,832 Vied Map Plat (TMK) Maps Owner information Sale Instrument Instrument Date Land Court Document Cert Conveyance Document Sale Date Owner Names Instrument# Type Description Mailing Address Number # Book/Page Tax Type 06/04/2004 $0 PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC Fee Owner OTHER Mapping Change PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC Mapping C/O BRIAN R COOK Change 06/02/2004 $9,500,000 04-123557 FEE Warranty Deed 06/18/2004 75-5660 KOPIKO ST STE C7 Warranty CONVEYANCE KAILUA KONA HI 96740 3122 Deed 03/01/2004 $0 Assessment Information FEE Correction deed 03/03/2004 0 Correction CONVEYANCE 9 show I-Iistorical,Asscssrnents deed 09/27/2002 $2,626,715 02-173215 FEE Market 09/30/2002 Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total Land Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Year Property Class Value Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value 2019 AGRICULTURAL $759,300 $0 $759,300 $0 $0 $759,300 $759,300 $0 $759,300 Quitclaim Market Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total 12/30/1992 Land Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Year Property Class Value Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value 2019 AGRICULTURAL $759,300 $0 $759,300 $0 $0 $759,300 $759,300 $0 $759,300 2018 AGRICULTURAL $744,100 $0 $744,100 $0 $0 $744,100 $744,100 $0 $744,100 2017 AGRICULTURAL $749,100 $0 $749,100 $0 $0 $749,100 $749,100 $0 $749,100 2016 AGRICULTURAL $689,400 $0 $689,400 $0 $0 $689,400 $689,400 $0 $_689,400 2015 AGRICULTURAL $753,500 $0 $753,500 $0 $0 0 $753,50 $753,500 $0 $753,500 2014 AGRICULTURAL $753,500 $0 $753,500 $0 $0 $753,500 $753,500 $0 $753,500 2013 AGRICULTURAL $744,200 $0 $744,200 $0 $0 $744,200 $744,200 $0 $744,200 2012 AGRICULTURAL $744,200 $0 $744,200 $0 $0 $744,200 $744,200 $0 $744,200 2011 AGRICULTURAL $837,200 $0 $837,200 $0 $0 $837,200 $837,200 $0 $837,200 2010 AGRICULTURAL $837,200 $0 $837,200 $0 $0 $837,200 $837,200 $0 $837,200 2009 AGRICULTURAL $930,200 $0 $930,200 $0 $0 $930,200 $930,200 $0 $930,200 2008 AGRICULTURAL $930,200 $0 $930,200 $0 $0 $930,200 $930,200 $0 $930,200 Land Information Property Class Square Footage Acreage Agricultural Use Indicator AGRICULTURAL 651,832 14.964 Sales Information https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerID=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=1745292055&KeyValue=75017... 1/3 Sale Instrument Instrument Date Land Court Document Cert Conveyance Document Sale Date Amount Instrument# Type Description Recorded Number # Book/Page Tax Type 06/04/2004 $0 OTHER Mapping Change 06/04/2004 Mapping Change 06/02/2004 $9,500,000 04-123557 FEE Warranty Deed 06/18/2004 9500 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 03/01/2004 $0 04-044170 FEE Correction deed 03/03/2004 0 Correction CONVEYANCE deed 09/27/2002 $2,626,715 02-173215 FEE Warranty Deed 09/30/2002 2626.7 Warranty _ ... CONVEYANCE Deed ..10/24...._.. /2000 ..... ..:...._. $0 ......:..,......-............... 00-158978 ,._.,_... ,:.:..., FEE .- .., .._....... Warranty Deed ..,......._. ,.._ ,_.. 11/13/2000 ... ... ......... ... ......... ,._,: ...: ._ ,..:,.:.... 462.00 ,....,.,-. Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 12/31/1992 $0 9400185932 FEE Quitclaim deed 11/14/1994 1.00 Quitclaim CONVEYANCE deed 12/30/1992 $0 9300015806 FEE Warranty Deed 01/29/1993 2000.00 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed 02/12%1988 $0 8800028346 FEE Deed 03/01/1988 21680/700 862.50 Deed CONVEYANCE https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerID=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=1745292055&KeyValue=75017... 1/3 2/13/2020 gPublic.net - Hawail County, HI - Report: 750170260000 Current Tax Bill information Original Taxes Tax Net Tax Period Description Due Date Assessment Credits Tax Penalty Interest Other Amount Due 2019-2 Real Property Tax 02/20/2020 $0.00 $0.00 $3,549.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,549.73 Tax Bill with Interest computed through 01/31/2020 $0.00 $0.00 $3,549.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,549.73 Pay online at hczp:l%yea iriin�s. tz<nri ii. cjv_.; i,rt7>� rata •::%iia�vii Other Payment Options Click Here Historical Tax Information Map / Payments Year Tax and Credits [r] 2(-W) $7,099.46 ($3,549.73) I] 2018 $6,957.34 ($6,957.34) O 2017 $7,004.09 ($7,004.09) ED 2016 $6,376.95 ($6,376.95) ® 201.5 $6,969.88 ($6,969.88) +p 2014 $6,969.88 ($6,969.88) +U 2013 $6,883.85 ($6,883.85) O 2012 $6,214.07 ($6,214.07) ED mi 1 $6,990.62 ($6,990.62) +O 2010 $6,990.62 ($6,990.62) OO 2009 y$7,767.17 ($7,767.17) El 2008 $7,767.17 ($7,767.17) (E) 2007 $7,767.17 ($7,767.17) ID 2006 $8,630.56 ($8,630.56) D+ 2005 $3,198.30 ($3,198.30) GD 2004 $100.00 ($100.00) O+ 2003 $100.00 ($100.00) O 2002 $100.00 ($100.00) [E 2001 $1,165.00 ($1,165.00) Co 2000 $1,165.00 ($1,165.00) Map / https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppiD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=1745292055&KeyValue=75017... 2/3 Amount Penalty Interest Other Due $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,549.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($0.32) ($0.04) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 '$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($5.00) ($0.55) - $0.00 $0.00 ($2.50) ($2.75) $0.00 $0.00 ($116.50) ($193.52) $0.00 $0.00 https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppiD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=1745292055&KeyValue=75017... 2/3 2/13/2020 Paroei Information gPublic.net - Hawai'i County, HI - Report: 750170390000 Parcel Number 750170390000 Location Address O Show Historical Assessments Project Name Waiaha 1st - Puapuaanui 1st Property Class COMMERCIAL Market Neighborhood Code 1100 Market Legal Information LOT 12.022 AC DES POR RP 6716 POR LCAW 4887:2 Total Land Area (acres) 2.0220 Land Area (approximate sq ft) 88,078 Dedicated View Map Building Building Plat (TMK) Maps Assessed Exemption Owner Information Year Property Class Owner Names Use Value Mailing Address PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC Fee Owner PUA'A DEVELOPMENT LLC Value Value 75-5660 KOPIKO STSTE C7 Value 2019 KAILUA KONA HI 96740 3122 Assessment Information r https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageType[D=4&PagelD=9878&Q=660507088&KeyValue=750170... 1/2 O Show Historical Assessments Market Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total Land Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Year Property Class Value Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value 2019 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 Market Assessed Market Assessed Total Total Total Total Land Dedicated Land Building Building Market Assessed Exemption Taxable Year Property Class Value Use Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value 2019 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2018 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0. 2017 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2016 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2015 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2014 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2013 COMMERCIAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2012 AGRICULTURAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2011 AGRICULTURAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2010 AGRICULTURAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2009 AGRICULTURAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 2008 AGRICULTURAL $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100 $0 Land Information Property Class Square Footage Acreage Agricultural Use Indicator COMMERCIAL 88,078 2.022 Sales Information Sale Instrument Instrument Instrument Date Land Court Document Cert Conveyance Document Sale Date Amount # Type Description Recorded Number # Book/Page Tax Type 02/26/2010 $0 OTHER Grant of easement 03/05/2010 0 Grant of easement 06/08/2006 $100 06-123860 FEE Correction deed 07/06/2006 0 Correction CONVEYANCE deed 02/23/2006 $0 06-045795 FEE Correction deed 03/10/2006 0 Correction CONVEYANCE deed 06/04/2004 $0 OTHER Mapping Change 06/04/2004 Mapping Change 06/02/2004 $9,500,000 04-123557 FEE Warranty Deed 06/18/2004 9500 Warranty CONVEYANCE Deed r https://gpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageType[D=4&PagelD=9878&Q=660507088&KeyValue=750170... 1/2 2/13/2020 Map gPublic.net - Hawail County, HI - Report: 750170390000 Recent Sales in Area From: 02/13/2017 t To: 02/13/2020 ' 1500 Feet 7 No data available for the following modules: Condominium/Apartment Unit Information, Agricultural Assessment Information, Residential Improvement Information, Commercial Improvement Information, Sketches, Other Building and Yard Improvements, Permit Information, Bldg Division Permit and Inspections Information, Current Tax Bill Information,,Historical Tax Information. •;.., z ��`.. . ;'1� •; .1.: i`,. ... .:. ._ i��i :.`- I,:it�_... _.:. �7�; ._. _ —=t•,: tint.: .._ Vii' — ._._ ..... .. ... .,. .'i��'�)_. .. .. — .t� ., .., �. �'7''• —.:. ;; i�'_� — _ �iti: '�) Schneider GEOSPATIAL User Privacy Policy GDPR Privacy 1llotice . Last Data Upload: 2/13/2020, 2:31:46 ANI Version 2.3.40 https:Hgpublic.schneidercorp.comlApplication.aspx?ApplD=1048&LayerlD=23618&PageTypelD=4&PagelD=9878&Q=660507088&KeyValue=750170... 2/2 ouluuol Al ills. fill T, '14 i7nr 70 R, -65 10 as t7' > 11 t7' 1A r-t- tz 1 II `` \ ____� c ' S� \� _____, � , 1 Qom. >7 — -ZD A oi ------------ �Gy' e 11, $tu y�; / �!�' // �'a 859 � \q j CD 12 z I 1.n rM ��.�� o � `° `+ £j,� �J /I/ .nye C 3 > CD W\ .1, S, 0 'Z > 0 22 zz or g .5 7ri `041 kk Xr o >Z -O va 0 Cole 0 4D f qty. COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWA.I`i r��oi'N►� BILL NO. 32 Draft 3 ORDINANCE NO. OS 115 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING' SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI `I COUNTY CODE.., BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTtJRAL - 5 ACRES (A -5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN -20) AT PUAPUA`AIKI 1sT AND PLIAPUA`ANUI ls', NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-5-17:1. BV 1T ORDAINED BY T11F, COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAPI: SECTION 1. Section 25-8-3, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code. is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Puapua`aiki l" and Puapua`anui I", North Kona, I-lawai`i shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20): Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of this parcel of land, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana.1 to Kamaikui, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "KAIIEL.O", being 792.90 North and 3,701.58 East and running by azimuths measured clocklA ise from True South: J 2520 15' 50 25.39 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B. Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 2. 2470 49' 30" 51-21 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, band Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui: 3. 2570 537 30 70.98 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; Planning Dept. Exhibit �.� 4. 2590 17' 10" 5. 253° 38' 40" 6. 257° 47' 15" 7. 2400 35' 40" 8. 249° 07' 20" 9.. 2520 23' 50'' 10. _262° 55' 501' 11. 250° 14' 10" 52.07 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui: 70.53 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 34.22 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B; Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 69.30 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, sarne being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3. to Kamaikui; 38.23 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui: 80.60 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B; Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 18.49 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 39.46 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-13, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; -2- 12. 260° 20' 00" 13. 2470 18' 30" 14. 2590 48' 15" 15. 241" 02' 451' 16. 3340 11' 11" 17. 2440 11' 11" 18. 3340 11' 11'' 19. 490 30' 40" 55.26 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 25.50 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall. being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 24.04 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 13.13 feet along the middle of an ancient stonewall, being also along Lot 1, same being also along Royal Patent 1669, Land Commission Award 8516-B, Apana 3 to Kamaikui; 1381.91 feet along Lot 1 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainders of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams and Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8559-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159); 100.00 feet along I_,ot 1 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, band Commission Award 8559-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159) and along the Westerly side of' Hawai`i Belt Road (F.A.P. No. I IA -03-69); 425.10 feet along the Westerly side of Hawaii Belt Road (F.A.P. No. 11 A-03-69); 36.94 feet along the middle of an old stonewall. being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; -3- 20. 640 16' 30" 30.78 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 21.' 760 57' 00" 33.90 feet along the middle of an old stonewall. being also along of Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 22. 780 13' 40" 95.23 feet along the middle of an old stonewall. being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 23. 580 19' 30" 38.20 feet along the middle of an old stonewall. ' being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 24. 660 28, 10" 25.69 feet along the middle of an old stonewall. being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 25. 580 20' 15" 12.14 feet along the middle of an old stonewall, being also along Royal Patent 4475, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana 43 to Victoria Kamamalu; 26. 1480 23' 30" 259.96 feet along Lot 1 (Tank Site), being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, Land Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8. to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries 159); 27. 580 23' 30" 56.33 feet along Lot 1 (Tank Site), being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7811), Land Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries 159); 28.- 1540 11' 11'" 369.99 feet along Lot 3 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, band Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate of Boundaries 159); -4- -5- 29. 64° 1 F 11" 75.00 feet along Lot 3 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 7819, band Commission Award 8859-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo (Certificate J of Boundaries 159); 30. 154° 11' 11" 416.00 feet along Lots 3 and 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainders of Royal Patent 7819, band Commission Award 8559-B, Apana 8 to William C. Lunalilo, (Certificate of Boundaries No. 159) and Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 31. 2440 11 ' 11" 285.00 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to `Phomas Sams; 32. 154° 11' 11" 98.00 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, band Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 33. 64° 11 ' 1 ] " 123.00 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; Thence, along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the right with a radius of 56.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 34. 940 15' 20.5'" 56.12 feet; -5- Thence, along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams on a curve to the left with a radius of 1669.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 35. 111° 23' 00" 747.57 feet; 36. 980 26' 30" 37.85 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Thomas Sams; 37. 185° 25' 00" 181.16 feet along Lot 5 of Pualani Makai, being also along the remainder of Royal Patent 6716, Land Commission Award 4887, Apana 2 to Phomas Sams to the point of beginning and containing an area of 14.973 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-44, Ilawai'i County Code, the County Council finds the following conditions are: (1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and wel f are; or (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed with respect to: (A) Protection of the public -from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or (13) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of' approval. W B. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within ninety days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed de�,-elopmcnt prior to Final Plan Approval. C. Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date this ordinance. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai `i County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). D. No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet in gross floor area. l:. If Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approved prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. All accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. F. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:1, at the 1'ualani Estates Subdivision Road, including, but not limited to, a -7- deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M. K. No 7-5-17: 1. Intersection improvements shall be as required by the Department of` Transportation. The 'L applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the flawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic. Said improvements, plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualalai Road, shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of' Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the I)OT. If' DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on ,lune 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement 1" to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of' occupancy for non-residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures, from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, SUIS 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors or assigns shall also complete the road connection from Easement "I" to the main project intersection. including bridging the floodway, to County dedicable standards, and from Easement "F to the southerly project access, to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. -8- - 1. Access to Kuakini I lighway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration lane shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Requirement improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement, and shoulder widening, pedestrian activated cross walk lights, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage oil the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of' occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures on the subject site. J. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an casement to the property to the north (TMK: 7-5-17:2) to permit that property to access the main project intersection. The easement shall have a minimum width of 60 -feet, and be in K-1 location meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. K. The main spine mauka/makai road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements and if accepted by the County, a' bike path, prior to issuance of a cei-tificate of occupancy. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in favor ofT.M. K. No. 7-5-17: 19 so that the property can be developed independently of T.M. K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. I,. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the -9- Department of Public Works. M. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal l Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) clearances and/or approvals shall be secured prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE'' zone or the corrected effective base flood plain. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. N. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. O. No residential or commercial structures shall be constructed within areas designated "AE" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by any applicable LOMB. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all single fancily residential lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. If appropriate, a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded'with theBureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. P. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pen -nit and an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. (). All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. R. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows, and shall upgrade the sewer line if necessary. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of E'nvironmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. S. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance ot' a Certificate of Occupancy. T. A Data Recovery Plan and an Archaeological Preservation and Burial "Treatment Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director, in consultation with the Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (D1,NR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's llawai`i Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of the approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting ]dans for Final flan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. U. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resource — State Historic Preservation Division (DI,NR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from D1,NR-SHPD when it Finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. V. As represented by the applicant, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant shall solicit the input of the State Department of .Education (DOE), community, and County Council to determine which government agency or entity, such as a DOE -certified "public charter" school, would be the recipient of this school site, The school site and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed via lease to the identified recipient for $1.00 for the duration of the lease, with the understanding that said entity or agency would be able to secure additional funds as may be necessary to have a school opened prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a residential occupancy permit on the subject property. Further, should the school use be terminated for any reason, the land and improvements thereon shall be conveyed in fee to the County ofHawai`i at no cost within thirty (30) days of the date of termination. Within sixty (60) days of the identification of the receiving agency or entity, -a di -aft of an agreement reflecting the terms outlined in this ordinance, shall be submitted to the County Council for its review and approval. As further represented by the applicant, the applicant, successors, or assigns shall, 1) prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential or commercial structures on the subject site, a) subdivide and dedicate or cause the dedication of 5 acres of land within the T.M.K. 7-5-17: 19 and/or T.M.K. 7--5-17: 23 for a school site to the State DOI : or a 1)OE-certified ``public charter"; and b) provide the necessary infrastructure to the site, including vehicular access and utility systems; and 2) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential structures on the subject site, make the necessary on-site land improvements for the school and associated playground area, as well as construct or cause the construction of up to $600,000 of building or structural improvements as may be mutually agreed to between the applicant and the receiving agency or entity. These improvements are designed to facilitate the opening of a school prior to the occupancy of any residential structures on the subject property. -12- W. If the applicant, successors, or assigns develop residential units on the subject property, the applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation. fire, police. solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HC1'I). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit ($9,671.44 per single family residential unit). The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. 'Me fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit (sin(le family residential units) shall be allocated as follows: $3,061.27 per multiple family residential unit ($4,663.74 per single family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities: 2. $96.75 per multiple family residential unit ($224.9$ per single family residential unit) to the County to support police facilities; 3. , $297.62 per multiple family residential unit ($444.36 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $132.65 per multiple family residential unit ($194.55 per single family residential unit) to the County to support solid waste facilities; and -13- 5. $21617.77 per multiple family residential unit ($4,143.81 per single family residential unit) to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying; the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning; [director. upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini 1 -lighway, the road improvements at the Kuakini Highway intersection,, and the mauka/makai spine road up to the entrance of the proposed rental housing; project shall be credited against the road fair share. Relative to the requirements for the school as outlined in Condition U, the value of land — which shall be based on the per acre purchase cost of the applicant the cost of' the infrastructure (road and utility) to the subject site, and the cost of site preparation For the school and playground area shall be credited against the park and recreation flair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be credited against the balance, if any, of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance and/or any future park and recreation Fair share requirement for T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 and 26. X. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exaction or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. Y. The project shall include housing. At least 50 residential units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning; Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial structures. An additional 50 units shall be constructed if all the commercial uses exceed 60.000 square feet of gross floor arca. The additional -14- I units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for commercial structures exceeding a cumulative total of 60,000 square feet of gross floor arca on the project site. Z. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, flawai`i County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. This requirement shall be approved by the County l~lousing Agency prior to final subdivision approval or final ,plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite, and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu fees. AA. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws. rules, regulations and requirements. BB. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change ol'zonc. 4. 'rhe time extension shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). -15- 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. CC. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: Hilo , I Iawai ` i Date of Introduction: Date of l st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: COUNCIL 'MBER, , Y OF AWAVI i7 COL 1NCIL MEM , COUNTY OF HA VA1' l July 7, 2005 July 7, 2005 July 22, 2005 August 5, 2005 107 a...i t...:.;�...:: Cormi, 3 • M RM -5 RS -7.5 RS -15 A-1acr j �gYi.5 A -5a I ! RM -5 A -5a 'cn AGRICULTURAL (A -5a) RS -7.5 A -5a ;TQ NEIGHBORHOOD OMMERCIAL CN -20 A -5a I I R,S�15 14.971 Acs. I j a) [. I E Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Y I . r .:ih•^s:•T.us� ::^iii�=i� viii=ri•u t=':iaii� ��jn3YsS ��a:i`ii�:of :�='se iii�tsi#iii`�u" :::a�,tii:ei�i:::;:suiu:rr.4:irir t•� ctir.ia arnc.aa.nanc:sel�r_ ii {:::uc: n=. c ;ifii ic:ir3�iit:•air::e•tt�:i:.:u:i:e1:ins:c:i••: — NO; n :11e1 ut:•i:as'a.sa:.c..i:a:u rrr = . Ku5Hwy. RM -5 u:u s:, e•==)) -_`• ii ra•sie:u • c r_•irer..::s::::::: it ;' ISE.';,..• - A -5a A-10 792.90 N I I CN -10 li `r I Ii 3,701-56 E A -5a A -5a "i(AHECO" Q :R�-1 - / S -1'Q,' _ s RS•1Q', A -5a �p�js�;,-�- R5'10 j I RST10 i` ,la St. �Akoa St. RS-' 0 III ! ] _ I ; RAS- 0 S ' �R�-7:51i 1(6010 list RS -1 ,' � �a - - - -� �► ;. III I'_ �_- I �,_ � cv 10 ' ;' _ i 1. I k� a d: _ A -5a RS -10 '•• RM -4, A-:utaF1 RS -7.5 ' l?S CY-T.5 C1/ 7,5 RM-�.5i 1 B70 435 0 870 1,740 2 610 3.480 4 350 — Feel AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A -5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN -20) AT PUAPUA'AIKI 1stAND PUAPUA'ANU1 1st, NORTH KONA, HAWAII I PREPARED BY- PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII TMK: 7-5-017:001 EXHIBIT "A" Date: September 24, 2004 (Puce Develnnment 1 1 C;-1146) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK County of Hawai `i Hilo, Hawaii Introduced By: Pete Hotfmann/K. Angel Pilago Date Introduced: July 7, 2005 First Reading: July 7, 2005 Published: July 17, 2005 RE:uARK.S'' Second Reading: Ju.1 y 22, 2005 To Mayor: July 25, 2005 Returned: august _ 5, 2005 Effective: August 5, 2005 Published: August 11, 2005 RE A1,4 R K.S: { ROLL CALL VOTE AYES ` _ . NOES ABS EX Arakaki X Higa X Hoffmanrn X Holschuh X Ikeda X Isbell X Jacobson X Pilago X Safarik X 8 1 0 0 ROLL CALL VOTE AYES NOES ABS EX Arakaki X Higa X Hoffmaml X Holschuh X ' Ikeda X Isbell X Jacobson X Pilago X Safarik x 8 _1 0 0 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council published as indicated above. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG/&ITY: i /coUYCIRMAN OEP�UTY CORPORATION COUNSEL COUNTY OF HAWAI'I Date; Cpprove�cDisqpprovedlhis 0 �' , 20 0& M YORI-TYOFHAWAI'l dT. s • CO LINTY CLERK Bill No.: Reference: Ord No.: 32 (Draft 3) C-107.3/PC-27 05 115 DAVID Y. IGE ��� � GOVERNOR r �Af?95s•;'�b� JADE T. BUTAY DIRECTOR Deputy Director - 5 rF? LYNN A.S. ARAKI=REGAN ' DEREK J. CHOW `�:^ ....-r•'r'�` `~ ROSS M. HIGASHI• , EDWIN H. SNIFFE1$i _ S'T'ATE OF HAWAII IN REPLY REFER TO: - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STP 19-1.3.1= 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HWY-PS 2.1899 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 January 16, 2020 o-, �- C� . Mr. Michael Yee County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3� rV Hilo Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yee: Subject: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. •05-115 (REZ 04-00.0025) Puaa Development, LLC Pualani Makai Master Planned Community North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: (3) 7-5-017:001 Puaa Development, LLC proposes to develop the subject parcel as the commercial portion of the Pualani Makai Master Planned Community. An adjacent parcel (3) 7-5-017:019 is being developed by Suffolk Investment, LLC, as the residential portion of the planned community. The land use entitlements for the two parcels have proceeded separately but concurrently and the conditions attached to the entitlements are similar. There is a concurrent request for Amendment to Change of Zoning for Ordinance No. 05-113 that is being reviewed by the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). The HDOT has not provided substantive comment on the proposed action since our letter of January 21, 2005 during the State Land Use (SLU-04-009) Boundary Amendment application and the Change of Zone application review. The subject amendment proposes to update specific conditions of the Ordinance to request time extensions for key milestones, clarify language, reflect completion of some conditions, and address changes to land use laws. The proposed commercial development on the parcel has not changed substantively; however, it currently incorporates a public -bus transfer station, 100 multi -family residential units and a reduction of 20,000 square feet of commercial space. TanningExhibw1w b C SCANNED '� JAN 2 3 2020 .ti Mr. Michael Yee January 16, 2020 Page 2 HWY-PS 2.1899 There continue to be two proposed intersections with Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Hawaii Belt Road, State Route 11). The primary access would be at the northern end of the master plan area and opposite the Puapuaanui Street intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. A secondary access would be approximately 1,100 feet south of the primary access at the proposed Spine Road intersection, subject to HDOT approval of a new access on State highways. Spine Road would extend between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway (County jurisdiction). We have the following comments on the proposed Amendment to Change of Zoning relevant to State highways: 1. Condition E. first sentence: "If the Department of Transportation requires an amended Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval." The amendment recommends deleting this sentence; however, HDOT recommends the following sentence replace the existing sentence: "An updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR), dated October 2019, was prepared for the Pualani Makai Mixed -Use Development and will be provided to HDOT for review and acceptance prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval." The updated TZAR was included with the proposed Amendment but HDOT review and acceptance of the updated TIAR was not specifically requested with the Amendment review. We are not providing TZAR comments at this time. Please submit the TZAR under separate cover for HDOT to facilitate routing to and review by various branches within HDOT.. Condition E. second sentence: HDOT concurs,with the proposed edits: "All accesses including road and/or intersection improvements affecting State highways, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation." 2. Condition F. HDOT concurs with the proposed minor edits: "The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access ori the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K.: No. 7-5-17: 1 at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic meeting with the approval of the Department of Transportation and/or County Department of Public Works. Said improvements [, plus the maiii spine read thr-eugh the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Kua4alai read,] shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures." Mr. Michael Yee January 16, 2020 Page 3 HWY-PS 2.1899 3. Condition G. No changes were proposed to Condition G. "The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located at the south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and other improvements that maybe required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all accesses shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements' -only. Said improvements shall be.completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures." The updated TZAR should include two scenarios in the event HDOT does not approve the secondary access, as follows: 1) Use of primary and secondary accesses and 2) Use of primary access only. Although the recommended primary access intersection improvements of Condition G are consistent with HDOT comments of 2005, they are subject to change, pending HDOT review of the updated TZAR. If you have any questions, please contact Jeyah Thirugnanam, Systems Planning Engineer, Highways Division, Planning Branch at (808) 587-6336 or by email at jeyan.thirugnanam@hawaii.gov. Please reference file review number PS 2019-165. Sincerely, JADE T. BUTAY Director of Transportation Y6 1. LINDA LINGLE {` GOVERNOR K L k .� p >e Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 Dear Mr. Yuen: f � •1.959' ••.9 4P��-0-CiE]• L•]oapo STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 January 21, 2005 Subject: Puaa Development, LLC State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) and Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) TMK: 7-5-17: 1 Thank you for your transmittal requesting our review of the subject applications. RODNEY K.HARAGA DIRECTOR Deputy Directors BRUCE Y. MATSUI BARRY FUKUNAGA BRIAN H. SEKIGUCHI IN REPLY REFER TO: STP 8.1514 We are concerned about the adverse cumulative impacts of this development and adjacent developments (i.e., Suffolk Investment and Pualani Estates) on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. We have the following comments. 1. The traffic report concludes and recommends that improvements will be necessary at the -two proposed accesses to Queen Kaalra nanu Hie...way (i.e., at the Queen Kaahumanu/Pualani Subdivision Road and another access south of that intersection). The applicant should, be responsible to plan, design, and constrict these improvements, at no cost to the State. Cost sharing with adjacent developers is encouraged. Improvements will include, but not be limited to, channelization; acceleration, deceleration and storage lanes; and traffic signalization and street lighting. 2. Please note that while we agree in concept with the recommended improvements contained in the report, the information to adequately assess the assumptions and projections to determine the specific configuration and layout of the improvements is lacking. ' As such, the applicant may be required to supplement and/or revise the TIAR during the review and approval of the accesses, and other permitting and construction plans. 0. Mr. Christopher J. Yuen STP 8.1514 Page 2 January 21, 2005 3. Plans for construction work within/or adjoining our highway right-of-way, along with required and applicable environmental and construction permits, must be submitted to our Highways Division for review and approval. In light of comment 2 above, presubmittal consultation is encouraged. 4. A request for access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway should be submitted to our Highways Division Rights -of -Way Branch (ROW). A use and occupancy agreement or easement with the Highways Division for all proposed utilities within the highway right- of-way will also need to be executed. 5. The applicant should coordinate and submit the drainage study for the proposed project, with appropriate plans and calculations, to our Highways Division for review and approval. 6. The applicants should participate and contribute its fair share of regional and local transportation improvements as determined by our department and/or the county. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our comments. Very truly yours, ROD. Z:GA Director of Transportation t DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII•'j95g 9 v o BRACE S. ANDERSON PFD. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH , STATE ATE F HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 1 �✓ a MEMORANDUM DATE: January 27, 2020 TO: : Mr. Michael Yee Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Eric Honda District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Amendment to Change Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ-04-000025) Applicant: Puaa Development. LLC Request: Amendment to Condition B,C,E,P,PI,I,V,W,Y,Z,EB T'MK: 7-5-017:001 The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of the subject docurrerit on December 11, 2019. The CWB has reviewed the limited information contained in the suDiect document and offers the following ebin-ments: Permit Issuance Any project and its potential impacts to State waters must meet the State's: 1) Antidegrauation policy, -which rewires that the existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses of the receiving State water be maintained and protected; 2) Designated uses, as determined by the classification of the receiving State waters; and 3) Nater duality criteria [Hawaii Administrative Rules (I-IAR), Chapter 11-54], * A Section 401 Mater duality Certification (WQC) is required if your project/activity: Requires a federal permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or Planning Dept Statutory exemption; and May _result in a discharge into State waters. The term "discharge" is defined in Clean Water Act, Subsections 502(16), 502(12), and 502(6). Examples of "discharge" include, but are not limited to, allowing the following pollutants to enter State waters from the surface or in -water: SCANNED solid waste, rock/sand/dirt, heat, sewageconstruction debris, any underwater work, chemicals, fugitive dust/spray/paint, agricultural wastes J A a � �a 1 JAN 3 1 2020 Michael Yee January 27, 2020 A Page 2 of 4 ttl� V L biological materials, industrial wastes, concrete/sealant/epoxy, and 4 washing/cleaning effluent. L L12- 0 washing /cleaning if your project/activity requires a federal permit, license, certificate, approval, registration, or statutory exemption by contacting the appropriate federal agencies (e.g. Department of the Army (DA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Pacific Ocean Division Honolulu District Office (POH) Tel: 808-835-4303; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tel: 415-947-8021; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tel: 866-208-3372; U.S. Coast Guard Office of Bridge Programs Tel: 202-372-1511). To request/a Section 401 WQC, you must complete and submit the Section 401 WQC application. This application is available on the e -Permitting Portal website located at: https://eha-cloLi.d.doh.hawaii. Jov/epert nit/. Please see HAR, chapter 11-54 for the State' Water Quality Standards and for more information on the Section 401 WQC. HAR, Chapter 11-54 is available on the C"WB website at: httiv://heatth.hawaii.aov/cwb/. ® National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage is required for: ' -Storm water associated with construction activities .for land disturbances- of one (1) acre or more. Land disturbance Includes, but is not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, demolition, uprooting of vegetation, equipment staging, and storage areas. -Storni water associated with industrial activities for facilities with Standard Industrial Classification Codes regulated in 40 CFR 122:26(b)(14)(i) through (ix) and (xi). -Storm. water and certain non -storm water from a small IVlunicipal Separate Storni Sewer System. ' -Discharges of water pollutants into State surface waters. Examples of these discharges include, but are not limited to, cooling water, hydrotesting waters, dewatering effluent, and process wastewater. -Discharges from the application of pesticides (including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and various other substances to control pest) to State waters. 1i An application for an N' PDES individual permit rriust be submitted at least 180 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge or start of construction activities. To request and NPDES individual permit, you must complete and -subinit the NPDES individual perrhit application. This application is available on the !e -Permitting Portal website located at: https://eha-cloud.doh.haivaii.gov/eperrnit/. 4 Michael Yee January 27, 2020 Page 3 of 4 A Notice of Intent (NC I) for coverage under a specific NPDES general permit must be submitted at least 3 0 calendar days before the commencement of the discharge or start of construction activities. To request NPDES general permit coverage, you must complete and submit the NDI. The NDI is available on the e -Permitting Portal website located at: https:,//eha-cloud.doh.haNA!c-iii.gov/epermit . Please see RAIZ, Chapter 11-55 for more information on the NPDES individual permit and NPDES general permits. The specific NPDES general permits located in HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendices E through M. RAIZ, Chapter 11-55 and HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendices B through M are available on the CWB website at: I-itt.p://l,..eal.th.hawaii.gov/cwb/. According to State law, all discharges related to the project construction or— operation roperation activities, whether or not NPDES permit coverage and/or Section 401 WQC are required, must comply with the State's mater Quality Standards, Monitoring Effluent discharge and/or receiving water monitoring may be required as conditions of Section 401 Water Quality Certifications and NPDES General and Individual permits. Enforcement ® Noncompliance with water quality requirements contained inHAR, Chapter 11-.54 and/or permitting requirements specified in HAR, Chapter I1-55 may be subject to penalties of $25,000 per day per violation. ® Violations of Hw vaii Revised Statutes 342D and 342E may elicit administrative, civil and criminal penalties for such violations. Polluted Runoff Control Manage projects identified in watershed -based plans that reduce polluted runoff and educate the public about nonpoint source pollution. Projects are selected through an annual request for proposals. Funding is provided by the EPA through the Clean Nater Act. For more information on projects and fuinding opportunities, please visit: i�rtit/--�,v,.ha"vaii.gov/dolE/pollLitedrunoffcontrol. Construction activities must comply with the provisions ofHawaii Administrative, Rules, Chapter 11-4b, "Community Noise Control." 1. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules. Michael Yee, January 27, 2020 Page 4 of 4 2s Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. 3m The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at 933- 0917. The subject project is located within or near proximity to the County sewer system. All wastewater generated shall be disposed into the County sewer system. Wastewater Branch supports the sewer requirements made by the County for the proposed project. We recommend that you review all of the Standard Comments on our website: http://h.awaii.`�ov/ilcalth/environmental/env- )l nnit.i.�y/landuse/landuse.litml. Any comments specifically applicable to this project should be adhered to. The same website also features a Healthy Community Design Smart Growth. Checklist (Checklist) created by Built Environment Working Group(BE�v�G) of the Hawaii State Department of Health. The BEWG recommends that state and county planning departments, developers, planners, engineers and other interested parties apply the healthy built environment principles in the Checklist whenever they plan or review new developments or redevelopments projects. We also ask you to share this list with others to increase corninunity awareness on healthy community design. DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAII 345 KEKUANAO`ASTREET, SUITE 20 HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • FAX (808) 961-8657 January 8, 2020 We have reviewed the subject request and have the following comments. Please be informed that the subject parcel and parcels included in SUB -07-000610 are subject to the "Settlement Agreement and Release" (SETTLEMENT) of March 17, 2004, which provides a water commitment for 510 units of water at an average of 400 gallons per day, per unit. The water commitment consists of 368 units of water from the "Kealakekua Source Agreement" and 142 units of water that are subject to conditions in the SETTLEMENT, with no expiration date. However, there is a water commitment deposit required -for the 142 units of water. In 2008, the applicant had provided an assignment of water units for each proposed lot within SUB -07-00061 0. The subject parcel will be subdivided into Lots 1, 6, and 8 in SUB -07-00610., Due to the multiple agreements for water commitments, we request that the applicant revise the assignment of water units and identify which agreement the water units are from, as the conditions for the water commitments differ. Also to justify the amount of water required for each lot, we request the applicant to .submit estimated maximum daily water usage calculations, prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval. The water usage calculations should include the estimated peak flow in gallons per minute and the total maximum daily water use in gallons per day. Upon acceptance of the water usage calculations, we will determine the amount of water units, water commitment deposit due, facilities charges to be paid, and water system improvements required for water service. 'lann"ng DePt g Exhibit,,:� ;- g ... Water Our 914ost Precious L7'� � � � ��� 12esource ... �a �Nai,� Kane. The Department of Water supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. 0 j' r-� r TO: Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department FROM: Keith K. Okamoto, Manager -Chief Engineer r=' SUBJECT: Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-000025) .Re .nest — Amendment to Condition.s R C F F H I V WV Y, Z and BB Applicant — Pua`a Development, LLC Tax Map Key 7-5-017:001 We have reviewed the subject request and have the following comments. Please be informed that the subject parcel and parcels included in SUB -07-000610 are subject to the "Settlement Agreement and Release" (SETTLEMENT) of March 17, 2004, which provides a water commitment for 510 units of water at an average of 400 gallons per day, per unit. The water commitment consists of 368 units of water from the "Kealakekua Source Agreement" and 142 units of water that are subject to conditions in the SETTLEMENT, with no expiration date. However, there is a water commitment deposit required -for the 142 units of water. In 2008, the applicant had provided an assignment of water units for each proposed lot within SUB -07-00061 0. The subject parcel will be subdivided into Lots 1, 6, and 8 in SUB -07-00610., Due to the multiple agreements for water commitments, we request that the applicant revise the assignment of water units and identify which agreement the water units are from, as the conditions for the water commitments differ. Also to justify the amount of water required for each lot, we request the applicant to .submit estimated maximum daily water usage calculations, prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval. The water usage calculations should include the estimated peak flow in gallons per minute and the total maximum daily water use in gallons per day. Upon acceptance of the water usage calculations, we will determine the amount of water units, water commitment deposit due, facilities charges to be paid, and water system improvements required for water service. 'lann"ng DePt g Exhibit,,:� ;- g ... Water Our 914ost Precious L7'� � � � ��� 12esource ... �a �Nai,� Kane. The Department of Water supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. 0 j' Mr. Michael Yee, Director Page 2 January 8, 2020 Please note that the Department of Water Supply acknowledges that potable water is Hawaii Island's most precious resource and encourages our communities to promote water conservation and reserve the highest quality of water for the most valuable end use, which is the sustenance of life. We request that the applicant address the demand of drinking water for landscape irrigation use by limiting or reducing the demand, such as: Supplying water by alternate methods (i.e. rainwater catchment, reclaimed or reuse water). The County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, and/or State of Hawaii, Department of Health has guidelines, recommendations, or regulations regarding these types of systems. • Design landscape to use water -efficient plants -that are drought -tolerant, native, or appropriate to the local environment, principles of Xeriscape. • Select appropriately -sized turf areas, use healthy soils with the appropriate grading to reduce storm -water runoff, include shaded areas, and limit the use of high water -using plants such as turf grass. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Ryan Quitoriano of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 256. Sincerely yours, 6- 6N+ Keith K. Okamoto, P.E. Manager -Chief Engineer RQ:dfg copy - Pua`a Development, LLC Mr. Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant r'• Harry Kim Mayor Roy Takemoto Managing Director MEMORANDUM C�11unt of AUJa `t DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4224 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (808) 961-8630 public—works@hawaiicounty.gov Date: December 18, 2019 To: Michael Yee, Planning Director From: Department of Public Works, Engineering Division'l$v- David Yamamoto, P.E. �: r Director . Allan G. Simeon, P.E. ' Deputy Director Subject: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-000025) Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC Request: Amendment to Condition B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Condition E (delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR), Condition F (Roadway Improvements-Modify/Delete Portions that have been already implemented), Condition H (Location of Spine Road within Project Site), Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Condition W (Fair Share), Condition Y (Affordable Housing Timing), Condition Z (Change Housing Program Approving Authority), and Condition BB (Administrative Time Extension) Tax Map Key: 7-5-017:001 We have reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows: 1. Amendment to Conditions H and I: The access to Kuakini Highway shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision or the applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the Sunstone Development located on TMKs 7-5-019:049, 050 and 054 and 7-5-020:001 so that the access to both developments are opposing each other on Kuakini Highway. Sunstone Development's access on Kuakini Highway will be located on TMK 7-5-019:049. The access shall meet the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall have the provision of adequate sight distances. 2. The updated Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was adopted on September 29, 2017. Special Flood Hazard Areas AE, AEF, and XS affect the subject parcel as designated by the updated FIRM. All development plans, drainage studies, and other related documents shall reflect the September 29, 2017 FIRM. Improvements in a floodplain will be subject to the requirements of Chapter 27 — Floodplain Management — of the Hawaii County Code. 3. All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10 — Erosion and Sedimentation Control — of the Hawaii County Code. Planning Dept. Exhibit 99 6. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. .F t cam?.: �W - �'•t'1 . 214 Subject: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-000025) Applicant: Puaa Development, LLC Request: Amendment to Condition B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Condition E (delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR), Condition F (Roadway Improvements-Modify/Delete Portions that have been already implemented), Condition H (Location of Spine Road within Project Site), Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Condition W (Fair Share), Condition Y (Affordable Housing Timing), Condition Z (Change Housing Program Approving Authority), and Condition BB (Administrative Time Extension) Tax Map Key: 7-5-017:001 We have reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows: 1. Amendment to Conditions H and I: The access to Kuakini Highway shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision or the applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the Sunstone Development located on TMKs 7-5-019:049, 050 and 054 and 7-5-020:001 so that the access to both developments are opposing each other on Kuakini Highway. Sunstone Development's access on Kuakini Highway will be located on TMK 7-5-019:049. The access shall meet the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall have the provision of adequate sight distances. 2. The updated Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was adopted on September 29, 2017. Special Flood Hazard Areas AE, AEF, and XS affect the subject parcel as designated by the updated FIRM. All development plans, drainage studies, and other related documents shall reflect the September 29, 2017 FIRM. Improvements in a floodplain will be subject to the requirements of Chapter 27 — Floodplain Management — of the Hawaii County Code. 3. All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10 — Erosion and Sedimentation Control — of the Hawaii County Code. Planning Dept. Exhibit 99 6. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. G' 4. All work within the County Right -of -Way shall conform to Chapter 22 — County Streets — of the Hawaii County Code. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Natalie Whitworth of our Kona Engineering Division office at 323-4853. NW Copy: Engineering-Hilo/Kona County of Hawai' i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. LINDA LINGLE o F GOVERNOR d} '� V ZQ ANTHONY J.H. CHING EXECUTIVE OFFICER STATE OF HAWA19 F . t ;-- rr 1� DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPM&&1-T0UR�W j LAND USE COMMISSION P.O. Box 2359 r: _-, _ ;, i : =N i Honolulu, Hawaii 96804-2359 r.'. Telephone: 808-587-3822 Fax: 808-587-3827 October 20, 2004 Mr Christopher J. Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 04-009) Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-025) A -5a to CN -20 Puaa Development, LLC Puapuaaiki lst and Puapuaanui 1St, North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 7-5-17: 1 (Lot 2) State Land. Use Boundarl7 Amendrn.ent Application (,SLU 04-010) Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-024) A -5 a. to RM -2.5 Suffolk Investment, LLC Puapuaaiki 1st and Puapuaanui 1st, North Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key: 7-5-17:19 (Lot 5) We have reviewed the subject applications forwarded by your memorandum dated September 24, 2004, and confirm that the subject sites, as generally represented on Figure 1 of the County Environmental Report (CER), are located within the boundary of the State Land Use Agricultural District. Planning Dept, Exhibit- Xfi-th- #� I *w- ..._ rT Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director October 20, 2004 Page 2 We understand that the subject sites, identified as Lot 2 and Lot 5 and consisting of 14.973 acres and 14.872 acres, respectively, were created as a result of a 5 -lot consolidation and resubdivision application for the Pualani Makai Subdivision. We further understand that Lot 2 will be developed into the Pualani Village Center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas, while Lot 5 will be developed into a-250 -unit market rental housing project to address the rental housing needs of the community. While we have no specific objections to the proposed uses themselves, we do have strong objections to the manner in which they are being processed as HRS §205-3.1 boundary amendments. We believe that both the Village Center and the rental housing project are part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and have been deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. We also believe that Pualani Makai will be further segmented under separate boundary amendment applications for Lots 3 and 4 based on the Master Plan for the development. As you know, the Third Circuit Court has affirmed that projects, such as Pualani Makai, should be viewed as an integrated whole to ensure full and timely disclosure of their potential cumulative impacts upon the environment. We understand that the previous owner of the property intended to submit a boundary amendment petition to the Commission for Pualani Makai's predecessor, Pualani Development -Phase II. We note that the archaeological inventory survey (Appendix D-2 in the CER) conducted in support of the development explicitly acknowledged that "[t]he overall objective of the survey was to provide information appropriate to and sufficient for (a) the preparation of a Land Use Boundary Amendment petition to be made to the Hawaii State Land Use Commission...." With the recent reactivation of the development as Pualani Makai, we believe that it continues to require Commission approval. Given the location, scope, and nature of the proposed activity, the Commission normally defers to the judgment of the County of Hawaii regarding applications such as these. However, in this instance, we believe it appropriate for the County of Hawaii to seek clarification from the applicant why actions relating to the proposed Pualani Village Center and rental housing project should not be subject to a land use boundary amendment made to the Land Use Commission. Any findings or conclusions generated by the County in this *matter should be forwarded to the Commission for its information and appropriate follow-up. C (. Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director October 20, 2004 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject applications. Please feel free to contact Bert Saruwatari of my office at 587-3822, should you require clarification or any further assistance. Sincerely, ANTHONY J. °. H G �^ Executive Officer c: Office of Planning SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 Cell: (808) 989-0640 E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net January 22, 2020 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAI' I 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yee: M • Planning - Variance • Zoning • Subdivision • Land Use Permits • Environmental Reports Subject: Response to Agency Comments Time Extension and Amendments to Rez. Ord. Nos. 05-115 -- APPLICANT — Puaa Development LLC Puapua' a 1St and 2nd, North Kona, Hawai i, TMK: 7-5-017: 001 Thank you for providing me with a copy of agency comments to date. In response to those comments, please note the following: Department of Water Supply ("DWS") The DWS noted that based on a Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is attached, the subject and adjoining parcels have a combined total of 510 water commitments. It further requested the following, and the applicant will comply with those requirements: 1. Payment of a water commitment deposit for 142 units; and 2. Submittal of an estimated maximum water usage calculations prepared by a Hawaii licensed professional engineer for the Department's review and approval. Additionally, the report should address how the project will reduce use of potable water for non -potable purposes, such as irrigation. Office of Housing and Community Development ("OHCD") While OHCD commented on Suffolk Investments, LLC's request, none was offered for this application. I trust, therefore, that since there was no substantive amendment being proposed, the existing language (with the minor editorial suggestion regarding the approval process) is acceptable. If not or if there is a separate comment for this application, please let me know. Department of Public Works ("DPW") The proposed access to both projects (Puaa Investment, LLC and Suffolk Investment, LLC) from Kuaki_ni Highway is via an existing road easement that was acknowledged and created through a subdivision that created the subject and adjoining parce 1 SCANNED Pta fit g !�i���a JAN 2 �, 23�. 9 Mr. Michael Yee, Director January 22, 2020 Page 2 to address the mandate of Conditions H and I, infrastructure construction plans were prepared and reviewed by DPW. (A copy of pertinent portions, entitled "Pualani Makai Road Networks", is attached for youf information, and the entire set can be provided upon request.) While the plans were never approved, during the plan preparation and review phases, access locations and other terms were incorporated into the plans to assure consistency with Conditions H and I. Thus, while it may be difficult, the applicant is willing to adjust its location as may be necessary to address DPW's comments. The applicant believes that the proposed language to conditions H and I accomplishes this without foreclosing the option of its retention as shown in the unapproved construction plans. In the end, the proposed language would give DPW the final say as to its location. On the matter of drainage, the applicant prepared two (2) construction plans, a copy of pertinent parts are also attached, with full copy available upon request. One is entitled "DOT Drainage Culvert Improvements" and the other, "Pualani Makai Flood Channel." All of those plans, including the "Pualani Road Networks", were developed and coordinated to address the road and drainage requirements of the projects; Currently, there is an 8 -foot wide pipe that crosses the extension'of the Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway in the vicinity of the subject site. This system, installed by the State Department of Transportation, is undersized. DOT subsequently approved the "DOT Drainage Culvert Improvements" plan in the attached letter, dated February 18, 2010, that reflect a new bigger culvert (20 feet wide; 14.6 feet tall; and 135 feet long) and a 40 -foot wide concrete u -shaped channel from the Highway into a 2 -acre, 25 -foot deep retention basin near Kuakini Highway and on the subject site. This retention basin is reflected in both the "Pualani Road Networks" and "Pualani Makai Flood Channel" plans. In preparing the aforementioned construction plans, the applicant's engineering consultant was mindful of the pending amendment to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. In that regard, some measure but not significant —changes will have to be made to those plans to address the current designation. As such, the applicant will comply with the requirements and recommendation of the DPW which include the submittal of detailed drainage studies and other related documents in conjunction with the construction plan preparation and submittal process. Please note that this requirement is already addressed in Conditions L and N. The other requirements and/or recommendation of the DPW will be complied with, which includes assuring compliance with Chapter 10 relating to erosion and sedimentation control and securing the appropriate permits for work within the County right-of-way. The former is already covered by Conditions 0 and P. Mr. Michael Yee, Director January 22, 2020 Page 3 Department of Environmental Management ("DEM"') The Solid Waste Division did not have any comments on the request. Normally, -a Solid Waste Management Plan is required for projects of this nature. In that regard, Condition R already addresses this matter. Likewise, 'the Wastewater Division did not have any comments. Again, in situations like this, a wastewater capacity study is required to address capacity and any upgrade requirements. This is already addressed in Condition Q. State Department of Health ("DOH") The DOH noted that the project must comply with and secure National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit for improvements such as a drywell and any other drainage type improvements to address runoff. This will be complied with during the construction phase of this project. We trust that the aforementioned adequately responded to agency comments to date. If not or if there any additional comments, please let me know. Thank you very much. ince�ely, SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosures Copy — Puaa Development LLC w/o enclosures • SS SETT -EMENT -A M . The parties i© ibis agreement are: (a) W estpro Development, Inc. a Nevada corporation whose ma""Ug address is 75-143 Hua1ala.i Road, Suite 202, Kailua bona, Hawaii 96740 ("STPRO"); Irate national Development Proj ects, Ltd.., a Hawaii Corporation, coo Robert D.•Triantos, 75-1000 Henry Street, Suite 209, KaAU-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (` ATIOIIA )); ani estates Inc., a Hawaii corporation, c/o Robert D. Triantos, (c) Pual . 75-1000 Henry Street, Suite 209, Kama Kona, Hawaii 96740 (`cPIJAL-ANP'}; d Grant Johnston, c/o James Kawachika, Esq., Pacific Guardian Center, Nlakai Tower, 733 Bishop Street, 2e Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 CUMNSTCN"); e Carlsmith. Ball LLP, 121 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 ("CARLSII=" ); De artment of water Supgly, County of Hawaii, 345 kekuanaoa Street, Room 207 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 ("DWS"); and (g) Water Board of the County of Hawaii, 345 Kekuanaaa Street, "wATBR BOARD") Room 20, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (. J R 2. Clams released. The, term ,"claims", as used in this document means and includes all claims, causes of action, liabilities or damages of any nature whatsoever which relate to the issue of rights to water commitnpents for the WESTPRO's property more specifically &scribe,d by TMK(3)7-5-17-01, 19, 23, 25 and 26 for approximately 64 acres at North Kona, Hawaii C%1AKAi 64 ACRE PROJECT ARBA") wbieh is the subj ect of Civil No. 03 -170 13 3 K in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii. Other than the subject matter relating to the rights to water commitments, all other claims by and between WESTPRO as Plaintiff and INTERNATIONAL, PUALANI, AND JOHNSTON, as Defendants, shall remain and are not subject to release or dismissal by this agre0�ent be ween and among the paries herein. More specifically, the "claims" involve certain terms in the sale by IsITERNATIONAL of approximately 64 acres of undeveloped land to WESTPRO on or about September 20, 2002- As part of the same sales transaction, INTERNATIONAL assigned to WESTPRO a total of 510 rights to water commitments, subject to the approval of the DWS and WATER BOARD. A dispute arose regarding the transfer and assignment of 510 rights to water commitments to YVESTPRO. Although a total of 510 rights to water commitments were to be transferred or assigned to WESTPRO by t 2 INMRNATIONAL, only 368 rights to water commitments were available ; � thereby leaving a shortfall of 142 rights to water commitments. The parties herein agree to release each other regarding the "claims' relating to the subject matter of the 5 10 rights to water comml#3nents which is Part of the lawsuit described above_ It is specifically not the intent of this agreement to in any way settle .or release claims between WESTPRO, as Plaintiff, and DUERNATIONAL, PUALANI, and JOHNSTON, as Defendants, on the other issues regarding the other allegations set forth in the lawsuit described above_ CA ZLS1� TII, DWS, and WATER BOARD shall no longer be parties in the remaining claims m the subject lawsuit described. above. 3. Consideration. The consideration.. for this settlement agreement and release is as fellows: (a) WESTPRO shall be entitled to a total of 510 rights to water commitments for the MAKAI. 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA; (b) IN MRNATIONAL, PUALANI, and JOHNSTON shall assign to STPRO the 3 68 rights_ to water commitments c=ently allocated to the W MAKAI 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA pursuant to the Jbn:e 17, 1994 Agreement For Assignment And Transfer Of Rights To Water CoTitment Units of the Keala -ekua Water Source Agreement; 3 (c) The DWS and WATER BOARD shall issue 142 rights to water - co invents to WESTPRO for use solely wifin the MAKAI 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA, subject howe� ver to the preconditions of the payment of the applicable and -prevailing water comnaitmjmt fees, water faci sties ebarges, capital assessment fees and other charges as required by DWS. for development of the MAKA6 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA, consistent with the County codes and rules, and DWS rimes, policies, procedures and guidelines then in effect. Prior to DWS providing water to the MAKAI 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA, WESTPRO or its successor shall complete or bond the off-site and on-site water improvements as required by the DWS consistent with the County codes and rules, and DWS rules, policies, procedures and guidelines then in effect; (d) The assignment and transfer of the above described 510 total (368 + 142 = 510) rights to water commitments to WESTPRO shall be exclusively used within the N ATA -I 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA and shall not be transferred off said area. (e). CARLSNffTH shall pay to DWS and/or WATER BOARD the total sum of $25,000.00 as part of the consideration for the issuance of the 142 rights to water commitments as descn-bed above by DWS and WATER . M j' 1 M e f -WEST PRO, INTERNATIONAL.7 PUALANI, 301INSTON, i CARLSMTEL DWS and the WATER BOARD agree to COOP crate and execute the necessary assigmmts and documents to transfer and assign the following ,ights to water com nj icnts held by PUALANI from the Kealakekua Source Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and Release: Area A: 313 rights to water commitments to Pu.alaoi Estates Subdivision TNIK-. (3) 7-5-17:29; (3)7-5-41: 41 through and �cluding 54; and (3) 7-5-42:01 through and including 78 Assignee: D.R. HORTON — SC'HTJLER HODS, LLC, dba SCHULER HOMES . Area B: 72 lights to water commitments to Pualani Retained Parcel _.) 3MK- (3) 7-5-17:35 Assignee: PUALAM ESTATES, INC - Arta C: 27 rights to wafer commitments to Hnalalai Heights Subdivision TMK: (3) 7-5-17:32 and. 34. PROJECTS Assignee: INTERNATIONAL DEWLOPNENT PR LTD., and PUALANI ES'T`ATES, INC. Area C-1: 20 rights to -grater Gommltments to Ulawebi Parcel Subdivision TNIIC- (3) 7-5-17:21 Assignee:. ULUWEM PROPER`I`1ES., LLC t Area D: 368 rights to water conamitments to 64 .ACRE PROJECT AREA Tom: (3) 7-5-17:01, 19, 23, 25 and 26 Assignee: WESTPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC. 5 a these 3 68 rights to water commitments shah run with the land and shall not be sold and/or transferred. for use off TNLK (3) 7-5-17:01, 19, 235 25 and 26_ 4. Release. For the "consideration" described in paragraph 3 above, the parties - herein, on behalf of themselves, and their respective parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, related companies, j oint ventures, owners, stockholders, sureties, indemmitors,guarantors, trustees in ban�uptcy, receivers, predecessors, agents, attoracys, insZ3rers, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, officers, directors, employees, partners, trustees, heirs, spouses and personal representatives, mutually discharge each other and their respective parent companies, subsidiaries, affrl.ates, divisions, related companies, point ventures, owners, stockholders, sureties, indemnitors, guarantors, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, predecessors, agents, attorneys, insurers., executors, administrators, successors, assigns, officers, directors, employees, partners, trustees, heirs, spouses and personal representatives from any and all "claimas", as well as any claims, causes of action, or demands, whether known or unknown, specifically and solely relating to the number of rights to water commitments mistakenly acknowledged to be allocated in that certain letter from Steven. S.C. Lim,, Esq_ of CARLSNE[TH to Milton D. Pavao, P.E., Manager of DWS, dated June 22, 2001 and in that certain letter from 0 Milton D. Pavao, P.B., Manager of DWS, to Steven S.C. Lim, Esq. of E CARLSN= dated August 10, 2041, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and `B", respectively. No other claims, causes of action, or demands, whether Down or unknown, arising out of the said letters QBxhibit "A" and `B" hereto) or the contents thereof are hereby released or discharged by and among the parties hereto_ Indemnity. a. WBSTPRO agrees to indemnify, defend, and forever hold harmless DWS and WATER BOARD against any and all future liability and fixture cost and expense resulting from. any clailn by or through V7FSTpR0 against DWS and WATER BOARD that WESTPRO bas been assigned, sold or promised as of the date of this Settlement Agreement and Release, any additional rights to water commitments for the 64 ACR. PROJECT ARBA beyond and other than the total of 5 10 rights to water commitments for the MAIM 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA referred to herein. b. WBSTPRO represents, covenants, and warrants that it has not assigned, sold or promised to anyone, any rights to water commitments based upon the letter from Steven S.C. Lim, Esq - VA of CARLSINETH to Milton D. Pavao, P.E_, Manager of DWS, dated June 22, 2001, that certain leiter from Milton D- Pavao-, P.E., Manager of DWS, to Steven S.C. Lim, Esq. of CARLSMTTEl dated August 10, 2001, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", or the June 17, 1994 Agreement for Assignment and Transfer of Rights to Water Commitment Units of the Kealakekua Water Source Agreement. Further, WESTPRO acknowledges and agrees that there sha11 be no transfer of the 510 rights to water commitments off the 64 ACRE PROTECT AREA. C- WES'1'PRO agrees to indemarufy, defend, and forever bold � harmless DWS and WATER BOARD against any and all future liability and future costs and expense resulting from any claim or demand against DWS and WATER BOARD that WESTPR.O has assigned, sold or promised anyone any rights to water commitments based upon the letter from Steven S.C. Elm, Esq. of CARLS1\ffrIH to Milton D. Pavao, P.E., Manager of DWS, dated June 22, 2001, that certain letter from Milton D. Pavao, RE_, Manager of DWS, to Steven S.C. Lim, Esq. of CARLSN= dated August 10, 2001, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and `B", or the June 17, 1994 Agreement for Assignment and Transfer of Rights to Water Commitment Units of the Kealakekua Water Source Agreement. d. INTERNATIONAL, PUA- All and JOHNSTON agree to inde=ify, defend, and forever hold harmless DWS and WATER BOARD against any and all future liability and fatnre cost and expense resulting from any claim by or through them against DWS and WATER BOARD that any one of them or a third party has been assigned, sold or promised as of the date of this Settlement Agreement and. Release, any additional rights to water .commitments for the parcels described herein as Areas, A, B, C, and C-1 other than as specifically set for oda in paragraph. 3 (f) herein. e. R-T'MRNATIONAII,. PUALANI and JOBNSTON represent, covenant, and warrant that they have not assigned,, sold or promised to anyone as of the date of this Settlement Agretment and Release (other than as alleged in the Complaint filed in Civil No. 03 -1-013 3K referred to hereinabove), any rights to water conunitments based upon the letter mom Steven. S -C. IJ -m, Esq. of CARLS�ETH to Milton D.' Pavao,'P.E., Manager- of DWS, 9 A dated June 22, 2001 and that certain letter from. Milton D. Pavao, P.E., Manager of DWS, to Steven S.C. Lim, Esq. of CARLS1 iff= dated August 10, 2001, copies of which are attached hereto as Exbibit "A" and "B", respectively, and made a part hereof by reference, other than as specifically set forth in paragraph 3 (f) herein. TkT-PI:M A7 A rPrn-t-,.T A T -DT T A T A -NTT ,r A TnT-1-NTC PnNT 1. 11 `1 -L v -.1LL 11-11 A- th t ? i r' e a \.L -1 `JJ -11 `1 LJ -L N --L% . demu fy, defend, and forever hold harmless DWS and WATER BOARD against any and all future liability and future cost and expense resulting from any claim against DWS and WATER BOARD that INMRNAUONAL, PUALANI and/or JOHNSTON assigned, sold or promised anyone (other than as alleged in the Complaint filed in. Civil No. 03-1-0133K ref=ed to hereinabove), any rights to water commitments based upon that certain letter from Steven S.C. Lim, Esq. of CARLSMITH to Milton D. Pavao, P.E., Manager of DWS, dated June 22, 2001 :;-nd that certain letter h:om Milton D.' Pavao, P.R. Manager of DWS, to Steven S.C. Lim, Esq. of CARLSN= dated August 101 2€ 01 (Exhibit "A7 and `B" hereto), other than as specifically set forth is paragraph 3 (f) herein. 10 6. No admission of iiabiht�Y. i f It is understood and agreed that the "consideration" for this release is not an admission- of any negligence, liability, or fault of any In.d but compromises - and settles all disputes between the panes for the propose of avoiding further controversy, litigation and expense, and that there shall be no further consideration for this settlement agreement and release other than the �+r++-�r�t�o�r� tet+ �o i►+-t�+o� �YVnA Ytl1 r%f1'1PTTi-w%r 7PT}f nT- rnT c; 1i-lrn ;n -n �ri4TC sitL7PP%i VVlLa7iSSLtQL,LVti �.Ll�sir�iVVii promised or will be pact 7_ No presumption against the drafter.. The parfies are each represented by experienced counsel who have negotiated over the terns of this agree-Inent_ Thus, the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities in documents are sometimes construed against the drafter shall not be observed with respect to the interpretation and/or enforcement of this contract_ instead, each party shall be conaidered to be the drafter of this contract. 8- Controlling law and venue. The substantive law of the state of Hawaii shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this agreement. The sole, and inclusive venue for any adjudication or of any dispute between the parties shall be filed in the 3rd Circuit Court Kona Division, State of Hawaii. 9. Authority to settle; owners of claims; voluntary act. Each party represents and warrants to the other that he, she or it is authorized to enter into th1s agreement; that claims attended to herein are owned by the party disposing of the dam ; that such clai-ms are not encurnbered a -id have not been pledged as collateral or assigned; and that entering into this agreement is a free/knowing and intentional act of the party following adequate opportunity to consult with counsel as to its meaning and effect. 10_ )Partial dismissal of Civil No. 03-1-0133K., Circuit Court of the Third Circui-t, State of Hawaii. The parries her covenant and agree to dismiss with prejudice any and all claims relating to the issue of the rights to water commitments for the WES TPRO property described above and referred to as MAKAI 64 ACRE PROJECT AREA as between and among the parties herein; dismiss with prejudice CARLSNflTH, DWS, and WATER BOARD from the subject lawsuit; and the remaining claims as between WESTPRO, as Plaintiff, and Rq=RNATIONAL, PUALANL and JOHNSTON, as Defendants, shall 11. No representation. The parties acknowledge that no promise, agreeinent, fact or opinion not expressed Herein has been made by or to them to induce this Agreement and 12 that this settlement is made with full knowledge of the facts and possibilities of ; the subject matters of this agreement and with the advice of their respective counsels. 12. Captions and headings. The headings of the paragraphs herein are inserted only for convenience and shah in no way define, describe, or limit the scope or intent of any of the nrnvfGinnc oft � Pffdement docu=nt. 13. Amendments. The terms and conditions of this settlement document may be changed, amended, or modified only by written agreement. 14. Coop eratlon. The parties agree to cooperate with each other to execute any other or farther documents reasonably required to carry out the purpose of this Settlement Agreement and Release. I5. Sigiature and counterparts. This instrament-may be executed on facsi-mile copies, and in two or mare counterparts, and when all counterparts have been executed, each counterpart shall be considered an original but when assembled shall constitute one and the same instrument, anal shall have the same force and effect as though all of the 13 signatories had executed a single signature page. Ally unexecuted dWl%cate pages may be omitted from the -assembled original document- , - Date: 2004 1 r Y i -•Ll t Z i�v yjis . i.�- � � r. _—_ _ — 7 - by its 2004 AL DEVELOPNMN- T PROSE , LTD.,�� by ifs 0111 Date: -� 2004 P r;T .A SES , mac. _ by its Date: �-� 2004 RANT S�ON Dade: 2004 CARL Stu= BALL LLP by its t Date: _ , 2004 DEPARTIV= OF WATER SUPPLY, COUNTY OF HAWAII - ' by its 14 ,rat. -J. •LUU`t �•�`TI IV UCCLE 1rt-u Q rM11Q • ' f ante Qe. Any executed duplicate atonies had executed a single sign P I s�gfl. be omitted from the assein ed oHg� docent pages may . by ] UiTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, LTD., by its P� TAT L B.SE A'i`d S, T -NC by GRANT JOBNST N CARLSAffTI4 BALL LLP by its l Dite- -24-, 2004 Date: 2404 Date: 204 Date: 2044 Date: 24}04 2004 Date: DBPARTi1ffiNT OF WATER , couNTY of HAWAII by its J 14 1 signatories had executed a single signature page. Any unexecuted duplicate pages may be omitted from the assembled origiDal document. Date: , 2004 by its Date: , 2004 ~ERNAnONAL DEVELOPYffiNT PROJECTS, LTD_, by its PUALANI ESTATES, INC. by its GRANT JOHNSTON CARLSI�= BALL LLP by its, Xanaging Partner Date: , 2004 Date: , 2QQ4 Date: March 15 , 2004 Dates: , 20fl� DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY, COUNTY OF HAWAII by its 14 I 1. signatones had executed a single signature page. Auy uuexecuted duplicate pages may be omitted from the assembled original document_ Date: STPRO DEVELOPMENT, INC, by its Date_ s 2004 R'IERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, LTD., _ J by its Date: , 2004 " PUALANI ESTATES., INC. by its Date: . 2004 GRANT JOHNSTON Date: , 2004 CARLSNIITPI BALL LLP by its Date: -3 2004 DEPARTMENT OV WATER SUPPLY, COUNTY OF I3AWAII by its Manager 14 - Date: 2004 WATER BOARD OF THE couNTY OF HAWAII by its Approved as to form: DF Attorney f,,):c WESTPRO DEVELOP NT, INC. J Sf �KAW C or horn for RqTE-RN-ATIONAL DE 1 .0pi miEiNT-rpR,0_TECTS,LTD_, PUALANI ESTATtS, INC.,,, and GRANT JOHNSTON SIDNEY AYABE Attomey for CARLSMIM BALL LLP KATIIERINE-A- GARSON Attorney for DEP-A-RTNIENT -OF WATER SUPPLY, COUNTY OF HAWAII and WATER BOARD OF COUNTY OF HAWAR L,Itq.DA:LIN0LE tcdVERNWR Ty I. Dempsey, P.E. Lyon Associates 8.41 *Bi51-i p. Street., Suite 2-006 Honolulu; Hawai-'J 968-1.3 Desi: -;M- - De. ser-, :-OFHA. A! I W -0". M A T #E€ *- A A * T— M** 'E- 'N''T 0 F TRI 1ON HIGHWAYS D110.. 8 . HAW . All DISTRICT 150-MAKAALASTREPT- HIM HAWA 000 X33-8869 TEL�-PHONE- 01- 3-88-66-0 ebzuaiy 1, 2010 - DR-E-JiNGN T. mowoKk 'DR-CTOR .N.My Diii?ctorst M*CHXEL Q. FORWAY' ..FRA-lis:PAULRENO NO—., .. .. .TIRO &-;3UMAP.A Iht L Y REF . ERT -b-' !..0-2-0065- Structm,4.Pjal Arch - . - r e C.UIV6 -A -h -PIP t' --t 0 SUBSVCT. Instal-IllatiOA, Of 2 ib-divisi-04, P -r -9i V N n. for pual Ma�ai Subdivisions F AP F � Queen ICaahuWaIiij Aig RAI 0 No.. 217+3 0'. Pu4p a� anui . N. -orffi. K 1(I 4),'Sta... Qna,- Hawaii EA-c-losed is your Title Sheet tracing for, the - above s.-Ijbi Oct -P qct. Please be - adv ` `sed. .4 r " 't P", L-01--�04M- Queen Yaa - Wlla.nu IS mon. 601a - P ng;- -Y th 0 c - b' ?,o $�Weet, Will CW401 . te TOWKER il lighwv R��Soac-Jllg,,Henry Street to Lal :' .0 n6 December. No Wotkwill be 4.1lowed-ttiat-will disturb theAI0%vPcftV- emelft fovft. period of year fWoTvv.lng completion of tjv- resurfacing Pro, `- ''t it prqjeotw. within .-the:, All anyState -:construction prpjed or -ve-rill Stdt6 urtme nt. of - of the Haal -�,i Dq*- -w . a .H Ways riglit-of-w4y.are- required to, obtain and have 4.0.0py Transportation Rhyhwavs D islon '"Cotisiv. doon Tra ices e -M 0 5 *-1.OD I$ e:o the City a Koutity- :cifHorioliian.d-4'Rule.sRelatiiigtb-..S*'Oil-Eir :Standards Guideline - f anspor . io Division 'Coft --I lu. The.H t if T- `taro n 14.-W-mstrUd .Of I Best awaN Dqpa ritinen. o. � I x 'M4A4,cren-ienPr t adims Fiej 1. A Manual" cati. be down.. loaded from the we".b ' - site at ,,:j-jttpWWwwistor aiUornli:esmrcesl r. !u Per ].otter].otteraWV-CM 2.445.3 elated. Jan-adry 1.2.;,� 2 our AP gilt -of v :ay BrabajbT the establ shnientdthe,.Vii, ji Mpe-easenients. -a -q-- Qpy :of letter: no,, DIR -5 5.0 from the "DitectOr Of'T ortatibil, WhOti. Swniit- g the :app.lic:a for for Perin gh tp-Perform.wor...U.-on i.s.. a!46 .rays: W Ty DoMpsq February 18, .201 0 Page :2 HW Ith D'Off PDES--' P=Ait. when submittio' Pr g. Provide. -a Dopy of e op the. .N- C and.-ia-COMP-1 gppy of N W. Iv..1-s-lon, .. aw. n District.. t jigh-wayo, D H- . the permit to -perform WOrk L�on $tate. Hi.ghmys. W .hej Permit TO Ped 'WoVIc'Qpon State a Pease 8jabMit two sets of the final plawaud, -obtain. Highways before you start any wo* within the hi&Way:.dgi tooY* The;ffigtallaqba :shall cQpVjy with Chapter .105 of Title 9,. entitled. and Installation of VdIfitits ori. State High and Federal Aid $OoMdUY County FlighwaY$," 14 -0-2.0 -.0 ai -date t. Ie ---ase refer t.,0._4pVt0va_l'j letter o?.H .Y- .1 �2 .0 .37 W. -bell fillitig out. our PC= P. ..e 4 janqW.22Oto.. Construction must. start within. 011e. yoar O.ftt COeS riot, tje V1ns W2, ell shall bi�.: resubmitted .foy'review and tap p, roval If you have any .questiotis 32644: Vqj-y truly yours; .N� f Hawaii I�i.gtn` Q.t. Eagitie er. - Encl., CIO e� ( D� ss O ' i f s x H > r C > > D x o o� �x m m 3 m D m ;x � n a r V c — x 1!1 m m m � D (i y 0 in 0 rM^\, O yY Cn I , Z Z ; N v s W N iWNrN 22rr�rrrrB�rS�E�mYWN9°= " p ro�r G.,�o C r \\\ >nc _ �M n m NR mn Z0 O oYoo aAm ° Sgo Pm>a z�� Z oo0N L L G v a a C n C o V% DI z z P C C o uu i i G m m P LA o y �d c O30 oolfir_ ,>n• ,;. ,. F �a�� '{./�/�� 80 zo 4"o R1 rco k o t . 0 N D a Zmm z b D*rO Z F� H D � m oh--1 m . c=it. m Y: S i c I Y a S, g A� b �o� 43„ P m -I P ON �A zIRM g gi O m N .^Ra ni 8 `>� � 1 9 z -u 0o A m D - NER S ?eAU!gg $� ��obR ^Y ^g4 m a=k� a� _p r s^ m S= m .s �NtgN boob g ZIB- IY 7�• 6• m m = 0 o Fags p ?� ^�E X44 L, -A to a CD,� ycxoFn F R�^ D r= m� p g A� q z �o� 43„ P m -I P ON p g gi N N mD O >m �O r o� 0 z ID z Iz om o 00 In >D 9044 m �es�� U) 9`>g ! O z 0 m D � 0 4 2 D m D oea r w - Z ^�$ m AQ=F �€ '= O R' m RSR' Al- - ��a a gg %?e bb� a�stgg og g�aeA ���� �AQ�o m m ARgggF wp R tea Q^'a =g€ —1 Aon= a` b9g$ A=FB �w^ 2 g=< m ^ J„ g o C7 y g€ Dog OAF .^Ra ni 8 `>� � D Sm�i_gE 2A �3=P P=Fo z ^4�€ NER S ?eAU!gg $� ��obR ^Y ^g4 m a=k� a� _p g;: s^ m S= .s �NtgN boob g m � o� Z s�^ew e gme k O o Fags p ?� ^�E X44 L, -A to a CD,� ycxoFn F R�^ H-- m� p I � P^ mrp' "rte `>^:� "s ? §ods Pa � MAHE g iA^ n 4"Figo x g PAN e� C ` cq n H� c 5'Aq,i � � p 99�� � N mfS Ng o+F _ (� A IgM 2^^9 ,ANU Ai P{ A^1 z �5, 0rso3 �� PR; Qs� > 2P9 25 O Z S q ^A @yA R>' ' M ?g Y,d eomRN y cn ISR O �� ARS 'g^F� .. q . ZB JOD- €N -2i ,lig iRu _ mai �Lc.. JOB sZrAl 5�a q q o Z O I� e^�, r ` f \ Z ro \� rAb U,y� H ��aro Ktrr� G T \ rp 1-r(iq AYES AT f \ f .. n � n M 4 _ •fit g 31ZZX �� _� .rya„ a � \ .. � E�`'4� !!!'a• q i \ . �oN ...ro 310 ci cn o� fi5 wF �9 y n; wu c4 g .., AT o r ' o - � a vV V t. T ? f m m ' Li x�o P n i�f P iz B� P o i I m C— /� u I m�r-P—_%� r°? r ;uG)Z _SAY 4`Iv' 5 mOrz �0'US?o�< �m of zmD o I riY =m Z Z I !� aCl) i N � ; F O P r P m=Q�az D �o�� m s g gE�sa� - nea�g^ C) 2802'm A Q F>p �M P ,� m tae A g4T� IA9s T o n ; F r a ; a =A ""9� a A. �-12L-L� o �S PS A8 m � r v 1 0M g off �Ao A4� '' e v' �Q1�8 ao€R 4a^sRi�ps�# -A 8�$ 'aM€ P t x > " exz PRmmry UNE �40;% u�Ptl II �I QTo 9� Aa moi, •471. aro 008 ?< -',-.2 -a$-2 ggm Crm:o > �� arc6> y ur Qign m Y N _ OZ =91= �S PS A8 � r v 1 ate. g off =91= �S PS A8 v 1 ate. '' e PRmmry UNE II �I Aa moi, •471. I _ I I I I I posh, a - BOJ III 1, o „leu. I i S otl O v,n a0^p 2 yp4in QF gaC�^� E@^g Fac C t� 1p m > a� S = m all zo - ao Pca AM551, l4�: � m 'E; r'• � >i= a e £� 1 ■ o es g� res coves _ t•.,aN r DL.> L. -4M r > E Cc z f: 41 ZN MU Al Cc) mm 0 i5 8 8So- 4 A a, 4:4 4 V�,=9 0 92 VIN HIM In 0 \40 IT; m Lc y -M G24 '? it T U) C: > -n DU :r 0 rM gig rm- > < 0 Eq C. 8. 93 r m Cl) P m m m z m z cn Al 78- ri gt -4—m J ±' osL �:'l r ,. � _ :, i", � H a N. Y •• i� :_ i I I I.� u �• N � J r1I 7± v I i I '. i � , 'T �. ' �'� , +moi. - �r?1; i- � � �• i� � ' \ J� � _ S = I;r, _ •Y � ' � U we' I �"'t 9,V TI` � / \•�'\O' �.�\ .ter\ Q ��..� �,��fc' �..._ �: __ca.. .�I I: -:y':: 1i, L }! /\n T. M1 x _ 3 \'�' ' '-a'� y�r - 7<�' _ � � r� \ .;,�, " �yi� � -- _ � ;�. �I —=.�\, -, i•. _���. AS yy _ !ice• -1 k A �IPY , 1. • � F, . '1 .:�= � - - 1 `;. � � \�% J � �//� � � . � \, `� � _ � •� I ' I F-. • i t* - Zi I�� l,.i I +.;>��' � ni ', Is.l�,lt �•-•``. f � l �` \ , m. /%/� /�`� \` \'` - - —_ - I Imo' ��' j '� � �I 1\1 lc i� I .scz�e -7; �._ ii��t pt�� ;t U%" � '. �- `\�•, .\� ,,I �I I; y:,.. 5� DR „; \�' \ \ '"}y.. , arf 7 i — —. 3.5.00 15R � �\iy�1 � - \ - f �-bo `,_• '= c_ -ems-', _ r��, ±� }}� � _ G- \. \\ 1 _. �1 "+� r _�it�r -.car\• y /' / F. I' [ �\ � yn\�,. �- `''tom' ---- ^G '•a " fir /�~ - �/ i / -,' :� �-���------- 2?aaol Y' � �� -a. -� _ � rx t7i • ,nv n '; ter:. lirlll 0 � -_—., _ :�. Lfi - 1, _—1 !/ .� i 1 '3 .� r `'�. � l� r� • .t -�' ` - cc �` ,\ ��s,� � t N ` ,`\✓� ;' �I Ui"TTfI1�:�" i 1 `ki� 5 � �114HtTf' mak.= \ ,� .C�• // `\ • `_u �'m'.�% � r.9M+t R;,-ZFS;-9: rrrrS. Y rtp,: -� i -I N—.— xzu :r D 1:. mc ZR El D = ,�/o:� �\ x�c; z °rte c,a •j%�• .s i ^'a f I _ ,J1 z -' i '^ � ' a `� T_ �<o = r Y • ox aC --I m ((}} p J TQC z -g c Z > n y S C a •I�1 1 oz I \ y`s In C x >/ Z > � c 5 � n a 3$ m Lj ci 'smm �.d•• •; .;;�; :tip:- •> 1• -%Y �- t- o � o !3 2 F. 2 I, N� Jlot 2 ;a 2. 3 2 2 9 x p Ay` y C fANF X90 O }5 z Y a P xPaFCID R�3 iii ^p CD .; D _ 71 C: m n N O ❑ m � Dmzr- o =D<p `m C) ¢ 0 (n ° D m s m c m . m rAdI c i - INC i i n =— -i Q ?P: RPuaaDev-A1nendREZ04-025 J wd 02-14-20 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION PUA`A DEVELOPMENT, LLC AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF ZONE NO. NO. 05-115 (REZ 2004-0000251 Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director is recommending that an unfavorable recommendation of the amendment requests for conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This unfavorable recommendation is based on the following findings: _ The applicant, Pua`a Development, LLC, has submitted an application to amend numerous conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 15-115, which was originally approved on August 5, 2005 to change of zoning from an Agricultural (A -5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) district for 14.973 acres of land. Concurrently, Ordinance No. 05-114 was approved to change the State Land Use Boundary designation from Agricultural to Urban. - As the subject Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115 has time performance and infrastructure obligation conditions that the applicant has not met or reasonably fulfilled, the applicant is requesting time extensions as well as amendments to certain conditions of the ordinance, specifically Conditions B, C, E, F, H, I, V, W, Y, Z and BB of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-115. These amendments are to the following conditions: ■ Condition B: (Time Extension to Pay Water Deposit) ■ Condition C (Time Extension to Complete Construction) ■ Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR) ■ Condition F (Modify/Delete Already Implemented Portions of Roadway Improvements) ■ Condition H (Modify Requirement for Location of Spine Road within Project Site) ■ Condition I (Modify Required Location of Kuakini Highway Intersection) ■ Condition V (Delete Reference to Fair Share In -Lieu Credit for School Site and Improvements) ■ Condition W (Modify Fair Share Provision) ■ Condition Y (Delete Housing Requirement) ■ Condition Z (General Plan — Affordable Housing) ■ Condition BB (Modify Condition to Allow Administrative Time Extension The applicant originally proposed to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center to primarily serve residents of the neighboring residential subdivisions and was not intended to be a regional shopping center. The original proposal included a 93,600 square -foot complex which would house varied commercial uses, such as financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. Also proposed was 500+ parking stalls with appropriate accessibility requirements. According to the applicant, the shopping center project concept is part of this current proposal but includes a proposed reduction in the size of the commercial project from 93,600 square -feet to 72,600 square -feet. Also included in this current proposal is the inclusion of a "transit hub" in the form of a public bus transfer station, as well as the addition of 100 multiple -family residential units. There were several reasons cited for the amendment requests. According to the applicant, one of the reasons for not completing the project within timely manner is that due to the global economic meltdown that occurred over a decade ago, securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented was too difficult to. - obtain and thus they decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses of the property, and exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current economic outlook is amenable, however time is still needed for the applicant to address the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the requited financing. Another reason given is that they have worked on compliance for several conditions, including the conveyance of a 5 -acre site for a future school as required by Condition V, but it ultimately did not get approved. The subdivision of the school site from the subject parcel received tentative approval, however final approval was contingent upon making substantial infrastructure improvements that would be feasible only if the commercial and residential project were developed simultaneously. Lastly, although there has been no physical construction that has occurred, the applicant states that they have expended a considerable amount of "soft" funds. These funds include nearly $1 million spent for more detailed land use planning and the preparation of infrastructure construction plans for this project, as well as the adjoining residential project proposed by Suffolk Development, LLC. While the proposed requests meet the Urban Expansion LUPAG designation and are in an area served by existing infrastructure, several primary factors necessitate this unfavorable recommendation. First, the zoning of the subject property is not consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) and the General Plan. Second, the retention of the existing zoning would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time, therefore the Planning Director believes that a Project District zoning designation is more appropriate. Additionally, the Director feels that the requested time extension and amendment requests would support the continuation of a speculative entitlement of the subject property for the purpose of resale. The zoning of the subject property does not conform to the goals, policies, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan and the General Plan and would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time. In considering time extension and other amendments to change of zone ordinances, the Planning Director must determine how the requests conform to applicable goals, policies, standards and courses of action of the current General Plan and adopted Community Development Plans. The subject change of zone ordinance was approved by the County Council on August 5, 2005, just over three (3) years prior to the adoption of the Kona CDP on September 25, 2008. The County Council also recently approved a slate of interim amendments to the Kona CDP September 18, 2019. The Land Use section of the Kona CDP serves as policy guide for County decisions regarding physical development in Kona. It establishes a suggested framework for future growth by identifying the County's major policies concerning the type and location of future development in order to meet the goals and objectives of the Kona CDP, which was created -and approved with a tremendous amount of community input and involvement. The subject property is situated within the Kona Urban Area (UA) as designated by the CDP. Within the UA, growth is to be directed to compact villages located along proposed transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development into the Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs). The CDP identified general locations of TODs within floating zones that are to become fixed pursuant to a Project District Rezoning process. The CDP identifies -two (2) types of TODs based on type of urban core articulated for the area: 1) Regional Center which is intended to encompass larger population centers intended for a mix of residential, retail, commercial, employment and/or regional one -of - 1 a -kind civic facilities like Kailua Village, Makaeo, and Honokohau and 2)' Neighborhood Village, which are smaller in scale predominately residential, public/civic uses, or small- scale neighborhood- oriented commercial uses. The subject property and adjacent lands are situated within the Kahului-Puapua` a Village TOD, designated as a neighborhood village. CDP Policy LU -2.1 recommends that TODs be developed as compact, mixed-use villages, characterized by a village center within a higher -density urban core, roughly equivalent to a 5 -minute walking radius (1/4 anile), surrounded by a secondary mixed- use, mixed -density area with an outer boundary roughly equivalent to a 10 -minute walking radius from the village center (1/2 anile). As previously stated, the suggested location of a TOD is fixed through a Project District (PD) Rezoning Application. According to the Zoning Code, the project district development is intended to provide for a flexible and creative planning approach rather than specific land use designations, for quality developments. It will also allow for flexibility in location of specific uses and mixes of structural alternatives. The planning approach would, establish a continuity in land uses and designs while providing for a comprehensive network of infrastructural facilities and systems. A variety of uses as well as open space, parks, and other project uses are intended to be in accord with each individual project district objective. A project district is an amendment to this chapter which changes the district boundaries in accordance with the individual project district. Furthermore, the PD zoning allows for the flexibility to develop any uses permitted either directly or conditionally in the RS, RD, RM, RCX, CN, CG, CV or V districts provided, that each of the proposed uses and the overall densities for residential and hotel uses are contained in a master plan for the PD and in the PD enabling ordinance: According to the CDP, the PD application process should further include the development of a conceptual master plan to comprehensively address a mix of permitted uses and density; street layout and standards, transit routes and facilities, and bike and pedestrian pathways; village center public facilities; infrastructure requirements and timing; neighborhood park and public space standards; a phasing plan; and calculation and treatment of density transfer area, if any. Additionally, the Project District would allow for an increase of permitted uses and densities versus the limitations of the existing zoning. The CDP also suggests the use of Village Design Guidelines (VDGs) as a guide to the development of the conceptual master plan(s). The intent of VDGs is to ensure that the TOD is comprehensively developed as a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian oriented development intended to increase transit use and manage traffic congestion. The VDGs encourage residences, shopping, employment and recreational uses located within close proximity with each other and efficiently organized to provide for the daily needs of the residents. The VI)Gs consider,a range of housing types and affordability within pedestrian -oriented, human -scale neighborhoods, incorporate natural features, open space, and cultural features, provide efficient circulation systems for pedestrians, non - motorized vehicles, and motorists and motorists that serve to functionally and physically integrate various land use activities; and promote strong neighborhood identity and focus. The applicant has argued that the existing land use plans submitted with the amendment requests for the subject property and RM zoned property (Suffolk Investments LLC) adjacent to the west (makai) reflects the TOD concept by incorporating a transit center on the subject commercially zoned property, providing roadway connectivity, providing housing, addressing drainage and providing goods and services to the proposed and immediately surrounding communities. - Since the adoption of the CDP, single -district zoning (e.g. RM/CN) is not appropriate for development within a TOD. The CDP identifies the Project District zoning district as the mechanism to achieve the mix of land uses and required densities to support a Transit Oriented Development. Thus, retaining the existing zoning will not allow the integrated approach required to develop the compact, walkable, mixed-use village -style development recommended by the CDP for neighborhood village TODs. The recommended use of the Project District application process and development of an associated conceptual master plan in accordance with the Village Design Guidelines is the only way to fully achieve with the preferred development pattern of the Kahului- Puapua`a Village TOD articulated in the CDP. The applicant also stated that conditions of approval of the requested rezone amendment ordinance could further implement the TOD concept. First, the applicant suggested a condition of approval could designate the project area as a "Neighborhood TOD" site, which would act as a policy statement guiding the development of adjacent parcels should they ever request an entitlement change. A second condition of approval would require plans for Plan Approval to comply with the Village Design Guidelines articulated in the CDP. According to the applicant, these proposed conditions would allow the Planning Department to guide the gradual development of the TOD with multiple owners, without,the need of a master developer or master plan. The Director feels that the CDP has already identified the property and surrounding areas as a Neighborhood TOD, so this does not need to be done through conditions of approval of individual rezone ordinances. Furthermore, this scheme would unnecessarily create a new development process through separate zoning ordinances, when a more appropriate, community -vetted, comprehensive master planning process has already been established in the CDP for development within a TOD. Additionally, the proposed process would shift the burden to the County to act as a de facto project manager for development across multiple parcels by having to monitor implementation conditions of multiple rezone ordinances rather than one Project District ordinance and associated master plan as recommended by the CDP. Furthermore, the existing CN -20 zoning limits density to 1,250 square -feet per residential unit and to 20,000 square feet per building site for commercial uses. Therefore, the mixed -uses and densities recommended for TOD cores cannot be established under the current zoning. Finally, the applicant indicated that the requirement of a Project District is unworkable as the combined size of parcels making up the project area is approximately 29.85 acres (14.872 acres for Suffolk Investments, LLC and 14.973 acres for Pua`a Development, LLC respectively), which is less than the minimum 50 acres required by code for a Project District. Based on a review of County Real Property Tax (RPT) and State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) records, the subject 14.973 -acre property is owned by Pua`a Development, LLC. Pua`a Development, LLC is also the only listed managing member of Suffolk Investment, LLC, which owns the adjacent property. Pua`a Development, LLC also owns all the properties immediately surrounding the subject property, including TMK: 7-5-017:023, TMK: 7-5-017:026 and TMK: 7-5-017:039, which totals 46.87 acres. Adding the land area of the subject parcel would create a total of 61.74 acres between parcels owned by these two connected entities. As further discussed below, the Director feels that given the shared ownership interest of the subject and surrounding parcels, there is sufficient land area to accommodate the minimum land area required for Project District zoning. . Another negative factor for this unfavorable reconu-nendation is the past segmentation of this are in securing planning entitlements. Subdivision No. 7814 was approved in 2004, to create a five (5) -lot subdivision, in which four (4) of the lots resulted in an area just under 15 acres in size. Please note, the State Land Use Commission rather than County Council must approve State Land Use Boundary Amendments for properties 15 acres or more in size. In 2005, both Pua`a Development, LLC and Suffolk Investment, LLC applied for and received approval for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban designation for their respective properties. At the time of processing, these applications did not go to the Land Use Commission as they were represented by the applicants as separate entities and were under 15 acres in size. The Land Use Commission commented that while they had no specific objections to the proposed project, they had strong objections to the manner in which they were being processed under HRS §205-3.1 (Amendments to district boundaries). They believed that both the Village Center (Pua`a) and the rental housing project (Suffolk) were part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and the permitting was deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. Although the original 2005 boundary amendments were approved in an incrementalized manner, in order to implement the TOD concept and Project District Zoning recommended by the CDP, the applicant will be required to seek a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban district for the surrounding properties that under joint ownership from the State Land Use Commission. The proposed time extension and amendments do not comply with General Plan Policy 14.3.5.7.2 of the Land Use — Commercial Development section, which states, "Controls to prevent speculative practices on commercially zoned lands may be established " In the case of the subject, CN -zoned parcel, the applicant has gone well beyond the time performance requirements f the existing ordinance, which required completion of the development within five (5) years (by August 5, 2010). The applicant did not apply for an additional five (5) years through an administrative time extension, but if they had been granted such an extension construction of the proposed project should have been complete by August 8, 2015. The applicant waited over four (4) years to attempt to revive their stale ordinance and is only doing so now to either sell the property or secure a development partner for this and the adjacent commercial development. The applicant is now requesting to amend Condition C to require construction to commence within five (5) years to be complete within ten (10) years of the effective date of the amended ordinance. In addition, the applicant is requesting the inclusion of our standard administrative time extension condition, which would effectively double the applicant's construction commencement timeframe to ten (10) years and completion timeframe to twenty (20) years. For both properties, the Planning Department requested that the applicant provide a detailed development timeline and plan for how they intend to complete construction within the extended timeframe requested, including any proposed phasing or trackable benchmarks. In response, the applicant provided the name and website of a potential M % < 6 development partner for the projects but did not provide the detailed documents requested. Although the applicant has developed some engineering plans for drainage and roadways over a decade ago, there has been no recent demonstrated performance of other conditions of approval, such as developing archaeological mitigation plans, finalizing highway access approvals; completing a sewer study and solid waste management plan, flooding/drainage improvements, water system improvements (or paid outstanding water commitments for 142 units), and executing an affordable housing agreement. Based on past these performance deficiencies and a lack of the requested development timeline, the applicant has not demonstrated, to the Director's satisfaction, the ability to develop the property in a timely manner. Based on the preceding, the Director feels that the requested time extension and other amendment requests without any trackable benchmarks would support the continuation of a speculative entitlement of the subject property for the purpose of resale. Based on the Kona Community Development Plan, which was approved with a tremendous amount of community input and involvement and to achieve consistency with the broad goals of the General Plan and the more specific regional goals identified in the Kona Community Development Plan, the Planning Director does not believe retention of the current zoning is appropriate in this area and is recommending that the applicant(s) pursue a State Land Use Boundary amendment for the remaining two adjacent properties and submit a Change of Zone to a Project District for the approximately 60 -acre area to establish the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood Transit -Oriented Development. Based on the preceding findings, the Planning Director recommends that an unfavorable recommendation for the applicant's amendments to Conditions B, C, D, EJ, II, I, U, V, X and Z of Ordinance No. 05-115 be forwarded to the County Council. C C O D � r 0 � < rn 'til t� ' •, - �� -� n n � �- � •� �, _ _ - � by � L �„ ' > y, � _ ,.yam.. _.• � ...� 'S • ���/,�., ` '� s ~~ 1 rte. \� ,+� � lT• �11^p Jam' t.• 'r !l�� `Pr '� moi'.• k ) ti` �' ,� rl t� r+ % `fir �y`7 Y•{ 1 '!-�k't •\1•� '1 1 iY -�'•,` VT l •yl i � j, -��.7["'l yl \ (` Y �b- �^\'[j(1 �\ f:�, r, ' ,,,w,• y` v. L • �J!- .L 1K � y � Y f 7{t'�(fi'_ T) `f/� 1. _ � j '"1 '� � `• .` .,~l'�iS_ •�-�f ' � '1" ` � •'•'•..r' \`.ir1•••i �,rYI'i 1 .'1,��i %j'` 1 � �"" FAv,i ti �tI', Yt rY 1\ t It 11 t,l 'r 11 `!, ,� + �j5 -"�'• �' I"'�'y,1,''(��51_ �1 • 'ty..ri. �'�'1"y_` titi , i t� � yy �C� �ir j�-( �5 .1', 3� t�f-.—��VV�� �---- � t r �• _ zi- Yf 7''� , •y 5 y� 5,�.� "'moi JL _J� �'^' _ ;-•--. /�v ">f' '}fid+ � �%'� �`t' s:�e'-�' .I 'c_i -- — _ � `` ,� Y.i��ti �� �`'i't%i�;.iY! `,% �\ i��Y�� l� �`. t _ y � ' II ����''-i ' _ _ _a •' -0��114� -� ` S .� _ % .•�'<�. j ,,.c.' .. ,I r: `.:.^a"" �r t lh'� 1 r�yy ^�1 4 _ t I •t '�"t -^'Y; D z n m D O z cD m D D D O z O -n n nn _ c _ O rn = ., O m z rn y M M Z Ol m z n -v O MG� m --r -i r= O M - r= m C �� n + n n n = m 0 z D5rz '-'-'p �O � _' � c p =' r,4 -v C/1) �O v' crrn Z Z Z D c� n O -� Z m � OC Z O v� o m cry C D = O m D n NO -� r � Z = CA O r rn D o` 0 ZDV -n CD 0 n -n O O D C rn O = Z �' c„ Cn C/) m m D z p D p Z C/) n > 0 m 0 > 0 o z0 Orap n D� � Z O< Z m t,) N D D -1 O m N Z C)" 70---1;u O m m C n O O D o o D=' O� Oo z n n O D m cn - _� mm V) z Z c > m 4�11 M Z - Z X G� o cn -n Z F 0 = W Z rn = D D > -� m m = n D m D N 0 m 0 0 m -o - rn C C OC/) O O Op m rn p p O Z -� � n = n m n= m � 00Or rn . C C D on D rn rn Z m 0o 70 < n D c O m- C Z m -o M D 0 n 7 0 cn C �—, n 0 C/) = C/)D O 0 m z N o G� 00 cn D z O Z rm Z 0 O 0 m r- 0 O -v O m z D n m D z O DDC/) C/-) m m n m D O z rn -ry n D z n m Z O u O coor)Z 0 --iO rn n m m C 70 O n m Z Z CCn --1 O N N O1 CA) O O D r7 D z G� r '0 D z 0 03 A D n m D ■ rn n D z O G� z D O -o O. m 0 D N Cn 0 z D rn Z D O Z C) 0 m r- 0 O z n y = T D T z 0 G) � m _ = Z rn m N N O --� z Z Z T r � r - O n >O 1 m cn 0 D z O D � Z n m Z N O cn - O � m CA) 00 D N c„ n � n m O 0 O z D C CCS 11 rit N O O cn --4 O m N Z m Z --1 Ez n n n n n n n n n O OO O O O O O O O O Z z z z z z z z z z z z o r 0 0 o O O 0 0 Z (� Z m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O N D x ? c C =-n rn p n _ rn rn Tz -< nm rn C/) z cn (,Z1 r�i7 n-- D m m p ;;o m m� O O n O n z z z O C m 0� C � 0 �, 0 Z y m rn rn O D m m m O O Z -� °r° m O Z r m Z m Z C C4 rn --i* rn Z to O0 z O C Dor -° D � O z m O � O O z 0 o <O � r� � -D p m rn z 0 C -' O m z 0 m n �7 Z - z r. D D z -q rn -' z O rn Z z � rn C I D _� � O Cn z 70 n O -� m D p m m O v7 z n D � n ;�u 0 z -n D v' m p z cn Z= m O (Arn m n -- D � o = O D - z C� z O � z o O � > C/)- :::i - - O - Z 0 D z � m - � O c„ O Omm m_ O � � D Z z C/) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ l l l J n l l J l J l J l J l J l J l J l J 0 0 0 ,l 0 0 O O O -� O O O O z z z z z z z z z z z z p p 1 p O p o p p O p D O D 0 o no 3: o 0 0 �o 0 0 0 Z Z -I Z m z Z Z Z m z z Z Z N O-<? C-_? -n rn n n z^ p � - - K �^ O .. _ rn m r O O r O p z -1 m m � � m 0 p � rn n � m rn rn rn rn G) n m iL7 ` Z7 -X-i --i n = O � rn Q rn iC7 � � z Z O O z p m C cn cn C C/) = M z M - m C < m O Z O Z Q O n m p m z m --a 0 -1 0 -O rn z O m Q n m Q O n rn -n O Q D Q D -n >31 -, -0O D -n -< D z c� O0 z r- -1 D O � O m < p O n m m m n m D -o = m z � C y -' m m Z, O U 0 � z O D ZZ D z � O� < cry r D z M D z z Z m CD 0� — -n m r C D D n n = o Cn -� D Q --i C rn m i{7 m = — Z m= C p C/) D m m -n_ O < O m m m -�G m p rn C/)O �� --i-x-a n Cn cn m z p O m 1 z CIO 0 O O 0 z rn O z � cry p Z - - �-� Q O O � y � cz z -� O rn p 0 Cn -n 7u m m m 0 D O r z p C/) D --G ■ ■ ■ D= � D rn n D rn n `�' n�� O� D � D v ��-� � O n �� D� O O rn =_ n r --i n� Cp0 Cern -rn� n rn C D rn --� rn Z ��-, n D Z n z Z D p 0 p O D C rn p D p -� ov Z -n °,-° rn Z Z - =O O Z rn 0 D m O -1 D Z D C = Z Z 0= Z Q m p N y p,m G� rn n O n D 0 m O c = O c= Z -v z Z v _ 0 p= --� m p m (,� < z o rn G� Z rn M Z D rn z y O rn n D z 0 Z D O rn -{ rn D O-0 <- r- rn� -moo y -n D= Z -� r=- D� Z m p m r - m rn= = n G� n F n 0 -n _� rn rn D -� rn Z D =_ ___j D Z ;;u D C" n z O "' = D� Z D y rn ov O cry c� rn z � < O O --� rn C Z --i rn rn Z �' <= n > C 0= OZ Q n r- -0 Z _< -rn� O Z r- rn p rn� rn C O rn O r- z= rn n c" -n rn 0 0 rn Z p= n< O prn D o n n -' -i rn cn rn rn rn D p Z -r' C C=_ 0 n m p c� D i --i rn rn O z D n m rn O rn rn G) 7 C �; n D > z rn rn O� O y M O O n Cn rn p= rn 0� z D CO N O -1 O p D p -n rn cn m D � z n p cZ„ z n 0 z J D -� m D Z m cn O O rn O rn z > D rn Z n n„ Z rn D C � n rn=�� z 0 0 0 G� -� y z r- p °° i m rn 0 rn>= p -1 O z D rn O -n D Z rn p -� O O cZ„ D D Z 0 r- z c/) C rn C Z n 0 0> 0 D Z > D rn r= m y z < C rn z p Z O� m rn� -� = rn --{ p p - p rn o 0> O --� rn z p z 0 -p C T rn m O(A O O n p z 70 O rn �' On n rn rn --i Z 0 p n Z Gi .mon =< nrznOC'-'-'O=_ rn -n 0 m D D rn C/) Z �, n r �- -� n O rn 0 ZCp D =-0-n mn0 z p �' rn pC O -i n rn Gi � = c� = C n • rn rn M -� 0 rn 7\- p GENERAL PLAN LUPAG MAP }5' J!'P47C `V D dfl� czr C i „tb ID y ;> r 0 rn ..1�5• _• � 'tet rill r , 11� Ott,\ - 'lam •�1 �5,4 -- .._. _.,t, .-_"_-•---�------ ---<'z-t-'lam-r-r-t—Y"c t_X`t � J 1 L'ti Ir 8 Y v g $ G1 >i ti y vitI Fit a04� m vitI Fit w ■ ■ ■ ■ rn O 0 rn y= Z cCn m m n= D= a 0 m 0< -� 0 0 � 70 70 Z v, r- Z z 0 C/)0 C cm 0 cZ 0 rn -n Z Z 0 p Z =0 '—'"cr' X00 00 D (/)Z m rn -n c� cn G1 --4 r �_{ mD n rn ren = Z � r rn = Z Q rn 0 00 o 0 C m D Z m Z m M mn _ —+ -� 0 --i m rn Z m -� 0 n' Z �— �= Qo O M M Om O z _ -'-' Z r � � � rn rn Z �� � � Z n p n O = D Z C O y rn 0 Ci Cn . Q 0 1 z —I 70 r M0 m � -- C n -< 1 n O0 ;a n C D M m 0 Z ,� -4 Z Z -ri -� � � -n _ = p m- Z n < 0 rn rn n Z C/)z O Q r Z m m 0 = G1 C/) D n O K � D 0 � g n Q m r M0 m O D Z D;;a z -v n= z s = c Z �' Q D D rn �' Z z O Dy -� Z r �.� 0 V r . (,� O D n -° D D Q O c C 0 z y z D rn Z 0 Z 0 Z M r c„ > -4 M < - z r v' to -< D z _ G� Q -D Q p r° M ---i m 0 m Z M Z r" rn y n r z n n rn D � -� rn - D ---i Z m S?° c� rn Z � C m r D ' cn Z D z D = rn � Z 0 Z m 0 n O rn O Z rn rn p< rn rn �_ rn rn rn czr� m Z n r rn r- rn c Z rn -� n Z tri �_ z v O O D ,� D O ,m -; t< n -v 0 m O z D rn p= rn rn _' n O c D M Z n Z 0 .� Q D = Z Cn Q Z � O � rn� 0 -� O�� D rn� z Z G� M M D y O0 p rn C D rn n -� � Z -moi O C rn z p cn 0m p >p ZZ -r °' rn �rn Z � QC r rn ov z - F D cn z p —1 Z D p -' n = Z Z D u z C) Z Z -r OZ C rn D rn C O GS0 D rnn =pn y O� -v rn rn� rn 0 ,-,-, D p c po � Z D i s D Z X� n � c 0 O 0 -1 rn� x p O rn = Z rn rn -v 0 D Q -=r D rn p rn Ci m 0 C Z �' Z � D m C_ co _ m rn M Q rn n Z W � Zn C: p = p Z C Z Q Z71= rn rn O X<< rn rn > rn D m D m X n D =' Q 0 p° = D Q O Z n C„ r z p rn Z .O C � -G F %.0 rn Z= -� O0 m n Z r Z � rn n O -n r -4C O rn -n rn Z M M O M D p N 0 m c Q= z n c= O Z z rn G� Z rn C z y r n < `" n p< < C O <= m D p rn � y n -� Z Z s D c O rn Z D rn Q Q Z cn rn G)Do C n Z m rn _ n D D rnn rn D C rn rn D rn Q = r rn D y �--r -0Z - p r < D0 01 > rnn < < p rn + D rn = Q Z G� � � D Z nz p O m Z = p ,A Li qp Ir v • ( 4, 7771 a ,S �a t � � !!,£fix �i�Lt 4, �s ..8 !• � � �S� tai �'�; a� `s� 1���rF +r 4i ' d tii f � 9i� ! •fa {rr It f 47 } u1:an1 S m rn -n O CA -i O n O _ C m O n O D O czn O -Dv O r ■ (D°C::� O Q (D (D n o 0. O (D C: � (D C: Q O. O o Q. c� pQ Q (D Ln —• C Ln -+ Q � Q CD O Q Q n C Ln Q n nO O' o n C QQ � -• 17 O O n' Q Q �- O Q Q CD � • (DD Ln � Q y � O O � o Q �c: �( m Q (D � O CD a Ln (D Q Q O O O 0- 0 O ■ W y- V Ln N 0 O (D n C Q (D 4- r < O (D � � (Ln � n � n O O 3 n 3 o n C. (DI C<D Q CD O O � : 3 cD CD QLn CD Q �- "' O Q � (D � N Q �rn (D 0-0 ziO Ln O ■ m m Z O T 2 m 0 z D r D z D -� o _ m Z � O Om T O --1 y m m D m z m m O n m O y z � O rn � ;u n 0O D Z oO rn � C rn0r O -v = S m z G� -4 O 90 D r— > D Z O � r C N _ rn y c D v -v r 0 rn O -nC D M CA r y O T n—' n� z n O m O m O m O Z � � -Do -�vDo -Dv O m —rnI C rn n D D = D O z ,z m Z O Z cn=_ cn Z = z C < 70 m r-0 D > 4 m 0 --j z rn Z C 70 m 0 to C 01- < m -i m O zO < o Z 0 No m C m C/) O 7 m m rn O rn D � 70z o O 0 � X m C -- < =p D m n v, O m O m 0 O � D iv 0 --q O z z -- m m rn = O 0 m m m n m D 70 K rn N m n m C/) � m p ZO O70 z_ nT O N m O V C./) n0 0 = D > D < < V, < < —n C/-)czi, -n70mD --� = n C�'i Z < _' � D D OZ m cl Orn O cl O 3: --4Z Z O = - Z m = z = z > < m m D Am M = Z c/ < ^ y z Z m O cry -< D - - 0 rn rn m O 0 n D D Z zZ c�i) rn -4 I --1cn 0 Q° O m 0 ■ (D°C::� O Q (D (D n o 0. O (D C: � (D C: Q O. O o Q. c� pQ Q (D Ln —• C Ln -+ Q � Q CD O Q Q n C Ln Q n nO O' o n C QQ � -• 17 O O n' Q Q �- O Q Q CD � • (DD Ln � Q y � O O � o Q �c: �( m Q (D � O CD a Ln (D Q Q O O O 0- 0 O ■ W y- V Ln N 0 O (D n C Q (D 4- r < O (D � � (Ln � n � n O O 3 n 3 o n C. (DI C<D Q CD O O � : 3 cD CD QLn CD Q �- "' O Q � (D � N Q �rn (D 0-0 ziO Ln O ■ m m Z O T 2 m 0 z D r D z D -� o _ m Z � O Om T O --1 y m m D m z m m O n m O y z � O rn � ;u n 0O D Z oO rn � C rn0r O -v = S m z G� -4 O 90 D r— > D Z O � r C N _ rn y c D v -v r 0 rn O -nC D M CA r y O T ■ -npO 3:D 70 -< D r -E Z = m Z O 70 m m - O ,-pZ = C O = nm m=m M p 0 �0 D--�ci D _ z r nr N n z m O C K O r m Cn z 00c M r 0 D = C r m m Z Om0> DC0-< C m n D o O D -' � Z z O M p M � p M rn F/) m D Z 70 D z v n p m T 0 -10 m M ( D rn _ D n M Z cn p p 0 C < 70 C/) m p O m - _ C i Z z O N y o z O z G� pz Z D z 7u 0 m O m -o D m m 3:n m � rn O 1 Z D (mi) p 7 r -- Cl C M M Z m Z p U Z C) M -- p ■ z = OC � O < = � rn =Z m m O m --i n = rn Z p 0 m OC C m z O C o 0 = n O K �>„ C/) C- T r ) Z p > v_ O p 7`- = -< D z m � m � m � mr z p - C n � r'' r D m r m � m Z n O ■ Z Z m > Z C/) O z D O O O D < cn p m O m m O _ rn r D � c z = �' D Z p rn_ D D o C m p CO r- m M M Drn C) -,n � Z y O n p 0 1 -u n C7) 3:m � < m m F/iZ -� O � Z 0 C r- cn Z O z r- '�' Dm p n Fn c„ D mD _ gym„ -< Z D rn C rn -n --i Z M = p O 7 71� rn rn m ? z m m cn < rn m (A Z O 1-o O C) � � z - <m Z r- = � D r mZ () n �7 n, r =r r n M --i m D m p Z y D O C/1)r r0 D � D D Z M O C m m Z n D C/' p° m A z < 0 m U ■ -p C_- 0 O o m O F— Z O z cn O m cr> 00 rm O � Z D Z D -° m O D m � p C C/' -i Z Z O p O cn O Dn 70 % m m D C/)m Z D C/) -n N < rn m ^ _cr, r O O O z Z n T O C Z 0 0 Z LA y-1 rn Z --1 D rn -n _ rn D m = M M m m Z ('n 0 p -i D m D = Z = N m D m m -v -i 00 c ODO-� D r� m _ O < z 0 c„ D O m p � -� m c O D. Z+ M - p z C D 70 � G� 70 C I O p --i co 70 y m n -aD coy n_ _ O o0 ZiZ z D Z C/) CA) -n0 � O --� n rn= O m C Z n i D Z D • z p Z Z m m Z 70 C/' Z ■ Z Z m > Z C/) O z D O O O D < cn p m O m m O _ rn r D � c z = �' D Z p rn_ D D o C m p CO r- m M M Drn C) -,n � Z y O n p 0 1 -u n C7) 3:m � < m m F/iZ -� O � Z 0 C r- cn Z O z r- '�' Dm p n Fn c„ D mD _ gym„ -< Z D rn C rn -n --i Z M = p O 7 71� rn rn m ? z m m cn < rn m (A Z O 1-o O C) � � z - <m Z r- = � D r mZ () n �7 n, r =r r n M --i m D m p Z y D O C/1)r r0 D � D D Z M O C m m Z n D C/' p° m A z < 0 m U ■ -p C_- 0 O o m O F— Z O z cn O m cr> 00 rm O � Z D Z D -° m O D m � p C C/' -i Z Z O p O cn O Dn 70 % m m D C/)m Z D C/) -n N < rn m ^ _cr, r O O O z Z n T O C Z 0 0 Z LA y-1 rn Z --1 D rn p D D r- > n D D co nZ z c/) O cDi� m rn p D Z� z m i D C C Z m -0 O p 0 m rn� rn D Z�� O D m Z D Z Z m i 7o n m�_ < O D 0 Z M r D M r m n Z D y D Z O -�-� _ < Z Z D m -v D D D m p p rn;C/) ---' n 0 z v, rn = rn m D- � = D rn Z Z D -A O m p m D Z G� m N Z Z O O rn rn = rn O 0 n M = M n > Z rn --� D Z rn O= rn Z O r- -i rn� C O X rn r m D Om n -n Z n C: -0 O> 0 0 p D p O m • C -' O m ov D m 70 M CZ m nm z ZC/) p D C/) m O = M Z = D D Z D = O -� O G� m C z Z M � ---q D -o rn D -n : v D nmm rZ-U p y n n o m = = o D Z O< 00 m D - rn z - O D n C rn Z _ m C � m Gi C/") O 70 � _A _ O O -v C -� m rn - m D � 70 O D Z r D D m v, -� C Z � > Z � m � D -' O� cry rn Z O 1 EJ r -n m �D� rn�C rn ND z o� O> orn O CD Z rn o � < N�rn �O� nO � D z� G) rn rn z O7-1 r N Or zn rn 0 0 z z n rn 9 Cn C �n�n0 0 0 z z n rn z O 00 cn w _ _ rn z O rn= 7� Orn pm p rn m O rn rn rn -i D= O < rn — rn p y O rn � O� z rn �n O ?z � rn> n= Orn Z Orn n m rn cm -� m p D -n i rn z rn rn rn 6 or- -i O O p y rn �� rn z= CO m p _ z nO Orn y rn �� ;;a z_ � O z °n O z `/)o O inn, O '•- rn cm -� '� n D z p n, D D z z O m O z z y O rn n D n Z N Q z z O 0 iO - rn rri -j O Nni 0 m -n T 0 r m � C) _, o NO -i O Z m 0D Q 2 O O p O z v' m n ~ 0 N Z G� rn (� o D ; O c::,< rn ;) D= n �� O `" S?°C C rn C rn `" Oz rn � Q z= n -� ��O<„ n �� = rn zn O rn � z O O m y p rn Q -0 rn C C 10 D rn O Q 0 -I O -' O O m -< Q ? O O o 0 z Q = O O 0 O <-u rn � O =< Dnp D� D O DO rn M- n z� o D - 00 .. -v 0 -� rn m A Z O -� m o -' rn z -n70 O D z O z -n-n O D Z -� c O v' = m � r z 0� n O -n � r' N O O _-i D= ---iD rn M z G) � O= OZ 0� D� O� N OpZ pN) Dz = M� c m �n O = -� M m D m D m m z O "' M rn r z -� p z O D D ■ ■ ■ ■ O cz n= D O rn -1 O O D 0 Z O 0 = Z rn n� D D rn Z70 cn D rn rn C cn � rn Z m M n Z rn rn= � O G� N D O 1-< rn rn Z C O _ � Z D =� N rn n Z D rn rn Z C rn m cn rn rn D m n � D rn rn O D O i `f' -° N Z rn C- > D � Z OZ D O X rn F- (� Z Ncm)_ cn z n O n o o D o� 0 O D Z z 7 _ C Z rn= -i O rn rn> rn rn n N FnD D r O n m m C< m m n m n rn D rn 0 rn M n O z z - D D � c� D D -� O Z rn70 O rn= m 0 7u rn crni, rn= Z rn -� D m rn n� rn < rn= rn n rn = Z rn 0 D -p Z 0 Z D O n rn� 0> rn C D D r --� O O n u D r- D O rn 0 D 0 Z rn 70 r'o z ZD (� _ � 0 O � z D 0 O D 0 C Z Z= D D rn rn D n= O O rn � � n Z _ -i N "' cn -i O � � rn -� O rn z C> 0 0 ND rn rn D O U� rn-0 O m ,-,-, Z czi> 0 rn rn� rn r- M 0 Q° D z n z M O D D v> rn 0 D rn z C D S n O D rn rnD D -Z Orn D O D n 7 T, - -� o z D Z Z= C D D D rn rn O D � D 0 O v' z = � Z n --i rn Z rn O= 70 70 0 0 D D O rn Z D C� ,-,-, Z D D O< rn F 7= c� cn Z C rn rn rn � O z -� Z rn -i Z 0 O cn Zrn C C/) r D O? rn n = O -n v' z z rn rn O;;u n O rn O 70 0 O z m n O Z O D O C/-) z r- 0 0 m 0 Z n O z m O D Z 0 O cn D Z 0 O n O z 0 O Z ■ ■ IN z rn rn t/� � Q D zn� m M O C Z -� C/-) =O o = �o D rn D D -�n O O O T n D O z M nO r— C/)O D �7 n O O ZZ mZ -D D Z 0 m Z n O O rn Z O C/)z 0 0 O 0 rn D 0 z m Z 0 Z c y > o n O = m -< z --iD -nz n Q D m n O � � ;;uC_- > r m O cZi z O cz cn rn Z _ D O rn z n M O � Om -0 0 M 7u M Q Z 0 D � D � O D ' C Z n r z O < o rn < O ■ IN z rn rn t/� c :3 K W E7 3 a c 0 cif g4 tiff PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LCC LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the request, the Leeward Planning Commission recommends that a favorable recommendation of the Applicant's proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 0S-115 (REZ 04-025) be forwarded to the County Council based on the following and proposed conditions: The applicant originally proposed to construct a neighborhood shopping center consisting of over 90,000 square feet. In conjunction with this development, significant infrastructure improvements were proposed, such as a new mauka/makai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway and drainage systems. To address the Kona Community Development's (CDP) objective of having this area developed as a Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development (TOD), the applicant revised its -plan by reducing the commercial area by over 20,000 square feet, having residential units adjacent to the commercial area, and establishing a transit station. • CONTINUE WITH 2ND PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 1 TO 5TH PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 6. • REPLACE 5TH PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 6 REFERENCING THE KONA REGIONAL LAND USE CONCEPT MAP WITH THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT'S RELATIONSHIPTO TO THE KONA CDP. The Kona CDP was driven by eight (8) guiding principles. These were: o Protect Kona's natural resources and culture o Provide connectivity and transportation choices o Provide housing choices o Provide recreation opportunities �.�� � at��� �J 131819' � r LE noPY o Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character o Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies o Promote effective governance One of the strategies outlined in the CDP to help address infrastructure and lifestyle objectives is the concept of TOD. As defined in pages 4-6 of the CDP, the concept of a TOD encourages the "development of compact, mixed-use villages which would integrate housing, employment, shopping, and recreation opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit stations/stops which would reduce the need for daily trips, and financially support the expanded transit system." Policy LU 2.2 identifies three (3) components of the TOD/TND. These are the Urban Core in the center, followed by Secondary Area and Greenbelt. Within the Urban Core, the CDP notes that it is intended "predominantly for residential, public/civic use, or small-scale neighborhood commercial uses." The Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) identifies the Kona Urban Area, Rural Town TOD's, and — if within the Kona Urban Area — the applicable TOD (i.e., Traditional Neighborhood Development or Regional Center). The subject site is situated within the Kona Urban Area, with a Neighborhood TOD designation. The project, with its mixture of residential and commercial components, plus an area for a bus transfer stop, as well as a new connector road., implements this concept. To help establish the boundaries of a TOD, the CDP suggests the use of the Project District Zoning which requires a minimum of fifty (50) acres. However, because many parcels do not meet that suggested acreage, Section 4.2.2 (Overall Strategy) notes that to encourage the establishment of a TOD, "as long as the proposed rezoning conforms to the Kona CDP in terms of general location and concept, the legislative rezoning should be expedited. Subsequent refinements in the master plan can then be done administratively." (Emphasis added) In this case, the "general location and concept" of the subject proposed mixed use commercial -residential project, as well as its adjoining proposed rental housing project, were clearly taken into account during the preparation of the CDP. During that process, it was recognized that this area and the proposed developments - given their existing zoning entitlements and location - would be an ideal area for a Neighborhood TOD and hence so earmarked on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) of the CDP. Thus, the use of this rezoning amendment process to help establish the foundation of the Kahului-Puapua' a Neighborhood TOD is clearly allowed without having to assemble adjoining properties so as to make the minimum area requirement for a Project District zoning. This was made further clear in the recent amendments to the CDP through the use of terms such as "encourage", "guidelines", and the like. In the end, realization of the guiding principles and broader community goals and objectives sought by the Plan was deemed to be paramount. The CDP also requires that any project be subject to certain review guidelines. These guidelines and the project's relationship follow. a. Consistency with General Plan LUPAG map. The subject property is Urban Expansion which allows Low, Medium, and High Density Urban uses. As such, the proposed commercial and residential projects would be consistent with the LUPAG map. b. Infill. while this, project would represent an in -fill within the Kona Urban Area, it would be more in the- "bull's eye" or core of the TND. c. , Greenfields Rezoning. This is not applicable, as its action does not trigger the HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review process. Another major component of the CDP is the concept of infrastructure concurrency. This concept is embodied principally in Figure 4-3 — Official Concurrency Map of the CDP. In that regard, the project's construction of a new mauka/makai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka ahumanu Highway implements this ,concept. Thus, even without an "official" designation via legislative action, its land use and infrastructure function as a Neighborhood TOD by the CDP is clear and immutable. In sum, the project— with the adjoining residential project -, when allowed to be fully implemented, will begin the foundation of the "core" of the Kahului- Puapua' a Neighborhood or Village TOD. It will also address and/or implement the pertinent CPD's "guiding principles" noted above. These include providing connectivity and transportation choices (with the construction of a new spine road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway); housing choices (rental and for sale); compact village (mixture of commercial and residential uses); appropriate infrastructure and facilities (sewer, water, and drainage — such as a new culvert at the extension of the Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway and a retention basin within the subject and an adjoining property); and opportunity for a more sustainable economy (through the creation of an employment base proximate to residences) • CONTINUE WITH LAST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 6 TO FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 11 • REPLACE THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF PAGE 11 WITH THE FOLLOWING: Based on the above findings, approval of the time extension and proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 05115 would be continue to result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public. The proposed amended conditions of approval area attached. PUAA RPuaaDcv-RE COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECONIMENDATION ,LLC Upon careful review of request, the Planning Directo recommending that a favorable recommendation of the ange of Zone requ a forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is m e without benefit of comments from the Department of Transportation, the Director ri based upon additional information presented Department of Transportation cowmen following findings= -12-05 s e right to modify and/or alter this position the blic hearing, or because of later is favorab ecommendation is based on the The applicant i , equesting a change of zone for 1 73 acres of Sana from an Agricultural (A-5 o a Neighborhood Commercial (CST -20) 'ct. The applicant is proposing to velop a neighborhood commercial shopping center service the needs of ..,� P the surto dung residential areas including Pualani Estates and the nei oring sub ' 'sions along the makai side of Kuakini Highway, as well as the propo 250 -unit ental housing project adjacent to the subject property. The project would inclu es ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possib gas station. Because the County administration is trying to promote housing in the Kailua-Kona area, one proposed condition of zoning would require some units of housing to be developed onsite (housing is a permitted use in a CN zone). In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time arid- stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must be also considered- as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The proposed development may be permitted provided that applicable goals, polices and standards of the General Plan are met. -1- • •l The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General -- Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The project area is designated Urban Expansion Area, which allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. The proposed request is to allow a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas. The area under consideration is consistent with the urban form established for this section of the North Kona District as depicted on the LUPAG Map. The proposed request from an Agricultural -5 acre (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of the Economic and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Economic Element * Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. * Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. * The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. * The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. The applicant's objective recognizes the growing development needs for the region." The applicant is seeking to provide the community with further neighborhood commercial facilities that take advantage of the site's positive physical and regional attributes. I -2- The proposed change of zone request would further the County's goals of providing an economic environment which allows new or existing businesses to expand and diversify the County's economic base, and thereby also increase the choice of occupations. The proposed change of zone request would be consistent with the Land Use and the Commercial Development Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. it is also intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. The request would be consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development, Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan: Land Use Element Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County: Zone urban- and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities..- Allocate acilities.: Allocate appropriate requested zoning in. accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. • The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. • Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Pian designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. `� -3- 0- Commercial Development • Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. • Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities and neighborhoods. • Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers and transportation systems. Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. • The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. LAND USE — MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL • To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate that physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. • Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple , residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, and recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. • The County shall encourage flexibility in the design of residential sites, buildings and related facilities to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix and innovative means of meeting the market requirements. The rehabilitation and/or utilization of multiple residential areas shall be encouraged. DGvclop=ernt shall bo located in areas wlmere gublic utilities asm be economically provided at a level adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. HOUSING -4- • Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. • Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choice. Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people. • Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals. • Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital status, ethnic background and income. This proposed neighborhood commercial center would service the retail and office needs of the immediate surrounding areas, which includes, among others, the Pualani Estates and Kahakai Estates Subdivisions. With the extension of the Pualani Estates access road, this road will also provide a direct connection from the mauka Holualoa area to the proposed shopping area. Proposed uses include financial institutions, restaurants, a grocery store, office space, and possibly a gas station. Under the Commercial Development Standards component of the General Plan, a Neighborhood Center is identified as one of three basic types of shopping centers. Neighborhood Centers are comprised of 5 to 15 shops, offer convenience goods and personal services to a market of approximately 3,000 people, and are developed on properties 5 to 10 acres in size. Although the property is larger than 10 acres, a portion of the property is located within a flood zone and a large portion of the property will be used for road improvements. Also, a portion of the property will be used for residential purposes. To avoid'the larger "big box" type of commercial developments which might draw peopic from outside the region, a condition will be added limiting the gross floor area to 45,000 square feet for any single commercial business. This 45,000 square foot -5- limit will allow) a large supermarket (generally in the 30,000 square foot range) but not a "Home Depot" type "big box" (generally in the 100,000 square foot range). The commercial zoning also allows residential uses as permitted uses. As such, a condition will be added to require the applicant to pay the fair share contribution for any residential units that are developed on the subject property. There may be a concern that commercial development could sprawl along the Belt Highway. The property to the immediate north is currently zoned A -5a, and appropriate controls can be put in if that property comes in for zoning. To the south, there is the narrow triangular area containing the existing self -storage facility, then the KuakinifBelt Highway Road intersection. To the south of the intersection, on the makai side, there is the Sadie Seymour Botanical Garden (Kona Outdoor Circle), then existing residential developments. There are issues with respect to the reimbursement of costs between this applicant and Suffolk Investment, LLC for shared infrastructure. These are not being made a condition of rezoning because there is a private agreement between the owners regarding reimbursements. Based on the above information, it is determined that the request conforms with the listed goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development and Economic Elements of the General Plan. The Kona Regional Plan Land Use Concept Map designates this area for esidential uses (Res -8). This designation indicates residential uses, up to 8 per acre. Al the requested change of zone and proposed de went are not consistent with this deli 'on, it should be not the General Plan allows consideration of commercial zo ' 'tate and/or accommodate the commercial needs of residential . As numerous residenti visions have been developed in the ar a subject property since the publication of the Kona Plan in 1982, there is a greater demand for the types of services offered by neighborhood co 'a1 centers_ There are no significant adverse impacts that may be generated by rezoning of the project site to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district upon -6- public utilities and facilities. Potential impacts have been identified and assessed and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated within this favorable recommendation. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, police and fire protection. Access to the proposed development would be front the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which has a 165 and 225 -foot right-of-way. The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TiAR) to address traffic impacts generated by the proposed development. The report concluded that there will be a need for traffic signals with or without this project at the project's main intersection located directly across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road. There will be a need for a left -tum lane in the northbound direction on the Hawaii Belt Road and possibly a right -tum deceleration lane will need to be added to improve the operation and safety at the main intersection. The report also recommended that a right -tum acceleration lane be added at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection. The State Department of Transportation will also require roadway and/or intersection improvements to safely ~1 accommodate the proposed development. All roadways within the proposed development, including those connecting to adjoining parcels, will be required to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works, and include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. To provide further roadway connectivity in the immediate area, the applicant will be required to provide a roadway connection to the property to the north. If the property to the north is developed, the connection will allow access to the Hawaii Belt Road at the main intersection for this property, thus minimizing the accesses along the Hawaii Belt Road. The property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. SUB 2000-0201 (SUB 7814). The declaration states that the declarant is subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "1" be completed as required by the Subdivision -7- Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. A condition will be added requiring the applicant to comply with the conditions of the declaration. The AE Flood Way Zone, which is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow #2, affects a portion of the subject parcel as designated by the Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The flood way crosses onto the subject property near the middle of the eastern boundary, of the property and runs northwest across the property to the west (makai) boundary. The applicant has filed a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodway on the subject parcel. The remainder of the property is located within Zone X, area determined to be outside the 540 -year flood plain. Water is available for the development of a neighborhood commercial center. The applicant proposes to connect to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The applicant will be required to perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. As is typical of similar types of rezoning requests, approval of the accompanying change of zone request will require the applicant to prepare and secure approval of a Solid Waste Management Plan prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval for the proposed multiple family residential development. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 miles north of the project site. There are three fire 'stations within 5 miles from the site including Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Puuola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. The proposed request U not contrary to Chaptor 2o5A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The property is not located in the Special Management Area. The project site is located approximately one mile from the r:11 -- shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact recreational resources in the area. Therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. The proposed request will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASIT' and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina" decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and.natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: The applicant has presented the following information for the Planning Commission and the County Council to determine the valued cultural, historical, and natural resources within the area sought for rezoning: • An updated Archaeological Inventory Survey dated June 2004 conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, hc.(PHRI), who revisited the project site to update a previous study conducted by PH U conducted in 1990. • _ Response letter dated May 28, 2004 from Paul Rosendahl responding to DLNR- SHPD's review of the revised archaeological inventory survey (3d Draft) letter dated April 20, 2004. • A Botanical Survey dated October 2003conducted by Winona Char of Char and Associates. • No professional survey was conducted regarding fauna resources. The valuable cultural, historical, and natural_resources found in the rezoning area: The updated archaeological inventory survey of the subject property and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres confirmed and identified 64 sites and 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C - shapes, walls, and a historic period roadway and ranching features. Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant for their information content only with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their information content but required further work. The raining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. Two (2) of the burials or possible burials may be within the project site (Sites 14084 and 14126). It is also r proximate to the possible habitation site (Site 114123). Regarding flora, the botanical survey reports that the property is no longer used for grazing cattle and Guinea grass now forms a very dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall, between the woody components. There are a few native plants on the project site, most of which occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are uhaloa, ilihee, ilima (Sida fallax), koali awa, and ala ala wai nui. None of the plants recorded on the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern. Regarding fauna resources, the applicant believes that the faunal resources would consist of bird species common to the area such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White - eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The applicant will be required by conditions to implement the recommended treatments for the archaeological sites on the property to preserve the valued archaeological resources of the area. l Regarding flora and fauna, none of the identified plants are considered endangered or listed on,the National or State Historic Registers. The botanical survey concluded that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. The property is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There has been a survey and an updated survey conducted to identify and protect the resources located on site. In a letter dated April 20, 2004 from the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division to Paul Rosendahl responding to the 3rd Draft of the revised -10- archaeological inventory survey, DLNR requests additional information and recommendations for a final review and approval of the significance assessments and recommended mitigation treatments. Paul Rosendahl sent a response letter dated May 28, 2004 identified as the a Draft responding to DLNR's comments. DLNR has yet to send an approval letter. Conditions of approval will require the applicant to prepare a Burial Treatment Plan and preserve the burials in place. According to the applicant, access to the burials by lineal descendants will be made available. Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from Agricultura to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned distric result in an appropriate land use pattern tha er benefit the u lic. The accompanying draft bill echo - orth Kona Zone Map), Chapter 25 (Zo . e of the Hawaii County Code is provided for y able 1 eration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. PUAA INVESTMENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 05115 Bold bracketed are items to be delete; bold underscored are new items) A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. B. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit if applicable, in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within [ninety] one hundred twenty days from the effective date of this amended ordinance. C. Construction of the proposed development shall [be completed] commence within five (5) years from the effective date this ordinance and be substantial1v completed within ten (10) nears. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or,.proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). D. No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet in gross floor area. E. If the Department of Transportation requires an [amended] updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) reflecting two (2) scenarios -- one based on the primary and secondary accesses and the other, only the primary access, it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval, prior to the issuance of Final Pian Approval. In the event no response is received from the Department of Transportation within 60 days of its submission, the updated TIAR shall be considered accepted for the purpose of issuance of Final Plan Approval. All accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements affecting State highways, shall meet with the approval Department of Transportation. F. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1 at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic meeting with the approval of the Department of Transportation and/or County Department of Public Works. Said improvements[, plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualali Road,] shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of Issuance for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. G. The, applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for [non-residential structures or] final inspection of any residential structures. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement 1" (spine road) or an alternative location ap roved by the County Department of Public Works to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a 60 -foot wide right-of-way meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for [non-residential structures or prior to] any final inspections for residential structures from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, Sub 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors, or assigns shall also complete the road connection from Easement "I" or an alternative loction approved by the County -2- 0 - 0 Department of Public Works to the southerly or Kuakini Highway project access to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of [a certificate of occupancy for non- residential structures or] final inspection for any residential structures. I. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration shall be provided at the Easement 1 access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. [J] I. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an easement to the property to the north (TMK: 7-5-17: 2) to permit that property to access the main project intersection. The easement shall have a minimum width of 60 -feet, and be [in] at a location meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. [K]J. The main spine mauka/makai road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a sixty (60) foot right-of-way and if accepted by the County, a bike path, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in favor of T.M. K. No. 7-5-17: 1 so that the property can be developed independently of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 19. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. [L]K. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. [M]L. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) clearances and/or approvals shall be secured prior to the -3- issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE" zone or the corrected effective base flood map. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non residential structures or a certificate of occupancy or final inspection of any residential structures. [N]M. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. JOIN. No residential or commercial structures shall be constructed within areas designated "AE" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by an applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County` Council. If appropriate, a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. [PIO. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. [QIP. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. [RIO. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of 'Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. [SIR. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 152 [T]S. A Data Recovery Plan and/or an Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan, if required, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the [Planning Director, in consultation with the] Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites, if any, within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of an applicable fthe] approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. [U]T. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resource — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR-SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. [V. As represented by the applicant, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant shall solicit the input of the State Department of Education (DOE), community, and County Council to determine which government agency or entity, such as a DOE -certified "public charter" school, would be the recipient of this school site. The school site and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed via lease to the identified recipient for $1.00 for the duration of the lease, with the understanding that said entity or agency would be able to secure additional funds as may be necessary to have a school opened prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a residential occupancy permit on the subject property. Further, should the school use be terminated for any reason, the land and improvements thereon shall be conveyed in fee to the County of Hawaii at no cost within thirty (30) days of the date of termination. -5- Within sixty (60) days of the identification of the receiving agency or entity, a draft of an agreement reflecting the terms outlined in this ordinance shall be submitted to the County Council for its review and approval. As further represented by the applicant, the applicant... shall l) prior to the issuance of a building permit for any -residential or commercial structures on the subject site, a) subdivide and dedicate or cause the dedication of 5 acres of land within T.M.K. 7- 5-17: 19 and/or T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 for a school site to the State DOE or a DOE - certified "public charter"; and b) provide the necessary infrastructure to the site, including vehicular access and utility Certificate of Occupancy for any resid tems; and 2) prior to the issuance of a structures on the subject site, make the the school and associated playground area, necessary on-site land improvements fo as well as construct or cause the structural improvements as may be mu the receiving agency or entity These opening of a school prior to the occu subject property.] [W]V. The applicant shall make its fair share c4 impacts of the property with respect to p disposal facilities and roads. The fair sb ction of up to $600,000 of building or agreed to between the applicant and ements are designed to facilitate the of any residential structures on the ibution to mitigate the potential regional > and recreation, fire, police, solid waste contribution shall be initially based on the representations contained within the change of zone application and may be increased or reduced proportionally if the lot counts are adjusted. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County, Council. The fair share M contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit. The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit shall be allocated as follows: 1. $765,315.50 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $24,187.50 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support police facilities; 3. $74,405 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support fire facilities; 4. - $33,162.50 per multiple family residential unit;to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 5. $654,442.50 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway, the road improvements at the Kuakini Highway intersection, and the mauka/makai spine road up to the entrance of the proposed rental housing project shall be credited against the road fair share without any further County Council action. [Relative to the requirements for the school as outlined in Condition U, the value of land — which shall be bsed on the per acre purchase cost of the applicant — , the cost of the infrastructure (road and utility) to the subject site, and the cost of site preparation for the school and playground area shall be credited against the park -7- and recreation fair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be credited against the balance, if any; of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance and/or any future park and recreation fair share requirement for T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 and 26.1 [X]W. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exaction or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. [Y. The project shall include housing. At least,50 residential units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial structures. An additional 50 units shall be constructed if all the commercial uses exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area. The additional units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for commercial structures exceeding a cumulative total of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area on the project area.] [Z]X. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. The affordable housing plan shall be approved by the County Office of Housing and Community Development [Agency] Administrator prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu -fees. Affordable housing credits in excess of the basic requirement outlined in Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii Coup Code, shall be credited to the applicant, its successors or assigns. [AA]Y. The applicant shall comply with al applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. [BB]Z. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within [the] this amended ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not -8- the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within- one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 1 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. [CC]AA. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. in SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 . Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 Cell: (808) 989-0640 E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net April 16, 2020 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAI' I 101 Pauahi. Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear. Mr. Yee; • Planning = Variance - Zoning • Subdivision o Land Use Permits • Environmental Reports PLNNOWNG DEQ' APR 0 � AM 1131" Subject: Response to PublicComments on Traffic Study Time! Extension and Amendments to Rez. Ord. No. 05-115 and Ord. lid®. 05-11.3 APPIGICANTS — Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC Norfh ona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-01.7: 01.9 a' 'nd 001 Thank you for providing me with a copy of a public comment regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) prepared by the applicants' consultant; Mr. Randall Okaneku of The Traffic Management Consultant. Mr. Okaneku reviewed the person's comments and responded as follow to me: ".The Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the ..Proposed Pualani 1illakai (TIAR) was prepared in accordance with the Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 Section 25-2-46 (Concurrency Requirements). The, TIAL trip generation analysis was based upon generally accepted techniques developed by the Institute of'Transportation Engineers (ITE), as required by the Concurrency Requirements. In accordance with the best traffic engineering practices, the TZAR traffic count survey was conducted during "normal"peak hour• traffic conditions, i. e., not during the oJTpeak summer months when schools are not in session; and not during the holiday season when traffic conditions are atypical. The TIAR did include Hiialalai Road (makai leg); which operated at LOS "D" and LOS "C" at its the intersection with, Queen Kaahumanu Highway, during the AM and PMpeak hours of traffic; respectively. The intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and of'Hualalai,Road .(mauka.leg) is not expected to be' significantly impacted by the project traffic, which is expected'to use Pucipuaanui Street to access the mauka leg of Rualalai Road .The proposed Spine Road access tolfi°om Queen Kaahumanu Highway will be provided by right -turn acceleration, and deceleration lanes so as not to impact through trc ffic on Queen Kaahumanu Highivay. Furthermore, RECT BY MAIL 132555 0 Mr. Michael Yee, Director April 16, 2020 Page 2 the proposed Spine Road also will access Kuakini Highway via right -turn acceleration and deceleration lanes, as well as an exclusive left -turn lane into the Spine Road As a result, the capacity analysis indicated that the Spine Road traffic is expected to create negligible delays to through teak on ween Kaahumanu Highway and R:uakini Highway. The Trak .Assessment Report or the Proposed Living Stones Church indicated that the proposed church is expected to generate a relatively small number of trips dining the weekday, and is therefore not expected to significantly impact the weekday peak hour traffic. The ITE trip generation analysis includes all trips that can be expected to be generated by the,proposed projeet, which would include school trips via school buses and private vehicles. The TIAR cited future highway improvements, which are being planned by the County of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii. However, it, further states that these future highwayprojects were not included in the traffic impact analysis. " Mr. Okaneku continued that "Based upon the 2019 DOT annual traffic count data for ween Kaahumanu Highway, the average weekday traffic during the three day period when the TZAR traffic data were collected was within one (1) percent of the average weekday traffic for all of the year 2019. The TIAR' trafjic count data can be considered to represent average traffic conditions on ween Kaahurnanu Highway. " Understandably, Mr. 0kaneku stands by the findings and conclusions of his report. As such, we trust that this adequately responded to the public comment. 1f not or if there any additional comments, please let me know. Thank you very much. cerely SIDNEY M. FUME Planning Consultant Copy — Puaa Development LLC via email Suffolk Development LLC via email Mr. Randall 0kaneku via email Mori, Ashley From: Kay, Christian Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 3:55 PM To: Mori, Ashley Subject: FW: Puaa/Suffolk Time Extension Attachments: CCF_000941.pdf Importance: Low Hi Ashley, Will you please print and intake this to both REZ 02-24 & 02-25? Mahalo, Christian Christian Kay, Planner County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No. 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8136 Fax: (808) 961-8742 Email: christian.kay@hawaiicounty.gov From: Sid Fuke <sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 3:34 PM To: Kay, Christian<Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Darrow, Jeff <1eff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Puaa/Suffolk Time Extension Importance: Low C Pi ANNING DEPT � $ 4 2- rug %Y,j- A 30'.4 91 Aloha Christian, Per your request, attached is a copy of the letters requesting the extension and its approval. LMK when we can meet early next week, after your meeting with the Director to go over these applications. Hopefully, we can have that meeting before Wednesday. Many thanks and have a nice weekend! Sid 13 297 William P. Kenoi rpt vor PLANNING DEPARTNLL, •NT Aupuni Center * to] Patudii Street, suite Hilo. Hawaii 96720 September 6, 2011 Phone (808) 961-8288 o Fax (808) 961-8742 Sidney M. Fuke Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, 1-11 96720 Dear Mr. Puke: Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 113 (Suffolk Investment, LLQ Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 115 (Puna Development, LLQ Subject: Administrative Time Extension Tax Map Key: 7-5-017: 001 and 019 BJ Leithead Todd Direcior Margaret K. 'Masuna-a Deputy Thank- you for your letter dated August 15, 2011 requesting an administrative time extension to 1 1 Lr comply with Condition C (complete construction within 5 years) of Change of Zone Ordinance Nos. 05 113 and 05 115. Condition Z of Ordinance No. 05 113 ) and Condition BB of Ordinance No. 05 115 allow for an administrative time extension for a period not to exceed the period originally granted. Based on the reasons stated in Your letter, we will grant a 5 -year time extension until August 5, 2015 to comply with Condition C of the subject ordinances. Please be informed that should you need an additional extension of time to comply with Condition C of the subject ordinances, the request and reasons, along with 20 copies of that request shall be C) forwarded to the Planning Commission with a $250 filing fee. A public hearing will be held by 1-11 C, the Planning Commission, who will forward their recommendation to the County Council. The Kona Community Development Plan (CDP), which was adopted by the County Council in 2008, identifies the subject properties as part of the Puaa-Wai'aha Village Neighborhood Transit - Oriented Development (TOD). The Plan sets out various recommendations and requirements for developing properties within a TOD. Please contact our Design Center staff at 323-4776 for assistance in interpreting and implementing the CDP's goals as you develop your project plans. C) -I) If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Maija Cottle at (808) 961-8159. Sincerely, BJ LEITHEAD TODD Planning Director MJC:smn PAwpwin60\JMaiJa\Letters\TE R\LFuke-AdminTER-REZ04-024&,04-25. doe cc -w/letter: Planning Department — Kona Office Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer SidneyFuke, Pia.,ning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 - Ceii: (808) 989-0640 E-mail: sid fuke@hawaflantel, net August 15, 2011 I Ms. BJ Leithead Todd, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAIJ 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Leithead Todd: * Piannina - Variance - Zoning * Subdivision - Land Use Permits * —nvironmental Reports Subject: Zoning T Extension — Suffolk Investment, LLC (Ord. 05 113) and Puaa Development, LLC (Ord. 05- 115), TAW: 7-5-17. 1 and 19 Condition C of Ordinance No. 05 113 and Ordinance No. 05 115 required completion of the respective projects within five (5) years of the effective date of those ordinances. The ordinances became effective on August 5, 2005. As such, the completion requirement was about a year ago, August 5, 2010. Unfortunately, a number of factors nave affected the start of these prQJects. One relates to the dismal global economic conditions that have affected the respective applicants' ability to secure the required financing for their projects. Furthermore, the market for their projects (commercial and residential) has not been strong enough to warrant construction. Notwithstanding market conditions, the applicants have been working together to address common infrastructural issues, particularly drainage and road access. Although not aggressively because of the poor market conditions, these discussions are on-going. Based on the above and pursuant to condition Z of Ordinance No. 05 113 and Condition BB or Ordinance No. 05 115, the applicants respectfully request an additional five (5) years, retroactive to Aug -List 5, 2010, to complete their respective projects. years, Should you have questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Siqcerely) A SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Puaa, Development, LLC via email Suffolk Development, LLC via email Lr DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNORIt Mr. Christian Kay Planner County of Hawaii Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kay: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 April 16, 2020 Subject: Traffic Impact Assessment Report Pualani Makai Master Planned Community Kailua-Kona, Hawaii Tax Map Key No. (3) 7-5-017:001 and 019 JADE T. BUTAY DIRECTOR Deputy Director LYNN A.S. ARAKI-REGAN DEREK J. CHOW ROSS M. HIGASHI EDWIN H. SNIFFEN IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY-PS 2.2822 pLANNING DEPT APR 20 2020 AH 1 2 F C q D 58V NAIL Thank you for your email, dated .April 3, 2020, requesting comments on the Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR), dated October 3, 2019. The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) previously reviewed and commented on proposed amendments to two Change of Zoning (COZ) Ordinances for adjacent Tax Map Key No. (3) 7-5-017:001 and 01.9 parcels, collectively referred to as the Pualani Makai Master Planned Community. The parcels have different landowners and the entitlement approvals have been separate and concurrent. The two HDOT comment letters, dated January 10, 2020 (HWY-PS 2.1902) and January 16, 2020 (HWY-PS 2.1899), focused on the proposed amendments and did not include a review of the October 3, 2619 TIAR. The project site is between Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Hawaii Belt Road, State Route 11), a principal arterial highway along the west coast of Hawaii Island and. Kuakini Highway (County jurisdiction). The two roadways are generally aligned north -south and intersect south of the site at a stop -controlled T -intersection. Primary direct access to the site would be on Queen Kaahumanu Highway opposite the existing Puapuaanui Street intersection. The applicant has committed (Condition F of the amended COZ) to intersection improvements to accommodate four-way traffic at this intersection. 132552 .u" Mr. Christian Kay April 16, 2020 Page 2 HWY-PS 2.2822 A second access on Queen Kaahumanu Highway is proposed approximately 1,100 feet south the primary intersection. The Spine Road would be an internal roadway aligned between this second new access on Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway (County jurisdiction) opposite Nakuikui Drive. Condition G of the amended COZ addresses this second access. The HDOT reviewed the October 3, 2019 TIAR and finds it is acceptable. We agree in concept to the proposed recommendations for roadway improvements within the State right-of-way; however, they are subject to change during HDOT Hawaii County District Engineer review of configuration and layout drawings. If you have any questions, please contact Jeyan Thirugnanam, Systems Planning Engineer, Highways Division, Planning Branch at (808) 587-6336 or by email at jeyan.thirugnanam@hawaii.gov. Please reference file review number PS 2019-164A. Sincerely, JADE T. BUTAY Director of Transportation SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 Cell: (808) 989-0640 E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net June 2, 2020 Mr. Michael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAI' i 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yee: - Planning - Variance • Zoning *Subdivision *Land Use Permits - Environmental Reports - S. - �... Subject: Response to Public Comments Time Extension and Amendments to Rez. Ord. No. 05- 115 and Ord. No. 05-113 APPLICANTS — Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC North Kona, Hawai' i. TMK: 7-5-017: 019 and 001 Thank you for providing me with a copy of email comments from members of the public and Commissioner Van Pernis. These comments are directed primarily at traffic and the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) prepared by the applicants' consultant, Mr. Randall Okaneku of The Traffic Management Consultant. Mr. Okaneku reviewed the comments and believes that the comments have been addressed in his earlier comments which were incorporated into my April 17, 2020 letter to you. In the interest of consolidating all of his comments in one document, I am taking the liberty of re -stating his comments herein: "The Traffic Im,-pact Analysis Report for the Proposed Pualani Makai (TZAR) was prepared in accordance with the Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 Section 25-2-46 (Concurrency Requirements). The TZAR trip generation analysis was based upon generally accepted techniques developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (iTE), as required by the Concurrency Requirements. In accordance with the best traffic engineering practices, the TZAR traffic count survey was conducted during "normal" peak hour traffic conditions, i.e., not during the off-peak summer months when schools are not in session; sand not during the holiday season when traffic conditions are atypical. The TZAR did include Hualalai Road (makai leg), which operated at LOS "D" and LOS "C" at its the intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway, during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively. The intersection 6, 133x37 Mr. Michael Yee, Director June 2, 2020 Page 2 of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and of Nualalai Road (mauka leg) is not expected to be significantly 'impacted by the project traffic, which is expected to use Puapuaanui Street to access the mauka leg of Hualalai Road. The proposed Spine Road access toffrom Queen Kaahumanu Highway will be provided by right -turn acceleration and deceleration lanes so as not to impact through traffic on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Furthermore, the proposed Spine Road also will access Kuakini Highway via right -tum acceleration and deceleration lanes, as well as an exclusive left tum lane into the Spine Road. As a result, the capacity analysis indicated that the Spine Road traffic is expected to create negligible delays to through traffic on Queen'Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway. The Traffic Assessment Report for the Proposed Living Stones Church indicated that the proposed church is expected to generate a relatively small number of trips during the weekday, and is therefore not expected to significantly impact the weekday peak hour traffic. The ITE trip generation analysis includes all trips that can be expected to be generated by the proposed project, which would include school trips via school buses and private vehicles. The TZAR cited future highway improvements, which are being planned by the County of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii. However, it further states that these future highway projects were not included in the traffic impact analysis. " Mr. Okaneku continued that "Based upon the 2019 DCCT annual traffic count data for Queen Kaahumanu Highway, the average weekday traffic during the three day period when the TZAR traffic data were collected was within one (1) percent of the average weekday traffic for all of the, year 2019. The TZAR traffic count data can be considered to represent average traffic conditions on Queen Kaahumanu Highway." In response to the three (3) comments, one of which from Commissioner Van Pernis, provided by your staff since that response, he also added the following: The traffic mitigation measures at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street, proposed in the T/AR under Section V. Recommendations, are expected to improve access to the Pualani Subdivision and the Heights at Nualalai from the existing Level of Service Mr. Michael Yee, Director June 2, 2020 Page 3 (LOQ "E".to LOS "C" during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic with the proposed project. (Emphasis added) Furthermore., the proposed traffic mitigation measures ane expected to maintain acceptable LOS on all traffic movements at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street, during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, in accordance with the Hawaii County Code Chapter 25, Section 25-2-46 "Concurrency requirements" Finally, the proposed Pualani Makai mixed-use development includes a neighborhood commercial center, which could provide the necessary goods and services to the residents of Holualoa, Kahaluu-Keauhou, and South Kona, and thereby reduce the number of shopping trips to North Kona. Understandably, Mr. Okaneku stands by the findings and conclusions of his report, which the State Department of Transportation deemed "acceptable" in its letter of April 16, 2020. Please also note that Mr. Okaneku will also be participating in and available for questioning by your staff and the Commissioners at the upcoming Live Stream Meeting on June 18, 2020. As such, we trust that this adequately responded to comments to date. If not or if there any additional comments, please let me know. Thank you very much. Sincerely, \ Q SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Puaa Development LLC via email Suffolk Development LLC via email Mr. Randall Okaneku via email �� x* ^ 7-n«�'on� Mori, Ashley From: Sid Fuke <skjfuke@havwaihantel.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 1G,282O1Oc14AK4 To: Planning Internet K4eii ~ � �A�� Cc: Kay, Christian; Darrow ]eff;'KenVan Bergen`' ' Brian Cook. Subject PuaaRezoning Time Extension Application Attachments: Proposed Favorable Recommendation (Pooa),pdf Low Aloha Chair Smith and members ofthe Leeward Nanning Commission, As you know, the Director provided a written denial recommendations relating to the subject aplatication for the Leeward Manning Cornrnission'soonsidenation. However, |nthe event the Commission elect to recommend its approval, hwould need supportive reasons and conditions. Assuch, tofacilitate that process, | prepared and distributed atthe Commission's February 2Umeeting a draft of"favmrab|e° recommendation, vvithappropriate conditions, for the subject application. Since ithas been nearly 4months since that t|rme,)amagain providing the attached draft favorable recommendation, with conditions, for your consideration. Please note fhat it|sthe same aswhat was distributed at the February meeting. Many thanks! Sid Fuke,Planning Consultant 0 I3 ���^ I r� "Y T r- UAA DEVELOPMENT, LCC LEEWARD PLANNING COMMIS'SION RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the request, the Leeward Planning Commission recommends that a favorable recommendation of the Applicant's proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-025) be forwarded to the County Council based on the following and proposed conditions: The applicant originally proposed to construct a neighborhood shopping center consisting of over; 90,000 square feet. In conjunction with this development, significant infrastructure improvements were proposed, such as a new mauka/makai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and drainage systems. - To address the Kona Community Development's, (CDP) objective of having this area developed as a Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development (TCDD), the applicant revised its plan by reducing the commercial area by over 20,000 square feet, having residential units adjacent to the commercial area, and establishing a transit station. CONTINUE WITH 2" PARAGRAPH OF PAGE I TO 5 TH VNMMVN-V� UB �Iwl REPLACE 5 T11 PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 6 REFERENCING THE VONA REGIONAL LAND USE CONCEPT MAP WITH THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT' RELATIONSHIP TO THE KONA CDP. The Kona CDP was driven by eight (8) guiding principles. These were: o Protect Kona's natural resources and. culture • Provide connectivity and transportation choices • Provide housing choices • Provide recreation opportunities • Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical ch - aracter • Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies © Promote effective governance One of the strategies outlined in the CDP to help address infrastructure and. lifestyle objectives is the concept of TOD. As defined in pages 4-6 of the CDP, the concept of a TOD encourages the `development of compact, mixed-use villages which would integrate housing, employment, shopping, and recreation. opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit stations/stops which would reduce the need for daily trips and financially support the expanded transit system .11 Policy LU 2.2 identifies three (3) components of the TOD/TND. These are the Urban Core in the center, followed by Secondary Area and Greenbelt. Within the Urban Core, the CDP notes that it is intended "predominantly for residential, public/civic use, or small-scale neighborhood commercial uses." - The Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) identifies the Kona Urban Area, Rural Town TOD's. and — if within the Kona Urban Area — the applicable TOD (i.e., Traditional Neighborhood Development or Regional Center). The subject site is situated within the Kona Urban Area, with a Neighborhood TOD designation. The project, with its mixture of residential and commercial components, ,, plus an area for a bus transfer stop, as well as a new connector road implements this concept. To help establish the boundaries of a TOD, the CDP suggests the use of the Project District Zoning which requires a minimum of fifty (50) acres. However, because many parcels do not meet that suggested acreage, Section 4.2.2 (Overall Strategy) notes that to encourage the establishment of a TOD, "as long as the proposed rezoning conforms to the Kona CDP in terms of general location and concept, the legislative rezoning should be expedited. Subsequent refinements in the master plan can then be done administratively." (Emphasis added) In this case, the "general location and concept" of the subject proposed mixed use commercial -residential project, as well as its adjoining proposed rental housing project, were clearly taken into account during the preparation of the CDP.' During that process, it was recognized that this area and the proposed developments - given their existing zoning entitlements an ' d location. - would be an ideal area rea for a Neighborhood TOD and hence so earmarked on. the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) of the CDP. Thus, the use of this rezoning amendment process to help establish the foundation of the Kahului-Puapua" a Neighborhood TOD is clearly allowed without having to assemble adjoining properties so as to make the minimum area requirement for a Project District zoning. This was made further clear in the recent amendments to the CDP through the use of tem -is such as "encourage", "guidelines", and. the like. In the -end, realization of the guiding principles and broader community goals and objectives sought by the Plan was deemed to be paramount. The CDP also requires that any project be subject to certain review guidelines. These guidelines and the project's relationship follow. a. Consistencwith General Plan LUPAG map. The subject property Y is Urban Expansion which allows Low, Medium, and High Density Urban uses. As such, the proposed commercial and residential projects would be consistent with the LU AG map. b. Infill. While this project would represent an in -fill within the Kona Urban Area, it would be more in'the "bull's eye" or core of the TND. c. Greenfields Rezoning. This is not applicable, as its action does not trigger the HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review process. Another major component of the CDP is the concept of infrastructure concurrency. This concept is embodied principally in Figure 4-3-- Official Concurrency Map of the CDP. In that regard, the project's construction of anew maukalmakai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway implements this concept. Thus, even without an "official" designation via legislative action, its land use and infrastructure function as a Neighborhood TOD by the CDP is clear and immutable. In sum, the project — with the adjoining residential project -, when allowed to be fully implemented, will begin the foundation of the "core" of the Kahului- Puapua" a Neighborhood or Village TCT. It will also address and/or implement the pertinent CPD's "guiding principles" noted above. These include providing connectivity and transportation choices (with the construction of a new spine road between Kuakin-i Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway); housing choices (rental and for sale); compact village (mixture of commercial and residential uses); appropriate infrastructure and facilities (sewer, water, and drainage — such as a new culvert at the extension of the -Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and a retention basin within the subject and an adjoining property); and opportunity for a more sustainable economy (through the creation of an employment base proximate to residences) qip 1111111111 11 1 PUTS VART-14 M1,91 RM M, Based on the above findings, approval of the time extension and proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 05 115 would be continue to result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public. The proposed amended conditions of approval area attached, RPuaaDev-REQ-025.jwd,V,-*'12-05 UNTY OF PLANNING DEPARTAMNT RECONE�ENDATION Al Upon careful review of request, the Planning Director * reconunending that a favorable recommendation of the ange of Zone reque e forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is m , e without benefit of comments from the Department of Transportation, the Director res the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented the blic hearing OTbecause of later Department of Transportation comment. s favorab ecommendation is,based on the following findings: The applicant i questing a change of zone for 1 . 73 acres of land from an Agricultural (A-5 o a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) . trict. The applicant is proposing to elop a neighborhood commercial shopping center service the needs of the surto ding residential areas including Pualani Estates and the nei ormg sub * isions along the makai side of Kuakini Highway, as well as the propo d 250 -unit ental housing project adjacent to the subject property. The project would inclu ses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possib gas station. Because the County administration is trying to promote housing in the Kailua-Kona area, one proposed condition of zoning would require some units of housing to be developed onsite (housing is a permitted use in a CN zone). _ In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and, stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may nave an impact on similar axcas in the County. The proposed development may be permitted provided that applicable goals, polices lices and standards of the General Plan are met. -I- The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (I:UPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The project area is designated Urban Expansion Area, which allows for a mix of high. density, medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined, The proposed request is to allow a neighborhood commercial shopping center to service the needs of the surrounding residential areas. The area under consideration is consistent Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its econormc system. The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. The applicant's objective recognizes the growing development needs for the region.' The applicant is seeking to provide the community with further neighborhood cor=ercial facilities that take advantage or the site's positive physical and regional attributes. C R The proposed chancre of zone request would ftu her the County's goals of providing an economic environrnent which allows new or existing businesses to expand and diversify the County's economic base, and thereby also increase the choice of occupations. The proposed change of zone request would be consistent with the Land Use and - the Commercial Development Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accon-nnod ate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the'lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. The request would be consistent with the following goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development, Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan: Land U-s-e--E.Iement Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. Zone urban- and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities.. Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation., district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. ry 3- F 0 Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage witbin the island's regions, communities and neighborhoods. Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers and transportation systems. Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate h infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into t e review of such developments. LAND USE — MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTL4L 0 To provide for multiple residential developments that maxl'=e convenience for its occupants. To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate that physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, and recreational and cultural facilities,!bLnd public facilities and utilities. The County shall encourage flexibility in the design of residential sites, buildings and related facilities to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix and innovative means of meeting the market requirements. The rehabilitation and/or utilization of multiple residential areas shall be encouraged. .. iia voloprri rs� shallb� 1-50-atad in areas wkjore pul-niic utilitie-q can be eco nornic-ally provided at a level adequate to meet the demand for the concentrate service. me e, . 4 Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. o Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choice. Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people. 11Z Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals. Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital status, ethnic background and income. This proposed neighborhood commercial center would service the retail and office needs of the immediate surrounding areas, which includes, among others, the Pualani Estates and Kahakai Estates Subdivisions. With the extension of the Pualani Estates access road, this road will also provide a direct connection from the mauka Holualoa area to the proposed shopping area. Proposed uses include financial institutions, restaurants, a grocery store, office space, and possibly a gas station. J Under the Commercial Development Standards component of the General Plan, a Neighborhood Center is identified as one of three basic types of shopping centers. Neighborhood Centers are comprised of 5 to 15 shops, offer convenience goods and personal services to a market of approximately 3,000 people and are developed on properties S to 10 acres in size. Although the property is larger than 10 acres, a portion of the property is located within a flood zone and a large portion of the property will be used for road improvements. Also, a portion of the property will be used for residential purposes. To avoid the larger "big box" type of commercial developments which might draw people from outside the region, a condition will be added limiting the gross floor area to 45,000 square feet for any single commercial business. This 45,000 square foot -5- limit will allow a large supermarket (generally in the 30,000 square foot range) but not a "Home Depot" type "big box" (generally in the 100,000 square foot range). The commercial zoning also allows residential uses as permitted uses. As such, a condition will be added to require the applicant to pay the fair share contribution for any residential units that are developed on the subject property. There may be a concern that r,--,ommercial development could sprawl along the Belt Highway. The property to the immediate north is currently zoned A -5a, and appropriate controls can be put in if that property comes in for zoning. To the south, there is the narrow triangular area containing the existing self storage facility, then the Kuakini/Belt 111i,ghway Road intersection. To the south of the intersection, on the makai side, there is the Sadie Seymour Botanical Garden (Kona Outdoor Circle), then existing residential developments. There are issues with respect to the reimbursement of costs between this applicant and Suffolk Investment, LLC for shared infrastructure. These are not being made a condition of rezoning because there is a private agreement between the owners regarding t:1 1-� reimbursements. Based on the above information, it is determined that the request conforms with the listed goals, policies and standards of the Land Use, Commercial Development and ZZ) Economic Elements of the General Plan. The Kona Regional Plan Land Use Concept Map designates this area for esidential uses (Res -8). This designation indicates residential uses, up to 8 1 s per acre. -Al the requested change of zone and proposed de ment are not consistent with this desi. on, it should be not at the General Plan allows consideration of commercial zo itate and/or accommodate the commercial needs of residential As numerous residenti visions have been developed in the ar e subject property since the publication of the Kona al Plan in 1982, there is a greater demand for the types of services offered by neighborhood co al center -q. There are no significant adverse impacts that may be generated by rezoning of the project site to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned district upon -6- public utilities and facilities. Potential impacts have been idented and assessed and appropriate mitigative measures will be incorporated within this favorable - recommendation. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, police and fireP rotection. Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the Queen Kaah=anu F1ighway, which has a 165 and 225 -foot right-of-way. The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) to address traffic impacts generated by the proposed development. The report concluded that there will be a need for traffic signals with or without this jproect at the project's main intersection located directly project across frog. the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road. There will be a need for a left -tum lane in the northbound direction on the Hawaii Belt Road and possibly a right -turn deceleration lane will need to be added to improve the operation and safety at the main intersection. The report also reco=ended that a right -turn acceleration lane be added at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection. The State Department of Transportation will also require roadway and/or intersection improvements to safely accommodate the proposed development. All roadways within the proposed development, including those connecting to adjoining parcels, will be required to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works, and include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. To provide fin-ther roadway connectivity in the i=ediate area, the applicant will be required to provide a roadway connection to the property to the north. 'If the property to the north is developed, the connection will allow access to the Hawaii Belt Road at the main intersection for this property, thus minimizing the accesses along the Hawaii Belt Road. The property is also subject to the conditions listed in the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) in connection with the final subdivision approval of Subdivision No. STLM ZOOO-OZOI (SUB 7814)- 7hc declaration states that the declarant is subject to and burdened by an equitable servitude requiring that the roadway improvements on and over Easement "I" be completed as required by the Subdivision Erg Code of the County of Hawaii prior to the time any certificates of occupancy (for non- residential structures) or final inspections (for residential structures) are issued by the County of Hawaii with respect to any building permits for improvements on any of the subdivided Lots in the Property. A condition will be added requiring the applicant to comply with the conditions of the declaration. The AE Flood Way Zone, which is a portion of the Waiaha Drainageway Spliti'low #12, affects a portion of the, subject parcel as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FUUM). The flood way crosses onto the subject property near the middle of the eastern boundary of the property and runs northwest across the property to the west (makai) boundary. The applicant has filed a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to allow for improvements and adjustments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodway on the subject parcel. The remainder of the property is located within Zone X, area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plai--ti. Water is available for the development of a neighborhood commercial center. The applicant proposes to connect to the County sewer system that extends from Kuakini Highway and bisects a portion of the subject property. The applicant will be required to perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to C� handle the proposed flows. As is typical of similar types of rezoning requests, approval of the accompanying change of zone request will require the applicant to prepare and secure approval of a Solid Waste Management Plan prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval for the proposed multiple family residential development. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The Kealakehe Police Station is located less than 3 miles north of the project site. There are three fire -stations within 5 miles from the site including Kailua-Kona, Kealakehe, and Puuola. The Kona Hospital is located in Kealakekua. 'rhe pr-opased request is not contrary tv Chaptcr 205A, Hawaii Reyised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The property is not located in the Special Management Area. The project site is located approximately one mile from the in shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact recreational resources in the area. Therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. The proposed request Nv-M not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's '?AS! -r' and "Ka Pa 'akai 0 Ka "Aina " decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historlical, anddnaturall resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: The applicant has presented the following information for the Planning Commission and the County Council to determine the valued cultural, historical, and natural resources within the area sought for rezoning: © An updated Archaeological Inventory Survey dated June 2004 conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PBRI), who revisited the project site to update a previous study conducted by PI -MJ conducted in 1990. a Response letter dated May 28, 2004 from Paul Rosendahl responding to DLNR- SB:PD's review of the revised archaeoi6gical inventory survey (P -Draft) letter dated April 20, 2004. 0 A Botanical Survey dated October 2003conducted by Winona Char of Char and Associates. 0 No professional survey was conducted regarding fauna resources. The valuable cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The updated archaeological inventory survey of the subject property and surrounding properties consisting of approximately 65 acres confirmed and identified 64 sites and 138 features. The sites included platforms, terraces, mounds, modified outcrops, caves, C - shapes, wails, and a historic period roadway and ranching features- Seventeen (17) sites were determined to be significant for their information content only with a "no further work" recommendation. Forty (40) sites were determined to be significant for their 0 information content but required further work. The remaining seven (7) sites were recommended for preservation. Six (6) of the sites were burials or possible burials, while one (1) non -burial site was a possible significant habitation site. Two (2) of the burials or possible burials may be within the project site (Sites 14084 and 14126). It is also proximate to the possible habitation site (Site 114123). Regarding flora, the botanical survey reports that the property is no longer used for grazingr cattle and Guinea grass now forms a very dense cover, 5 to 6 feet tall.' between the woody components. There are a few native plants on the project site, most ofwhich.occur on the rocky outcroppings. These are uhaloa, ihhee, ilima (Sida fallax), koa-li awa, and ala ala wai nui. None of the plants recorded on the project site is a threatened and endangered species or a species of concern. Regarding fauna resources, the applicant believes that the faunal resources would consist of bird species common to the area such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White - eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The applicant will be required by conditions to implement the recommended treatments for the archaeological sites on the property to preserve the valued archaeological resources of the area. Regarding flora and fauna, none of the identified plants are considered C� endangered or listed on the National or State Historic Registers. The botanical survey concluded that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on the botanical resources. There are no botanical reasons to impose any restrictions, conditions, or impediments to the proposed use of the site. The property is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There has been a survey and an updated survey conducted to identify and protect the resources located on site. In a letter dated April 20, 2004 from the Department of Land and Natural Resources-Histonic Preservation Division to Paul Rosendahl responding to the 3,d Draft of the revised -10- archaeological inventory survey, DLNR requests additional information and recommendations for a final review and approval of the significance assessments and recommended mitigation treatments. Paul Rosendahl sent a response letter dated May 28, 2004 identified as the 0' Draft responding to DLNR's co=ents. DLNR has yet to send an approval letter. Conditions of approval will require the applicant to prepare a Burial Treatment Plan and preserve -the burials in place. According to the applicant, access to the burials by lineal descendants will be made available. Based on the above flndings, approval of this change of zone request from Zggr�lcultura A-5a),to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -20) zoned distric result in an appropriate land use pattern tha er benefit the a pu lie. The accompanying draft bill Seco - (North Kona Zone MaD), Chapter 25 (Zo e of the Hawaii County Code is provided fro yo rable N side ation. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. kq -11- PUAA INVESTMENT, ENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (RE, Z 04-025) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 05 115 fold bracketed are items to be delete; bold underscored are new iternsj A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. B. Prior to the issuance of a water corru-nitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit if applicable,, in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within [ninety] one hundred twenty days from the effective date of this amended ordinance. C. Construction of the proposed development shall [be completed] commence within five (5) years from the effective date this ordinance and be substantially completed within ten 1p) years. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual 'impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). D. No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet in gross floor area. E. If the Department of Transportation requires an [amended] updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) reflecting two (2) scenarios -- one based on the primaLy and secondary accesses and the other, only the primary access. it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval, prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. In the event no response is received from the .Department of Transi)ortation within 60 days of its submission, the updated TIAR shah considered accepted for the purpose of issuance of Final Plan Approvals All. accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements affecting State Aways, shall meet with the approval Department of Transportation. 1-' . The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii. Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1 at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 -way traffic meeting with the approval of the Department of Transportation and/or Counly Department of Public Forks. Said improvements[, plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to ualali Road,] shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of Issuance for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for [non-residential structures or] final inspection of any residential structures. I 1. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall. improve "Easement 1" (spine road.) or ars alternative location approved by the County Department of Public Works to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a 60 -foot wide right -of --way meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for [non-residential structures or prior to] any final. inspections for residential structures from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, Sub 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors, or assigns shall also complete the road connection frond Easement "I" or an alternative loction approved by the Count-, -2- Department of Public Works to the southerly or Kuakini Highway -project access to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of [a certificate of occupancy for non- residential structures or] final inspection for any residential structures. 1. Access to Kuakini Highway,, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration shat], be provided at the Easement I access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. JJI 1. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an easement to the property to the north (TMK: 7-5-17: 2) to permit that property to access the main project intersection. The easement shall have a minimum width of 60 -feet, and be [in] at a location meeting with the approval. of the Department of Public Works. The designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. IKIJ. The main spine mauka/makai. road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a sixty (60) foot rigght-of-way and if accepted by the County, a bike path, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in -favor of T.M. K. No. 7-5-17: 1 so that the property can be I developed independently of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 19. The applicant, its successors., or assigns shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. ILI K. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval'of the Department of Public Works. [MIL. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency t:$ Management Agency (FEMA) clearances and/or approvals shall be secured prior to the issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE" zone or the corrected effective base flood map. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non residential structures or a certificate of occupancy or final. inspection of any residential structures. [N]M. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a mairiteriance program. for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. [01N. No residential or commercial structures shall be constructed within areas designated "AE" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by an applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. If appropriate, a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final. Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Departmentiupon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. [P]O. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection Control (UIQ permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. [Q]P. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. [R]_Q. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. I [S]R. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. -4- [T]S. A Data Recovery Plan and/or an Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan, if required, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the [Planning Director, in consultation with the] Departm,ent of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD), Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites, if an within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of &ny applicable [the] approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs -first. [UJT. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resource — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon, an archaeological clearance from DLNR-SHPD when itfinds that sufficient mitioation measures have been taken. IV. As represented by the applicant, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant shall solicit the input of the State Department of -5- Within sixty (60) days of the identification of the receiving agency or entity, a draft of an agreement reflecting the terms outlined in this ordinance shall be submitted to the County Council for its review and approval. As further represented by the applicant, the applicant... shall 1) prior to the issuance I of a building permit for any residential or commercial structures on the subject site, a) subdivide and dedicate or cause the dedication of 5 acres of land within T.M.K. 7- 5-17: 1.9 and/or T.M.K. 7-5-17:.23 for a school 'site to the State DOE or a DOE - certified "public charter"; and b) provide the necessary infrastructure to the site, including vehicular access and utility systems; and 2) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential structures on the subject site, make the necessary on-site land improvements for the school and associated playground area, as well as construct or cause the construction of up to $600,000 of building or structural improvements as may be mutually agreed to between the applicant and the receiving agency or entity These improvements are designed to facilitate the opening of a school prior to the occupancy of any residential structures on the subject property.] IWIY. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall be initially based on the representations contained within the change of zone application and may be increased or reduced proportionally if the lot counts are adjusted. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan. Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in. a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share M contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,206.06 per multiple family residential unit. The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residetitial unit shall be allocated as follows: 1 $765,315.50 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. 524,187.50 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support police facilities; 3. 74,405 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $33,162.50 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support solid waste -facilities; and 5. $654,442.50 per multiple family residential unit to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct impr6vements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway, the road improvements at the Kualdni Highway intersection, and the mauka/makai spine road up to the entrance of the proposed rental housing project shall be credited against the road fair share, without any further County Council actions [Relative to the requirements for the school as outlined in Condition U, the value of land — which shall be bsed on the per acre purchase cost of the applicant — , the cost of the infrastructure (road and utility) to the subject site, and the cost of site preparation f6r the school and playground area shall be credited against the park -7- and recreation fair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be credited against the balance, if any, of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance and/or any future park and recreation, fair share requirement for T.M.K. 7-5-17: 23 and 26.1 [XJW. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exaction or the assessment of impact Bees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact'Fees Ordinance. [Y. The project shall include housing. At least 50 residential units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial structures. An additional 50 units shall be constructed if all the commercial uses exceed 60,000 square feet of - gross floor area. The additional units shall be under tn actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for commercial structures exceeding a cumulative total of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area on the project area.] [ZJX. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. The affordable housing plan shall be approved by the County Office of Housing and Community Development JAgency] Administrator prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. 'I"he housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu -fees. Affordable housing credits in excess of the basic requirement outlined in Chapter I L Article L Hawaii L99n_q Code, shall be credited to the applicant, its successors or assigns. [AAIX. The applicant shall comply with al applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements, [BB]Z. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within [the] this amended ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circumstances: The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been. foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not In the result of their -fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. [CCI A. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. 0 SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hito, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969.1522 cell: (808) 989-0840 E-mail: sidtuke@hawaiiantel.net August 3,-2020 AAs. Nancy Carr Smith, Chair Leeward Planning Commission COUNTY OF HAWAI' I 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Ms. Carr Smith and members of the Commission: • Planning • Variance • Zoning • Subdivision •ILsnd Use Permits • Environmental Reports COH PLANNING DEPT RUG 3 2020 AmIO.'44 RECD HAND DELIVEPEI) Subject: Applicants' Proposed Recommendations Time Extension and Amendments to Rez. turd. No. 05- 115 and Rez. Ord. No. 05-113 APPLICANTS — Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC North Kona Hawaii TMK: 7-5-017: 019 and 001 BACKGROUND At its meeting of June 18, 2020, the Leeward Planning Commission ("LPC" ) deferred the hearing on the subject applications to give the applicants and the Planning Department ("PD") time to work "collaboratively towards finding a solution that allows the existing zoning to be continued subject to conditions." Regrettably, the parties were unable to reach a mutually agreeable solution,at its first and only meeting of July 16. In sum: • The PD continued to maintain the need for having a master plan prepared pursuant to the Kona Community Development Plan ("CDP"} and Village Design Guidelines and vetted by the Kora CDP Design Center CDC") PRIOR to any LPC action. • As expressed at your June 18 meeting, such a condition in concept would not be acceptable to the applicants due to the notoriously long vetting process by the DC', let alone its practice of interpreting "guidelines" as statutory mandates or standards. That would make the review and approval process potentially and arduously long, inflexible, and somewhat arbitrary. • Notwithstanding the above and in the spirit of still trying to address the PD's positioni the applicant prepared and submitted a "Transect Zone Plan" consistent with the Kona CDP and requested that it and the existing Master Plan be submitted to the DC for review and comment 1:14860 Ms. Nancy Carr Smith, Chair August 3, 2020 Page 2 within a fixed period. (Exhibit A) The PD, however, determined that the submittals were not sufficient for DC review, and that ended the negotiation. PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS As you are aware, the LPC needs to justify its recommendation in writing. It already has the PD's written proposed denial recommendations. Thus, we provided the LPC with written proposed favorable recommendations at your meeting of February 20, 2020 for your review and possible use. In light of the comments made by the public and LPC and in also trying to reasonably address the PD's comments, further changes were made. As such, attached as Exhibits S and C are the applicants' proposed favorable recommendations with revised conditions for your consideration and possible use. In sum, the more salient reasons for your favorable consideration are: • The requests conform to the County General Plan ("GP"). The �wrtu i i i i +moi prevailing GP was adopted in February 2005, and the rezoning requests were approved AFTER in August 2005. The PD and Commission determined the requests to be consistent with the GP and recommended their approval. The PD still determined the-reguests to be consistent with the GP in its approval of their time extension in September 2011. • The requests conform to the Kona CDP. The CDP was adopted in September 2008. The PD determined the requests to be consistent with the CDP when it granted an administrative_ time extension in 2011,r subsequent to the adoption of the CDP. Of additional import is the fact that the September 2019 amendment to the CDP resulted, among other changes, in the relaxation — not toughening - of a number of mandatory language and use of the CDP more as a guide. • The projects will provide much needed road and drainage infrastructure. A new 60 foot wide road connecting Kuakini Highway to the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway will be constructed. Improvements to drainage that will also help areas makai of Kuakini Highway will be done. • The projects will provide much needed affordable rental and for sale housin . In so doing they will not only address a much pressing need but will help provide housing in areas that are more central to work places, thus reducing long commutes. In response to the LPL's question regarding the applicants' commitment to provide rental housing at an affordable rate, the applicants have agreed to restore a condition that mandates rental housing for a minimum 20 -year period with at least 200 N Ms. Nancy Carr Smith, Chair August 3, 2020 Page 3 targeted at the 80% or less than median income level for the Suffolk LLC property. Please note that consistent with other applications, the "fair share" requirement was exempted for all qualified affordable units. • The projects have the potential of generating considerable construction and post -construction emplavrnent, while with their approval, instillin much n22gedinvestment confidence. Even prior to the COVID-10 pandemic, the economy of hlawai'i Island was somewhat teetering. With the pandemic, the situation became dismal. Global and in turn, Wawai t s recovery will be slow. This will exacerbate and delay the delivery of affordable housing. Further, the negative "investment message sent with the denial of projects like this, which conform to planning documents and provide much needed infrastructure, employment, and affordable housing, will only serve to further retard the recovery process. Further, not to summarily dismiss the PD's comments relating to the CDP, the applicants' are proposing new conditions relating to the CDP. Specifically, they reflect: • Considering these parcels as a Neighborhood Transit -Oriented Development CTOD") area pursuant to Policy Lt! -2.4 of the CLAP; Requiring a Conceptual Master Plan {"CIVIP"} incorporatingbath parcels that take into consideration a mixed use walkable comrnuni with transit and open space/park areas; identify appropriate development phasing of the required infrastructure and housing/affordable housing and commercial components. The CMP would be used as a basis for the more detailed plans submitted for Plan Approval; and Identifying a review and comment process of the CMP by the Design Center that will involve a maximum 30 -day review period to see whether the basic components of a TOD and phasing, as well as any conditions of the rezoning time extension, are appropriately incorporated into the CIDP. Finally, the applicants have withdrawn their request of an initial administrative time extension. Thus, any extension would require LPC and County Council review and action, at which time appropriate action ranging from refreshing conditions to rezoning the properties into a different designation can be taken. The conditions relating to the representations noted above are reflected in the applicants' proposed recommendation and conditions found in Exhibits B and C. Ms. Nancy Carr Smith, Chair August 3, 2024 Page 4 We would appreciate your careful review of the applicants' proposed recommendation and conditions and, in the end, trust that you can agree with them. Thank you very much I incerely SIDNEY M. A --UE Planning Consultant Enciosures Copy - County Planning Department w/ enclosures Puaa Development LLC w/ enclosures via email Suffolk Development LLC wf enclosures via email Mr. Ken Van Bergen, Spring Capital Group w/ enclosures via email Mr. Michael Riehm wl enclosures via email LETTER REQUESTING DESIGN CENTER REVIEW -JULYA 61 2020 J SidneyFuke, Pihoning Consultant - Planning *Variance Zoning 100 Pauahl Street, Suite 212 , Hilo, Hawal'i 96720 a Subdivision * Land Use Peffnits Telephone: (808). _969=1 522, Cell-, (808) 989-0640 * Environmental Reports moo E-mail: sidluke@hawallantel.net July 16, 2020, Mr. ?V1 I ichael Yee, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAPI 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, !U 96720 Dear Mr. Yee: , Subjece. Design Center Review of Proposed Master Plan Time Extension and Amendments to: Rez. Ord. No. 05-115 and Ord. No. 05-113 APPLICANTS —. Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC North Kona a Hgwax"Ji., �!VIK*-7-5-017: 019 atlid 001 Th you and your staff for discussing the subject matter with us: today. The significant area of disagreement continues to be processing time, the role of the Design Center, and applicability of the Village Design Guidelines ("VDG") as outlined in the review process of any master plan.i Kona Community Development Plan (' CDP"') in the rev In the end, you maintained that it was imperative to'have a master plan prepared vetted, and favorably recommended -upon, with or without conditions, by the Design Center to your office prior to your favorably considering the subject matter. Subsequent to our meeting, we had a chance to discuss the issue of the master plan with the applicant's designer/architect, Mr. Michael Rielun of Riehm Owensby. As you know, Mr. Rehm. is intimately familiar with the VDG and its review process by the Design Center, having worked on the iaiwnanui Project District and athbr Planned Unit Developments within the bowidaries of the Kona CDP. Mr. Riehm indicated that the master plan he developed and used for the subject rezoning time extension requests as well as the Transect Zone Plan, both of which are attached, could be considered sufficient as a Master Plan. In that regard, we would appreciate your having the Design Center review the attached with Mr. Rdehm. and the applicant/landowner as soon as possible. Hopefully, the Design Center can provide its recommendation, with or without conditions, to you as to their adequacy relative to a Master Plan as envisioned by the Kona CDP no later than the end of this -month. We trust that two weeks should be more than adequate for such a review. Given that schedule, we envision two possible processing scenarios, both predicated upon having -Vao subject applications considered by the Leeward Planning Commission ( `LPC") at meeting on August 20. Mr. Michael Yee, Director July 16, 2020 Page 2 The first would be where you conclude that the master plan is still insufficient and thus, continue with your denial rccomm endations. In that event, no further work would be required on your part and it would be like the meeting in June. where the submitted master plan is, The second would be deemed adequate and thus enable you to comfortably forwa - rd a,favorable recommendation to, the LPC. Undierstafidably, we would meed to collaborate and develop appropriateconditionsthat reflect your revised position. in the event there is insufficient time to prepare and hely forward such - a recommendation to the LPC, -there may be a need to have the meeting continued to September. I T, he applicant understands that and can make a decii, i as t0ts continuance Mn Prior- to or at the meeting. We would appreciate your early response on tfus matter, for if you are agreeable. -we could finmediately contact and 'CO'ordinate a, meeting with . your Design Center. Should you have questions on this matter, please feel free, to contact me'. Thank you very much! V V\/ SIDNEY FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosures Copy — Puaa Development LLC w/ enclosures via email Suffolk Development LLC w/ enclosures via email Mr. Ken Van Bergen,, Spring Capital Group W/ enclosuresvia i email Mr, Mehael Rlehm w/ enclosures via email -it G a jul fill '04 C� su rt 1-0 EXHIBIT B SUFFOLK DEVELOPMENT LLC'S PROPOSED FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDITIONS SUFFOLK DEVELOPMENT, LCC LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the request, the Leeward Planning Commission recommends that a favorable recommendation of the Applicant's proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 05-113 (REZ 04-024) be forwarded to the County Council based on the following and proposed conditions: The applicant originally and continues to still propose to construct a 250 -unit market rental housing project, including the required parking space and a private park for its residents. In conjunction with this development and in partnership with the adjoining developer, Puaa Development, LLC, significant infrastructure improvements were proposed, such as a new mauka/makai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and drainage systems. The proposed time extension and related amendments will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. LAND USE — GENERAL • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. • Zone urban and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. • The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. • Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need. The request will conform to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as it will be compatible with adjacent urban types of uses, such as the Pualani Estates, Kahakai Estates, Kuakini Makai, and Alii Kai subdivisions. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Gide (LUPAG) map designates this area for Urban Expansion. This request will conform to the projected need of urban growth for this area. A favorable recommendation of this request will also conform to the following goals and policies of the Land Use — Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan. LAND USE -- MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Goals • To provide for multiple residential developments that maximizes convenience for its occupants. • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. pnl Zrion • Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. Standards • Areas shall be protected from incompatible uses by transition zones. • Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools, employment centers, and other services. • Development shall not be permitted in natural hazard areas unless proper on-site improvements are provided. • Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level of adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. • Recreational area and/or facilities shall be considered in multiple residential developments. est HOUSING Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County • Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock • Seek sufficient production of affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals Multiple family residential living is becoming a way of life and to some extent, financial necessity for many people. This type of housing is for those who find it financially difficult to own a single-family residence, and those with changing employment among other reasons. In practice, multiple -family residential developments use less land per person and locate in areas of concentrated economic and population activity where land is scarce and costly. The request will conform to the Multiple -family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan, as it will create a mix of residential housing opportunities and maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices for residents of the North Kona District and beyond. It will be located close to the Pualani Estates and Kahakai Estates Subdivisions, which are single-family residential uses. The property will also be conveniently located to public services such as police, fire, public schools and employment centers located near and in Kailua-Kona. To further complement the policies and standards of the Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan, a condition of this favorable recommendation will require the applicant to not only comply with the Affordable Housing Code of the County of Hawaii but also mandate it be a rental project with a percentage targeted to the 80% of below median income level. The request will also be consistent with the Kona Community Development Plan. The Kona CDP was driven by eight (8) guiding principles. These were: o Protect Kona's natural resources and culture • Provide connectivity and transportation choices • Provide housing choices • Provide recreation opportunities • Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character • Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies o Promote effective governance One of the strategies outlined in the CDP to help address infrastructure and lifestyle objectives is the concept of TOD. As defined in pages 4-6 of the CDP, the concept of a TOD encourages the "development of compact, mixed-use villages which would integrate housing, employment, shopping, and recreation opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit stations/stops which would reduce the need for daily trips and financially support the expanded transit system." Policy LU 2.2 identifies three (3) components of the TOD/TND. These are the Urban Core in the center, followed by Secondary Area and Greenbelt. Within the Urban Core, the CDP notes that it is intended "predominantly for residential, public/civic use, or small-scale neighborhood commercial uses." The Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) identifies the Kona Urban Area, Rural Town TOD's, and — if within the Kona Urban Area — the applicable TOD (i.e., Traditional Neighborhood Development or Regional Center). The subject site is situated within the Kona Urban Area, with a Neighborhood TOD designation. The project, with its mixture of residential and commercial components, plus an area for a bus transfer stop, as well as a new connector road, implements this concept. 4 To help establish the boundaries of a TOD, the CDP suggests the use of the Project District Zoning which requires a minimum of fifty (50) acres. However, because many parcels do not meet that suggested acreage, Section 4.2.2 (Overall Strategy) notes that to encourage the establishment of a TOD, "as long as the proposed rezoning conforms to the Kona CDP in terms of general location and concept, the legislative rezoning should be expedited. Subsequent refinements in the master plan can then be done administratively." (Emphasis added) In this case, the "general location and concept" of the subject proposed 250 - unit market rental housing project adjacent to a mixed use commercial -residential project were clearly taken into account during the preparation of the CDP. During that process, it was recognized that this area and the proposed developments - given their existing zoning entitlements and location - would be an ideal area for a Neighborhood TOD and hence so earmarked on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) of the CDP. Thus, the use of this rezoning amendment process to help establish the foundation of the Kahului-Puapua' a Neighborhood TOD is clearly allowed without having to assemble adjoining properties so as to make the minimum area requirement for a Project District zoning. This was made further clear in the recent amendments to the CDP through the use of terms such as "encourage", "guidelines", and the like. In the end, realization of the guiding principles and broader community goals and objectives sought by the Plan was deemed to be paramount. The CDP also requires that any project be subject to certain review guidelines. These guidelines and the project's relationship follow. a. Consistency with General Plan LUPAG map. The subject property is Urban Expansion which allows Low, Medium, and High Density Urban uses. As such, the proposed commercial and residential projects would be consistent with the LUPAG map. b. Infill. While this project would represent an in -fill within the Kona Urban. Area, it would be more in the "bull's eye" or core of the TND. c. Greenfields Rezoning. This is not applicable, as its action does not trigger the HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review process. 5 Another major component of the CDP is the concept of infrastructure concurrency. This concept is embodied principally in Figure 4-3 — Official Concurrency Map of the CDP. In that regard, the project's construction of a new mauka/makai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway implements this concept. Thus, even without an "official" designation via legislative action, its land use and infrastructure function as a Neighborhood TOD by the CDP is clear and immutable. In sum, the project -- with the adjoining neighborhood commercial and residential project -, when allowed to be fully implemented, will begin the foundation of the "core" of the Kahului -Puapua' a Neighborhood or Village TOD. It will also address and/or implement the pertinent CPD's "guiding principles" noted above. These include providing connectivity and transportation choices (with the construction of a new spine road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway); housing choices (rental); adjacent to a mixture of commercial and residential project); appropriate infrastructure and facilities (sewer, water, and drainage — such as a new culvert at the extension of the Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway and a retention basin within the subject and an adjoining property); and opportunity for a more sustainable economy (through the creation of an employment base proximate to residences) The request will not create a significant adverse impact upon the natural resources of the area. The soil of the site is classified "E" or very poor. While it does have some measure of agricultural potential, as evidenced by the existing vegetation on the site, the site does not have resource that is deemed to be critical from an agricultural perspective. Furthermore, this area is generally bounded by urban and urbanizing uses. The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that would render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and activity. There are no significant adverse impacts that may be generated by the existing RM zoning and its requested time extension upon public utilities and facilities. Potential impacts have been identified and assessed and appropriate mitigation measures ha,,e been incorporated and will be retained as lei conditions cif this approval. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably hnMen the Imhlic agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, j)(dice and tiro protection. County water is available to the subject property. The site has the required water commitments from the Department of water Supply to support the project. Likewise, the project will connect to a County sewer line fronting Kuakini Highway. A new 60 -foot wide mauka-makai road connecting Kuakini Highway to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the project and prior to any occupancy of the property. The road will be developed complete with curb, gutter and sidewalk, facilitating safe pedestrian movements. Further, significant on and off-site drainage improvements will be made, improvements that should improve drainage and/or flooding conditions makai of Kuakini Highway. The main intersection at the Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway will also be improved as a channelized intersection, complete with the needed traffic signal lights and related improvements. This will be done by the developers of the project and prior to issuance of any occupancy permit. A Solid Waste Management Plan will be prepared to address construction and post -construction waste. Electricity and telephone services are available to the subject site. Likewise, public services such as police and fire are readily available within a 3 to 5 mile radius. The development of the subject site would not be contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The site is located outside of the Special Management Area. Notwithstanding that situation, it is approximately one mile from the shoreline and will not compromise any known coastal access. The project mvill not have adverse impacts to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rig h ts. The Hawaii State Supreme Court's "DASH" and "Ka Pa 'akaci O Ka'Aina" decisions require decision -makers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site and the impact of this project to these resources and practices. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Furthermore, as noted in the botanical survey, while there are some endemic plants on the site, these plants are neither endangered nor threatened. The applicant also notes that since being in this area for over 10 years, he has not observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site. As such, it would appear very unlikely that the site would serve such purpose today and/or in the recent past. However, if legitimate claims are made, the applicant will make the appropriate access accommodations. Further, an updated archaeological inventory survey of the subject and surrounding area consisting of a total of sixty five (65) acres was conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PHRI). In response to the State Historic Preservation Division's (SHPD) comments, a revised report was prepared and subsequently submitted to and accepted by the State. While there were sites within the sixty five (65) acres, seven (7) of which recommended for preservation, the subject site did not have any sites recommended for preservation. Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impacts relating to native Hawaiian cultural and historical resources and/or practices. Based on the above findings, approval of the time extension and proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 05 113 would continue to result in an appropriate land use pattern that -*� ill further benefit the general public. The proposed amended conditions of approval area attached. SUFFOLK INVESTMENT, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-024) TMK: 7-5-017: 019 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 05 113 (Bold bracketed are items to be delete; bold underscored are new items) A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. It. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit if applicable, in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within [ninety] one hundred twenty days from the effective date of this amended ordinance. The applicant shall finalize the allocation of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed development prior to Final Plan Approval. C. Construction of the proposed development shall [be completed] commence within five (5) years from the effective date this ordinance and be substantially completed within ten (10) years. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). 1). As represented by the applicant, the project shall be restricted to the use of rental housing only for a period of not less than 20 years from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection as the case may be. Any change to this condition will require an amendment to the change of zone ordinance F'. [if the Department of Transportation requires an Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) it shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval, prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval.] All accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements affecting State highways, shall meet with the approval Department of Transportation. F. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1 at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane into T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates, Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 - way traffic meeting with the approval of the Department of Transportation and/or Coun!y Department of Public Works. Said improvements, [plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualalai RoadJ shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non- residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration lane and a right -turn acceleration lane at the secondary entrance located south of the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement V (spine road) or an alternative location approved by -the Counly Department of Public Works to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a 60 -foot wide right-of-way meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for non-residential structures, or prior to any final inspections for M residential structures. from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, Sub 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors, or assigns shall also complete the road connection from Easement "1" or an alternative location approved by the County Department of Public Workstothe southerly,or Kualkinlni hway project access to County dedicable standards, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection for any residential structures. Should the approved location of the 60 _foot wide right-of-way spine road differ from Easement 1, the applicant shall take appropriate measures to amend the Declaration and Easement prior to its construction to assure access to all lots intended to be serviced by this Easement. I. Access to Kuakini Highway, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. An exclusive left turn lane and a right turn deceleration shall be provided at the Easement I access road approach. The access shall align with the opposing entry to Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Required improvements may include, but not be limited to, pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities. A system of drywells shall be installed to address existing local drainage on the mauka side of Kuakini Highway flowing to the proposed access approach. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection for any residential structures on the subject site. J. The main spine maukalmakai road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a 60 -foot wide right-of-way and if accepted by the County, a bike path, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or final inspection. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage in favor of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1 so that the property can be developed independently of TM. K No. 7-5-17: 19. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. -3- K. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. I L. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted� for review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. If deemednecessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) c1learances, and/or approvals shall be secured prior to the issuance of any land: disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE" zone or the corrected effective base flood map. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non residential structures or a certificate of occupancy or final inspection of any residential structures. M. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in private ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for [their] lia review and approval. N. No residential structures shall be constructed within areas designated "AE" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as amended by any applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all single family residential lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. If appropriate, a copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. 0. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection Control (U[C) permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. P. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. -4- Q. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. R. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. S. A Data Recovery Plan and/or an Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan, if required, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the [Planning Director, in consultation with the] Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites,, ifn within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of any applicable [the] approved Final Archaeological Preservation and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. T. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resource -- State State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR- SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. [U. As represented by the applicant, within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the applicant shall solicit the input of the State Department of Education (DOE), community, and County Council to determine which government agency or entity, such as a DOE -certified "public charter" school, would be the recipient of this school site. The school site and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed via lease to the identified recipient for $1,00 for the duration of the lease, with the understanding that said entity or agency would be able to secure additional funds as may be necessary to have a school opened prior to or in -5- conjunction with the issuance of a residential occupancy permit on the subject property. Further, should the school use be terminated for any reason, the land and improvements thereon shall be conveyed in fee to the County of Hawaii at no cost within thirty (30) days termination. Within sixty (60) days of the identification of the receiving: agency or entity, a draft of an agreement reflecting the terms outlined in this ordinance shall be submitted to the County Council for its review and approval. As further represented by the applicant, the applicant. ..shall 1) prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential or, commer cial structures on the subject site, a.) subdivide and dedicate or cause the dedication of 5 acres of land: within TAX 7-5-17: 19 and/or TAX 7-5-17: 23 for a school site to the State DOE or a DOE -certified "public charter"; and b) provide the necessary infrastructure to the site, including vehicular access and utility systems; and 2) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residential structures on the subject site, make the necessary on-site land improvements for the school and associated playground area, as well as construct or cause the construction of up: to $600,000 of building or structural improvements as may be mutually agreed to between the applicant and the receiving agency or entity These improvements are designed to facilitate the opening of a school prior to the occupancy of any residential structures on the subject property.] [V] U. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional Impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall be initially based on the representations contained within the change of zone application and may be increased or reduced proportionally if the lot counts are adjusted. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval [or within five years from the effective date of this change of zone ordinance, whichever occurs first]. The fair share contribution for each lot or unit shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed [a maximum density for each lot as determined by the zoning resulting from this change of zone]. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $[6,206.06]9,366.52 M per multiple family residential unit ($[9,671.44]14,596.67 per single-family residential unit. The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit single family residential units) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $[35161.27] 4,620.24 per multiple family residential unit ($[4,663.74] 7,03 3.77, per single family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $[96.76] 146.02 per multiple family residential unit ($[224.96] 339.55 to the County to support police facilities; 3. $[297.62] 449.18 per multiple family residential unit ($[444.36] 670.66 to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $[132.66] 26 per multiple family residential unit ($[194.55] 293.62 to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 5. $[21617.77] 3,,950.87 per multiple family residential unit ($[4,143.81] 6,254.07 to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvementstfacilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation: with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway, the roadimprovements at the Kuakini Highway intersection, and the mauka/makai spine road up to the entrance of the proposed rental housing project shall be credited against the road fair share without ani further County Council action. [Relative to the requirements for the school as outlined in Condition U, the value of lard — which shall be based on the per acre purchase cost of the applicant —, the cost of the infrastructure (road and utility) to the subject site, and the cost of site preparation for the school and playground area -7- shall be credited against the park and recreation fair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be, credited against the balance, if any, of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance and/or any future park and recreation fair share requirement for T.M.K. 7-5- 17: 23 and 25.] This condition shall not apply to any housing units constructed within the suWect roe and defined as `affordable' by Cha ter 1(Housing) Hawaii Countv Code and so certified b the County t ffice of Housin and Community Development. ]Y. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of enaction or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the unified Impact Fees Ordinance. X]W.To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Mousing Element of"the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Mousing Policy. The affordable housing plan shall be approved by the County Office of Dousing and Community Development [Agency] Administrator prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu fees. Further, as represented by the applicant, a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the units will be rented at the 80% or less than median income level and the remaining at the 120% or less than median income level. Affordable housing credits in excess of the basic requirement outlined in Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code, shall be credited to the applicant, its successors or assigns. MX. The subject property shall be considered part of a future Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development site. 1. A Conceptual Master Plan(Plan),incorporating the subject property and the adjoining property identified TMK. 7-5-0'17.001 shall be -8- re ared that take into consideration a mixed use walkable community with appropriate transit and open space/12ark areas. The Said Plan shall also include development phasing of the infrastructure, as well as the proposed land uses. 2. The Plan shall be submitted to the: e Kona Design Center, the reviewing entity identified in the Kona CoMroupity Development Pian, for a maximum 30 -dao _review period to comment on the, Plan's land use corn onents and-p-hasing to assure consistency with the conditions of this ordinance. Said comments shall be provided to the applicant for its consideration for modification if needed. The Plan, as may be modified shall be used as a basis for the submittal and subse uent review of all plans for Plan -App oval. [Z]Y. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. [AAJ ZZ. [lin initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within The ordinance may be granted by the Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond: the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 5.] If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the Leeward Planning Commission County Council for appropriate action. . Should any of the conditions not be meet or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. in iEUAA • ELOPMENT LLC'S PROPOSED PUAA DEVELOPMENT., LCC LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSIOX RECOMMENDAT110N Upon review of the request, the Leeward Planning Commission recommends that a favorable recommendation of the Applicant's proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 05-115 (REZ 04-025) be forwarded to the County Council based on the following and proposed conditions: The applicant originally proposed to construct a neighborhood shopping center consisting of over 90,000 square feet and a 100 -unit multiple -family residential house project. In conjunction with that developmetit, and in partnership with the adjoining developer, Suffolk Development, LLC, significant infrastructure improvements were proposed, such as a new mauka/makai road connecting Kuakini Highway with Queen Ka" ahumanu Highway and drainage systems. To address the Kona Community Development's (CDP) objective of having this area developed as a Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development (T D), the applicant revised its plan by reducing the commercial area by over 20,000 square feet and establishing a transit station. The proposed time extension and related amendments will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Economic, Land Use, and Housing Elements of the General Plan. ECONOMIC Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life through econo�m is development that enhances the County's natural and social environments. Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical, social, and cultural environments of the island of Hawaii. Strive for diversity and stability in the economic system. Strive for an economic climate that provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. Strive for full employment. I Designate and allocate "land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. Zone urban and rural -types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. * The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social envirolunent. Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans.- State Land use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need. o Commercial Sub -element: 9 Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. e Provide commercial development that complements the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. 9 Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. (Policy) Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central core area. (Policy) * Standards Commercial developments shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and amenities. Commercial developments shall provide for adequate internal circulation amongst commercial facilities in the area. C� * Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided. Commercial development shall maintain or improve the quality of the present environment through the consideration of visual, access, landscaping, and other design elements in their development. Preference shall be given to commerciat lands with a reasonably leveltopography. Goals * To provide for multiple residential developments that maximizes convenience for its occupants. e To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. MMM e Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple 71, residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places -of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. Standards Areas shall be protected koro incompatible uses by transition zones-. Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools, employment centers, and other services. Development shall not be pennitted in natural hazard areas unless proper on-site improvements are provided. Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level of adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. Recreational area and/or facilities shall be considered in multiple residential developments. Attain a diversity of socio-economic housmig mix throughout the 9 different parts of the County • Maintain a housing, supply which allows a variety of choice C� • Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock Seek sufficient production of affordable rental and fee -simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily acconu-nodate the needs and desires of families and individuals For one,, it would provide limited short-term economic opportunities largely through the construction of any improvements required for the neighborhood shopping center project. Relatedly, longer-term opportunities could be created largely in the for of retail and office workers within the project. By serving as a potential transportation hub as noted in the Kona CDP, it would provide services to the surrounding residential areas and in, so doing, create a more stable community. Further, it should add revenues to the County and State coffers in terms of the various forms of taxes, such as general. excise, corporate, real property, and personal income. The request will conform to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as it will be compatible with adjacent urban types of uses, such as the Pualani Estates, Kahakai Est -cites, Kuakini Mak-ai, and AIii Kai subdivisions. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Gide (LAG)map designates this area for Urban Expansion. This request will conform to the projected need of urban growth for this area. A favorable recommendation of this request will also conform to the following goals and policies, of the Land Use — Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan. multiple family residential living is becoming a way of life and to some extent, financial necessity for many people. This type of housing is for those who find it financially difficult to own a single-family residence, and those 'With changing employment among other reasons. In practice, multiple -family M residential, developments use less land per person and locate in areas of concentrated, economic and population activity where land is scarce and costly. The request will conform to the Multiple -family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan, as it will create a mix of residential housing opportunities and maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices for residents of the North Kona District and beyond. It will be located close to the Pualani Estates and Kahakai Estates Subdivisions, -which are single-family residential uses. The property will also be conveniently located to public service's such as police., fire, public schools and employment centers located near and in Kailua-Kona. To fiLrther complement the policies and standards of the Multiple Family Residential and Housing Elements of the General Plan, a condition of this favorable reconunendation will require the applicant to not only comply with the Affordable Housing Code of the County of Hawaii but also mandate it be a rental project with a percentage targeted to the 80% of below median income level. Relative to the Commercial element, if approved, the project would provide needed services to this region. Its location is ideal. to service the residential subdivisions in this area, as well as capture some of the commuting , traffic. Belatedly, all required infrastructures are there or, if not, will be provided by Further, while the site has some on-site developmental constraints, they are not insumiountable. For the most part, the site is designated '*X" on the FIRM map, and any activities within the "A-E" area will be dramiage-related and pursuant to County and Federal requirements. While there are two possible burials on the site, their locations are such that they would not restrict the development of this project. Although there may be a potential for some endemic birds to visit this area, the development of this site would not remove a critical habitat- Then, too, there ,are alternative areas that would be more suitable for any habitats. 5 Furthermore, if there are inadvertent archaeological features found on the site, work- will stop and the State DLNR and County Planning Department will be consulted before further activities occur within the affected area. Finally, all structures will be built to comply with the Zoning Code standards, such as parking,, setback, height, landscaping, and so forth. The request will also be co'nsistent with the Kona Community Development Play® The Kona CDP was.diliven by eight (8) guiding principles. 'hese were: I IP • Protect Kona's natural resources and culture • Provide connectivity and transportation choices • Prov - ide housing choices • Provide recreation opportunities • Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's'rural, diverse, and historical character • Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies • Promote effective -governance One of the strategies outlined in the CDP to help address infi-astructure and lifestyle objectives is the concept of TOD. As defined in pages 4-6 of the CDP, the concept of a TOD encourages the "development of compact, mixed-use villages which would integrate housing, employment, shopping, and recreation opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit stations/stops which would reduce the need for daily trips and financially support the expanded transit system." Policy LU 2.2 identifies three (3) components of the TOO/TN-D. These are the Urban Core in the center, followed by Secondary area, and Greenbelt. Within the Urban Core, the CDP notes that it is intended "predominantly for residential, public/civic use, or small-scale neighborhood commercial uses." The Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) identifies the Kona Urban Area, Rural Town TOD's, and — if within the Kona Urban Area — the applicable TOD (i.e., Traditional Neighborhood Development or Regional Center). The NI. subject site is situated within the Kona Urban Area, with a Neighborhood T designation. The project, with its mixture of residential and commercial components, plus an area for a bus transfer stop, as well as a new connector road, implements this concept. To help establish the boundaries of a TOD, the CDP suggests the use.,of the Zoning Project District Zoni Proi tn which requires a minimum of fifty (5 0) acres. However, because many parcels do not meet that suggested acreage, Section 4.2.2 (Overall Strategy) notes that to encourage the establishment of a TOD, "as long as the proposed rezoning conforms to the Kona CDP in terms of general location and concept, the legislative rezoning should be expedited. Subsequent refinements in the master plan can then, be done administratively." (Emphasis added) Tn. this case, the Clcgeneral location and concept" of the subject proposed 250 - unit market rental housing project adjacent to a mixed use commercial -residential project were clearly taken into account during the preparation of the CDP. During that process, It was recognized that this area and the proposed developments - given. their existing zoning entitlements and location - would be an ideal area for a Neighborhood TOD and hence so earmarked on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) of the P. Thus, the use of this rezoning amendment process to help establish the foundation of the Kahului-Puapua'a Neighborhood TOD is clearly allowed without having to assemble adjoining properties so as to make the minimum area requirement for a Project District zoning. This was made further clear in. the recent amendments to the CDP through the use of terms such as "encourage", "guidelines"", and the like. In the end, realization of the guiding principles and broader community goals and objectives sought by the Plan was deemed to be paramount. , The CDP also requires that any project be subject to certain review guidelines. These guidelines and the project's relationship follow. a. Consistency with General Plan LUPAG. map. The subject property is Urban Expansion which allows Low, Medium, and High Density Urban uses. As such, the proposed commercial and residential projects would be consistent with the IUP AG map. 0 b. Inf.YL While this project would represent an in -fill within the Kona Urban Area, it would be more ilk the "bull's eye" or core of the TND. c. Greenfields Rezoning. This is not applicable, as its action does not trigger the HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review process. Another major component of the CDP is the concept of infrastructure concurrency. This concept is embodied principally in Figure 4-3 — Official Concurrency Map of the CDP. In that regard, the project's construction of a new maukalinakai road connecting Kuakini highway with Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway implements this concept. Thus, even without an "official" designation via legislative action, its land use and infrastructure function as a Neighborhood TOD by the CDP is clear and immutable, In sum., the project — with the adjoining neighborhood commercial and residential project -, when allowed to be fully implemented, will begin the foundation of the "core" of the Kahului-Puapua'a Neighborhood or Village TOD. It will also address and/or implement the pertinent CPR's "guiding principles" noted above. These include providing connectivity and transportation choices (with the construction of a new spine road between Kuakini Highway and the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway); housing choices (rental); adjacent to a mixture of commercial and residential project); appropriate infrastructme and facilities (sewer, water, and drainage — such as a new culvert at the extension of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and a retention basin within the subject and an adjoining property); and opportunity for a more sustainable economy (through the creation of an employment base proximate to residences) The request will not create a significant adverse impact upon the natural resources of the area. The soil of the site is classified "E" or very poor. While it does, have some measure of agricultural potential, as evidenced by the emisting vegetation on the site, the site does not have resource that is deemed to be critical from an agricultural perspective. Furthermore, this area is generally bounded by urban and urbanizing uses. The property has no severe topographic or geologic problems that would render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and activity, There are no slignificant adve/ • rse impacts that may be generated by the existing CV zoning and 'Its requested time exte * BsIon upon public utilities and facilities, Potential impacts have be - M I en identified and assessed and appropriate itigation measures have been incorporated and will be ns retained as conditioof thi's approval. Therefore, the request would not unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets, water, drainage, police and fire protection. re County water is available to the' subject property. The site has the requi cl water commitments,fro m, the Department of Water Supply to support the proj e Likewise, the project will co ninect to a County sewer line fronting Kuaki-ni Highway. A new 60 -foot wide mauka-makai road connecting Kuakm*i f1igliway to the Queen Kaahumanu FEghway will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the project and prior to any occupancy of the property. The road will be developed complete with curb,'gutter and sidewalk, facilitating safe pedestrian movements. Further, significant on and off-site dramiage improvements, w ill be made, improvements that should improve drainage and/or flooding conditions makai of Kuakint Flighway. The main intersection at the Queen Ka"ahumanu Highway will also be improved as a channelized intersection, complete with the needed traffic signal lights and related improvements. This will be done by the developers of the project and prior to issuance of any occupancy permit. A Solid Waste Management Plan will be prepared to address construction and post -construction waste. Electricity and telephone services are available to the subject site. Likewise, public services such as police and fire are readily available within a 3 to 5 mile radius. The development of the subject site would not be contrary to Chapter Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The 205A, Hawa'i i site is located outside of the Special Management Area. Notwithstanding that situation, it is approximately one mile fi-om the shoreline and will not compromise any known coastal access. The project will not have adverse implacts to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. The Hawaii State Supreme Court's TASIT' and "Ka Pa *'akai 0 Ka 'Aina " decisions require decision-mak-ers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site and the impact of this project to these resources and practices. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Furthermore, as noted in the botanical survey, while there are some endemic plants on the site, these plants are neither endangered nor threatened. The applicant also notes that since being in this area for over 10 years, he has not observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site, As such, it would appear very unlikely that the site would serve such p-urpose today and/or in the recent past. However, if legitimate claims are made, the applicant will make the appropriate access accommodations. Further, an updated archaeological inventory survey of the subject and surrounding area consisting of a total of sixty five (65) acres was conducted by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PM). In response to the State Historic Preservation Division's (SIVD) comments, a revised report was prepared and subsequently submitted to and accepted by the State. )While there were sites within the sixty five (65) acres, seven (7) of which recommended for preservation, the subject site did not have any sites recommended for preservation. Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impacts relating to native Hawaiian cultural and historical resources and/or practices. 10 JDased on the above findings, approval of the time extension and proposeF amendments to Ordinance No. 05 115 would continue to result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public. The proposed amended conditions of approval area attached. M PUAA INVESTMENT, LLC 7-5-017:001) CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 04-025) (TiMIK, . 115 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE N.O. 06 _Jaqtd bracketed are, items to be-dtlete; bold underscored are new item piq i►!011,;Rll I In ;1illillill B. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximurn daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit if applicable, in accordance with theWater Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within [ninety], one hundred tMent, y days from the effective date of this amended ordinance'. The applicant shall finalize the allocati6n of water commitments sufficient to allow the proposed within five (5) years from the effective date this. ordinance and be substantiall Y, completed within ton (101,,n2rs. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet in gross floor area. m � F, Ip!pIIqpIIJpIqgI IIIIIIIIIq ;Fpiggp!�Iiip Ile I I I I I 1 111111 � 1:1 � r M 77or U-- "T *WarTM=,, - f Kv I —1-11ITT iffit MUMI accesses, including roadway and/or intersection improvements affecting State F The applicant, successors, or assigns shall improve the intersection at the principal access on the Hawaii Belt Road at the north end of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1 at the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road, including but not limited to, a deceleration and exclusive left -turn lane, into T.M.K. No. 7-5-17: 1. The applicant shall pay for the cost of upgrading the traffic signal lights at the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and the Pualani Estates Subdivision Road to accommodate 4 - way traffic meeting with thearoyalof the Department of Transportation - and/or County -Department of, Public Works. Said improvements, [plus the main spine road through the Pualani Estates Subdivision to Hualalaii Road,] shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non- residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. G. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall construct a right -turn deceleration IMF= 15MMM M61079M the main intersection meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation, and any other improvements that may be required by the DOT. If DOT opposes the use of the second access to the commercial development, all access shall be from the northern access point. Otherwise, the southern access shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only. Said improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. H. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be subject to the "Declaration Re Road Construction" recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on June 18, 2004 (Doc No. 2004 123556) and shall improve "Easement 1" ine road) or an alternative location apl2royed by the County Department of Public Works to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a 60 -foot wide right-of-way meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works,, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for non-residential structures or prior to any final inspections for residential structures from Kuakini Highway to Lot 1, Sub 7814 (the frontage road lot). The applicant, successors, or assigns shall also complete the road -2- property to the north (TMK: 7-5-17: 2) to permit that property to access the main project intersection. The easement shall have a minimum width of 60 -feet, and be [in] It a location meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for non-residential structures or final in3pection., of any residential structures. K. The main spine mauka/makai road within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements within a si&ity _(60) foot.right and if accepted by the I -3- A 0 11 0 County, a bike path, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall provide necessary easements for road and drainage improvements in favor of T.M. K. No. 7-5-17: 1 so that the property can be developed independently of T'.M.K- No. 7-5-17: 19. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall convey its interest in the easement and all improvements therein to the County upon their completion. Install streetlights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) clearances and/or approvals shall be secured prior to the issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the "AE" zone or the corrected effective base flood map. The applicant shall construct all necessary drainage improvements including the flood channel prior to the issuance of a certificateof occupancy for non residential structures or a certificate of occupancy or final inspection of any residential structures. The proposed flood channel shall be maintained in pdvate ownership and a maintenance program for the channel shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for their review and approval. No residential or commercial structures shall be constructed within areas designated OAA" or "shaded" Zone "X" by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as gmended by an applicable LOMR. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all lots shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. No single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. If appropriate, a copy of tree propuse-d covenant() to bV.- revordod with the Burceu of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and, approval prior to the issuance of Final, Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department upon its receipt 0 from the Bureau of Conveyances. P. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, if required, shall be secured from the State Department of Health before the commencement of construction activities. All development -generate runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties, R. The applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows. Sewer lines shall be installed within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of Environmental Management, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. I Certificate of Occupancy. 'T, TkP Treatment Plan, if required, shall be submitted for the review and approval of th [Planning Director, in consultation with the] Department of Land and Natura Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD). Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites., within the subject property shall be approved by the SHPD's Hawaii Island Burial Council before detailed mitigation plans are finalized for these sites. A copy of any-apglicable rthe] approved Final Archaeological Preservation. and Burial Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for its files prior to submitting plans for Final Plan' Approval review or prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits, whichever occurs first. U. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shelf concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area snail cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resource — tate Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR- SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. -5- 11 111! 1 !31 1 � I � I 11;qi�iiilgi;11�1 111111pill 1 1 W I I I i Z 1 11 &Nti 1 subject property, the applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional "impacts of the property with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HOPI). The fair share M contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $[6,206.06]9.366.52 per Multiple family residential unit ($[9,671.44]14.596.67, per single-family residential unit. The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit single family residential units) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $[35061.27] 4,,620.24 per multiple family residential unit ($[4,663.74], 7,038.77 per singfie family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $[96.75].146.02 per multiple family residential unit ($[224.98] 339.56 to the County to support police facilities; 3. $[297.62] 449.18 per multiple family residential unit ($[444.36] 670.66 to the County to support fire facilities - 4. $[132.65] 200.20 per multiple family residential unit ($[194.65] 293.62 to the County to support solid waste faces; and 5. $[21617.77] 3,950.87 per multiple family residential unit 81] 6,254.07 to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed, deveiopment, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highway, the road improvements at the Kuakini Highway intersection, and the mauka/makai spine road up to the entrance of the 'proposed rental housing project shall be credited against the road fair share without any further County Council action. [Relative to Me requirements Tor Me scnool as outlined in Condition U, the value of land - which shall be based on the per acre purchase cost of the -7- shall be credited against the park and recreation fair share. The construction of any structures on the subject site shall be credited agains the, balance, if any, of the park and recreation fair share of this ordinance andlor any future park and recreation fair share requirement for This condon shall not -app hoHLnA units constructed within the iv to any -1 subject propv teI I (Housing), p -y. Chapr � anO,,defined as 'affordable,' --b Hawal'i County Code and so, certified ce of Housina and Commune ity )evelopment. - g Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact. Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition ®t exaction or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified- Impact Fees Ordinance. The project shall include housing. At least 50 residential units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial structures. An additional 50 units shall be constructed if all the commercial uses exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area. The additional units shall be under actual construction, with completion assured by security approved by the Planning Director, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for commercial structures exceeding a cumulative total of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area on the project area. [ZJY. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable -Housing Policy. The affordable housing plan shall be approved by the County Office of Housing and Communily, Dem velopmtnt [Agency] Administrator prior to final subdivision approval or final plan approval, whichever -occurs first. The housing requirement shall be met by the provision of affordable housing onsite and not by use of any affordable housing credits generated offsite or by any in -lieu -fees. Affordable housing credits in excess of the basic reguirement outlined in Chap S. rticle I be credited to the qjqr, I I Hawaii, County Code, shall [AA]Z. The subiect E!,ropg shall be considered part of a futu Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development site. I f 1. A Conceptual Master Plan (Plan), incorporating the subiect P pe!:Iy and TMK: 7-6-017: 01.9,-shaill be P-repared that take into consideration a mixed use, walkable communiW wi th appropriate transit and open spacelpark areas. The Said Plan shall also include devellopMp.nt Phasing, qfthe infrastructure, as well as the proposed land uses. 2. The Plan shall be submitted to the Kona Design Center-, the reviewi-mv enti entified in the Kona Communily Development Pla n, for a maximum 30 -day review eriod to comment on the Plan's land use components and p ..hasing to assure consistency with the conditions of this ordinance. Said comments shall be Wed to the applicant forits consideration for modificati Prow needed. The Plan., as may be modified, shall be used as a basis for the submittal and subsequent review of all plans for Plan Approv 1. JBB]. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. JCC]gg. [An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within circumstances: The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension shall be for a period not to exceed the period originailly granted for performance (Le., a condition ft be performed within one year may be extended for up to one M 5.] If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the Leeward P Commission and County Council for appropriate action. DD. Should any of the conditions not he met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate, rezoning of the area to its SM Harry Kim Mavor Roy Takemoto kfanqging Director West Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy Kallua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Phone(808)323-4770 Fax (808) 327-3563 August 13, 2020 Ms. Nancy Carr Smith, Chair Leeward Planning Commission via Email County of Hawal"i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Chair Carr Smith and Leeward Planning Commissioners, Subject: Status Update Request: Amendments to Rezone Ordinance No. 05-113 & No. 05-115 Applicants: Suffolk Investments, LLC & Puaa Development, LLC TMKs: 7-5-017: 001 & :019, Puapua'a Vt and 2nd , North Kona, Hawai'i Michael Yee Director April Surprenant Actin -Deputy Director C, . I East Hawaii Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Plione (808) 961-8288 Fax (808) 961-8742 I am writing to provide you an update on the status of the Planning Department's good faith efforts to work with the applicant and prospective property owner to find conunon ground on how to move forward with a favorable recommendation on the subject change of zone amendment requests, as directed by the Commission at their June 18, 2020 hearing. The following timeline of events is meant to provide context to our negotiations with the applicant, that unfortunately have not been successful, largely due to the applicant's insistence that the applications be .heard at the upcoming August 20, 2020 LPC meeting: On June 22, 2020, Mr. Fuke emailed the Director requesting to schedule a'meeting to commence discussion on how to reach an agreement on a favorable recommendation for the subject Change of Zone Amendments. In that email, Mr. Fuke requested that we provide our preliminary thoughts on what the Planning Department needed to move toward a favorable recommendation in order to facilitate the subsequent discussion. On June 30, 2020, the Department confirmed a July 6, 2020 meeting with Messrs. Fuke, Cook and Van Bergen and provided the following suggested meeting purpose and proposed actions that the Department needed to move toward a favorable recommendation: Purpose: To develop the Kahului- Pitapita'a Neighborhood TOD to closely conforin to the Goals, Policies, Actions & Guidelines of the Kona CDP while not requiring Project District Zoning. ,A��,w.iiii)lannin(T—del,2t.com Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning@jhawai icounty. got Ms. Nancy Carr Smith, Chair Leeward Planning Commission Page 2 August 13, 2020 Actions: 1. 41-7plicant shall rezone Suffolk Property (TMK.- 7-5-017:019) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. This will allow greater density and expanded permitted uses to match the Pua'a zoning and better facilitate the comprehensive development o f a mixed use, walkable, Neighborhood TOD with transportation, commercial, housing components, civic and recreational components. 2. Applicant plicant shall develop a draft master plan in close conformance with the requirements outlined in Kona CDP Policy LU -2.4 (2) and Village Design Guidelines outlined in the KCDP. The draft master plan shall be the basis for applicant proposed conditions to ensure the development of mixed itse, walkable community appropriate developmentphasing that will ensure timely development,, ensure the development of housing & of .fordable housing tied to timing of commercial development; propose timing Qf roadway and utility infrastructure improvements'relative to residential and commercial development; propose dedication of public & recreational areas, transportation facilities, etc. 3. The draft Master Plan shall be developed prior to the PC approving amendments to the Puaa and rezoning of Suffolk and shall be vetted through the KCDP Design Center to ensure conforinance with the intent of the KCDP TOD development. Due to scheduling conflicts, the applicant requested that we postpone the July 6, 2020 meeting until the week of July 13, 2020. We accomodated that request and set a meeting for July 16, 2020. ■ On July 13, 2020 (three days prior to our scheduled meeting), Mr. Fuke sent the enclosed Email to request that the subject Change of Zone amendments be placed on the August r-) 2020 Leeward Planning Commission agenda, "...so that a recommendation by the Commission can be for to the County Council for its consideration, sooner rather than later- " ■ On July 16, 2020, the Director and Planning Department Staff met with Messrs. Fuke, Cook and Van Bergen to come to a mutual agreement forward on a favorable recommendation. 0 At the meeting, the applicant was open to changing the zoning of Pua'a property if they could do so quickly by letter request instead of having to go through another change of zone process. The Director was agreeable to this request. Ms. Nancy Carr Smith, Chair Leeward Planning Commission Page 3 August 13, 2020 0 The applicant agreed to developing a Master Plan, but only as a condition of approval. of the subject Change of Zone amendment requests and implemented administratively through Plan Approval. This was at odds with our request that a draft Master Plan meeting with the requirements of the KCDP be developed and vetted by the KCDP Design Center for consistency with the CDP prior to the LPC hearing the application. cation. Furthermore, the draft master plan would be the basis for conditions of zoning approval designed to ensure that the project was developed in compliance with the intent of a TOD development as outlined in the KCDP. Finally, the draft Master Plan and associated conditions of approval would be vetted by the public (through LPC and County Council hearings) giving the community an opportunity to weigh in on the proposal. I 0\ Prior to and throughout this meeting,,, the applicant made it clear that time was their main concern and that the Department's requests were unacceptable due to the additional time it would take to meet them. In response, we offered expedited review by the KCDP Design Center if they would provide the requested draft Master Plan. Despite the preceding, we were unable to come to an agreement and the applicant repeated their request that the items be placed on the August 2020 LPC agenda. Subsequent to the meeting on July 16, 2020, Mr. Fuke emailed a request for KCDP Design Center review with an updated site plan and a,,draft transect map that they submitted as their updated master plan. The email also requested that the Design Center complete their review by the end of July 2020. This email is included as Exhibit A in the applicant's August 3, 2020 letter to the Planning Commission. After a review of the submitted materials and consideration of the applicant's tight timeframe for requested Design Center review, the"Director sent an email to Mr. Fuke on July 21, 2020 determining that the submitted updated site plan and draft transect map did not meet the minimum requirements of a draft Master Plan outlined in the Kona CDP (i.e. roadway network plan, multimodal facilities plan, transect acreages and densities, open spaces plan, construction phasing plan and street cross sections, etc.) to warrant a Design Center review. Ms. Nancy -Carr Smith, Chair Leeward Planning Commission Page 4 August 13, 2020 Q In closing, I would like to reiterate that we are open to take the necessary time to continue CX working in good faith with the applicant to find common ground toward a favorable recommendation as requested by the LPC at the June 2020'1 -fleeting. However, the applicant has been explicitly clear that time is of the essence, and any outcome that would delay LPC review and decision on the'amendment request beyond August or September 2020 is unacceptable. I will be happy to address any questions about the contents of this letter at the August 20, 2020 hearing. I-- MY:k-vs 11coh33'\plaiitfing\pttblic\w-pwiji60\,PC'\2020 PD Reports for PC\LPuaaSuffolkStattisUpdateLPC8.13.2020.doe Enclosure: June 30, 2020 Email from Mr. Sidney Fuke .T r ENCLOSURE - July 13, 2020 Email from Sidney Fuke to Director Yee From: Sid Fuke To: Yee, Michael Cc: Darrow. Jeff; Kay, Christian; Brian Cook; "Ken Van Bergen" Subject: Puaa/Suffolk - LPC Hearing Date Date: Monday, July 13, 2020 8:46:35 AM Importance: Low Good morning Michael, As you may recall, at its meeting of June 18, the Leeward Planning Commission deferred the hearing to see whether the Applicant and your office can "work collaboratively towards finding a solution that allows the existing zoning to be continued subject to conditions." While we have not been successful in having an audience with you and your staff to date, we are looking forward to the possible one this Thursday. We are hopeful that some common understanding can be reached then or shortly thereafter. In either event, the Applicant respectfully requests that this matter be scheduled for the LPC's August agenda so that a recommendation by the Commission can be forwarded to the County Council for its consideration, sooner rather than later. Again, we look forward to our upcoming meeting and continue to hope that we can reach a mutual understanding. Thank you very much! Sid Darrow, Jeff From: Yee, Michael Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2,47 PM To: l Darrow, Jeff : Cc: Jackson, Maija; Kay, Christian Subject: FW: Proposed New Development Accessed via Puapua'annui Jeff, Please intake Thanks, Michael From: Peri Steffenhagen <pesteffe@gmail.com> Sent.- Tuesday, June 16, 20201.0:39 AM To: Yee, Michael <MichaeLYee@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: William ICE Steffenhagen <biIlsteff@gmaiI.corn> Subject: Proposed New Development Accessed via Puapua'annui 3 371 W Thank you very much, Peri & Bill Steffenhagen Pualani Estates homeowners and residents KI 1-V4 y It' 1-5 _V11 01 Darrow, Jeff I From: Yee, Michael Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:46 PM To: Darrow, Jeff Cc: Kay, Christian; Jackson, Maija Subject. FW: Traffic Kilua Kona at Pua Pua Nui intersection and Suffotk estates current traffic addition, Jeff, Please intake. Thanks,, Michael -----Original Message ----- From: bettecoAelus.net <betteco Ca)telus. net> ,t Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:37 PM Cc: Yee, Michael <Michael.Yee@ha-vvaiicounty.gov>; M Copeland <grigina@shaw.ca> Subject: Traffic Kilua Kona at Pua Pua Nui intersection. and Suffolk estates current traffic addition to Michael.yee@hawaiicounty,gov from MARY A and ELIZABETH. home owners Pulani estates 775 668 mea kanakila kilua Kona 96740 Re the current traffic studies on Pua Pua Nui as it enters the Queen Karn highway.. and Suffolk Developments We strongly disagree with, the addition of the increased traffic and the development of this as proposed, with the traffic as it already stands. Until further investigation s are done please register our voices as nay vote sand keep us appraised of considerations that are being looked at for future remedies. Yours sincerely Mar bra and Elizabeth Owner s in Pualani Estates 133717 Darrow, Jeff From: Joel Gimpel <alohafidir@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 8:30 AM To: Yee, Michael Cc: norika.sauer@hawaiicounty.gov; Darrow, Jeff Subject: Suffolk Investment, LLC Applications for Amendment to Ordinances A� Dear Director Yee:` As a resident owner in Pualani Estates in Kona, I applaud and strongly support your Department's February 2020 recommendation that the subject applications be denied by the Leeward Planning Commission. I further urge that the Commission allow further testimony regarding these applications because the applicant's late submission of documentation for the February meeting prevented review by the public and the Commission, and required that the matter be postponed. The principal concern voiced, by me and many others l have spoken with is that the already horrendous traffic jams experienced daily on Hwy 11 between Henry St. and Kamehameha III Rd. during the morning and afternoon -long "peak hours" would be unalterably worsened by the additional traffic of at least 1100 trips per day that would surely be generated by the proposed 386 multi -family residential units and 60,000 sq. ft: of commercial space. It is most distressing and inexcusable that the applicant's traffic study understates the effect on traffic and dismisses these concerns with unsupportable assumptions regarding the number of trips generated by residents of, and commercial spaces in the development, the number of vehicles at full build -out, and the unrealistically short "peak hours" that are typically much longer than one hour. Furthermore, because the applicant's traffic count was performed in mid-May last year, it failed to account for the additional traffic traditionally generated during the "snowbird" season, which end`s by mid-April. It was also too early for the additional traffic we experience during the summer vacation season. I should note that the Pualani Estates Homeowners Association had considered doing its own traffic count this Spring, but the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant stay-at-home orders would have made such a study meaningless. The applicant's study also failed to note the inevitable increase in traffic on Hualalai Rd. mauka and makai of Hwy 11, which is already at Level E much of the time. Nor does it deal adequately with other already jammed and dangerous intersections in the vicinity of the development, or with the likely slowing effect of the proposed Spine Road junctions with Kuakini Hwy and Hwy 11 on traffic. It also ignores the potential effect on traffic that will be generated by the Planning Commission's approval, earlier this year, of an application by the Living Stones Church for construction of a 600 -seat sanctuary and separate Sunday School building with primary access via Puapuaanui St. and Ho'omama St. in Pualani Estates. I note that the study also fails to account for the inevitable school bus traffic that will be needed to transport as many as 300 school-age children to the already overcrowded elementary, middle and high schools serving the area. Further, the study's reliance on construction of a new Alii Parkway and widening Hwy. 11, both of which will admittedly be needed but are unlikely to occur in our lifetimes, clearly renders the study unusable. In sum, because the traffic study is fatally insufficient, these applications must be rejected. 13227 Sincerely, Joel E. Gimpel 75-628 N. Mea Lanakila PI. Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Aloha Director Yee, PLANNINO DEPT APPS 16 2020 PM3 2- 05 E EMAIL I want to thank you on behalf of my household and several. members of our community that asked me to share thoughts on their behalf for your department's refusal to approve the applications for variance and amendment requested by Suffolk Investment, LLC at the February 2020 Leeward Planning Commission session. I, along with others in our Kona community, have been very concerned with developers pushing changes without due consideration for the plethora of potentially damaging effects. The developers may naturally be less concerned with the issues than you, as key caretakers and stewards, and we as kama'aina are. Those include infrastructure, traffic and safety, concerns, aggregated community resource issues, economic, environmental, and basic eco -system effects, in some cases cultural and historical issues as well as legal issues with stretching ordinances or extending expired permits, etc. Many factors need to be duly considered and people need to have a chance to speak and be heard, so that we can all make good and informed decisions that are not solely "profit driven" for the developer but rather are worthy for the community by providing a long term and safe, stable benefit. We must always strive to limit the hidden dangers of excess costs to infrastructure, safety, and other issues such as the unintended consequences of redirected water flows or drainage patterns, that have plagued failed developments in the past and been far too costly for communities like ours to bear. In relation to the Suffolk development, it would sit literally at the bottom of a very, very busy neighborhood, Pualani Estates along with several others and a collector road from Holualo a/Hual alai. This road, Puapuaanui St., has already been fraught with huge traffic issues. I believe that you have already received testimony via email" from Mr. Joel Gimpel, who serves as the President of Pualani Estates Homeowners Association. Although he submitted the testimony the letter as an individual, he clearly understands the issues at hand for this neighborhood, having served as an active member of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee for many years, and dealing with many safety issues that have riddled our community in the past. Some of these issues have been particularly notable on Puapuaanui St., which would experience significantly more volume in road and signaling traffic. This will be very dangerous. During normal traffic, Puapuaanui St. due to some "design issues," already poses dangers and to add more traffic to it at any point without significant remediation would create both bottlenecks and additional danger. Indeed, issues of traffic safety on Puapuaanui St. became such an issue in Pualani Estates that we formed our own Traffic Committee to seek remediation from the County due to the community's concern for physical safety. Please also be aware of the significant traffic volume caused by the active County Park that Pualani Estates dedicated to the County of Hawai'i several years ago, as it is very well loved and used by all of Kona. The stretch of road where the development anticipates intersecting with Queen Ka'ahumanu Hwy (aka Queen K, Hwy 11) has itself become a bottleneck between Queen K/Puapuaanui, and Queen K/Kuakini/Lako until you get nearly to King Kamehameha M. It would be beneficial to deny anything that limits access of the people's ability to provide public testimony in matters that will, in due course, become public, i.e., these developers and all matters brought forward in any committee or department will eventually need to be understood, presumably before ground breaking. There should be no rush to limit or dispense with public testimony because verbal input promotes better understanding and better outcomes for our island overall. Please understand that I write this on behalf of my husband, Derek Inaba, whose family has lived in this particular ahupua'a, Puapuaa-iki, for many generations, and on my behalf, whose family has lived in these islands (Big Island and others) for many generations. as well. I'm also sharing these thoughts and comments on behalf of friends and family, some long- time kama'aina and some newcomers, but all with a real heart to protect the safety and health of our whole community. Again; we thank you for recommending that the applications be denied and we encourage deferral of any decision supporting the applications until public testimony "in person" can be made with sufficient notice. Be well during this pandemic and may our State and County prosper safely with the people in mind as we emerge from this. Renee Inaba (Send via email, electronic signature R.L. Inaba) For Derek and Renee Inaba Residents of Kona/Pualani Estates PO Box 524 Kailua Kona, HI 96745 Please see Mr. Joel Gimpel's Comments as additive to mine for facts and detail, already in receipt by your office. Mori, Ashley From: Dacayanan, Melissa COH PLANNING DETT Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 12:51 PM MAY 14 2020 PH3:461 To: Planning Internet Mail Subject: i FW: Applications of Suffolk llnvestmentsLLC and❑ Puaa Development LLC before the Hawaii County ❑Leeward Planning Commission H i, i Please process for intake the below email from Mark Van Pernis. Thank you. Melissa -----Original Message ----- From: test <mvpvv@hawaii.rr.com> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 6:26 AM To: Sauer, Noriko <Noriko.Sauer@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Dacayanan, Melissa <Melissa.Dacayanan@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Applications of Suffolk llnvestmentsLLC and Puaa Development LLC before the Hawaii County Leeward Planning Commission j i I It is my understanding that two more residents of the area, one a subdivision association president and one associated with the Hawaii County Traffic Committee, wish and intended to testify concerning this project. It is also my understanding that they were not provided with notice of the prior hearing and were they were not in attendance only because of that reason. It is also my understanding that the applicant's belatedly submitted traffic study was reviewed and found deficient by these testifiers. You will recall that the traffic study was not timely in the hands of the Commissioners nor available to the public for review prior to the last hearing. 0 You will also recall that the Applicants submitted documentation as part of their applications on the day of the hearing, which the public and the Commissioners did not see beforehand. Thus testimony about that should be allowed addition to lack of notice. I also understand that you are aware of these two testifiers because they have each submitted something in writing to you. (This may facilitate notification.). If so, please provide copies to all concerned. i There may be additional testifiers too because of the above. These are certainly very, very impactful applications that require complete review and input from the public. The applicants did not request nor are they entitled to a suspension or modification of Commission rules to retroactively allow such variances. The variances cast the Applications and Commission action on them under the present circumstances in doubt. I intend to move to reopen public testimony to allow for such further testimony. It is assumed that additional testifiers would come to the County building to testify. It is the Commissioners' DUTY IN REPRESENTING LEEWARD RESIDENTS to listen to public testifiers, and insure that the public gets adequate notice of all documents. Please rethink upcoming meetings so as to accommodate additional public testimony and questioning. Social Distancing and facemarks could be utilized. Documents also may need to be distributed, i 1330©2 KLZDy-lis x,05-{13 Mori, Ashle From: Dacayanan, Melissa CGH NN Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 12:52 PM MAY 14 202-10 Pbi;s.4b To: i Planning Internet Mail Cc: Darrow, Jeff, Sauer, Noriko Subject: f FW: Suffolk Investments LL•c, Puaa Development LLC pending applications: TRAFFIC STUDY H i, f Please process for intake the below email from Mark Van Pernis. Thank you. i Melissa -----Original Message ----- From: test <mvpvv@hawaii.rr.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:17 AM To: Sauer, Noriko <Noriko.Sauer@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Dacayanan, Melissa <Melissa.Dacayanan@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Suffolk Investments LLc, Puaa Development LLC pending applications: TRAFFIC STUDY The "Pualani Makai Traffic Impact Analysis" ("traffic study") submitted by the applicants is inadequate, and indicates that the lapsed proposed project should be rejected. The traffic study was delivered late to the public and the Commissioners and thus was not thoroughly reviewed by the time of the prior hearing. Luckily, there was not a "rush to judgment" then, and now a; more thorough review has now taken place. 1. The site of the proposed project (near Lako, Papaanui, Queen Kaahumanu and Hualalai) is currently the location of the worst traffic jam in Kona, where for most of the weekday mornings and afternoons traffic from Kamehameha III Road to Henry Street is seriously backed up, and often at a standstill at the site, with the traffic light at Kuakini and Lako streets changing from red to green and vice versa without cars getting through. The road infrastructure there was the result of Mr. Schuler's massive Pualani residential development approved fifteen years ago in 2005. Many, many other residential approved subdivisions were subsequently built out in the area that use the streets, with no significant new infrastructure was added, other than improved access to Hualalai and subdivision streets: -This is not mentioned in the traffic study. A. The proposed project was approved in 2005 but subsequently abandoned/not completed by Mr. Schuler.). Page 11 of the traffic study�admits a1.7% Federal annual growth rate for Kona, Le 25.5% from 2005 until now and 8.5% every 5 years thereafter. The State of Hawaii reports an average annual growth rate of 6%, Le 90% until now and 30% for each five years thereafter. No wonder there's massive traffic jams! The applicants propose to do nothing about this massive problem, which includes traffic accidents and emergency vehicle stoppages, but waiver and the availability of further extensions until 20s5,without any public review, so they can increase their purchase price of the project to their buyer. What combination is going to deal with this serous infrastructure problem if and when a developer is really ready to develop? B.Page 1, paragraph 3 of the traffic study proposesto add 1000 cars to the problem without proposing any solutions, (386 multi family, units, e.g.three residents per unit, 1000 trips per day, 60,000 s.f. of commercial space with employees and employers, i? trips per days )' '1 13300.L C.Page 14, table 3 The "trip generation"table fails because it assumed the 386 multi family units residents won't be going to and from employment or otherwise driving, and most won't even have vehicles. It also assumes the commercial space will have only 300 or'so customers (no employees?), in which case there could be business failures. D. Page 4 and Page 5 contain charts of what's "worse than acceptable" (categories 4 and 5) and admit that County "Concurrency Requirements" rejects "worse than acceptable" roads and traffic, at the light and elsewhere. Traffic on Kuaklini and Hualalai is already "less than acceptable" and dumping of another one or two thousand cars ilnto the mix will certainly make it worse. E. Pages 18, 24 and 27 off the Traffic Study admits that a category 5 "unacceptable" problem exists on Hualalai and that the project will intersect wth Hualalal, but the applicants intend to do nothing about it, and it will persist as "unacceptable": Their traffic study entirely fails to even mention and obviously didn't consider the severe increased traffic that will be generated on Hualalai by the project, both mauka and makai, at the bad category 5 intersection, at Mamalahoa and at the intersections of the subdivision roads. F. At page 11. Para. IIIb, it is admitted that as a prerequisite to the validity of the traffic study, it is DEPENDENT ON ALIT PARKWAY BEING BUILT AND THE STATE OF HAWAII WIDENING QUEEN KAAHUMANU HIGHWAY! These are speculative events beyond the Commission's control and at best may occur in the indefinite future. THUS THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS ENTIRELY INVALID AT THIS TIME AS A CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENT .AND CANNOT BE THE TRAFFIC STUDY NECESSARY FOR A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME. The proposed development is contingent on these uncertain and speculative events, The applications should be turned down at this time since the project is not now to take place now and would be cause serious and unacceptable problems if now approved for the indefinite future.The true owners at the future time of development, after the Alii Parkway is built an Queen Kaahumanu widened, should return with then valid infrastructure reports and seek approval then with appropriate conditions. G. The traffic study was not conducted on.truly representative dates, and artificially designated "peak hours" ,by ignoring the all afternoon and all morning traffic jams., and ignoring the clogged intersections such as at Kamehameha III down to Henry Street and beyond. H. Page 32 of the traffic study admits that the application, just like the prior violated and expired application, is not for development now by the applicants or even Mr. Schuler. They are not going to develop, although their names might be used. • Instead they propose another ten or twenty years of inactivity on a buyer's behalf, along with waiver of existing conditions for the benefit of the public, including affordable housing, and the lack of transparency, changing law, and public input on the ever increasing public infrastructure needs. The Commission should not be a vehicle for developers to increase the sale price of their lands and projects the expense of the present and future good of its true constituency, leeward residents. The Planning Director's original negative recommendations as to these applications which have no present basis or valid traffic study should be entirely supported . The true developer should come forward when its really going to develop. 2 Mori, Ashley From: Kay, Christian j Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:55 PM 2 To: Mori, Ashley Subject: FW: Position against Suffolk Investment, LLC Application for amendment Hi Ashley, Will you please intake this and add it to Suffolk Investment R -EZ amendment? Mahalo, Christian Christian Kay, Planner County of Hawaii Planning Department AupUni Center, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite No3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 9061 -81361 - Fax: (808) 961-8742 Email: christian.kay(Thawaiicountx/.gov From: Sauer, Noriko <Noriko.Sauer@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 10:10 AM To: Darrow, Jeff <Jeff. Darrow@hawa iicounty.gov>; Kay, Christian <Christian. Kay@ hawa iico unty.gov>; Dacayanan, Melissa <Melissa.Dacayanan@hawaiicounty.gov>; Mori, Ashley <Ashley. Mori@ hawa iicounty.gov> Subject: Fw: Position against Suffolk Investment, LLC Application for amendment Hi everyone, Not sure if any of you or the Planning email address also received the correspondence below. Thanks., Noriko From: Joel Cooperson <cooperson@konagrown.com> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:43 AM To: Sauer, Noriko Subject: Position against Suffolk Investment, LLC Application for amendment 1 133261 Suffolk Investment, LLC Application for amendment To Ordinances Dear Director Yee, My name is Joel cooperson. I ani. a 51 year resident of Kona,'a retired 7 -8th grade teacher here after over 31 years. I lure in the subdivision, Heights at Hualalai which borders Hualalai Road and Pu.alan.i Subdivision. I would like to voice may objection to the Suffolk Investment planned to include not only commercial space but 386 multi -family residential units for the following reasons. 1. The traffic is horrendous with the limited roads. It can take over 45 minutes to drive from the Keahole Airport to Pualani Subdivision depending on when a Person is driving. Normally it is approximately a 15 minute drive. And that traffic is not limited to the -North to South drive but also, primarily in the mornings for extended times, the South to North drive. This traffic is not limited to just Highway 11 but includes to road starting on Palani Road and cutting through Holualoa down Hualalai Road or continuing to the old Tanak.a's Quarry and on to/through Honalo, Kainaliu and further south to Hawaiian Ocean vier and beyond. Our reads were never developed to handle the existing traffic let alone neer traffic due to future delevoppment. It is totally unreasonable to inflict this burden on anyone let alone the obvious traffic accidents. I can personally tell you that I see an average of 2-3 accidents a geek many where the occupants have been severely injured. Pa 2. 1 have personally visited Holualoa, Kealakehe El and Intermediate, Kahakal El and Konawaena El, Intermediate and High School. Everyone of the registrars have personally told me that their schools are at or beyond capacity. Now with and additional 386 additional units planned, conservatively speaking, the schools could expect and influx of over 500 students, which they are not prepared to handle. And for Suffolk to provide land only for a new school, that does not even begin to alleviate the school population problem. As a 7th and 8th grade teacher, my class load varied from 25 to 35 students per class. The idea of quality education with larger class is a myth. It translates to crowd control management. I cant even wrap any head around K-6 kids in overloaded classrooms. I would like to thank you for allowing me to express my opinions. I believe they are valid. I do not have the opinion that I have mine and you can't have yours. I -am of the opinion that if the population and development ofthe Island can be properly handled with appropriate infrastructures, ie. Roads, schools drainage issues, etc., we should allow development to happen. Until then I am against any scenario that would decimate our already fragile existence here. Mahalo, Joel Cooperson t 7 5-40 7 Puapuaanui St. Kailua Kona Hawaii 96740 k] Mori, Ashl"-,- From: Dacayanan, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 8:04 AM To: Mori, Ashley Subject: FW: Suffolk Investment, LLC Applications for Amendment to Ordinances Please intake if this was not sent to the Planning email. Thanks. From: Darrow, Jeff <Jeff. Darrow@ hawaiicounty.gov> Sent-. Wednesday, June ne 03, 2020 8:01 AM To: Jackson, Maija <Maija.Jackson@hawalicounty.gov>- Kay., Christian <Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov>; Dac'ayanan, Melissa <Melissa.Dacayanan@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Fw: Suffolk Investment, LLC Applications for Amendment to Ordinances FYI Sent using OWA for iPhone From: Joel Gimpel <alohafidlr@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 6:55:03 AM To: Yee, Michael Cc: norika.sauer@hawaiicounty.gov; Darrow, Jeff Subject: Suffolk Investment, LLC Applications for Amendment to Ordinances Dear Director Yee: Please accept this supplement to my testimony submitted to you on April 2, 2020, regarding the Suffolk Investment applications, and consider it at the Leeward Planning Commission's scheduled June 18 meeting. As noted in the penultimate paragraph of that testimony, the applicant's traffic study admits that construction of a new Alii Parkway and widening Hwy. 11. need to be completed. Indeed, the traffic study acknowledges, as it must, that because the time frames for implementation of the DPW and DOD projects haven't been established, they aren't included in the traffic analysis. Nevertheless, the study concludes, at page 32, that "By the year 2039, the regional highway capacity will need to be increased via the widening of (Hwy 11) and/or the construction of the proposed Alii Parkway." Neither improvement is, however, in the current time frames of the County Department of Public Works (DPW) or the State Department of Transportation's (DOT), Accordingly, the study is unusable and the application should be withdrawn or rejected until such time as the aforesaid and admittedly needed improvements are completed. Otherwise, the already poor levels of service at many of the key intersections noted in the study will be at best unacceptable at full buildout. Joel E. Gimpel 133533 75-6028 N. Mea Lanakila Pi. U� -U�& ~�* Q w � �-� D�� < �-ax � C-A0�-O0/ My name is Edward J. Rapoza. | am testifying in favor ufPualani K4akad time extension. �ir��� I was one ofthe 15members of the steering. committee that worked on and ultimately pass ��O'n������� Community Development Plan. This property was already zoned diuringomr planning and is named as one of the transit- deve|oprnents�es�lDD\.Here are several reasons you should vote |nfavor ofthis extemsk»m: ' 1} Already zoned and considered \nthe Kona CDP Planning. � 2) Adds housing for both affordable and,market,soless people driving South through this area, 3) CDP identifies this area aswithin the "urbanexpansion area^. ' 4) Consistent with the general plan for growth. S) Developer will build connector road between Kuakini and intersection at Puapuaanui. ` As a member of the steering committee we listened and had input from thousands of Kona community members which resulted in the'Kona Community Development Plan. This property has already been decided by the community, as to where the community wanted the development and in fact named as a priority for eTOD. Under section 4.2,2 Overall Strategy Section 1 —To encourage growth towards the TODs. Section 6 —Streamline permit processing. These are directly from the CDP. Edward J. Rapoza Darrow, Jeff Joel [ooperson<cooperson@konaoromonzomn» Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:27 AM Darrow, Jeff Fwd: Suffolk Investment, LLC Application for Amendment toOrdinance --------- From: Joel Coo'person Qe1e Sun, Jun 14, 2020et10:25AM Subject: Suffolk Investment, LLC Application for Amendment to Ordinance To- Mike Yee Cc: <norika.sauer@hawaiicounty.gov> Dear Director Yee Please accept this supplement to my testimony submitted previously re'garding Suffolk Investment Application and consider it at the Leeward Planning Commission's scheduled June 18, 2020 meeting. The applicant's traffic study admits construction nfanew /Uy/Parkway and widening ofHighway Il.Neither ofthese projects are funded or scheduled for a start in the near or even long term. How can the applicant's application even be considered with these facts. Director Yee, I know that you are aware of the horrific traffic'congestion in the area. Even from the Keahole Airport to the proposed development, at certain rush hour times of the day, it is an hour or more when it should be no more than a 15-20 minute ride. Adding to this situation is detrimental not only for the residents that need to use Highway 11 for work but to visitors that will inevitably go home and condemn Kona'straffic reducing our ability toattract needed visitors tuaid our economy. Inaddition, being a 50 year resident of Kona, teaching middle school for 31 of those years, I have personally experienced severe overcrowding of classes. One such experience I had was teaching classes of 35 8th graders in 1/2 a classroom. That's 210 8th graders a day in a room that was cut in half to increase the load that the school could teach, Needless to say, itwas am/ghrnareand, asanew teacher tothat school, it took rneabout 11/2months togain control sothat |could teach. ' Recently Iparsona||ywent toMo{ua|oa,Kahahal,Kea|aheE|and<nterrnediate, and KonavvaenaMiddle and High Schools. I asked the registrars about their enrollment and EVERY registrar told me they were exceeding their capacity. Adding this project with no new school built word be horrific to an educational system already on overload, Director Yee, I appreciate this opportunity to express my opinions and.research- I would strongly request that the Leeward Planning Commission and you reject this application until the appropriate infrastructures are in place that would allow this permit this project to begin. Now is definitely not the time. ]me|Cooperson 75-4U7PuapuoanuiStreet KaUua Kona, Hawaii 96740 Mori, Ashley From: Ryan Burns <ryanburnsIsc@gmaiI.com>Pr " -Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:54 PM b To: Planning Internet Mail 0 Subject: Puaa Development extension Aloha, We're in favor of the extension for Puaa Development to develop the neighborhood shopping center. Another store would make shopping very convenient for the residents of Pualani Estates. -Ryq.n Bums Ryikn Burns Living Stones Church www.l.ivingstoneschtirch.com 0 M -TM Mori, Ashley From: Sauer,, Noriko I Sent: Tuesday, August. 04, 2020 3:30 PM ;4 To: Mori, Ashley 4 2020 PH,6 - Subject: Fir: Applications of Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Develbpment LLC, REZs 04-24 and 04-25 From Sent: Monday,, August 3, 2020 9:28 AM To: Sauer, Norike Cc: Yee, Michael; Kay, Christian Subject: Re: Applications, of Suffolk Development I -Lt and Puaa De'velopment LLC, REZs 04-24 and 04-25 On Jul 31, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Memorandum to Commissioners of Leeward Planning Commission Re: Applications of Suffolk Development LLC and Puaa Development LLC, REZs 04-24 and 04-25 From: Commissioner Mark Van Pernis Date: July 31st, 2020 V ---- EIGHT REASONS WHY THE APPLICATIONS OF SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC AND PUAA INVESTMENT LLC SHOULD BE REJECTED. 1.THE DIRECTOR'S AND STAFF'S NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. Many good reasons have been stated for the negative Recommendation, including the intentional violations by the applicants of the subject ordinances and Hawaii State law. Also included is the applicants' 2004 and 200S ordinances becoming obsolete becauseof their abandonment for 15 years while other approved parts of the Pualani development were successfully and profitably completed, contributing to the severe traffic problem in the e area. The Leeward Planning Commission must support and give weight to the Recommendation, as it does with other recommendations., and support the Director and Department, particularly when the applicants, as here, are at fault. The Planning Commission's job is to represent the people of West Hawaii and address their current problems, not to "find a way"' to allow developers 15 years later, and seeking another 10 or 15 years, to increase their profits in a sale now to others, without accountability andresponsibilityto and to the detriment of the community. 3. NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR FAIR SHARE. The Applicants, on behalf of Spring, seek to delete the 15 year old affordable housing and fair share requirements, despite that the need that has grown during the past 15 years and the greater need that will develop in the next 10 to 15 years without public review that is sought.. Affordable housing is supposed to be built and integrated into a development with the market and upscale housing of a development. The developer here rejects that concept, proposing to CONSTRUCT NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, leaving that to the cash poor County. (To 'my knowledge, Mr. Schuler has NOT CONSTRUCTED any affordable housing in any of his many developments, but has used in a prior different development in the area �Ihe questionable tactic of "double density condo - N 'double hb of unitsth County providedfo in its subdivision approval Substituting land for affordable housing requirements is unacceptable as defeating the construction of.integrated housing and al,so defeats the County. This practice must stop! "Donation" of land that could be anyw : here on the island at the deveoper's discretion, is neither integration nor construction. The land would have the developer's over -inflated value, land fluctuates in value, and the County is no i � a purchaser of land. The land would not have suitable zoning for housing, nor have proximity to amenities, as it would if integrated. The affordable housing requirement is to CONSTRI UCT integrated housing, not in the indefinite future have the County maybe construct a ppor person s ghetto. The applicants, on behalf of Mr. Schuler and Spring, say they "'cannot com', mit"' to the state 15 year old affordable requirements and want to delete the same. ot only wouid this greatly increase the profits off the private sale price at and save the develo6 er a great deal of money all at the expense of the County, `tWould break apromise made 15years "g"'"^ ^~~.~'^~~~~'~~'~`—'------- ''— the necessary conditions existing then. / 4. CONTRIBUTING TO THE SCHOOL PROBLEM BUT NOT CONTRIBUTING TO ANY SOLUTIONS. Massive numbers of students (an:d related tralffic) coming from the proposed development will be dumped into the local school system by the proposed future development, where there is no present capacity. The applicants, on behalf of future developers, propose to delete any contribution so they can have 5 more acres of land to privately develop, despite the burden that places on the school system and the ap'licants, breaking a 15 year old promise they made in exchange for valuable zoning and permits.� The State, recognizing the overcrowding NOW resulting from 15 years plus of past develop mlent, including that of Mr. Scuuler at Pualani, has announced its expansion of D Kealakehe Schdol by, hopefully, 2025.The applicants and their future development have offered nothing in ithat regard. Considering the students the project will generate, what is their fair share contribution? Whomever the developer may then be, application should be made at the actual proposed future construction date, so conditions then can be considered. S. BROKEN PROMISES AND "ROBBING" THE�COUNTY AT THE EXPENSE OF KONA. 15 years ago, Mr Schuler promised and agreed with the County and its people for millions of dollars in benefits in exchange for many more millionsicif dollars worth of zoning upgrades and permits from the County, being codified in Ordinances 05-113 and 05-115, being their conditions B thrOLIgh Z and BB. At the same time Mr. Schuler was given such benefits and permits for his PUalani development and subdivision. The latter was immediately built out and was hugely successful, although it contributed mightily to the persentbelow referred tosevere traffic problem. The former was abandoned for 15 years. Now the Applicants. want to eliminate or severely decrease the conditions ofthe aba cloned ordinances, iepermanently break their millions of dollars in promises intentionally not kept for 15 years, while the developer keeps all of the millions in benefits received 15 years ago and extend them another 10 or 15 years wth no compensation, benefit, or give -back to the County or the people, just so a private sale to Spring can behad now atamuch higher price. In representing the County and its people, who would agree tosuch aone-sided deal (?!) where only the County loses permanently and badly, and despite ever increasing growth problems over the past 15 years and future IO to 15 years, caused |mpart bythe developer? This practice ofdevelopers promising big public benefits to the County in exchange for millions in zoning upgrades and then routinely seeking deferral of and then withdrawing and breaking those insincere promises, with no give back just so the developer can increase profits at the expense of the County and its people, must 3 stop! Promises made must be TIMELY kept and enforced, or the developer should return to Planning at the actual time of development, with the prior conditions (promises) expiring, and apply again to address the contemporary conditions. This is particularly true when the applicant has only itself to barne for the delay, and isn't even the real developer. It is not a question of down zoning when the promisers are broken. The zoning can be generally accommodated or preserved, if the prior conditions are redone to accommodate the contemporary issues. 6.THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS IN -ADEQUATE, MISLEADING, AND SUPPORTS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. All local' resident testifiers describe the PRESENT area traffic as "horrendous,", gridlocked, dangerous and incapable of halving the propsed development's another 1000 vehicles added wth no infrastructure improvements. Itis already a"LOS Dand E r.#.# (intolerable and unacceptable). This area is presently the worst traffic jam in Kona (non- pandemic) all morning and all afternoon, from the Henry Street - Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection past Malulani (traffic lighted),. Nani Kailua (lighted), Hualalai Road (both mauka and makai intersections with Queen K), Puapuaanui (lighted), Lako Street (lighted), Sunset Drive, Seaview Circle (lighted), Laaloa (lighted), Akina, and Kamehameha III intersections with Queen K., as well as Kuakini from Kailua Kona and at its intersection with Queen K, and Hualalai Road as it comes down from Mamalahoa to Puapuaanui and beyond, including its intersection with Queen KO. (Note that the local resident testifiers indicate that Hualalai Road from Mamalahoa down past Puapuaanui to Queen 0 K -would be negatively impacted by the proposed development.). The traffic study ignores mostly all of these impacted intersections, and limits itself to Puapuaanui, a nearly irrelevant private gated street, Nakakui Drive, servicing a nearby relatively new subdivision. the Hualalai makai intersection with Queen K, ignoring the mauka intersection of Hualalai, and the Kuakini - Queen K intersection miles away. ( See pages 6 and -7 of the study.) The study ignored the eight plus intersections impacted, where the ""horrendous"' traffic jam is,, instead isolating Puapuaanui. The Study's use of the Palani Road -Queen 09000 0 BODO HOUK intersections is particularly DECEPTIVE. Traffic coming down Palani Road going Queen K south towards and across the subject area (and going batk up Palani from Queen K south) turns onto HENRY STREET on two left turn lanes at the Palani-Henry lighted intersection to go to Queen K south. severely congesting Henry. The Ane Keohokalole Highway (a major arterial highway from the north) also stops at this intersection, putting all off its southbound and makai traffic onto Henry Street. Thus virtually NO QUEEN K TRAFFIC GOES DOWN PALANI PAST HENRY TO THE PALANI - QUEEN K INTERSECTION, making the study deceptive and irrelevant without a study of the three Henry Street intersections. That Palani -Queen K intersection, which the study uses. contributes none of the heavy Palani traffic to Queen' K south to and past the site where the Some motorists even try to use Malulani as a "bypass" of some of the Henry Street traffic and one of its lights to try to get to Queen K south to and past the subject sight. The many lighted presently overly congested Henry Street is the source of the traffic from Palani and One Keohokalole and wh jam begins. Henry Street users even try to use Malulani as a ""bypass" to Queen K south to get around part of congested Henry Street and one of its lights. I myself have 0 often been caught in this Henry Street and Queen K jam, waiting through light changes to get in Queen K south then into the gridlocked jam on Queen K south past the many lighted intersections, including particularly Papaanui and Lako, waiting through several light changes. up to Kam 111, taking an hour to get to Kealakekua. Queen K north contributes some traffic Queen K south at Palani, but this only increases the Janm going south past Puapuaanui. The study, which is not regional, states mostly speculations and assumptions 1(s, ignoring the other jammed expectations"): for only a couple of these. intersection intersections, and trips generated by school traffic, employees, new residents, and others. The study uses a low all -of -Hawaii federal 1.7% growth rate for the 10 to 15 years of before the real developer moves, instead of the States proven growth rate of 6% annual average. This skews the study, and results realistically in hundreds and hundreds of more vehicles than the study predicts in the area before the developers moved in 10 plus years. (See page 11 of the study.). Even so, the highly questionable study admits that when the project is '"fully built out", the traffic in the area will be R "worse than acceptable". (Page 32 of the study.) This is in addition to the study admitting that the makai Hualalai - Queen K intersection, 0 (but not referring to the mauka intersection), also being an unacceptable LOS E. (Page 18 of the study.). To try to save this uncertain future project and its uncertain developer, the study Speculatively depends upon the government "widening of Queen 0 Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway (Route 11) and/or the construction of the proposed Alii Parkway." (Page 32 of the study.) This speculative double assumption CANNOT BE RELIED UPON ASTO"'F" OR "WHEN)) I Thus the study admits that a decline to LO OS E will occur if the Project is approved now. for 10 to 15 years from now without public review and without the unlikely occurrence of those uncertain assumptions This supports a negative recommendation now, and an invitation for the real developer to apply if and when these assumptions come true. 71ACK OF TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEMANDS NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. Of course, all contemporary information is that the present situation is terribly problematic, (non- pandemic),'and the present application would make the situation much worse. Thus the project must be rejected now and deferred until after additional infrastructure solves this serious present problem. The current severe traffic jams are the result of North and South Kona's and Ka"u's average 6% annual growth during the last 15 years since the 2005 ordinances, from Pualani 0 Makai and the many, many approved and built -out subdivisions in the 15 years. since the ordinances, from Hualalai to Queen K and makai, serviced by Lako and Puapuaanui Streets, combined wth a couple of two lane bottIlenecks from Puapuaanui's and Lako's intersections with Queen K south through the Lako, Seaview Circle, Sunset Drive, and Laaloa intersections and on towards Kam III Road, (this two lane bottleneck also doesn't have shoulders), and the bottleneck north from Lako and Puapaanui to Henry Street and beyond. These old two laners, with traffic lights, includes the area for widening and new highway construction that the study dreams about to address the current problem and accommodate the 1000 additional vehicles it proposes to add to the problem in the 5 future. The present severe traffic jam continues north past both Hua|8|Girnaukaand nmakai intersections and the Henry Street intersection. Note that the traffic study IGNORED THE TWO LANE BOTTLENECKS AND THE HENRY STREET, MALULANI, KUAKINI, LAKO, SEAVEW CIRCLE, SUNSET DRIVE, AND LAALOAA AND HUALALAI MAUKA INTERSECTONS AND THEIR STREET LIGHTS, as well as Kuakini going makai to Kaflua Kona,town, and the massive traffic the project would dump onto Queen K and those intersections, and the huge detriment the understated numbers of vehicles from the project would bring. (Pages 33 thru 37 of the study.). Note that instead, the study discusses only few relatively new four and three lanes intersections, a nonexistent street (spine road), and a private, gated short street. The ignored and neglected, intersections - and particularly the very problematic Henry Street and Lako Street intersections - are for the most part closer to the Puapuaanui intersection with Queen K and take more Puapuaanui&raffic1hantheHua|alairnakaiintersectionthestudydoesrefertu, Sotoo the existing -jams are ignored. The present severe infrastructure problem must bemore adequately addressed, aswell asthe future 10to 15:year growth Spring wants without public review or contemporary conditions. &THE APPLICATIONS ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND INCOMPLETE AND SHOULD. BE DEN0E.Hawaii is and should bein the forefront of land use planning. These applications are contrary to good land use planning inevery respect.They seek waiver nfconditions found necessary l5years ago, with nonew conditions toaddress obvious present and future severe problems; they propose no 'give back"' to the County for waiver of the condition they promised in exchange for the millions of dollars in benefits they received, including 5 more acres to develop (the school lot); they seek approval now for massive commercial and residential development lOto2S years from now without pubic review contemporary to that future development; they propose to ignore present serious lack ofinfrastructure problems and to ignore their growth inthe �, future before actual development; not being the actual developer, they ask the Commission to promote and enhance the private profit afor Sprinp'sbenefit now without future public review oFafuture development; atthe inception ofthe project 15yean�agoandmovvthey"skirted" County and State law for their own benefit. All ofthis isatthe expense and tothe huge detriment ofthe people and area the Commission serves, aswell asgood land use planning. All local residents are vigorously opposed t8the project rightnow\cornrnent|mgonthepresent "horrendous" traffic problems, (much less 10 out 15 years in the future) and the need for more infrastructure. The residential/commercial development may make sense, asltdid 15 years ago, although it was abandoned ands ignored for that 15 years while its ordinances expired. Now, orI0tol5years from now, |snot the time for this project, Vvithoutsignificani infrastructure improvements needed inthe area bythe public, which the3tatp/[ounty currently recognizes, and the applications and traffic study appears to concede. THE COMMISSION HAS N[}OBLIGATION T[}INSURE {]RENHANCE ANAPPLICANT'S ORA DEVELOPER'S PROFITS NOW OR|N THE FUTURE. Areturn for approval with appropriate conditions when development istoactually take place, preserving ordesignating appropriate zoning, is proper and necessary. But . hese applications for extension and waiver of conditions ofdefunct ordinances should bedenied now, asrecommended bythe Director, for the people of Kona,' 1.1 �.k- Mori, Ashle From: Christopher Delaunay <cdelaunay@prp-hawaii,com> 1� " Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1054 AM A To: Planning Internet Mail Subject- PRP Testimony -August 20, 2020 Leeward Planning Commission Mtg Attachments: PRP Testimony re Suffolk PUaa Projects -20 August 2020.pdf Aloha, Attached please find PRP's testimony regarding, Items 4. and 5—Suffolk Investment, LLC and Puaa Development, LLC—on tomorrow's agenda. Thank you, Al L PRP I Testimony of Pacific Resource Partnership County o[Hawaii Leeward Planning Commission Nanc�Carr Smith, Chair Perry-Kea|oh4 Vice Chair Agenda Items 4and 5--SuffoJkInvestment LLC and Puaa Development LLC Thursday, August 20, 2020 Aloha Chair Smith, Vice Chair Kealoha and Members of the Leeward Planning Commission: Given the lack of i-nitiative by applicants Suffolk Investment, LLC and Pu @'a -Development, LLC to commence construction on two projects and satisfy infrastructure obligation requirements in a timely manner,PacUlcResourcePahneaNp(PRP)writesinoppositiuntotheappUcamts'propAsedamnendrncnts to conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-113 and Ordinance No. OS -115. The two applicants have exceeded the time performance requirements ofthe existing rezoning ordinances, which required completion of both their projects by August 5, 2010. According to the P|anninQOepar1ment,app{icamts"didnotapp|yforanodditiona|five/5\yearsthroughanadnninistrative time extension, but if they had been granted such an extension construction of the proposed project should have been complete by Aug'Ust 8, 2015."'1 The original approvals of existing rezoning ordinances were granted onAugust S,2OO5.Although more than fifteen years have passed,thereisnoind/cation that these projects are ready to commence construction in the foreseeable future. Additionally, the applicants have not satisfied other important conditions of approval in existing rezoning ordinances, indudin8developing archaeological mitigation plans, finalizing highway access approvals, completing a sewer study and solid waste management plan, flooding/drainage improvements, water system improvements, and executing an affordable housing agreement. After fifteen years of inaction, we are concerned that the applicants' requests for tirne extensions and other amendments are being pursued for reasons other than developing the project sites as planned, as among them the resale of properties.K4oreimportant(y'theComrnissionisnotinbusinesstomakestrugO|inginvestnemts profitable for applicants, ortoprovide them amexit from their investments. As such, PRP respectfully recommends that the Commission provide an unfavorable recommendation for the applicants' proposed amendments to conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-113 and Ordinance No. O5-II5beforwarded tothe County Council. /County ofBonai`iPlanning Department R6cornmendation for both Suffolk Investment, lICand 9uaa Development, LLC dated 2-12-20 and 2-14-20 respectively. PHONE '+ona528,ma7 `mo^mxLEA,TRsEET/wnFLOOR | 711 En ,owmmu/mmm1 l apppPAC! nmncSOumcsPAwVIewsn/p , LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 20, 2020 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000024) and PUAA DEVELOPMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000025) was called to order at 10:30 a.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; with Chairperson Nancy Carr Smith presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Nancy Carr Smith, Perry Kealoha, Max Newberg, Keith F. Unger, Mark Van Pernis and Michael Vitousek ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Faith "Faye" Yates ALSO PRESENT: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000024) Application to amend Condition B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Amend Condition D (Delete Rental Housing Restriction), Amend Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR), Amend Condition F (Roadway Improvements), Amend Condition H (Location of Spine Road within Project Site), Amend Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Amend Condition U (Requirement of a 5 -acre School Site & Improvements), Amend Condition V (Fair Share), Amend Condition X (Affordable Housing Requirement & Change Housing Program Approving Authority), and Amend Condition Z (Administrative Time Extension) of Ordinance No. 05-113. Ordinance No. 05-113 reclassified the 14.872 -acre property from Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a) to Multiple -Family Residential -2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) in 2005. The subject property is located west (makai) of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and east (mauka) of Kuakini Highway and the Kahakai Estates Subdivision, approximately 2,200 feet north of the Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway—Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki 1St, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:019. APPLICANT: PUAA DEVELOPMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000025) Application to amend Condition B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental Traffic Study), Condition F (Roadway Improvements), Condition H (Location of Spine Road), Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Condition V (Requirement for a 5 -Acre School Site and Improvements), Condition W (Fair Share Contribution), Condition Y (Affordable Housing Timing), Condition Z (Housing), and Condition BB (Administrative Time Extension) of Ordinance No. 05-115. Ordinance No. 05-115 reclassified the 14.973 -acre property from Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a) to Neighborhood EXHIBIT D I Commercial -20,000 square feet (CN -20) in 2005. The subject property is located west (makai) of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the Pualani Estates Subdivision, and about 1,400 feet north of the Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway—Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki 1St and Puapuaanui 1St, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:001. CARR SMITH: Okay, we are going to hear the next two items together, and we'll deal with them separately. Agenda Item No. 4, Applicant is Suffolk Investment, LLC. This is AMEND REZ 2004-000024: Application to amend Condition B, which is the Time to Pay Water Deposit; Condition C is Time to Complete Construction; amend Condition D, Delete Rental Housing Restriction; amend Condition E to delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR; amend Condition F, Roadway Improvements; amend Condition H, Location of Spine Road within Project Site; amend Condition I, Kuakini Highway Improvements; amend Condition U, Requirement of a 5 -acre School Site and Improvements; amend Condition V, Fair Share; amend Condition X, Affordable Housing Requirement and Change Housing Program Approving Authority; and, amend Condition Z, Administrative Time Extension, of Ordinance No. 05-113. Ordinance No. 05-113 reclassified the 14.872 -acre property from Agricultural -5 acres to Multiple -Family Residential - 2,500 square feet. That occurred in 2005. The subject property is located west of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and east of Kuakini Highway and the Kahakai Estates Subdivision, approximately 2,200 feet north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway—Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki 1St, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:019. And the next agenda item is Applicant Puaa Development LLC, AMEND REZ 2004-000025. This is to, application to amend Condition B, Time to Pay Water Deposit; Condition C, Time to Complete Construction; Condition E, Delete Requirement for Supplemental Traffic Study; Condition F, Roadway Improvements; Condition H, Location of Spine Road; Condition I, Kuakini Highway Improvements; Condition V, Requirement for a 5 -Acre School Site and Improvements; Condition W, Fair Share Contribution; Condition Y, Affordable Housing Timing; Condition Z. Housing, and, Condition BB, Administrative Time Extension, of Ordinance No. 05-115. Ordinance No. 05-115 reclassified the 14.973 -acre property from Agricultural -- 5 acres to Neighborhood Commercial -20,000 square feet in 2005. The subject property is located west of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the Pualani Estates Subdivision, and about 1,400 feet north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway—Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki 1, or 1" rather, and Puapuaanui 1St, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:001. It's a mouthful. KAY: Great job. CARR SMITH: Christian, go ahead, please. KAY: All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can turn your attention to the screen. It's a little bit unusual that we are holding these presentations for two agenda items as one, but as they are adjacent properties and were essentially approved as part of the same project, we are going to run them that way. 2 EXHIBIT D So pardon me—the subject properties are situated in the North Kona District of Hawaii Island. For reference, we've got Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway running generally north -south through the slide, and Kuakini Highway running below the subject properties here, makai of the subject properties, north -south as well. For further reference, we've got Pualani Estates Subdivision here, mauka of the subject properties, as well as Kahakai Estates Subdivision makai. The existing entitlements in proposed projects for each are as follows: Suffolk Investment, LLC that was approved under Ordinance No. 05-113 approved on August 5, 2005, to change the zoning from Agricultural -5 acres to Multiple-Family'Residential-2.5 for 14.872 acres. The applicant originally proposed a 250 -unit market rental housing development, a 300 -stall parking lot and a one -plus acre park. The applicant is currently proposing to reduce the number of rental units to 226 and intends to develop open space and a passive recreation area on the property. For the parcel mauka of the Suffolk parcel, Ordinance No. 05-115 was approved on August 5, 2005, to change the zoning from Agricultural -5 acres to Neighborhood Commercial for 14.973 acres. The applicant initially proposed to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center, including a 93,600 -square foot complex that would house varied commercial uses, such as financial institutions and office spaces. Also proposed was a 500 -plus parking stall parking lot, with appropriate accessibility requirements. The applicant has currently downsized the project by reducing the size of the commercial space from 93,600 square feet to 72,600 square feet. Also included in the current proposal is the inclusion of a transit hub in the form of a public bus transfer station, as well as the addition of 100 multiple -family residential units. So here are the applicant's requests. I'll just leave them up on the screen here. The Chair already kind of mentioned what they were. I need to apologize; we had two planners working on different applications, so the language of the conditions as they were in your reports are somewhat different. In reality, most of the conditions that are being requested to change are the same, with the exception of, in the case of Suffolk Investment, LLC, is Condition D deleting the rental housing restriction, which essentially said rental housing would be provided for 20 years, and then for Puaa Investment's, it was Condition Y, which deleted the condition relating to a housing requirement tied to commercial construction, essentially saying that a certain portion of housing would need to be completed prior to receiving occupancy for any of the commercial portion. With the exception of those, the other conditions that are being requested to amend are essentially the same. The applicants' reasons for the requests are, according to the applicant, one of the reasons for not completing the projects within a timely manner is that due to the global economic meltdown that occurred over a decade ago, securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented was too difficult to obtain, and thus they decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses of the properties and exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current economic outlook is amenable, however time is still needed for the applicant to, applicants to address the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the required financing. According to the applicants, they have worked on compliance for several conditions, including the conveyance of a five -acre school site for a future school as 3 EXHIBIT D required by the ordinances, but ultimately did not get approved, as they were tied to infrastructure requirements that never took place. Lastly, although there has been no physical construction that's occurred on the properties, the applicant states that they've expended a considerable amount of soft funds, and these include nearly a million dollar spent for more detailed land use planning in the preparation of infrastructure construction plans for the projects. The zoning for the subject properties are as follows: For the Puaa Development parcel, it's a Neighborhood Commercial; and for the Suffolk parcel, it's Multi -Family Residential. Again, for reference, we've got Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway running north -south through the slide and Kuakini running north -south through the slide makai of the subject properties. Other zoning in the area is consistent with Residential zoning, some additional Multiple -Family Residential here to the north, the Kahakai Estates Subdivision is Single -Family Residential, and then mauka we've got the Pualani Estates Subdivision, also Single -Family Residential, with some Commercial as well in the area. The other adjacent properties makai are agriculturally zoned as well. The State Land Use Boundary designations for the subject parcels are Urban. In conjunction with the Change of Zones ordinances that were granted in 2005, the applicants secured State Land Use Boundary amendments for each of the subject parcels, as each of the parcels was under 15 acres. So the other State Land Use designations in the area are Urban to be consistent with the residential zoning, and then, that's in red, and then Agricultural in green surrounding the area. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designation for the majority of the subject properties is Urban Expansion in the thatched design. There is a portion of the Puaa Development parcel that is within Low Density Urban. Medium Density Urban is here to the north, consistent with the Multiple -Family Residential zoning designation. The Kona Community Development Plan designates this area within the Kona Urban Area, which is indicated by this red line surrounding the properties, as well as the Kahului-Puapua` a Tillage Neighborhood Transit -Oriented Development circle is encompassing the area for both of the subject properties. Here is an aerial photograph of the subject properties. Again, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway running generally north -south through the slide, Kuakini Highway here, and you can see the other residential subdivisions that I mentioned previously. The property is primarily vacant at this point. There have been some improvements, including a paved roadway that comes from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and runs the length of the properties down to Kuakini Highway that's consistent with a sewer easement as required by a subdivision, I believe. Here is the applicant's site plan. Again, this was shown, submitted to us as the Pualani Makai Master Planned Community and encompasses both properties, with the Puaa Development property here to the north—you can see the proposed area of the commercial activity, as well as some multiple -family residential designation, pardon me, developments—and then further makai, you see the 226 -unit multiple -family residential development being proposed for the Suffolk property. It's showing a proposal for two accesses from the highway, one here to the 4 EXHIBIT D west and then one here to the east, and this is going to be a spind road that connects Kuakini to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Also showing here are some archaeological sites that were identified in an archaeological inventory survey approved for the subject development. Here are some site photos. Such a large land area, difficult to get anything really of worth to take a photo of, these are just photos from Kuakini Highway looking toward Kailua-Kona, and here on the top right is a view of the intersection at the Kahakai Estates Subdivision. Bottom left is a view of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway looking toward Kailua-Kona. This is at Puapua`anui Street with the subject property on the right, and here is a view looking the other direction with the subject property on the left hand side. The Planning Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council for both ordinances for the following reasons: 1) The proposed requests do not conform with the goals, objectives, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan; 2) The proposed request does not conform to the goals, policies, and courses of action for the Land Use—Commercial Development & Land Use—Multiple-Family elements of the General Plan; 3) Previous segmentation of this area in securing planning entitlements was inconsistent with State Law; and, finally, the proposed request will not result in a more appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. I'll go into a little bit more detail for each of these reasons. The first is non-conformance with the Kona Community Development Plan. The Kona Community Development Plan was adopted in 2008, about three years after the zoning for the subject properties was approved. As you know, when we look at amendments to ordinances or permits, we have to look at the existing plans of the time, so whereas prior, when they got their zoning, the CDP wasn't in place, it was now, so we looked at that in analyzing the request. The subject properties are situated within the middle of the Kahului-Puapua`a Village TOD, which,;_ according to the Plan, are general locations for these areas but are then secured by Project District. Within the Kona Urban Area, compact, walkable, mixed-use village development is preferred in the TOD. This is something the Plan calls for that indicates that, that indicates an actual development preference for those transit -oriented developments that have a more dense walkable commercial core surrounded by a secondary more residential area and then a greenbelt area surrounding that. The CDP also identified a mechanism to achieve this preferred development pattern in the TOD, as it allows, as the Project District allows flexibility in uses and densities for, and all developed under a master plan. So, basically, under the existing single district zoning, Multiple -Family and Neighborhood Commercial, because of use requirements and density requirements and the like under those existing zonings, the preferred development ,pattern cannot be achieved through the existing single -district zoning. The applicant has suggested conditions of approval that could further the TOD concept, but the Director is not inclined to create a new development process through separate zoning ordinances in the area but prefers to use the existing community -vetted master planning process recommended in the CDP. The applicant has represented that a minimum 50 -acre land area that's required. for Project District cannot be met because each of these properties are under 15 acres. However, we believe they can be met by consolidating the surrounding properties that are under joined ownership or management, which is about 61 acres in the area. This is Planning Department Exhibit No. 4 just showing the ownership of the parcels in the area; this is a subdivision map that was, the 5 EXHIBIT D subdivision was granted in 2004 that created five lots, four of which were just under 14[sicl acres and then about a two -acre road lot here by Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Each of these properties, with the exception of the Suffolk property, is owned by Puaa Development. The Suffolk Investment property, according to DCCA records, their only managing member is Puaa Development, so there is a connection there. So we believe there will be a possibility of going through the Project District with sufficient land area. The proposed request does not conform to the goals, policies, and courses of action of the Land Use—Commercial Development & Land Use—Multiple-Family elements of the General Plan. The proposed time extension and amendments do not comply with the General Plan policies around controls force curbing speculation. The first one is for the Land Use—Commercial Development section that states, "Controls to prevent speculative practices on commercially zoned lands may be established." And under the Land Use—Multiple-Family section, it states, "To assure the use of multiple residential zoned areas and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots only, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning, which shall be based on performance requirements." So for both ordinances, construction was supposed to have been completed within five years by 2010, if, and 2015, if an administrative time extension has been requested. As we were doing our research on this, we were unable to find evidence of administrative time extension for completion of construction. The applicant informed, the applicants' representative informed me this morning that there were in fact those admin time extensions granted, and, up to August of 2015, and if he has that information, he can share with you. Even so, the applicants waited over four years to attempt to revive their stale ordinances and is currently doing so now to either sell the property or secure a development partner. The applicant is requesting a time extension to commence construction within ten years and complete within 20, so the actual request is for commencing construction within five and to complete within ten; however, they are also asking for the addition of the administrative time extension condition to be allowed, which would essentially give them, if granted, ten years to start, 20 years to finish. The applicants have not demonstrated to the Director's satisfaction that they have a plan to complete construction in their requested time frames, nor have they demonstrated any recent efforts to comply with numerous conditions of approval. We met with the applicants' representative early on in the process and let them know that we were leaning toward an unfavorable recommendation and asked them to provide us with a detailed construction schedule outlining how they could meet the requirements of the ordinances or what they are proposing within the time frames designated. What they provided us unfortunately was just the name of a possible development partner from the mainland. So based on that information, we don't believe they have demonstrated that they can get this done. Secondly, within the last 15 years, the applicant has had an opportunity to comply with other conditions of approval, other studies, archaeological, sewer studies and other types of, water improvements and the like, and has not done so. Previous segmentation of this area in securing planning entitlements is inconsistent with State Law. As we mentioned before, Subdivision 7814 was approved in 2004 to create a five -lot subdivision, in which four or the lots resulted in an area just under 15 acres in size. In 2005, after the applicants bought the properties, both Puaa Development and Suffolk Investment applied for and received approval for State Land Use Boundary amendments from Agricultural to Urban designation for their respective properties. At the time of processing these applications, 0 EXHIBIT D the applicants represented that they were separate entities and under 15 acres; therefore, they were processed at the County Council and not the State Land Use Commission. The Land Use Commission commented that they had strong objections to the manner in which the boundary amendments were being processed. Under HRS 205-3.1, Amendments to District Boundaries, they believed that both the Village Center, Puaa, and rental housing project were part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community, which is consistent with the site plan that they provided to us today, or for these applications, and that permitting was deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. Although the original 2005 boundary amendments were approved in an incrementalized manner, in order to implement the TOD concept and Project District zoning recommended by the Kona Community Development Plan, the applicant will be required to seek a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Land Use Commission from Agricultural to Urban district for the surrounding properties under joint ownership. And then, finally, the proposed request will not result in a more appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. Based on everything that we've mentioned prior, the Director feels that approving the requested amendments and retaining the existing zoning would no longer result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. As an alternative, the Director recommends the applicants pursue a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for the remaining adjacent properties and submit a Change of Zone to a Project District for the approximately 60 -acre area to establish the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood Transit -Oriented Development as recommended by the Kona CDP. So, based on all of that, the Director is recommending that we, the Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council for amendments to the rezone ordinance No. 05-113 and the rezone ordinance 05-115. Since the information was sent to you, today we received two pieces of information, three pieces of information from the applicants' representative. We handed those out to you earlier. In the absence of a favorable recommendation from the Department, the applicants themselves offered a favorable recommendation for the Commission to consider sending up, should you decide you want to go with a favorable recommendation. Also, there was a set of plans and other information that the applicant is desiring to walk you through as part of their presentation. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Thank you. CARR SMITH: I have a question. Whose documents are these? KAY: This was handed to us, again, by the applicants' representative— CARR SMITH: These are the applicants' documents. KAY: —Sidney Fuke. Correct, yeah. CARR SMITH: Okay. I couldn't tell. 7 EXHIBIT D KAY: Sorry. CARR SMITH: All right. Mr. Van Pernis, do you have a question? VAN PERNIS: Yes, sorry, I have several questions, because I'm concerned the County has been deceived in the diction to what it's already analyzed. This was approved in 2004 originally, right? KAY: The application came in 2004, the ordinances were approved in August 2005. VAN PERNIS: All right, so it has been approximately 15 years that they have not met the requirements they are now seeking to waive. Is that right? KAY: That's correct. So, with the grated administrative time extension for the time conditions around construction and payment of water commitments, they would have had, and other time conditions, they would have had until 2010, pardon me, 2015, to come in and complete construction and satisfy those time requirements. They didn't come in to apply for the amendments until late last year. VAN PERNIS: And the County has no record of the time extension requests. KAY: We were unable to find time extension requests to complete construction for the Suffolk rezone ordinance. There was a time extension request for the school site condition; however, again, according to the applicant, they have those time extension letters here that they can provide to you. VAN PERNIS: Now they are seeking up to another 20 years? KAY: That's correct. So they are asking for a five-year time extension to commence construction and then a ten-year from the date of the amended ordinance to complete construction; however, they are also asking for the standard administrative time extension condition that would allow them up to an additional five years to start and an additional ten years to complete. VAN PERNIS: So they are asking for a total of possible 55 years from the original application to, without any review or additional conditions imposed. KAY: In their applications, they recommended several amendments to conditions of approval, as well as indicated that they would comply with others that they weren't asking for amendments to. So if the Director had recommended a favorable recommendation, we would have included conditions of approval; we would have done our analysis of their requests and either agreed with them or made our own recommendations for conditions of approval based on agency comments, public testimony and the like. Because we have sent up an unfavorable recommendation, we did not include any conditions of approval. ,� EXHIBIT D VAN PERNIS: When they originally obtained their approval, they got valuable zoning for this and the master planned area, and they are now, in exchange for the promises, they are now asking to waive, right? KAY: There are a few conditions of approval that they are asking to waive that were based on representations made back then around affordable housing, timing of housing relative to commercial development and the like, and have provided their justification for that in their application. VAN PERNIS: And, have they offered to give anything back from the valuable rezoning they obtained in 2004 and 2005? KAY: Not that we've seen. Most of the conditions have been either asking for cleaning up conditions that have already been complied with or asking for relief from conditions of approval that were required them to do something, in addition to what's already on the books in terms of County requirements. VAN PERNIS: So they get the valuable upzoning, but there is no, their promises are not kept, and they are looking to eliminate many of them. KAY: I will let the applicant address that. CARR SMITH: Any other questions? VAN PERNIS: Yes, I have several more. Is Mr. Schuler behind all of this development in the area, these LLCs and Pualani Makai, generally speaking? CARR SMITH: Let's let the applicant— VAN PERNIS: Well, I'm asking if the County investigated and tied these applications in with those of Pualani Makai. KAY: So, Mr. Schuler is the only managing member that DCCA provided for Puaa Development, and as we stated before, Puaa Development is the only managing member for Suffolk Investment, so there does seem to be a connection. VAN PERNIS: And in regards to the five -acre school lot, has the Planning Department investigated whether or not Holualoa School, which is in the district, has any space for additional students? KAY: It's our understanding that a tentative subdivision approval was granted for a five -acre school site, but again, according to our background report, because the development of the school was tied to infrastructure improvements that have not taken place yet, that site was abandoned essentially, and the school went further makai of the project site. VAN PERNIS: Where is another school? 9 EXHIBIT D KAY: Across the street, is it about, adjacent to Pualani Estates Subdivision, yeah. And that was the— CARR SMITH: Yes, we had that case. KAY: Okay, yeah. CARR SMITH: Okay, can we move along? VAN PERNIS: And -- CARR SMITH: Or do you have any other topics? VAN PERNIS: Also, are they still proposing 500 parking stalls to go with their reduced commercial area? KAY: That's what the application said, and, again, I can let the applicant kind of address that. VAN PERNIS: Isn't this area the worst traffic congestion on this side of the island? KAY: I don't know how to address that. There was a traffic impact analysis report that was submitted as part of the application that addressed traffic performance in the area, as well as proposed mitigation based on traffic performance. VAN PERNIS: Did you check that traffic report? KAY: It was accepted as part of the application. We have not received any final comments from Department of Transportation or the Department of Public Works. VAN PERNIS: But you've received some letters, correct? KAY: Yes, we've got a comment letter from the Department of Public Works relative to the TIAR. VAN PERNIS: And some letters from residents of the area? KAY: I, we have not seen any letters that I'm aware of around traffic issues, or around anything actually; we haven't received any written comments. VAN PERNIS: I thought you just handed some. KAY: Okay, I'm sorry, to this point—no, I'm sorry, the stuff that came out to you today was for a different agenda item. The public comment today was for a different agenda item. VAN PERNIS: And, is there any support for this project from anyone other than the applicant? 10 EXHIBIT D KAY: I don't know the answer to that. We didn't receive any letters in support as well. The Planning Department, the Director is making a recommendation for unfavorable for the reasons stated prior. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. KAY: Thank you. CARR SMITH: Questions from other Commissioners? [None.] Okay, very good, thank you. Applicant, come forward, please. Good morning. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Leeward Planning Commission? REPRESENTATIVES: I do. CARR SMITH: Thank you. One at a time, can you please state your name and your area of residence and your role here, please? FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant. My address is in Hilo, Hawaii. I've been retained by the applicants to assist with the processing of these applications. COOK: Good morning, I'm Brian Cook. I've lived here in Kona for the last 32 years. VAN BERGEN: Good morning. Ken Van Bergen, Kailua=Kona, I'm here representing Spring Capital Group who is looking to acquire an interest in this, in these projects to complete development. I also have been here for 55 years, I might add. CARR SMITH: Go ahead. FUKE: Sure, thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the interest of time, as the staff had indicated, you know, we are just kind of consolidating both applications in the sense that there's a lot of similar infrastructure obligations, the land use relationship, there is a symbiotic relationship. I'd like to kind of like do the presentation more from a chronological perspective to kind of help put the projects in better light, I guess. Essentially, you know, who are the developers? Essentially, we had Puaa Development. It's a Hawaii -based LLC, and then the authorization is Mr. Brian Cook. Mr. Cook has done like a number of projects, smaller projects here on this island, most notably, the Malulani Gardens, you know, it's a subdivision, as well as a housing project as well. Suffolk Investment, it's a Denver-based LLC. The principal on that is James Schuler. Schuler, as some of you may know, is well-known in the housing industry, Schuler Homes. And in 2002 he kind of collaborated and basically merged with D.R. Horton, one of the larger home builders here in the State of Hawai `i. Schuler was, you know, D.R. Horton and Schuler, was responsible for a lot of the homes that were constructed at the Pualani Subdivision, which is situated generally mauka of the subject properties. II EXHIBIT D So back in late 2004 and 2005, Puaa and Suffolk had nothing to do with the creation of the subdivision. It was already there. It was created by a company called Westpro. And then they acquired, Puaa acquired the properties. So Puaa came in with this idea, largely Brian's idea, to create like a shopping complex in that particular area. Suffolk, because of Schuler's interest in housing, also wanted to do a housing project. So basically, they collaborated. They had like this architect designer, local architect, his name is Michael Riehm, to kind of like do a, you know, do a master plan for those two projects. So Puaa's plan way back when, as the staff had indicated, called for, you know, a shopping complex, a 95,000 -square foot shopping complex. He also had proposed a 100 -plus -or -minus -unit affordable housing, not affordable, housing project on this site. As far as the access, if I can now direct you to Figure 1, so Figure 1 basically shows what the original project was for Puaa. You can see the 19,000 -square foot subdivision, excuse me, the village commercial area. There was a gas station, and at the Puapua` anui intersection that was going to be signalized. And there was going to be like a frontage road eventually leading up to the south end. At the south end it would be like a right -in -right -out kind of movements. These two intersections at the State highway have already been approved in terms of access location by the State Department of Transportation. The roadway configuration, as you can see in the Figure 1, you know, it's exactly as how the land was ultimately subdivided, and that right-of-way is a 60 -foot wide right-of-way that would eventually connect Kuakini Highway to the Queen Ka` ahumanu Highway extension. Suffolk's plan, as you can see in that Figure 2, was essentially to try to create a 250 -unit affordable rental housing, and this was going to be exclusively a rental housing project in that they were going to have a small little one -plus -or -minus -acre private passive park area. Of interest, however, what I wanted to point out also, it's found on Figures 1 and 2, you can see those areas that's outside of the subject property; these are like the archaeological preserved areas that are not within the subject area but there was an approved archaeological inventory survey done, and when Mr. Riehm did the overall master plan, he used that as a development constrain to identify where these features are, you know, kind of like a no -build zone. But this is just more like for your information. Now, back in 2005 the Planning Director did recommend that both of these projects be favorably considered. And what they did recommend at that time was that these properties already had like 50 affordable, housing credit assigned to the site, so the Director's recommendation was saying, look, you know, housing is important, you are not going to use any of the, any of your existing credit to address the affordable credit requirements, you know, for this project, and also no in -lieu fee, and whatever obligation you have for housing, it has to be built on site. So the applicants, both applicants said, yes, we will comply with -that requirement. So the County Council finally approved both zone change in August of 2005. When the Council considered their request, they said like, oh, maybe you guys want to have like a five -acre, you know, you want to set aside an area for school since you guys own the property on the makai side. And so Mr. Cook at that time said, fine, we will dedicate a five -acre site for a school site. But what the Council's condition required was that, okay, before it gets officially dedicated to 12 EXHIBIT D any school, you have to go out into the community and you check with the DOE, you check with the community and you ask them, do you want to have a school over here, and if they come back and say like yes we want, then fine, you know, let's go ahead and implement that concept. So we checked with the DOE, and the Department of Education said Kahakai Elementary School is right down the street, we don't need to have like another school. And in the meantime, Innovations Charter School approached Brian and said that how about like giving the land to us. So we went to the Council and the Council, this is in 2006, we went back to the County Council, and the County Council at that point in time said, fine, Innovations is a suitable tenant, you know, for this area. So when the Council had approved the zone change condition calling for a five -acre school site on the makai side of this project, they had also required that the developer also provide the required infrastructure servicing the site—the water, sewer line and roadway system. And it also required, in addition to that, that you construct up to 600,000 dollars of improvement on that site. So at that time, this is now, bearing in mind, you know, you are in 2005-2006, so the economy was good, so they said, fine, you know, we'll do that. There was a land conveyance agreement between the developers and the Innovations School, and that was considered back in 2006 by the County Council. Well, the conveyance never occurred, as the staff had indicated, you know, because you had to get the land subdivided and in conjunction with the land getting subdivided, you have to put in all of this infrastructure, you know, the 60 -foot wide right-of-way, the roadway, the utility, so on and so forth, so it was never conveyed. So in the meantime, Innovations said, fine, you know, they moved up the street. Then, I think you are back again to the year, I guess September 10, 2008. That's when the Kona Community Development Plan was adopted. And when the Kona Community Development Plan was adopted—and I just kind of make reference to Figure 3, and it was shown on the staff's presentation map—if you look at like where the site is, this is really like the bull's eye, unmistakable that this is a TOD site. And they even had that small little transit hub identified, and the roadway alignment that takes you from Kuakini Highway to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway extension, that's exactly as how the land is, you know, was subdivided. So, the premise of the CDP, they took the existing zoning to heart, and then they created this TOD area, this transit hub area. We also have to understand that, you know, after Puaa and Suffolk had acquired the property, you know, in 2006-2007, guess what happened in 2008; we had the biggest depression, the recessions, since the Great Depression. Nothing could have happened. You know, like so it affected the demand, it affected the financeability of the project. But, in spite of all of that, what did these guys do? They continued with a lot of the small what you call like the soft planning cost; they did—and I pointed out to, like, your Figure 4—they worked with the State, they got the culvert plans approved, they developed these drainage plans, they did the interior roadway, if you look at Figure 5. If—somebody was asking about where the location of the school was going to be—if you look at the second page of Page 5, you can see where this new road was coming down where the project was all in, and that was going to be the location of the school site. And look at Figure 6, the flood control, you know, they did all of these plans. They paid like in excess of 1.3 million dollars in real property taxes. Then I take you, now we are up to like 2010-2011. So in 2011, understandably, you know, nothing happened. So they asked for a time extension, an administrative time extension, and the planning director at that -time reviewed the General Plan—and if you look at the conditions under which any time extension, whether it's an administrative or County Council -approved time 13 EXHIBIT D extension, you have to assure that they are in conformance to the General Plan. So when the time extension was granted in September of 2011, the director at that time said that okay, I'll grant you the time extension, you know, based on the fact that it's consistent with the General Plan. Now like, sure, from 2015, 20167 2017 they are all getting older. It doesn't make sense to apply, for any time extension, if you don't have someone that's really ready, willing and able to do the development. So in 2018-2019, on comes Spring Capital. They said that, they raised their hand, they said like we are willing to do it, but you need to get a time extension for us, because without the entitlements, we can't do it. Ken here is representing the potential developer, Spring Capital Group, and if you want, you can ask him questions about like who exactly is Spring Capital Group. So I turn you now to Figure 8, which is the current master plan. So after they were approached, Brian, Suffolk and Puaa were approached by Spring Capital as a potential developer, they went back to the drawing board, had Michael Riehin kind of like take a look at it, and said how can we massage what was previously approved and expired, to do a project that generally comports to what the CDP is saying, a TOD type of concept. So they said one of the first things you had to do is you had to reduce your commercial area because it's too big; you've got to create more like a walkable area. So that's why the commercial area was reduced from 21, well, was reduced by over 20,000 square feet. And they said besides you have to put residential uses close to commercial area. So if you look at this revised master plan, you'll see the residential activities immediately makai of where the commercial area is going to go. You also see this kind of road connection or pedestrian connection between the north end and the south end of the Puaa project. And if you can find that small little bus transit area, that's also reflected on the plan. So to the extent, you know, that they could, the developer tried to massage the project, revised the project, so that it can better address the TOD concept of the CDP. And with this, now they are ready to apply for a time extension, because we can go before this Planning Commission, we can go before the County Council, and say, yes, we don't have a bogus developer, we have somebody real that's ready and willing to step up. So, Figures 9 and 10, basically gives you an illustration of like what is so-called this pedestrian oriented type of project. The Director is recommending, as the staff had indicated, that, you know, there's a number of reasons why the project should be denied. One is that it's a speculative entitlement. You know, he recommends denial because the request would support speculative entitlement for the purpose of resale. So from the owner's standpoint, we say, okay, aside from the General Plan policies, which generally talk about speculative practices may be established, there is no specific County ordinance or regulation that prohibits the sale of real estate or any business for financial gain. I mean like just, if that's the case, look at the one that you guys just recently recommended for approval, BNP; they clearly said that they were going to sell the property, if they can get the downzoning. What's the difference? If, if Puaa and Suffolk were going to speculate, then I would have to ask myself, like, why didn't they sell the property in 2006 and 2007 before the, you know, the recession came out in 2008? But, no, they continued to pay the real property taxes over 1.3 million dollars, they spent nearly a million dollars in construction cost, I mean the soft cost in preparing all of these plans, and finally, they found a partner. They are happy now. So to me, it clearly shows that they were not interested in flipping the property. If they were 14 EXHIBIT D interested in flipping the property, they would have done that way back when, not 15 years later. So I think the operative question is like why the delay, why all this delay. I mentioned some things already about, you know, they had a global recession in 2008, you know, people who are involved directly or indirectly in the real estate or any development field would understand that if you are the banker and you are trying to seek, you want to do a project and the bank thinks that, oh, you know what, this is the field of dream, the bank is not going to lend you the money, you know, because the field of dream is that don't worry, people will come; it doesn't work that way. Then, even right now, you know, even though he has Spring Group coming in, we know what happened to the economy when you had things like the SARS back in the mid -2000, and now we've got the coronavirus, and big firms are beginning to feel like the effects of that, you know, from a global sense. Nobody can predict what's going to happen globally. But you need to have some people. at least willing to take a chance. Spring Group right now is willing to take that chance. The Director is saying that like you've got to recommend denial because the request is not consistent with the General Plan. So I would say like, well, you know, if you look at the General Plan and you look at the Charter, and I hate to use a religious metaphor, but the General Plan is the so-called the bible. The Charter doesn't talk anything about the CDPs. The CDPs are mentioned in the General Plan itself, the Charter only mentions the General Plan. So the hierarchy of planning documents, you really have to look at the General Plan. And the General Plan, Sections 15.11 states that the CDPs are designed to translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas. Essentially, the General Plan is controlling. If there is any conflicts between the General Plan and the CDP, they say that the General Plan prevails. So, then, you know, in addition to that, I would say like given that, then if the General Plan, if the time, extension was considered in 2011, and if the planning director at that time had looked at the same document, which is—the General Plan was approved in 2005® -the same document we have today, the planning director in 2011 said that, you know, granting the time extension is fine because you are still consistent with the General Plan. So I ask: Why today, we have the same General Plan document, and you are saying it's not consistent. So I guess like if you look at it, the only regulatory change that has occurred since 2010 to where we are right now, are the amendments to the Kona CDP, which happened in 2019. And the amendments to the CDP made, tried to make the CDP more of a plan than a regulatory document. And in so doing, you know, they tried to make it a little more flexible and less rigid, and so they used the terms like "guidelines" or "encourage." So from the applicant's standpoint, we would say like there's no substantive basis to conclude that the requests are inconsistent with the General Plan. Now, if you look at the CDP itself—the Director recommends that you deny because he wants the project to go through a Project District rezoning application, because the Project District fixes the location of the TOD, allows flexibility in land use, density, design, so on and so forth. But it requires a minimum area of 50 acres, and it requires at least two -plus years, plus considerable funds, to secure State Land Use Commission approval, County Council approval, master plan approval by the Kona Design Center and Planning Director, over two years. Now, if you look at the TOD process and this site, the Transit -Oriented site, the CDP clearly, in my 15 EXHIBIT D mind, allows other processing options aside from just going through the Project District. If you look at the, you know, the figure that shows about where the TODs are established, they show all of these property lines; these property lines, it's rare, you are going to find like one property that has more than 50 acres in size. So to be able to effectuate a TOD, or, you know, through a Project District, you have to get, you have to assemble all of these properties, get all of these different property owners together, and it becomes an impossible feat. So only two developers that I know of, and there may be others, I know of two developers that are going through this TOD process, and it's been a long and laborious process. One is Palamanui and the other one is Makalapua, and which is, and they are owned by, Makalapua is Lili`uokalani Trust, and Pdlamanui, we know Palamanui. But land establish becomes an issue. And so what does the CDP say? It says like, you know, many parcels do not meet 50 acres, so Section 4.2.2 states that the establishment of a TOD should be encouraged, as long as the proposed rezoning conforms to the CDP in terms of general location and concept, the legislative rezoning should be expedited. So I ask you: Look at the map, isn't this like the TOD area? Even if you look at the Director's recommendation on Page 6 of his recommendation, he says, "the CDP has already identified the property and surrounding areas as a Neighborhood TOD, so this does not need to be done through conditions of [approval ofJ individual rezone ordinances." So everybody is saying, the map is saying, the Director is saying, this is a TOD area. So why then do we necessarily need to go through, you know, project like this, necessarily need to go through a Project District. You can have it incrementally implemented. And if you go, if you look at other TODs, you are going to have no other option but to have TODs established only incrementally just purely based on the parcels. So, in summary, from a locational infrastructure and land use perspective, it's clear that the area is de facto a Neighborhood TOD. Secondly, the CDP does not mandate a TOD to be created only through the Project District route and in one application. But you can have multiple applications, and -you can have like individual rezoning. The other thing that the Director, the reason the Director recommended denial was that it can't, it's a segmentation review because we bypassed the State Land Use Commission, and the applicants have interest in other parcels to make up the 50 -acre, you know, TOD requirement. But as I mentioned earlier, first of all, these guys had no responsibility in creating these 14 -acre lots subdivision; they bought the property as is. It was done by Westpro. They just bought the property. Secondly, it's that like for them now engaging other properties and putting it all into one package now, you know, it's not economically feasible. It means that when you have like a 50 -plus acre property and you are going to do a Project District, the only person that can do it, the only type of business that can do it, would have to be a large developer; you cannot have smaller developers like Puaa or Suffolk to be able to do it. Even this project itself, they needed to get a strong backing like Spring Capitals, you know, to kind of come in. So if you increase the size of the project, you have a greater potential for these guys, you know, out of necessity now, having to spin off portions of the property. And, you know, the State Land Use Commission, for those of you who had directly or indirectly had the experience of going before the State Land Use Commission, have understanding that how time consuming and costly it can get. But more than, more that the time consuming and costly, you know the cost aspect, I think I would have to prevail upon like this body over here to look at yourselves and you ask yourself like who is a better decision maker for land use matters like this? Should it be the State or should it be the County? If you have the State, you are lucky if you are going to have two representatives of, you know, from this island. It's a nine -member commission. So I would IV EXHIBIT D venture to say that the seven -member commission, the nine Council members that we have, are in a better position to understand what the land use and community's needs are. If you take it up to the Land Use Commission hypothetically, you go to the Land Use Commission, you have this beautiful TOD plan, and for some strange reason, the Land Use Commission denies it, what do you do? You can't even move. And they are like, bottom line is that I think that I would rather have this body, the County Council, make important land use community -related decisions at this level. So bottom—you know, this is my conclusion, and I'll shut up—I think here you have now, here you have the applicants, you know, Mr. Cook is like 80 -plus years, and, you know, they don't have too long to be able to do like another 15 -year time extension or whatever. And you have like Spring Capital, you know, very strong partner, to come in and to be able to kind of finish up, you know, to do a project that will do, that will provide much commercial services to an area, provide much needed affordable housing, not only in teens of for -sale but rental, rental housing, and they'll be providing much needed road connectivity ---everybody talks about the traffic and all that, you need to have connectivity---wa new road coming in, traffic lights at the Puapua`a intersection, and they want to do this all in an area that the CDP clearly calls for and everybody acknowledges as a TOD area. There are actually two paths to achieve these: One is the path that the Department is recommending, that you deny this, force the developer to go to the State Land Use Commission, spend all that amount of money, and not knowing what your outcome is going to go; and the other option is take the path that we are recommending right now, it's a path that you can make a decision right here, it's less costly, less time consuming, and you are reserving the decision, you know, at this level here. Now, I, because the staff did not provide a proposed recommendation, I did pass out proposed recommendation for both the Puaa and the Suffolk one generally along, but, you know, along the line of what I just represented, stated. However, what I did do was I used the recommendation that the planning director back in 2005 did to justify the initial rezoning and made a few tweaks to that, particularly, the tweaks relating to the Community Development Plan. So—I'm lost for words—I guess at this point in time, you know, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission, if there are questions that you want to direct of me or Mr. Cook or Mr. Van Bergen, please do feel free to do so. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. Ken, could you tell us a bit about Spring Capital, please? VAN BERGEN: Sure. So prior to coming to work for the County—am I on? Prior to coming to work for the County in 2009, I was the development manager at Maryl Group, and Spring was one of our partners. So I've known this Group for over 15 years. They've been actively developing in Hawaii for about 20. Currently, they are developing the storage units on Kamanu Street above Costco. That's one of their local projects. They were, like a lot of people, hurt pretty bad in 2008, you know, pretty leveraged up some of the resort developments, but they chose to stay in Hawaii and keep investing, and are currently doing so and looking for other projects. And so when this opportunity came to them, they were excited about it because it's kind of right up what they do. I believe you guys were given kind of a syllabus of our projects 17 EXHIBIT D from Spring Capital. We are not—oh, I'm sorry, well, can I pass these out or do you want us to do these? Basically, it's just a list of developments; it's kind of examples of what they've done throughout the country, most in the West Coast, California, Oregon, but also North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and other areas. They are a very seasoned developer. They are well funded. When they, you know, folks on a project, it gets done. So unlike a lot of folks that come to Hawaii looking to do something and fall short, because they don't understand the local construction or, you know, how things work. And this is real, it's a real project, you know, we are committed to working with the current owners to develop this project. But it's hinged on this zoning getting approved, because without the zoning, there is really nothing to develop. It'll go back to Ag land and sit there for however long. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I think they are, projects kind of speak to themselves. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Questions, Commissioners? VAN PERNIS: I have a question— CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS : —of this person and also Mr. Fuke and also Mr. Cook. Should I wait until Mr. Cook testifies? CARR SMITH: Mr. Cook, were you planning on testifying? COOK: Yes, I can. CARR SMITH: All right, go ahead, please. COOK: Basically, when the property was acquired back in 2004, we started working with Michael Riehm to lay out a preliminary master plan to develop the project. And one of the things that we found out is that the 100 -year floodplain ran right through the property. And we saw that the development of Pualani Estates on the mauka side of the highway, they had, with their development, they had to construct a gunite concrete channel right at the entry to Pualani Estates where the traffic light is. As you enter, on the left side, on the north side, there's a gunite channel there, and then the gunite channel goes down almost to the intersection entering a multi - throat box culvert that goes across the entry road over to where the little park is there. And then the State, when they built the highway, they put an eight -foot diameter concrete pipe under the highway to get the water at the low point, and then it would go over into our property on the makai side of the highway. The water has never even got to enter that, with all the rains through all the years; the water has never got in to the gunite channel. And the reason is the water did not run as the old FEMA map showed it would run. And so what we had to do when we acquired the property back in 2004 and went in to get the property zoned, we had our civil engineers, we had to go and work with FEMA and the State, and we had to do what is called a CLOMR where as you go in and you had, we had to take and do new contours all the way up. So on the north side of Hualalai Road all the way up almost to Hienaloli Street, we had two -foot contours EXHIBIT D coming all the way_ down showing the actual flow of the floodplain. And as it came down and" crossed over Hualdlai Road, it came in to two properties that we owned right on the highway, two 14 -acre parcels. And basically, we had to come up with a new design to how to get to all the water and get it into the gunite channel, and then as it got to the highway, we had to design a culvert crossing. And when the engineers got all the analysis completed, we had to design a culvert crossing for the highway and multi -plate aluminum culvert that's 20 -foot wide, 14.5 feet high and 135 feet long, just to get that flow of water under the highway. If the 100 -year storm would happen, they said, they indicated that the water would breach over the highway some 400 feet, and probably wipe out the highway. So we had to design that culvert. We then as the property, or as the floodwaters, enter the Pualani Makai project, we designed a concrete U -shape channel, 40 -foot wide, and it would, for every 50 to 70 feet, it would drop about four feet, which build a velocity breaker to slow down the flooding waters. And just above Kuakini Highway where the, we designed a large 2.5 -acre retention basin, 25-, 30 -foot deep to collect the water and had barriers on the drop, and that is to take the water down, percolate down, so, anyway, we designed that, and that takes a couple years to do. It took us almost three years to 2008 to get things done engineering -wise, and we designed all the roadways, all the utilities, for the whole project as it was shown on the original plan. Those costs we spent over 2.5 million dollars on everything to date since we acquired the property. And, by 2008 when we were ready to move forward, we had all of our designs finished, we had the State Highway to sign the plans to build the culvert across the highway, which we were going to pay for, and then unfortunately, the market just crashed on us in 2008, and so we were unable to go forward, and the only thing we've been able to accomplish since then is just patiently waiting. The Community Development Plan came in, and then it, it was so much different; when we had designed it all that, we had spent all that money and had our thing designed, and now then we would have to change everything, and it just didn't make sense to go forward at that time. And, and then thankfully, we were able to get Spring Capital to show an interest to come in. So, you know, when you are developing land as a developer, it's just like, I mean, about every 20 years I go broke as a developer, because any time you develop something, it, you see the land that can take you five to seven years to get it from what you bought to something for the consumer, and the market can be up or can be down. So it's a high-risk business, and, just like farming is, what do we do, if you do make a profit? We put it into the next project. And that's what we've been doing.' And, anyway, you know, we tried to do something, we looked what the needs were in the community. This is right in central West Hawaii. A neighborhood shopping center, you've got Kahakai down below, you've got Pualani Estates up above, we had to build a 60 -foot wide spine road to connect the two, and we felt like it's an ideal place for a neighborhood shopping center, affordable rental housing project, charter elementary school, and, you know, we were just trying to do something to help our community. And we can't control all the factors that are involved. When the Community Development Plan came out --I signed an agreement with Sidney in 2014 to start working on a zoning exchange—and again, and, basically with the Community Development Plan, it, I don't think there have been many developments since that was adopted in 2008. And so we need housing, we need affordable housing, we need rental housing, we need affordable homes, and where better but in central West Hawaii. It would help mitigate not just the drainage problem but the traffic problem, too, because all those people living there, you've 19 EXHIBIT D got Kahakai below and you've got Pualani Estates and even the homes up in Holualoa, can come into that shopping center. Anyway, we are just trying to be part of the community, and I guess that's all I can say for now. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. Questions, Mr. Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: [Inaudible.] CARR SMITH: Can you use the microphone, please? VAN PERNIS: Mr. Cook, you've referred to "we" throughout your presentation here. Is that Mr. Schuler when you say "we?" COOK: Yes. VAN PERNIS: Mr. Shuler developed this planned community of Pualani Estates, including this property, right? COOK: [Inaydible.] HALL: Use your microphone. COOK: Schuler Homes— VAN PERNIS: Well, the entity— COOK: —was a, Schuler Homes was a division of D.R. Horton. D.R. Horton bought— VAN PERNIS: When I— COOK: —Schuler Homes --- VAN PERNIS: —referred Schuler— COOK: —in 2002. CARR SMITH: Can, Mr. Van Pemis, please let him answer. Go ahead. COOK: D.R. Horton bought Schuler Homes in February of 2002. Schuler Homes merged into D.R. Horton, made them the largest homebuilder in the nation. Jim Schuler individually and myself were looking at in developing the Pualani Makai property. Jim and I have known each other since 1977. We signed our first joint venture agreement in December of 1977 on Oahu. And Jim is, has been very successful, and when we do projects, he puts up the money and I do the work, and that's been our relationship for 43 years. CARR SMITH: Thank you. 20 EXHIBIT D VAIN PERNIS: Mr. Schuler is behind all of these LLCs. And would you have a role? Puaa, Suffolk— COOK: Yeah, yes. VAN PERNIS: So you are just a front man for Mr. Schuler. COOK: No, sir. I'm a developer, I'm a land developer. Mr. Schuler was a homebuilder. VAN PERNIS: Have you— COOK: And so I go through— VAN PERNIS: —declare bankruptcy? COOK: —Igo through the design process in getting a project as far as what we think would be appropriate for certain community. I mean I have my talents, you have yours, and he has his. VAN PERNIS: Mr. Schuler pays for all that. COOK: Yes, I said that he puts up all the money. VAN PERNIS: Okay. And you've declared bankruptcy. COOK: I beg your pardon?. VAN PERNIS: You have declared bankruptcy. COOK: I declared bankruptcy in 1976. CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Perris, please keep your comments ----- COOK: Why so personal? CARR SMITH: ----and your questions on topic, if you can, please. VAN PERNIS: I think this is on topic. Mr. Schuler ---well, let me switch to Mr. Fuke. Did you represent any Schuler entity in the Pualani development? COOK: I'm sorry, I'm a little hard of hearing. FUKE: I guess, before I respond to that, Madam Chair, I guess like my question is that my understanding is zoning or land use entitlements run with the land, not necessarily with who the individuals are. Now, having said that, I will answer your question; I have done work with D.R. Horton, I have not done any work, I've not done any work directly with Mr. Schuler. 21 EXHIBIT D VAN PERNIS: Mr. Cook, are you still using, twelve years later, the 2008 financial meltdown as an excuse for not developing? COOK: I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding you. VAN PERNIS: I'm sorry. Can you hear me? COOK: Yes, I think so. VAN PERNIS: Are you using the financial meltdown of twelve years ago as an excuse for not developing now? COOK: Have I personally had financial problems? VAN PERNIS: No. Are the limited partnerships who are the applicants using the financial meltdown of twelve years ago as an excuse for the delay? COOK: I'm sorry, I-� CARR SMITH: I'm not following, either. And is this a part, Mr. Van Pernis, is this a part of the application or is this something else? VITOUSEK: The question I think he is asking is if the development group is using the 2008 financial meltdown as an excuse for not developing now? COOK: It, it's not an excuse, it's a reality. CARR SMITH: Okay, do we have other questions? VAN PERNIS: Yes, I have several more. You admit ----well, Mr. Fuke perhaps can answer this question, or you, Mr. Cook—you admit that you are in violation of the present ordinances. FUKE: I don't even necessarily consider that violation. I know that, you know, it's one of those kind of like a road -in -limbo's type, you know, you have the zoning, but if you apply for a building permit, then you won't be able to do it. Regrettably, he still has to be paying the real property taxes based upon the zoning, though, at over like, over 100,000 dollars a year. So, but— VAN PERNIS: You were supposed to develop by 2015, correct? FUKE: I'm sorry? VAN PERNIS: You are supposed to develop by 2015-- 22 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Well, the administrative extension was up until 2015, that is correct. So the request right now is to request for an extension retroactive to that period. VAN PERNIS: What penalty is there for not completing construction by 2015? FUKE: The penalty is that you can't move forward. VAN PERNIS: What are— FUKE: You can't, you can't do anything. I don't know if there is any fiscal assessment or whatever have you, you know, unlike other violations like for an SMA or a special, excuse me, building permit, but to me, I think the major penalty is like you can't move. VAN PERNIS: The property has been reclassified from Agriculture to Urban, correct? FUKE: Back in 2005, correct. VAN PERNIS: So the Planning Director can take this property and rezone it or downzone it to Agriculture. FUKE: It would be a separate legislative action to achieve that. VAN PERNIS: Now, all of the things that you are asking to waive here in these applications were promises made by the developer in exchange for the valuable upzoning, right? FUKE: Not all. Some of them was like, you know, for example on the'school, that was a concern raised, and so Mr. Cook at that point in time made the concession to say, you know, we'll provide it, you know, recognizing that their intent was to do something for the community, and if the Council at that time felt that a school would be doing something for the community and if it's something that they could live with— VAN PERNIS: What about the other conditions, other than the school— FUKE: —it's the same thing to have a representation that the 225 or 250, you know, housing project would be exclusively reserved for rental, that was a commitment that they had made, that's a commitment that they continue to make today for the Suffolk property. VAN PERNIS: Is that affordable rental or just rental? FUKE: It's rental—at that time when the Council had approved it, they wanted to stipulate, you know, so many percentage be like at 80 percent or 90 percent or whatever have you ---what we are proposing here is that they be kept in rental and let the prevailing housing code prevail and not to have like special legislation. VAN PERNIS: And it may be up to 55 years from 2005 before we see the completion of construction. 23 EXHIBIT D FUKE: I'm sorry? VAN PERNIS: It may be up to 55 years before we see the completion of the construction you are asking for. - FUKE: Well, the request right now is to have, you know, beginning like, let's assume beginning 2020 to have like a five-year start construction and a ten-year completion. So, if there is an administrative extension provision considered, you know, favorably by this body and the Council, then yes, you'll be looking at ultimately an additional 20 years to complete construction. VAN PERNIS: And that would be without the developer or the constructors going in front of the public in any way. FUKE: For the administrative extension, correct. VAN PERNIS: And the public could not provide its input. FUKE: But they could ask the Planning Director, I guess. VAN PERNIS: And, have the conditions changed in that area since 2005? FUKE: what kind of conditions? VAN PERNIS: Traffic, for instance. FUKE: And that's the, if you are relating to traffic, and that's why the concurrency provision of the Zoning Code requires that when you go for a time extension and your projected volume is in excess of 50, AM/PM peak hour traffic, you need to have an updated traffic study, so that was done. VAN PERNIS: Do you know how many subdivisions have been completed in the area of Lako Street since 2005? FUKE: Not offhand, I don't have an inventory, no, sir. VAN PERNIS: Do you have any idea at all? A ballpark number— FUKE: I don't know how relevant that would be, because it would be a guess on my part and— VAN PERNIS: We're careless to avoid there's trouble there. Now, can you answer the question? FUKE: I'm sorry? 24 EXHIBIT D VAN PERNIS: Can you answer that question? FUKE: The specific answer is no, I don't know how many new homes were constructed in that area, no, sir. CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis, are you asking that as it relates to traffic or what, what's the relativity here? VAN PERNIS: I'm asking a question regarding traffic in that area. Are you still proposing 500 stalls, as the staff indicated, for the commercial area? FUKE: Well, the commercial, the number of parking stalls is directly tied into what the Zoning Code says; the Zoning Code says if you have a retail area, then the minimum parking requirement 'is 1 stall for every 300 square feet. And if you are going to— VAN PERNIS: What was the staff said, the original construction of commercial area included 500 parking stalls. The staff then said the amount of commercial area was reduced but did not say whether the number of parking stalls was reduced. Do you know whether it was reduced or not? FUKE: Logic would say that the parking would be, the parking would be reduced, because if you are reducing it by 20,000 square feet, then, you know, mathematically there should have been a reduction by 20,000 divided by 300. I don't know what the number is. VAN PERNIS: So the— CARR SMITH: I believe that would be addressed to the planning level as well, not at this rezoning. HALL: Sixty-six less stalls. CARR SMITH: Sorry? HALL: Sixty-six less stalls. CARR SMITH: Sixty-six less stalls. HALL: If my math is right. VAN PERNIS: May I ask the developer? Excuse me, sir, did you say you had worked with this group before? VAN BERGEN: Yes. VAN PERNIS: And what group was that? 25 EXHIBIT D VAN BERGEN: Spring Capital. Spring Capital Group. VAN PERNIS: And who, what individuals are Spring Capital Group? VAN BERGEN: Tom, Tom Connor, the, one of the managing partners is VAN PERNIS: No, I'm talking about, did you say you dealt with these developers, Mr. Cook here? CARR SMITH: Are you asking if Spring Capital has dealt with Mr. Cook? VAN PERNIS: Is Spring Capital the group you meant worked before? VAN BERGEN: Met with, no, I represent Spring Capital. VAN PERNIS: Okay, did I understand you correctly to say that you had worked with these developers, the developers here in Hawaii? VAN BERGEN: No, I was referencing more of a personal reference; I started working personally with Spring Capital back in 2006— VAN PERNIS: Okay. VAN BERGEN: —and, so just trying to give you guys kind of an idea who they are and my relationship. VAN PERNIS: So you haven't dealt with Mr. Cook or Mr. Schuler. VAN BERGEN: Not professionally, no. VAN PERNIS: Have you made any commitment to them or any of their entities to develop this project? VAN BERGEN: Can you define "commitment?" VAN PERNIS: Any commitment, any financial commitment. VAN BERGEN: We are trying to acquire an interest in the property. VAN PERNIS: Is it in contingent upon anything? VAN BERGEN: It's contingent upon this rezoning getting approved. VAN PERNIS: Anything else? VAN BERGEN: No. 26 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pemis, I want to make sure we get to the other Commissioners. If you can— VAN PERNIS: Okay, I'll, I have a question of the Planning Director, but I'll reserve that for later. CARR SMITH: All right, very good. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? VITOUSEK: Sure, I mean, I guess my question being that, you know, we are receiving a lot of information very late in the game, and if in any way it's possible to continue this, if you guys might be agreeable to that, to a next -month meeting so that we have the opportunity to review the information that has been submitted to us. FUKE: Madam Chair, I think that's, it's a totally reasonable request because I think there is a lot of information out there. The staff provided you with, you know, a couple of inches, and we provided additional information this morning. So, yes, I think that would be a reasonable request. CARR SMITH: So on that topic, so these items that we were given this morning that we haven't had a chance to look at, so these are addressing your responses to each of the conditions? FUKE: Yeah, so, you know, I prepared these proposed recommendations for approval in the absence of, you know, the Planning Director's recommendation. So I used the original reasons for the recommendation for approval, and I just made some slight editing, the editing being like the reference to the Kona Community Development Plan, and more critically are the conditions; the conditions reflect pretty much what we had proposed. Now, I don't know whether the Director, assuming that he would be, you know, he was going to recommend approval, I don't know what the Director's position on the conditions would have been. The only change, I must confess that, in the interest of time, that I did not make change to, you know, would be the fair share number, but I'm sure that that's an editorial thing that you've got to just mathematically just change the numbers. But I didn't have time to make the change. But all of the others are pretty much what we were representing in the beginning. CARR SMITH: Had the County asked you to provide a timeline that maybe they did not receive? FUKE: No, they did, the County did, through Christian, the staff, they asked like what's the development's time, timetable and all that. All we could just do was just like in generic, you know, generic teen because first of all, you know, understandably, Brian, you know, Puaa and Suffolk independently, they are not able to do the project as was originally conceived; they need somebody strong like Spring Capital, you know, to come in. Knowing that there is a number of regulatory permits they still have to go through, you know, like finishing up the design and getting all of the necessary approvals by the County, I mean, you know, we can project realistically maybe like about a two-year window within which before like a first building permit 2? EXHIBIT D application can be filed, and hopefully sooner. But over and beyond that, this kind of generic information, it was difficult in talking with Ken and also Mr. Cook to final, like, can we provide them with a little bit more guidelines, you know, specific timetable, but we could not. So staffs point is accurate, you know; we could not give them any detailed information other than a generic response. UNGER: I would recommend, if we do end up postponing this to the next meeting, I really encourage the applicant to sit back down with the Planning Department and figure out a way to work through to a favorable recommendation where it's. generated from the Planning Director. I understand your strategy just to give us a visual and a road map of if it was, you know, approved, this is what the recommendations would look like. But obviously, we don't get a lot of unfavorable recommendations from the Planning Department. So, again, I would just encourage you to sit down and try hammer some of these issues out before you get to the Planning Commission next time, if we go there. CARR SMITH: Thank you for that. VITOUSEK: Last one thing I just would hope that we could have like a real quick discussion about the project in general and how it, the general effect would be. There is a lot of discussion on the, you know, adherence with regulations and the County plans and whatnot, but just wondering what you think the effect of the project is going to be on the Community. VAN BERGEN: Well, I know from Spring Capital's standpoint, it would be a benefit, you know, that's one of the reasons why we are interested in acquiring the property. We feel it's an ideal location for something like commercial activity and shopping and so forth for not only Pualani Estates but other subdivisions in the vicinity. And then the rentable housing, we all know the huge shortage in Kona, so we'll eventually alleviate some of that by building a nice, you know, affordable, affordable component of it would be, you know, for affordable component. But, you know, if you look at the resume I gave you guys, you know, they are very variously developing multi -family products, and so we are looking forward to bringing that here to Hawai `i. VITOUSEK: All right, and then, as far as the passage of time, you know, the environment in that area has changed considerably since 2005, and, you know, whether the developer would be agreeable with working with the Planning Department to update the conditions and stuff that would make it more in line with the current need in the area, with traffic, with all of that. VAN BERGEN: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay. VAN BERGEN: Yes. There is also some discussion, just as an FYI to you, of the remaining acres below, Parcel 19, of doing maybe 201H or some other affordable housing, strictly " affordable housing components. The developer is very interested in exploring that as, well in addition to this zoning we are trying to get. But, yes, we work very close to with recommendations from the Planning Department. W EXHIBIT D UNGER: And just some background on this Planning Commission, we have brought up several times now, and we are working through the concept of when a project time extension expires. And I have to say it's a difficult situation, because it has expired. And so it's something that we are talking about discussing, but expiration means expiration in most cases. So, so just putting that out there. And I understand your discussion as to why it was extended etcetera, but at some point the reason why you are going through all this convincing, I guess, or discussion with the Planning Commission is that, hey, this thing expired, and now you are trying to make an argument on why this body here should say, yes, it expired but. And so that's, that's an issue that we are dealing with, and it's a very serious issue when it comes to projects like this. VITOUSEK: And on that note that this is a zoning request, not a permit expiration; so it's a zoning request that's not in compliance with the conditions. So, you know, we had talked previously about the difference between an SMA Permit who has expired versus a zoning ordinance that's not in compliance with the conditions. So, you know, in the past when we reviewed this kind of thing, it has been, is this project something where the easiest path towards completing the project is retaining the zoning, if the project has the kind of benefit that we believe is what the community needs, or is it not the kind of project that we think the community needs, therefore the zoning needs to be amended? So I think that, you know, if we have the opportunity to make a thorough review of this, because I think this is a very important project to thoroughly consider, and give us the adequate time that we need to look through the details of it. CARR SMITH: Yeah, on the topic of expirations of conditions, that's definitely something that both the Leeward and the Windward Planning Commission, they have been discussing, and the Planning Department has made some recommendations, and we are working toward that, because it really puts us in an awkward position to have to deal with these because it doesn't feel right to us to just automatically extend expired permits or zoning, so that's something we are working on. I think it's a matter of getting the two Planning Commissions on somewhat of the same page as well. I just want to get some clarity just to make sure that I understand this. So the CDP sees these parcels as a Neighborhood TOD, but if you are talking about a Project District TOD, then that's the larger combination of the parcels to get it to over 50. Do I have that right? It's complicated to me. FUKE: Well, you know, the process is so convoluted, you know, and I had to read it many times and still then, I'm still confused. But like from, if I can distill my understanding, you know, very simply, you know, like this area is generically referred to as a Neighborhood TOD area on the CDP. It's generically referred on the Plan, and then it gets established, if you go through the zone process, you know, the zoning process. And the CDP says like one of the ways to achieve that is to go through a Project District zoning; they encourage you to go through, encourage, you to go through the Project District zoning process because you can get these design flexibilities, you can get additional densities, mixed uses, so on and so forth, and so they are saying that if you can do that, then that's the, that's what, the route that they would do, and they would also promise to expedite the permit because you are doing something that really what the Plan is saying. On the other hand, the CDP, as I read it, says that if you look at the map and if you look 29 EXHIBIT D at parcels, it's very, it's, you are not going to find too many areas that you are going to have one 50 -acre area that that you can kind of come in with a, you know, for a Project District. As I mentioned earlier, Pdlamanui and Makalapua, you know, Lili`uokalani Trust. All of other areas, you know, if you look up on the CDP, it points out a number of these so-called, these circles, they are all like, you know, fractionalized. So that's why the CDP says you can kind of incrementally, in my mind, incrementally zone areas, as long as you are mindful that this is an area that you want to have like a TOD established. So if you zone this area as like maybe Neighborhood Commercial and a Multiple -Family Residential area, if and when adjoining property owners come in to have the zoning, then put your CDP-TOD lenses on in terms of how you review that, because that's going to be already given, and then you see what kind of uses can complement that to make an effective TOD. CARR SMITH: That helps, thank you. Mr. Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Yes. Before I ask Mr. Yee my question, I want to point out that we are not here to guarantee a profit for Mr. Schuler but we are here to represent the interest of the people in Kona, and that's why I think that when we get a negative recommendation from the Planning Director, it should be treated very seriously rather than look for some way around it. Now, Mr. Yee, my question to you is, clearly they are in violation of the ordinance. What is their penalty or what is your ability to penalize them, considering that they have reclassified the property Urban? In other words, is there any downside at all? YEE: So there are many rezones out there that have not accomplished their conditions. I would generally say we don't actively like track what all those are. We don't have the capacity. So, many times in reality when an applicant comes back in, we discover something has lapsed. Would we like to get to the place where we know things are expiring and be able to proactively pursue property owners for action? That would be ideal, but we are not in that place. So when an applicant comes in and we discover like something has lapsed, I think our general mindset in the past has been to, you know, from a planning aspect, is there something of value here that we want to have, right? You know, there are many times where we've come back to the Planning Commission to say, yes, we should, you know, offer an extension or let's continue to move forward. I think that's where some of the members have said we've started to review that process in terms of when we find something has lapsed, you know, is it an automatic given that we can just go ahead and continue to give them the entitlements or not, and we are trying to question how we go about that process. I said, so when we find conditions haven't been met, no, we don't actively sit there and seek some kind of violation or some kind of penalty for it. Typically, that's not, just from a philosophical standpoint, that's not why I want to exist us to be out there to just penalize when people don't want to, haven't done something; it's about trying to figure out what's the best path forward for the county. So I think that's the best I can answer that question at this point in time. VAN PERNIS: So, is that a nice way of saying that these applicants have no penalty or downside? 30 EXHIBIT D YEE: I think in this process of being here for three years, having them come in front of us to talk about this, it's certainly a big step from where we were at when I first came aboard. It hasn't been an automatic by any means. So I'm'not sure, saying, by them, having them come back here, I'm not saying, is penalty enough, but we certainly haven't made it easy for them. VAN PERNIS: Well, when they got their original approval, they got valuable zoning for the overall planned community development, and all the items in the application were promised by the developers, by Mr. Schuler and his organizations. And they are now asking to waive a number of these conditions. Does the Planning Department have a policy of demanding something back from what was originally given? Or did they get all the benefits, and now they waive their promises? YEE: I don't want to talk about in general terms; I want, on this specific application, I came in with unfavorable, I mean, I think that says a lot. And I'm sure just me saying unfavorable, you know, certainly makes them really think about what they have to do. Again, I'm not sure that's penalty enough, but that's what we are here for. And so within my authority right now to make a decision, an unfavorable is a pretty big recommendation to put forth to you. And so I appreciate the conversation, and I think given all the stuff that has been said today, I agree with having to continue this to have more conversations. I think at this point I'd like Commissioners to be able to throw out the questions they would like us to try to address so I know what those are as we pursue conversations with them. That's kind of where I would like to go. VAN PERNIS: And I think the conversation should include some of the testifiers who may have something to say about— CARR SMITH: Yeah, yes, thank you. Mr. Darrow, did you have something? DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to, there was some discussion touched upon about our previous presentation that we did regarding time extensions and the difference between zoning changes as well as permits and the direction that Commissions were heading towards that. And Mr. Van Perris himself was a part of that. This is a Change of Zone; normally, there isn't a, you know, like a violation that's given out or there isn't penalties given by the Department. The condition is clearly stated in each ordinance that should the applicant not substantially comply with the conditions therein, the Planning Director can either revert or bring it to a more appropriate zoning. In this particular case, the Planning Director is recommending a more appropriate zoning, which is the Project District. But again, there can be more discussion on that after the meeting through the continuance. But as we move forward, and as we had mentioned, we will be bringing some rule and code amendment changes, but that's something to keep in mind that we really, it sounded previously like the Commission wanted, and the testifiers, that if zoning is appropriate for an area, we should keep the zoning in place; if something doesn't get developed in a timely manner, then whoever is able to develop in the future, they come back and they refresh the conditions, and they get upgraded. So it's, but when you look at permits relating to like a Special Permit or an SMA Permit, that is for a specific project for a specific timeline, and therefore that really expires; if you don't do that project within that timeframe, you pretty much are, that's stopped, and you have to come in to refresh that. Thank you. 31 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you very much. All right, anything else? [None.] All right, thank you very much, you may be seated. We'll move into public testimony for this agenda item, and I just have one person on the list: Don Hurzeler. Raise your right hand, thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? HURZELER: I do. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Can you speak into the mic and----- HURZELER: I will. CARR SMITH: --let us know who you are and where you are from? HURZELER: I'm Don Hurzeler. I am the vice president of the Heights of Hualalai Homeowners Association, which is up Puapua`anui right below Hualalai Road, about 30 families. that we represent. And I'll make this very quick because you've had long discussions already. We fully support the negative recommendation of the Planning Director and think it's well thought out and well stated, and so nothing further to say on that. We also want to commend the body here for taking this on as a holistic view rather than looking at these conveniently -sized just smaller than 15 -acre units as separate, looking at them what they are going to look like together; we thing that's a very wise idea. The information on the school disappearing was news to me, maybe old news to everybody else, but it was news to me, and so it does bring to my concern the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, our schools in that area are already at capacity or near capacity and are challenged as it is, and so what are we going to do with the young folks that come in to the schools in that area—kind of a new concern for us. But as a resident of that area and someone who has lived here for quite some time and been coming here since my wife's grandparents' days who lived here their whole life, and to the honorable gentleman who is the consultant from Hilo, what has changed was a question that he posed I think rhetorically to everybody, what has changed? What has changed is the traffic. It is more clogged than my arteries. I have a, I live up on a hill and can look down and see the traffic, and this is like the pinch point of this side of the island. It's two lanes there, and I know that there would be changes made and the like, but they would have to be massive. And I'm not so concerned about what that causes me. If I want to wander off to Costco or Walmart, it's a few minutes here or there; it's not like living in Honolulu or Los Angeles, but it is an inconvenience, and we can put up with some inconvenience. What bothers me is that I sit up on the hill and look down and see on a daily basis, and here on a daily basis, the emergency traffic that goes along the beltway down there day in and day out at all hours. And so I'm very concerned about that. We have Fire Department, and we have Police, and we have most importantly ambulances heading out to the community hospital that cannot get through. And so that is a major concern. So that's it. Keep up the good work, and thank you for your considerations. VAN PERNIS: I have a- 32 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. VAN PERNIS: I have a question for this testifier. CARR SMITH: Sure, go ahead. VAN PERNIS: Do you have an estimate of how many new subdivisions have been built in that area since 2005? HURZELER: I certainly do not, but I do know that it has been constant, and that there have been homes after homes, including my own, built up in that area. And it is a dense area at this point, and certainly the traffic patterns would show that. VAN PERNIS: Is it, not including the emergency transportation, is traffic come to a standstill there in the commute -in and the commute -out? HURZELER: The traffic—and of course it's a little seasonal, too, winter is certainly worse than the rest of the year, thank goodness, because we have visitors here that help our economy—but it is about twice to three times a day horrible. It comes to a screeching halt coming in, going. And it might be worse one-time of day going toward Kona and another time going away, but it is quite bad. And I feel horror for the people who have to work on a regular basis and drive that every morning and every evening. It's got to be a major frustration to them. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. HURZELER: Thank you. CARR SMITH: Any other testifiers? [None.] Commissioners, we are going to have a motion to close public testimony, please. VITOUSEK: I move to close public testimony. LINGER: Second. CARR SMITH: Mr. Vitousek, seconded by Mr. Unger. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CARR SMITH: Any opposed? [None.] Thank you, public testimony is closed. All right, we need a motion of sorrre sort. VITOUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that we continue this agenda item to the next available Leeward Planning Commission meeting. HALL: Items. 33 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Items. HALL: Yeah. VITOUSEK: Make a motion that we continue these agenda items to the next available Planning Commission meeting. KEALOHA: I'll second. VAN PERNIS: May I comment? CARR SMITH: Is that, is that motion clear enough? KAY: Yes. VAN PERNIS: I think we may need the consent of the applicants. HALL: Yeah, they said, they did already. CARR SMITH: I think they made that clear in their testimony. Any other discussion about this? All right. Can we have a vote on the motion, please? HALL: You can do an all -in -favor. CARR SMITH: Okay. All in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CARR SMITH: Any opposed? VAN PERNIS: Nay. CARR SMITH: Okay. KAY: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Motion carries, five to one. And I just extend that to both ordinances, or both requests, okay? VITOUSEK: Yes. KAY: Yeah, motion carries, five to one, for both. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. 34 EXHIBIT D The discussion ended at 12:25 p.m. 35 Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission EXHIBIT D LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAP I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 185 2020 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the applications of SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000024) and PUA.►A DEVELOPMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000025) was called to order at 11:50 a.m. via live -stream meeting, with Chairperson Nancy Carr Smith presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Nancy Can Smith, Perry Kealoha, Max Newberg, Mark Van Perris, Michael Vitousek and Faith "Faye" Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: J Yoshimoto, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), John Mukai, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Director), Christian Kay (Planner), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Alex -Roy (Planner), Rachelle Ley (Secretary to the Planning Director) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000024) Continued hearing on an application to amend Condition B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Amend Condition D (Delete Rental Housing Restriction), Amend Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental TIAR), Amend Condition F (Roadway Improvements), Amend Condition H (Location of Spine Road within Project Site), Amend Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Amend Condition U (Requirement of a 5 -acre School Site & Improvements), Amend Condition V (Fair Share), Amend Condition X (Affordable Housing Requirement & Change Housing Program Approving Authority), and Amend Condition Z (Administrative Time Extension) of Ordinance No. 05-113. Ordinance No. 05-113 reclassified the 14.872 -acre property from Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a) to Multiple -Family Residential -2,500 square foot (RM -2.5) in 2005. The subject property is located west (makai) of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and east (mauka) of Kuakini Highway and the Kahakai Estates Subdivision, approximately 2,200 feet.north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway - Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki 1st, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:019. APPLICANT: PUAA DEVELOPMENT LLC (AMEND REZ 2004-000025) Continued hearing on an application to amend Condition B (Time to Pay Water Deposit), Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), Condition E (Delete Requirement for Supplemental Traffic Study), Condition F (Roadway Improvements), Condition H (Location of Spine Road), Condition I (Kuakini Highway Improvements), Condition V (Requirement for a 5 -Acre School Site and Improvements), Condition W (Fair Share Contribution), Condition Y (Affordable Housing Timing), Condition Z (Housing), and Condition BB (Administrative Time Extension) of Ordinance No. 05-115. Ordinance No. 05-115 reclassified the 14.973 -acre property from Agricultural -5 acres (A -5a) to Neighborhood Commercial -20,000 square feet (CN -20) in 2005. The subject property is located west (makai) of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the Pualani Estates Subdivision, and EXHIBIT D about 1,400 feet north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway - Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki 1St and Puapuaanui 1St, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:001. Secrdtary's Note: "- - - " indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. CARR SMITH: Okay, so, the next two applications, Agenda Item 5 and 6, are two separate applications, but we are going to hear them together. We heard these cases in February, and they were deferred to the next meeting, which is today in May [sic]. So I'm going to read these long agenda items again: Suffolk Investment LLC, AMEND REZ 2004-000024, continued hearing on an application to amend Condition B, which is a time to pay water deposit; Condition C, time to complete construction; amend Condition D, which deletes rental housing restriction; amend Condition E, deletes requirement for supplemental TIRA, I'm sorry, TIAR; amend Condition F, which is road improvements; amend Condition H, which is a location of the spine road within the project site; amend Condition I, Kuakini Highway improvements; amend Condition U, which is a requirement of a five -acre school site and improvements; amend Condition V, which is fair share; amend Condition X, which is affordable. housing requirement and change housing program approving authority; amend Condition Z, which is administrative time extension. This is all of Ordinance No. 05-113. Ordinance No. 05-113 reclassified the 14.872 -acre property from Ag -5 to Multi -Family Residential - 2,500 square feet in 2005. The subject property is located makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and east, mauka, of Kuakini Highway and of the Kahakai Estates Subdivision, approximately 2,200 feet north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway-Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki 1St, North Kona, Hawaii. TMK: (3) 7-5-017:019. Okay? Agenda Item No. 2 [sic] is Applicant Puaa Development LLC, AMEND REZ 2004-000025. This is a continued hearing on the application to amend Condition B, which is time to pay water deposit; Condition C, time to complete construction; Condition E, complete .[sic] requirement for supplemental traffic study; Condition F, roadway improvements; Condition H, location of the spine road; Condition I, Kuakini Highway improvements; Condition V, requirement for a five -acre school site and improvements; Condition W, which is fair share contribution; Condition Y, which is affordable housing timing; Condition Z, which is housing; and, Condition BB, which is administrative time extension, of Ordinance No. 05-115. Ordinance No. 05-115 reclassified the 14.973 -acre property from Agricultural -5 acres to Neighborhood Commercial -20,000 square feet. The subject property is located west of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and the Pualani Estates Subdivision, and about 1,400 feet north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway-Kuakini Highway intersection, Puapuaaiki—I'm not sure I'm saying that right -1St and, in North Kona, Hawaii. TMK: (3) 7-5-017:001. All right. So those are the agenda items. Some housekeeping, since Commissioner Yates was not at the meeting in February, I need to ask if you have had a chance to review all the materials. Mark, can you give her the microphone, please? YATES: Yes, I have. 2 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Very good, thank you. All right. Christian, please proceed with your presentation. KAY: Yes, thank you,. Madam Chair. If you give me a moment, I'll switch on my screen here. CARR SMITH: Okay. KAY: And, can everybody see it there? CARR SMITH: Good. KAY: Okay. Again, as you stated, these are, the next two agenda items, we are going to do one presentation for the both of them, given that there is a connection between the two, both geographically as well as from an ownership standpoint. And, essentially, the two properties are being designed as part of one larger master -planned community. The subject properties here outlined in red for Puaa Development and in blue for Suffolk Investment are situated in the North Kona district of Hawaii Island. For reference, we've got Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway running generally north -south through the slide in the middle here, and also a little bit further makai, we've got Kuakini Highway again generally running north -south through the slide. For further location reference, we've got Pualani Estates here mauka of the Puaa property shown in the yellow, and then makai of the Suffolk property, we've got Kahakai Estates Subdivision, and that's makai here of Kuakini Highway. So I just want to go through the existing entitlements and what was proposed initially and now the current proposed project. For the Suffolk property, Ordinance No. 05-113 was approved on August 5, 2005, to change the zoning from an Agricultural -5 acre zoning designation to a Multi -Family Residential -2,500 square foot zoning designation for 14,872 acres. The applicant originally proposed at the time a 250 -unit market -rate rental housing development, with the 300 -stall parking lot and a one -plus -acre park. The applicant is currently proposing to reduce the number of rental units to 226 and intends to develop open space and a passive recreation area. For the Puaa Development property, which is approved under Ordinance 05-115 on August 5, 2005, that changed the zoning from Agricultural -5 acres to Neighborhood Commercial -20,000 square feet for 14.973 acres. The applicant in that case initially proposed to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center, including a 93,600 -square foot complex that would house varied commercial uses, such as financial institutions and office spaces. Also proposed was a 500 -plus parking stall lot, with appropriate accessibility requirements. The applicant is currently proposing a reduction in the size of the commercial project from 93,600 square feet to 72,600 square feet. Also included in this current proposal is the inclusion of a transit hub in the form of a public bus transfer station, as well as the addition of 100 multiple -family residential units. I will note here that in the application it spoke about 100 multiple -family residential units on the Puaa Development property; however, when we get through the site plan, you'll see that it's actually 150 multiple -family dwelling units shown on the site plan on that property. So there is a bit of discrepancy between the application and what's on the site. So the next two slides list the applicant's amendment requests that the Chair read at the beginning, so instead of re -reading through all of them, I'll leave them on the screen for you to read. And so 91 EXHIBIT D with the exception of two specific Conditions for the Suffolk property and one for the Puaa property, the other requested amendments are essentially the same. So in the case of the Suffolk property, those two Conditions are related to rental housing and affordable housing. First is Condition D, which currently requires the project to be used for rental housing for a period of 20 years as what was represented by the applicant at that time of the original change of zone; so the applicant in this case is asking to delete that Condition entirely. Second is Condition X, and the applicant is requesting to amend that, which, again as represented by the applicant at the time of the original change of zone, would have, would require a minimum of 20 percent of their rental units with the Suffolk property to be rented at 80 percent or less than the median income level and the remainder to be rented at a 120 percent or less in the area median income level; in this case the applicant is requesting relief from these requirements to be replaced with standard affordable housing language. And then next is for Puaa Development, and again in that case the applicant is requesting to delete Condition Y, which currently requires the project to include housing. The Condition goes on to require that at least 50 residential units be under actual construction with completion assured by surety bond before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any commercial structures. In addition, that Condition requires an additional 50 units of housing would be built under those same conditions, if any commercial uses exceeds 60,000 square feet of gross floor area; so in this case they are asking for relief from that requirement. And again, other than those, the rest of the conditions that they are asking for amendment remain the same, or are essentially the same. The applicant's stated reasons for request are basically due to the economic, the global economic meltdown that occurred in 2008, over a decade ago; they had difficulty securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented, as a funding was too difficult to obtain, and thus they decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses for the properties, including sale of the properties, and exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current economic outlook is amenable; however, time is still needed for the applicant to address the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the required financing. Again, I'll just note that the economic outlook being amenable was pre-COVID. According to the applicant, they have worked on compliance for several conditions, including the conveyance of a five -acre site for a future school as required by the ordinances, but it ultimately did not get approved because that was tied to a subdivision of the property that never occurred, and then the school relocating to a different area. Lastly, although there has been no physical construction that has occurred, the applicant states that they have expended a considerable amount of soft funds, including nearly a million dollars spent for more detailed land use planning and the preparation of infrastructure construction plans for the projects. So the zoning for the subject properties are as follows: Again, for reference, we have Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway running in the middle of the slide here north -south, and Kuakini Highway running toward the bottom, and again, Puaa Development is a Neighborhood Commercial -20,000 feet as indicated in the pink color, and for Suffolk Investment we've got Multiple -Family Residential -2,500 square feet. Other zonings in the area are a mix of Single- and Multiple -Family Residential, some Agricultural and some Neighborhood Commercial closer to Kuakini Highway. The State Land Use designation for the subject parcels is a State Land Use Urban as is indicated by the pink colors. The other designations that we see here, Agriculture as is indicated by the green color. It should be noted that in conjunction with the change of zone ordinances granted in 2005, the 4 EXHIBIT D applicant secured State Land Use Boundary Amendments - - - of the subject parcels. As each of those parcels was under 15 acres, they were able to do so through the Planning Commission and the County Council. And the General Plan designation for, under the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map, for the subject parcels is largely Urban Expansion as is indicated by the thatched design. There is some Low Density Urban to the bottom of the screen, indicated in yellow, and some Medium Density Urban in the upper left that's consistent with other Multiple -Family Residential zoning in the area. The Kona Community Development Plan designates this area within the Kona Urban Area as is indicated by the red line. And the, the subject parcels here outlined again in red and blue are right in the middle of the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development area, and we'll get into what that means a little bit more later. Here is an aerial photograph of the subject properties with the Puaa property again outlined in red and Suffolk outlined in blue. So, as you can see, mauka of Puaa you've got the subdivision here, and then makai of Suffolk you've got the Kahakai Estates Subdivision here. The properties are generally vacant of any improvements or structures. In compliance with some conditions of approval of the subdivision, there was a paved road built here in this area, and that's consistent with a utility corridor. Here is the applicant's proposed site plan entitled the "Pualani Makai — A Master Planned Community," and encompasses both properties. The plan shows two accesses from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway - - - at the top of the screen: One is on the left here across from Puapua`anui Street; and the other further to the right, is the mauka-most terminus spine road that's required by the existing ordinances. That spine road intersects with Kuakini Highway, which is generally running in this area towards the bottom on the makai side of the larger area. The Puaa Development property outlined again in red on the mauka side depicts a commercial office center here on the left-hand side and the associated parking, for the middle of the property there you can see what is meant to be a drug store area, and mauka of that is the proposed bus transfer station, and then further to the right of the screen is proposed areas for about 100 units of multiple -family residential. And as I mentioned before, there is a bit of discrepancy between what is in the application in terms of the number of multiple -family residential units in the Puaa property whereas they said 100, but there are another 50 multiple -family residential units being shown on their site plan here just makai of the commercial area. For the Suffolk property, further makai - - - the proposed 260 -unit multiple -family residential development. Finally, the site plan does depict a few archaeological sites that are shown on the larger area, and they don't appear to be directly located upon the existing Puaa or Suffolk property. Here are some site photos showing surrounding roadways of the subject parcels. The photo on the upper left shows Kuakini Highway heading toward Kailua-Kona. The upper right is a view of the same highway heading the opposite direction, with the intersection of the Kahakai Estates Subdivision here on the right. On the bottom left is a view of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway looking toward Kailua-Kona; this is at the Puapua`anui Street intersection, with the subject property that being Puaa Development, on the right-hand side. And then the bottom right is Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway looking the other direction, with the subject property on the left-hand side. S EXHIBIT D So the Planning Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council for both ordinances for the following reasons: The proposed requests do not conform to the goals, objectives, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan; the proposed requests do not conform to the goals, policies, and courses of action of the Land Use— Commercial, Development & Land Use -Multiple Family Elements of the General Plan; previous segmentation of this area in securing planning entitlements is inconsistent with State Law; and, the proposed request will not result in a more appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. I just wanted to point, and I didn't the last time, but these four bullet points here are actually part of the criteria we look at when we are making recommendations for approving changes of zone and amendments thereto, so the language is very specific because we are recommending unfavorable based on those analysis points. So to the first one, "The proposed requests do not conform to the goals, objectives, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan," the CDP was adopted in 2008, approximately three years after the zoning was approved, and the CDP being adopted with extensive community input. As we stated before, the subject properties are situated right within the middle of the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Transit Oriented Development area. And within those areas in the Kona Urban Area, the CDP calls for development of compact, walkable, mixed-use village development as a preferred development pattern in those areas. The recommended way to do that is through the development of a Project District zoning, which is identified in the CDP as a mechanism to achieve that development pattern in the Transit Oriented Development area, as it allows the flexibility in both permitted uses, as well as the densities, required all developed under a master plan to meet the compact, walkable, mixed-use preferred future for those areas. So, conversely, the existing single district zoning that we have, both the Multiple -Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial zonings, cannot achieve this preferred pattern. The applicant has suggested that conditions of approval could further the TOD concept, but the Director doesn't want to create a new development process through separate zoning ordinances, you know, on a case-by-case basis, but really prefers to use the existing community -vetted master planning process that was recommended in the CDP. The applicant has stated that this is not possible because a Project District requires a minimum of 50 acres of land area. And as we'll discuss it in a minute, we believe that based on the shared ownership of the parcels, not only the two subject parcels but surrounding parcels, we can find 50 acres to meet that Project District requirement. The next slide I want to show is something that I didn't show in the original presentation. But when we went back and we talked about it a little bit, we thought it would be a good idea to show you kind of a graphic representation of what a TOD development could look like. There are two existing TOD developments under, under process right now in Hawaii County and actually in Kona, and that's Palamanui and Makalapua; we were told that we probably shouldn't bring up any of those images because they will likely come in front of this body in the very near future for action, so we didn't; want to jump the gun on those. But we looked around to see other areas- in the islands that are doing this type of TOD development. And what you see here is from the Island of Oahu, and this is the Waipahu Neighborhood TOD site plan, or proposed land use plan. As you can see here—and, I'm sorry, maybe a little be unclear to read—but the development is really centered around this rail stop here in the middle, and it should be noted that in this case and in the case of most of TOD developments envisioned in the State and by the Kona CDP,, that the transit component is really 1 EXHIBIT D central to the development of the area, and not just as an add-in of a bus transportation as is proposed by the applicant. Now, the TOD development really allows for mixed several different uses, including—within this pedestrian shed area, which is indicated by this dash circle—these include mixed-use residential and commercial, with higher intensities and densities in the core around the transit, as well as high density and medium density housing, which, as you get further out in the pedestrian shed, you see some of those designations, some civic spaces, and then high medium density live -work spaces, which means both residential and commercial in the same buildings, or within the same block with each other. So, really, not wanted to get too heavily into the particulars of this TOD, but just kind of give you a graphic representation of what it could and should look like, and kind of comparing this graphic to what's being proposed for Puaa and Suffolk. Extending the zoning under the existing zoning, the Neighborhood Commercial and Multiple -Family Residential, would really only allow for kind of two of these colors, and that's, you know, commercial in the Neighborhood Commercial area, with some separated multiple -family residential, and then another separate multiple -family residential development, which is largely constrained by our existing Zoning Code in terms of permitted uses and again densities that would be allowed under the existing zoning. So, again, I'll just reiterate that the only way to really created a compact walkable mixed-use neighborhood TOD development that's recommended by the Iona CDP, is through this larger, more comprehensive project development and planning that's allowed by,the Project District zoning in, as recommended by the CDP and allowed for in our ,Zoning Code. Arid at this point I just want to reiterate that although it would require a bit more of planning work on the frontend, it also offers the developer some significant benefits in terms of increased density and a broader mix of permitted uses than what's currently allowed. Getting back to the question of the minimum 50 acres required for the Project District, and we showed this the last time, this is just the ownership of the parcels in the area. This shows the properties owned, the subject property here, the Puaa property and Suffolk property are the subject properties, but the other remaining properties are also owned by Puaa Development, with the exception of Suffolk. And according to DCCA records, the listed managing partner for Suffolk Investment is Puaa Development. So there is an ownership connection there, and we believe that it would be possible to consolidate those parcels to come up with the minimum 50 acres required, as the parcels together are approximately 60, 61 acres. So, getting with the next stated reason for our unfavorable recommendation, "The proposed request does not conform to the goals, policies, and courses of action of the Land Use–Commercial Development & Land Use–Multiple Family Elements of the General Plan." The proposed time extension and amendments do not comply with General Plan Policies: 14.3.5.7.2 of the Land Use– Commercial Development section states that "Controls to prevent speculative practices on commercially zoned lands may be established"; and, 14.5.3(e) of the Land Use --Multiple Family section states, "To assure the use of multiple residential zoned areas and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots only, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning, which shall be based on performance requirements." And we believe that that's what the original ordinances did; they put in place several conditions that locks the applicants into performance of developing multiple -family residential and commercial development. And, you know, a lot of the requested amendments are asking for relief from those conditions. Construction was supposed to be complete by 2015. Last time we made this presentation, we were unable to confirm that an administrative time extension was requested. After the fact, the applicant did provide us with those 7 EXHIBIT D documents. So there was an administrative time extension that was granted to 2015; however, with that said, the applicants waited over four years to attempt to revive stale ordinances and is now doing so to either sell the properties or secure a development partner. And in fact, if you look back at the transcript from the last meeting, the applicant themselves, or their representatives, stated that it didn't make sense to try and ask for a time extension before the time that they did when they didn't have anybody on board to develop. Unfortunately, the ordinances do have those time frames in place, and our code does require requests of time extensions prior to those expiration dates. So in this case, the applicant is requesting kind of a large time extension to, commence construction within ten years and complete construction within 20 years. So what they are asking for is an amendment to commence construction within five years and complete construction within ten, but they are also asking for the ability to have an administrative time extension, which could multiply that up to ten years to start and 20 years to complete. And in the case of Puaa, they are asking for another change to say that completion of construction should be for either the commercial component or the residential component and not both, as is currently represented in the condition. The applicants have not demonstrated to the Director's satisfaction that they have a plan to complete construction in the requested time frames nor have they demonstrated any recent efforts to comply with numerous conditions,of approval. As we stated last time, and very early on we met with the applicants' representative and let them know that we were leaning toward an unfavorable recommendation for many of the reasons we've stated here, and asked them to provide us with a detailed construction schedule outlining how they could meet their requirements of the ordinances or what they were proposing within the time frames designated. What they did provide to us unfortunately was just the name of their possible development partner, Spring Capital, and at the last hearing they handed out kind of a CV of some of the projects that Spring Capital had done, but other than that, even to this point four months later they have not provided us with any kind of a detailed plan showing that they can actually develop the property as is being represented. So at this point it's hard for us to find the Director's satisfaction that they can actually complete within the time frame that they are asking for. Secondly, within the last 15 years the applicant has had an opportunity to comply with other conditions of approval. They stated that they had done some roadway designs and some drainage designs and things like that; however, there are several other conditions of approval, such as the requirement to complete sewer studies; a requirement to do water calculations and get water commitments, which they haven't done for 15 years; completing archaeological plans beyond just the archaeological inventory survey; and then in the case of Suffolk, they were required to pay their fair share for multiple -family residential units either prior to plan approval or within five years of the effective date of the ordinance, and they have not done that, either. So, you know, we, the last, there was a couple of applications we heard today, both Parker School and then Kona Country Club, where it was stated that, you know, in the case of Parker School, they'd really shown a concerted effort to comply with conditions of approval, and even in Kona Country Club it was stated by the applicant and some of the Commissioners that they've been able to see that there was kind of a concerted effort to actually comply with conditions. You know, in the case of these two ordinances, however, outside of some really smaller types of condition compliance, there really hasn't been much in the way of a lot of these other studies. And that's, the applicants' stated reason for needing All this additional time is we need the time to do all of these studies, when in fact they could have been doing this in the last 15 years, but they have not done so. Next is the previous segmentation of the area in securing planning entitlements is inconsistent with State Law. Subdivision 7814, which we showed before, was approved in 2004 and created a five -lot 8 EXHIBIT D subdivision, four of which resulted in lots just under 15 acres in size. In 2005, both Puaa Development and Suffolk applied for and received approval for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the, from Agricultural to Urban designation for their respective properties. At the time of processing, these applications did not go to the Land Use Commission, as they were represented by the applicants to be separate entities and under 15 acres in size. At the time the Land Use Commission commented that they had strong objections to the manner in which the State Land Use boundary amendments were being processed under HRS 205-3.1, Amendments to District Boundaries. They believed that both the Village Center, Puaa, and the rental housing project, Suffolk, were part of the same Pualani Makai Master Planned Community and the permitting was deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. Although the original 2005 Boundary Amendments were approved in an incrementalized manner, in order to implement the TOD concept and Project District zoning recommended by the Kona Community Development Plan, and the Director in this case, the applicant will be required to seek a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the LUC from Agricultural to Urban for the surrounding properties that are under joint ownership. And, again, this is, this is a, can be a laborious process, but in order to do it right, this is what will be done. The proposed request will not result in a more appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. Based on all of the preceding information, the Director feels that approving the requested amendments and retaining the existing zoning would no longer result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. As an alternative, the Director recommends that the applicants pursue a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for the remaining two adjacent properties and submit a change of zone to a Project District for the approximately 60 -acre area, or at minimum 50 acres, to establish the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development area as recommended by the Kona CDP. For all of these reasons, the Director is recommending that we forward unfavorable recommendations to the County Council for the proposed amendments for Rezone Ordinance 05-113 and Rezone Ordinance 05-115. With that, again, I'll leave the presentation on the screen, if there are any questions related to any of the slides that we've shared, and I'm happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Christian. Mark, I apologize that I didn't go back to you for your question. My bad. J, I think Mark might have a question for you. Go ahead, Mark. Use the microphone, though, yeah? Use the microphone, please. VAN PERNIS: First, I have a question for staff. CARR SMITH: I thought you had a legal question to Counsel— VAN PERNIS: Well, let me ask the legal questions first then. As the staff says, these ordinances are stale. By that I take it to mean the requirements'for the completion - - - and project have all been long since passed and expired before the applications were filed. Aren't the ordinances pau? Such that they can't reverse record they extended as to those expired conditions for these proposed G� EXHIBIT D developments? Such that the applicants must file new applications for new ordinances? That's my first question. CARR SMITH: J, did you understand the question? YOSHIMOTO: I did. I'm not sure what he is asking as it relates to what we are doing here today, though. Because here, you know, we are here on the applicants' requests, you know, for, for basically to amend their conditions. And so I understand his question in the context of what, of what could be done or should have been done. But I'm not sure that that's something that the Leeward Planning Commission would have authority over in terms of making that decision for them, for the applicants. VAN PERNIS: Let me be more specific. The ordinances have expired. The applications seek a waiver or changes in the expired applications. So, aren't the applications also pau? CARR. SMITH: Christian, do you want to comment? KAY: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So there is a condition in both ordinances. In the case of Suffolk, it's AA, and it reads, "Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." So if I understand the question correctly, it doesn't automatically revert to the prior zoning but would require an action on the Planning Director, by the Planning Director to initiate rezoning of that area to original or something more appropriate. - - - here says "may," so it doesn't prescribe that it happens; It says, "may." VAN PERNIS: Christian, you said that they had until 2015 with the extensions to comply with the ordinance. I'm not suggesting any change of zone or anything; what I'm suggesting, or what I'm questioning is, since the ordinances were pau as of 2015, aren't the applications also pau? Shouldn't they be applying for new ordinances? KAY: I, I might let Jeff address this, or the Director, but I think as a matter of practice, we have in the past allowed folks to come in after the fact to request amendments, including time extensions, beyond the expiration date of ordinances. And I know that there has been a lot of discussion with both the Leeward and Windward Planning Commission on what to do with kind of these stale ordinances and stale permits. But, in this case, we did accept the amendment request applications and have processed them and come to a recommendation, so, and we are at where we are at right now and moving forward with what's in front of us. I don't know if Jeff or Michael want to address that. VAN PERNIS: Well, what I'm - - - the practice being not appropriate; I'm asking for your opinion as to whether that practice of accepting applications for pau ordinances is, is legal. KAY: In that case I'd have to defer to corporation counsel. CARR SMITH: J, did you want to comment? 10 EXHIBIT D YOSHIMOTO: Yes, you know, if we want to go through a protracted discussion about this particular issue, then we should go into executive session. All I can say for the record here simply put is that Leeward Commission, Planning Commission, has what it has before it, and the Commission has options on what it wants to do. I wouldn't let this—well, it's up to the Commission, right, I mean if the Commission wants to hear or discuss this matter further in executive session, then that would have to come on another date. CARR SMITH: Thank you, J— VAN PERNIS: My second— CARR SMITH: Wait, Mark, Mark, you have to, yeah, so hold on a second, please, Mark. Maija, I think you had something to add perhaps. VAN PERNIS: Yes, I have a second legal question and a question for staff on their presentation. CARR SMITH: All right, hold on, Mark. Maija, did you have a comment on this? JACKSON: I do. So, I think the sticking point of misinterpretation here is that Commissioner Van Perris has said that the ordinance is pau, and it's not pau. There is nothing, there is no condition in the ordinance that says that it shall automatically expire after a certain date, or there is no condition in the ordinance that says if you don't perform, the ordinance automatically expires. It requires further action on the part of the Planning Director, the Commission and the Council. There is nothing in the Zoning Code that says non-conformance means the ordinance automatically expires. So, just to be very clear, the ordinance is not pau and it does not automatically expire. The reason, what there is in the Zoning Code is language that. says an applicant can come back and request amendments to ordinances or time extensions to an ordinance through the Director, the Planning Commission and the Council. So that's where we are; we have an ordinance, two ordinances that are what we call stale, have stale conditions, the applicant has requested the time extension, and now the ball is really in Planning Commission and County Council's court to say, hey, you know, we don't want to offer those time extensions or, yeah, that seems reasonable. So that's just some context of how we have handled the situation in the past based on, you know, our legal limitations on what the code says and the ordinances do or do not say. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Maija, appreciate that. VAN PERNIS: Let me respond to Maija by saying that's a good argument, but under that argument, every ordinance can go on forever. CARR SMITH: That's what we have in front of us, Mark, so— VAN PERNIS: Okay, let me ask Maija the other legal question. The applicants are asking for deletion of the requirement of five acres going for a school lot, which.implies, or states, that they are going to take that five acres and include it in the development. Does this additional five acres trigger the requirement for a new application to either the County or the State agencies involved? ll EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Christian? VAN PERNIS: This is a legal question about the five acres of additional development. CARR SMITH: J? YOSHIMOTO: I would have to defer that to the Planning Department; I am not aware of or familiar with that particular condition. CARR SMITH: Michael, did I see your hand? Planning Director—oh, I'm sorry, I thought I did, you must have been scratching your head. Christian? KAY: Okay, if I can try to address that. The condition requiring a five -acre set aside for a school site was just a condition of approval for that ordinance. It's part of the, that five acres would have been part of the just under 15 acres of the project size. So this would be the appropriate venue to go through to, request to amend that condition, delete it or otherwise, without having to, you know, trigger it to go up to State Land Use Commission or anything else; it's just part of the under 15 acres that is under the purview of the Planning Commission and the County Council. If I understand your question correctly. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. I have a question of staff, which is you said that they are asking for the deletion of the affordable housing requirement, which is to construct the affordable housing, and - - - -refer to a standard language on affordable housing. What standard language are you referring to? KAY: Generally that 20 percent of the units developed within any development would need to be affordable as designated by the Office of Housing and Community Development and HUD guidelines. So in this case, at the time they were granted the change of zone back in 2005, they represented that they would go above and beyond the normal requirement; they said where 20 percent of these units we will rent thele at 80 percent or less than median income, which ----and the remainder would be at 120 or less—I believe the standard requirement is - - - under at 120 or less. So I think in this case they are asking for all of the units that would be designated as affordable units to be under at 120 or less. That's how we - - - I guess maybe the applicant can address that at the time. But they are asking for relief of a condition that was placed on that based on their representations back then. VAN PERNIS: My understanding is they are seeking to not build affordable housing or rent affordable housing but to allow some undesignated property be submitted in lieu of affordable housing so that the property could theoretically be used by the County, if the County had any money to build affordable housing. Is that not your understanding? KAY: So I think at the time ----and Sid even said this at the last hearing, reading through the transcript—at the time the County Council really wanted to see actual affordable housing developed and not use in -lieu credits, which is also a possibility that's kind of standard language in our, in our housing conditions of rezones. In fact, for Puaa, the village, pardon me, the neighborhood commercial, there is a condition that states housing shall be a part of this project, and then it goes on to link the development, or the ability to -obtain a certificate of occupancy for any commercial to the 12 EXHIBIT D development of actual housing. They are asking for relief from that requirement as well so that there is no tying the actual having to build housing to commercial development. So I will let them address that as to what their intentions are, moving forward. On the record- they've stated they intend to develop affordable housing. But looking at the request for relief of conditions that they've submitted, it would really decouple the development of housing from the development of commercial, and, there would be nothing holding them to developing housing, if those conditions were, amendments were granted. Part of going through the Project District process includes a phasing plan, which speaks to when housing would be developed relative to commercial, relative to other type of uses. So that's another reason that we are recommending going that direction, as is consistency with the CDP - - - VAN PERNIS: - - - developing affordable housing, I'd like to -use the word "construct" affordable housing. So you'are understanding that they are proposing to delete any requirement to construct affordable housing and instead submit some undefined property at some undefined location and some undefined price? KAY: Again, maybe I would, I would let the applicant to address that. I don't want to get into what their intent is or however it is. All I'm saying is, based on the types of amendments that they are requesting right now, there would be no conditions holding them to actually developing or constructing housing, other than time conditions for Suffolk saying that they would develop, you know, if granted their amendments, in the next 20 years, some type of housing development. And if they go with what the standard language is for affordable housing, then they could use in -lieu housing credits or things like that where they wouldn't actually have to construct onsite housing. But, again, that's something that I'll let them address. Because we haven't seen a kind of a detailed development timeline or any other type of assurances that housing is going to be built and when, I can't answer that. CARR SMITH: - - - sorry, I was muted. Do other Commissioners have questions? Mike. We are, we are questioning staff. VITOUSEK: Yes. Yeah, pretty complicated deal here. But, basically, if we could boil it down to being looking at the project as being proposed, right, does the staff have issues with the project itself? Or are the issues with the process to get to that project? KAY: I would say that the development as is currently proposed in the site plan and as is, as would be allowed by the, by continuation of the existing zoning, would not allow the type of development that is envisioned and recommended by the Kona Community Development Plan for a mixed use, walkable—I'll go ahead and, if I can reshare my screen, I'll throw back up the - - - site plan, and maybe it will help kind of address what I'm looking at, or what we are looking at, sorry, not quite sure how to do this, otherwise, okay, oops. So, again, what you see here in their, the proposed site plan for the Pualani Makai Master Planned Community—you guys can see this, okay—is really what is allowed under the existing zoning. For the Neighborhood Commercial, you have the ability to do both commercial and multiple -family residential, which is being proposed, but then completely separate from the other multiple -family residential that's being proposed on the Suffolk lot that, you know, requires setback separation that requires, you know, whatever density is allowed for development on that property; as you can see here, for these folks to access the commercial area, 13 EXHIBIT D they'd have to jump in their cars and drive up the access road to get to the commercial area to go to the drug store or the offices or whatever else. What the CDP, what the CDP envisions, and that's, you know, more consistent with this type of mixed-use TOD development is kind of all of these uses taking place in one area and allowing for a higher density around the transit area in the commercial core, lower density on the outside, but then mixed uses of, you know, living and working in the same buildings, in buildings next door to each other, and things like that. Under the existing zoning, this is impossible. So, I mean, ultimately, your, your question initially was, do we have an issue with the development? And the issue is, yes, the development is inconsistent, as is currently proposed, with what the CDP calls for. And as that's one of the kind of criteria to look at, consistency with the existing plans, we would say that, yes, we have an issue with what's being currently proposed. It was, it's inconsistent with the CDP that came into, into view three years after the ordinances were granted, but because they are coming in for a time extension and other amendments, we have to look at what the CDP calls for in the area, and that's kind of where we are at this point. Does that answer your question, Mike? VITOUSEK: - - - KAY: Mike, you are muted. VITOUSEK: Thank you. So the - - - CARR SMITH: You are still muted for some reason. There you go. VITOUSEK: Is it still muted? CARR SMITH: No, go ahead. KAY: No, we can hear you. VITOUSEK: Okay, cool. Yeah, so the inconsistency, then, is that the development that's being proposed is not dense enough for the area? KAY: It's, it's not just density; it's density, it's a mix of uses, it's walkability, it's any number of things that the CDP calls out, which unfortunately cannot be developed under the zoning that's currently set up at this point, so, yeah. VITOUSEK: - - - because oflike the walkability, there is no way that we can connect the two. Is that what we are saying is that the zoning prohibits like construction of walking path that would go between the two properties? KAY: There is no prohibition there. And, you know, Maija and I have talked a lot about this, so I'm going to, I'm going to tap her in, tag her in, if that's okay, Mike, and she can address that. VITOUSEK: Sure, of course. CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Maija. 14 EXHIBIT D JACKSON: Hi. So one of the main differences, Mike, is, with this current zoning and what they are proposing, you have land uses that are segregated; you have your commercial in one area, you have your housing in another. And when you don't integrate it, either within one structure with like a live -work unit or very close to one another, then the community, the area becomes less walkable. You have to get in your car, the tendency is to get in the car, to go from the housing area to the commercial area. So the Project District zoning will allow not only greater density but a lot higher percentage of mixing the uses together so that these areas do become automatically more conducive to walking and biking. VITOUSEK: So that's a nice idea, of course, you know, I mean it's great. Does that solve our housing issue now? I mean we have this pressing issues where we don't have housing for people and, you know, the idea that what they have presented to us is, is pretty close to what we are suggesting, you know, in terms of mixed use where you've got some residential, you've got some multi -family. They are pretty close to each other, they are connected to each other. They could be more connected. I don't know if that's something that can be worked out between the applicant and the office. But, I mean, is it, is this, you know, is this going to make it more difficult for our community to get the housing that it needs? JACKSON: I would say not necessarily, I mean, the current request that the applicant is making is actually a lot of relief from providing affordable housing units. So_ I would, you know, suggest that what they are proposing isn't going to necessarily get us any closer to providing units on the ground in a short time frame. VITOUSEK: And I agree with you there; I don't necessarily think the changes to the zoning conditions are appropriate, you know, given the need for it now. I think the time extension is too great. But, my question is if we would be better served by maintaining the existing zoning and reconditioning it to make it suit out community's needs now versus kicking it back to Land Use Commission and Project District that's going to extend this way beyond the, you know, ten-, 20 -year period .that, that is being proposed here. JACKSON: Yeah, so I, I understand your concern, Mike, just because of the time it takes to go through these planning processes. I would just remind you that the developer, the applicant has not provided us with any timeline or guarantee at this point. So I can't really speak to how long their proposal is going to take or if it's going to pan out. But what I can tell you is the Planning Department has to advise the Commission based on the plans that the community has created. And, you know, the CDP says we need affordable housing, the CDP also says we want more walkable TODs and more walkable commercial communities. So we have to balance that, and I don't think - - - necessarily throw either of those ideas out the window. I think the Director, and he can speak to this, would feel a lot more comfortable, if the applicant would provide some more solid timeline on when housing could be provided, or if it's even going to be provided on site. VITOUSEK: So, again, you know, I definitely agree, but I think that, you know, looking at the extension, the zoning extension, from 2011, it indicates that, you know, the Kona Community Development Plan was adopted after the fact, and it kind of offers help from the County to the developer, saying, hey, if you need help in complying with the guidelines established in the 15 EXHIBIT D Community Development Plan, then we can help you. You know, the whole purpose behind, you know, three months ago when we asked for deferral was I_think the Commission was hoping that, you know, the applicants and the Planning Department would fully back up and try to solve these issues so that we are not in this kind of uncomfortable position of trying to mediate something. And I feel like if we have this goal of providing housing or providing commercial space, we have this kind of a mixed-use type area, which existed prior to the Kona Community Development Plan. And, you know, it's kind of like a chicken -or -the -egg where we've got this thing that existed previously, now we are trying to incorporate it into the Plan. Is there a way where the applicant can work with the staff, with the Planning Department, to make the existing zoning work so that we don't have to kick it further down the road and change zoning and go to Land Use Commission and all that? Is there a way that we can accomplish that by working together? CARR SMITH: That's a very good question. I support that question, and I'd like to know whether there has been any communications and any efforts trying to work out any of these details. Can the Planning Department confirm or deny whether there has been any efforts made since February? KAY: We met with the applicants' representative shortly after the February hearing, had a conversation in the Director's office, and really what came out of that is a determination that our recommendation wasn't going to change, that, not just for consistency with the CDP but all the other reasons we stated for the unfavorable recommendation. We were just going to move forward with that. And from that point, that's kind of when, when the world turned upside down. So we haven't had any additional meetings since then about that. CARR SMITH: Mike. VITOUSEK: Does the, does the County have any ideas on what could be done in order to turn this into a favorable recommendation to maintain the existing zoning and allow them to proceed? Or is it a hardline on the Project District is the only way to accomplish the needs? KAY: I, I think, just my opinion and I'll certainly defer to the Director on this, but based on what the CDP calls for and based on the limitations of the existing single zoning as they are, there's really not a possibility to kind of even get close. If you add into that, then the extensive relief that's been requested by the applicant on developing anything other than commercial development there, it's very difficult to find the middle ground. But that's just my, my response, and I'll let the Director respond, as it's his recommendation. CARR SMITH: Director, do you have any comments?, YEE: So, yeah, besides the meetings that Christian just spoke about, we certainly have had internal meetings among staff to talk about this project, more, more than once, soon after the hearing in February and thereafter a couple more. So I think we've tried to take a reasonable look at options, and I still fell under the recommendation that I had before. So I'm hesitant to sit there and say, yes, there is an option, because then all of a sudden we'll get into conversation about, about not going forward with my recommendation, right? So I'm hesitant to want to sit there and say—now, people who know me, also I try never to say never. I try to listen if there are good options out there, too. lb EXHIBIT D But I think we've kind of exhausted our conversations on this up to now. So that's my general comment for now. CARR SMOTH: That seems to, a lot of what you are proposing seems to be based on something that doesn't really sit that well with me, and that's with you recommending to the property owner that they pull in other property that they own and combine it into a Project District. Is that really typical to address property other than the applicants are in front of you for? YEE: No, I would—I see Christian raising his hand, so I'll let Christian first. Go ahead, Christian. KAY: I think more than anything we were responding to the applicants' assertion that there wasn't a possibility to meet the minimum required acreage for a Project District, and we were saying that in fact with consolidation there is. And, really, even in the areas where there are multiple landowners, that's still what the Plan calls for in those areas. A little more difficult in those other TOD areas where there are multiple landowners to get everybody on the same page, but in this case it's a bit unique in that all of the properties in the area that would make up that minimum of 50 acres are either owned or controlled by Puaa Development. So I think our, our recommendation is a more appropriate zoning, which, which the condition calls for that the, and in this case the more appropriate zoning would be the Project District. So, yeah, I think in my opinion it's appropriate to make that recommendation because that's the part of the authority we have to make the recommendation for a more appropriate— CARR SMITH: But they have zoning, right? They have zoning, and they are making a proposal ---I see you, Mark and Faye, I'll be with you just, in just a minute, I want to speak as well, thank you. KAY: They currently have zoning that is stale, that would need the time extension to continue to do anything on the property. CARR SMITH: Right. KAY: And so, again, the condition of the existing ordinance says if they are not met, or conditions not met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning to the area to its original or a more appropriate designation. So in this case, the Director is not initiating the zoning; he is recommending that the applicant move toward the Project District, which is the more appropriate designation in this case. In order to move, in order to refresh the ordinances and move a project forward. CARR SMITH: I guess all I'm saying, and then I'll move on, is that I wish that the Department was trying to be more cooperative with applicants that are proposing to develop something that develops a new mauka-makai road, which would be a benefit to the community, there is commercial involved, there is rentals involved, which, we desperately need the housing. And it seems like it's just maybe not jibing with the definition of the TOD that you guys want, but we are not Oahu and it's not going to look like Oahu looks, hopefully. So that's all I have to say right now on that. Mark, go ahead. VAN PERNIS: - - - 17 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: You are muted. Noriko? VAN PERNIS: - - - CARR SMITH: Okay, anybody else until we get- DARROW: Rachelle, can you, can you unmute them, Rachelle? LEY: He's unmuted. DARROW: Okay, thanks. CARR SMITH: Okay, go ahead, Mark. VAN PERNIS: - - - CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Mark. LAY: Their microphone is not on mute. It's under Noriko's name, right? CARR SMITH: Yes. LAY: Yeah, is your, something wrong with the microphone? Is Alex there to check? CARR SMITH: Okay, anybody else? Perry? Max? You have—go ahead, Perry. KEALOHA: I guess following up on Mike's questioning in light of the conversation that's being going on, so if I'm hearing this right, as far as part of the County's view on this, because they are trying to piecemeal this project to avoid certain hoops, they are not able to achieve the goal as far as this TOD is concerned. So if they were treating this as one property, could create appropriate walkways and so forth, to meet the general requirements, but because they are piecemealing it, they need to have the appropriate setbacks that will kind of be in the walkways and the properties aren't adjoined in any way. Is that the right understanding? CARR SMITH: Christian? KAY: I think, again, under the existing zoning --- VAN PERNIS: Am I heard yet? KAY: —under the existing zoning, it's, it's kind of impossible to get to that preferred development. It's not that we don't want to see it or anything like that; it's just kind of not possible. And it provides you what you see they're proposing is kind of these separate uses, commercial separate from housing, separate from other housing that requires getting into a car and going to commercial, and things like that. So, that, hopefully, that answers your question. EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: I don't under- how, why is it not possible, to walk from your apartment up to the commercial? Maybe there's easements or whatever. Why is that not possible? Or what makes you think that people will get in a car as opposed to walking? They'll even walk down to Kuakini and walk into the village. KAY: If, if we are looking at kind of what's being proposed, that's, that's kind of the way that they would do, and it's more consistent with kind of suburban separate development, auto -oriented development, versus a mixed-use, walkable, commercial and residences mixed in the same place that the CDP is looking for and what the CDP asks for, since the CDP provides a process and the framework for doing that through the Project District. I, you know, I don't know if people will get out, you know, and walk up to the commercial or walk down. I'm certain that some would, but most, at least as what's being represented in the site plan, would almost require that. CARR SMITH: Okay. All right, let's move over to Noriko's— VAN PERNIS: Can I— CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Mark. VAN PERNIS: Can I be hard? Am I, can you hear me out? CARR SMITH: Yes. VAN PERNIS: First of all, I want to point out to Mike and to Ms. Smith that they have a false assumption that there is affordable housing going to be built. They, my understanding is that they are asking that the affordable housing not be built, that there not be affordable housing. Secondly, I would point out that the CDP has the power of law; it has to be complied with. Supreme Court has decided and states very broadly. And, thirdly, I wish to point out that I've thoroughly studied this project and spoken with some of the people who have filed their statements, and I wish to point out that there is a major, major infrastructure problem that this project creates. So it got all the design—and I'm not suggesting that it be returned to Ag, I think that it should have appropriate zoning—but that you folks are not yet considering what I believe Mr. Fuke will admit is a major, major infrastructure problem that the applicants are going to cause and not address. By the way, the other Commissioner here wants to talk. CARR SMITH: Yes, go ahead, Faye. YATES: Yay, finally. CARR SMITH: Yes, sorry— YATES: That's okay - 19 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Everybody has a lot to say. Thanks for being patient. YATES: That's okay. Well, first of all, I mean we all realize housing is at the shortage, and it would be a great thing to be able to have more shortage [sic] but, again, you know, I went to school here at Konawaena High School more than 50 years ago; the road, Kuakini, has not been improved to any way that will be, you know, conducive to traffic these days. And I know all of that has to be done. So, again, it has to do with the infrastructure. Secondly, can, you know, when you build all of these homes, etcetera, etcetera, who, the County has to come up with monies, has to come up with workers, has to come up with maintaining, I mean they are saying a park, so who is going to maintain that park? We need more County employees. There is a lot of things that needs to be taken into consideration other than having affordable housing. And then, of course, yeah, people, you know, may walk around and, but, my biggest concern is, you know, can our County support this, you know, with the maintaining the road—or are the developers going to maintain the road? Are they going to also take care of the parks? Are they also going to provide transportation? Maybe the, transportation to the commercial areas? What's going to happen? This is my concern, you know. It becomes a tax burden on all of us. So, are the people that buy into their place, they are going to be responsible for their taxes to take care of where they are? As we all know, you know, all of us are paying an exorbitant amount of taxes to be able to support our County. So all of these things to me are something that needs to be considered and, you know, unfortunately, it's a good idea, but I have to agree with our Director that, you know, maybe now is not the time or maybe more thought should be put into it so that it's not a tax burden on all of us. Thank you. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Max, do you have any questions for staff? NEWBURG: At this time I don't have any questions, but just merely, simply put that the request of exemptions being made by the applicant seem to far outweigh what they are offering as a project. We desperately need housing, but I just don't see between what they are proposing and what the community needs coming together. I just leave that as my statement. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. Maij a. JACKSON: Thank you, Chair Carr Smith. Can I just close with one more idea? When the Planning Director makes a recommendation, what we do is we look at for zoning, we look at whether the zoning is the most appropriate land use, I'm sorry, the most appropriate zoning for that area in order to create the best land use pattern. So I know there is a tendency on all of our permits to look at projects rather than the zoning that's being requested. What we are saying in this case is right now the applicant has Commercial and Residential segregated zoning districts, and what we are saying is a Project District would be the more appropriate zoning district to create the land use pattern that the Kona community has said that they want to see in this area. CARR SMITH: And that would - - - - traffic, right? JACKSON: I'm sorry, what was that? 20 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: That would create more density and more traffic in that area. JACKSON: It, it may create less density, if it's designed in a more walkable way. That's the goal. CARR SMITH: Mike, did you have something else? Mike Vitousek? No? Okay. All right. Anything else, anyone? VITOUSEK: Yeah, I do have one more, one more question. CARR SMITH: Okay. VITOUSEK: So would the Planning Director then initiate the change of zoning as is indicated in the change of zoning ordinance? JACKSON: I'm going to answer that, but, Michael, chime in, if you want to. So if the Commission and the Council were to determine that this wasn't an appropriate zoning any longer, then the Director would initiate procedures to change the zoning. VITOUSEK: And how does that work for the additional properties that would add to get to the 50 acres? Does the applicant have to opt into that in order to have their zoning changed? JACKSON: That is a great question. We would have to have that conversation with the applicant, and we would also probably have to have an internal conversation of whether the Director should also initiate a change to the Zoning Code to reduce the minimum acreage to create a Project District. So there is, there is different things we can look at, if the applicant isn't amenable to including other properties. CARR SMITH: So, is—okay, Mark, go ahead. VAN PERNIS: - - - one thing, everybody has been assuming the applicant here is going to be the developer. I want to remind you that there was a statement shared at the February hearing that the applicant represented by Mr. Cook is not going to develop, has no ability to develop, nor is Mr. Schuler, the man behind Mr. Cook - - - going to develop, but this is a sale. This is a sale to another developer who will not commit to when or where he will develop, or when, and that what we are doing here is just promoting this sale by Mr. Schuler to this developer who will sometime in the indefinite future develop, perhaps be the seller themselves. And I think that the true developer should apply when it plans to be developing— CARR SMITH: Okay— VAN PERNIS: --- and have public review at that time. CARR SMITH: All right, thank you. Okay, Christian. 21 EXHIBIT D KAY: Just really quickly. Before we get to the applicant, I did want to point out that we did receive a significant number of correspondences after the February meeting in terms of public testimony from neighbors, the evidence of the administrative time extension, and we also got response from State Department of Transportation relative to their review of the traffic impact analysis report. And so I just want to point that out and also to address the possible reopening of public testimony so we could accept those testimonies. That's all. CARR SMITH: Thank you. All right, we'll get to the public testimony after we hear from the applicant, as we usually do, right? That was the plan anyway, Christian, correct? Thank you. All right, Mr. Fuke, you and your guys are there and ready to go? We need to swear you in. Is everybody okay? Do we need any breaks at this point? - - - Okay. All right, everybody raising their right hand, please. Mr. Fuke, Mr. Cook and Mr. Van Bergen, and Mr. Okaneku, thank you. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVES: I Do. CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. Can you one at a time please state your name and where you reside for the record? FUKE: Good afternoon, Commissioner, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant. My residence address is Hilo, Hawaii. My role is essentially to assist the applicants with the processing of the time extension and - - - amendments. With me today are Brian Cook, the landowner, representing the landowner developer, and also Ken Van Bergen who is representing the developer - - -. You want me to just kind of continue on or? CARR SMITH: Go ahead, yeah, go ahead. FUKE: There have been a lot of material that have been already sent to the Commission, a lot of internal discussion, you know, among the, between the Commission and the staff. And before like, kind of like going on further, I'd like to just kind of indicate, as the staff had noted, one is that, you know, this is a neighborhood shopping complex that has about 380 -plus housing units of which we propose like 225 would be in the rental market. There is a transit station. There is a new mauka-makai road, which would be developed by the landowner, complete with curb, gutters and sidewalks. They are going to be doing expanded signalization at the Puapua`anui intersection, so on and so forth. Now, there are like two, I think, like discourses, I get it, like one was the whole notion about like all or nothing on the conditions. True, the applicant has proposed like about ten or eleven different amendments. Now, it's the responsibility I believe of not only the staff but also the Commission that if you like ten and you don't like the eleven, then your obligation would be to recommend its approval or denial on certain things. So please do not regard this as being like an all -or -nothing. So, specifically, as it relates to the affordable housing condition, that is true, the applicant had proposed that as far as the rental unit, the demarcation of certain percentage be set aside for 80 percent and below and the rest in the pool are like rental area; that language was being proposed to be deleted. Now, if on the other hand, based on all of your considerations, that you believe that that condition 22 '` EXHIBIT D should still be retained, then that should be your recommendation. But don't let that one condition be the downfall of the rest of what the applicant is requesting. Secondly, the whole notion about walkability, mixed-use, so on and so forth, I tend to disagree with the staffs finding that you can't integrate the two properties to achieve the walkability and the mixed-use style - - -. True within the Multiple -Family zoned area; it's going to be limited only to Multiple -Family activities. But within the commercially zoned area, you could have like a combination of multiple -family and commercial uses, which is what the tentative plan calls for right now. Further, the distance between the two area is not like two miles; I mean you're basically talking only like about 100 or 200 yards differences. So if there is a desire to kind of integrate both areas, then it can easily be done through what it's called administrative process of plan approval. So which is one item that, you know, in my discussion with the Planning Department, I'm saying like, look, if you want to achieve like some of these TOD kind of objectives, it can be done short of adequately vetted by the Kona Design Center, which sometimes can take you like so, so long, but you can do it through the plan approval process; you can require like there be, you know, this kind of physical integration - - - happens. I know that for a fact because there; have a number of projects that I've worked on in the Hilo area, but it kind of like mandated driveway accesses and pedestrian accesses - - - - adjoining properties, then in the beginning the adjoining properties objected but at the end of the day they agreed like how it's, you know, like how it's functioned. Now, having said that, I think a couple of things I wanted to speak to relative to the regulatory end. The General Plan was adopted in, you know, like in 1970-71, and the most current one, which is what we are operating today, was adopted in February of 2005. The zone change was adopted in August of 2005. So at that time it was a decisionmaker, and the Planning Commission and the planning director, they all concluded that this project meets the requirements of the County General Plan. Then we had the CDP, the Kona Community Development Plan, which was adopted in 2008. When we went through, the applicant went through for the initial time extension in 2001, excuse me, 2011, at that time the planning director concluded, number one, you are, the project is consistent with the General Plan; number two, the project is consistent with the Kona CDP. Now, what has happened on the Kona CDP since the adoption in 2008, there have been some amendments that occurred in 2019, just last year. And the specific amendments as it relates to the land use component basically said that it's not a mandate in terms of going through the Project District, but it would encourage the developer to go through the Project District process, because, you know what, we'll help you guys out, we'll speed it up, we'll support you guys all the way, and we'll take it through the Kona Design Center, and we'll get it through very quickly. Now, usually, when the Department or the Commission considers a recommendation for denial, the denial is, you know, on the General Plan, you say like, well, it's not consistent with the General Plan, so if you want to propose a resort activity in an area that's not shown on the General Plan, then obviously you are out, you know; there is no way that statutorily you can recommend its approval. And then, you know, you look at, in this case, the case, you know, you have a Medium Density and Urban Expansion on the General Plan. The zoning is already consistent with that, as approved in 2005 and as approved by another planning director in 2011. So how can you tell me in 2019 this is not consistent with the County General Plan? 23 EXHIBIT D Then you look at for other reasons why the Commission or the Department might recommend denial. The infrastructure - - -; you don't have enough water, you don't have enough sewer, you don't - - -. But here is a situation, you have the water, there is a county sewer line right below the street, and the State Department, there's a traffic study done, their mitigation has been proposed pursuant to an approved traffic study by the State Department of Transportation. I just mentioned that, you know, the Department of Transportation reviewed the traffic study, and they concurred with that study. The other reasons why like maybe a project might be denied is that you have unresolvable environmental or also historical issues. Say, for example, you have a major floodway going through the property; there is no way that you want to have development be occurring in that area. Or if you have like archaeological sorts of things that cannot be resolved, then, you know like, then they are basis for its denial. So then, you've got to ask yourself like why is the Planning Director recommending—if you look through, you know, like three or four pages and 15 minutes of recitation of the reasons why, you know, they talk a little bit about the General Plan saying speculation, they are talking about separating the Land Use Commission process. But the linchpin argument is really that if you want the project, the landowner, to go through the State Land Use Commission at the Project District rezone, now we all know that that's a process that's very time-consuming, that's very expensive, and most critically, you don't know the outcome. Maybe you like the project. But what if the Land Use Commission denies it or imposes conditions that are totally, amount to like an impossible situation for the developer to pursue. So what it boils down to I think, there are two ways of like how this application can be processed. One is that you can take what the Director or the staff has recommended, stay denial, and then force the developer to go through the Project District and the State Land Use Commission - - -, and I've already explained some of the liabilities behind all that. Or on the other hand, you can take the recommended approach; you can pick and choose what you want from the conditions to favorably recommend and conditions you don't want to favorably recommend, but take it up to the County Council and let the Council make the decision. Now, in so doing, what you do is that you are keeping the decision-making down to this level; you are not kicking the decision-making up to nine Land Use Commissioners of which seven of thein don't reside on this island. So I guess what I'm asking, you know, as dealing really like with this Commission, is that if you can put your real life common sense to the end result and ask yourself, you know, given the County's high unemployment and the economic uncertainty especially created, excessively created, by the COVID-19 issue, you know, shouldn't government be more encouraging and supportive of private initiatives? Especially on a project that, number one, is consistent with the CDP and the General Plan, as recommended, you know, by planning, two previous planning directors and the County Council, project that could help the economy, provide much needed jobs, provide goods and services, provide affordable housing both for sale and rental, provide much needed road connectivity between Kuakini Highway and the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway extension. So I presented to you at the last Commission meeting, and I think I also emailed it to Planning staff to provide it to the Commissioner who was not there, you know, proposed recommendations for both the Suffolk and the Puaa applications. Now, I had to do that because otherwise, you know, should, 24 EXHIBIT D you know, if the Commission, hopefully, sees it the way that, you know, we are seeing, I'm hoping that the Commission would act, and if you recommend favorably on all or a portion of it, you would need to have reasons for its favorable recommendation. You would also need to have corresponding amendments to those. So that's what I did. One final thing I'd like to kind of mention is that, you know, in what I presented on the affordable housing, the existing condition --and even the proposed condition, even if it deletes the rental portion, the subject property already was entitled to 50 affordable housing credits ---the existing condition right now, and we are not proposing any amendment, is saying that, you know what, you cannot use any of those affordable housing credits to offset your affordable housing requirement, and, two, you cannot buy credits, and you cannot, it will, your, satisfy your requirements off site; they have to be on site. And that's explicit in terms of what the existing condition states. So, therefore, if the affordable housing, the rental component, is a very critical issue for the Commissioners, and I kind of sense that it is, then my recommendation is that if you look at Condition, Condition B, the new Condition B, then you leave the wording in, and that wording basically says, further as represented by the applicant, a minimum of 20 percent of units will be rented at 80 percent or less than median income level and the remaining at 120 percent or less than the median income level. So that was what we were proposing to delete. If you cannot agree with that, just recommend its denial on that component. But don't let that one issue cause you to, to recommend denial on the entire package of requested amendments. I had mentioned earlier, Brian Cook and Ken Van Bergen, landowner, developer, and also on standby is Mr. Okaneku—he is in a position to answer any traffic -related questions that the Commissioners may have. Thank you very much. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Were Mr. Van Bergen or Mr. Cook planning on speaking? COOK: Yes, Madam Chair. I'm Brian Cook representing Puaa Development, Suffolk -- CARR SMITH: Can you speak up? COOK: Yes, I can. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Go ahead. COOK: Yeah, we acquired the property, 62 acres, back in 2004, zoned Ag agricultural property. We felt like at that time there was a need in central West Hawaii to develop a project that would provide affordable rental housing and commercial shopping center, that we felt like that area is central, and as it turned out, that area became a Neighborhood TOD; so someone did agree with the - - -. And we got it rezoned for Neighborhood Commercial, CV[sic]-20, and RM -2.5 of the brown. We felt like at that time that we needed to provide housing for local people that can't afford place, that were currently - - -. And so we felt like an affordable rental housing project would be very important where we would have rental rates below market price affordable rental housing - - - beginning I felt like, well, if we - - - affordable rental housing project of 250 units, and we set aside 20 percent of them at 60 percent of rental rates, and then we set aside 60 percent of it at 80 percent of the low-income rates,, and the final 20 percent at 120 percent, and so that's how we started the 25 EXHIBIT D affordable rental housing onset. The commercial property, we felt like being right - - - it would be ideal for neighborhood shopping center with a supermarket, drug store and then some of commercial businesses there. Anyway, we came up with our initial master plan, so 250 -unit affordable rental housing, we had a neighborhood shopping center and 100 -unit condo project. Since that time - - - process for rezone, and then as we got the property zoned, we went forward in getting the project designed. We approached the area of -the flooding, the maps that they had at that time when D.R. Horton developed Pualani Estates, they had maps that showed that the stormwaters ran from property to the north of Pualani Estates, and they designed a gunite concrete channel that ran through their project to have the water flow into. Well, as it turned out when we started doing our drainage study - - - and we had the area - - - two -foot boundary. And then we took that area all way on the northside of Hualalai Road, and there is a two -foot - - - found out the floodwater did not align the area where they said, and floodwater can - - - to the gunite channel. So we went to the extent of getting a CLOMR down the old area, and found that floodwaters would be coming across Hualalai Road into property north of us and to two lots that we had acquired just adjacent to Pualani Estates on the northside. And so we hence realized that we had to design a good drainage system for the whole area there. And so we had our engineers go ahead and design basically a split -flow tube, which would go through those two lots into the gunite channel, and then where Pualani Estates entry road is - - - gunite channel, it went into a multi -throat box culvert that crossed the entry road to Pualani Estates into the area, park area. And at the low point there was a—the State had designed and installed the eight -foot concrete, diameter, concrete pipe to take care of any floodwater crossing - - - highway. Our study determined that the floodwater would come across, breach over the highway some 400 feet and to our property below. And so we had to design an aluminum multi -plate culvert crossed under the state highway, and that multi -plate culvert ended up being designed at 20 -foot wide, 14.5 feet high, and we designed it to be 13 5 feet long - - - highway. As the water then entered into our property, we designed a concrete headwall and a 40 -foot wide concrete U -shape channel going through our property, and every 50 to 70 feet we got velocity breakers where the water hit turbulence and slowed down, and that just above Kuakini Highway we designed an about 2.5-, 3 -acre basin that's about 25-, 30 -foot deep to collect the water. And we had drywells at the park, and we had—anyway, we did design the whole system to protect that area from the 100 -year storm. And then after that, we got into the design of our project where we - - - the neighborhood shopping center, we have housing there, and we've got the affordable rental housing project._ And we did all that and started in 2005, we got the zoning, and by late 2008 we had most of the design complete, we had the plans, went to the State Department of Transportation for the culvert crossing - - -, and it was finally approved in 2010. The market balked back in 2008, and we got burned; we were not able to go forward. So there were, there were delays and, with the process of moving forward. And, anyway, we were, we were hopeful that we could get our - - - after 2015. Anyway, so it has been a lengthy process and, we, myself I will be 83 next month, I'm approaching - - -, and Mr. Schuler will be 82 in September, or October, excuse me— CARR SMITH: Okay— COOK: —and so we were looking for someone that was younger that can take our project with finance - - - so expensive, but we - - - work design of the roadways and do that sort of thing, it's 26 EXHIBIT D 32 - - -, but that done, we could have done it. But at this time, as time - - - development - - - Spring Capital interest and probably going to be taking over the project and acquiring - - -. So they are, our agreement with them is - - - little under seven million dollars - - - trying to get something we felt like the community needed back in 2005, and we feel like it would be - - -. If you all want to make different changes on plans that'll be more neighborhood -friendly as far as walking path - - - where the 40 -foot channel is going - - - .the shops, you could put in a walkway, ten -foot wide concrete walkway - - - the new developer can work with the County Planning Department and - - - some of these issues, but if they have to go back - - - new process, it's, I don't know, it's very difficult. Anyway, I'd like to hand it over to Ken Van Bergen representing Spring Capital - - - CARR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Cook. Thank you. VAN BERGEN: Aloha, Commissioners and Chair, nice to see you today. As was mentioned back in February and earlier at this meeting, you know, the property is for sale. It, I view it as a strength, although Brian is a very accomplished developer and has many successes through his own rights CARR SMITH: Ken, Ken, could you be a little closer to your microphone, please? Your computer? It's --thank you. VAN BERGEN: You are not hearing me -- CARR SMITH: Thank you, that's better, thanks. VAN BERGEN: All right, sure. So, you know, I view this sale as a positive for this development, . because as I was saying Brian is a very, you know, accomplished successful developer, but Spring Capital is even more accomplished, and it is a bigger entity. I shared with you back in February three pages, some of their developments over the, you know, past two decades, we had five states, over 30 development projects, just showing Big Island alone, we've been on the Big Island for 25 years, over 100 million dollars in developments that were done. Someone maybe, you know, someone at Planning maybe went out and looked at some of their projects, Maula Lani projects, Kuki`o projects, they are currently developing a very large storage facility just above Costco here in Kona. And so they've been invested in this community for, for a long time, and - - - to continue that, you know, with this project. I think as far as what's actually been built, you know, they inherited a lot of Brian's designs, which Brian put a lot of effort into and Brian did a good job with, but they are not, you know, glued to that, if the Planning Commission or Council, you know, has more requirements for affordable housing and walkways, and so forth. We've got a solid track record in developing. They don't buy land to hold it; they buy land to build. And you are not going to find another scenario where you have a more willing, able developer, with the kind of resources into a project like this that will get done. So I, it's definitely a strength in the reality of situation, you folks can see that. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. My history with Spring Capital goes back to 2006 and 7 when I worked for Maryl Group as development manager in South Kohala on several projects, and so I can speak with experience that they are well qualified to fulfill requirements and to build the project like this. Thanks. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions? Max. Nh EXHIBIT D NEWBERG: If I could, Ken, you had mentioned that I believe Spring Capital has had some projects on Hawaii Island. VAN BERGEN: Yes. NEWBERG: Could you, could you expound on that? What projects specifically? VAN BERGEN: Did you get the history that I brought to the February meeting? The three pages with so many developments that they've done in five different states? NEWBERG: I don't have it in front of me at this time. I could pull it up on email, but you'd mentioned maybe the— VAN'BERGEN: Yeah, I'll be happy to, so back in 2000 they developed 130 single-family homes at Maula Lani, Villages at Mauna Lani. So if--- to the right - - - anything about, that was a very successful project. They developed multiple houses at Kuki`o and Hualdlai Resorts that I. was involved in personally back in 2006, 7 and 8. Currently, they have 100 acres that they own at Kuki`o, the last 100 acres in Phase Three, and they're developing in this 20 -acre, 20 parcels, 22 large parcels. So most of their commitment on the Big Island so far has been in the resort areas. But if you look at - - - later, the pages that I brought, there's, you know, 28 projects in mixed-use commercial, industrial, resort, rentals; they have a plethora of experiences in different developments, so NEWBERG: You had mentioned the storage facility near Costco— VAN BERGEN: Yeah, so if you go up Hina Lani, you go to, at the corner of Hina Lani and Kamanu, right on the corner there is a, that very large, it's under construction now and is getting close to being done. NEWBERG: I see. VAN BERGEN: Yeah, that's, that's their latest project here in Kona. NEWBERG: The reason I ask, was Spring Capital the original developer of the storage facility or did they take that project over? VAN BERGEN: You know, I personally haven't been involved with that, history of that project. I know that they are, they are developing it now. My understanding is they were, but I could find out. I don't know. I don't know that— NEWBERG: The reason I, the reason I ask is the projects you're listing, one being the Villages at Mauna Lani, is Spring Capital in conjunction on that project with Maryl? VAN BERGEN: They were back in, when it was built. Actually, all those units have been sold off many, you know, over a decade ago, and they are owned by private owners at this point --- W161 - - EXHIBIT D NEWBERG: Okay— VAN BERGEN: But Spring Capital, yes, they acquired it with Maryl, they had several LLCs, TDM 11 21 3, 4 and some other, which they participated, they participated in those developments. NEWBERG: Sure, just - - - dots to make that, bring that together in my mind, I know at the time as an employee of Maryl Pacific Construction, that they did do the development of the Villages, as well as purchasing the lots at Manini`owali, Kuki`o; I was just trying to see if there was a connection between Spring Capital and the family there, Mark and Cheryl. VAN BERGEN: Yes, Mark, TDM was just what the, TDM 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were all the LLCs that we developed at Kuki`o, and they stand for Tom, Don and Maryl; that's what TDM stands for. NEWBERG: Okay, I appreciate that— VAN hat VAN BERGEN: Tom Connor and Don Woolley are Spring Capital. So if you go to Spring Capital's website, look at the partners, Tom Connor and Don Woolley are the main partners, and Tom, Jr. and a couple of others, but Spring Capital is Tom and Don, that's Maryl's partners for those projects— NEWBERG: I do appreciate, I do appreciate you kind of connecting those dots for me. You also bring up the storage facility at the corner of Hina Lani—is that Maiau, no, not, I'm sorry, not Maiau but— VAN BERGEN: Kamanu. NEWBERG: —to my knowledge, that project was shut down because the developer, ,or the contractor, didn't have a license at that time. Not sure if that's the best project to bring up. VAN BERGEN: So, I know that there was a, you know, there was an issue with the contractor. I know that, that they changed contractors at midstream. I don't know any of the details of that. The only reason I know that is when Tom asked me to come on and help with this project because I know Brian and it's kind of what I can do, I learned some things about the storage project, just working on this project, you know, some discussions. So I know there were some issues. I know that it's moving forward very nicely at this point. It's going to be done in the near future. But they did change at least subs, if not general, I'm not sure. NEWBERG: I appreciate the clarity. I don't have any more questions at this time. Thank you. CARR SMITH: --- NEWBERG: -- NEWBERG: Nancy, you may be muted, if you are trying to speak. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Yes, I was. Mark, go ahead. Rachell, can you unmute Noriko guys, please? Thank you. Go ahead, Mark. FM EXHIBIT D VAN PERNIS: Thank you. I have a question of Mr. Van Bergen.. The applicants, the LLCs, they are not going to do the development, Spring Capital is, right? VAN BERGEN: Pualani Springs, I believe, is the name of the entity that's going to develop this project, which is owned by Spring Capital. As you know, developers usually have, a lot of times have different LLCs for different projects— VAN PERNIS: What I'm trying to say - - - the applicants, the LLCs Mr. Cook is planning for, they are not going to do the development; some entity of Spring Development is going to do the development, right? VAN BERGEN: Correct, if, if the planning, if the ordinances get extended—we've been in escrow now for almost two years, and one of the conditions of escrow is to have the ordinances extended. Once that happens, escrow can close, and then Brian and his partners are kind of out of the picture, and Spring Capital moves forward as the new landowner, yes. VAN PERNIS: And his partners include Mr. Schuler? VAN BERGEN: Brian and his partners are selling interests in these parcels, and once the sale happens— VAN PERNIS: And when is the said, the referring development can actually start construction? VAN BERGEN: Did you say when it is going to start construction? VAN PERNIS: Right. VAN BERGEN: We'll start construction as soon as the entitlement process, plan approval, and design, working with the County, and we get a building - - - but as soon as possible— VAN PERNIS: - - - Do you anticipate it being a year, two years, ten years for it? VAN BERGEN: For a project of this size, it's going to take some time, but I would envision, I know in the five-year window, get at least phase one, the parcel project done, and within ten years, have the full project done, if not sooner. A lot of it depends on the entitlement, planning— VAN PERNIS: Wouldn't it be more proper for Spring Development to make the application when they actually are going to start developing? VAN BERGEN: No, because at the price it's purchasing the property for, they are buying the property as entitled, not going to spend seven million dollars on Ag land, you know, spend seven million dollars on entitled property they can move forward and develop. VAN PERNIS: And all of the conditions, B. C, D, E, F, L, U, V, X, Z, these are all conditions of the ordinances that you want, or Spring Capital or its entities, want waived as part of the purchase, right? 30 EXHIBIT D VAN BERGEN: Spring Capital supports the effort by Sidney and Brian to get the ordinances extended so they"can develop a project as proposed with amendments, whether be more residential --- VAN PERNIS: So all the, all the amendments, for instance, deletion of the five -acre school and the revision of the affordable housing, these are all requirements of your purchase --when I say "you," I'm referring to Spring Capital or its entities. VAN BERGEN: I understand that.' So, as the Planning Department and the Planning Commission as a body, it's up for you to approve or not approve these amendments. Spring Capital is going to inherit whatever you guys approve. But they support— VAN PRENIS : Is Spring— VAN BERGEN: —effort of what they are trying to do is ordinances that are in front of you today. VAN PERNIS: Is Spring Capital going to purchase, if these conditions are not waived or lessened, in other words, if all of the requests of the applicants are not granted? VAN BERGEN: Spring Capital has every intention of purchasing these parcels with the zoning that's in place extended. So if you are asking me specifically if one item or two items are changed, are they still going to move forward, my answer is, yes, as far as I know, they have every intention of closing on this sale. They've been in escrow for two years— VAN PERNIS: I understand that, but there's numerous conditions that the applicant is asking for waiver of or reduction of. My question is, is this Spring Capital's requirement? VAN BERGEN: I would say it's not their requirements. They are supportive of these amendments. And so I can't answer what you are asking because I don't know what you are talking; you've got to tell me what you are going to change or you are going to accept— VAN PERNIS: All right, let me, let me ask— VAN BERGEN: —more clarity. VAN PERNIS: —if the amendments are not granted, the amendments that you support are not granted, is Spring Capital still going to purchase? VAN BERGEN: Are you saying if it's extended or if it's not extended? VAN PERNIS: If all the conditions are not granted, the extension, the affordable housing change, the five -acre school lot deletion, if all of these conditions, and there are 'many, that are referred to in the application, not including the extension, are not granted, is Spring Capital going to purchase? VEN BERGEN: I would say no, or they would have bought it two years ago. They wouldn't have waited so 31 EXHIBIT D VAN PERNIS: —okay, now— CARR SMITH: We are kind of speculating here, I believe— VAN PERNIS: - = - what we are asking, what, the Commission is being asked to help to sell pending sale to Spring Capital, correct? VAN BERGEN: I'll say one more time just so I'm clear that Spring Capital entered escrow two years ago to buy these two parcels; one of the conditions at escrow is that the zoning extension, the zoning ordinances are extended. I don't know what else, what else to clarify. CARR SMITH: And, Mark, we are dealing with the applicants and the application, so— VAN PERNIS: My understanding is that we are not, the Commission is not supposed to facilitate a sale by the applicant. CARR SMITH: The sale is not a part of the application. Does anybody else have questions --- VAN PERNIS: Well, I have several more questions— CARR SMITH: Okay, let's, let's— VAN PERNIS: —let me ask— CARR SMITH: Mark, Mark, Mark, please, I want to move the questions around to different Commissioners. It's Mike's turn right now. Go ahead, Mike. VITOUSEK: Yeah, thank you. You know, I, I do want to kind of follow up on what Mark was saying, Commissioner Van Pemis was saying. I mean, to me, we would be much better served having this negotiation on the outcome of the project with the actual .developer than with the current applicant who is proposing to sell the project to the developer who will then develop the property that may or may not be equivalent to what we see on paper. I mean, it certainly would be a lot simpler, if we were able to sit down with the people who were actually going to do development, come up with the plan that works for the area, for the community, and all of that. And, to me, I agree with Commissioner Van Pernis that our role is not to facilitate the sale of a property but is to, you know, figure out what's in the best interest of the community for the area. Again, that would be best served by negotiating directly with the developer. I, you know, I'm also very interested to hear if there is a path on that line where if Spring Capital were to purchase the property, and then we could, you know, move forward with the meaningful discussion on what can and can't be done here. CARR SMITH: My guess is the value in the purchase has to do with these guys teeing it up; if they have to do that on their own, it's probably not as valuable, right? VAN BERGEN: I would say that, you know, as you, as you know, land is valued based on location, and another thing is that entitlement is, of course, a big issue. Big Island is land packed. And so Spring Capital is interested in purchasing the property entitled with these zoning ordinances; 32 EXHIBIT D however, my, if there is some way to meet the Commission's or the Planning Department's requirements or discussions, I'm sure Spring Capital will be willing to discuss some more details of the project— VITOUSEK: roject VITOUSEK: Right. VAN BERGEN: But I view it as you guys - - - title in land, not up to the owner, and whatever the land is entitled for, the Spring Capital, Puaa and Suffolk, whoever that is, has to follow the guidelines of the whatever the entitlement says. But we are open. So - - - VITOUSEK: And the bottom line with that is .that because the entitlements are stale, we need to recondition them in a way that makes sense for the property, or the community, and we think that that discussion would be best served with the developer. And, you know, in this case where it's complicated and, you know, you are buying it subject to the advancement of this ordinance, I don't think at this point that we have enough information and enough collaboration where everybody would be comfortable with that. I think that if we all, you know, take a step back, if you guys can come up with a new plan that incorporates the requests for more walkable space, more connectivity between that, as was discussed in the plan approval process, you know, and bring that back with the plan on how we move forward in the way that's going to maintain the existing zoning, excuse me, maintain the existing zoning move forward the fastest, then, you know, this kind of awkward three -party discussion can actually become meaningful. VAN BERGEN: Okay, is that - - - I'd have to - - - Brian to - - - something like - - -. As far as Spring Capital goes, I'm, sure they'll participate and, a discussion - - clarify these items. But again, the property would have to be entitled before the acquisition, so it's still kind of - - - VITOUSEK: So, I mean, and again, basically, the entitlement that exists in the zoning, the Neighborhood Commercial zoning and then the Multi -Family Residential zoning, that wouldn't change, right? It would just be the existing conditions that are now stale. So the zoning doesn't change, even if the property sells; it's just the conditions that need to be met for that zoning. VAN BERGEN: Okay. We are, we are open, so you tell, as the Commission or as the Planning Department, you tell us what works for you— VITOUSEK: Well, I say that my reluctance with issuing a favorable recommendation has more to do with the conditions and the alterations to these conditions than it has to do with the zoning in Commercial versus Project District. So, to me, if we were to come up with conditions that are better suited for the community, that maintain the affordable housing, that address this connectivity issue between the community, that alleviate, you know, any kind of traffic improvements, and works that into a plan approval, get the departments behind, then I would be in favor of it, maintaining its existing zoning. But, in absence of that, if we are, you know, all of this or all of that, we are in a tough place. VAN BERGEN: Okay. CARR SMITH: Perry, did you have anything to add? -- 33 EXHIBIT D KEALOHA: I'm kind of soaking it all in right now. I'll hold off on questions. CARR SMITH: Okay, well, hopefully, we are getting near the end of that opportunity. I think we are all fading. Mark. VAN PERNIS: - - - we're all fading, then - - - there are several more matters that are --- CARR SMITH: Mark, you put your microphone closer, please. A VAN PERNIS: Can I ask Mr. Fuke some questions? CARR SMITH: Yes, here he is. VAN PERNIS: Back in 2005 in exchange for the very valuable zoning and promise the developer received, put these projects to which became Pualani, generating huge profits, and after 15 years the developer seeks to break all these promises, and cost for the - - - get back at all that the county - - - several had a much higher price to developer. Is this fair to the people of Kona? Mr. Fuke? FUKE: Well, equity is not a question for me to ask and answer. All, all I know is that the entitlements were secured, the developer tried to, the landowner developer at that time tried to do as much as they could, and it had to seek a time extension. And I'm sorry like I guess on behalf of everyone that, you know, now we are like on 15 -plus years and, you know, they are - - - here right now. You know, it's a situation where, unfortunately, you have the commercial neighborhood and the multiple -family zoning, but because the conditions have not been complied with, in a nutshell, you have a zoning in limbo. I mean, you know, anybody who owns the property today and you go to the Planning Department and you ask yourself, "Can I develop the property, you know, based on the existing commercial neighborhood or RM zone?" and they are going to send you, tell you, "No, you can't." The only way you can do it is that you need to have the conditions amended to provide you with that opportunity to develop. You know, the reality of it, you know, like from the landowner standpoint, all these years in spite of the inability to actually exercise the terms of the zoning ordinance, you still have to pay commercial real estate taxes on it. VAN PERNIS: The applications ask for the waiver or reduction of Ordinance Conditions B, C, D, E, F, H, I, U, V, X and Z. That saves the developer millions of dollars, right? - - - developer --- FUKE:-- FUKE: Yeah, I, I don't want to, you know, debate upon the cost issue, but that's something ------ VAN PERNIS: Okay, let's not debate then. What about affordable housing? Are you going to build it? Is the application going to comply with the ordinance or does the application seek to change that requirement? FUKE: I think Mr. Brian had, Mr. Brian Cook had indicated earlier that, you know, given his age and, he still desires to do something for the community, and knowing a project of this nature, it would probably take you five, ten years to seeing it to its completion. He needs to have a viable partner to develop it. Mr. Van Bergen has indicated that the group that he represents, whatever is the 34 EXHIBIT D outcome of the conditions, as long as there is a time extension granted, then they are in the position to examine all of those things and make a decision to pull the trigger or not. Now, I understand that, like just hearing some of the discussions, that there's still a concern for the proposed amendments to delete the affordable housing conditions. Then my recommendation to you as a commissioner, is that to argue and hopefully convince the rest of the commissioners, I agree with A, B and C proposed amendments, but I don't agree with this for the following reasons, and then make the denial. I made the statement in the beginning that please do not look at the applicant's requests as like an all -or -nothing. The critical one is, if anything as all -or -nothing, is a time extension. VAN PERNIS: You are not answering the question. Does the application seek it to abandon or revise the affordable housing requirement in the ordinance? Does the application require that? FUKE: One of the proposed amendments called for the deletion of the mandate to have 80 percent, you know, 20 percent I think of the units for 80 percent or less and all that stuff, but that's the existing language right now. So all I'm saying, you know, Mr. Van Pernis and Members of the Commission, if that is foreign to you, then you should recommend its denial, but look at all of the other conditions that we are recommending amendments. And at the end of the day, whatever ultimately the Commission decides to recommend to the County Council, and whatever happens at the County Council, if, if the extension is granted with, you know, a number of conditions modified or non -modified, then it's going to be up to Mr. Van Bergen's .group to decide, no, I can't live with it, I'm walking away, or, look, it pencils out, so I'm going to do it. VAN PERNIS: Let's move on to another subject. Isn't this area, Lako, Kuakini from Kam III, Henry Street and Hualdlai Road, the location of the worst traffic jam in Kona during the mornings and afternoons, with traffic of the standstill, lights going through several cycles without traffic movement, merging vehicles and school buses, and Hualdlai packed with vehicles as alternative route trying to avoid the traffic jam? Isn't that already present? FUKE: Isn't that, I'm sorry, what? VAN PERNIS: The worst traffic jam in Kona is in this area. FUKE: Well, you know, understandably, there, you know, there are definitely our like traffic issues. The whole concept behind the General Plan and the CDP was to create compact type of developments in this particular area, and you try to minimize sprawl. So if you encourage more development on the south end of Kona, and you have a lot of the work activities on the north end, invariably you are going to have a lot of this traffic moving to Kuakini and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway— VAN PERNIS: Could you answer this with yes or no? Isn't this a site of the worst traffic jam in Kona? FUKE: I, I can speak to worse, yeah. 35 EXHIBIT D VAN PERNIS: And hasn't the situation - - - over the last 15 years? CARR SMITH: Mark, Mark, I'm going to stop you there for a minute, please. Director Yee, do you have something? YEE: This format online is a bit difficult. I understand it doesn't, it's not conducive to kind of efficient ponderings here, but I have to warn that I do have a union civil servants here, and per the union contract, I do have to give them a break. And given that I'm not sure we are going to reach a vote real soon, I'm suggesting, Nancy, maybe we have to take this, give them their break for lunch. So, but I'll leave it to you whether or not you see the light here coming or not. CARR SMITH: Okay. Max, what do you, what did you have? NEWBERG: I just wanted to add, I don't want to speak for anymore anybody else on the Commission or the Planning Department other than myself, but being someone who hopes springs eternal, I think that, if I may, there was a suggestion to try and collaborate maybe a little closer in February. Our world since has turned upside down, and maybe we didn't have that time to collaborate. I would like to think that we are not as a commission, and again, - - - anyone other than myself, trying to say no to housing here. But, is it possible that we revisit maybe a bit of collaboration? There are a few sticking points I think at least for myself, getting rid of the affordable component, not as much so getting rid of the park, but, seeing that they are across from a park, that creating some traffic, and then again, third being the traffic itself. Would it maybe be more conducive to have that time to collaborate? Or do we feel that time to collaborate between some of these issues isn't what the applicant was looking for? CARR SMITH: I guess I would ask the Planning Department if they are willing to collaborate over the next month. YEE: So, I know, Nancy, earlier you had said that you were a little disappointed in the, maybe the lack of collaboration. I would feel as if we had been collaborating, we had been talking to the applicant. So I don't think there is like we dug in our heels and it was, we were not changing at all. But that said, I think you also know me very much as a planning director, I'm always willing to have more conversations, if I feel as if it's productive. It's always, you know, again, you direct my authority, if you really want us to go back and have more conversations to look at more alternatives, I will certainly do that. If you want to choose to have a continuance, we will try to see if there is an avenue. So I'm not closed off from that. Again, I think you have to ask the applicants, do they want a f rm decision or not, would be another way to kind of approach that question, too. CARR SMITH: Sidney, what would be your response to that? FUKE: Well, you know, we did have meetings, you know, to go over like whether we could reach some sort of a compromise. At the end of the day, the Department's position was that I'm sorry, like, you know, the CDP is really calling for a Project District, you've got to go, you have to take it through that and Land Use Commission and the whole nine yards. And that was totally unacceptable. So if the staff is going to go back and maintain the same position, then it wouldn't make sense to kind of like go back and try to revisit that. If, on the other hand, the staff is willing to 36 EXHIBIT D kind of take that equation off the table and see like how we can kind of like, you know, make a good thing, you know, like make a lemonade out of this, maybe these two lemon situation, then, you know, like whether it's like, are you guys willing to delete the request for affordable housing rental, are you in a position to maybe convey X number of acres for a community park, whatever have you, now, those are like substantive discussions, which we think that we can go back and have a discussion, you know, among all three of us, three being myself, the landowner and the developer, potential developer, to see what can be worked out. Or, you know, alternatively, if you say, can you come up with a plan that shows how you are going to have like this pedestrian integration between Suffolk and Puaa, sure, we can come up with a master plan that shows something like that. And, as a matter of fact, I was just kind of thinking that, you know, whether we come up with a master plan now or a little bit later, you know, as part of the decision-making process as a recommendation, the Commission on its own can recommend that these are certain design considerations that the Planning Director has to take when it reviews the plans for plan approval. And one of the things, if you are really interested about integration between properties, then have that become part of the plan approval. So, it's a long way of saying that, again, if the Department fixes up the table that you've got to go through Project District, State Land Use Commission Boundary Amendment, then, if that gets off the table, then I think it would be worthwhile subject to Mr. Cook and Ken kind of like saying up here. YEE: I think, I'll chime in to say that good faith works both ways. The good faith works that I enter in a conversation, not that, again, to let's say a Project District, but it also means Sid and your, and the folks you work for, you know, are willing to come to the table also being openminded about solutions, too. It's, it's always a two-way street. And I certainly would not be suggesting that we can go to the table unless I felt I could enter the conversation with good faith. CARR SMITH: Okay, good, thank you. Mike. VITOUSEK: I was just curious if there are issues that have been discussed that would be specifics that—Director Yee is talking about that the developer was dug in on on their end, that they, were not willing to compromise on. FUKE: I'm sorry - - -. Can you restate the question, Mike? VITOUSEK: Sure, sorry about that. Yeah, so, you know, Director Yee is indicating that, you know, he's looking for good faith from the developer as well to not be rigid and locked into any certain set of issues. Are there any issues that are, you know, that we are talking about here specifically? Is there anything that's a sticking point for the developer that they don't want to compromise on? FUKE: I think like it's not so much substantive as much as it would be like processing. As I indicated earlier, if the Department's position is not going to change relative to we need to go to Project District and the State Land Use Commission process, then I think it would be worthwhile to have this kind of conversation. Substantively, - - - the project so as we can kind of conceptually, you know, achieve the notion of mixed uses, you know, in spite of the segregated zoning, you know, Multiple -Family and Commercial area. How can we address like affordable housing, whether it's coinciding the commercial activity with the construction of the housing, you know, or housing 37 EXHIBIT D comes first, commercial comes second, you know, those kinds of things, they would be all up for discussion. VITOUSEK: Okay, okay, so substantively, in terms of development issues, you guys are open to taking the County's direction on how to take what we have and make it comply with the CDP the best you can. Is that right? FUKE: Well, like, as I mentioned, you know, there is a difference between compliance relative to what is understood from the Planning Department to be the process, which is taking the plan through the Kona Design Center, so on and so forth. But I think we all can read the plan and we know generally what the overall objectives were; I think the staff kind of pointed out walkability and mixed-use, all that stuff. So maybe we can't have the mixed-use in the RM zone, but we can have the mixed-use within the Commercial Neighborhood zone because they allow both commercial and residential activity. Talk about connectivity, we can do that. VITOUSEK: Yeah, okay, so basically, you guys are willing to accept their recommendations on how to make it fit, you know, -substantively, not procedurally. We have a, you know, disagreement on Project District versus zoning, and what I think a lot of us from the Commission are asking is, can we make the existing zoning work to make the project in line with the guidelines provided in the CDP, and it seems like we can do that. FUKE: I believe we can. And, as a matter of fact, a lot of the earlier discussions I had with the Planning Department included something along these lines. VITOUSEK: Okay, I mean, I would personally be very supportive of Commissioner Newberg's suggestion that we take a break in order to facilitate further discussion on this. CARR SMITH: Do I hear a motion? VAN PERNIS: --- VITOUSEK: -- VITOUSEK.: Looks like Commissioner Van Pernis has a question. CARR SMITH: Sorry, I was looking at something. Okay, Mr. Van Pernis, go ahead, but please note, as you've been hearing this, that we are ready to wrap this up. Go ahead. VAN PERNIS: I don't think it should be wrapped up before all issues are covered. There is also - - - issue on the five -acre waiver of the school lot, and this is in regards to the State's intention to build a new school in this area, and— - CARR SMITH: Mark, I think the school got moved somewhere else, so it's not applicable anymore. That's my understanding. VAN PERNIS: That's not the correct understanding. They are seeking to waive all contributions to any school matters, and the State is acting in that. And also, there is the question of solar charging, charging stations in the area, which they say is cheaper to do now than to retrofit, to waive the EXHIBIT D future. Also, I think the affordable housing situation needs to be clarified. But most of all, I want to say we are not here to ensure that a developer can make a profit or can develop; certainly, not in this case when the real developer is not the applicant, so we don't know when the real developer is going to develop. Our job is to represent the people of Kona, not to ensure some developer's ability to make profit and to keep - - - project until the developer can succeed at the expense of the people of Kona. The traffic is horrendous there. I wanted to get into that they are going to dump a thousand cars into the mix without doing anything about the traffic problem. And the public testimony, which I understand Christian has gotten in, all talks about the horrendous traffic, and I think we should pay attention to that. This is not the time for this project. I'm not suggesting that it's been zoned so it can't take place; they can have their zoning, they can keep their zoning, they can get their zoning. But it's contributing to a very bad problem in Kona. I myself can't make the intersection of Henry Street and Queen K. because of this backup— CARR SMITH: All right— VAN PERNIS: propose a thousand more cars with no contribution. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you, Mark. Mike. VITOUSEK: --- CARR-- CARS. SMITH: Unmute. VITOUSEK: I would like to make a motion that we defer making a decision on Agenda Items 5 and 6 until the July Leeward Planning Commission in order to allow the applicant and the Department the opportunity to work collaboratively for planning a solution that allows the existing zoning to be continued subject to conditions. KEALOHA: I'll second that motion. CARR SMITH: Thank you. So we've got a motion on the table to defer to the July meeting, with intentions outlined, made by Mr. Vitousek and seconded by Mr. Kealoha. J, I have a question for you. If we, if we go ahead with this, do we need to speak of the public testimony that was on the table, or can that automatically defer? YOSHIMOTO: I would leave that up to you, Madam Chair, you can do it either way. If you are asking my suggestion, I would suggest that you do have a motion to reopen public testimony and snake the record that testimony—I think Christian had mentioned it earlier —that testimony was received since the testimony was closed. But you could do it the next time, too, but I just think procedurally so we can keep track, if we do it right away. CARR SMITH: That's what I thought, okay. I— VITOUSEK: In which case, I'll put the previous motion on hold, and I'll make a motion to reopen public testimony. 39 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Okay. Is there a second? NEWBERG: Second. CARR SMITH: Max is second, okay. So we are reopening public testimony. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CARR SMITH: Anyone opposed? [None.] Okay, so we are just acknowledging that we have written testimony from Joel Gimpel, Renee Inaba, Joel Cooperson, Edward Rapoza, Ryan Burns, Peri and Bill Steffenhagen, and Marya and Elizabeth, since our last meeting. So those public testimony items are entered into the record. And, can I have a motion to close public testimony, please? VITOUSEK: So moved. CARR SMITH: Second? NEWBERG: Second. CARR SMITH: Okay, Mike and Max. So public testimony is closed. We can move back to the other motion that was on the table. You want to reactivate that, Mike? VITOUSEK: Sure, I will reactivate my previous motion. CARR SMITH: To defer to July. Is there any discussion about this? Christian. KAY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just given the working situation and everything has kind of slowed down a bit, I know we are in a situation where very soon we are going to have to set our July agenda, and if we were unable to meet within the next month, it might be difficult to come back empty-handed to see you. So I wonder if maybe we can do it until August or somewhat later time, if the applicant is okay with that --- VITOUSEK: -- VITOUSEK: Sure, yeah, if it's possible for me to amend the motion, I would like to amend the motion to say that we defer until as long as necessary for the owner, or the applicant, and the Planning Department to work out this issue. I don't necessarily see the need to put a cap on it saying you must come back by July. I want you guys to have a meaningful discussion and resolve this. CARR SMITH: Perry, as the second, do you agree to that— KEALOHA: Yeah, I would propose that we just defer to a future date, VITOUSEK: Yeah, yeah, I like it. CARR SMITH: Okay, all right, any discussion on that? Christian. M EXHIBIT[' D KAY: At the call of the Chair or when we are ready to come back? Is that CARR SMITH: Well, we hope that everybody is going to act in good faith and try to see if some solutions can be had. So, yeah, hopefully sooner than later, but like you said, maybe July is too soon. So I would hope that it would be by July, I mean by August, I'm sorry. Sid, do you have any comment on that? I mean, it's not really a, well, we've got a motion on the floor here, but. FUKE: Well, I can understand the staff s constraint and perhaps might not be able to have meaningful dialogue and, or at least conclusion, in July. My only apprehension is if you leave it open-ended, it can be open-ended and, my friend once told me that the most insidious form of denial is delay, so if there is a, if you are going to delay it for like one month, it's acceptable. I wouldn't suggest kind of like putting it in infinity because, if you are putting the responsibility on both the applicant and the Department, more so the applicant, if we have something that the Department can accept, what if, at the end of like extensive discussion, there is like no resolution, we have to go back to the Commission, we have to move it out, and we have to ultimately have the County Council make a decision, which is a legislative decision. So, that's my only apprehension. I mean, like, I can understand July might be a little bit too early, but, gee, August, September, October, you know? So I, I would respectfully ask that no later than August, maybe, it be agendized. CARR SMITH: Mike, it's your motion. VITOUSEK: I'm fine with that, if that's what, what the applicant wants. You know, I don't, I think that this seems like an issue that's going to take a little bit of time to work through and, you know, to me, if you guys aren't getting where you want to go with the negotiations with the County, you're, you're welcome to bring it back at any time that you want, and we can reject it or approve it, whatever the case may be. All we are saying is we want to defer it until, until there is a resolution one way or another. CARR SMITH: Which needs to include or delete the Project District. Max. NEWBERG: Just to add to that in respect to Mike making the motion, which I feel at this time is correct, I think the motion is being made to defer to continue this discussion, because what we have in front of us isn't something we are able to approve. And, speaking for myself, I don't think it's up to us to make suggestions of what is approvable. I think that maybe is a better conversation between the applicant and Planning, and then they bring it back in front of us to see if it's something that's acceptable. CARR SMITH: I think it's clear that we'd like to see something approvable come forward. Mark. VAN PERNIS: I have two points. Fist point of order, I spoke to Mr. Rapoza, and by closing the personal, or the testimony of the public, does that mean I can't comment on my conversation with Mr. Rapoza? Basically that - - - 41 EXHIBIT D CARR SMITH: Yeah, I think under the circumstances, since we are deferring, we wanted to acknowledge public testimony, but we are not having conversation about it right now, because we have already closed that. VAN PERNIS: And the second point is I want to remind everybody, including Mr. Yee, that we are representing the people of Kona. We are not trying to find some way for this developer to profit. And I think that the meeting that Mr. Vitousek is talking about should be between the actual developer. It was confirmed to me through various sources, including Mr. Cook himself, that the applicants are not the developers in any respect. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. All right, if there is no further discussion, I'd like to—do I do a roll call vote on this or just, Christian? KAY: I'm sorry, Madam Chair, there was some discussion about kind of when the coming -back date is. I didn't, I didn't think that was nailed down. Was it August, Mike? VITOUSEK: We, as it exists now, it's to a later date. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: And then it's up to the applicant and the Planning Department to figure it out; each one of them has power to bring it back. CARR SMITH: Incentive, hopefully. So, is this a roll call vote? Staff, can you help me, or not? KAY: I would say probably a good idea for a roll call vote, and then we have to do it twice for both ordinances. CARR SMITH: All right, very good. Then let's proceed with that, please. KAY: Okay, right now I've got the voting sheet just for Puaa Development. Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Newberg? NEWBERG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Van Perris? VAN PERNIS: Abstain. 42 EXHIBIT D KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. KAY: And Chair Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Motion carries - - - five ayes and one abstention - - - CARR SMITH: Thank you. KAY: Okay, and then for Suffolk Investments, I'm assuming it's the same, the same motion? CARR SMITH: Same motion. VITOUSEK: Yeah. KAY: All right, same motioner and seconder? CARR SMITH: Mr. Vitousek and Mr. Kealoha. KAY: Okay. Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Newberg? NEWBERC: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Van Perris? VAN PERNIS: - - - CARR SMITH[: Oh, Noriko guys are muted. Thank you. Mark, can you vote again, please? VAN PERNIS: Abstain. KAY: Thank you. Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. 43 EXHIBIT D KAY: And Chair Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Motion carries, five ayes and one abstention. CARR SMITH: Thank you all very much. Hopefully --I, I apologize, Mr. Okaneku, that you didn't even get to speak, but thank you for being here with us. It looks like you have a lovely view to look at while you are working. OKANEKU: Okay, thank you, Chair. Aloha. CARR SMITH: Thank you all. The hearing was adjourned at 2:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission EXHIBIT D