HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0050.001 2020-2022 Mitchell D. Roth 4o,��v oF'"•'!yt, Zendo Kern
Mayor Director
Lee E.Lord
Managing Director
ATF oiF.�'�t
West Hawaii Office East Hawa'i'i Office
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3
Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaii Hilo,Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288
Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742
December 16, 2020
Maile David, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
k a,
25 Aupum Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chair David and Council Members:
SUBJECT: Amendment for a Change of Zone Ordinance No. 09-131 (REZ 09-000094)
Request: Time Extension to Condition E (Secure Final Subdivision
Approval)
Applicant: Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC
Tax Map Key: 7-2-005:001 (por.)
Regarding the Leeward Planning Commission letter dated November 30, 2020 concerning the
above-reference matter, attached please find a copy of the draft transcript for the November 19,
2020 hearing for your information.
Should there be any questions, please contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158.
Sincerely,
ZENDO KERN
Planning Director
LPalamanuiREZ09-0941petransci ipt
Enclosures
Comm. No 60
Ref. Date 4a ,
w:�w_.plaariing,}t taaaicqunE {�r Hawaii Countv is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning(a hawaitco inty_-(iv_
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 19, 2020
A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of PALAMANUI GLOBAL HOLDINGS LLC
(AMEND REZ 05-000010 AND AMEND REZ 09-000094) was called to order at 10:00 a.m. via
live-stream online meeting, with Chairperson Nancy Carr Smith presiding.
COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara DeFranco, Perry Kealoha,
Max Newberg, Mark Van Pernis, Michael Vitousek and Faith"Faye"Yates
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee
(Planning Director), John Mukai, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Director), Robyn Matsumoto
(Acting Building Chief, Department of Public Works), Maija Jackson (Planner), Jeff Darrow
(Planning Program Manager), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner),
Rachelle Ley (Secretary to the Planning Director), Kim Tanaka(Secretary to Boards and
Commissions) and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission Secretary)
APPLICANT: PALAMANUI GLOBAL HOLDINGS LLC (AMEND REZ 05-000010)
Application to amend Condition V (Scope and Timing of Road Improvements) and Condition S
(Scope and Timing of Park Improvements) of Ordinance No. 09-132, which amended Ordinance
No. 06-105, which rezoned 725 acres from an Agricultural-3 acres (A-3a) and Open to a Project
District zoning district for a mixed-use development known as the Palamanui Development. The
property is located northeast of the Iona International Airport at Keahole, between Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway and Makalei Estates Subdivision, Kau, North Kona, Hawaii,
TMK: (3) 7-2-005: Portion of 001.
APPLICANT: PALAMANUI GLOBAL HOLDINGS LLC (AMEND REZ 09-000094)
Application for a time extension to Condition E (Secure Final Subdivision Approval) of Ordinance
No. 09-131, which rezoned 29.92 acres from the Project District(PD) to Industrial-Commercial
Mixed-20,000 square feet (MCX-20) zoning district in 2009. The property is part of the proposed
Palamanui development located northeast of the Kona International Airport at Keahole, between
Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Makalei Estates Subdivision, Kau, North Kona, Hawaii,
TMK: (3) 7-2-005: Portion of 001.
Secretary's Note: "-- -"indicates indiscernible speech due to internet/technical difficulties or
simultaneous talk.
The draft conditions reviewed by the commission at this hearing were incorrectly lettered, which
may cause confusion when reviewing this transcript together with other documents. Condition S
related to parks in Ordinance number 09 132 was referred to as Condition P in the draft conditions,
which is now correctly lettered as Condition R in subsequent documents. Condition X related to
Mdkdlei Drive in Ordinance number 09 132 was referred to as Condition Yin the draft conditions
and during this hearing, which is now correctly lettered as Condition AA in subsequent documents.
1
DRAFT
CARR SMITH: We are going to hear Items 1 and 2 on the agenda together, and we'll vote on
them separately, keeping in mind that we are the recommending body, and that the County
Council will make the final decision.
a
Agenda Item number 1, the applicant is Pdlamanui Global Holdings LLC, AMEND REZ
05-000010. This is an application to amend Condition V, scope and timing of road
improvements, and Condition S, scope and timing of park improvements, of ordinance number
09-132, which was [sic] amended ordinance number 06-105, which rezoned 725 acres from an
Agricultural 3-acre to, from an Agricultural-3 acres and Open to a Project District zoning district
for a mixed-use development known as the Pdlamanui development. The property is located
northeast of the Kona International Airport at Kedhole, between Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway
and Makalei Estates Subdivision, Kau,North Kona, Hawaii. TMK is (3) 7-2-5: a portion of
Parcel 1.
Agenda Item number 2, the applicant is Pdlamanui Global Holdings LLC. This is to amend REZ
09-000094, application for a time extension to Condition E, to secure final subdivision approval,
of Ordinance number 09-131, which rezoned 29.92 acres from the Project District to Industrial-
Commercial Mixed-2,000 [sic] square feet zoning district in 2009. The property is part of the
proposed Pdlamanui development located northeast of the Kona International Airport at Keahole,
between Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Mdkalei Estates Subdivision, Kau, North Kona,
Hawaii. TMK is (3) 7-2-5: portion of Parcel 1.
I wanted to note for the record the applicant's letter dated 9-15-2020—I think some sound from
somewhere—the applicant's letter dated 9-15-2020,requesting Commissioner Van Pernis's
recusal. According to Commissioner Van Pernis he mailed his response letter to the applicant on
10-29, which was forwarded to the commissioners on 10-30. At this time I would like to
confirm that the applicant received Mr. Van Pernis's response letter. I see that there are many of
you here on behalf of the applicant, and first I'd like to confirm and make sure that we are clear
about everybody who is here. Since we started, I believe Steve Colon came on, Roger Harris is
here, Sid Fuke, Laura Aquino, and Ross Wilson, Norm Stuard is here, John Knox is here,
Greg Chun- - - Is there anyone else who is here? On behalf of—oh, Steve Lim I see, Steve.
All right, so whoever is taking the lead on this, could you please confirm that you folks received
Mr. Van Pernis's response letter? And do you have any comments? (No audible response) Who
is taking the lead here, folks?
HARRIS: Hello,Nancy, Chairman Smith, this is Roger Harris.
CARR SMITH: Hi Roger. Go ahead.
HARRIS: Yes, we received the letter, thank you.
CARR SMITH: Okay, did you have any comments?
HARRIS: No, no further comments.
2
DRAFT
I
I
I
i
i
CARR SMITH: All right, very good. Director Yee, did you have any comments?
i
YEE: No further comments right now.
i
CARR SMITH: All right, very good. All right, so, do the commissioners have any comments?
I can't see all my commissioners. I see you, Mark, hold on, I'm asking it for everyone aside
from you. I cannot see Mike or Perry right now, too many windows. There you are, Perry.
Okay. Anyone else have comments? (No audible response) Go ahead, Mark. Briefly, please.
VAN PERNIS: - - -
i
CARR SMITH: And go ahead, use the microphone, too, yeah? Thank you.
VAN PERNIS: Can you hear me?
CARR SMITH: I think so. Go ahead.
VAN PERNIS: Palamanui claimed I am biased against current application.
CARR SMITH: And you responded, and they didn't refute that, so—
VAN PERNIS: Excuse me?
CARR SMITH: And you responded, and they are not responding, they are not fighting your
response.
VAN PERNIS: Okay, I want to say in addition to my response that there is no proof whatsoever
of- - -
CARR SMITH: Excuse me, can you speak up a little bit? I'm, I don't know about everybody
else, but I'm having a hard time hearing you.
VAN PERNIS: Can you hear?
CARR SMITH: Yeah,just speak as clearly or, and loudly as you can, please.
VAN PERNIS: All right. There is no legal or factual proof of my bias contemporarily against
their application. Even if there was, what is more important is that bias is not, is not, a basis for
disqualification. For instance, Commissioner Vitousek is well known for his biased view for
archaeological and historical information- - -presented - - - (Microphone replaced) Now can
you hear me?
CARR SMITH: That's better, thank you. Thanks,Noriko.
VAN PERNIS: Mr. Vitousek with well-known bias in favor of archaeological and historical
features will be disqualified from hearing in the applications concerning that have that subject
3
DRAFT
matter of all. Commissioner Yates would be disqualified because of her bias against seeing more
traffic in Kohala or extra traffic. Commissioners who are in favor of more jobs and construction
would be disqualified from any application that involves jobs or the lack of them. For
instance
CARR SMITH: Mark, excuse me, I don't, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I think we are good
to proceed. Nobody is pushing back on the fact that you say that you can be fair and non-bias.
So, can we go ahead and proceed with the agenda item?
VAN PERNIS: Yes, I can be fair and unbiased. I want to add that these documents they refer to
sought to enforce the original application and the particular condition, which I've since learned is
still on the table, and I learned that Mr. Yee's recommendation. And I also want to point out that
these writings are several years old and are within my rights to free speech, and I think it's
reprehensible that the applicant would challenge that.
CARR SMITH: Okay, very good, thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead, Max.
NEWBERG: Thank you, Nancy. I just wanted to make mention as a disclosure, I am an
employee of the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters. All I know is that there have been
negotiations between the carpenter unions and Palamanui, but as I have not been a part of any of
those conversations, I'm not aware of the outcomes of those conversations and would not be
compensated either way. I just wanted to make that statement that I as well can be impartial,
non-biased. Thank you.
CARR SMITH: Verry good, thank you. Anybody else? All right. Anyone have concerns about
Max's statement? (No audible response) No. Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and move
forward. Maija Jackson, I believe you are going to present this item. Go ahead.
JACKSON: Thank you, Chair Carr Smith. Can everybody hear me? (No audible response)
Yes? Okay. Before I get into the presentation, I want to just mention written testimony that you
should have received since the background and recommendation was distributed. Since then
we've received testimony from David Lassner, President of University of Hawaii; Jeanette
Foster; Cari-Rose Coleman; Jean Hull; Rick Gaffney; Marjorie Erway; Walter Kunitake, Ken
Melrose; and Andre, I'm sorry, Andee Bemrose on behalf of the West Hawaii Association of
Realtors. So hopefully, the commission received all of those testimonies via email.
Okay, so, as Chair Carr Smith mentioned, I'm going to be presenting information for both
agenda item number I and 2 at the same time. And you can just give me a moment to share my
screen. Okay,just give me a minute here. Okay, so everybody should be able to see the first
slide that says, "Palamanui Global Holdings LLC." Are you able to see that? (No audible
response) Okay, thank you.
CARR SMITH: Looks good.
4
DRAFT
JACKSON: All right. So, as Chair Carr Smith mentioned, this is an amendment, there's two
amendments on the table: One is to Change of Zone Ordinance, 09 132, and one is for Change of
Zone Ordinance 09 131.
The subject property is outlined in red on this slide. It's located in the North Kona District. You
can see Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction on the west side of the
property. You can see the Kona Airport in this large gay area near the sea. And then
Mdmalahoa Highway is on the right side of the slide, and just below Mdmalahoa Highway
between the Pdlamanui project and the highway is the Mdkdlei Estates in this general area here.
So just a little history on the P51amanui development. In 2005 the subject 725-acre property was
rezoned from Agricultural and Open to Project District for a mixed-use development known as
the Pdlamanui development. This project will continue to consist of approximately 1,100
residential units, inclusive of required affordable housing; a 70-acre business park; 230 acres of
open space; a 74-acre dry forest preserve; a 30-acre town center known as University Village
that will consist of a 120-room hotel and retail shopping and commercial amenities to support the
adjacent University of Hawaii West Hawaii campus and surrounding businesses; and lastly, a
20-acre public park. Then four years later in 2009 the applicant wanted to add some industrial
uses into the Palamanui project. And Project District zoning does not allow industrial uses. So
the applicant applied for and secured rezone of 29 acres from Project District to Industrial-
Commercial Mixed zoning. This was in order to develop 35 lots ranging in size from 20,000 to
62,000 square feet, in order to accommodate distribution, wholesaling, retail, office and other
land uses permitted in the MCX district. So this MCX zoned area is part of the larger 70-acre
business park, which is located in the northwest portion of the property.
And this is the county zoning map. Again, you can see the property outlined in red. The Project
District zoning is shown in the gay color, and then the 29-acre MCX zoned portion is this purple
color in the northwest portion of the property. Surrounding zoning near Queen Ka'ahumanu
Highway is Open, which is shown in the green, the dark green, and Agricultural zoning is
located to the north and south and east. Makalei Estates, which is shown in the blue color is
zoned Agricultural-3 acres.
So, many of the conditions that the applicant is requesting to amend are related to roadways in
the Palamanui project, and so I want to orient the commission to the names of the various
roadways that will be discussed. And what I would like to suggest is that you have this map
available as I go through the requested amendment so that you can see which roads I am going to
be talking about. And this map was sent to you as Exhibit A-I of the background report of the
applicant, of the application. So the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is located on the left side of
the slide. Mamalahoa Highway is located on the right side of the slide. The Palamanui project is
highlighted in yellow. And Ka'munam Drive is south of the project area, and it extends from
Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway up to Mdmalahoa Highway. Of all of these roads that are shown
on the map, the only one that is currently constructed is the one shown in pink, and that is
referred to as Road 3A, it's also referred to as Ane Keohokdlole Highway, and it extends from
Ka'iminani Drive up to the southern property boundary of Palamanui. And just to the east of the
road in this general location here is the new University of Hawaii campus at Palamanui. You
also notice this large pink circle on the map, and that is to indicate that this area is a transit-
5
DRAFT
oriented development area designated in the Kona CDP. You can also see that is has a note on it
for "10 minute walk," and that shows that from the center of the circle out to the edge is a
10-minute walk in all directions. So the intent obviously of the transit-oriented developments is
to create more mixed-use walkable communities. Okay, the next road that I want to point out is
this road in red that runs north-south through the middle of the Palamanui project; on this map
it's referred to as Main Street, but in the conditions it will be referred to as Ane Keohokalole
Extension or Road 3A Extension. The next major road we have is University Drive that is
shown in the light blue color, extends from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway all the way up to
Makalei Drive, and that's also referred to as Road 2. We also have Road 2C, which is shown in
orange; this was the location of the original University Drive, but Palamanui has since shifted it
more northerly to the light blue alignment. We also have Road 6A, which is shown in Green,
and Road 1, which is also referred to as the future connector road; this Road 1 is meant as a
connection between Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. And I do want to
point out that prior to the recent master plan changes that Palamanui has gone through, Road 1,
the future connector road was planned to come off of Road 6A, the green alignment, generally in
this location here, and it extends up to the highway. Because Public Works requested that this
red segment, the, referred to as the Ane Keohokalole Extension, Palamanui has agreed to shift
the connection of Road I to this red road alignment here. And so you'll see in the conditions
there is reference to Ane Keohokalole Highway, sometimes it mentions Road 6A, sometimes
Road 3A. The new proposal is to have Road 1 come off of Road 3A, which is Ane Keohokalole
Highway. So I hope that is clear.
Next I'll be going through Palamanui's phasing plan, and I want to do that before getting into
their request so that you can understand the timing of these improvements, as well as the park
and road improvements that go along to support the development. So this is the Phase I Plan,
and for Phase I, Palamanui is focusing on developing close to the university campus in order to
get that mixed-use commercial and residential support for the campus sooner rather than later.
So this area generally here is referred to as the University Village, and this is where the majority
of the commercial development is going to be located in the Palamanui project. So for Phase I,
you have a 60-room hotel, which is shown in the light purple color; you have about 30,000
square feet of commercial, which is shown in the pink; you have approximately 250 residential
units, which is shown in the peach color just east of the Ane Keohokalole Highway.
Before we move on to Phase II, I want to point out a couple of other features of the property. Up
on the mauka north side of the property is the dry forest preserve. We also have two historic
trails running through the property, which are slated for preservation. And an interim sewage
treatment plant is located just west of the housing and park area, and then a permanent sewage
treatment plant located closer to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. There is also a significant
setback buffer along the highway; this area is zoned, I'm sorry, this area is designated Open in
the General Plan, and there is a condition in the State Land Use Boundary Amendment for this
property that requires that this area be kept open and natural except for utilities.
So their Phase II Plan is to—I'm sorry, let me go back—another feature that Phase I Plan that's
not shown on here, but it is in the conditions, is to develop a 10-acre public park generally in this
location here.
6
DRAFT
i
i
I
i
i
I
j
I
Phase II Plan—
CARR SMITH: So—can I interrupt for just a second? Which, generally in which area? I don't
know whether you are pointing to something, but it's not coming up on the screen, so.
JACKSON: Oh, you can't see my pointer at all, Nancy?
CARR SMITH: I cannot. I don't know if anybody else can
JACKSON: Okay, I'm sorry. The park area is located just west of the purple hotel square.
Does that help? (No audible response) Okay.
So the Please II plan is to extend the development north along the Ane Keohokalole Highway
Extension, and in Phase II another 200 residential units are proposed north of what will be
University Drive.
Phase III plans also continue to develop out the University Village with another 30,000 square
feet of commercial, which is shown in the pink, another 60 rooms of hotel, which shown in the
purple, additional 50 residential units, which is shown in the peach color north of University
Drive, and then the main improvement in Phase III would be development of the business park.
The business park is shown in the yellow color, as well as the pink MCX zone color. The
significant improvement as far as roadways go for Phase III is the intersection at Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway, as well as connection of University Drive all the way up to Ane
Keohokalole Highway Extension.
And then the last phase of the project would be further buildout of the business park, further
buildout of the town center with up to 210,000 square feet of commercial, and buildout of the
remaining 616 residential units on the mauka side of the property.
So the applicant has eight requests, and the first request is to amend Condition S, which would
change the scope and timing of public park improvements. The second request is to amend
Condition V, which also changes the scope and timing of road improvements. And in Condition
V there are seven specific amendments they are requesting: One is related to University Drive; to
the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway-University Drive intersection; to signalization of the
Ka`iminani Drive- Ane Keohokalole Highway intersection; related to the Ane Keohokalole
Highway Extension; and related to the future connector road, Road 1; they are also requesting to
delete Condition V6 related to Makalei Drive; and to add a new condition related to Road 6A.
So I'm going to go through these individually.
The amendment to Condition S, which is the park improvement condition. The current condition
requires development of 20-acre park site prior to issuance of a building permit for the 101St
residential unit that would occur in Phase I; it would include baseball and softball fields, soccer
field, dog park, comfort station and parking; and all of the improvements are to be dedicated to
the county. So the change that the applicant is proposing is to still provide a 20-acre park, 20
acres for park, but break it into two segments. The first would be to develop a 10-acre public
park prior to issuance of a building permit for the 251St residential unit, which would occur in
7
DRAFT
Phase 11; the park would include a baseball field, a soccer field, dog park, comfort station, and
parking; and again, all improvements would be dedicated to the county. The second change
would be to provide a 10 acres of undeveloped land for park and neighborhood open space
within six months of request from the county. And then Pdlamanui is also proposing to prepare a
park master plan that will be reviewed by the Department of Parks and Rec. The—Nancy, do
you think it would be more helpful to take questions on each amendment as we go through, or do
you think the commission would like to hear each, to hear the whole presentation and then ask
questions?
CARR SMITH: Well, that's an idea. It might make it simpler.
JACKSON: Yeah, it's a lot of information that I'm going to be presenting, so I don't know
which the commission would prefer.
CARR SMITH: Do you guys want to weigh in? Does anybody have any preference? (No
audible response) Is—go ahead, Mike.
VITOUSEK: Sure, I don't mind taking it condition by condition.
CARR SMTIH: Yeah, I think that makes sense.
VITOUSEK: And then we can, you know—although, the benefit of having the, right at the end
is that the applicant can comment on as well.
CARR SMITH: Right.
VITOUSEK: I guess maybe, maybe it would make sense to take it, go through the presentation
and then, you know, we can ask the questions when the applicant is available to answer.
CARR SMITH: But we have an opportunity to ask questions of Maija and of the department—
VITOUSEK: Okay, yeah—
CARR SMITH: - - -
VITOUSEK: Cool, I'll ask a question now then about this. Has the division of Parks and Rec
commented on this?
JACKSON: Yes, they have—
VITOUSEK: Proposed change?
JACKSON: Yes. Yes, they have. They were in support of it, and they provided a memo that
should be in your background report; it is Exhibit 11.
VITOUSEK: Okay. Thank you.
8
DRAFT
JACKSON: Mm-hmm.
CARR SMITH: Anyone else from the commission have any questions about that first condition
that Maija mentioned? And please speak up, if you do,because I can't see all of your faces.
Looks like we are good, Maija. Go ahead, proceed, please.
JACKSON: Okay, thank you. Okay, so before I get into the road condition changes, again, I'd
like to refer you to Exhibit A-1 - - -
CARR SMITH: You got muted, Maija.
JACKSON: Okay, can you hear me now?
CARR SMITH: Yes.
JACKSON: Okay, so before I proceed with the road conditions, I'd like to refer you again to
Exhibit A-1. If you follow along in Exhibit A-1, you can see which road numbers I'm referring
to. Okay, so the first amendment request is to—I think I jumped ahead, hold on just a second—
okay, the first amendment request is related to Condition VI for University Drive, or Road 2.
The current condition required construction of University Drive from Queen Ka`ahumanu
Highway to 800 feet mauka of Road 3A simultaneous to the opening of the first building
constructed for the UH or before July 2012, whichever occurs first; construction of the remaining
portion of University Drive to Makalei Drive upon its completion; current condition also
required an 88-foot right-of-way from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to Road 6A and did not
specify a right-of-way from Road 6A to Makalei Drive. So the proposed change to this
condition would provide for construction of University Drive from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway
to Road 3A prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building within Phase III;
construction of the remaining portion of University Drive up to Makalei Drive would be done as
part of Phase IV; and then lastly, the proposed change would specify a 60-foot right-of-way from
Road 6A to Makalei Drive.
The next amendment request is related to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway - University Drive
intersection. The current condition required construction of the intersection prior to opening of
the first building constructed for the UH or before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any
portion of the subject property or the completion of any single-family home, whichever occurs
first. The proposed change to this condition would allow construction of the intersection prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building within Phase III.
The next amendment is related to signalization of the Ka`iminani Drive - Ane Keohokalole
Highway intersection. The current condition required construction of Road 3A between
Ka`iminani Drive and University Drive within a 120-foot right-of-way prior to opening of the
first building for the UH or before July of 2012. And this road has been constructed; this is the
hot pink road on Exhibit A-1, and it has been constructed from Ka`iminani Drive up to the
University of Hawaii just south of Palamanui's property, and this is referred to as Ane
Keohokalole Highway. So the proposed change for this condition would be to add language
9
DRAFT
requiring that the Ka'iminani Drive- Ane Keohokdlole Highway intersection be signalized prior
to issuance of building pen-nits for more than 500 residential units or lots and prior to issuance of
occupancy permits for more than 30,000 square feet of commercial area and more than 60 hotel
units, or whenever the Department of Public Works reasonably determines it is warranted. And
so what, what this does is—I should back up a little bit—the applicant had a traffic assessment
done in 2017, and that traffic assessment showed that this Ka'iminani Drive - Ane Keohokdlole
intersection could accommodate up to 500 residential units, 30,000 square feet of commercial,
and 60 hotel units prior to the need for signalization. And so the first two phases of the
P51amanui development could be done with all of the traffic for Pdlamanui going through that
intersection, and then in Phase III is when the signalization would be warranted, according to the
traffic study.
The next condition—okay, I'm getting a message saying that I'm not in presentation screen, so
let me try to fix that in just a minute. That way you'll be able to see the larger presentation. One
minute here. Nancy, are you able to see a large screen or do you see the notes on the right side?
CARR SMITH: The notes on the right side.
JACKSON: Okay.
CARR SMITH: I'm looking at a monitor, so it's easy enough for me to read, but it may not be
so for other—
JACKSON: Yeah, I want to make sure that it's nice and large once we get to the maps. Just
give me one minute here. How about now? Do you still see the notes?
CARR SMITH: Yes.
JACKSON: Okay.
CARR SMITH: Commissioners, are any of you having a hard time seeing this? (No audible
response) Barbara seems okay. Are your thumbs up? Faye and Mark, can you guys see?
YATES: Yes.
CARR SMITH: Perry, Max, I can't see you guys.
KEALOHA: It's clear here.
CARR SMITH: Okay.
JACKSON: (Low-volume private conversation with Mr. Darrow over the phone)
VAN PERNIS: I have some questions on what has been presented already.
CARR SMITH: Okay, hold off, Mark.
10
DRAFT
JACKSON: I'm sorry, Nancy,just give me one minute, please.
CARR SMITH: No problem, go ahead.
(Pause)
CARR. SMITH: Maija, let's just go with whatever comes up right now. I think all the
commissioners said they are okay. Hey, there we go. Okay. Okay, Maija, I think that's where
you wanted.
JACKSON: - - -
CARR SMITH: You are on mute.
JACKSON: Okay. Sorry, Nancy, I appreciate yours and the commission's patience. I was
sharing the wrong screen. Okay.
CARR. SMITH: Okay. Wait, Mr. Van Pernis had a question. So, are you at the point where—
JACKSON: Sure.
CARR SMITH: —before you get into the next phase here.
JACKSON: Yeah.
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis, go ahead, please.
VAN PERNIS: Thank you. I have a couple of areas to cover. I notice that the reference to
connection with Makalei Drive, although Makalei Drive is a private road, gated road, gated at the
bottom and gated at the top. Makalei Drive is, does not the construction, does not go all the way
to the boundary of the Palamanui property. And I notice Mr. Fuke's letter picked this up, and the
Kent [sic] letter also picked this up, and there are some changes in the proposed ordinance, but
there are still many references to Makalei Drive. Now, I assume the county is not proposing that
the strip between the road itself and Palamanui's property be condemned or that Palamanui
trespass on the land to connect to that private road. You do mention that letter in the proposed
ordinance that the road is private and not available. So you've changed some references in the
proposed ordinance to referring Road 6A up to the boundary of the Palamanui property, but
there's other references referring it to Makalei Drive, which assumes the improvements not
adjacent to Palamanui. Can you change all of the references to the southern, excuse me, to the
boundary of Palamanui, rather than Maluhia Drive, or Makalei Drive, for a clarity sake so we
don't end up with condemnation or trespass?
JACKSON: So I'm hearing you mention Road 6A and Makalei Drive, and Road 6A does not
connect to Makalei Drive; University Drive does. And the, your concern about Makalei Drive
being a private road, that is correct, and that is why the applicant is requesting to delete one of
11
DRAFT
the conditions in recognition that they do not own Mak5lei Drive, and that it is a private road,
and that unless condemned by the county sometime in the future, it will remain a private road.
VAN PERNIS: There are several references to Mdkdlei Drive in your presentation and in the
proposed ordinance. I agree that you do note that Mdk5lei Drive is private. I'm suggesting, as
Mr. Fuke has, as Kent [sic] has, that the reference to connections of any Pdlamanui roads be
deleted since Makdlei Drive does not abut Palamanui's property, and that the boundary be, or the
end of the Palamanui roads, whatever they may be, be, as Mr. Fuke said and the proposed
ordinance refers to one point, the boundary of the Pdlamanui property. Otherwise, the
implication is that they, there should be condemnation or trespass onto the Mdk5lei property to
connect with the improved road, which does not go to the boundary.
JACKSON: Commissioner Van Perms, if you could point out those references that you are
concerned about, I'd be happy to look at those. But with, if, if Condition V6 is deleted as is
being proposed, I think your concerns would be addressed.
VAN PERNIS: I don't think so because there are many references in the proposed ordinance
that the applicant will connect with Mdkdlei Drive.
JACKSON: Okay, as I suggested, if you could point out where those references are in the
ordinance, I'd be happy to look at them.
VAN PERNIS: I'll do so.
JACKSON: Thank you.
CARR SMITH: Maybe you can note those, Mark, and we'll get back to that later. Any other
questions from the commissioners at this point? (No audible response) Okay, go ahead, thank
you, Maija.
JACKSON: Okay. All right, so the next condition amendment would be related to Condition
V3 for the Ane Keohokdlole Highway Extension, or the Road 3A Extension. The current
condition states that Road 6A, as I mentioned before, is referred to as Ane Keohokdlole
Highway, but this alignment has been shifted to the west, and now Road 3A is referred to as Ane
Keohokalole Highway. As I mentioned before, this request was made by Public Works, and the
applicant was agreeable to shift the location of the highway. The current condition also specifies
that Pdlamanui construct a half-section, two-lane road within a 120-foot right-of-way; the
condition does not specify timing of when that be done, but it does indicate that the road is to be
dedicated to the county when the county requires it to connect to Road 1. So the proposed
change to this condition is basically just to change the timing of when the road is to be dedicated;
they are requesting to dedicate the road to the county upon request.
The next amendment to V4 is related to Road 1, the future connector road. The current condition
indicates that Road I will extend from Road 6A to Mdmalahoa Highway; it is to be a 120-foot
right-of-way within state-owned lands—those are located just north of the Pdlamanui property—
and then 88-foot right-or-way over private-owned lands up to M5malahoa Highway; the
12
DRAFT
condition specifies that the county is to obtain the right-of-way outside of the applicant's
property for this road, and that the applicant will construct the road at its sole cost and expense as
a two-lane county dedicable collector road, including shoulders and swales no later than six
years after the entire right-of-way is acquired; lastly, the current condition requires completion of
the road to be secured by bond prior to granting final subdivision approval on the property
containing single-family residential lots. The applicant is proposing to change the condition to
extend Road 1 from Road 3A up to Mamalahoa Highway, and to defer construction or bonding
of Road 1 until the 9001h residential unit.
This is the condition that Commissioner Van Pernis and I were talking about. The request is to
delete Condition V6 related to Makalei Drive. The current condition states that at the western
end of Makalei Drive, the applicant is to provide safety improvements necessary to make a safe
transition to University Drive; Makalei Drive is a minor road and will not be open to the public
as a through street until Road 1 is opened for public use. And the applicant is requesting to
completely delete this condition because they do not own Makalei Drive and so therefore are not
able to make any safety improvements or transition improvements to connect University Drive to
Makalei Drive.
And the next condition is to add Condition V7. This is related to Road 6A. The new condition
would state that Road 6A would be a public road within a 60-foot right-of-way and constructed
in conjunction with any of the project's development requiring access to or from Road 6A.
So those are the requested amendments to rezone ordinance 09 132 for the Project District.
And then for Agenda Item number 2 they are requesting one amendment to ordinance 09 131.
This is for the MCX-zoned portion of the property within the business park. So for this
condition, Palamanui is requesting to amend Condition E to provide a five-year time extension to
secure final subdivision approval within the business park.
The applicant has several reasons for the request. The proposed changes to the ordinances are
necessary to conform the Palamanui project to the Kona CDP and the master plan that was
created in compliance with the CDP; to facilitate the continued development of the UH West
Hawaii campus and align construction of the Palamanui project with the planned University
Village; as well as to update the Palamanui project to current market demand and conditions,
including traffic conditions. As I mentioned before, Palamanui had a traffic assessment prepared
in 2017, and that traffic assessment informed their phasing plan, and so Palamanui is requesting
that completion of these roadway improvements be triggered with the actual traffic impact or
need generated by the development as laid out in the traffic assessment.
This is an aerial photo of the property. It was taken, I believe, June of last year. You can see the
property outlined in yellow, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway along the western edge of the
property. There is a rough-graded road along the University Drive, Road 2C, alignment, which
runs along the southern property boundary all the way up to the eastern property boundary near
Makalei Drive. And then you can see the University of Hawaii West Hawaii campus just south
of the property that is shown with the white buildings and concrete, and then the existing Ane
Keohokalole Highway extends from the southern property boundary down to Ka`iminani Drive,
13
DRAFT
which is just off of the screen. There is a base yard in the northwest corner of the property; you
can see a couple of structures there. And I believe that is generally the location of the future
sewer treatment plant.
And these are a few photos of the property and the University of Hawaii campus. So this photo
on the top left was taken at the very end of Ane Keohokdlole Highway; there is a cul-de-sac at
the end of the road, and this view is looking southeast towards the university buildings. Then if
you turn around, if you are standing in the cul-de-sac and turn around and look towards the
Pdlamanui property, that would be what you see in the lower right-hand image. And, so the
Road 3A Extension, or Ane Keohokdlole Highway Extension, would take off in the general area
where the orange cone is located and go directly north.
The planning director's recommendations. So for rezone 05-10, this is for the Project District
ordinance, the planning director generally agrees with the intent of all the applicant's requested
amendments, deletions, and additions, and recommends the Leeward Planning Commission
forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council to amend Ordinance number 09 132,
with the modifications shown in the draft bill. And there are several modifications. Pdlamanui,
as you know, was scheduled for hearing last month, and since then Pdlamanui and the Planning
Department and Public Works have been working really closely together to try to find some
agreement in the phasing and some of the improvements related to roadways. So the, my
understanding is that the recommendation you have before you for both ordinances is agreeable
to Pdlamanui, and I'm just going to, rather than go through every little change in each of the draft
bills, I'm going to point out some of the significant things that the Planning Department is
recommending. So the first one is to provide an emergency access road within the Road 2C
right-of-way from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to Ane Keohokdlole Highway prior to
occupancy within Phase 1. And the reason for this is that throughout Phase I and 11 development
all of the traffic from P51amanui will be going down Ane Keohokdlole Highway to Ka'iminani
Drive, and so the department wanted to have some type of emergency access road so that first
responders can use the road, if they are coming to or from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway directly
up to the University Village through the Palamanui property. The second—and as I mentioned,
P51amanui has already rough-graded this roadway, so they felt that this was not as significant
burden or requirement to provide in Phase I. The second recommendation from the director
would be to add a condition allowing for development of the business park in an earlier phase—
currently it's proposed in Phase Ill—provided, however, that the intersection at Queen
Ka'ahumanu Highway and University Drive up to the Ane Keohokdlole Highway is constructed
prior to occupancy within the phase. And then the—the main reason for that is that the CDP
policies recommend providing connectivity when you have two developed areas, so once the
business park starts to develop out, we are recommending that the connection of University
Drive between the business park and the University Village be made. And then the last
recommendation would be to add a 20-year construction completion deadline for full buildout of
the project. And typically, when we have very large projects—as I mentioned before, this is a
700-plus-acre property—the buildout timeline is consistent with a 20-year construction
completion, and the Planning Department often recommends such a long term construction
completion deadline for very large projects, such as some of our resorts that we've had
developed. So those are the three recommendations that are significant to rezone 05-10.
14
DRAFT
i
Then for the MCX-zoned property, rezone 09-94, the director is also recommending a favorable
recommendation be forwarded to County Council to amend Ordinance number 09 131. The
applicant requested a five-year time extension, but when we looked at their development phasing
plans for the businessp ark and the MCX area, it aligned more with like a 10 to 14-year time
frame. So the director is recommending providing a ten-year time extension, rather than five
years, to align with the anticipated construction of the business park in Phase III and IV. We are
also recommending adding language requiring construction of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway
intersection and University Drive up to Ane Keohokalole Highway prior to final subdivision
approval for the business park since this intersection and road will serve as the primary access to
the business park.
3
And that concludes my presentation. I know that's a lot of information to take in, so I'll be
happy to answer any questions the commission has.
CARR. SMITH: Thank you very much, Maija. Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: Yes, thank you. I have the sections that are being, that I referred to in my earlier
question—let me turn to those. In the proposed ordinance on page 19 under Section 1, it refers
to the applicant connecting to Makalei Drive; I think that should be referred to as stated in the
page 14, the proposed project, excuse me, Palamanui project report of May 2020, it says eastern
edge of the project property. Also Section lb of page 19 of the proposed ordinance, it refers to
connecting to Makalei Drive, and that should again say the eastern edge. There is no question
it's a private road, and I don't think the county intended to condemn or force trespass onto the
Makalei property to get to the proper Makalei Drive, so it should say eastern boundary. That j
was picked up in one place but not in those places in the ordinance.
a
CARR SMITH: Maija?
JACKSON: Commissioner Van Pernis, can I stop you for just a second. So I think I understand
what happened here. I think you are looking at the current ordinance 09 132 that's in the
background report, and that—
VAN PERNIS: That's correct.
JACKSON: —that is not—
VAN PERNIS: The one that shows all the changes.
JACKSON: Yeah, so these were the prior changes done in 2009. So the ordinance, or the draft
bill, that the department is recommending is on the orange goldenrod form. So what I'd like to
do is refer you to page 19—I'm sorry, not 19, wrong one—let's look at page 9 of, page 9 and 10
of the goldenrod.
VAN PERNIS: Let me turn to that.
JACKSON: Okay. Actually, you know, it's just page 10 of the goldenrod, and it is under c.
15
DRAFT
CARR SMITH: The second page 10?
JACKSON: Oh, you know what might—
VAN PERNIS: Page 9, Section 1, it refers to going to Makalei Drive, that should be corrected
the eastern boundary of the Palamanui property.
JACKSON: I understand what you are saying now, Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: Do you agree with that?
JACKSON: Yes.
VAN PERNIS: And also in Section b on page 10, it says, "to Makalei Drive," and again that
should be to the eastern edge.
JACKSON: Okay.
VAN PERNIS: And then there is reference—I'm not sure where it is in the golden document—
but it says that Makalei Drive shall not be open to the public until Road 1 is completed. To
avoid controversy, the "open to the public" should be deleted because that's a private road and
can't be open to the public absent of condemnation, which would be mighty expensive, of that
road. It's gated at the bottom and the top.
JACKSON: Yeah, so I think on page 17 you'll see at the top we are recommending completely
deleting that condition.
VAN PERNIS: Page 17.
JACKSON: Yeah, of the goldenrod, at the very top.
VAN PERNIS: Okay, the entire section is deleted.
JACKSON: Correct.
VAN PERNIS: All right. I have a couple other questions on another subject.
JACKSON: Okay, so just to clarify, we'll check with the applicant. I'm sure they agree. But I
understand why you are wanting to change those references to connection of Makalei Drive, so
staff will look through and make sure that there is no, nothing else that we missed—
VAN PERNIS: Yeah, there is one- - -
JACKSON:
- -JACKSON: and can make - - -
16
DRAFT
VAN PERNIS: - - - point, and this relates to not this subject matter. The water system that is
required, that's from a tank on a property adjoining Mamalahoa owned by Palamanui, correct?
JACKSON: I don't have the details to the property ownership, but I'm sure that Mr. Harris can
respond to that question.
VAN PERNIS: All right, now, that property has gated and improved access to Mamalahoa. And
where is the easement from that property down to Palamanui for the waterline?
JACKSON: I cannot - - -
CARR SMITH: - - - applicant deal with- - -
VAN PERNIS: Okay - - - to the applicant.
CARR SMITH: Okay.
VAN PERNIS: And then also there is a provision, I believe—I don't know within the golden
copy—where access is allowed on Mdkalei Drive to construction vehicles of Palamanui for work
on the waterline. Now, that's a private road, so that—and I assume the county or Palamanui is
not going to pay for damages or the bond that the Palamanui [sic] association requires. And also,
the easement, I believe, goes along the northern edge of the property off the Makalei property,
not down Makalei Drive. Makalei Drive is not on eastern edge, so there is, there is various side
roads, which have names. So, that particular provision should be deleted because there is no
access from Makalei road to the area of the easement. And in addition, there is improved lots
adjoining the easement so that if they tried to get construction vehicles over there, assuming they
had the same information, they'd have to destroy some of the improvements. So that provision
should be deleted as well. That concerns the water.
CARR SMITH: Seems like maybe we want to have the applicant address that as well, or did you
want to respond, Maija?
VAN PERNIS: That's in the ordinance.
CARR SMITH: Maija?
JACKSON: I would, I would suggest deferring this to the applicant to—because I'm not as
aware as Mr. Van Perris is about all the easements.
VAN PERNIS: Well, regardless of the easement, the provision I'm concerned with is the
ordinance providing for access to Palamanui on Makalei Drive for construction vehicles to work
on the waterline, even though they have other access. That—
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Perris, can you specifically state what you are referring to,please?
VAN PERNIS: I will find that—they didn't refer to it.
17
DRAFT
3
CARR SMITH: Okay. All right, any other commissioners—
VAN PERNIS: - - - other questions to make. j
I
CARR SMITH: Okay—any other commissioners have questions? Mike? Go ahead.
VITOUSEK: Yeah, I will wait to ask a couple more questions until the applicant has the I
opportunity to respond.
CARR SMITH: Okay, good. All right, well, we can take a minute to find that, and otherwise—
HARRIS: Chairman Carr Smith?
CARR SMITH: Who is speaking? Roger.
HARRIS: Yes. I can clarify that, I think.
CARR SMITH: Roger, I'd rather, let's wait, okay—
HARRIS: Okay.
i
CARR SMTIH: —until your presentation. Thank you. Mark, I want to suggest that we hold
off—you can work on figuring that out—but let's hold off until the applicant has made their
presentation.
VAN PERNIS: Fine.
CARR SMITH: So if there are no other questions from commissioners to staff right now, to
Maija, then we will thank her for her presentation and all your work on this. Thank you, Maija.
And I suggest that we take a little break. Are you guys good with 10 minutes? (No audible
response) All right, 10-minute break, it is 11:17, we'll be back at 11:37, I'm sorry, 11:27. Thank
you.
(Chair Carr Smith called a recess at 11:17 a.m. She called the hearing back to order at
11:29 a.m.)
CARR SMITH: Okay, I'm going to call the meeting back to order. It's 11:29. And I, since
we'll be proceeding to the applicant's presentation, I wanted to make sure that all of you were
back—if you can show your faces. Mr. Van Pernis, I realize that you found what you were
referring to. If you can be brief, you can go ahead and mention that, but we want to move into
the applicant's presentation so that we can ask questions—
VAN PERNIS: Right after that, that's fine. For Ms., for the Planning Department, it's on page
19 of the golden copy, Section, former Section [X], new Section Y, and it says, "Construction
vehicles shall not utilize," etcetera. And-
18
DRAFT
CARR SMITH: What's your objection to that?
VAN PERNIS: Excuse me?
CARR SMITH: What is your objection to the new Y?
VAN PERNIS: The new Y says an exception, the last couple of lines say, "except for
construction work within Makalei Estates—
CARR SMITH: Okay, I got you.
VAN PERNIS: —etcetera. First of all, I believe the section was written before Makalei was
developed, now it's developed, and before the lot for the wells, mains, and tanks, as referred to
there, the lot on Mamalahoa, there was, there has been access into it, so there is no need to go on
Makalei Drive. It doesn't access that easement anyway—
CARR SMITH: Okay—
VAN PERNIS: —so I'm asking for the deletion of everything in that section from the word
"except" to the word "tanks."
CARR SMITH: All right, thank you. We'll let the applicant address that. All right, so we have,
for the applicant, I believe we have Steve Colon if you folks can show your cameras, please—
Roger Harris, Sid Fuke, Laura and Ross, if you are planning on speaking, Norm Stuard—is Paul
Kay not here—John Knox is here, Greg Chun dropped off, Steve Lim is here, Jason Knable is
here. Is there anyone else? I was told that Guy Lam might be joining in, but I haven't seen his
name. So, all right, then all of you folks please raise your right hand. I need to see your faces, if
you have a camera. Hi Steve. Steve Lim, John Knox, Ross—anybody that is going to be
speaking needs to be sworn in. Hi Steve.
LIM: Hi.
CARR SMITH: Okay, then, Ross will not be sworn in. Jason Knable, are you there? (No
audible response) All right, so we are going to swear in Steve Lim, Steve Colon, Sid, Roger
Harris, John Knox. Thank you. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth on this matter before the Leeward Planning Commission?
REPRESENTATIVES: I do. Yes.
CARR SMITH: All right, thank you. Thank you. And whatever order you folks decide to
present, please state your name, your area of residence. We need to know if you received the
Planning Department's background report and recommendation, and if you agree with it or you
have any comments about that, and then you can also give us your presentation. So who is going
first?
19
DRAFT
HARRIS: Members of the commission and Chairman Nancy Carr Smith, this is Roger Harris
representing Palamanui. I just wanted to make brief comment about Mr. Van Pernis's comment
on the Makalei Drive. There iswe don't object to eliminating Condition Y - - -
recommendation, except that it's just a simple fact that there are two easement lots within
Makalei Estates Subdivision that are intended for future water reservoirs and improvements to
the county water system. It would be at some time in the future- - -
VAN PERNIS: - - -
HARRIS:
- -HARRIS: - - - easements.
CARR SMITH: Noriko, please—
VAN PERNIS: Would you repeat that, please, because it was broken up, and we can't hear it?
CARR SMITH: Noriko—thank you, Noriko. Yeah, Roger, you got, you are a little bit muffled.
Do you guys still have a second computer or phone on in the room?
HARRIS: Yes, we have two computers on right here,but can you - - -
CARR SMITH: Okay, that doesn't work, we've found.
HARRIS: (Low-volume private conversation) Hello? How is it now?
CARR SMITH: So who is in the room with you,Roger?
HARRIS: Steve Colon has another little computer, but we can turn that one off or else
disconnect - - -be okay? - - -Nancy?
CARR SMITH: No, it's still, it's still muffled, and whoever is in the room with you can't speak
when you are trying to speak as well.
HARRIS: Right.
CARR SMITH: Okay, Roger, go ahead.
HARRIS: My comment was on Condition Y, which relates to Makalei Drive and future
construction. We don't object to eliminating that condition, but it's a fact that there are two
water tank easement lots in that, in Makalei Estates Subdivision, at some point in the future,
either we or the Water department will have to go in and build future reservoirs to complete the
water system and provide fire pressure down the hill.
CARR SMITH: Understood. Okay, we are still, you are still a little muffled, Roger. If, if you
have two computers in the room, can one person move to a different room? It would make
everything work better.
20
DRAFT
HARRIS: We don't have another computer on in the room, and
CARR SMITH: Okay.
HARRIS: —this is what we have. Can you hear me now?
CARR. SMITH: Yeah, it's just a little muffled, and maybe it's your microphone, I'm not sure.
We can, we'll do the best we can. Thank you.
HARRIS: Okay, I think—
CARR SMITH: Go ahead.
HARRIS: —the best sequence now would be for John Knox to make his short comments, and
then he can go, and then Steve Colon will make some small remarks. Thank you.
CARR SMITH: So, Roger, did you want to comment—did you receive the director's
recommendation, and do you folks agree or are you going to object to anything? We kind of, it
would be good for us to know that right now.
HARRIS: No, we are in agreement with the director's report.
CARR SMITH: Okay.
HARRIS: We've been working very long on it with the department, but we are in agreement.
Thank you.
CARR SMITH: I understand that you folks have collaborated nicely with the Planning
Department. We all appreciate that. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Knox,please.
KNOX: - - -
CARR SMITH: Mr. Knox, I believe you are muted.
KNOX: Okay, I hope I'm unmuted now.
CARR SMITH: There you go - - -
KNOX: - - - (indiscernible–poor internet connection)
VAN PERNIS: - - - can't hear what you are saying.
KNOX: Okay—
CARR SMITH: Yeah, Mr. Knox, you are, you are gurgled
21
DRAFT
i
I
KNOX: Okay—
CARR SMITH: But - - -, Mark, if you don't speak out.
i
I
KNOX: I'm going to try this way. Can you hear me now?
i
CARR SMITH: That, yeah, go ahead.
KNOX: So, again, commission members, I'm John Knox, consultant for Palamanui. I've
written and submitted testimony that comes from a summary of a 2015 report co-authored by
Greg Chun, who - - - also to testify,but I will now supply - -- summary.
In 2020 dollars and with ripple effects, the development has already injected 51 million dollars -
- - county economy - - - construction that they- - -nearby campus and/or a wider community- -
- develop water system, - - -road, campus, other- - - university. And the buildout of the
University Village project is estimated -- - generate more than 550 million dollars in total
construction output, 1840, 1,840, operational jobs at buildout - - -. Beyond that, question that a
few - - - Palamanui campus continues - - - with no support community. We scoured the - - -
national collegiate planning organization in country- find any example of any successful
campus anywhere with no support community. We could not, and every organization and expert
we talked to expressed grave doubts that this would be possible. Dr. Chun was (indiscernible–
poor internet connection)
CARR SMITH: John, you are breaking up. Maybe you could try turning off your camera, and
let's see if your audio will be better without the camera, please.
KNOX: Okay. Is my audio any, any better?
CARR SMITH: Yes, I think so.
KNOX: Yes—
CARR SMITH: So if you could share briefly what Dr. Chun was planning on sharing with us,
that would be great.
KNOX: - - - I wanted to clarify that he was not here today in his capacity as the current
university employee but rather as his former capacity as consultant to Palamanui, and he noted
that, as we concluded in the report, if the Palamanui campus stands physically isolated as it is
now, the social and economic value of the project to the community would be significantly
limited as growth potential of the campus itself, when a campus is geographically isolated
without easy access to service and amenities, growth is challenged. In speaking with Palamanui
leadership, which he and I did - - -, their isolation continues to create transportation, access,
housing, childcare, and food service challenges, that the campus simply cannot beat on their
own. Growth is also impacted by isolation,because of the specific mission of community
colleges where there is a particular focus on career- - - pathways. These programs specifically
require lab space, apprenticeships where hands-on learning can be conducted. When the campus
22
DRAFT
is isolated, finances are challenged, as P51amanui currently is, and must rely more on community
partnerships and businesses where that kind of hands-on learning can take place. And you notice
that when we did our outreach five years ago, there was actually interest on the part of some of
the community organizations in using P51amanui as a case study to look at how the mutual
benefits develop over time, given the fact we have a unique situation here. It's this - - -
development of the university and community intent that's not common elsewhere. For most
mixed-use developments occurring near or around university campuses involve revitalizing
already developed space. So, and he has further comments, but I think we'll just (inaudible–
poor internet connection)
CARR SMITH: Thank you. Anything else, John?
KNOX: - - - thank you.
CARR SMITH: Okay, Roger, what's next?
HARRIS: - - -
CARR SMITH: Oh, there you go. Roger, I didn't hear you. Can you unmute, please?
COLON: Hang on, hang on. Hi, this is Steve. I'm going to go next. And I know you can hear
me because I'm doing this on an iPad—
CARR SMITH: Hi Steve.
COLON: —laptop these guys are using in the room six feet away from me, or more. Hi
everybody. My name is Steve Col6n. I lived in Kailua, and whenever I would participate in
races here, they would say, "And from Kailua-Kona, Steve Col6n"; actually, it's Kailua, Oahu.
So, anyway, I know you've been here for a while, and I just wanted to make a brief statement. I
am the Hawaii division president for Hunt Companies that is the managing member of the
P51amanui Global Holdings partnership, and we have been involved in this project since about
2006, 1 believe. Our vision has always been to build a community around the Hawaii
Community College Palamanui. As you know from both testimony and the report, that we
worked on with the Planning Department, we've invested about 22 million dollars to get this
Pdlamanui campus built. And today the fruits of that are evident; they are there, the kids are
there, they are going to the college, it's been a great, wonderful educational benefit for the
community, the kids can get associate degree now close to home, and they can then, you know,
segue into a four-year degree either on the island or elsewhere in the state.
Well, what you have before you is a plan that we've been working on with the county, with the
Planning Department, actually for about, it feels like longer than this, but I believe it's going to
be about three years now. And that plan is to create a dynamic community around the college, a
plan for four phases over a 25 to 30-year time frame. But in order for that to happen, we do need
relief, and that relief is requested through this amend- conditions of zoning amendment request.
The reality is that the great recession, as well as a mandate to build this off-site connector road to
M5malahoa Highway on property that we don't own or control, or some other reasons, that the
23
DRAFT
project has been in a standstill for literally a decade. And as a matter of fact, under the present
conditions, the reality is it's just not feasible to, the project is not economically feasible to, to
move forward.
But we've done lots of ext- we've done extensive community research. 1, 1 certainly feel, on
behalf of the principals as well, that we really paid our fair share. And I would like to, you
know, thank the community and the Planning Department for working closely with us,
collaboratively, to try and help us find a way forward so that we can make this P51amanui master
plan community a reality.
So, thank you, Chair Smith, and thank you, members of the Leeward Planning Commission. We
are here to answer any questions you may have regarding this application.
CARR SMITH: Thank you, Steve. Sid, did you, were you planning to speak at this point? (No
audible response) No? Okay. All right, so, does that conclude your presentation, folks? (No
audible response) Okay. All right, so we'll move on to questions from the commissioners. Mr.
Van Perms.
VAN PERNIS: This is a question, I believe, for Mr. Col6n or Mr. Knox to answer. It's been 15
years since this was originally approved, and you said the campus needs a support community;
campus has been there since 2015. You are talking another 25 to 30 years for completion. When
do you intend to start? Can you commit to when you are going to start building this support
community?
CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Steve.
COLON: In order, in order for us to go forward with this project, like I said, we have this
request in for you; in our fixing these conditions for us will enable us to go out and attract
financing that we would need to go forward. Now, concurrent with that, you have an entire, you
know, design and permitting process that would probably take about a year, so I would say it
would, it would, you know, rough, rough, roughly speaking would probably be about a year
before we could, you know, really get rolling and bulldozers moving, stuff like that.
VAN PERNIS: When the first ordinance was approved, did Pdlamanui have the money to keep
their promise to build in five years?
COLON: When the last zoning amendment was approved, which some of you may remember
was way back in 2009, we did extensive, you know, planning and design work after that, and we
then made the commitment—this was, this is, you know, not something I'm making up, it's in
the, it was widely covered by the media, we presented a 9.6-million-dollar check to the
university in order to facilitate the construction of the university campus. We also put in a
5.5-million-dollar road to go from Ka'iminani to the campus. We put in a 11-million-dollar
water system, and a couple million dollars for electric. That's 22 million dollars. So I think you
can probably say that, yes, we had the money to do that. We did that. We did exactly what we
had been asked to do by the community, by the county. And the fruits of that are you have kids
right now going to college on the west side. They used to be going to school down in
24
DRAFT
Kealakekua in an old, in a shopping center. And, so, you know, if you, if you are looking, Chair,
if you are looking, Commissioner Van Pernis, for somebody to give you some input on whether
this was a good thing for the community, on whether this was a good thing for the students, on
whether this was a good thing for the university, then you can, you can hear it from me, but I
would suggest that maybe you might want to ask somebody from university system that
question. Thank you.
VAN PERNIS: That begs a question; that does not answer the question. The question is not
whether they spent all of this money on the college, which I understand; the question is when the
original ordinance was passed, did you have the money to build the community that you are
seeking permission for now, or did you have to go find an investor?
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis, I find that somewhat irrelevant. That's not what's on the table
in front of us at this moment, so I'd like to move on—
VAN PERNIS: Well, let me explain the relevance—
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis, Mr. Van Perris—
VAN PERNIS: They are speculating- - -
CARR SMITH: Noriko, will you please mute his microphone?
VAN PERNIS: - - - the future.
CARR SMITH: Noriko, will you please—thank you. I want other commissioners' input, please.
Anyone else have some questions? Mike, go ahead.
VITOUSEK: I was just wondering if you could tell us a little bit about Hunt Companies—where
their background is, where the money comes from, all of that.
COLON: Yes—
CARR SMITH: Who can - - -? Steve, go ahead.
COLON: I'll take on that, Commissioner Vitousek. Thank you for the question. Hunt
Companies is a family-owned company, headquartered in El Paso, Texas. We've been active in
Hawaii since the early 90's. We came to Hawaii as a military housing contractor, and we built
about 5,500 homes for all branches of military on Oahu. We now own and operate 7,000 homes
for the Navy and the Marine Corps in Honolulu and on Kaua'i. We also have some other
divisions. The division I run, the development group, is very active with projects on every
island. We are redeveloping the former Barbers Point Naval Air Station, which is a large master
plan community, 550 acres, on the west side of Oahu, and like Pdlamanui it has a whole range,
whole range of uses. We have an affordable housing affiliate that provides financing for
affordable housing projects all over the state. They are very, they are most active syndicator in
Hawaii. We've done multiple projects on the Big Island, in Hilo, and I'm not sure about Kona,
25
DRAFT
but I know for sure in Hilo. We have a general contracting affiliate as well. So I can go on and
on, but we are very, you know, substantial company with a lot of experience in Hawaii.
VITOUSEK: Now, what would the funding source be for development of Pdlamanui?
COLON: Funding for real estate projects always involves a mix of what we call dead equity, so
we've already put in a very, very extensive amount of equity. We would—in order to fund the
improvements or the additional improvements, you would go your traditional sources that could
be lending that could be through local banks. Because of our balance sheet and the balance sheet
of our partner, we would probably, you know, we might look for, to get some financing from
mainland as well. We could bring in equity partners, so we might even look for, so we might
look for equity investors. It's somewhat of a circular answer there because it'll all, you know,
each project tends to be, you know, specific project by project.
VITOUSEK: So, basically it would be, you know, once we can secure, you know, if we can
secure the requested relief, at that point you would be seeking out the financing to complete it?
COLON: Internal or external, I think most of you know our partner is Charles Schwab, so it's,
you can imagine, that's, that's not, you know, that he's, you know, he's obviously substantial.
So, you know, again, we are, as a developer, we, we approach various capital sources to, that
tend to be, you know, project by project depending on the nature of project.
VITOUSEK: Okay, thanks. And then, so, moving on and, you know, anybody who has the
answers, feel free to answer the questions. The first thing I point out is for the most part what we
are looking at is not a reduction in public benefit,but a changing of the schedule for the public
benefit. The only exception being the park, the amendment to Condition S, I believe it was.
And, to me, I would be much more comfortable if we were not reducing the scope of the park
and reducing the overall public benefit, but instead doing a similar change in schedule where
after 251 units, that will trigger the phase one of the park, and then if we could set another trigger
down the road for the development of the remaining portion of the park, and then the turning
over of that remaining portion of the park to the county, already developed. That would make
me much more comfortable, having been in a situation where with the developer that I work for
the county didn't want to accept an uncompleted park even though it was in the ordinance, and
took us three years to convince the county to accept an undeveloped park extension piece. So, to
me, the public benefit is in completing the park and turning that over to the county. Now, if you
need relief in the form of scheduling saying we can push that second phase down the road and
get some more revenue from later phases before we can complete that, is that an option?
HARRIS: This is Roger Harris. Can you hear me?
VITOUSEK: Yes.
CARR SMITH: Yes.
HARRIS: Thanks, Member Vitousek. We, that is an option; however, we are not in favor of
that option. And the park started out years ago as a I 0-acre park that we would improve, and
26
DRAFT
which is what we are proposing now. And then Councilman Pete Hoffmann at the very last
minute back in '07 upped it to a 20-acre park and—
COLbN: And Parks department didn't even want that.
HARRIS: And the Parks department was not in favor of that; however, we are willing to go with
what we proposed and that is to provide the second adjacent 10 acres, two parks, and they have
by memo agreed that's okay with them.
VITOUSEK: I mean, but to me, looking at the memo, even the memo itself can create a little bit
of confusion in where they are saying, "In concept, we have no objections"—oh, no, excuse
me—Item b, 10 additional acres for usage for park expansion and development, "These
additional lands shall be contiguous [with the prior dedicated park lands] and shall be configured
and defined in a manner acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation."
HARRIS: Yeah- - -
VITOUSEK: That gets into the situation that we were in where they didn't want to accept it
because they weren't what they wanted, whereas, you know, if we are making the commitment
to building it out whatever that may be-it doesn't have to be what, this long, very detailed
description that's included in the existing condition—but if there is a plan for what is going to go
in there, it's going to adequately serve the community that can be implemented in phases with
the growth of the project. To me, that's, that's a better option that serves the public.
YATES: Nancy?
HARRIS: Well, we, we would like to keep the condition as it's written. We have—if you look
at it, we need to meet with the Parks department and flesh this out—but we have met with them
several times over the years, and the concept is pretty simple; the land is directly adjacent to the
first 10 acres. Respectfully, we'd like to stick with the wording as is - - -
YATES:
- -YATES: Nancy?
CARR SMITH: Faye, go ahead.
YATES: I'm, my concern is—I know it's kind of, maybe redundant, but you know, I understand
what you all are saying about, you know, things being, you know, costly and put off—for me, it
would be more important that there is, you know, students are able to go to school, there is
housing for students, there is affordable housing in the area, and a park is nice, but you know, a
park is not all that important right now. And the, and the county—I'm not saying it in a bad
way—they have so many parks, so many places to take care of, that they, it has become
somewhat of a concern that, you know, they are not all that thrilled about parks because they do
not take care of the parks the way that they should take care of the parks. And I speak from
firsthand experience because—I'm, I'm sorry but I'm always calling the county—because
certain things are not taken care of at various parks on this island. And so for me it will be more
important to, for me to understand what has stopped or limited, you know, the university moving
27
DRAFT
forward, so there is housing—you know, I very honestly was not even aware of where the
campus is or wasn't even aware that there really, I've heard of it,but I haven't seen it—but I
think that it's more important that, you know, we have students who are able to go to school,
place for them to live, whether it's, you know, housing for the students, affordable housing for
people who may live there, that's most important, rather than trying to put in different
infrastructures that can wait.
CARR SMITH: Thank you, Faye. Any response? Go ahead, Steve.
COLON: We agree with those comments, and not only that, you know, again, 10 years ago, we
are, this is exactly what was in the, what, what we had already worked out with the Planning
Department, and it was Councilman Hoffmann at the time that said he wanted a park twice the
size, that the representative of the county Parks department at the time in 2009 said, we don't, we
don't want that, we don't have this, have the capacity,just like the other councilwoman [sic]just
mentioned here, they said, we don't, we can't take care of the parks we have. And so I feel
strongly that this proposed language here is acceptable and is something that makes sense, you
know, for us.
CARR SMITH: Mike, are you okay with backing off on that?
VITOUSEK: - - -
CARR SMITH: Mike Vitousek, you are on mute.
VITOUSEK: You know, I think that's something that the County Council may have to weigh in
on since they are the approving body on it. It's my opinion that this should be worded in a way
that doesn't allow for any ambiguity in the future, and that the design of the park in keeping with
the approval to allow the maximum of public benefit be done on them. Whether we are phasing
that to allow for more revenue to come in before that's completed, I don't have a problem with
that at all,but I don't want to look at us in terms of reducing public benefit from a project in
order for it to proceed. I think that, you know, giving the relief in the form of time to allow for
them to generate revenue off of that is significant relief. And so, to me personally, I feel like 1, 1
don't believe in reducing public benefit for the sake of the development to move forward when
that has already been agreed upon. I'm totally okay with extending the schedule and all that, but,
again, that's something that's—we are just a recommending body on this—that's something that
the County Council is going to have to go forward with.
CARR SMTIH: Thank you. Sid, did you have something you want to say?
FUKE: - - -
CARR SMITH: Can't hear you, Sid, sorry. Mr. Van Perms.
VAN PERNIS: As Mr. Col6n said, the 20-acre park was agreed to—(cough) excuse me-10, 15
years ago; the need has increased. And I think the, I agree with Mr. Vitousek that the public
benefit should not be reduced. If anything, it should be increased because this has been so long.
28
DRAFT
And this relates to the traffic study that has been done that is referred to; the traffic study is four
years old, it's already outdated. And that it sounds as though they won't commit to when they
are going to start to build. There will be 10 or 20 years before this place is built out with
thousands of additional cars. So I would suggest that we require another traffic study when
construction begins, which could be 20, 30 years after the original approval. Another traffic
study—in fact, I think they should return after, let's say, 20 years from the original application to
address all of the increased infrastructure needs.
CARR SMITH: Thank you. Perry? Max? Barbara? Any questions? Barbara, go ahead.
DEFRANCO: I can't, I can't tell if Sid is trying to talk to us - - -
CARR SMITH: No, he - - -he might be talking- - -no, he's not.
COLON: He's talking to one of the other, one of,he's talking to Roger, so whatever he has to
say—
CARR SMITH: Yeah, he's—
COLON: —couple rooms over, we'll find out soon.
DEFRANCO: Okay, and in the CDP the way that it views this in open space and parks and, you
know, I have to agree with both other commissioners in a way, you know; it's going to be a
bigger demand by the time they get around to completing the park. Why not, you know, do
some infrastructure before you hand it over to the county, that extra 10 acres? Maybe it isn't a
full buildout, and maybe we can meet in the middle there. But, you know, we are looking to the
future of things and, yes, we need the schools and the housing first, I agree with that, but also
these kids are going to need a place to be, you know. And the more that we can provide that now
by putting it in here now, I think long term is, is an idea that we should look at them a little bit.
Thank you.
CARR SMITH: Thank you, Barbara. Max or Perry?
KEALOHA: I guess my interest is in the main roadway coming down from Mdkdlei Drive. Is
there any real intention of making a connection from the mauka highway to Queen Ka'ahumanu?
CARR SMITH: Who wants to—Roger? Roger, I've got you on two windows here.
HARRIS: Okay, can you see, can you hear me?
CARR SMITH: Yeah, I can see you a lot—yeah, I can hear you, go ahead.
HARRIS: Okay. With respect to the park—I was just talking to Sid Fuke on the phone—part of
the reason for the second phase of the park was that the county, Pete Hoffmann, and the Parks
department, were looking at putting a big regional park at Kealakehe, and this would,by adding
29
DRAFT
i
i
I
10 acres to our park, it would reduce the need for, our park was admitted to be useful for 10
acres, but this would allow additional land if the county wanted to implement a more regional
park at Palamanui. That's just background on that park.
On the road coming down, yes, we have provided for the road to be built in the future, but way
off in the future, which gives us time to get even.
COLON: Yeah, he's talking about Makalei, he's talking about the Makalei connection—
i
HARRIS: Makalei Drive is a location of the waterline and the access to Makalei Estates
Subdivision, and so, that is just as is, and as Mr. Van Pernis mentioned, it's a private road, and at
some—there are some emergency uses that could go through there, but beyond the waterline
improvements, we have no—
COLON: We can't because we don't own—
3
HARRIS: —we can't agree, we can't work on that road; it's a private road.
I
CARR SMITH: Okay. Mr. Van Pernis.
I
3
VAN PERNIS: Yes. I am quite knowledgeable about the Makalei roads. It's private, gated top
and bottom. There is no waterline easement under it; the waterline easement is to the north. And
there is no possibility in my opinion of connecting that road up to Mamalahoa with the
Palamanui's road, and that is because first of all there is going to be another connector road, and
secondly, Makalei Drive is substandard with upgrades to beg, and even more importantly, if they
were going to condemn, the county or somebody, if they were going to condemn the private
Makalei road into a public road, they had to pay huge damages to the people on that road, and
that's not going to happen. Since this application was originally approved and subsequently
amended, that road has been deeded in fee simple to the association, so it's off the table as far as
the county and the Palamanui is concerned.
CARR SMITH: Applicant, is that the way you see it?
I
HARRIS: No, we have no further comment, except to note that the waterline and the future
reservoirs are, are constructed in that subdivision, so there will be some future maintenance and I
work required there.
CARR SMITH: And you have the easements in place for that?
HARRIS: Yes.
CARR SMITH: Okay, very good. My personal opinion about the park, having been a part of
the park builders group in Waimea, the Waimea District Park, and knowing how the budget
doesn't always, it's not always able to fund the maintenance that's required for Parks and Rec
with all the parks we do have, I personally think that the way it's written is acceptable, that it
should be provided to the county at no cost, and that whatever needs there are at the time that it's
30
DRAFT
conveyed would be addressed at that time. I just think that the needs may change; there may not
be any maintenance for it. So, I'm personally okay with that,just for whatever that's worth.
Anybody else? Max, go ahead.
NEWBERG: Yeah,just to mirror your thoughts on that, Chair Carr Smith, I think parks are
important, I think it's good to create these livable and workable areas. I've also noticed that not
only with the building of the university itself, the roadway that connects it to Ka`iminani Drive is
a very walkable and popular area for a lot of the residents in that area to have somewhere
relatively flat to walk without having to go down to NELHA, OTEC or Pine Trees, Kohanaiki
area to walk. So seeing it as what it is, and then also to mirror your thoughts on the park, to start
off with the 10-acre, which I do recall that being part of the proposed project long ago, yet also
donating an extra 10 acres, while perhaps not ideal, it does seem to strike balance as far as what
the county may be able to do with that property in the future, be it, you know, potentially a dog
park or something, at least they have the land in which to develop something in the future with
that. Other than that, a lot of this looks like it's trying to strike balance between feasibility and
actually moving forward with the project. That's all I have for comments this time.
CARR SMITH: Thank you. Mike. Go ahead, Mike.
VITOUSEK: Okay, my next question is a little bit more difficult, I guess. You know, in looking
at the long-term needs of roadways and the community, it's my personal, personal belief that the
mauka-makai connector road, the Road 1, doesn't serve as much of a public benefit as extending
the Ane Keohokalole Highway. And I just wanted to know if there was any discussions between
the applicant and the Planning Department about realigning those conditions so that instead of
committing to the creation of a pretty redundant roadway, we could actually get the development
of a roadway that would be a tremendous service to the community.
CARR SMITH: - - -
JACKSON:
- -JACKSON: Chair Carr Smith, you are muted.
CARR SMITH: Sorry, Maija, go ahead.
JACKSON: Can I respond to that?
CARR SMITH: Yes, please.
JACKSON: So there has been discussion over the last few years about that, and that idea came
up a few years ago. One of the main reasons that that hasn't been pursued yet is because the
Land Use Commission decision and order for the Palamanui property requires that they construct
a mauka-makai road at their sole cost and expense. So, although the county may be supportive
of that idea, we advised Palamanui that they need to go back to LUC and get that condition of
their order amended before the county could provide that type of improvements swap.
CARR SMITH: Mike, do you have any response?
31
DRAFT
VITOUSEK: I would, I would love to hear a response from the developer, the applicant.
CARR SMITH: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Col6n.
COLON: Hi, well, I would like to point out to the commission that we actually did build the first
segment. The, we spent five and a half million dollars to build the road from Ka'iminani into the
campus that will ultimately be connecting with the Ane K. So we've actually done that; we've
actually done a public benefit to the community by building a road that is very widely used. And
I'm told that the—every time I drive on it, there's families, kids,jogging on it, walking on it, so I
fully, I definitely know it's getting a lot of use, not just, and not just for cars. And again, our
request is, it is, it stands what it is. And, and we recognize this is a difficult process we are going
through. We've been through it before. We know we still go to County Council after this. But
again, we feel that the 22 million dollars that we spent is, that certainly is all the funding that we
have authorized from our owners, and in terms of anything that goes beyond that, we certainly
don't have, you know, anything more to add than what's in the existing application.
CARR SMITH: Mike?
VIOTUSEK: Sure, I just want to clarify. Nobody is questioning what you guys have done. We
know that you've put in a tremendous amount of time and money into public benefit, and the
community definitely appreciates that. So we are not talking about what you've done to date;
what we are talking about is what is obligated to be done in the future. And you have this
obligation hanging over you in that Road I construction, which is going to be massive. And all
I'm suggesting is that maybe that tremendous, huge obligation could go towards something that
would better serve the community and might even end up being less expensive than putting that
giant road snaking all the way down.
CARR SMITH: Thanks, Mike. Barbara, go ahead.
DEFRANCO: Yeah, I didn't really hear you respond to the question that Mike is, I mean,
Commissioner Vitousek is asking. So if you went back to the state and were able to take that
commitment out, could you, could you go into an agreement to do something else? I mean, are
you looking at that?
COLON: We, like I said, we have no authorization to go - - -beyond - - - what's in this request
to amend the conditions of zoning right now. This is all we have.
CARR SMITH: Mike.
VITOUSEK: I mean, you know, I understand where we are now, with the requirement coming
from the LUC, but I guess what I'm asking is if you guys could at a later date, after all this has
been settled, because we don't have the power to override the LUC now, discuss it internally,
figure out if that's a possibility, and if the feasibility is there, if it's more of a benefit for you
guys, if it's less expensive to construct that section of Ane Keohokalole Highway than the Road
1, would you guys internally discuss that and consider that? Because it's not something we can
do now.
32
DRAFT
COLON: Certainly, we'll consider that. And not to belabor the already lengthy discussion
already, we actually—one of the reasons that we've been doing this, you know, three years with
the county is because there, and the Planning Department, is because there was some initial
discussion of us going to the LUC first, and we actually went to the LUC first. And instead,
basically the guidance we got was, no, you know, get the conditions amended at the county level,
then we are going to go to the LUC. So we already know we are going to be going to the LUC.
We certainly will be taking everything you've mentioned, and more, into consideration. We
recognize this is quite a process, lengthy process - - -
CARR SMITH: Robyn, DPW, I wanted to give you an opportunity, if you wanted to weigh in
on this road talk at all.
MATSUMOTO: Thanks, Nancy. You know, I only have been doing this for a couple of years,
involved in this particular project, so I wasn't aware that there was a discussion about changing
the Road I with another section of Ane Keohokdlole. I mean, it does sound like it's a possibility,
you know, we just don't have another mauka-makai road, though, you know, other than the—
Ka'iminani is the next closest one, so. It's definitely a possibility.
CARR SMITH: Thank you, Robyn. Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: Concerning that road, the mauka-makal connector road, and what Mr. Vitousek
said, we are making decisions that are not going to be in effect for 10 or 20 years; we are not
making it for now. So - - -whether you feel a mauka-makai connector is necessary now—I feel
it's necessary now—but it's certainly going to be needed in 10 or 20 years. Since the applicant
won't commit to when they are going to start, I have to assume 10, 20 or even 30 years, or more.
So I don't think that road should be messed with. I think that Mr. Yee has negotiated long and
hard in that regard, and I think that we should think about—this related to the parks, too—what
is going to be in place 10, 20, 30 years from now, not now. And if you don't think it's needed
now, although I do, it's certainly going to be needed then. Same thing with the stop lights.
That's why I'm asking the traffic study be done 10 years from now, and that that be- - -the
developer. The traffic generated by P51amanui is going to come down Mdmalahoa, too.
CARR SMITH: Can somebody inform me what the guidelines are for traffic studies? Do they,
are they obsolete after a certain period of time or does something else trigger the need for an
updated one? Maija?
JACKSON: Yeah, sure, I can try to respond to that. So we do have a couple of conditions in the
ordinance that are asking for an updated traffic study. The Department of Transportation has
asked for an updated traffic study prior to construction of University Drive. Then the next point
in time where one would be required is if they do not complete full buildout within 20 years, it
would have to do an updated traffic study when they come in for a time extension to the
development period.
33
DRAFT
CARR SMITH: Okay, so it sounds like that's addressed. All right, what's next? Any other
concerns or questions? Everybody is good? (No audible response) All right, very good.
Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: - - -move to amend—
CARR SMITH: You need to get closer to your microphone, please.
VAN PERNIS: I'd like to move to amend the proposed ordinance contained in Mr. Yee's
recommendation, to delete the references to Makalei Drive and substitute for them the eastern
boundary of the Palamanui property, and also to delete from"except" to "tanks,"the language in
new proposed Condition Y.
CARR SMITH: We have a motion on the table. Does everybody understand the motion?
VAN PERNIS: I believe the, I believe the developer has agreed to that.
JACKSON: Chair
CARR SMITH: So, Steve—
JACKSON: —could I get clarity on the change to Condition Y?
CARR SMITH: You repeat, Mark, the change to Condition Y, please, as it is on page 19 it's—
VAN PERNIS: On Condition Y,because there is no access to the easement on the north side of
the Makalei property, the area is developed, there is other roads within Makalei that go to the
north, and the location of the wells,mains, and tank of Palamanui is a separate lot that adjoins
Mamalahoa and has an access to it, improved and gated, so that this isn't rather necessary. It
also would involve, since Makalei has become a private road since this was originally drafted, as
is acknowledged in changes, that this would involve partial condemnation by the state, if they are
going to break into the private road, and I don't think the state wants to do that, or the county
wants to do that—
JACKSON: Excuse me
VAN PERSON: —and it also—
JACKSON: Excuse me, Commissioner Van Pernis, I'm asking—are you requesting to delete the
entire condition?
VAN PERNIS: No, as I said, delete from the word "except"to the word"tanks."
JACKSON: Okay, thank you.
34
DRAFT
VAN PERNIS: And, so it's, too, unnecessary; it will involve a condemnation or bond or
expense to the county and/or the developer. And they have access on their lot. They don't need
this access.
CARR SMITH: Thank you. Are you clear now, Maija?
JACKSON: Yes, thank you.
CARR SMITH: Is there a second on this motion? So that we can discuss it further? Mike.
VITOUSEK: Second.
i
I
CARR SMITH: Second by Commissioner Vitousek. Okay, any other conversation about this?
Go ahead, Mike.
i
VITOUSEK: Just want to confirm again that the developer is okay with that amendment.
a
3
COLON: Yes, we are.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
CARR SMITH: Anyone else? Are you good,Faye? (No audible response) All right, it's got a
motion by Mr. Van Pernis, and a second by Mr. Vitousek. No more discussion about this?
Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: Yes, the motion includes the deletion of the words in new section Y from
"except"to "tanks," and also involves substitution of the words "Palamanui's eastern boundary"
for the words "Makalei Drive" wherever Makalei Drive is referred to.
CARR SMITH: So you are amending your motion. Is that what you are saying or you—
VAN PERNIS: No, that was the original motion.
CARR SMITH: Okay. Are we clear about what that is, Maija? Is he referring to those items
that said Makalei that you agreed could be struck?
JACKSON: Yes.
CARR SMITH: And do we want to refer to where those are so that we are clear?
HARRIS: Mrs. Chairman, I have a comment.
CARR SMITH: Yeah, Roger, go ahead.
HARRIS: Yeah, I just, I think Mr. Van Pernis may be confused. There is no easement on the
eastern boundary of Makalei Estates; there is, there is a waterline, which belongs to the county
35
DRAFT
Water department down the middle of Makalei Drive, and there are two future reservoir lots, or
easements, within the Makalei Estates subdivision that someday in the future they are going to
have to be hooked up. So, we don't object to eliminating Condition Y,but we do, you know,
want the record to show that there, you know, there will be construction in there in the future.
CARR SMITH: - - -
VAN PERNIS: I'm not talking about preventing the county from doing whatever they want to
do - - -
HARRIS: Okay, if you are not—
VAN PERNIS: —future.
HARRIS: If you are not preventing the county Water department from working in there, we
have no objection.
CARR SMITH: Mike.
VITOUSEK: My question was whose responsibility is it to do the work in the, in the Makalei
Estates easements.
HARRIS: It will be the Palamanui developer team in concert with the county Department of
Water Supply.
VITOUSEK: And is there an access easement from Makalei Estates to conduct that work?
HARRIS: Yes.
VITOUSEK: So basically, you have what you need and somewhat of an irrelevant reduction?
HARRIS: Yes.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
CARR SMITH: So you are fine with taking that out, Roger, the "except for construction work
within Makalei Estates on the water system."
COLON: Yes.
CARR. SMITH: Okay, Mr. Colon, okay. All right—
JACKSON: Chair Carr—
VAN PERNIS: - - - the Planning Department could-
36
DRAFT
CARR SMITH: Mark, Mark, hello—
VAN PERNIS: Hello, perhaps the Planning Department could note in the motion the, too, these
sections that are referred to where we are substituting eastern boundary for Makalei Drive.
CARR. SMITH: Is that an amendment to the motion? Do you understand—
VAN PERNIS: Yeah, I would include that in the motion, include the sections. I gave them to
the Planning Department.
CARR SMITH: Mike, are you in agreement as the—
VITOUSEK: I don't really understand what the amendment is to the motion, I'm sorry.
VAN PERNIS: It is to identify the paragraph numbers in the proposed ordinance, instead of just
a generic referral.
VITOUSEK: And are you going to identify them specifically now, or is that-if it's a generic
referral, then we can let the county go through it and eliminate that language.
VAN PERNIS: I agree with that. We can let the county go through it and eliminate the
language—
VITOUSEK: Okay.
VAN PERNIS: or substitute the language.
CARR SMITH: Maija, are you clear with the motion?
JACKSON: I'm clear with the motion, but I want to make sure that the county is not, I want to
make sure that the county is okay with Condition Y, and that the county Water Supply still has
the ability to go into Makalei Estates and work on its waterlines. So, can Roger or Steve confirm
to me that there are easements within Makalei Drive in favor of the county to maintain the
county's waterlines?
HARRIS: Yes, there are. We confirm that.
JACKSON: Okay.
CARR SMITH: Then why would we take the language out? I don't understand what the benefit
is to remove that sentence.
JACKSON: Yeah, I, I really don't understand the benefit, either, because the county will be
coming in working on the waterline.
37
DRAFT
i
I
i
I
i
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis, the county has, there is an easement there, so what, why do we
need to remove this sentence? j
I
VAN PERNIS: - - - object to language that does not limit- - -respect and object to language - -
limit, or the proposed motion limits the developer, Palamanui, to the easement area whether they
go on streets on Makalei. They - - -
CARR SMITH: - - -
VAN PERNIS: - - - easements that are limited to the easements. We don't want them tearing up
or develop lots.
CARR SMITH: You are assuming that the developer would go beyond their easement rights. Is
that what you are saying?
VAN PERNIS: That's what the language impertinently stated; that's not limiting to easements.
HARRIS: This is Roger again. I, I mean, the language to me seems okay; it says we will not
utilize Makalei Drive for ingress for construction except for construction work within Makalei
on the water system—
VAN PERNIS: Beyond the easement areas.
HARRIS: You can, you can add in"beyond the easement area."
CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Mike.
VITOUSEK: Yeah,that was generally my suggestion, because I agree that it seems redundant to
remove because they need it. And I understand where Mark is coming from about protecting the
areas that are not included in the easement, so instead of eliminating the whole thing, if we just
add "within existing easements,"that would seem to cover both bases.
CARR SMITH: Makes sense to me.
VITOUSEK: Would you be okay with that, Mark?
VAN PERNIS: Yeah, I'm okay with that. Instead of exempting that language, we'll add at the
end "except for easements of record in favor of Palamanui."
CARR SMITH: Does that language still make sense?
HARRIS: Yeah, we have no objection, we have no objection to adding that section on the end.
Maija, can, can you draft something that goes there? Or just use that wording, "except for
easements of record."
38
DRAFT
i
1
JACKSON: Yeah, so I think what Mr. Van Pernis said was "except for construction work within
easements of record within Mdkalei Estates on the water systems." Would that work for
everybody?
i
VAN PERNIS: That works.
HARRIS: Yes.
CARR SMITH: Okay. And for you, Mike, on the second? (No audible response) Okay. And 3
you are fine with that, Roger?
I
HARRIS: Yes.
3
I
CARR SMITH: Okay.
,
3
I
HARRIS: Thank you.
i
CARR SMITH: You're welcome. Anything else? All right, seeing no more discussion, Maija,
if you clear on the motion, let's proceed to a vote,please.
JACKSON: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Van Perris?
VAN PERNIS: Are we voting both parts of the easement here? The one about the eastern
boundary, too?
JACKSON: I don't believe so. We were just—
VAN PERNIS: Well, that was the motion- - -
CARR SMITH: - - - verify that we are dealing with the first agenda item, right?
JACKSON: Yeah, so—
VAN PERNIS: This concern- - -
VITOUSEK: - - -
VAN PERNIS: - - -my motion was to substitute "eastern boundary" for"Mdkalei Drive" to
avoid condemnation damages. And in addition, the second part of the motion was what we
talked about here as far as construction.
JACKSON: That's correct. I'm sorry, Commissioner Van Perris, I misunderstood you. The
first part was to substitute "Pdlamanui's eastern boundary" with any reference to Mdkalei Drive.
VAN PERNIS: Yes, so if, for that motion, I say yea.
39
DRAFT
JACKSON: Thank you.
HARRIS: May I make a comment?
CARR SMITH: Yes, Roger.
HARRIS: Yeah, I, I think there is some confusion. I mean, the waterlines and the reservoir sites
are along the main, you know, Makalei Drive; the waterline is existing in Makalei Drive, and the
reservoir sites take—with an easement—and that they, they take access for future water
construction off Makalei Drive. There is nothing, we don't, we are not aware of an easement on
the eastern boundary of Makalei Estates. So I think the wording as you have it, as we just
discussed, is fine. And with all due respect, I don't understand why Commissioner Van Pernis is
talking about an easement on the eastern side.
VAN PERNIS: I assume the waterline easement is on the eastern side, or northern side, excuse
me, obtain existing easements. I may be wrong on that.
HARRIS: Well, if it(low-volume private conversation) in any case, the existing lines are in
Makalei Drive itself, and, which is not the eastern, or northern boundary, and therefore, we need
this language to read the way it does, if it's going to be practical.
VAN PERNIS: Well, legally speaking, since Makalei is private, Palamanui has no rights
anyway except on the easements of record. So we are just confirming that here. I don't think
this commission nor the county have the ability to tell anybody where they can go on a private
road; that has to involve condemnation or the agreement of Makalei. So we are saying anyplace
you have an easement, you can go,but any place else is verboten.
CARR SMITH: Okay, I thought we already cleared up the easement language in Y. Is that
correct? Maija, weren't you talking about the reference to the eastern boundary that he was
referring to? Is that part of the motion or not?
JACKSON: Yeah—
CARR. SMITH: I'm not asking you, Mark.
JACKSON: —can I, can I restate the motion and—
CARR SMITH: Yes, please, please, please.
JACKSON: Okay.
CARR SMITH: As it relates to the agenda item.
JACKSON: Okay.
CARR SMITH: Thank you.
40
DRAFT
JACKSON: So the motion is related to rezone 05-000010, and is to amend ordinance 09 132 as
recommended by the planning director, with two changes: One is to substitute the words
"Palamanui's eastern property boundary"with any references to Mdkdlei Drive connection; and
then the second change is to amend Condition Y by adding some language so that it reads,
"except for construction work within easements of record within Mdkdlei Estates on the water
system." That's my understanding of the motion. Is that correct, Mr. Van Perris?
VAN PERNIS: That's fine with me.
VITOUSEK: What, I'm sorry, what was the first part of the motion? Was that just editing the
condition, or was that offering a recommendation for the overall?
JACKSON: The motion is to
CARR SMITH: Can you refer to the recommendation, please?
JACKSON: The motion was to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council as
recommended by the planning director, with those two changes that I mentioned.
VAN PERNIS: I didn't make the motion for favorable recommendation. I think that my motion,
seconded by Mr. Vitousek, would be an amendment to wherever the referral is. If someone
would care to make a motion that would be seconded, then this would be an amendment to that.
JACKSON: Okay, so the motion was just relating to amending the conditions, not—
VITOUSEK: That's—
JACKSON: --okay, thank you.
VITOUSEK: —that's what I seconded, not, not the favorable.
JACKSON: Okay.
VITOUSEK: And—
CARR SMITH: Mr. Newberg. Go ahead, Max.
NEWBERG: Thank you, Chair Smith—Mike, did you want to finish there right before I came?
VITOUSEK: Sure, I just, procedurally, there is another amendment that I would like to add, and
I don't know if you want to take that now or, as part of this motion, or if you want to vote on this
and then move on to the next.
CARR SMITH: Hmm, well, we are doing this a little differently than we usually do, so we are
going to vote on amendments. I'd rather see whether-
41
DRAFT
VITOUSEK: Okay—
CARRSMITH: —is this moving toward a favorable recommendation? Youarewillingto
accept the director's recommendation, if these things can be amended? Is that what you are
saying? Mike?
VITOUSEK: For me, yes. I would be willing to go with the favorable recommendation for the
project, if we can incorporate a couple of changes in the, or recommend a couple of changes to
the county. For me, it's Condition S. For Commissioner Van Pemis, it's the discussion on
Ka'iminani [sic] Drive. So, procedurally, I'm open to any method of doing that.
CARR SMITH: All right, go ahead and tell us what your recommendation is, please.
VITOUSEK: My recommendation is to amend Condition S to indicate that a park master plan
for Phases I and 11 will be developed by the applicant and accepted by the Department of Parks
and Rec, and Recreation; I keep the Phase I language the same, and then Phase 11 section would
be "Phase 11, consisting of a total of 10 acres of land, shall be developed in accordance with the
approved park master plan and provided to the county at no cost prior to"—and just looking at
the other conditions, I selected 500 units-------�"prior to the completion of construction of 500 units."
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: If that's a motion, I second it.
CARR SMITH: All right, okay, so, was that a motion, Mike? Or was that just—
VITOUSEK: I'm asking—if you'd like, I will make a motion that we—
CARR SMITH: I think we need to deal with the motion on the table, if we are going to—
VITOUSEK: Okay.
CARRSMITH: —themotionhere. So—
VITOUSEK: Let's vote on it and move on.
CARR SMITH: Yeah, yeah, so we'll back up to Mark's motion that Mike seconded, we had
discussion about what that was. Are there any other questions about that? Max.
KEALOHA: I would, I would just like to make sure that—
CARR SMITH: Oh, Perry.
KEALOHA: —the developer is okay with that again before I hear it, because it kind of seems
unnecessary to some degree.
42
DRAFT
1
I
i
I
I
i
3
I
I
CARR SMITH: Which one are you talking about, Perry?
KEALOHA: Staying within the easements, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, that's expected
anyway. But I'm okay with it, if the developer is okay with it.
i
HARRIS: This is the developer. Is that, is that Condition Y?
KEALOHA: Correct.
CARR SMITH: Yes.
HARRIS: Yes, we are okay with staying within the easements, yes.
CARR SMITH: Max, did you have something to add?
NEWBERG: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to mention I'm in support, if we want to change
that language with the Y. I was just uncomfortable with changing, the secondary proposal, with
changing anything that refers to Makalei to eastern border; that seemed to be getting into
troubled waters for myself not knowing what that would affect. I'm in support with the adding
language to Y, if that, again, it doesn't seem necessary, but if that makes Commissioners more
comfortable with it, I can support that. I was just concerned about getting into supplementing
language that referred to Makalei Estates and changing that to a border that may not be
congruent.
CARR SMITH: Roger.
HARRIS: Yeah, we can't agree to the use of the northern border, or the eastern border. To our
knowledge there is no easement out there, and otherwise it's—the easement is over the waterline
that's existing in the road, and then the future water tank sites that are existing as well. So the
language that Maija spoke of on Condition Y is good with us.
CARR SMITH: Mike.
VITOUSEK: If I might just try and summarize Commissioner Van Perms's concern—and
please, Commissioner Van Pernis, correct me if I'm wrong—I believe that his issue is only in
clarifying where the road will be built to, and he's saying that Palamanui should commit to
building the road within Palamanui's property up to the eastern border of Palamanui, and not
commit to building the road within Makalei Estates because they don't have permission to do so.
That's my understanding, as it's just an effort to clarify the border in which Palamanui is
responsible to constructing up to.
CARR SMITH: Mark.
VAN PERNIS: Yes, Mr. Vitousek is correct. Mr. Co16n, or Mr. Harris, is mistaken in thinking
that that part of the amendment has anything to do with the waterline or water easements; we are
43
DRAFT
just talking that the application to build the road unrelated to the water is to the eastern boundary
or Palamanui, and that neither the county nor Palamanui intrudes into Makalei Estates beyond
that. So there's two on motion: One is water and the easements, and the other is the boundary.
HARRIS: We don't object to that concept. That's okay. I'm just—it doesn't match Condition
Y at this point, though.
VAN PERNIS: Condition Y.
CARR SMITH: Yeah, I'm not real clear why, why we have to talk about the border, if the road
has already been eliminated from the application. And it's understood that they can't go into
Makalei to extend the road, then why do we have to talk about the border? Mark.
VAN PERNIS: First of all, Mr. Fuke and Hunt picked up this problem, and there was a change
made in the ordinance by Mr. Yee to talk about eastern boundary. The eastern boundary is their
language, not mine. And there are still at least two -1 gave them to the Planning Department—
they
epartmentthey have the authority to correct it where it says roads will be connected to Makalei Drive, not
Makalei Estates, not Makalei, but Makalei Drive. And Makalei Drive does not abut the
boundary. So we don't want Palamanui going into Makalei, passing down the gate or building
on vacant land in Makalei.
CARR SMITH: Thank you. Mike, I don't know what you were trying to show, I couldn't see it.
VITOUSEK: Yeah, I'm sorry, it didn't work, I was—
CARR SMITH: —lunch break or, what was that?
VITOUSEK: No, I was trying to draw a map,just trying to demonstrate what Mr. Van Pernis is
talking about. I really don't think this is that big of a deal; it's just establishing the boundary.
Palamanui can't go past their boundary no matter what, right? But as it exists, the condition is
required for connection with Makalei Drive, and all he is saying is construct Road 2, or
University Drive, whatever it is, up to the boundary of Palamanui. That makes sense. It's not
super controversial, I don't think, anyway. So I think we can just—it's what's going to happen
no matter what, the developer is going to build the road to the boundary of their property, and
it's, it's all they can do and doesn't really affect anything. It just clarifies that their building it up
to the boundary of their property and not into Makalei Estates. So there is, in my opinion, there
is no problem with it. I think we can move forward with it.
CARR SMITH: Mr. Colon, did yoia want to respond? (No audible response) I thought I saw
Mr. Colon getting in position. No? Roger, do you want to respond? Somebody from your side?
HARRIS: Yeah, we understand what they are talking about and we agree with that. And I—
CARR SMITH: Okay.
44
DRAFT
HARRIS: —implement it, I, if you just choose Maija's language, then Condition Y works. I'm
open to any other language that works as well.
CARR SMITH: All right. Okay, so we have an amendment on the table. Maija, do you mind
one more time telling us what the motion is just so—
VITOUSEK: Okay, I, for the first part of the motion—
CARR SMITH: No—
VITOUSEK: —the motion is to replace the"language indicating that—
CARR
hatCARR SMITH: Sorry, Mike, I was asking Maija because she's the- - - I want to make sure that
she has it. Thank you. Sorry, Mike, Maija, close. Maija?
JACKSON: The motion is to remove all references to a connection to Mdkalei Drive, or replace
it with University Drive will be built up to Palamanui's eastern boundary, and then the second
amendment is to Condition Y, I believe it is still to read, "except for construction work within
easements of record within Makdlei Estates on the water system."
CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. All right, can we take a roll call vote for this amendment,
please, Maija?
JACKSON: Okay, so I already had an aye from Commissioner Van Pernis. Do you still agree to
VAN PERNIS: - - -
CARR SMITH: Sorry about that.
JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner Vitousek? Okay—
VITOUSEK: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Kealoha?
KEALOHA: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Newberg?
NEWBERG: Aye.
45
DRAFT
i
JACKSON: Commissioner Yates?
YATES: (Inaudible aye) j
JACKSON: And Chair Carr Smith?
CARR SMITH: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion passes, seven-zero.
CARR SMITH: All right, thank you. Okay, so, are we motioning—what's our next motion?
Are we ready to move toward the director's recommendation or something else? Mike.
VITOUSEK: Yes. At this point I would like to--or I guess before I make a motion, I would like
to have a discussion on the ideaactually, you know what, I'll make the motion - - - that's how
you want. I'd like to make a motion that we provide a favorable recommendation to the County
Council for Palamanui Global Holdings LLC amendment of various conditions, Change of Zone
Ordinance number 09 132, REZ 05-10, as amended, with the additional amendment to Condition
S, stating that a park master plan for Phases I and II will be developed by the applicant and
accepted by the Department of Parks and Recreation; the Phase I improvements for this 10-acre
public park, that section will remain intact; and then the Phase II consisting of approximately a
total of 10 acres of land shall be developed in accordance with the approved park master plan
and provided to the county at no cost prior to the development of 500 units.
And I want to clarify in my motion that this could be many years down the road before this is
done, and the opportunity for the applicant to prepare their own park master plan that focuses the
required improvements on Phase II,while allowing them to create additional usable open space
that doesn't have to be developed into a, you know, high-use recreational park with lots of
facilities, but could be a passive open space environment that is maintained in an open space.
That will allow them the opportunity to develop what they want to do and implement it further
down the road after they've already brought in sufficient resources to pay for the construction of
it, and it will also allow the county to have the tremendously larger property tax base created by
the 500 lots that are now paying property taxes to allow them to maintain these parks a lot better
than they are now. So I think that this allows the developer the opportunity to maintain their
public benefit but have the relief of being able to construct something now with the plan for the
future improvements that don't leave the county with a big bill down the road in order to make
this extra 10 acres useful for the people who are living there.
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: I second the motion, and I want to say that Mr. Harris's reference to
Pete Hoffmann is many, many years old, and there is no Kealakehe regional park. So I second
the motion.
CARR SMITH: Some discussion on this?
46
DRAFT
YATES: Yep.
CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Faye.
YATES: Hi. Just for clarification purposes,just so you all understand, is that I'm not against
any of the parks or having a park. I'm not against anything at all having to do with the park. All
I was trying to do is clarify to all of you because I noticed that you all jumped on it when I had
my concerns about the park—I'm not against the park. I'm against, you know, I'm not against
anything, I'm just clarifying that, you know, it does take monies and it does take effort for those
parks to be maintained. And I think it's a wonderful thing to have a park.
CARR SMITH: I agree, Faye. Go ahead, Perry.
KEALOHA: Yeah, I kind of echo Faye's position in that I don't know it is reasonable to expect
the developer who is already committing to a I O-acre park, which they are going to fully build
out and turn over to the county, to have their development subject to whether or not the county
wants additional land or is ready to assume it. You know, they can make the recommendation,
they can provide a master plan, but if the county says they are not ready to move forward, then
they cannot be held up in the future. Again, they can control what they can control, but it seems
like we are asking them now you've got to have an agreement with the county and if the county
doesn't do it, then you can't proceed, you know. So, anyway, I think it might be an unreasonable
request to get that approval, the expectation of approval.
CARR SMITH: Barbara or Max, any input? Go ahead, Barbara.
DEFRANCO: Well, you know, I've always felt that maybe we ask to, now at this time, to our
community; now is the time that we should ask. What I'm hearing from Mike, it's not like he's
looking for fully developed 10 acres; he is looking for something that could just be an open
space park with nothing but some trees on it,right? I think that that is a reasonable request. And
he's not asking for a decision; he's asking for the opportunity for this to happen in the future. I, I
understand also that I don't want to holdup this project over a park, you know, but I do think
that this would be the time to discuss this, if we are going to do it.
CARR. SMITH: Thank you, Barbara.
VITOUSEK: Yeah, and the intention is for them to create a park master plan that works for
them, that serves the community need, and then develop and give that over to the county in a
way that they deem appropriate, that the developer and the county division of Parks and Rec
deem appropriate. That would be the point of having a park master plan approved by P and R.
So I think that we are looking very long term, with their buildout over the next 20 years, and the
community needs are going to change. Adding 900 units in that immediate vicinity is going to
necessitate more park space. And it's going to be an asset for the developer. It's going to an
asset for the community. And, you know, it's, for us, it's truly a recommendation for something
the County Council to consider. If we want—if the County Council decides it's not important,
then they can take it out, but for us, it's putting the language in there saying the County Council
should consider the option of creating a park master plan that allows the developer to
4'7
DRAFT
sequentially build a park for the community in keeping with the existing conditions for approval.
So we are not adding any conditions for approval on this; in fact, we are reducing the conditions
of approval that already exist on this zoning ordinance. We are giving them relief and allowing
them to reduce the scale on the size of the park initial improvements and the timing allowing
them to build it after they've substantially completed multiple lots and at that point brought in
significant revenue to pay for it. So even with this proposal, we are still giving them relief in
order for them to move forward with the project.
CARR SMITH: Roger, did you- - -respond to that, your thoughts on that?
HARRIS: Yes, thanks for the discussion. We are going to work with the Parks department on a
master plan. We've always said it'll be broken into two phases: the 10 acres with- - - second 10
acres. I hear what everybody is saying. I want to say, according to the Kona Community
Development Plan, we have to build significant mini parks in the various subdivisions and
phases that the Parks department says they don't want to accept, and that the association will
have to maintain. So there will be other recreation areas. The third, we are open to listen and
work with the Parks department on Phase II, and possibly there is a minimal improvement
scheme, you know, for open space - - -help fund,but at this point we can't commit to an
absolute - - - so we like the condition wording the way it is. Maybe you can tweak it a little bit,
but - - -
CARR SMITH: Thanks, Roger. Mike, I know you said a lot after your motion. Can you go
back and simplify the motion- - -
VITOUSEK:
- -VITOUSEK: Sure, one second, I'll find the, the language.
CARR SMITH: Max, did you have anything at this point? You were the only other one, I think,
to speak on this topic. Go ahead.
NEWBERG: I just look forward to hearing the clarified—
CARR SMITH: Okay.
NEWBERG: —amendment by Mr. Vitousek.
CARR SMITH: Very good. Go ahead, Mike.
VITOUSEK: So if we are amending the ordinance Condition S, or recommending the
amendment of the Condition S, "The applicant shall provide a minimum of twenty(20) acres of
land for a public park and neighborhood open space in accordance with the Kona Community
Development Plan," at that point I would insert, "a park master plan for Phase I and 11 will be
developed by the applicant and accepted by the Department of Parks and Recreation."
CARR SMITH: Period?
VITOUSEK: Yeah.
48
DRAFT
CARR SMITH: Okay.
VITOUSEK: And then, the next language is the same, "ten (10) acres of which shall be
developed by the applicant and dedicated to the County during Phase I,"that's all the same,
everything, nothing would change in that first portion of it. And then, the third one from the
bottom where it says, "Phase I1 park improvements," I would amend that to say, "Phase II park
improvements, consisting of approximately a total of 10 acres of land, shall be developed in
accordance with the approved park master plan and provided to the county at no cost prior to the
development of'—and this is the part that I have a hard time with is finding the condition at the
end that the applicant will be agreeable to, but for the sake of the amendment, I'll put "prior to
the completion or building permit on 500 units." So I guess we can look at the previous
language. What is the existing trigger for Phase I?
CARR SMITH: Roger, go ahead.
HARRIS: - - -
CARR SMITH: Roger, can you unmute?
HARRIS: Two hundred and fifty units.
VITOUSEK: Two hundred and fifty, so, you know, requesting additional, after, after 250 more
units to develop this remaining portion of the park master plan. And, again, we can put in a
language that it's okay for having it to be a low-impact passive open-space area. But, to me, it
makes sense to include that in our recommendation.
CARR SMITH: Okay. Go ahead, Barbara.
DEFRANCO: If you include in the language that he suggested, "minimal development,"he had
some language that he seemed to be okay with.
CARR SMITH: Who is "he?"
DEFRANCO: Well, he is under Laura Aquino, but I'm not sure—
CARR SMITH: Oh, Mr. Harris, okay.
DEFRANCO: Leah, so he used that word, "minimal" something. Maybe they would be
agreeable, if we put minimal - - -
VITOUSEK: Yeah, I mean, to me, it's, the most important thing is that they take the time to do
a master plan that works for them, and if that's what is included in the master plan at the end,
then, great, that's the idea. So if there is something else that they'd rather have in there that isn't,
and if they can do that in the master plan, but the details of the park improvements would be
established in the master plan, then it covers it.
49
DRAFT
i
I
i
I
i
i
CARR SMITH: Roger, you good?
HARRIS: Yes, we can agree to - - - master plan for second phase includes minimal
improvements, and - - - we are fine with that.
CARR SMITH: Okay. All right. No more discussion on this? We have a motion on the floor j
to accept the director's recommendation to send a favorable recommendation to the County
Council, as amended previously for the vote we took on Mr. Van Pernis's amendments, and then
these that - - -. Yes? Maija, could you take a roll call,please?
i
'i
JACKSON: Yes. Commissioner Vitousek?
VITOUSEK: Aye.
i
JACKSON: Commissioner Van Pernis?
VAN PERNIS: Kanalua.
JACKSON: Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Kealoha?
KEALOHA: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Newberg?
NEWBERG: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Yates?
YATES: (Inaudible aye)
JACKSON: Commissioner Van Pernis?
VAN PERNIS: I thought I already responded. Kanalua.
JACKSON: Okay, and Commissioner Carr Smith?
CARR SMITH: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries, six to one.
50
DRAFT
i
I
CARR SMITH: Thank you. All right, moving on to Agenda Item number 2. We need a motion
for this, please. Perry- - -
VITOUSEK:
- -VITOUSEK: - - -
CARR SMITH: Sorry?
VITOUSEK: Sure, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council in regards to Palamanui Global Holdings, LLC, amendment of Condition E, change of
zone ordinance number 09-131, rezone 09-094. I
CARR SMITH: Thank you. Is there a second?
i
KEALOHA: I'll second.
CARR SMITH: Thank you. Motion by Mr. Vitousek, second by Mr. Kealoha. Moving on to
discussion. Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: Yes. Is, I'd like to add the same amendments from me and Mr. Vitousek
attached to the recommendation.
CARR SMITH: Is that appropriate, Maija?
JACKSON: Which conditions specifically are you requesting to amend? - - -
CARR SMITH: - - - same ones, but it's not the same.
JACKSON: No, they are different conditions.
CARR SMITH: Yeah.
VITOUSEK: This is the rezone for Project District to MCX, so it's not the same zoning
ordinance as the one we just reviewed, correct?
JACKSON: Correct.
CARR SMITH: Okay, we have a motion on the floor- - - discussion? (No audible response)
Okay, seeing no other discussion, Maija, are you ready to take a roll call vote?
JACKSON: Yes.
CARR SMITH: Thank you.
JACKSON: Commissioner Vitousek—oh, so just to clarify first, I'm sorry, was this a favorable
recommendation as recommended by the planning director?
51
DRAFT
CARR SMITH: Mike? Mike - - -
JACKSON:
- -JACKSON: Uh oh.
CARR SMITH: Uh oh, his connection is getting weak, looks like.
VITOUSEK: Am I there? Am I there?
CARR SMITH: Yes, you are back. Go ahead—
VITOUSEK: Hello?
CARR SMITH: Go ahead.
VITOUSEK: Yes, that's the intent is that it's as recommended by the planning director.
JACKSON: Thank you.
CARR SMITH: Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: - - -because the recommendation includes the objectionable material that we
dealt with by my amendment and Mr. Vitousek's amendment—
CARR SMITH: No, we—
VAN PERNIS: —so the recommendation needs to be as modified by those amendments.
CARR SMITH: That's not what we were talking about. Mike, you want to clarify for him?
VITOUSEK: Sure. My understanding is that this doesn't involve the same zoning ordinance
that we just reviewed; it's, it's a separate zoning ordinance that changes the zoning from Project
District to Industrial-Commercial Mixed rezone. So we can't add - - -
CARR SMITH: You are frozen again. Do you understand what he said, Mark?
VAN PERNIS: Yes.
CARR SMITH: Those amendments don't apply here. Okay, very good. Are you good, Maija?
JACKSON: Yes.
CARR SMITH: Okay. We just need our commissioner back so he can vote. Can you try
opening up long enough to vote? We'll take a lunch break after this vote. Yes, Faye.
YATES: Can I hear that motion again, please?
52
DRAFT
CARR. SMITH: It's a favorable recommendation. Do you want every word or? (No audible
response) Agenda Item number 2, favorable recommendation go to the County Council.
YATES: Okay, got it.
CARR. SMITH: Mike, we need you. There you are. Can you try, maybe try without the camera,
Mike?
VITOUSEK: - - - how's that?
CARR SMITH: Can you say something?
VITOUSEK: Yes, hello?
CARR SMITH: Okay, all right, we are going to vote now.
VITOUSEK: Okay, cool.
CARR SMITH: Uh oh. Go ahead, Maija, let's try.
JACKSON: Commissioner Vitousek?
VITOUSEK: Yes.
JACKSON: Aye?
VITOUSEK: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner Kealoha?
KEALOHA: Aye.
JACKSON: I'm sorry, Commissioner Van - - -
CARR SMITH: - - -Kealoha was second.
JACKSON: - - - yes.
CARR SMITH: Thank you.
JACKSON: Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Newberg?
53
DRAFT
i
NEWBERG: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Van Pernis?
VAN PERNIS: Kanalua.
JACKSON: Commissioner Yates?
YATES: Aye.
JACKSON: Chair Carr Smith?
CARR SMITH: Aye.
JACKSON: And Commissioner Van Pernis? Commissioner Van Pernis?
VAN PERNIS: You are asking me—
CARR SMITH: (Where were echoes) Mike, you have two things open.
VAN PERNIS: Kanalua.
JACKSON: Thank you. Motion carries, six to one.
CARR SMITH: Thank you very much. Thank you, Roger, Mr. Colon, everybody else involved
in your project. Great efforts for the community, thank you. You'll be notified in writing of our
decision. Good luck at the County Council level. Thank you, Ross.
HARRIS: Thank you very much, everyone.
(Chair Carr Smith called a lunch recess at 1:20 p.m. She called the meeting back to order at
1:57 p.m)
CARR SMITH: Thank you. So we'll bring the meeting back to order. It's 1:57. I was thinking
during our break, and I was kind of confused by Mr. Van Pernis's kanalua vote, and it's my
understanding that kanalua means pass, and I believe that's why Maija came back to you for
your vote later. I don't think kanalua means that I don't want to say yes or no. So, anyway, I
was in touch with Mafia Hall, our corp. counsel, over our break and—Malia, you want to chime
in?
HALL: Sure. I just wanted to clarify for the record as well, like, our planning commission rules
do not include kanalua in a voting, and neither do Robert's Rules. Kanalua actually comes from
council rules. So if that's something that the commissioners would like to use in the future, I
would suggest that we add it to our voting rules within the planning commission rules, because,
yes, even—so it's Rule 10 in the council rules, and as Chair Carr Smith has pointed out, you say
kanalua, in the rule, in the council rules basically, it comes back to you, and then you have to say
54
DRAFT
i
yes or no at that point. It's basically I have reservations, but you still have to end up voting in
the end. So, I don't know if Commissioner Van Pernis's was a yes or a no, or just an abstain.
That's pretty much what our, the planning commission rules include as it's either a yes vote or a
no vote or I'm not going to vote. So,just for a clarification.
CARR SMITH: So, do you want us to ask Mr. Van Pernis what his vote was there since kanalua
isn't a real vote?
HALL: Sure, I mean, we can clarify for the record, and then notify the applicant on whether it's
a vote for or against or abstention. 3
CARR SMITH: Sounds good. Mr. Van Pernis, can you respond, please?
VAN PERNIS: I clarified this with Mr. Darrow, and my position is abstain.
CARR SMITH: Abstain, okay, on both of those agenda items. Is that correct?
VAN PERNIS: I voted in favor of Mr. Vitousek's amendment, but I abstain on the
recommendation.
CARR SMITH: Right, very good. We are good,Malia? (No audible response) Okay, thank
you.
The hearing ended at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
55
DRAFT