The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0601.001 2020-2022 �. �ZY OF , ,, Zendo Kern Mitchell D.Roth •`�c.°••�� .'t Director Mayor 'A,` \�I�. • Lee E.Lord - -_ _ Jeffrey W. Darrow Managing Director '�, a?�— f:.�• ; Deputy Director A1Tf OF HF4'' West Hawai`i Office East Hawai`i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740 County of IIawal i Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 January 20, 2022 Q Maile David, Council Chair and Members of the County Council c"< County of Hawaii ;r"- 25 Aupuni Street r,+P Hilo, HI 96720 al Dear Chair David and Council Members: SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application PL-REZ-2021-000005 Applicant: Waikoloa Land Company Request: Open, RM-4, RM-6, RM-8 and CV-10 to Project District Tax Map Key: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 022, 025, 029 (por.), and 033 Regarding the Leeward Planning Commission letter dated January 9, 2022, concerning the above-reference matter, enclosed for your information please find copies of the transcripts listed below. Should there be any questions, please contact Maija Jackson at 961-8159. Sincerely, Zendo Kern Planning Director \\COH01\planning\public\wp60\PC\PCC2022-1\LWaikoloaLandCo PL-REZ-2021-0000051pctranscript Enclosures: November 18, 2021, Testimony Transcript November 18, 2021, Hearing Transcript Comm. No. , ,0 December 16, 2021, Testimony Transcript (Draft) Ref.To: December 16, 2021, Hearing Transcript (Draft) Ref. Dote 1 •tel‘)-02.a, www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov Hmvai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer plannin(ci)hawaiicount, goy LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 18, 2021 Public testimony regarding the applications of WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND SMA 25,PL-SMA-2021-000004,PL-REZ-2021-000005,PL-SMA-2021-000002,PL-SMA- 2021-000003, and PL-REZ-2021-000004)was called to order at 10:04 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Shani Armbruster, Barbara DeFranco, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Faith"Faye" Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"Cr Kanuha III ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern(Planning Director), Maija Jackson(Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay(Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Eric Cook(Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND SMA 25) Request to amend Special Management Area Use Permit No. 25 to withdraw three(3) non- contiguous land areas identified as "Area A", "Area B", and"Area C" comprising the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project totaling approximately 182.9 acres from the land area covered under SMA 25,which allowed the development of the Waikoloa Beach Resort complex. The properties are located between the 75- and 76- mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 021, 022, 025, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), 029 (por.), 031 (por.), and 033. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY(PL-SMA-2021-000004) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 900 multi- family timeshare units, community support facilities, golf support facilities,public parks and paths and related improvements within approximately 133.8 acres of land identified as "Area B" and to allow the development of a new brackish water irrigation source and distribution system to support the landscape irrigation needs of the project within 3.1 acres of land identified as "Area C" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 022, 025, 028 (por.), 029 (por.), and 033. 1 EXHIBIT B APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY(PL-REZ-2021-000005) Application for a Change of Zone from an Open, Multiple-Family Residential-4,000 square feet (RM-4), Multiple-Family Residential-6,000 square feet(RM-6), Multiple-Family Residential- 8,000 square feet(RM-8) and Village Commercial-10,000 square feet(CV-10) zoning districts to a Project District zoning district for 133.822 acres of land identified as "Area B" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 @or.), 022, 025, 029 (por.), and 033. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY(PL-SMA-2021-000002) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit for to allow the development of 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvements within an approximately 38.6-acre portion of"Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:021, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-SMA-2021-000003) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit for to allow the development of 25 single-family residential lots and related infrastructure within a portion of land within an approximately 7.3-acre portion of"Area A" of the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9- 008:021 and 028 (por.). APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY(PL-REZ-2021-000004) Application for a Change of Zone from an Open and Multiple-Family Residential 8,000 square feet(RM-8) zoning districts to Multiple-Family Residential 6,000 square feet(RM-6) and Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10)zoning districts for 45.932 acres of land identified as "Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and 76- mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:021, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). Secretary's Note: "-- -" indicates indiscernible speech due to internet/technical difficulties or simultaneous talk. VITOUSEK: Moving on to the next agenda item Waikoloa Land SMA's and Rezone's. The first testifier we have is Nathaniel Kinney. Is Eric from the Planning Department are you keeping track of the time? JACKSON: Chair, Eric is keeping track, but the bell is really quiet. So, we are trying to work on to make it louder. 2 EXHIBIT B • VITOUSEK: Okay, I'd love it if we could let the testifiers know when we are approaching that 2 1/2 minute mark. JACKSON: Yep, we sure will. VITOUSEK: Sorry, did you have any questions for any of the testifiers so far? YATES: Mike, are you addressing me? VITOUSEK: Yes, I saw you had your hand up. YATES: Yes, excuse me. I'm trying to look for I guess the application regarding what we're talking about. Was this in the previous memo that we got? Because I kind of sort of want to know what they are asking for. I mean I understand what we're talking about but, I was looking through my papers here to see what the application is. VITOUSEK: I think there'll be a presentation from the applicant when the agenda item comes forward. YATES: Okay, okay, all right, thank you. VITOUSEK: You bet. Continuing on with the public testimony. Nathaniel Kinney are you available? KINNEY: Yes, I am here Chair. VITOUSEK: Okay. KINNEY: Members of the Commission, the Hawai`i Regional Council of Carpentry would like to offer their strong support for the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa. Kumu Hou is committed to using union labor throughout the projects development and that's going to support hundreds of local laborers and their families showcasing a deep commitment to Hawai`i Island. Kumu Hou is good for Hawai`i Island and our community. Time shares are resilient and stable, and these are the qualities that we need to get out of this downturn from the pandemics partial effect on us. Timeshares are generally the first to return to operation and draws higher occupancy then hotels and because timeshare owners return more often as hotel guests, they also tend to have a greater appreciation and respect for our community. They spend more while they're here and, most importantly, timeshare visitors do not encroach into community spaces, unlike vacation rentals. Simply put timeshare visitors are some of our State's most reliable and highest spending guests. We believe we need the economic boost that Kumu Hou at Waikoloa will provide. The project is a substantial investment at Waikoloa and is another example of thoughtful stewardship by the Waikoloa Land Company, which has a track record of responsible development on the island and I just wanted to thank you for your consideration. Mahalo. 3 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Thank you very much, next up, we have Shane Nobriga. NOBRIGA: Thanks, Commissioner. My name is Shane Nobriga. I am the golf course Superintendent for Waikoloa Beach Resort. I'm a strong supporter of the Kumu Hou project. I'm very excited to hear the project plans of building workforce affordable rental housing for the kama`aina. For the past twenty-two (22) years I've been commuting to Waikoloa Beach Resort from the Puna district and also Laupahoehoe. Many of the better paying jobs are on the west side of the island, so many of us make that long drive. We drive from a total of 2 hours to a four (4)hour round trip. This daily distance travel is very taxing on my body and my vehicles and the long dark driving sometimes in bad weather could be dangerous. But this is a typical week for all of us that make this commute. I find myself barely keeping up with home chores and often falling asleep during our family time. Fortunately, I had no luck finding reasonable paying work on the east side of the island: For this reason, I'm a firm supporter of this project knowing there will be opportunity for people like me to live moments from work. Doing so creates healthier family relationships in decreasing the physical and financial strain from driving across the island to get to work as many people still do today. Thank you so much for considering in allowing this project to help provide a better quality of life for the working community. Mahalo for your time. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much we appreciate it. Next up is Stephanie Donoho. DONOHO: Aloha Commissioners, first, I just want to say thank you all for your service and I'm Stephanie Donoho and I'm with the Kohala Coast Resort Association(KCRA). Prior to my tenure with KCRA I worked for the County of Hawai`i and the Department of Research and Development. So, I want to thank the staff members from the Planning Department and Corporation Counsel, who are on. But also have served as a Volunteer Commission Member for the Real Property Tax Working Group, so I understand the time and commitment that you're putting forward in this. And I just want to thank all of you for taking the time to thoroughly review and vet these discussion items for our community it's so important. You have my written testimony, and I will try not to be duplicative in what I'm saying, but I want to share with you this is the first time that the Kohala Coast Resort Association is commenting on a project that is taking place within our resorts. We don't typically try to weigh in on those projects we like to give the community their opportunity to weigh in. But I have to say, the affordable housing component of this Kumu Hou Project at Waikoloa Land Company. This is the first time I have seen a resort development offer affordable housing rental units within the footprint of the resort, and it goes above and beyond their commitment for their development. This is in addition to the commitment for their development, this is no less than an additional hundred and forty-two (142)rental units for kama`aina. I'd like to clear up a myth, I've seen some commentary in social media and public media that this is just building for people who work within the resorts. There is no priority given to people who work within the resorts, this is a kama`aina housing projects, so it may be that there are schoolteachers who are living in these houses, because it's based on income levels. So, I just want to be clear that it is not a self-serving thing. It is looking at private industries stepping up 4 EXHIBIT B and recognizing that we have a role to play in building more affordable housing. I serve on the Vibrant Hawai`i Housing Coalition and there are a number of non-profit agencies and Community Associations that are constantly trying to address our islands affordable housing needs. I'm so impressed that Waikoloa Land is doing this and that they're doing it in the first phase of their development. In terms of the timeshare components and all of that, I will let the Commission make their decision. Thank you, I have one minute to summarize based on the bell. Is that correct? VITOUSEK: Thirty(30) seconds. DONOHO: 30 seconds. So, in terms of accountability,we pay seventy-three(73)million dollars in property taxes to the County of Hawai`i each year and pay nearly sixty(60)million in transient accommodations taxes and twenty-five(25)million in general excise taxes. We believe this project will be a very good addition to Waikoloa Land. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much we appreciate your time. Next, we have Bobby Brown. 'BROWN: Aloha everybody,my name is Bobby Brown, can you hear me? VITOUSEK: Yes. BROWN: Okay great. I am a union carpenter here in Kona coming before you to testify for Kumu Hou at Waikoloa. Also, standing with me today I have written testimony from a hundred and forty-six(146) of my brothers and sisters. They're out there working to put some food on the table today, so they couldn't be here. But I wanted to make mention of their written testimony I think everyone has it. I've been a carpenter here and a member of the Carpenters Union for over thirty-seven(37) years. I'm very familiar with the Waikoloa Land Company and the work that they do. I worked on many of their projects, they put a lot of food on my table, and I appreciate them. And here's our testimony that we're giving today, we strongly support plans for Kumu Hou at Waikoloa. For over forty(40) years the Waikoloa Land Company has been a thoughtful steward of the area, investing in and supporting the community and surrounding businesses. Kumu Hou is committed to using union labor throughout the projects development supporting hundreds of local laborers and our families and showcasing a deep commitment to Hawai`i island. Upon completion Kumu Hou will generate much needed jobs and housing for our local residents. The project will create economic momentum and an investment in our communities when we need it the most. Kumu Hou will generate an additional foot traffic for the surrounding businesses providing a steady stream of consumers who can ensure businesses, especially those who've been impacted by the decline of tourism,because of the pandemic. We want those businesses to have a chance to survive and thrive and this project will help do that. Kumu Hou is a smart, thoughtful development that will attract substantial new investment for the State and County of Hawai`i. Through Kumu Hou, the Waikoloa Land Company is taking every opportunity to support Hawaii island residents and create a bright future for the Kohala 5 EXHIBIT B Coast. Supporting Kumu Hou is an investment in Waikoloa in the future of our Hawai`i island community and we strongly support it and thank you for your time. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. Next up we have Michael Cadaoas. Michael are you there? CADAOAS: Good morning, can you hear me? VITOUSEK: Yes, thank you. CADAOAS: Alright. Good morning, commissioners,my name is Michael Cadaoas, thank you for allowing me to testify in today's hearing. I am a thirty(30)plus years and a member of the Hawai`i Regional Council of Carpenters, also known as the Hawai`i Carpenters Union. I strongly support Waikoloa Land Company and their plans for the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. This project will employ hundreds of people during the construction phase and after its completion. Maintenance requires a lot of work which will create a lot of needed jobs. Waikoloa Land Company strides on enhancing the natural environment through years of quality planning. Their dedication and history speak for itself. Definitely the Waikoloa Land Company has been a positive benefit to us all and the `aina. On behalf of over a hundred(100) of my brothers and sisters of the Hawai`i Carpenters Union from every corner of the Big Island, who all petition to support Kumu Hou and the Waikoloa Land Company. Thank you very much. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much for your time we appreciate it. Next, we have Ross Birch. BIRCH: Aloha, Director Kern, and members of the Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Waikoloa Land Company Kumu Hou project. I provided written testimony as well, and much like the others,previous and Stephanie I'm not going to reiterate and reread a lot of that testimony that was provided. Included there were some statistics on the timeshare visitor and their impact to the island and to the economy. As well as the inventory of timeshare properties as it is related to other properties within the island in a favorable way. I just want to reiterate some things and go through as far as looking at this project. It is the exact example of what we're looking for future development from the tourism industry. It's using a smaller footprint than it had originally put on its plans. The workforce housing is phenomenal, and it also includes a non-profit contribution through its directives. The timeshare visitor and this project will attract, engage, and educate the responsible traveler. We're really looking forward to the opportunity for this project to go forward and it has my full support from the Island of Hawai`i Visitor Bureau. Mahalo. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. Next is Christopher Delaunay. DELAUNAY: Aloha, Commissioner's. Christopher Delaunay with Pacific Resource Partnership for a non-profit Market Recovery Trust Fund,which represents approximately 7,000 men and women union carpenters and 240 large and small contractors in the State of Hawai`i. 6 EXHIBIT B Our members also reside and work on Hawai`i island. So,we are in strong support of the Kumu Hou Waikoloa projects. We believe this project will create many economic benefits for the County and the State. It will increase real property tax, TAT and GET revenue. It will generate more visitor resident spending in our local economy. It will create more than 1,000 permanent jobs for local residents. Specifically, the project will create 260 to 520 full-time development related jobs during construction and an estimated 470 permanent full-time direct jobs and 610 indirect jobs upon completion. Importantly, this project will also provide more affordable workforce housing for Hawai`i island residents, no less than 142 affordable workforce rental housing units for kama'aina in the 30% to 80%AMI bracket. The 2019 Housing Planning Study indicates that about 30% of the housing need in Hawai`i island is within this AMI bracket, so we see tremendous benefits with this project, and we look forward and hope for your favorable consideration. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you. And finally, we have Rhonda Doyle. DOYLE: Hi, I'm Rhonda. VITOUSEK: Hi, go ahead. DOYLE: I'm just going to read a letter that I compiled but it's not the letter I submitted. Hello, my name is Rhonda Doyle, and I would like to thank the County of Hawaii for allowing comments on the proposed development in Waikoloa Beach. The topic of workforce housing is a priority of businesses in our state who are suffering from a lack of applicants. They are also having to contend with more full-time residents who do not need to work and are retired. After COVID we are seeing a nationwide migration of the population to find a better life. We cannot begrudge those who care to live somewhere better. If you've been to the DMV lately or driven our roads, we can see that many of these folks are moving from out of state. This is adding to our already scarce resources, namely housing, water and building materials. Rather than grumble about these issues,we all need to be prepared for change, but mindful planning must occur before such a massive development is approved. Long ago, when the railroad was being built, employers were prepared to house labor in temporary moveable structures or bunk houses. Local on-island companies have the ability to manufacture these types of structures to be used for employee housing. This could be an opportunity to house workers on an as needed or nightly basis to fill some of these vacancies. This would also assist current workers struggling to commute. Gaining jobs in any community is a winning bet,unfortunately skilled labor is finite. If anybody has flown to Oahu, after 5p.m. you will witness multiple construction crews and employees who live on neighboring islands. How can companies afford to pay for airfare and hotels with escalating prices? Cost will eventually be passed on to consumers and the local community. Jobs are great but where the new employees will reside locally is what needs to be considered. I'm concerned that our magical State of Hawai`i will not be able to sustain the number of new families moving to or visiting the State. When will we need an additional lane from Waikoloa to the Kona Airport? I believe infrastructure must be a top priority to handle this growth. 7 EXHIBIT B Therefore, I'm requesting a current environmental impact study to address these challenges for our new post COVID Hawai`i. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. That concludes our public testimony. Can we have a motion to close public testimony please? Unless there are any questions, sorry are there any questions that any of the Commissioners have for the testifiers? VISTOUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure, the first question is to Mr. Ross Birch. One of the things that struck me in your in your testimony. You said that this project might provide opportunity to engage and educate responsible visitors. My question to you is how would this occur? How will the engagement and education of responsible visitors occur? Timeshare visitors I believe. VITOUSEK: Mr. Birch still available? JACKSON: No, it looks like he dropped off the meeting. Sorry. VITOUSEK: Perhaps we can ask that question to the applicant. PAISHON-DUARTE: May I ask another question? VITOUSEK: Of course. PAISHON-DURTE: Thank you. Next question I have is for I believe Mr.Nathaniel Kinney. My question is so you said in your testimony that time shared guests or time-shared guests spend more. I would like to know; I want to know what your sources for that information and in comparison, to who? To whom? KINNEY: It's just generally how I believe that time share guests spend more in the community versus people who stays at an Airbnb's and transit vacation rentals "---". But if you'd like, I can go back and find the source of exact data and get that back to you if you need that Commissioner. PAISHON-DUARTE: That would be very helpful. I'd like to better understand the economic, the overall economic impact of timeshare we get. Thank you. KINNEY: One thing that I think we can be sure of though Commissioner is that when guests don't stay in hotels or in timeshares and they stay in the community. There is a palpable lack of affordable housing is more transitive vacation units "---" affordable housing. So that's one issue that we do like to highlight is the difference between like a hotel or timeshare versus what is basically a proliferation of transit vacation units"---"valuable affordable housing. DONOHO: Commissioner, I'm sorry to interrupt but I might be able to provide a little bit of insight into that in terms of a research opportunity. On the Hawai`i Tourism Authority's (HTA) website underneath the research tab. They did a report on timeshare visitors a specific 8 EXHIBIT B a i standalone report and that might be providing some of the data that you need. So, if you go to hawaiitourismauthority.org and click on the research link. They take a deeper dive into various types of spending by different visitor groups. Hope that's helpful. PAISHON-DUARTE: Chair may I respond is that okay? VITOUSEK: Sure. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, sorry Miss Donoho. I will definitely take a look at that information. I'm familiar with the HTA's, they have tremendous amount of resources there for the public to peruse. I will look also if that data is localized for the given area. I have one final question— DONOHO: I'm sorry, I do believe that they break it out a little bit more. If you look at the island data for the visitor, each visitor group. I'm not certain if that time share report has it broken down but you can get it monthly by islands if that's helpful. PAISHON-DUARTE Thank you, I'm familiar with those reports they are very helpful, thank you. Chair may I ask one final question? VITOUSEK: Yep. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you very much. This question is for Mr. Christopher Delaunay. I apologize if I mispronounced your name. You also shared and I appreciated your testimony the contributions to our kama`aina workforce housing. May I ask what kind of assurances, what are the assurances that the workforce housing that is to be developed will be offered to kama'aina? And then my second question to you are what are your overall, sorry— VITOUSEK: Before we go in to far, is Mr. Delaunay still on the line? JACKSON: He is still on,but he just logged back in so he may have only heard half the question. VITOUSEK: I just want to make sure that the questions as a public testify Mr. Delaunay may not have the information that the applicant would have so just want to make sure that we're asking relevant questions to the testimony of the applicant but go ahead. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you Chair. I'll rephrase my question; Mr. Delaunay I appreciate your testimony for all the benefits for this project. I just like to ask; do you see any potential downsides? Do you see any potential downsides if this project were to move forward? DELAUNAY: No, I don't. I see a lot of benefits as I stated in my testimony. Especially in terms of housing and generating more revenue for the County and the State, as well as more jobs. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. 9 EXHIBIT B JACKSON: Chair Vitousek, Mr. Birch has logged back on if you would like him to provide a response to Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte would you like to ask your question of Mr. Birch? PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you Chair. Mr. Birch thank you for your testimony. I wanted to just ask you mentioned in your testimony that there's an opportunity to engage and educate the timeshare visitors. My question to you is how would this take place? BIRCH: I think it's part of the project plan. First and foremost, the timeshare visitor themselves are a longer stay. I'll reiterate a lot of what the questions were as well earlier from the statistical standpoint is that they do spend a lot more money. Based on the fact that their stay is at least probably 4 to 5 days longer than our average stay for the island. So that accumulates as well as their pre-paid vacation. So, anything that's pre-paid in advance allows them to have more discretionary spending when they're on their vacation so they do spend a lot more money in the community and throughout the opportunities within the resort on that side. They are return visitors, so they're very familiar with the product, so that means we're attracting more of a responsible visitor they know that they're going to come back again the following year. So, they're going to be a little bit more responsible or have more of a responsible minded visit because they will be coming back. They build relationships with individuals within the resort areas and the communities. As well as understanding that this project specifically is going to have a cultural interaction and community-based opportunities for their staff and cultural practitioners to engage and communicate with the visitors as they come in and provide opportunities, even thru our Malama Hawai`i projects as well. So, there's a lot of different ways of engagement on that side and this project sets up very well for that. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. VITOUSEK: Okay, Commissioner Yates do you have a question? It's on mute, there you go. YATES: Yes, I'm listening to all of the testimony here and talking and I believe the first or second gentleman that came on talked about affordable housing for people who work there at Waikoloa or did I misunderstand that. Because, as I'm listening to everybody talking, they're talking about timeshare, all refers to timeshare and where does it show affordable housing for the people who are going to work there and live there. Or am I misunderstanding? VITOUSEK: Good question. I think that question is probably best for the applicant. When they do their presentation, we can ask them that I think that would probably be the best place. YATES: Yes, good as I don't see anything here this says about people who work here have a place to stay and it talks about time share. VITOUSEK: Yeah. 10 EXHIBIT B YATES: So, I'm just— VITOUSEK: Absolutely, I think the applicant probably be the best person to ask that question. YATES: Okay. VITOUSEK: Terrific, any further questions for the testifiers? Okay. The public testimony ended at 10:33 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 4 ,%%a'bay ana '-sainulor Melissa Dacayanan-Salva or(Dec 20,2021 11:12 HST) Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary to Boards and Commissions 11 EXHIBIT B LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 18, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND SMA 25, PL-SMA-2021-000004, PL-REZ-2021-000005, PL-SMA-2021-000002, PL-SMA-2021-000003, and PL-REZ-2021-000004)was called to order at 1:15 p.m. via live stream online meeting,with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Shani Armbruster, Barbara DeFranco, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Faith"Faye" Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ"Kanuha III ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern(Planning Director), Christian Kay(Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Maija Jackson(Planning Program Manager), Jessica Andrews(Planner), Eric Cook(Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND SMA 25) Request to amend Special Management Area Use Permit No. 25 to withdraw three(3)non- contiguous land areas identified as "Area A", "Area B", and "Area C"comprising the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project totaling approximately 182.9 acres from the land area covered under SMA 25, which allowed the development of the Waikoloa Beach Resort complex. The properties are located between the 75- and 76- mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 021,,022, 025, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), 029 (por.), 031 (por.), and 033. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY(PL-SMA-2021-000004) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 900 multi- family timeshare units, community support facilities, golf support facilities,public parks and paths and related improvements within approximately 133.8 acres of land identified as "Area B" and to allow the development of a new brackish water irrigation source and distribution system to support the landscape irrigation needs of the project within 3.1 acres of land identified as "Area C" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 022, 025, 028 (por.), 029 (por.), and 033. 1 •EXHIBIT D APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-REZ-2021-000005) Application for a Change of Zone from an Open, Multiple-Family Residential-4,000 square feet (RM-4), Multiple-Family Residential-6,000 square feet(RM-6), Multiple-Family Residential- 8,000 square feet(RM-8) and Village Commercial-10,000 square feet (CV-10) zoning districts to a Project District zoning district for 133.822 acres of land identified as "Area B" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers -on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 022, 025, 029 (por.), and 033. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-SMA-2021-000002) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit for to allow the development of 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvements within an approximately 38.6-acre portion of"Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen g P p Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the'King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:021, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-SMA-2021-000003) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit for to allow the development of 25 single-family residential lots and related infrastructure within a portion of land within an approximately 7.3-acre portion of"Area A" of the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9- 008:021 and 028 (por.). APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-REZ-2021-000004) Application for a Change of Zone from an Open and Multiple-Family Residential 8,000 square feet(RM-8)zoning districts to Multiple-Family Residential 6,000 square feet(RM-6) and Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10) zoning districts for 45.932 acres of land identified as "Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:021, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). VITOUSEK: Okay, it's 1:15, is everybody back? JACKSON: Chair, give me just a minute to let the Waikoloa Land Company reps in. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Shani? ARMBRUSTER: Hi there. I don't know, so, should I wait or is this the appropriate time, Chair Vitousek, I probably should let you know that one of the Waikoloa Land's tenants was one of my 2 EXHIBIT D previous clients. I don't think that there's any conflict there. This project doesn't have anything to do with the property they're involved with, but there was a relationship there. VITOUSEK: Okay. Do you feel as though you can be fair and impartial? ARMBRUSTER: Yep, absolutely. VITOUSEK: Cool. Does anybody have any objections?No. Okay. I would also make a disclosure on page 517 of our background report I noticed a correspondence from the Planning Department to my dad, Randy Vitousek, who served as legal counsel for, I think, a third party that was looking into buying a portion of the property, and they, he didn't represent the landowner in any way, and I don't feel as though it prevents me from being fair and impartial. Does anybody have any objection to me staying on? (No objections.) Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: I also have a disclosure, Chair. So, I don't know, in the late 90s, early 2000s, Garduque Architects was one of the architects for the initial development. He is my, Ted Garduque, the principal architect of his, of that firm is my, my uncle. And so, I just wanted, I worked for him while in college for a few years and do not work for him anymore. And I don't feel like, I feel I can make objective decisions pertaining to this topic. VITOUSEK: Okay. Cool. Any objections?No. Okay. Thank you, everybody, for disclosures. Okay, we're ready to go now that everybody's on board. Okay, and so,procedurally, are we going to discuss this in a similar fashion? We're going to do all in one for the discussion and then separate it out,potentially for motions? SCHLUETER: Chair, I think that would be appropriate. I know it's kind of challenging since it's all in one. It seems that there's a separate background and recommendation for the Agenda Item 3, and then a separate background so, I don't, if there's crossover, I think we can discuss it as is appropriate. And then separate motions for each agenda item. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I think there was one background recomm—report and then several recommendations. Is that right? KAY: So, Mr., Mr. Chair, I can speak to that. This is Christian Kay. So, there were two background reports and several recommendations. There was a background report and recommendation separately for the SMA 25 amendment, and then a background report and five different recommendations, four different recommendations for the other requests. If it's helpful, as we were determining how to present this today, we thought we would do one presentation, probably rather lengthy, more lengthy than you're used to, but as it's all about the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa master plan project and the requests are all land use entitlements that need to happen to facilitate this development. We thought we could do it holistically and then procedurally, when it comes time to vote, we can vote on everything as the agenda indicates, if that's okay. VITOUSEK: That sounds good to me. Later on, we can get into the questions of why we are doing it this way. But we'll wait for that. 3 EXHIBIT D Okay, with that, I will read all of the items into the record so that we can have a presentation on all of them collectively, and then proceed with discussion. So, we will be discussing, the applicant is Waikoloa Land Company's request to amend Special Management Area Use Permit No. 25 to withdraw three (3)non-contiguous land areas identified as "Area A", "Area B", and "Area C" comprising the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project totaling approximately 182.9 acres from the land area covered under SMA 25, which allowed the development of the Waikoloa Beach Resort. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Kaahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa ahupua'a, South Kohala moku, Hawai`i Island, TMKs, there's multiple: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 021, 022, 025, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), 029 (por.), 031 (por.), and 033. The second is application from the Waikoloa Land Company for the application for a new Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 900 multi-family timeshare units, community support facilities, golf support facilities,public parks and paths and related improvements within approximately 133.8 acres of land identified as "Area B" and to allow the development of a new brackish water irrigation source and distribution system to support the landscape irrigation needs of the project within 3.1 acres of land identified as "Area C" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located in the same location, and I won't repeat the TMKs. Next up is the applicant's request, same applicant, for Change of Zone from an Open, Multiple- Family Residential-4,000 square feet(RM-4), Multiple-Family Residential-6,000 square feet (RM-6), Multiple-Family Residential-8,000 square feet(RM-8) and Village Commercial-10,000 square feet(CV-10) zoning districts to a Project District zoning district for 133.822 acres of land identified as "Area B" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. Properties are located between the 75 properties are located in the same spot. Applicant, again, Waikoloa Manage—Waikoloa Land Company. This is application for Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvements within an approximately 38.6-acre portion of"Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated in the same location. Next, we have an application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 25 single-family residential lots and related infrastructure within a portion of land within an approximately 7.3-acre portion of"Area A" of the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. Finally, we have the application for a Change of Zone from an Open and Multiple-Family Residential-8,000 square feet(RM-8)zoning districts to Multiple-Family Residential-6,000 square feet(RM-6) and Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10)zoning districts for 45.932 acres of land identified as "Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. Okay. Looks like we have a joint presentation by Christian and Tracie. Please take it away. KAY: Tracie, can you share the screen please? 4 EXHIBIT D CAMERO: Yes, I will do that, and allow me time as I make sure we both have access. KAY: Okay, yes, again as the Chair stated, extensively,this is a request for six separate items, again all kind of further into the development of the development of the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa development projects. So, I will move on to the next slide in a moment please. Okay, thank you. So, the project area is situated within the South Kohala district of Hawai`i Island. More specifically, within the mauka area of the Waikoloa Beach Resort outlined here in red, and generally situated between the King's Trail which separates the mauka and makai areas of the resort and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which generally runs diagonally through the slide here. We also have, for reference, Waikoloa Beach Drive, which is intersecting with the highway and runs as a loop through the entirety of the resort. Other land uses in the area are similarly resort, where we have the Mauna Lath Resort area here to the north, and then mostly otherwise vacant land in the area. This next slide is a brief development timeline, or land use entitlement timeline for the Waikoloa Beach Resort, including the mauka lands, which are slated for the Kumu Hou project. First, in 1968, the State Land Use Commission reclassified 549 acres of land, which is the makai portion of the Beach Resort from Conservation to Urban, and 2,865 acres of land which encompasses what is now the Waikoloa Village from Agricultural to Urban. In 1977, SMA Use Permit Number 25, or SMA 25, was approved by the Planning Commission to allow the development of the Waikoloa Beach Resort complex including construction of 3,000 hotels rooms, 3,430 multiple-family residential units, two 18-hole golf courses, and other recreational amenities, commercial, and related support facilities and infrastructure. In 1990, the State Land Use Commission reclassified an additional 853 acres of land, which is now the mauka portion of the Waikoloa Beach Resort from Agricultural to Urban, and reduced the total number of entitled residential units to 3, 365,which was spread out between the mauka and makai areas, as is indicated on the screen. The approval also allowed the increment of development of the mauka area with the provision that there would be an 800-foot setback from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway with a meandering boundary to be defined by the petitioner and the resulting area preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement. In 1991, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to SMA 25 to max the new LUC requirements to reduce the residential units within the resort to 3,365 and added conditions to permit the construction of two additional golf courses and related improvements within the resort area. Finally, in 1991,via Ordinance 91-112, the County Council rezoned the mauka area of the beach resort from Unplanned to a myriad of different zoning designations including Multiple-Family Residential 4,000, 6,000, and 8,000, Village Commercial 10,000-square feet, Limited Industrial 20,000-square feet, and Open. 5 EXHIBIT D CAMERO: This is an aerial photograph showing you the existing conditions of the project area. You have Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which is running in a diagonal direction on your screen from the upper right-hand corner to the middle. There are two channelized intersections that connect the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to the Waikoloa Beach Resort. One is located in the northern portion,which is right here. I'm circling with the laser pointer. This connects the Waikoloa Beach Resort and'the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to the Waikoloa Road. And one intersection located to the south. Both are used as a main thorough fare into the resort and continue in a U-shaped pattern throughout the resort to connect to one another. The project area is bounded by 800-foot Open Space setback from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which Christian mentioned in the earlier slide. It is shown here and consists of all natural lava. The King's Trail runs from the top of your slide to the bottom,which is shown here, and separates the Waikoloa Beach Resort as a makai portion and a mauka portion that Christian has mentioned in the earlier slides. The 'Ainamalu development is located in the top right-hand corner of your screen. And as mentioned earlier, the project area includes three non-contiguous sub-areas totaling approximately 182.9 acres of land, as outlined in blue on your screen. Currently, the existing conditions of the proposed Kumu Hou project area consists of mostly greens from the existing golf courses and natural lava. Overall. Overall, the Kumu Hou project at Waikoloa master plan consists of the following uses within the three non-contiguous sub areas, totaling approximately 182.9 acres of land. There are 1,164 multi-family residential timeshare units proposed, as well as 25 single-family residential lots, community support facilities including up to 40,000 square feet of community centers with private pool and other recreational facilities in support of the timeshare facilities. A 3,000 square foot convenience retail center, and up to a 32,000 square foot operation center to support the back of the housekeeping and general maintenance services. And additional employee and other parking consisting of approximately 200 parking stalls. There will also be the retention of nine holes of the King's Course. A relocated new golf clubhouse, driving range, and support uses. As well as approximately 126 acres of landscaped open areas including natural and re-naturalized lava landscapes. Approximately three acres of new pedestrian paths and two community parks with recreational amenities. And lastly, a new landscape irrigation system utilizing brackish water from the underlying aquafer to service the landscaping needs of the project, which will reduce the reliance of potable water for irrigation. On your screen this is the conceptual master plan that was provided to the Planning Department. The proposed areas of this request are outlined in blue with the specific access points called out by black arrows on your screen. Again, access to the Waikoloa Beach Resort is from the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which are shown here and again here. "Area A"is located in the northern portion of the resort, and closest to the top of your screen. This is where the applicant is proposing approximately 264 timeshare units as well as 25 single- family residential lots. Then in"Area B" located further south from"Area A", this is where the applicant is proposing 900 timeshare units and proposed commercial facilities, as well as the gateway parks and"Area C",which is located to the right of"Area B", is where the irrigation wells will be contained. 6 EXHIBIT D In the slides coming up, Christian and myself will break down more of these areas. This is just to orient the commissioners on the conceptual Kumu Hou project as a whole. In addition, the applicant has proposed to construct a 142-unit affordable workforce rental housing development. Adjacent to the south of the Queen Shop and is designated by the purple shading at the bottom of your screen,which I'm circling for you right now. However, despite a newspaper article and significant public testimony that appeared to include the affordable housing development as part of the Kumu Hou project, we wanted to clarify that the applicant considers its development as complementary to,but not directly part of the Kumu Hou master plan. KAY: If I could unmute myself–this next slide is the County zoning map which shows, again, the mauka area of the Waikoloa Beach Resort including all three areas outlined in black. For reference, again, you've got Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway running generally diagonally through the slide, with"Area A" currently zoned both Open as indicated in green, and Multiple-Family Residential-8,000 square feet as indicated in the darker brown. "Area B" includes a multitude of zoning designations including Open, which is consistent with the existing King's Golf Course and some other Multiple-Family Residential zoning, again, 4,000, 6,000, and 8,000 square feet, as well as some Village Commercial designations as indicated by the pink color. And"Area C" is currently situated here in the Open zoning district, as indicated by green. The State Land Use designates the subject's project area as Urban, as indicated by the pink color, and lands across Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway are indicated as Agricultural in green;, The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the entire Waikoloa Beach Resort including the entirety of the project area as Resort Node as indicated by the pink color. Other designations in the area are Open as, as is consistent with the highway and Waikoloa Roadway, and the areas mauka of the highway are designated by the black thatching as Urban Expansion. The Resort Node, it should be noted, continues--pardon me, includes a mix of visitor and related-uses such as hotels, condominium hotels, single-family and multiple-family residential units, golf courses, and other typical resort recreational facilities, resort commercial complexes, and other support services. According to the General Plan, only a major resort area is identified as a resort node on the LUPAG Map,that's the Waikoloa Beach Resort, is designated as such a major resort area. And, additionally, the South Kohala Community Development Plan includes several references and policies related to resort areas within the district. These include a policy directing the development of timeshares to the district's three major resort destination areas with Waikoloa Beach Resort being one of these three. Okay. The entirety of the project area is situated within the County Special Management Area, which within this area is designated from the ocean all the way up to the highway. It should be noted that while the project area is what's in the SMA it's a significant district—distance from the nearest shoreline with it's most makai point being approximately 5,400 feet from the ocean. So, now that you're somewhat familiar with the lay of the land and the proposed Kumu Hou project, we'll get into the land use entitlement request that were made to facilitate its development. And the first step we want to go is the proposed amendments to SMA 25. As the 7 EXHIBIT D Chair stated, the applicant is requesting to amend SMA 25 to withdraw three non-contiguous areas identified as "Areas A, B, and C", totaling approximately 182.9 acres from coverage under SMA 25. "Area A"is approximately 45.9 acres and currently consists about 1/2 land "Area B"ut consisting of the King's Course uses that are actually currently out of use right now, and the other half as vacant land. "Area B"totaling approximately 133.8 acres consists of a similarly unused King's Course Golf facilities including fairways, an existing clubhouse, and driving range, a sewer pump station and vacant land. And finally, "Area C" consisting of approximately 3.1 acres is currently comprised of a man-made pond used as part of the King's Course and vacant land. It should be noted that each of the areas to be removed from a coverage under SMA 25 will be covered under new SMA Use permits that have been concurrently submitted as part of this process by the applicant. So, well, not expressly part of the applicant's request,the Director's recommending amending SMA 25 to remove conditions related to the development of two additional golf courses within the Waikoloa Beach Resort that were entitled under the 1991 amendment to SMA 25 for the followingreasons. As we stated, SMA 25 initiallyallowed the development of two golf courses p which have been constructed, and these are the Waikoloa Beach Course indicated here in orange, as well as the King's Course, indicated here in blue. The 1991 amendment to SMA 25 allowed the development of two additional 18-hole golf courses in the mauka portion of the resort. The lands planned for these new courses include both a portion of the land slated for the Kumu Hou project as well as the land adjacent to the north here, indicated in yellow, consisting of the current `Ainamalu project area. Through a series of administrative and Planning Commission time extensions, the deadline to complete construction of the first course which was to be the Waikoloa Home Sites Ventures course and what is now the `Ainamalu project area was to be done prior to April 2013. And final plan approval for the second new course was to be secured within-one year thereafter. The previous owners of the adjacent `Ainamalu property did some development. They secured final plan approval,they secured a grading permit, and completed an initial earth work for the first new course as required by SMA 25,however,based on changing market conditions and subsequent sale of the property, neither course was completed in the required timeframe. According to letters to the Director, neither JPL Hawai`i, LLC, who is the owner of the `Ainamalu property, nor the applicant intend to develop the two additional golf courses entitled under SMA 25. Instead, both entities intend to repurpose those lands for the Kumu Hou project area, as well as a mix of residential and visitor uses with related improvements to complete the `Ainamalu project again here to the north. So,based on the preceding,the Director is recommending to amend.SMA 25 to remove conditions related to the development of the two new golf courses from the permit. And I should also note that since SMA 25 was last amended in 2007, the applicant has complied with several conditions of approval. Thus, the Director is recommending deletion of those conditions and that should be reflected in your recommendation. Additionally, the Director is recommending the modification of several conditions to switch language from conditions that require the applicant to develop plans or programs for approval by the Department to language requiring the applicant to comply with those approved plans or programs. For example, conditions related to public 8 EXHIBIT D access, anchialine pond research program, and water quality monitoring plans. So, again, you'll see that reflected in the recommended modifications to the conditions of SMA 25. CAMERO: Sorry, there seems to be a lag. Okay, as Christian mentioned earlier, the new permits that the applicants are applying for at this time for"Area A"will include the following: a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow for the development of 264 multi-family timeshare units within an approximately 38.6 acre portion of"Area A", as well as a set—Special Management Area Use Permit to allow for the development of a 25 single-family residential lot within an approximately 7.3 acre portion of"Area A", and lastly a Change of Zone from an Open and Multi-Multiple-Family Residential RM-8 zoning districts to Multiple-Family Residential RM-6, and Single-Family Residential RS-10 zoning districts for a total of 45.932 acres of land within "Area A". This slide indicates the Change of Zone request for"Area A" as indicated on your screen. The current zoning of"Area A"is the combination of Open as indicated by the green color down here. And Multiple-Family Residential in the orange—brown-orange color. The yellow shading over the sub-area JI and J2 indicate the applicant's request to change this area from Open and RM-8 to RM-6 for the proposed 264 timeshare units. The blue shading over the sub-area L2 indicates the applicants request the change of zoning to Single-Family Residential 10,000 square foot lots for the proposed development of the 25 Single-Family Residential lots. The SMA permits that are being requested will help facilitate the conceptual plans for this area. This is the overall conceptual site plan that was submitted to the Planning Department by Waikoloa Land Company for"Area A". As mentioned earlier, "Area A"consists of three sub- areas. You have J1, J2, and L2. Sub-area J1 and J2 will include the proposed entitled 264 multiple-family timeshare units within 12 two-story buildings and related improvements in sub- area L2, which is proposed to include 25 Single-Family lots. Access to sub-area J1 and J2 will be from Waikoloa Drive via Puakala Place, an existing two- lane private roadway that currently accesses the Hilton Grand Vacation's operation center. Access to sub-area L2 will be via an easement over a proposed roadway through the `Ainamalu residential subdivision being developed to the north of"Area A". The makai portion located in the general vicinity of the left side of your screen, you can see that "Area A"boarders the Forerunner Trail and the King's Trail is also generally located within the vicinity of this area as well. You can see the faint lines on your screen. As mentioned in the previous slide, access to sub-area L2 will be via an easement over the proposed roadway through the `Ainamalu residential subdivision being developed to the north. The slide on your screen is to show you the conceptual access point that the applicant has proposed for the 25 single=family residential lots. You can see the white access line shown on your screen that connects to sub-area L2 within the `Ainamalu subdivision, and further down connects to the Waikoloa Beach Drive, and the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway northern intersection is located near this bottom right portion of your screen. 9 EXHIBIT D The applicant has secured easement rights from JPL Hawai`i to access that portion of the proposed sub-area L2. Again, this is just conceptual plans that were provided to the Planning Department by the applicant. KAY: Okay. Alright, so for areas B and C, the applicant is requesting the following: a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 900 multi-family timeshare units, community support facilities including community centers, sales and meeting facilities, and a convenience commercial center, golf support facilities including the relocation of the golf clubhouse and existing driving range, two public parks and pathways and related improvements within approximately 133.8 acres. And second, to allow the development of a new brackish water irrigation source and distribution system to support the landscape irrigation needs of the project area within 3.1 acres of land identified as "Area C". Secondly, the applicant is requesting a Change of Zone for"Area B" from the existing Open and Multiple-Family four, six, and eight designations, as well as Village Commercial 10,000 square feet to a Project District zoning district for, again, the 133.822 acres of land identified as "Area B". As the brackish water irrigation system can be developed in the Open zoning area, there's no,there's, it's not necessary to have an associated change of zone there. Again,this is just a indication of the zoning. We've got the Village Commercial and the Multiple, Multiple-Family Residential zoning as indicated in the brown and yellow color, as well as the existing Open zoning and all of that area will be rezoned into a Project District zoning. And again, this slide shows the conceptual site plan for"Area B". For reference, Waikoloa Beach Drive is running generally toward the top of the slide and its access is intended to be at two points along that roadway. Here, coming into the bottom of"Area B" and looping through toward the top of Waikoloa Beach Drive. Again, conceptually there showing about 17 two-story buildings to house the 900 additional timeshare units, as well as general location of a main and possible secondary community center in these areas. The operation center is conceptually located here to the left of the screen, and thenew golf facilities will be located here toward the bottom of the screen. Again,this area will also include two, what the applicant is referring to as Gateway Parks. These parks are shown here conceptually on this slide, and these are at the intersection of Waikoloa Beach Drive and Ala Ihi Way, and again the amenities will be both active and passive recreational amenities with some parking, looks like a proposed playground area, and then their proposed 8-foot-wide pedestrian pathway that would link Waikoloa Beach Drive north to Waikoloa Beach Drive's south within "Area B". And the intent is to connect that pathway through the Gateway Parks to the other pedestrian facilities that link this portion of the resort to the makain portion of the resort and down to `Anaeho`omalu Bay and the other natural and cultural resources and attractions. The applicant stated reasons for the request are as follows. According to the applicant's demand for golf at the King's Course has significantly diminished over the last,20 years despite an overall increase in resort visitor traffic. The new SMA Use Permits would allow the development of the proposed new facilities and amenities to upgrade, repair, maintain, and operate existing or future facilities within the Kumu Hou project area and the new SMA Use Permits would also support separate governance structures and conditions that would be relevant to different development plans and different owners of pieces of the property anticipated for each of the three sub-areas to be undertaken over an extended period of time. And finally, the Change of 10 EXHIBIT D Zone applications are necessary to allow the zoning to implement the overall Kumu Hou master 'plan. This next slide is, was provided by the applicant and this is the existing and proposed public access within the Waikoloa Beach Resort. So, conditions of the existing SMA permit, SMA 25 permit,required Waikoloa Beach Resort to develop a public access plan for the resort which was accepted by the Department in 1998. To date, the applicant has made public access improvements in accordance with that plan, largely within the makai area of the resort. So,what you see here are existing pu-- shoreline public accesses, accesses to different cultural and natural resources,like fishponds, anchialine ponds, as well as associated parking and pathway facilities. Again for reference, you've got the King's Trail generally running diagonally through the slide here, and then for reference, we spoke about it before, the applicant is proposing to develop an 8- foot-wide pedestrian pathway within"Area B"to connect to Waikoloa Beach Drive north and south, and again to connect down here to the other pedestrian facilities within the resort. So, conditions of approval will require the applicant to update the approved public access plan to incorporate these new public access facilities and to create a holistic public access plan for the entirety of the resort. One more area to mention on this map is a location of a section of the Alaloa Trail otherwise identified in correspondence through this process as the Forerunner Trail and that's here running parallel to the King's Trail adjacent to "Area A". While not directly within the project area, the applicant consulted with staff from Na Ala Hele, which is the state trails program, and Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail program through this process about maintenance and management concerns for that section of the trail, including the removal of ironwood trees encroaching on the trail and within its existing 10-foot buffer. Removal of ironwood dust that blows onto the trail and the buffer area and establishment of an additional 30- foot buffer and vegetative transition area between the trail and any buildings that are proposed to be built within close proximity in"Area A". The applicant has agreed to memorialize these maintenance and management agreements in the preservation plan that we're going to discuss on the next slide. So, the applicant retains Haun and Associates to conduct an Archaeological Inventory Survey for the entire Kumu Hou project area. Ultimately the consultant created three drafts that were submitted to SHPD for review. The most recent draft was completed and submitted in October, and ultimately identified 14 sites with-a total of 418 features, 13 complexes and 2 to 240 component features within the overall project area. All 14 sites identified by the AIS were assessed as significant under Criterion B, yielding information important for research, history or pre-history, and 11 of these 14 sites were recommended for no further work. The other three sites have been deemed significant additionally under Criterion E for cultural value. These sites include Site 26871, it's a series of trail segments, and portions of Site 31230, also trail section, as well as Site 26873,which is identified as the location of a previously excavated lava tube and other features on a pahoehoe rise. The final draft AIS recommends that these three sites be preserved in place pursuant to a required preservation plan to be approved by SHPD. SHPD reviewed and accepted the October AIS by letter dated November 15,which you should have received yesterday, and made a determination of effect with agreed upon mitigation commitments which include the development and adoption of a preservation plan for the three sites mentioned above. As they were negotiating, or consulting back and forth, this is a 11 EXHIBIT D conceptual preservation plan map to show potential treatment for those three sites as well as conceptual linkages between the sites as requested by Ala Kahakai and Na Ala Hele. CAMERO: The applicant did a view-plane study for the project and was able to provide us with the following photos that you will see on your screen. On this screen you have the site photos of the project area from the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway facing makai. The top photo is the current view and the bottom photo is the proposed, is the view with the proposed Kumu Hou project. To minimize the visual impacts, the applicant is proposing to restrict the height of the structures. There will also be careful selection and placement of landscaping, as well as developing structures with earth-toned and non-reflective materials. As we discussed earlier, the LUC decision and order for the project which mandates an 800-foot no building buffer from the highway is located within this general vicinity that I'm circling with my laser pointer and will require the installation of underground utilities. This slide is showing you the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway at its southern-most intersection with Waikoloa Beach Drive. Again, the top photo is the current conditions at the intersection, and the lower photo is the indication of the vantage point that is looking into the project area and shows you, if you can see it, what the proposed Kumu Hou project will look like with the proposed timeshare units within"Area B"that are these photos right there. Lastly, this is a site photo facing north on Waikoloa Beach Drive at its southern-most intersection with Ala Ihi Way. The top photo, again, shows you the existing conditions, and the lower photo is the indication of what the new landscaping plans will look like as well as the pedestrian paths that Christian mentioned in his earlier slides that will essentially connect the Kumu Hou project to the existing resort. At this time the Director is recommending approval of the amendments to SMA 25, as well as the approval of the SMA Use Permits PL-SMA-2021-000002, 2021-000003, 2021-000004, and a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for PL-REZ-2021-000004 as well as PL-REZ-2021-000005. After receiving the Planning Director's recommendation for the Change of Zone for"Area A", the applicant requested an amendment be made to Condition D of REZ-2021-000004 to read as follows and to add the plus or minus to Condition D that you can see on your screen. According to the applicant, the reason for this request is that the 12.8 acres is conceptual, and the actual amount will be established when more detail planning area occurs. We wanted to just make a note that after the Commission received the November 5th background report, the Department received an additional 176 letters in support of the Kumu Hou project, as well as four letters of public testimony against the project that the commissioners should have received. Some of the next steps, should the commission vote to forward a favorable recommendation for the two change of zones will need to go before the County Council. There's specific conditions in the new SMA permits that will make the effectivedate of the three new SMA permits the same effective date as the change of zones. That concludes our presentation, and we can turn it over to the Chair. 12 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Thank you. Would you like to get into at all why it's being broken down into this many projects or applications instead of being all part of one master plan? KAY: I think— JACKSON: Chair, I—I think that's a question that would be better responded to by the applicant to explain their reasoning behind it. VITOUSEK: Okay. In that case, let's hear from the applicant. Oka I got a list of Y pp Y� representatives from the applicant. When I call your name would you mind just raising your hand?We have Mr. Sidney Fuke, John Plunkett, Scott Head, Aim Bouslog, Stanford Can-- FUKE: Mr. Chair, unfortunately Stanford Can had to leave so we do have his associate Daniel Sandomire, so you can swear him in. VITOUSEK: Okay. SANDOMIRE: We're actually, we're getting Stanford right now. FUKE: Oh, okay. Thank you. SANDOMIRE: Swear him in and hopefully he'll be able to join. VITOUSEK: Cary Boedekker,Alan Haun. Alan here?Jason Tateishi, Tom Nance SANDOMIRE: They're going to swear you in. CARR: They're going to swear me in? SANDOMIRE: Yeah, well,they're swearing all of us in. VITOUSEK: Okay, would everybody please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Planning Commission? PARTICIPANTS: Yes. I do. [Respectively.] VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. [Indecipherable] background and recommendation from the Planning Department? CARR: That's it for now. John's gonna go, Ann, then you. Call me. SANDOMIRE: Okay. VITOUSEK: Asking again,have you received the background and recommendation reports from the Planning Department? FUKE: Chair, yes. [Indeciperable] the commissioners. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant assisting with processing of these applications. Before introducing other members of the team,because this is going to be more like a, a presentation among the various team 13 EXHIBIT D members, I just kind of want to start off by noting how great and excellent a job your staff did in reviewing and analyzing over 1,000 pages of these applications and accurately distilling them down and doing their presentation today. Yes,the applicant has reviewed the staff's background report and corresponding recommendations and we are pleased to say that we concur with all of them. They did an excellent job. Your staff report is not only accurate, but very comprehensive, and you had a very long morning meeting. So,in the interest of time, our presentation will briefly touch upon the reasons for the request and in so doing,we trust that our presentation will be able to address matters such as the workforce housing, the timeshare, and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, I would like to first introduce all of the persons who will be testifying. Mr. John Plunkett, he's Vice President of Waikoloa Land, the master developer of the Waikoloa Resort who'll essentially cover the reasons for the request. He will be followed by Ms. Ann Bouslog of PBR Hawai`i, who'll summarize as may be needed the project's compliance with the General Plan and other infrastructure-related matters. Mr. Stanford Carr, I'm—hopefully he's here and if he's not there then Daniel Sandomire, they're the plan developer of the workforce housing project. By the way, the resort's first and unprecedented workforce housing within a resort on the island of Hawai`i. Finally, we'll have Ms. Cary Boeddeker. She's the daughter of the founder and original developer of Waikoloa Resort, Ron Boedekker, who'll cover the Waikoloa Foundation, and I think that as she talks about the Foundation, some of the questions that were raised during the public testimony portion will be answered. Finally, we'll have Mr. Plunkett kind of wrap it up by giving some closing remarks and then open ourselves up for questions. We do have a number of professional consultants on board who are available for questions by the commissioners or the staff So, with that, I'd like to turn so-called the mic over, or the camera over to Mr. Plunkett. John? PLUNKETT: Mahalo, Sid, and mahalo to the Planning Commission and the staff for the time that you've provided us today. My role today as the owner's rep is to provide context about our intentions for the development of Kumu Hou. Waikoloa Land Company has been in business for over forty years on Hawai`i Island, and actually since 1978, and uniquely our ownership group has been the same since the very beginning. Our founders envisioned Waikoloa as a master plan community where kama'aina and visitors have enjoyed amenities and recreational space or historical sites and other things. The late Ron Boedekker who's the visionary behind Waikoloa, whom prior to his passing was my boss, relayed to me on numerous occasions that whatever we did he wanted us to consider the people of Hawai`i and all that we've created. Ron's family continues this tradition,which you'll hear more about from, today from his daughter who's the president of the Waikoloa Foundation, Cary Boedekker. We believe our efforts in Waikoloa have generated some substantial benefits both for the island's hospitality industry and for our island residents. Waikoloa's master plan community now supports over 5,000 local jobs and its strategic partnerships have created further economic opportunities for our community. We've always been very conscious of providing public access to our beaches,the public transportation infrastructure, and that we're very pleased that Waikoloa has always successfully welcomed kama'aina use of the visitor infrastructure. Something I believe Waikoloa's done better than any other master plan resort in the state of Hawai`i. 14 EXHIBIT D The name Kumu Hou means renewed purpose, and this is our legacy strategy as we finish our work here at Waikoloa. Ensuring that Waikoloa remains a gathering place for our residents, for the land and culture, and for the resorts and businesses providing benefits for generations to come and long after we are gone. We are fulfilling our founder's vision with Kumu Hou through a substantial endowment to the Waikoloa Foundation to preserve and support the culture and environment this region, which as I mentioned Cary will speak about in more detail later. And furthermore, we will help meet our communities need for more workforce housing. In that regard, you'll hear from Stanford Carr about what we have planned in that regard. For our intended, for our intended development and evaluation of our opportunities have shown that we should reduce our golf experience from 36 holes to 27 holes in order to right-size for the market demand for golf. The timeshare owners of Hilton Grand Vacations Club will still enjoy the views and amenities they currently return for year after year, and we will repurpose nine holes for a timeshare development that will support Hawai`i Island's economic recoverable—recovery, excuse me, and sustainable tourism future. We fully recognize the need to keep more visitors within the resort corridors and to reduce impact on our community as a whole. We believe timeshares offer a stable preferred visitor base with a lighter footprint. Our focus is on quality of visitors over quantity of visitors. Those who spend more time on property spend more money on dining and activities, who will stay longer, respect the natural environment, and are interested in culture, education, and giving back to the community. As we were conceiving this project, I was very honored to be able to engage again with our late Mayor Billy Kenoi. In my prior experience with Billy, I was always struck by his passion for the community and how much he wanted to accomplish for this community, and that stuck with me for all these years. And I was honored when he agreed to work with us in our early conception of this project, and I remember early on discussing with him our idea to develop some workforce housing within the bounds of our resort, which I don't believe had been done before, and he told me that if that was something we were really prepared to do, he was all in. To help us further he reengaged us with Stanford Carr, who's been a builder in this resort previously and we developed an agreement to fulfil his promise and we will make to you for workforce housing in connection with Kumu Hou. Mayor Billy and Ron in the spirit that they lead me further encouraged substantial investment in our community. We will make significant contributions by virtue of this project into the Waikoloa Foundation. Further fulfilling the legacy of love that these gentlemen had for the island. In addition to Cary Boedekker and Stanford Carr, we have available for you our, our operations chief here locally, Scott Head, and members of our primary consulting team that are led by Ann Bouslog of PBR Hawai`i,whom I will turn over to now. So, mahalo again for your time. BOUSLOG: Thank you, John. Good afternoon, Chair Vitousek, commissioners, Planning Department staff Again, you guys have been sitting here all the last hour or so hearing a really great and well-thought-out report that the Planning Commiss—excuse me, the Planning Department staff prepared and thank you for that. So, I'm going to try to limit my comments here to emphasize just a few of the cornerstones of the Kumu Hou planning that we hope you'll find as meaningful as we did. First, it's been noticed Kumu Hou is consistent with its governing LUC, SMA, General Plan, South Kohala Development Plan, and other entitlements and 15 EXHIBIT D conditions. What is notable, however, is that Kumu Hou would mean the resorts ultimate buildout would be well below its current entitlement cap, even including the 142 or more affordable housing units. In addition to this density reduction, with its repurposing of nine fairways, its landscaping strategies to emphasize native and drought-tolerant species and the increase it brings in available recycled water, Kumu Hou will enable the resort to actually reduce its withdrawals from the [Anaeho omalu] aquifer. In addition, right now Waikoloa Land Company is pursuing several common area landscape solutions throughout the resort that hold promise to offset a sizeable share of Kumu Hou's fresh water needs from the Waimea aquafer. With respect to visual impacts, thank you again Planning Department for the sharing the visual impact assessment,but I wanted to reiterate that we sought to honor South Kohala's raw beauty, its wide-open spaces and the long vistas that are there and that we want to preserve. The mandated 800-foot setbacks from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway were maintained and we sought to enhance it further by setting development back even further from that line than was possible under the existing zoning and existing plans. We also emphasize conservation of the natural lava setting and a great deal more renaturalized lava in other areas. Overall, we're excited that we were able to achieve 69 percent of the project area as open to the sky with landscape solutions, with more sidewalks, trails,parks, and other open spaces open to the public. When I say public, I mean local residents as well as visitors and not just paying golfers. In our time together, I also learned that Mayor Billy Kenoi was passionate about public parks, and I want to say that the entire team here is excited to provide public parks here. Next, I'll note that Kumu Hou embraces all the archaeological and cultural protocols identified in the staff's proposed conditions. These include SMA 3, the project district conditions number 5 and 11. Those will result in a comprehensive trail system for the entire resort subject to SHPD's approval. With respect to civil infrastructure, despite the fact that infrastructure is already available to support Kumu Hou, the project district area, or"Area B", will be subject to Fair Share assessments as noticed in the Change of Zone Condition Y for that project district area. Additionally,because the project buildout is expected to extend almost 20 years, the staff wisely recommended, and we concur, that a traffic study be updated, and the applicant should comply with additional mitigations at a future point in time. And that's outlined in Condition N to Change of Zone. Finally, let me share a few thoughts that have been to address some of the issues that have been raised on timeshare generally and its benefits. First of all, timeshare units are far more like hotel units than they are short-term vacation units. They tend to be located in a resort area, as are these. They tend to be designed with amenities that are intended to keep visitors on site such as eateries,pools, gyms, and of course in this case adjacent golf. This is unlike many short-term vacation units that effectively serve as a perch from which a visitor is encouraged to explore the surrounding community or the rest of the island. Finally, the higher occupancy of timeshare as compared to a short-term vacation unit means that a timeshare project can achieve any given level of economic development on a far smaller land footprint. Besides saving the `aina, this supports more efficient infrastructure and, in a resort setting it won't tax the public for ongoing repairs and remediations. Those will be handled by the private entity. In short, timeshare can serve to curtail what some see as resort sprawl on our island. Finally,under timeshare, a single professional manager would oversee payment of the required taxes and comply with regulatory 16 EXHIBIT D condition for hundreds of units. This ensures that TAT and GET payments get made accurately and on time, and just as importantly, it provides the public sector and public agencies with a very simple means of governments and accountability. As noted in our application,Kumu Hou's timeshare project,projectsare expected to generate six to ten million per year in net additional county tax revenues during its operations. Thank you so very much for your time. Let me know turn the mic, as we say, over to Stanford Carr if he is there. Daniel, to talk about— CARR: Aloha everyone. Thank you. I want to first apologize that I'm in and out. I'm actually on another Zoom call with the four County Mayors and the Hawaii Business Roundtable that I co-chair the housing committee along with Harry's son that's from Castle and Cooke. I just want to say that we're really excited about collaborating with Waikoloa Land Company and returning to Waikoloa Resort, this time not to build resort condominiums but to build workforce rental housing. So,we're very excited about this collaboration and actually bring workforce rental housing within a resort community so that people who actually work there can live there and eliminate a lot of the commute, especially long commutes from as far away as East Hawai`i, from Hilo to Pahoa to the resort to work on a daily basis so that these families can have better quality of life and use of their time with their family. And we really look forward to the challenge in building this and look forward to working the community to do so. I'm also here to address any questions any of you may have. BOEDEKKER: Thanks, Stanford. I think I'm going to take it from here. Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. My name is Cary Boedekker and I'm the president of the Waikoloa Foundation and the youngest daughter to the late Ronald Boedekker, developer of Waikoloa Beach Resort. I am here today in support of Kumu Hou timeshare development project, but before I share with you my thoughts on why this project is good for Hawai`i Island, I'd like to tell you a little bit about myself. I'm a 49-year-old, I'm 49 years old and I began coming to Hawai`i and specifically Waikoloa when I was 10 years old as I watched my father develop what is today called the Gathering Place of the Kohala Coast, Waikoloa Beach Resort. As a young girl, I would observe my father as he worked so hard to bring his vision for Waikoloa to life. A place where all could enjoy the majestic crystal ocean, the sacred fish ponds, and walk on trails revered by chiefs of this island. In the early days I would admire how much he cared for the islands, it's tradition and culture, but it was really over time that his fondness grew and ended up being a lasting love and connection with the culture, the land, and most especially the people. Some of the greatest memories we have had as a family to a place here on the Big Island of Hawai`i. I, too, have such a deep connection with Hawaii. My very first job was with Ocean Sports Hawai`i working on the beach and the seasmoke catamaran during my summer breaks. It was there where I, too, fell in love with every aspect of Hawaii. As a young adult I would make any excuse to be involved in Waikoloa which led me to develop and produce the Waikoloa Nights Concert series at the Queen's Bowl, which brought acts like Earth, Wind and Fire, Chicago, Journey, and the Beach Boys to our beautiful island. My point to all of this is that I'm invested here. I love everything about Hawaii. My `ohana is here and I am committed to preserving and protecting these lands for generations to come through my role as president of the Waikoloa Foundation. 17 EXHIBIT D So, you may ask why would the Waikoloa Foundation be in support of this development project, and I think you've heard a couple of times from John Plunkett speaking earlier that the answer is as president of the foundation, and a principle, I have convinced the partners of Waikoloa Land Company to commit a portion of the gross sales proceeds from each timeshare unit back to the Waikoloa Foundation. This would equate to an astonishing $50 million over the course of this project. This unprecedented commitment from Waikoloa Land Company will be a covenant that commits the future project developer to continue upholding this lasting promise to the Community. This monumental endowment will be used for many initiatives to help our community.Not only within Waikoloa Beach Resort but islandwide as well, well. Just a few of the initiatives that we are so proud to announce if Kumu Hou is approved, are that we will fund and facilitate the conversion of drought-tolerant,brackish water-tolerant native plant species throughout the resort's common area. We will help fund and facilitate the long-term plan to protect our beaches and the ancient fish ponds that may be threatened by rising sea levels. The Foundation will be a prime supporter of the destination management action plan or D Map, as you know it, offering resources to help manage tourism in a very responsible and regenerative manner. We will continue work, the work within the resort to facilitate the preservation and education of our precious cultural sites, and we will work on the enhancement of parks within the community to help support the families that will come as a result of the new proposed workforce rental housing project tied to the Kumu Hou approval. We will work to assist and integrate the workforce community and their families into the greater Waikoloa community. I cannot think of a more worthy cause for the Foundation than working hand in hand with our hardworking employees and their families. In building a more vibrant and sustainable community not only meets the needs of our visitors, but with it with this approval, can now welcome our employees as residents to enjoy the same gathering place that we have become known for. This is the cornerstone in which my father built Waikoloa and in which I will continue. And one initiative that I am particularly excited about and have already started working on, is the plan conversion of the Parker ranch recreation building located near Lava Lava Beach Club into the Waikoloa Discovery and Cultural Center. We are thrilled to transform the space back into the community hub at once was. Now, with renewed purpose and service of the Foundation's mission, we will preserve it into perpetuity. The Parker Ranch building will be the new home for programming, education, and historic preservation of the rich cultural heritage at Waikoloa and the surrounding area. My father's legacy was to be a steward of these lands through creating this spectacular resort. I sincerely hope my legacy will be to steward the Foundation, which will care for the community, its people and the organizations that perpetuate the foundations vision which is the safe--to safeguard the precious cultural and environmental attributes that make Hawaii unique. I am privileged to work hand in hand with my newly appointed advisory board members who will guide our activities, thanks to their diverse experience and perspectives as it relates to the needs of our local community. 18 EXHIBIT D It is a privilege for our family to continue stewarding their legacy and honoring our responsibilities here by dedicating our time, money and resources to the Waikoloa foundation. The proposed funds from the Kumu Hou timeshare project of approximately$50 million will anchor our efforts in environmental and cultural stewardship for the incredible place we are privileged to care for and the community that embraces Waikoloa. I cannot express to you how excited I am about our future, and with your help, we can ensure that our community continues to be vibrant, diverse, sustainable, and prosperous. Mahalo for your time today and I so appreciate your consideration of this very important project for Hawaii Island. And I'd like to turn it back over to John Plunkett for some closing remarks. Thank you very much. PLUNKETT: I am John Plunkett, not Sidney Fuke. I just had a computer error. But, in summary,briefly, I did want to share for you that even prior to putting any pencil to paper to plan this project, we started thinking about what we could do for the community in exchange for this ask and in connection to this project. Kumu Hou helps shap--shape a responsible tourism future for Hawaii Island one that's resilient, and diverse, and sustainable. It will create many new jobs for the island,provide much needed housing for local residents, and keeps visitors primarily within the resort quarters. Furthermore, it fulfills the legacy of our founders by making substantial investments to preserve and support Hawaii's culture and environment. I hope you will agree, and we appreciate your time. I'll turn it back to Sydney to direct our answers to your questions. Thank you very much. FUKE: Thank you very much, oh, thank you very much, John. He actually wanted to have a screenshot, make believe like he was in Japan but most of us, you know we're kind of like hungry to travel so, that's my screenshot. But I wanted to just answer the question that the Chair had raised earlier, and I apologize for not responding to it earlier. The question was why not, if I understood it correctly, why not just merely amend the existing SMA Permit, rather than having these multiple kind of permits and I think that's really a good question because even after the application was filed the staff also reached that same question. Part of the reason why, and it was really like my brainchild in terms of like having it separated but is that the SMA 25 covered like the entire resort. However, like since that time,properties have been kind of spun off to different areas and then, if you're looking at trying to enforce certain conditions which would then relinquish to different property owners, they became kind of like rather cumbersome. That was one thing. The other thing, too, is that the area there was going to be repurposed, that area called Kumu Hou. It now is no longer owned entirely by Waikoloa Land but, a good portion of the land is owned by Hilton Grand Vacations, so we had to come like massage work with them very closely in terms of trying to figure out like, okay you're going to be moving here, we're going to be keeping some of your land, so on and so forth. So, at the end of the day, it was decided that it would be better to have like separate SMA permits,procured to the Hilton Grand Vacation area and another one where Waikoloa Land had exclusive control over. The exclusively controlled area obviously rests with the, the so-called the project district area, and that's the reason why we came up with this multiple type of SMA permits for the different areas, as well as amending the, what I would call like the parent SMA permit. 19 EXHIBIT D Way back when in 1977 and 1978 when the first SMA permit was granted, it was granted for the entire resort. And accompanying that was all zone changes. There was a major amendment as the staff pointed out in 1991, I think so, when the amendment to the SMA permit came about to incorporate the area mauka of the Kings Trail,but it still used the same basic SMA permit. I think that you know if you look back in 1978 or even in 1971, at that point in time, if, if the County already had what is called the Project District Ordinance, you know,that provision in the works, then the entire resort would have been rezoned to Project District. But Project District was only like a recent vintage and Project District is really intended to,to have master plan-type of zoning as opposed to zoning by specific metes and bounds it became an issue, and so, if we had a Project District that accompanied the SMA permit in 1977 and also in 1991, actually maybe we'd never need to come before this commission, you know for these different things,but then again, good things happen. And I think, as a result of having to go back to the commission, and also to the County Council with this series of amendments, the applicant, the landowner, and I think, as pointed out by Cary, you know they created this foundation. They created a novel way wherein you can have a development fund the foundation that would be for the betterment.Not necessarily of only the workers, you know within the resort,but the entire community, and I think that's, that's very novel. The other thing is that,notwithstanding there, Waikoloa Land satisfying they're affordable housing requirement way back in 1977, '78. They said, "You know what? We're going to give up 25 acres of chunk real estate, and we're going to set it aside for work, workforces, workforce housing."And he said, you know, this is what they want to do this is really like the last component of the Waikoloa resort and in addition to the projects, you have the Foundation, you have the workforce housing, and now you have a complete, complete resort with a funding mechanism to see it in perpetuity. We have other consultants available, as well as those who have given presentations, so we're totally welcoming any questions that commissioners or the staff may have. Thank you very much. KERN: Mr. Chair,we're not hearing you right now. You're unmuted, but there's something going on. VITOUSEK: [Inaudible] KERN: We heard you very lightly there,but you're really far in the distance it sounds like something's going on with the mic. VITOUSEK: Okay. Maybe if, Mr. Fuke, can you try to mute? Is that better? KERN: That's good. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I think we're getting some feedback from your [inaudible]. JACKSON: Mr. Fuke, I'm going to mute you just for a minute. I think we're getting feedback. 20 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Yeah. Okay, thank you. And thank you to the applicants for their presentation. At this time we can open it up to commissioners for, for questions. Commissioner Yates? YATES: Yeah, I finally got a chance to ask my question. I'm wanting to know how many affordable housing units. FUKE: Well, first of all I'd like to-- can you hear me? YATES: Yes. FUKE: Yeah, it's not going to be the conventional affordable housing this is what is called like the workforce housing. What has to happen is that the, Waikoloa Land has,has worked out preliminary with Stanford Can Development, because of Stanford's extensive experience dealing with the high, low, and moderate income housing. Whether he actually does the development or not still remains to be seen.What has to happen is that after this stage if the project is approved, Waikoloa Lands still has to work--have a separate agreement workforce housing agreement to be executed with the County Office of Housing and Community Development Plan, and in that agreement, it was clearly spelled out what Waikoloa Land's obligation is number one, to convey the property to whoever that entity is whether that entity's to the County of Hawai`i or to another nonprofit. Secondly, Waikoloa Land has already committed to provide all of the required infrastructure. Waterline, the sewer line, and other utilities and roadway, you know, to the property so that it would be basically waiting and, you know, ready to be developed. That agreement with the housing, Office of Housing would also have to indicate like the terms of the rental, how long eligibility requirements, so-on and so-forth. So, at this point in time we don't know all of those details but rest assured that the County Office of Housing will pretty much run heard over this entire project. YATES: Okay, because you know, so, we're not talking about affordable housing. We're talking about people being able, in other words, if you work you have a place to stay, so what you're saying is that they don't necessarily, they won't necessarily have a place of their own with their families with them. It'll be like, you know, like back in the day when you used to work for the different hotel chains they used to have employee housing. So, this is what you're saying. So, it's not necessarily affordable housing for people who work down there at Waikoloa. Is that correct? FUKE: It's pretty much going to be like, you know, at an affordable rate because, as I mentioned earlier, the developer is committed to having an affordable rate and what that rate is would have to be you know decided upon by the Office of Housing. You know, the developer is not looking for any affordable housing created so-on and so-forth, but-- YATES: Okay. So, this here, so this here that talks about a development of 25 Single-Family Residential lots, related infrastructure, etc, and then there's also a 900 Multi-Family--. Oh well, that's different,but having—so, it's not actually. It's just a place that they can stay when they're at work. 21 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Pretty much, I think like one of the testifies earlier said that they're from either Laupahoehoe or wherever,would have to commute, and so it's, it's really like, hopefully, like they would be given the priority to find a place to rent. You know whether it's going to be five or six days a week, and maybe go back on the weekend. I'm not really sure. But those are the kind of terms that would have to be identified and eventually established by the Office of Housing. But that, you know, to answer your question directly of Commissioner Yates, that is the focus. That is the idea behind it. YATES: Okay, so there, and then my other qui--quick question was, I see that there's 900 timeshare units and then I see another 264 multi-family timeshare units. So, we're talking like 1100 plus timeshare units? FUKE: In total that, that is correct. But you know, as the staff kind of pointed out, a lot of these properties are already zoned, and you know, some of them were capable of being developed, such as you know, I don't like the exact number,but the Hilton Grand Vacation already had [audio disruption] a whole bunch of property[audio disruption]. To that area that was, they were already--they already had the development rights to construct in that area. So, so, that portion is pretty much like outside of the equation. The, the one that's really part of the equation is within the 900 timeshare units within the project district. As the staff and the application tried to point out it's kind of like playing with the numbers that were considered when the project was, you know, the Waikoloa Resort in its entirety was originally considered, and so that, that overall density way back when in 1977 and 1991 would still not be exceeded. They're just kind of massaging it. YATES: Thank you. SANDOMIRE: If I could answer your question, this is Daniel from Stanford Carr. You asked a little bit about the affordable component and maybe I could speak to that some. YATES: Yes. SANDOMIRE: When we, we don't we don't envision this as a like a bunk house or a crew house for workers. This is for families, and they'll live there full time. Our preference is always to have the local community, the local workers there, and that's how, the way we get that is we, we advertise locally. We don't put this out on the New York Times or something. And we end up with a result that it's, it's local residents, local families that that will be living there. It's a full- time community and we plan to design at least 142 units. It's a resort-style architecture we'll have, a resort-style feel, and they'll be part of the resort community. YATES: Yeah, well that was my concern, because if you have well you know husband, wife, whoever's working there, you know, then you're, you're still split apart, you know? SANDOMIRE: Sure. YATES: Where it should [audio disruption] family. 22 EXHIBIT D SANDOMIRE: Yes, no, they'll be together. They'll be—we're even talking about, in talks about a childcare facility because there's such a great need for childcare. YATES: Yes. SANDOMIRE: People still may have to drive to Hilo because that's where mom and dad are to watch the kids. YATES: Right. SANDOMIRE: So, we're looking at a lot of options to keep families that are working there in that, in that region. YATES: And I just have one more question regarding parks. I know you said that that you would also provide parks. Are we talking like community, you know, open community parks that, that will have restroom facilities and things like that? FUKE: Oh, Commissioner Yates, I will defer that to probably Ann Bouslog, who was the principal planner behind that. But before turning it over to that, you know I'm sure you're, you're aware of the Jack of All Housing Foundation and Waikoloa Village area. It's kind of like a rental. And that really is kinda like a similar kind of project that, that we envisioned, the landowner envisions to be situated on this 25-acre of resort area. So, I'll turn it over to Ann to respond to that question on products. YATES: Thank you. BOUSLOG: Commissioner Yates, I'll be happy to answer your question on the parks,but I wanted to let Mr. Head say a few, little bit more about the housing just to give you some assurances. HEAD: Yeah,just to elaborate, Commissioner Yates. And thank you, my name is Scott Head with Waikoloa Land. The first question you'd asked is the number of units and I wanted to address that. The site is zoned for 142 units and if you read the application, the application states that we're committing to no less than 142 units for workforce affordable rental units. And I'm not going to speak for Stanford Carr, but it's my understanding that Stanford Carr Development intends to pursue an exemption on that density cap through the 201H exemption law, and that would be, it would, might pursue up to as many as 200 units. Those, it's not going to be necessarily resort-employee driven. Those that can apply and that the housing will accommodate are going to be residents that meet the income criteria. As we talked earlier, we may have a school teacher that lives in Waikoloa Village that stays here. We may have a catering manager that works at the Hilton, it could be a wide--it'll be a true wide spectrum of, of reflecting what our island community looks like.Not necessarily just people that are working across the street within Waikoloa so, I just wanted to point that out. I hope that clarifies some your questions because I think that was the intent of what you were trying to understand. YATES: Yeah. 23 EXHIBIT D HEAD: And I'll pass it over to— YATES: I was also concerned, you know, like, you know, you wanna--I was thinking if it's something that they're really excited about that they can also afford to live there, you know. HEAD: That's correct, and that's, that's the intent. So, I'll pass it to Ann to address your question regarding the parks, which I think are going to be very complimentary to having the affordable rental housing in our, in our, within our community, so. BOUSLOG: Yeah, thank you. So, yes, on the parks we're looking at part of it as having facilities and active, you know play,play structures and so forth, but other parts of it we just wanted to have unprogrammed so that people can do what they want, if there's a hula halau in the area, they want to come have their practice there, that's wonderful. You know if, if somebody wants to go out and kick a ball with their kids there'll be an open area for that. So, there'll be shade, there'll be benches, and we, you know, we envision a play structure, we envision some gazebos. The detailed planning of it will be done later,but the idea is that it'd be truly something that local residents would enjoy, and a place where you could informally, a visitor and resident could be on the residents' own terms in a way that, that is this honest and open between them. And, and to encourage some of the local resident use of it, there's also parking provided. Understanding that, you know, visitors to the resort may be able to walk there,but a resident who doesn't happen to live at the affordable housing across the street,but maybe lives in, you know, HOlualoa or anywhere else can drive down and enjoy that park. YATES: Thank you. BOEDEKKER: If I can just add one part too,with the Foundation, as it relates to the parks, I think it's important to note, and I think I touched on it a little bit, but one of the goals that we certainly will have once the workforce housing is up and running and the families are here is the integration of that community into the Waikoloa Beach Resort which would, you know, we can program the, the park systems and have actual programs for families here that hasn't necessarily been here before, because we've had a visitor base. We would now focus our attentions more on the kama`aina. VITOUSEK: And I'm sorry if I missed it, but was the question about the bathrooms in the park answered? Is there, is there bathrooms in the gateway parks? FUKE: I will have to-- BOUSLOG: We haven't shown bathrooms in the parks, yet the--that's something would definitely be worth considering, and you know the detailed plans for parks will get developed and they will, can be reviewed by the County before they apply for permits. VITOUSEK: Because if I know anything about little kids is they use the bathroom a lot. BOUSLOG: Understood. I like nice bathrooms too. 24 EXHIBIT D YATES: And kupuna. VITOUSEK: Any more FUKE: I'll second that. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates, are you pau? Okay. Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: So, I had a couple more questions about few different things, but if we can start the affordable housing component. Am I correct and understanding that that's not actually part of what we're being asked to review right now, right? That's not a County requirement, that's something Waikoloa Land is, is offering and that's not part of any of the approvals we are currently being asked to review? It's just sort of like a side-perk? FUKE: That is true,because that property's already entitled. Our kind of like bringing that in relative to the Kumu Hou project is that the success of the Kumu Hou project lends support to the success of the Foundation and also enables the development of the workforce housing. ARMBRUSTER: Okay. But, because it's not tied to this, it—the development FUKE: Development wise— [Unintelligible cross talk.] ARMBRUSTER: --not tied to it, correct? Like it could happen at the same time, it could happen in 50 years, or it could never happen. Is that-- FUKE: In terms of timing that's why we need to work out specific language with the Office of Housing. All the applicant committing to at this point in time is donating the land, but it's to the County or nonprofit, and providing the required infrastructure to enable the development of a minimum of 142 workforce housing. ARMBRUSTER: Gotcha. Okay. KERN: If I may, real quick too, so, originally on the original entitlement they had fulfilled all of their affordable housing requirements, so this component is extra on top of that. So,just want to make sure that that's understood. ARMBRUSTER: Yes. And then I noticed something in the report about there will be water quality monitoring for the reef during construction, but I didn't see anything about what happens if the water quality starts to deteriorate. Could somebody speak to that a little bit,please? KAY: I might be able to address that. So, as a condition of the LUC decision and order and SMA 25, there was a requirement to develop a comprehensive water quality monitoring program for the entire resort. So, what we did with the new SMA permits is to not lose that requirement 25 EXHIBIT D and to make sure that the new Kumu Hou project participated in that is that conditions of approval to require coordination with the overall water quality monitoring program for these new areas as well. So, it's not just during construction but also this will be, I believe that's, this program has been going on for about 30 years and will continue to go on in perpetuity in the future. So, this water quality monitoring program is done by Waikoloa and the landowners within the resort, and then reviewed by the Planning Department and State Department of Health. Should there be any degradation in water quality, then the State Department of Health requirements would be met to mitigate that, those, those issues. ARMBRUSTER: Okay. KAY: Hope that's helpful. ARMBRUSTER: Yes. So,basically we're just tying this new SMA into an ongoing program. KAY: Yeah, that's correct. So,because we were pulling it out of SMA 25 we wanted to make sure it was covered so all of the new SMA permits have a requirement to ensure that the new areas or Kumu Hou participates in the overall water quality monitoring program and that the program is actually amended to include the new developments. ARMBRUSTER: Okay. Okay. And then one more thing about the traffic. I saw there was a little bit of some simple brain opinions there with DOT, and the road widening, and how, how future traffic is, is accommodated and that we were still, we were still looking for some revised, I think, data about that? Has that been--do we have that yet? FUKE: Well, actually— ARMBRUSTER: [unintelligible speech] --without the road widening. BOUSLOG: I, I can respond to that and I, and I have our engineer here if you need any more detailed beyond my, my knowledge. But Wilson Okamoto did the traffic impact report for us, which I didn't realize initially when we got the letter from DOT,but they had not assumed the widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway until 2045. Stuff wasn't maybe clear to DOT when they read the report. We are aware that DOT plans to widen Ka`ahumanu Highway and they would like to have that done,but because it was not funded, Wilson Okamoto did not program that into their models until 2045. The projection is that the project will pretty much be built out by that time so, effectively all of the projections that Wilson Okamoto did, except for that we know maybe last period in 2045 are without widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. And what they did show is that while there's some little bit of traffic associated with this project, because there's a lot of sympathetic things, if you will, in the resort people tend to go to things within the resort and they're not commuting at the time,the rest of us locals would go to work or pick up your kids and that sort of thing, there is some traffic going onto the highway, but most of the changes in conditions on Queen 26 EXHIBIT D Ka`ahumanu Highway would happen whether or not the project heard and the project's contributions to them before 2045 are negligible. So, I hope that answers your question there. We did follow up with that information to DOT after getting their letter and we haven't heard back from them. ARMBRUSTER: Thank you. FUKE: Commissioner Armbruster, to that I think I'd like to direct your attention to Condition N that the staff had provided,has recommended. This in relation to the Project District zoning. It kind of makes clear several points. One is that there is a mandatory,need for the developer at some point in time to have an updated traffic study, and in conjunction with that, provide any appropriate mitigation. Short of that, this project is going to be obligated to provide the Fair Share obligation. And the Fair Share obligation, you know when you look at like$5,000 for traffic mitigation times $900 million, you're looking at$4.5 million, which would be assigned to the County for the County to decide how to use to address regional transportation needs. I'd like to also kind of point out that, if you look at all of the resorts up and down the South Kohala Coast, this is the only resort that has two accesses. All of the other accesses,there's only one access point. VITOUSEK: Okay. Let's take a quick five-minute recess and we'll come back with questions from Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. The commission took a recess at 2:52 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 2:58 p.m. VITOUSEK: Okay, looks like pretty much everybody's back. Got all our commissioners here. One, two, three—okay. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, you had your hand up. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. First of all, I just want to say that I really appreciate the, the merits of this project. I appreciate the spirit by which you folks are bringing some innovation and creativity to this development project, and I really appreciate how you folks are kind of taking this integrated strategy, you know to yield positive returns, economic returns, community returns, culture returns, and environments returns. I think that's really important, and I think that you know people who are very successful in creating a new model for development, I think we will all benefit from that as a community. So, that said here's my questions. So, water, as you know, super important to a high-volcanic ecosystem. So, in your presentation, there was--you folks had mentioned brackish water, a brackish water irrigation system as a means to, you know, you know, not use potable water, which I am in full support of. How does this work? Can you explain to me how does this work and, when, what is the source of the brackish water?And can you share a little bit about the, the effects of drawing brackish water from a natural environment. BOUSLOG: Is Mr.Nance on? I'd like to let Mr. Tom Nance who's our hydrogeologist answer that. He designed the brackish water system for us, so I think he can give you a good professional answer. 27 EXHIBIT D NANCE: The project—well, actually,probably to your surprise use less brackish water than is being currently used. The reason for that is that the acreage now being irrigated for the golf course will exceed the acreage that will be irrigating this project so there's actually less for that. And the other aspect that reduces the use of the brackish water is that the project will generate wastewater, that wastewater is treated and reused on the golf course. So, you have less actual pumpage and less use so, the net decrease of the use of brackish brown water will be about 300,000 gallons a day. They're looking at some other things for, for chasing leakage and that number could actually be even significantly higher than that. But specifically for this project, for the irrigation, there will be two new wells that will pump into a lake and the lake will have a pumping station that will deliver the water for the irrigation reuse or irrigation use. Does that answer your question satisfactorily? PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, it does. Actually, I have a follow up question. Perhaps you might be the person to, to respond. My overall question was around water demand, and so you shared a little bit that this project will require or will be facilitating the--are you willing two new wells? Is that correct? NANCE: Two new brackish water wells, relatively shallow. Up on the north end of the-project site. PAISHON-DUARTE: So,this is my general question and I apologize if it's been included in the packet. I tried to find a, you know, an answer to my question,my general question is around water use and water demand, so I would like to understand, you know, what are, what kind of, what is going to be, what infrastructure is needed to meet the estimated future water demand? Water use and water demand of this project. NANCE: Well, that estimated use of potable water is a little over half a million gallons a day a full build up. The potable water in the resort, as well as in the village is provided by a privately owned and operated water system. Hawai`i Water Service is the owner and operator. We've developed eight drinking water wells that supply that system, and those wells have sufficient capacity to provide for the additional demand of the Kumu Hou project. We've planned a ninth well, but that we haven't started working on that yet. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, I just want to have one final question. Shoot. I tried to mark where in the presentation you had mentioned this. You said in the SMA USE Permit it will enable separate governance structures. Can you tell me more about that?That was when our county staff was presenting. I just, I remember the term,but I want to understand what does that mean, separate governance structures? That was in"Area B". NANCE: Not a question for me I don't know who that is. PAISHON-DUARTE: No,no,.no, no. Thank you, Mr. Nance. 28 EXHIBIT D BOUSLOG: Whydon't I start on this, and I think, maybe Christian, or Sidney, or somebodyelse Y Y� could come up. Requesting three new SMAs, one would be for Area, what we call L1, L2, it would be to permit the 263 timeshare units that are already entitled that are being relocated to the "Area A". Another one is for the 25 Single-Family, and the third one would be for Areas B and C. And the reason for the three separate, what we mean by separate governance is they have very,very similar but slightly different conditions associated with in each. So, for instance, "Area B" is the only one that's got public parks. "Area B" is the only one that's going to be tied to the County's Fair Share conditions and so on. So, the conditions are appropriate to each use. Sid, Christian, is there something else to add to that? FUKE: No, I think that Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, yeah, it's separate from the water issue. I think when Ann had given a presentation and mentioned that governance, it was basically what pertains to the three SMA. It just makes it easier to enforce, especially, implement as well as enforce by the County Planning Department. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, if I could ask a follow up question?Would that be okay with you? Thanks. Regarding governance, is it intended that these separate areas are going to be governed by separate homeowner's associations and under separate ownership? FUKE: I will defer that to Mr. Head or Mr. Plunkett. HEAD: Well, the whether the overarching master association has the master oversight for the entire resort, and it's tied to the various SMAs. It's just like if you go into a smaller community, say you go to the Shores, which is a condo, a separate condo association. They'll have their own HOA regulations that they're governed by,but it's also subordinate to the master association and the declaration, if that makes sense. VITOUSEK: It does make sense,but it doesn't answer the question. So, are these, are these going to be separate homeowner's associations?The"Area B", the"Area A?" HEAD: Yes, they'll, they'll be, they'll definitely be separate. Yes. VITOUSEK: And it's separate-- HEAD: You're going to have, so, J1 and J2 is, is a consolidation of existing Hilton Grand Vacations density. They have their own association,just like they do at Kings Land right now. Be part of Kings Land. The project district, you know that that'll proba--that area, depending on how that goes down, what that looks like in the future, will more than likely be governed by separate association,timeshare association. VITOUSEK: Essentially, it's two separate developments under the same master plan. HEAD: Essentially, yes. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte,please proceed. 29 EXHIBIT D PAISHON-DUARTE: No further questions at this time, thank you. KAY: If I may point out,just to address that, you know as, as we were struggling with, you know, the multiple requests versus a singular amendment to SMA 25, what we found is although there are slight differences and conditions in the new SMA permits, for the most part the conditions have been consistent across the board. So, so really at the end of the day, each of those SMA permits will largely be required to comply with more holistic sets of conditions related to SMA resources. If that's helpful. VITOUSEK: Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mr. Chair? Sony. I do have a follow up question whenever it's appropriate. VITOUSEK: Yep, go ahead. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. Sorry, this is a different topic area. Ms. Boedekker, you had shared that you are, you're creating a Community Advisory Board. Is that, is a Community Advisory--what is the purpose of the Community Advisory Board? Is it just to advise your philanthropic activity or is it to also advise the development of the various amenities, community centers, and so forth? And how the, the various amenities, are working in concert with one another? I'm not sure. Please share more about your, your ideas for Committee Advisory Board. BOEDEKKER: Okay, the Advisory Board really serves to the pleasure of the Foundation, not the Kumu Hou project, although we will definitely make our recommendations, as I was talking about earlier, with ways that we can help the community, the workforce housing, community be integrated into Waikoloa. But really, the goal of the Advisory Board is to listen to the overall community not just Waikoloa Beach Resort,but in general. We have this endowment that possibly could be coming to the foundation, a substantial endowment that needs to be directed to the proper community needs. So, I've put, assembled a foundation and advisory group that really is connected to many different aspects in the, in the community that will help us put the funds in the proper location. So, to answer your question is it about the specific amenities of Kumu Hou?No. PAISHON-DUARTE: Mahalo. BOEDEKKER: Yeah, thanks. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, this is a little bit of a different question,but I'm wondering about urgent care centers. Do you have one there in your development, an urgent care center?And if not, where, where's the nearest place where people go? 30 EXHIBIT D BOEDEKKER: Scott, do you want to answer that? HEAD: Yeah, I can answer that. At one time when we owned and managed Queen's Marketplace, that was something that we actually sought, and there has been a great deal of interest to have an urgent care center within our master plan community. We do have doctors that provide mobile services that provide services through for, for our visitors and locals alike that are that are here and staying on premises, but for the most part, if we need care services, there are providers up in Waikoloa Village and, and obviously up in Waimea as well. DEFRANCO: Are you, are you still pursu--pursuing the idea of an urgent care center at the marketplace? The Queen's Marketplace? HEAD: Yeah, we, we have office space that's conducive to that. When I say we, Alexander and Baldwin does. They have they have vacancy, and I know that they're probably most likely continuing those offers—those,pursuing those types of offers. But I'm not sure, I couldn't give you a definitive status as to where it, where it is resides right now. DEFRANCO: Thank you. VITOUSEK: You have any more questions Commissioner DeFranco? I got some questions. I guess the first question, I would really appreciate it if there's any way we can do a rundown of what units are allowed under the current LUC ruling and the SMA 25, and what have alreadybeen built and what's, what's remainingthat can be built under that current unit count. I think I had it written down from staffs presentation. Three thousand hotel units and 3,365 residential units. FUKE: Commissioner Vitousek, I, I did the number and, I won't, my math is kind of like still at kindergarten level, so if it's like some error excuse myself, maybe others can correct me,but the math that I had as like I'm looking at it. In 1978 when the SMA permit was approved, it had considerations for total of 6,430 units here between multiple-family and hotel units. When it was amended, which back in 1978 that 6,430 unit was all concentrated on the makai side of the trail, and when in 1991 when the, the, you know, subject area, was rezoned and a new SMA was amended, then that density was reduced from 6,430 to 6,365. So, currently right now I think you'd be looking at the 6,365 cap. The--I don't know how many of these have actually been developed, but maybe Scott can answer that because there are like a number of properties that were scheduled for development based upon whatever the zoning density would have allowed, but they didn't materialize. A good example is Naupaka Place which is zoned resort and it turned out to be a Single-Family Residential lot. So, the amount of projected density in that area, you know, back in 1978 or in 1991 did not materialize. So, as a practical matter the, the total number of really developable area is significantly less than what is allocated. So, but I think I'll turn it over to Scott because, as I say, my math is not that good. HEAD: Go ahead, Ann. 31 EXHIBIT D BOUSLOG: Yeah. Chair Vitousek, if, I don't know if you've got half the anxiety as I do, but on page seven of our application it summarizes that as of May. As it said there were 6,365 units entitled. Developed as of that time about 3,400, which leaves 2,950 so, still entitled. And as Sid also mentioned, though with this Kumu Hou plan the buildout of Waikoloa Resort will fall substantially below that number even after adding--. VITOUSEK: It is split in between visitor units and residential units? BOUSLOG: Yes, yes. The number there's a table there I do--want me to read you the numbers from the table? VITOUSEK: I'd love that. Yeah, sorry there's just a lot. BOUSLOG: Yeah, there's a lot of data in there. So, if you need to look at it later just for ease of seeing in a table format, on page seven of the application. Visitor units, there were 3,000 entitled. As of May 2021, 1,604 developed so, 1,396 remaining. Understand that's a moving target, because some hotel units are being converted to timeshare units and so on. With respect to residential units, there are there are 3,365 entitled. There were 1,810 built, leaving 1,565 remaining entitled. That's a total of 6,365 entitled, 3,414 developed, and 2,951 remaining entitled. VITOUSEK: Okay, and then the timeshares, do they fall under visitor accommodations or residential?Do they count, which do they account for? BOUSLOG: It is kind of a complicated thing that because back when these elements are granted back, you know, started in the 70s and the 90s, they talked about hotel units. I think a product like timeshare wasn't quite envisioned. So, former Planning Director Christopher Yuen issued an opinion on this some time ago, which is what we're relying on. So, if a timeshare unit is developed on resort lands it is considered a visitor unit. If a timeshare unit is developed on residential zoned lands, which means it's going to be developed and will look more like a multi- family residential project such as you see at the Kings Land existing. Those count as a residential unit. If, if a project requires rezoning in order to accommodate then it's counted as a resort unit, or visitor unit. VITOUSEK: As a visitor unit. BOUSLOG: Yes.Not a simple answer. VITOUSEK: No, it's reasonable. So, in this case because we're going to project district, these would be counting towards the visitor units? Is that correct? FUKE: That is correct. 32 EXHIBIT D BOUSLOG: The 900 units are counted as visitor units because we are asking for rezoning. The 264 that were already entitled on, on multi-family zoned lands for Hilton Grand Vacations will remain, continue to be considered residential units. VITOUSEK: So,that's the reason why those aren't pursuing a project district, also? BOUSLOG: No, it's just they really didn't need it. A project district makes more sense when you have many different types of land uses that need to be combined in an area and the"Area A"is simply going to be another timeshare development. There's no commercial there, there's no golf, there's no parks, there's no clubhouse, and so on. VITOUSEK: Alright. So,by our count those ones are the, "Area A" is not counting towards the visitor units,but"Area B"is counting as visitor units. BOUSLOG: Correct. VITOUSEK: That's right?And visitor, so that, and that will keep us--. The remaining number we just--. Sorry. HEAD: Yeah. BOUSLOG: Yes. So, of the visitor units, there were 1,396 remaining, 900 of those would occur here at Kumu Hou, the residential units,there were 1,555 remaining and 290-276, no it's 260— HEAD: Sixty-four. BOUSLOG: Sixty-four, I'm sorry. Two hundred sixty-four units in Areas L1, L2,plus the 25 new Single-Family lots would count against that. But well-within the 1,565 residential cap. VITOUSEK: Okay, and so the, the 1604 units developed, that that includes the Waikoloa Beach Marriott, the Hilton Waikoloa, and Lava Lava? BOUSLOG: Yeah, of developed visitor units, yes. Yeah. HEAD: Yeah, it includes everything contained within Waikoloa Village and the Marriott. BOUSLOG: And Lava Lava, We said the four units there. HEAD: Right, the four units of Lava Lava, that's correct, yes. Those are considered visitor units. VITOUSEK: The affordable housing commitment, for lack of a better word, is that, is that something that the developer will be willing to put in a condition of approval for the rezone? FUKE: Are you referring to the workforce housing suggestion? We've already had discussions with the staff, and if the Commission desires to have that as a separate condition, the applicant is willing to offer it up. 33 EXHIBIT D PLUNKETT: And I will confirm that. VITOUSEK: Thank you. PLUNKETT: That's true. VITOUSEK: I think, I think to me that's very important to have that as a codified condition and not, not just a promise. And then is there a timeframe for the development of that workforce housing, that we can tie to construction of other areas of the project? Basically, what,what point do we think we should have that built by? FUKE: This is, you know,this is something that we believe, like you know, should be flushed out with the County Office of Housing and Community Development. In our preliminary discussions with Stanford Can, he mentioned that they're looking at certain type of financing and that financing kind of relates to the ability to, you know, to deliver at a certain point in time. Hopefully when we have that agreement buttoned down with Office of Housing, those things will be clearly outlined and spelled, spelled and outlined, in terms of your target market, construction deadline, ownership,penalty, the events of non-performance. Those things will all be ironed out VITOUSEK: But I mean for our purposes now of adding this condition, what language do you think would be reasonable to ensure that this workforce housing is completed in a prioritized way that coincides with the construction of Kumu Hou? PLUNKETT: Maybe I could interject a little bit. We--our understanding with, with Stanford Can Development is we'll be conveying in the land, as well as all of the dollars for the development of the, the infrastructure to the,to the,to the site. And then at that point, he would take over and actually construct and own the housing development. Our hope is to start working on that as quickly as possible,upon the completion of this rezoning request. I do think that we need some latitude on this that we need to work with the County Office of Housing and Community Development to kind of really nail down the timeframes that this will move forward, and it would be consistent with his financing needs. I don't know that I've answered your question satisfactorily, but it's, it's a high priority for us to get underway,just as quickly as possible. CARR: Perhaps I can speak to the timing that we're expecting and the process we're looking at. As Sid said, there's a 201H process, that will be in front of you we anticipate in the in the next year. We need that 201H permit to get our density and certain exemptions we're going to need. Prior to getting the financing the lot low-income housing tax credit financing and that comes through in February every year annually, so we have to we're targeting getting that by February. And with that, in early 2023 we'd start construction later that year, and we have a two-year time period to complete the construction and get, get renting so, that's our target but there's steps along the way, that if you miss one, you may have a one-year delay. 34 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: So again, this project,the life of this project is very long. We understand that. We- -I just feel like it's important to link the projects in a meaningful way where they,where they are developed together and enhance one another. So, I think it's important for the development of Kumu Hou to have a timeline for the workforce housing requirements as well. But that's something that can be you know further considered. I do wanna, I do want to point out that, although this project does have quite a bit of community benefit, it's still an ask of the county to eliminate open space. No matter what that space, open space is occupied with. And so, when we are indicating that in our conditions have already been met, like the affordable housing conditions for the development have already been met, where other public access conditions have already been met, I think it's important to point out that the development has changed in order to eliminate a public benefit in open space, and so, therefore, I don't think that it is unreasonable for Planning Commissioners and Planning Commission to look at this development in light of the current environment and try to understand what conditions can be placed on this in order to make sure that we're getting the most benefit out of the project, considering the open space that's being given up to allow the project. With that, I just, it seemed to me like a lot of the information in the background report regarding public access shoreline and beach use was, was pretty limited, given that this isn't an oceanfront property. But I think that adding the additional units no matter what amount is going to increase the, the shoreline public access because people are coming to Hawai`i to go to the beach, primarily, right? So, was there any analysis of whether the current shoreline access provisions are adequate? Is there enough parking spaces? Is families able to get to the beach? Is the beach space adequate?Are we over-using the resource?And how would that change when we add another 900 timeshare units to the area? FUKE: Well, I think that, like you know, one thing I'd like to point out is that first, as it relates to the workforce housing, I think, was clearly pointed out, both not only by someone within the team, but also the staff that the affordable housing obligation has already been fulfilled, and this is kind of like separate and apart, you know, the workforce housing is separate and apart from the project itself Except as I noted earlier, the project success enables the development of the workforce housing and also the funding of the Foundation. We do have a, you've heard from the potential developer, which is stamped with Carr's Development that it's difficult to tie a specific timetable now on something that's kinda like an optional, but we do have language that specifically states that when they have an agreement with the Office of Housing, the representations made by the developer will, will have to be codified or at least be addressed, and the representations made and your and Mr. Plunkett deal with trying to accelerate the construction of this this housing, you know, like ASAP. Also, the provision of the land and the required infrastructure, so I would ask that the Commission, you know, consider the fact that number one this is optional, and secondly, we still have to work out the details with the Office of Housing in terms of fulfilling the representations made today. Relative to the question about the public access, the public access portion, and that's why to kind of like preface, when the whole project was conceived way back when, you know in 1978, the 35 EXHIBIT D initial entitlements were given. At that time, they had access conditions, they talked about a density,projected density, be it resort type or non-resort activity where you're looking at a projected density of 6,000. It's not necessarily saying that that is ultimately what's going to happen, but you know, that's the projected density and based upon that, mitigations relative to view plane,relative to coastal access, so-on and so-forth. I would assume presumably were addressed. We can appreciate the need for maybe more like open space,but I think Ann did the boost [indecipherable] calculation in terms of when you introduce the landscaping requirement and the net result of the open space area, she can discuss specifically in terms of the percentage that the project before and after will have in terms of the actual open space. The view plane, the open space, also kind of translates to view plane, and if you saw the graphic that was provided by the staff relative to the view plane from Mamalahoa Highway,which is a very critical guideline or criteria for SMA considerations. You know, like view plane. And so, if you look at that and you look at the before and after,you know I, maybe I, I have glasses so I can really see that well,but I couldn't really see remarkable differences between the before and after. And I kind of beg the Commission to look at the criteria for the SMA, and the relevant one is view plane, and from a public,public areas. And the public area is the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. VITOUSEK: Agreed, and you know, I think that that there is quite a change when you look at the Waikoloa Road south intersection. It goes from looking at open space to looking at timeshares. And that's a, that's a substantial change for our community. So, I say again that you know, I think this is a good project,but this is the community giving up something. Giving up open space to allow this to happen, and so I think that it's important that we analyze the existing conditions that are in place and see if there are conditions that we can do to mitigate. One of the effects of the SMA being increased traffic, increased traffic of the SMA, of the Special Management Area additional demand for those resources. So I, I don't think it's been answered yet whether we looked at, if the current public access provisions are working right now. Are they? Okay. BOUSLOG: Can I respond to couple of your questions, Chair Vitousek? First of all, with respect to open space, yeah, I think the key criteria is from public vantage points, which is why we looked at it from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. And what you saw on our visual impact assessment is that you see housing along the horizon and part of that is affected by the 800-foot set back, which of course, will remain and it's a really substantial setback. But, in addition to that this you know,keep in mind that Waikoloa does have entitlements in place for 2,900 more units, quite a few of them, including the, the buildout of Hilton Grand Vacations. Where already entitlement zones within what's now "Area B" and there's another side, maybe seven units there. And where those would have been built was actually much closer to the 800-foot setback then what we planned. By replanning"Area B",were able to pull a lot of the units even further back than 800 feet from the highway, and that's why those, the highway view of them starts to become less visually impactful. 36 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: But, I mean— [Brief unintelligible crosstalk between Chairman Vitousek and Ms. Bouslog.] BOUSLOG: Oh, go ahead. VITOUSEK: Correct me if I'm wrong,but the, the analysis of alternatives indicated that if the current zoning is left in place, the maximum amount of units that would be available for the area would be 264? BOUSLOG: That's, no, the--there would be that, there were another 87 units that were entitled [indecipherable], very much in the area near to where we found some trails that are now targeted for presentation and other units could be built elsewhere in the resort. So the, there are entitlements, you know, there are 2,900 more units that are entitled and could be built somewhere in in the resort area. VITOUSEK: Do you have space to do that under the current zoning? BOUSLOG: Do we have space for the current zoning? [to herself] HEAD: Well, not, not without going through this process. BOUSLOG: Yeah. Yeah, we would be going through a process like this again. VITOUSEK: So, let me summarize. We've got this 1978 whenever it was, '77, they put the cap on the number of units at 6,435 which then come down to 6,365. The resort proceeded with their development under the plans and zoning that they have,but in doing so, developed things differently. They did some less density, some larger lots which restricts their own ability to develop to the full amount that's permitted,right? So that, that's a business decision that the developer would have made in how they allocated their units based on their existing zoning. Correct? BOUSLOG: Yeah. I mean, there's more that could occur at `Ainamalu, certainly the site that's now proposed for affordable housing could be developed for resort housing or timeshare instead that's got multi-family zoning on it. So there, there are a number of other places where we could've put density. And I, I think in most cases it would have been more visible from the highway. The areas within"Area B" surrounding the existing golf course where the Hilton Grand Vacations sites were, were kind of jammed up against the 800-foot setback"Area B"ecause they had to ring around the, the big fairways. So, I think from a view scape, you would've have had a role, if you will, of units at that 800-foot setback routed alone that, that edge and that was one of the things we were hoping to get away from with this plan. PLUNKETT: Commissioner– 37 EXHIBIT D [Unintelligible cross talk between Mr. Plunkett and Ms. Bouslog.] PLUNKETT: I'm sorry. BOUSLOG: If I could also comment on the open space question generally. There are nine holes or nine fairways we should say, of golf that are being repurposed. Those are approximately 75 acres, of which 60 some acres are irrigated. Does this plan would replace that with 126 acres of open space in this area. And again, that open space is really truly open to the public, as opposed to open only paying golfers so whereas those golf areas are visual open space to the rest of us who don't golf, they're wholly inaccessible and this, this plan opens up almost twice as much open space that the public can actually get close to, and in many areas walk on paths and use. PLUNKETT: If I could, could I interject, Commissioner?A couple points and maybe Scott had- -I'll rely on him to help me if I get any of my facts wrong. But first of all, the public access is a is a big deal to us. We think it's one thing that sets us apart as a resort here in Waikoloa. And I'll give you one example. For example, the, the public access parking sits on a much larger lot that, than what is actually paved. And as the demand continues to expand for any parking for beach access we wouldn't we have the ability to pave more that and create more parking for beach access, we would,we have the ability to pave more and create more parking to allow the public and residents to, to access the beach. So, you know, that's something that you know, we have the ability to expand that as we go forward. Scott, maybe you can tell them what the, the number of spaces are and how much land we have but,but it's just a percentage of it. HEAD: Yeah. Well, thanks John. You're absolutely correct. I've had the luxury, the great benefit of growing up in Hawai`i, having spent time on every resort, virtually, throughout every island and I have yet to find a resort destination that provides better access to the shoreline, not only in terms of the number of access points,but the number of parking. And to that point, we have 200 parking stalls in four different locations throughout the resort that provide multiple egress points to get to the shoreline. It's something that we're very proud of And as John referenced, we do have more land set aside if, if we needed to do a better job accommodating the public. But from what I've seen, we continue to do a great job. I think we set aside those lands up on the front and when the, when the master plan was developed with the idea that it would accommodate all of the units within the overall masterplan community. So— PLUNKETT: And then I wanted to point out a couple other things that may not even be reflected in the numbers but,but it should be reflected in the reality of what we have here. In some ways we've been losing density,particularly in the hotel's the Ocean Tower of the Hilton converted from hotels to timeshare and in the process, we lost, Scott, what, approximately 150 units that, that we, well in our numbers for the visitor units, we have the full number, not the reduce number in reality. The second thing is when Marriott converted the north tower of the Marriott Waikoloa, we also lost some units. I don't remember the exact counts, but our hotel densities have actually been dropping Additionally, we have another site that's zoned for some 300 units on the, on the beach course driving range that we wouldn't be able to get that in 100 years, so we will be giving up density on that and it's- 38 EXHIBIT D So, my point being is that our density caps are not going to be met by any stretch of the imagination, although the resort was planned to handle this kind of density as we move forward. And I, I do hope that you recognize and we'll try to make you comfortable that the things that we're offering as benefits in exchange for turning that, the open space of nine holes of golf that is unneeded into something else, you know, is more than, more than worth it. I would further add that as to the, as to the Foundation contributions, we intend to, we intend to document that as a, a covenant that goes with the land that a percentage of every timeshare unit that is sold will go into that Waikoloa Foundation to fund those results, I mean those programs. And that, that is an important part of how we're planning our exit strategy for Waikoloa to do the workforce housing, to, to do the Foundation, and I think that the development of Kumu Hou is what allows us to do that while at the same time we, we have planned for density caps, but in reality, the reality is that the density caps will not be met. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. Yeah, basically not trying to say that anything is, is wrong in any way. I'm just asking if we've had the level of analysis similar to what's being requested with the traffic impact analysis. Where we're saying that, you know, after a certain amount of time we're going to reassess the traffic situation and see what's happening. Well, I think that they made this plan for public access in 1977 and there's been a significant amount of change, both within the resort and outside of the resort. And I think now, since we're coming back for additional change of zone is a good time to assess that. And I just haven't had an answer yet as to whether that's been assessed at this point to determine if it even is a factor worth being considered. And, as you said, it seems like there's pretty simple solutions to expand public access into the unpaid portions of`Anaeho`omalu public access area,but what would be the criteria for doing that you know? Here we are looking at the project again after almost 40 years. We can, we can use this time to think, 'hey what, what can`we do?' what could we do to make things better? BOEDEKKER: I would also add, Commissioner, too that one of the, I know that the Hilton Grand Vacation timeshare project currently, the way that their shoreline access and beach access works for their visitor. Is that they have shuttles that are continually going through the community dropping people off at the shoreline so that we're not impacting the parking in any way, which we would absolutely anticipate would be the case with Kumu Hou as well. For that very reason, we want to keep it open to the general public as well, so shuttle service will be a number one priority for this project. VITOUSEK: Terrific. I mean, yeah, that's a great thing that will help with the parking issue, but also analyzing the use issue to determine whether we're at the sustainable use for the resources or were causing trampling of corals or fish pond or whatever the historic resources may be. Just having that analysis of the use of the area, is the use still beneficial to the public, or has it become more detrimental to the resource at this point. FUKE:, Well, Mr. Chainnan, if I might just add, the SMA proposed Condition 5 specifically deals with the requirement to submit an updated traffic—not traffic,updated public access plan that incorporates the Kumu Hou area into this area. Admittedly, what you mentioned in terms of whether there's a threshold relative to coastline use, you know, there is no discussion on that, but if that is like a very significant issue that this condition, you know,perhaps could be modified to 39 EXHIBIT D incorporate the, whatever your you know, you specifically want to have the updated traffic study--updated public access study discussed, obviously,the updated public access study is going to have to discuss not only physical access but vehicular access. So, that translates to the parking, but in terms of whether there's like a threshold, you know, obviously there's no discussion on that. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I can [indecipherable audio]. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: I just want to--I have two comments. I want to support you, Chairman, Chair Vitousek, on your two ideas that you've brought forth. One is, you know, further analysis around the ecological impact, so increase use and increase public access doesn't always translate to responsible use of a particular resource. So, there can be some kind of, I believe Mr Fuke, you were talking about maybe examining carrying capacity or thresholds. I think that would, if you can incorporate that into perhaps, you know, your preservation plan. I'm not sure the preservation plan was going to extend all the way seaward. I think that would be really helpful. Number two, I also want to support, Chairman Vitousek's idea or recommendation to tie or caught codify the workforce housing development to the, to this actual development. To codify it with a timetable, I think that is significant, I think that's really important and certainly, from what we've heard from oral testimony this morning, as well as reading some of the written testimony, that is what is the track--part of the attraction and the appeal of this development project. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Going back to Mr. Fuke, I think that that could be a reasonable solution of indicating that the additional shoreline public access, study, and public access plan based on the results of that study would be included as a condition of approval. Continuing on with my list, sorry guys, so with the, one of the feedback that we got from the police department was that they were concerned with the additional units causing additional demand for police services. And, obviously, you know the,Waimea being the primary responders to any police issue in Waikoloa, that's a pretty long lead time. At least 35 minutes, plus with Kapa'au being backup at an hour and 15 minutes away. With the Fair Share contributions being provided, I understand that is a way of trying to adjust that but, have we had any discussions with the police department about trying to address it directly? Doing something like building a substation at the Waikoloa Fire Department station?That property on Mauna Lath, whatever it is off Ka`ahumanu Highway where there is a fire department and there's space. An additional substation could be added. Is that a, is that a benefit that would help the community and help your development by,by shortening police response time and coverage of the area? FUKE: It's, it's a, it's a tough question, Mr. Chairman. I mean like, if you look at the concurrency provision, it's clear that when you deal with the Civil Defense, for example, there is a specific requirement that you have to be within a certain radius. You have to have like your, your sirens. So, that's kind of clear, but when it comes to like police, fire, and other type of facilities, there is nothing to that effect and so, that's why I think like the Planning Department and eventually the County Council effectively adopted a policy to do the fair share approach to 40 EXHIBIT D address police and fire because they're kind of like not specifically all attributable to one project but they're kind of like more like a group type. And to necessarily assign one person or one project, you know to, to bear to tab for the rest of the community may not be fair, and hence the idea behind a fair share came about. Likewise, for recreation and roads and traffic So, I don't have a specific answer to your question,because other than beyond providing the capital improvements, you do have long term operating expenses that only the County Council administration is going to have to decide on like how much to allocate, so. It's different, like if you go to Japan, you know you have by the system of like Koban. You know,they're kind of like almost like every other area, every other block. But you know that system of police security is not available, so the only other option, I would imagine would be like for the respective areas to have their own,hire their own security. VITOUSEK: Got it. KERN: I'd like to real quickly add that there is a police substation at the Mauna Lani fire station as well, in the general approximate area. FUKE: Oh, thank you. VITOUSEK: So, with that, in our background reports it's not indicated. I'm just curious, is it, you know the,the adequacy, is that, have we had any discussion with any of the County Police Department? See if it's adequate, if there's anything that we can do? I mean,just for me, looking at it where we've got to make these fair share contributions anyway, and if they do something concrete like adding to the existing substation or doing something like, that they can minus that away from their fair share contribution costs. It can be deducted and then we get something physical done that helps the whole community and helps them with their response and doesn't, doesn't lighten their wallet any more than fair share contributions would. Just curious if that's something that was looked at. PLUNKETT: Maybe I could interject a little bit if--first of all, you know, certainly we don't have any objection because we're bound by it, you know, on the fair share contributions and I'm not sure I, I understand the specific request or discussion if the idea is that we could find a location for an additional substation that might shorten response times and get credits on fair share contributions. That's something developers can always entertain and potentially do. I'm just, I can't tell you that that's a need, or that that's something that, you know, should be required at this point. I, that's something we haven't actually pursued,but you know those type of discussions are things that you know developers, we can always pursue. And I've done it in other projects we've been involved in whereby that we build certain facilities like that and get credits against certain fair share contributions in exchange. So that, you know, to help, to help those, those come along. But again, I'm not sure I understand the specific request, but we would certainly entertain those things. VITOUSEK: Yeah, you got it correct. Is that, is that what we're looking at. What I'm asking is if that was something that was ever considered. If there was consultation with the police 41 EXHIBIT D department,who provided a pretty limited response, saying that you know, this will burden their response. If working with them--[unintelligible speech.] PLUNKETT: Yeah, I don't know how to exactly memorialize it,but just generally as a, as a project, you know we have,Waikoloa Resort Association has security, so we have security within the resort and we've built it up, you know, as the needs arise. And that's funded by dues that all of our resort members pay and usually that's the first response. But it makes business sense the same way, that if a school is required in a residential project to accelerate a school and build it, and, and apply that against these the, the school impact fees in the future, the same could apply to a police station. I could just tell you that if, if police coverage became a problem and the developer could help that by doing a substation or doing something like that against impact fees, they will, they will do that. We will do that. It's,but it's based upon the needs, as they arise. You know, right now, that has not been a problem here at Waikoloa, thus far. VITOUSEK: The Police Chief is saying that the added thing will burden their coverage. That's one of the responses that we got from the agency. So, I would just, you know, if it was possible for you to have that discussion with the police department and see if there's anything specific that can be done in advance, that, I think that would be a terrific thing to do. HEAD: John, Chair Vitousek, I also add as the manager for the master association, I oversee day-to-day operations,we are in touch with the Police Department on a regular basis, as John mentioned. We have a 24-hour, 365 security running in the master resort. Each of the shopping centers, the timeshare operations, the hotels, they have their own security outfitted as you already know,but we also do bring in off-duty police officers that we hire, and we bring them in randomly so there's no predictable way. But, so that does alleviate some of the pressure on the staff that is working, you know, nine to five,but because we do supplant them at those efforts. VITOUSEK: I hear you. For me— KERN: Mr. Chair? Maybe I can jump in too. I'm happy to facilitate a discussion with the,with the applicants and the Chief prior to going to Counsel to see if the fair share or some type of hard asset that, as Mr. Plunkett said, that they'd be willing to work out. Would that be reasonable? VITOUSEK: Yeah, absolutely. I would love to that discussion. KERN: --be okay with you folks, Sid? That way we can just have that discussion. The fair share's there. FUKE: Absolutely. Yes, I'll be happy to work with you on that with respect to Councilmembers. KERN: Okay. 42 EXHIBIT D PLUNKETT: And I will confirm that as well. KERN: Okay. VITOUSEK: Next, next one. So, one of the things that I'm pretty sure countywide we've been trying to eliminate is the, you know, cul-de-sac effect of development. And you know, as Mr. Fuke pointed out, there are two entrances for Waikoloa. I saw on one of the slides for the master plan what looked like a potential future road stub leading into the Mauna Lani development. And I saw that and thought wow, that would be an unbelievable way to alleviate some of the resort traffic from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway if there was a connection between Waikoloa and Mauna Lani Resort in the area of, I think it was listed as, looked like Puakala Place in the slide had the stub-out going into Mauna Lani area. Sort of in the vicinity of what looks like Na Ala Hele Road coming in from Mauna Lani. And it would be a very short distance to connect the two and would allow for pretty significant reduction of the back-and-forth traffic between those.Now is that something that's considered? Having seen, seeing that road on the master plan? FUKE: I will defer that to Ann, but the concept was to embrace the notion of connectivity, you know not only like within residential areas,but also between projects, and I agree with you, you know that's a very good concept to have. It spreads the traffic around. Whether that's feasible or not, you know, I really don't know because it depends on the other side as well. But I'll defer that to, in terms of the specificity of this possibility to Ann. HEAD: Well, I don't think we've, we've as part of this project really studied the need of making that connection. You see it on the map. I do want to point out one of the hurdles in order to make that connection, it would require another crossing of the King's Trail to join up with, with Mauna Lani. VITOUSEK: It looks like-- HEAD: It's not something we really looked at. VITOUSEK: It looked to me like it was entirely mauka of the King's Trail. HEAD: You can't, you can't get into Mauna Lani without crossing the trail. VITOUSEK: Is there a mauka-makai trail that-- HEAD: .That's--I'm hat--HEAD: .That's--I'm sorry? VITOUSEK: Is there a mauka-makai trail that would be crossed? Or you're talking about the King's Trail? So, maybe, maybe it would be helpful to pull up the slide so you can know what we're talking about. HEAD: The King's Trail itself. VITOUSEK: Would it be possible to pull up the map of the-- 43 EXHIBIT D KAY: Yeah, Tracie,Tracie will share it here shortly and we'll look to see. Are you talking about in"Area A"? That seems to be the most adjacent to Mauna Lani. VITOUSEK: Yeah. "Area A". CAMERO: Okay. I'll show you the conceptual map for"Area A". Please hold. This map, Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Yes. CAMERO: So, this is the Puakala Place that, and I'm assuming this is what you're talking about. VITOUSEK: Yes. So, if you extend that further to the north, you join up with Na Ala Hele Road, which is mauka of the Ala Loa Trail. So, there wouldn't be a, wouldn't be a crossing of the Ala Loa in this area. mapifyou don't mind. I'm goingto stop Let me show you the larger conceptual sharing real quick, while I get that up. JACKSON: Chair Vitousek, may I add to this conversation? VITOUSEK: Of course. JACKSON: So, I just looked at the 1991 Rezone Ordinance, which is the current, which established the current zoning in the mauka area, and there is a condition in that ordinance that says, "A roadway connection to the adjacent property to the north shall be provided meeting with the approval of DPW." So, that, that may be where that requirement came from for a road linking Waikoloa towards Mauna Lani. VITOUSEK: Terrific. I think that that would be an excellent thing to include in the conditions of approval for this project. If that requirement already exists, then we can, we can forward that requirement into this. And that's solved. Great. Thank you. Looking at, in terms of specifics, I think that of course this is going to need consultation with the neighbor, and I don't know if a similar requirement exists with Mauna Lani Resort. But, if it's something that I think we could put into the conditions and forward to the County Council, and then[inaudible] when that's approved by them, it's all good. Would everybody be okay with that? So, at what point do we have that discussion on the connect, the connectivity? Is it, are you guys gonna reach out to Mauna Lani and see if it's something that we can do now? 44 EXHIBIT D PLUNKETT: Is that a question for us, or is that, for your staff? Because I know what we can control. We can control the condition that we do have, and certainly would honor whatever condition we do have. I, we can't control Mauna Lath, obviously. VITOUSEK: Of course. Absolutely. But, at the same time, if, you know, we can consult with them and see what, what we can do to make it happen. To make it real. And whether that means we go ahead and build out to that existing road, I don't know. I don't know what the best solution is to make that connectivity happen because I think that would be a huge benefit. Lastly, you know, looking at this, where we have put in some requests that we're then gonna we're, the idea from Director Kern was that we're putting in these requests for consultation, it'd be done prior to going to the Council. So, it's something that we wouldn't necessarily be able to see. Even though we would be the authority, the approving authority for the Special Management Area permit. So,my question, I guess, this is probably primarily for County staff, is, does it make sense for us to issue a recommendation on the zoning with the conditions for the added consultation with the idea being that once that's accepted by the County Council, then we can review the SMA Permit to determine if everything's in line with what was agreed on, with what we think should happen? KERN: I believe, I'm gonna have Corporation Counsel back me up on this, but my understanding is the SMA criteria, we don't review the traffic components. That, what you're basically referring to is primarily based on the rezoning side of it, which is the, you know, the authority of the Council, and decisions based on the SMA is not based on that, based on previous legal cases around that, so I would caution tying those two together. Myself, I'm happy—I already sent out the email to Rachelle to schedule the meeting with Chief Ferreira on my end. I do know that the Council does read the minutes, I do know there'll be aware of it. I think there would be a certain expectation set by this that we follow through with the, with the discussion. But I also, I just want to throw out there, I know there's a lot of discussion going on out there. The fair share component, I do think it's kind of a big deal. Prior, the units didn't have fair share and by them coming in with the new rezoning they're actually now subject to that fair share, so that's a big deal for the whole area,right? Via parks, roadways, etc, so, I think that's--it's really important. By cautious, let's caution tying those two together. VITOUSEK: Okay. Yeah, so, I hear what you're saying about the road, and the connectivity, that that thing,but you know elements, like the shoreline public access and resource use, those are SMA issues. KAY: That's correct. KERN: That's correct, yes. Yeah, those ones are, and if you wanted to put those into the con--, you know as you guys kind of talked about that condition, then that would be something that could be underneath the SMA condition. Because that would be the proper place to house that. VITOUSEK: Right. And then, you know, in the interest of time trying to figure out how we can do that. Let them keep moving forward, but still give us the opportunity to actually review these 45 EXHIBIT D things. I mean, or are we just saying, you know, go look at it and that's something that the Commission will have to be comfortable whether they're okay and delegating to the Planning Department the analysis of the shoreline public access and carrying capacity resource use, those kinds of things. KERN: I think that can be similarly tied to a condition and maybe Sid can have some language around that so it's not necessary, you know, it's something that's, that's there. It's fixed in a way, right?Kind of like a TIAR, you have to do this at a certain point and based on that, these mitigation measures, right? I believe that-- VITOUSEK: What I'm saying is that we wouldn't be reviewing those mitigation measures as a commission if, if we're giving that up for later. It's not, we don't have that information now so, we're not able to consider it as part of this SMA application because we just don't have it. So, the question is, do we need that?That's for my fellow Commissioners. Do we need that information now, or do we, are we comfortable deferring that to the Planning Department? FUKE: Mr. Chairman, if I can kind of just address the coastal issue. I agree with the Director in the sense that the connectivity issue kind of relates more to a zone change matter. Relative to the, the workforce housing that'll probably also has to be tied in with the zone change. On the matter of the coastal access, I think it's, I agree with the Director that it's definitely germane relative to the SMA considerations. I think that you know, coastal access has been like traditional criteria or requirement for all SMA permits. What is new in terms of what you're suggesting is the so- called, and you know as, as probably amplified by Commissioner Paishon-Duarte is the so-called carrying capacity, and I don't know whether there's any template or model, you know, been done to, to establish what is the desired carrying capacity or the acceptable level of carrying capacity. However, I discussed it informally with the, Mr. Plunkett and I do have proposed language that specifically at least attempts to address this notion of carrying capacity and incorporate same, fine tune the updated public access plan. If you're willing, I'm kind of, I'd be more than happy to share that with you and the Commissioners. VITOUSEK: Yes,please do. FUKE: Chair, so if you look at Condition number five, which specifically relates to the responsibility for the applicant to update the public access plan. So, it would read the applicant shall update the approved public access plan because there already is an existing public access plan. The applicant shall update the approved public access plan, taking into consideration the carrying capacity of the areas coastal use, and incorporate public access facilities,proposing that Kumu Hou, Kumu Hou Waikoloa master plan is submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director and so-on and so-forth. But basically, what it does is just introduces the element of now we'll have to take into consideration carrying capacity. We don't know what it is, but maybe we can generate data in terms of the number of people that are using the coastal area and put it into the public access plans. And I know that, like, relative to the Lava Lava area when an updated public access plan was prepared there were additional signage done to specifically address some of the coastal resources like don't take sand, watch out for like you know when you have like the turtle is coming around, you know those kinds of things. And those are kind of like a new and, new requirement relative to the access component of the Lava Lava area, and I'm 46 EXHIBIT D quite sure with any updated public access plan for the entire resort would have those kind of required signages as well. VITOUSEK: Cool. One, one thing I think you're great to add to your language is that the, the plan will assess the adequacy of the current use. The current adequacy of the current public access. So, we're looking at it multi-faceted. We're looking at is the current access enough? Is it too much? What's too much?What can this place sustain? How will the use of it affect the Special Management Area? And so, I think your language is good. I think we would add into it adequacy of the existing public access. PLUNKETT: So, we could take your consideration. I did discuss this concept with Sid, and so you know, we are good with this and Sid, I'll leave it to you to work out the fine tuning of it. FUKE: So, Mr. Chair, are you saying to also include a term like `adequacy of and `carrying capacity of the areas coastal use.' VITOUSEK: I would say-- FUKE: Or just adequacy of the coast—the coastal access? VITOUSEK: Adequacy of the current shoreline public access. FUKE: Okay. VITOUSEK: Because if, you know, if we're looking at it and we find that, "hey, that,the area can sustain a lot more people without causing any damage and there's only parking for we'll call it 10 people and 50 people want to use it, and 50 people can use it without damaging it, let's add another 40 stalls for, for people to use it so as long as it doesn't hurt the resource. FUKE: Okay. VITOUSEK: If that makes sense. FUKE: So, basically taking into consideration the adequacy of the existing accesses and incorporating same in the updated public access plan. VITOUSEK: Yup. KAY: Sid, I'm going to ask you to read that over one more time so we have it for the record so we can craft the condition accordingly. FUKE: Thanks Christian. I hope I can read my writing but, if you go back to Condition 5, so, it says, like the app-applicant shall update the approved public access plan, taking into consideration the adequacy of existing accesses and incorporating the public access facilities, proposed and the etc, etc. KAY: Okay. That consistent with what you wanted, Mike? Commissioner Vitousek. 47 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Yes. KAY: Okay. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you. So— KAY: And just--sorry to interrupt one more time. Just so we're clear that Condition 5 is included in every, each of the new SMA Permits, so we'll apply that language accordingly. FUKE: Understood. VITOUSEK: Commissioners, at this point, I think I think we've had a pretty lengthy discussion. I'd seek a motion on this,whether— PAISHON-DUARTE: Pardon me. VITOUSEK: Go ahead. PAISHON-DUARTE: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just need to disclose that I serve, I just serve on a nonprofit board as a volunteer board member with Stanford Carr on the Trust for Public Land, so I just wants to disclose that. VITOUSEK: Well, I don't think there's any harm there.Not, not an applicant here or relation, but okay. Does that prevent you from being fair and objective in your-- PAISHON-DUARTE: It does not prevent me from being. VITOUSEK: Anybody have any objections?No. Okay. Cool. Yeah, so going back to it, I think, you know, we can do a motion, or you know, to accept. So, procedurally what Planning Department wants, correct me if I'm wrong, is to repeal 25, replace it with the new SMAs, and then issue recommendations for the zoning to the County. KERN: Yup. You're on it. VITOUSEK: So, I think that the conditions that we've briefly discussed as being possible would be added on to the zoning as well as the SMA, but that would be as a recommendation to the County Council. JACKSON: So, Chair Vitousek, the way we could do this is, we could send up a letter to the County Council with your recommendation and in that letter list the three concerns that the Commission had that could be incorporated into the rezone conditions. One was related to affordable housing; the police, fire impact; and connectivity to the north. And then those would 48 EXHIBIT D go up to Counsel, the Director and the applicant would work together to address those prior to it getting to Council, and then for the four SMA permits, we would apply the public access condition that was just worked on, and you could make a decision on that today, if you chose. VITOUSEK: And then the other thing I've noticed in the SMA permits is there's no, there's no timeframe for these. Is that correct? What's the purpose behind that? KAY: Generally, SMA permits are dealing with resources within the SMA and your rezonings is where you would normally have development timeframes. So, in this case under the, the rezoning's the Director has indicated that he didn't want a development timeframe. Since this is an established resort area, it's not likely the plans will change outside of developing these resort- type uses, as are permitted. Thus, there would not be a development timeframe like other resort project districts or things like that. VITOUSEK: If there's no,there must be no time frames in the existing SMA. Is that correct? KAY: There were timeframes, let me take a quick look here, let me open it up. I believe there were timeframes related to timing of developing, developing plans and programs and the like, but largely these were accessory permits to the rezoning that had development timeframes, so the rezoning ordinances or the State Land Use decision and orders, the LUC decision and orders, so, as I'm looking at the existing SMA 25 conditions, I don't see any development timeframes articulated there. Except for there was a construction timeframe for the golf course. And that was Condition 12,but that's being proposed to be deleted. But overall, there weren't development time frames for the resort as such. FUKE: If I might just add to that, this is kind of unusual is that for the SMA permit, while there is no extension, you know, provision, there is a explicit condition that requires like an annual report. We provide it to the Department and the Commission for each of the SMA, so that should alert the Commission in terms of the progress of the project. And there is that follow up condition that if the conditions are not being fulfilled, then the Director is obligated to initiate the application process. VITOUSEK: But, if there is no timeline by which they have to be fulfilled, then, what is there to do because you can just say, "Oh yeah, we're going to get to that, we don't have any, we don't have anything holding us to when we can do that, but we'll do it."Not that you guys would do any of that, of course,but I always think that having on paper makes the best neighbors, so to speak. Commissioner Yates? YATES: That was, that was just my concern that I was going to ask because previously, it was like there's no specific date when the workforce housing will happen. And so, you all are going to get going with the project,but the people who are going to be working the project might still not have housing and since there's no date on that, I guess that's really my concern. Because to me it's a big deal for, especially young people with families that do need to have a place to stay, they do need to, you know,be with their families. 49 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Yeah. YATES: And driving to Hilo, and I, you know, Laupahoehoe, and driving over the Saddle Road, that's so—kind of junk. It's really bad when you have to, you know, every day back and forth, back and forth,because you don't have a choice. So, it's a concern. VITOUSEK: I hear you, and I mean this is a tremendous amount of, of information that's being thrown at the Commission, and you know we do our absolute best to digest all of it within the week or so, or sometimes days leading up to this, and so, for us I don't think it is unreasonable of a project of this magnitude for us to have suggestions and for you to give us the opportunity to weigh those out,rather than having us just raise these issues and kick it off to the County Council. So— FUKE: Actually, Commissioner—Mr. Chair,but if I can just kind of add to that, you know you mentioned about not having direct, specific timetable,but there are conditions associated with the change of zone, also with the Land Use Commission's conditions that have, that are some measure of time sensitive and they're going to have to address each and every one that comes in accordance with the annual report. So, there is some amount of monitoring on that. While they may not be specific construction type of deadline, they are other kind of commitments that has to be addressed as a result of having these SMAs being tied into the zone change and the Land Use Commission conditions. Like your staff had indicated, there are three kind of outstanding issues that are not necessarily tied in to the SMA,but they're tied into the project district and a zone change, and I think Maija mentioned the thing about the affordable--the workforce housing, you know, specifically getting a timetable on that. The fire,police issue and the connectivity, all we can say at this point in time, you know we will work together with the Planning Department and hopefully arrive at a resolution on this issue. Specifically on the workforce housing, we cannot make, at this point in time, or provide you with a specific timetable,but between now and the County Council's review of that matter, you know, maybe thinking caps can be put on and, and we'll see what may come out. But your concerns will be expressed by the Department to the Commission--to the County Council and we certainly would want to address all of them and make sure that we don't have any outstanding issues with the Council when the, when the Council votes on it. PLUNKETT: It may,may I-- VITOUSEK: Go ahead. PLUNKETT: May I interject, and maybe it's a question. One thing that we are interested in doing and in connection with your concerns, Commissioner Yates, is what's, what's in our agreement with the, with the Office of County Housing and Community Development that's where we would actually be committing to the specific time frames and what's a reasonable time that we could come to an agreement with,with them, you know, to nail those things down to be able to tell people exactly when things will happen. Maybe Stanford Carr's people could help me with that question as well,but we don't have any desire to let any grass grow under that. We do want to get to the point where we can get this agreement worked out with the, with the County 50 EXHIBIT D Housing Authority and make this happen. We do know from our standpoint that as quickly as we can convey the land and develop the infrastructure, we can move very quickly on that. The financing and building of the actual units is going to have to involve our developer as well,but is there a reasonable timeframe for us to do that? And maybe it's a question, more than anything. YATES: Well, I would think that if you're going to be doing a lot of work down there, and you know, these young, well young or whatever it is, will be coming to work for you. They will need a place to-say, and so I, I can't tell you what is a reasonable timeframe, I think that more than-- you would probably know best, because you know where you are, as far as where you are building, where you are getting permitted, where you are getting supplies, or you know. Things that you need for them to be there to work or to get this place built. So, that was my concern, because in listening to those young men this morning they're also excited that they'll have a place to stay, so that they don't have to drive hundred something miles a day to be able to be gainfully employed. And I think it's important that our young folks, you know, feel good about having a place to stay so they can be gainfully employed. So, that's my concern. PLUNKETT: And— VITOUSEK: Go ahead. PLUNKETT: Okay. I agree with you, and my question is, Sid, how long does it take to actually negotiate the agreement and maybe, maybe Stanford Carr's group can answer this with the County Office of Housing and Community Development,which will specify the time frames with an understanding that this has got to move along certainly and ideally faster than Kumu Hou does. CARR: Certainly, I'd like to weigh in if I could, Chair? VITOUSEK: Go ahead. CARR: Okay, so what Mr. Plunkett is pointing out, is he can control the timing of the donation of the land and funding of the infrastructure. Beyond that, it's, it's with Stanford Carr and we would be going through our process and coming back in front of you again. It's going to take some time to develop that housing agreement, it's going to take some time to hash out the details because we, we need to do our studies. But what, what Waikoloa Land can control is a timeframe for when they would, would donate the land. That may be the way you want to phrase their condition. VITOUSEK: I don't think we do. You know, I think that the land donation in the was ast great, p but I think the commitment to the housing is where we want to go with the condition. You know, the, the when is the appropriate amount of time? I don't know, but I would think before the application comes in, it would be, it would, it would be great to have that stuff a little more fleshed out. Be a huge benefit to us. Again, I think that we've asked a lot of questions, we've brought a lot of information together, and I think some of it, you need to digest and you need to figure out, and you need to do some consulting, and possibly come back and present the results 51 EXHIBIT D of your analysis. What you think you can do, and when you think you can do it, so that we can review that and make a recommendation. Commissioner Armbruster. ARMBRUSTER: Hi. So,just a question about that. Would it be reasonable to ask and expect that the Workforce Housing would be constructed before any certificate of occupancy are issued for the main project? Is there a timeline that seems like it could be reasonable? FUKE: That, that's something, Commissioner Armbruster, that's something that can be worked on. You know they, the, there was a lot of discussion between Stanford as well as the landowner in terms of the delivery and you know a number couldn't just, a date, specific date couldn't come up,but hearing what the Commission is suggesting, would the Commission consider something like recommending a condition, you know,relating to the Workforce Housing issue? And I have a language that I would be very easy, easily be willing to share with you that has been vetted and approved by the landowner as well as had been preliminary vetted with the Planning Department. The only thing that's absent is a specific construction timetable with what some of you are asking about so if the Commission recommends the approval on the project district with this condition and you can put a rider on, you know, a transmittal to the Council that the Council seriously consider establishing a construction deadline or something to that effect, and it gives us a chance to between now and the Council's deliberation on this issue to work together with Housing and the developer,the potential developer and being able to establish that kind of deadline. And ideally if we could kind of like agree to what Commissioner Armbruster had suggested, I think that would be the ideal. Prior to issuances of occupancy permit for any of the major projects in that area, I think that would be the ideal. Whether that can be delivered remains to be seen, and for that we just need a little bit time to identify that. So, you're coming, you're being proactive and making, incorporating this Workforce Housing condition with that caveat to the Council that please consider timetable. You know, I'm,that's what I guess we're asking you because I guess from the landowner's standpoint,we kind want to move this on. You know, the quicker the better,because once it gets through,then we can start negotiating with a Council and we know where we stand. And everybody is, knows the importance of the Workforce Housing and the faster we can at least have the basic project that enables this Workforce Housing to go through,the faster it is. You know, and I don't know whether we can do that in December,but I know that the earliest that Council could consider this application would be in January, or late January, or February. So, that'll give us at least a 45- or 60-day window within which to specifically address that issue and come up with a specific language. VITOUSEK: So, once again, as was stated earlier, the Workforce Housing is not tied to this permit so, there's nothing that prevents you from working on-- [Indiscernible audio.] FUKE: Mr. Chair, can you repeat that my--I lost my, I lost my voice. 52 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Sure, as was mentioned earlier, the Workforce Housing is not directly tied to this permitting. This SMAs and whatever, this this doesn't affect the Workforce Housing directly. So, there's nothing stopping the developer from pursuing the workforce housing concurrently with any other application that we're working on now, correct? FUKE: There is this kind of tangible relationship,because if you're looking at potential funding or the ability to provide the basic infrastructure by the developer, this project enables it. VITOUSEK: What was your target date for Council again? FUKE: Probably, I would say, maybe just the second week in--if the Commission favorably recommends and approves the SMA and recommends approval the zone change, I would imagine,probably the first,maybe sometime in January. Maybe the third week in January. VITOUSEK: So,potentially that would give us time to come back in December, when you guys have had the opportunity to consult with the folks that we've requested and we can present the results of those things to give us a better idea of the construction timeline on workforce housing of timeframe and, timeframes for construction of the SMA, as well as addressing the connectivity issue. We could potentially have some more information in December and it wouldn't throw off your, your overall big picture timeline, right? KERN: I'll just chime in— FUKE: I don't think I said. I think that I said that we'd be working together with the Planning Department in addressing those three specific issues, and I gave you a projected timetable assuming that the Commission makes a decision today. You know, you have to look maybe about a 45-to 60-day window before you can, you have an before the County Council, the committee. KERN: Yeah,just to clarify Mr. Chair, I think it's whatever, whenever you folks, that this Commission makes that determination it's basically at that 45-to 60-days after. So, if you went to December, it would be February, March timeframe. And it'd just get pushed out to whatever that would be. One other consideration just to factor in here is Shani won't be here and if CJ is, he'll be completely coming up to speed. Just,just factors to consider, right, during the deliberations. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: We've had a lot of discussion without a motion, but it seems to me also, it could be pointed out that that Waikoloa is in place, historically, they have done amazing things that that development with water, access, education. You know, they've done a lot of things for the community, that a lot of other places haven't. It's not like we're dealing with someone that we don't know and doesn't have a history with us. Doesn't have like a track record. And that's why I 53 EXHIBIT D feel comfortable trying to go forward with this, because I think they do have a track record. I think they are trying to come forward with a reasonable plan for us to look at considering what you're asking them to continue to look at, which I think are all very valid points that we've brought up today. And I think I was just a little bit frustrated because we've had so much discussion without a motion. So, where are we Mike? VITOUSEK: Right now we're information fact finding. We do need a, gonna need a motion at some point. Anyone's welcome to make one. DEFRANCO: Great. Then I'll make a motion then to approve this with,but I don't have the language because we've added these'conditions that have to be met or question in the next 40-to 60-days. So, I'm not sure how to do this. And there's so many motions. There's— SCHLUETER: If I can help at all, Barbara, so if we if we go in order which you folks can choose to call each the agenda items as it makes sense to get these out. So, we've got the four different SMA Permit applications that, you know, that agenda item 3, 4, 5 and 6, and those you folks will be making a decision on. And then it's 7 and 8, that are the rezone, excuse me, did I go out of order? I apologize, I did. So, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are the SMA-related, and then 5 and 8 are your rezones which will be the recommendations. So, I don't know if you want to take them—do a motion one by one, or,because we'll need a motion on each item, on each permit. A motion and a decision on each permit. DEFRANCO: Okay. Well, so then the, the first motion would be on three? Is that correct?And I would be--go ahead. SCHLUETER: Yeah. I think, if it makes sense to everybody else we can start with, we can go agenda item by agenda item. DEFRANCO: And then we make the, we make this with the idea then we have a discussion. Is that right? SCHLUETER: That's correct. I know that this is kind of hard because everything's kind of been looked at in a global,but we were going to need--if we want to go ahead with agenda item 3, then make a motion on 3-- KERN: Point of order. We'd actually want to do 4, 5, and 6. If those are approved, we come back and do 3 because 3 amends the master SMA 25, which then you would remove, which would still be in effect. You'd only remove that if the others were approved. DEFRANCO: Okay, so would I would want to— KERN: Make sense, Delilah? SCHLUETER: Yeah. So, that's 4, 6—agenda items 4, 6, and 7. So, we'll do 4, 6, 7, 3, and then 5 and 8 are your rezones. So-- 54 EXHIBIT D DEFRANCO: Okay, 4, 6, and 7, and does that have a special language, then, to put this forward and we-- SCHLUETER: Were going to have--so ,we're going out of order, so we need a motion on agenda item 4. Once that's voted, we'll do 6,we'll do 7, and if all three of those are approved, then we'll go to 3. If they're not, we'll rediscuss order or what you guys want to do there. DEFRANCO: Okay, so then I'm gonna move to approve the application for Special Management Area Permit docket number PL-SMA-2021-000004 be approved, based on the Planning Director's recommendation. That's number four. VITOUSEK: Okay,there's a motion. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Armbruster. Discussion? Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Sorry, so do we, in the SMA though, that's where we want to add the language to the Condition 5, so do we need to make an amended motion, then, to add that? VITOUSEK: That would, that would be ideal, yeah. KERN: That'd be right. For each one of them. ARMBRUSTER: Oh boy. Okay. KAY: Is it possible to have the original motion maker just amend their motion to include the condition language that number 5 so we don't have to go through the two-step process? SCHLUETER: Yes, so, currently we have emotion on the floor. We're going to have to amend that to include as Shani mentioned,but for the next two, you can do the original motion on the floor with the condition in the original motion, and then we won't have to amend. If that makes sense. So, let's deal with the motion on the floor. If we're going to amend it, let's go ahead and amended it, and then we won't have to do the two-step process in the next two items. DEFRANCO: So, can we have the language for the amendment then? KAY: Yes. Give me one moment, I'll open that up. And the condition language number 5 as in, as amended, the applicant shall update the approved public access plan taking into consideration the adequacy of the current shoreline public access and to incorporate public access facilities proposed in the Kumu Hou at Waikoloa master plan and submit it for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to issuance of final plan approval/site plan approval for any portion of the project. Upon approval of the updated public access plan the applicant shall provide 55 EXHIBIT D appropriate access as outlined in the public access plan or any amendments there too. Such public accesses shall be provided in perpetuity and held by recorded covenant running with the land. DEFRANCO: Okay, so-- SCHLUETER: So, is it, is someone making a motion to amend the motion on the floor to include the condition that Christian just read to us? DEFRANCO: Well, I'll make a motion to amend the motion to what Christian just read. SCHLUETER: And we need a second. VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Armbruster. Do we do a roll call vote? Or any discussion? KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: Can we have a roll call vote? KAY: All right, thank you. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Nay. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. I just want to clarify that what we're voting on right now is to amend the motion on the floor. PAISHON-DUARTE: Oh, I see. VITOUSEK: We're not voting— PAISHON-DUARTE: Sorry, I recall my vote. Aye. KAY: Thank you. And my apologies. Commissioner Yates? 56 EXHIBIT D • YATES: [Inaudible.] VITOUSEK: That was an aye. KAY: Okay. And Chair Vitousek. YATES: Aye. VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Thank you,Mr. Chair. Motion carries, so there's five aye votes. And that is the motion to amend with condition number 5 amendment. And now to the main motion. We have got, I believe it was moved by Commissioner DeFranco and seconded by Commissioner Armbruster to approve as recommended by the Planning Director, as amended. Any discussion on— VITOUSEK: Yep. DEFRANCO: Now we can discuss it? Is that right, Mike? VITOUSEK: We can discuss, yup. PAISHON-DUARTE: Can I just have clarification? Oh sorry, go ahead, Chair. VITOUSEK: Please, go ahead. PAISHON-DUARTE: I just wanted clarification on the conditions that we were discussing. These conditions will be applied to which, which areas? I'm getting, I'm not 100 percent sure. VITOUSEK: Right now what we are discussing is SMA, I think it's [000004] which is for the, is this the 900 units? KAY: Yes, this is for Areas B and C, the 900 units and associated facilities, as well as "Area C", which is the brackish water well facility. VITOUSEK: Okay. Discussion? I'll share my concern and I don't want my concern to be taken as to not be in support of the project, which I think this is a very good project. I just feel like we have raised some questions that we have not had answers to, and that it would benefit the Planning Commission to have additional time to get those questions answered so that we can feel better about making our recommendation to the County Council and about issuing the Special Management Area permit, which is our discretion to do. The SMA belongs to the Planning Commission. This is a massive project, you know, Waikoloa is a great project, great people. I've been so impressed by all of you in the presentations. You've all done fantastic. And hearing from the application about the level of consultation that went into working with people like Na Ala Hele and Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, and other community members, and the amount of 57 EXHIBIT D effort that went into that is terrific. And I think that that same level of effort can be extended to our Commission who is tasked with making the decision on issuing these permits. And so, for us to digest thousands of pages of information within a week or so, and to provide questions, I think it's reasonable for us to request an additional month to have the questions that we've posed analyzed, and answered, and come back to us with more concrete information. And I think delaying the project by a month won't mean anything in the long term,but making the right decisions and having the right information will make a big difference in the long term. So I, I would be in support of deferring. VITOUSEK: Mr. Fuke. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I realized that you're already in the motion mode and maybe not in a position to accept any statements from the applicant, but.I've had a chance previously to discuss it with the applicant and if the Commission wants to defer it for the limited purpose of getting more information on three items that their staff, Maija had raised. Specifically in terms of the connectivity, the issue dealing with police and fire, maybe consolidation, and third dealing with the establishing a construction timetable on the workforce housing. If you want to have that meeting considered at your next meeting in December, then the applicant would have no objections to it. But,just understand that they kind of wanted to move on,but if that's you know, in deference to what you're saying and we can appreciate the need for wanting to get all of these information before making a reasoned decision. The applicant is willing to have the matter • continued until your next meeting. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. I definitely appreciate that consideration. It will be up to the Commissioners to decide,but I feel like when you start a project isn't what truly matters, but when you finish, and I think getting the right groundwork will help us help everybody finish the project in a better way. That's my opinion and I'd love to hear from my fellow Commissioners. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I have, I have no problem deferring. I understand exactly what you're saying, Mike. I pushed the motion because we have to be able to talk about it. So, I'm, I'm open to your consideration and everybody's consideration. I think the hard part for me is that we're going to lose Shani. She's not going to be here and I value her mana`o a lot,because of her background and expertise, so. VITOUSEK: Such is the nature of loss. We're sorry to lose you, Shani. Anybody else have any—Commissioner Yates? YATES: I just wanna. I agree with what Barbara has to say. Yes, Shani, we shall miss you. Even though you've been here, you know, good luck in all that you do ARMBRUSTER: Thank you, thank you very much. 58 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: I'm also in favor of deferring until next month. VITOUSEK: Okay, with that can we make a motion to defer the vote on the agenda item? KAY: Mr. Chair, if I can, I apologize for further gumming up the works. I got an email from Corporation Counsel with some advice on re-agendizing things, and if there are any open motions on the floor, we need to agendize them as such. Would it be appropriate to request the withdrawal of these particular agenda--of the motions such that we can have a clean slate in December, since we haven't gotten too far into it?And that's maybe a question for the motion- maker and the seconder. Yeah. VITOUSEK: Yeah, sure. SCHLUETER: Those are options. So, that will be up to the Commission how they want to proceed on that. DEFRANCO: I'm fine to withdrawal the motion. VITOUSEK: Okay. Motion to approve SMA 004 is withdrawn, and— KAY: And there's a second. Pardon me, there was a secondary motion on the floor as well. So, just so I'm clear, we're withdrawing both motions. DEFRANCO: And the one with the amendments. KAY: That was already dealt with. My apologies, this is the motion that still open. Yeah, correct. VITOUSEK: Terrific. So, the motion's been withdrawn. Is there a motion to defer? Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? So moved. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte made a motion to defer. Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Yates. All those in favor?Any opposed? Motion carries four to one. KAY: I'm sorry, who was the opposing vote,please? VITOUSEK: Vice Chair DeFranco. KAY: DeFranco. Okay, thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay. I suppose-- DEFRANCO: I didn't oppose the motion. Sorry. 59 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Oh, sorry. Maybe I counted your vote wrong. Go ahead, sorry. DEFRANCO: No, I—sorry, I was with the rest of the Commission on this vote. I didn't oppose. KAY: Okay. Motion carries with five aye votes. VITOUSEK: Unanimous. Okay. Terrific. Do we need to make similar emotions for all of the remaining five agenda items? KAY: I wouldn't think so if you're deferring the hearing to next month because it's a hearing for the remainder of these items,but I'll defer to Corporation Counsel on that. SCHLUETER: You know it's cut it's bas—sorry, I'm trying not to drag you guys out. I mean, technically we'd need a motion,but because of the global situation, I think the Commission would be safe if you want to make one global motion for the rest of this applicant's items since it's one applicant. Just move to continue or move to defer all of the Waikoloa Land Company applications. VITOUSEK: Okay. Let's, let's do a motion to do that, to defer all of the Waikoloa Land Company's applications. KAY: Could we—I'm sorry, could we again maybe just have the, those who made the motion on this one amend their motion and go with the vote, or is this one already-- VITOUSEK: It's already been voted. It's been voted so, we'll just, we'll go ahead. We have a motion by Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, and I believe, a second by Commissioner Yates. KAY: Okay. And this is to continue order for all Waikoloa Land Company items on the agenda. VITOUSEK: That's correct. SCHLUETER: The only item that maybe, I don't know if you want to work out is this deferral till the applicant request to be placed back on, or is it difficult to December? VITOUSEK: Deferral till the applicant requests. FUKE: So, this would be until like for the month of December, correct? VITOUSEK: Whatever you want, Mr. Fuke. KERN: Point of,point of,point of order though, because agenda goes in tomorrow for December, so the decision will have to be made today by you guys. PLUNKETT: We would like to go in in December. 60 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Perfect. KERN: So, it shall be. VITOUSEK: Terrific. All those in favor?Aye. Any opposed?None. Okay. Motion carries. KAY: Correct. VITOUSEK: Okay. Thank you, everybody. I know that was a long meeting because of the nature of the project. Again, we really appreciate everything that you've done. You've brought together an amazing team of consultants and professionals and obviously you care very deeply about the place, and we look forward to addressing these questions and moving forward at the next meeting, thank you. This matter ended at 4:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kim Tanaka(Dec 20,2021 09:56 HST) Kim Tanaka Secretary to Boards and Commissions 61 EXHIBIT D LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 16, 2021 Public testimony regarding the applications of WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND SMA 25, PL-SMA-2021-000004, PL-REZ-2021-000005, PL-SMA-2021-000002, PL-SMA- 2021-000003, and PL-REZ-2021-000004) was called to order at 9:44 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. P=___- COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, BarbaraDeFranco, Clement"CJ"Kanuha III, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, andlEdith f ay-.-_e"Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter Bs (Counsel for thKommission) Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning=Department), Zendo Kern=:(Planning Director), Maija Jackson(Planning Program Manager), Chtistian Kay(Planner), Je A ca Andrews (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Eric Cook Planner and Noriko Sauer:_(Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND_SMA 25) Application to amend Special Management Area ittse Permit NbI25 to withdraw three(3) non-contiguous land areas_iden_tified as Area A", AreaB , and=-Area C" comprising the - --__-__t l �2 acres from the land area proposed Kumu Hou at= akoloa_project totaling ap�roxrnatey 18 9 __-_ Re covered under SMA- S�=whichalTowed the de -�k�� fent of tfe�Waikoloa Beach sort complex. The properties are Iocate lIbetween ti e 75- and- wf=mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai)of the highway to theing's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa=South Kohal- -HaWai'i MKs: (3)11,9,7008:013 (por.), 021, 022, 025, 027 (por.), -_ - -_=- _- ��wand 033.-5= = a Project District zoning district for 133.822 acres of land identified as "Area B" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 022, 025, 029 (por.), and 033. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-SMA-2021-000002) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit for to allow the development of 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvements within an approximately 38.6-acre portion of"Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75==dnd 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway_to trig King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`imMKs=(3) 6-9-008:021, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY(PL-SMA-2021-000003) Application for a Special Management Area Useermit for to allow the-development of 25 single-family residential lots and related infras 'd_cture withih,a portion 6 -land within an approximately 7.3-acre portion of"Area A" of the Ku u o i at Waikoloa proj-e t situated within the Special Management Area: efproperties ar lo_cated between the 75-and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu HighWAy a dTwest(makairAfthe highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu andWaikola South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: 3 6-9-008:021 and 028 _pra._ APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA RAND COMPANYN_(PL-RTEx-2021-000004) Application for a Chang _of Zone from an Open_=and Multiple-Family Residential 8,000 square feet(RM-8) zoning districts_to Multiple-Family Residential 6,000 square feet(RM-6) and Sin le-Famil--=-Residential-l0==000N i ar =feet RS-1O-�zonin districts for 45.932 acres of land g �Y�m�^-r� -Awe q -:� �� _) g identified "A eaAof t he p� posed Ku ii Hau afWaikoloa project. The properties are located=_between the 75k1__76-ihile.markers ori=Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west (makai) of the highway to the King's Highwa oot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, T1VIKs (3) 6-9-008:021, 027 (por), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). Secretary's Note*-- --" indicates=indiscernible speech due to internet/technical difficulties or simultaneous talk. VITOUSEK: Okay, first Kanani Aton? ATON: Yes. VITOUSEK: Is Kanani available? ATON: Yes, I am. I'm here. VITOUSEK: Okay, aloha. Yep, please proceed. 2 EXHIBIT A ATON: Aloha my name is Kanani Aton, and I am the Outreach Specialist for Kumu Hou. I was mentored into this role by the late Billy Kenoi before his unfortunate passing earlier this year. In our outreach work together,we engage community members who work and or volunteer in government, community service, sports, Hawaiian culture, environmental restoration resource protection and business to share details about Kumu Hou. I shared project specifics, including the community contributions with the purpose to listen to each community members questions, thoughts, and feedback. And then, made sure to convey their mana`o and concerns back to the Kumu Hou project team for the purpose of making sure they were heard. And included in discussions for how to address as much as possible for the community. Beyond the role I execute for this project, I support Kumu Hou because I have twow(2) adult children who live and work on the West side supporting their newly independent young lives. We spend a lot of time talking about housing because.theystruggle to secure it over there. My oldest born lives with her partner and his extended:ahaffspending4three generations under one roof. My next born has been unable to secure affordable housing because the current market is extremely limited and steadily moving out of his affordable price range.He sleeps in his truck during the workweek, even now during the rainy It's so importantthat in these ever- changing time developers like Waikoloa Land Company derndhstrates sincere for those who work in resort communities. Their promise=in`workforce housing and the Waikoloa Foundation go above and beyond what-Wte;quired of them,and we need more and more of this kind of support for our island home community. I also agree Kumu Hou has the potential to create a more resilient and diverse hospitalityindustry that yields the same economic benefits from fewer visitors. Kum u Io u in Hawaiian language=is„about returning to the source and finding new ways to doha _ e^"need to, thrive better than be__, Let us recalculate development toTlace community needs in front like creating a place for workforce housing to fulfill adesperate_need. Soo= any vulnerable workers struggle with every night. Let us:continue to improve lans for_ ro'ects=:like Kumu Hou that create infrastructure within the-resort footprimnt, where=the visitor rs best cared for. I grew up during a time in Hawai`i where the living places=of us those who live, worke and play were more respected and not intruded upon by vacation retal. Kuu=Hou is thoughtful development that starts to call in new models our-community is sero-141y standing up for in these ever-changing times. I believe Waikoloa LandCompany is taking serious=measures to protect and preserve the environment and prioritize community benefit. I need you to thoughtfully continue to approve projects like this. Projects that work with and forMthe-community more and more. It's our kuleana as citizens of these challenging times-ad wecan figure this out. Aloha and Happy Holidays. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Next-up, we have Laura Haase-Yamada. HAASE-YAMADA: Hi everybody can you hear me, okay? VITOUSEK: Yes. HAASE-YAMADA: I did send a letter, and I also sent a couple of attachments on Tuesday before the deadline. I'm not going to completely read my letter because, as you said, you've already received it. But I am going to stress a few points in my letter. I just want everybody to 3 EXHIBIT A know I am a resident of the Kulalani Subdivision in Mauna Lani. And we've owned our place for about five (5)years. I've been very active, tried to be active in Kulalani and with the Mauna Lani Resort Association Master Association. I just wanted to point out in case you all don't know. Our Homeowner's Association is currently in a lawsuit with Stanford Carr. He's one of the defendants. What happened, was in 2018 our homeowner's finally gained control of the association from the developer run board. This took a while it was quite an effort, and we did a forensic audit and learned about a large misappropriation of funds done by the developer, and his property management company. What I'm telling you is not confidential information. It is all in the lawsuit that we are currently in with Stanford Carr and other defendants. = e But my main concern here is your selection of Stanford= air.-= 4erhas left our development a huge mess. He ran into financial difficulties and wasforeclosed`oby his investor, who then, I believe, I might not be saying this right, but they ton=the propertythrough a foreclosure action. Now he and his investor are locked in this laws it with each other that's=been going on since 2018. So, we're talking three (3) years and thees;no resolution in sight:=-Itappears to me a lot of games are being played, switching attorney fire iaand all setts:of stuff 111(5h4 know all the particulars of the lawsuits,but I do know that what we Iookat=on a daily basis-i _Kulalani is a huge mess. I just want to know what; Planning Commission is going to do, since I understand that Stanford Can was selected-asahe developerlof the Kumu Hou project. I want to know what your Planning CommissiongoinTit i do to ensure=that he actually follows through and finishes the project. ;Y I'm also very opposed his selection because trails, cultural sites, fishponds, shopping centers, restaurants, hotels, and much more. Including the superb beach at `Anaeho`omalu Bay that are open to kama'aina and visitors. But my experience in the Waikoloa Beach Resort area also includes active membership in the Waikoloa Canoe Club, which is located at `Anaeho`omalu Bay. I have been a club member since 1999 serving as head coach from 2017 through 2020. For the last 22 years I've enjoyed a very special familiarity with the area, facilities,beaches, ocean waters and coastline. I am proud to say that I've also enjoyed a solid relationship with the management and staff of the Waikoloa Land Development Company. Whose policies and resources provide a year-round access to the public, security,and safety for all, protection of our cultural sites, timely communications to resort tenants and users, master planning, maintenance of beaclidsand facilities. As such, the Waikoloa Canoe Club has directly benefited from these polici�esand resources and is there to stay. The public access through the area, however merits_eniphasis in _short testimony. On any given day at `Anaeho`omalu Bay you may find localfamilies and visitors on the beach, snorkelers, stand up paddlers, one man canoe.paddlers, fishermen, people arriving for catamaran or boat rides. On some days you may find elerrientary school kids there i t _their teachers, surfers, wind surfers, 6-man outrigger canoe paddling.and folsjust walkirigalong the beach taking photos of breathtaking views. There is no adinssioneost to the beach unlike some other places and parking is free. I don't believehere are maniaces on the Big Island that can offer this range of commercial and recreational-actvity to the plblic. Indeed, the Waikoloa Resort area with its special events throughout the=year=d aws visitors from all parts of the island. Finally, I applaud the waircerodiLand Development Co any's project Kumu Hou, in terms of what it will provide-Wile Big Island's econ n%c --Wth in= grout years, its commitment and outreach to communities through the=Waikoloa F ndation while preserving our unique cultural resources along trails and__tle_shoretine_and above_all, continued public access to the resort areas and beaches:==Thanlcrr.. ou. F14:p-_ h illda si=,_ —_- VITOUJEK: Mahalo. Ebelieve Michael Servis=is-=lot going to be joining us today is that correct?=David Gross wouldou pleasestate your name and the town you live in? GROSS: Yes;=Miy_name is DavtGross. You can hear me, okay? VITOUSEK: Yes. e_ GROSS: Thank you. M =nameis David Gross and I live at the Villages at Mauna Lani. I'm addressing Item Number 3 ca the agenda relating to zoning at Kumu Hou planned development affordable housing component. My wife and I provided written testimony however, I wanted to have an opportunity to address not only the LPC but the many interested parties watching the __ Zoom meeting. From the outset let's be clear. Everybody agrees that having more affordable housing on Hawai`i Island is needed and essential as there is a great demand for long term affordable apartments and houses for local residents. As noted in the Planning Department's recommendation for Change of Zone, Waikoloa Beach Resort satisfied the affordable housing requirements with the donation of 300 acres of land to the County within Waikoloa Village. 5 EXHIBIT A The applicant stated that they considered the affordable housing initiative to be complimentary to development of the Kumu Hou project. And we would say it's incompatible. We and others are concerned that developing workforce housing units within the Waikoloa Beach Resort. While a meaningful endeavor is contradictory to the originally conceived concept of the Resort Master Plan that was intended for Waikoloa Beach, as well as all the other resorts along the Kohala Coast. The developers are offering workforce housing within Waikoloa Beach to gain project and permit approvals to fast track their development. However, the resort's do not specifically serve the needs of a workforce. The resorts have numerous essential qualities that making embedding workforce housing within master planned resort communities an incompatible use for those who will occupy workforce housing within a resort environment. Where is the strongest thread in the social fabric of a vibrat_-ad cohesive productive and stable community? It is not in the resort's which have no sense=of community that cater to transient tourists with marketed experiences, expensive shopping;Wand restaurants in a very limited essential service. There are no real neighborhoods;= blic schools,-religious venues, daycare centers, student recreational facilities, public pas playgrounds, banks=post office, etcetera. These are the necessary conveniences and servcs_Ffor day to day living. would say the strongest thread in the social fabric is in residentiallbedroorndo nmunities th t House workforce of single person's, couples and families_and providethe strilMre and essentia-services so needed to give them more complete c atyr of life. We'oeit to them to be responsible and choosing common sense locations wheetll y=can live. Tledeserve that consideration as they are foundation of this island. = -- - - -- -F� ses for which theywere The resorts should contud=to�fQcus on and��ddress_th _pmary purpo p Tanned in design as=tourist destinations. Wit se:6 dhomes and income properties for part time owners, and retired residences for-ginall amount o a full-time owners. If the developer wants to compliment work for housing to a-community, it-should do so where it makes sense in Waikoloa Village. We=akthat.you considerheher=this urPr_cedented step of adding workforce housing to a reso VITOUSEK Okay, maha 1You r fi out of time. Thank you for your testimony. GROSS: Thank LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 16, 2021 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the applications of WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND SMA 25, PL-SMA-2021-000004, PL-REZ-2021-000005, PL-SMA-2021-000002, PL-SMA-2021-000003, and PL-REZ-2021-000004) was called to order at 10:07 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairrra=::Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, BarbaraDeFranco, Clement"CJ"Kanuha III, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, andath"Eaye"Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter Es =(Counsel for tlie= o_mmission) Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning= apartment), Zendo Kern tl_anning Director), Christian Kay(Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Pl`anner), Maija Jackson(Planning Program Manager), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Eric Cook PIanner ,Aafi Noriko Sauer Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND-,___mmy (AMEN S_MA 25) Application to amend Special Manageme t A_ rea== e�=Permit Noy 25 to withdraw three (3) non-contiguous land areas=identified as "Area A", "ArealB" and-`_`Area C" comprising the mu Houat- a kolo -.ro'ect total=in a roxii ate1 182.9 acres from the land area proposed Ku ==--w -_�_p .l ��_g�;PP:,- -�� Y covered under SMA-2=5WAwhich alined the deeloent of the=Waikoloa Beach Resort complex. The properties are located=betweenthe 75- and le markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west (makai}of_theJliihway to the-King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa=,_Sou-thKohalaaai i, TMs,:p) 6=,9_=008:013 (por.), 021, 022, 025, 027 (por.), 028 (por 0-29 (porgy);Q3 W(por:= an_ 033. w== =W APPLICANT: WAIKOLO =LAND: OMPANY (PL-SMA-2021-000004) Application-kri Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 900 multi-family tirieshare units, conunity support facilities, golf support facilities, public parks and paths and related. mprovemfs within approximately 133.8 acres of land identified as - "Area B" and to allothe deve10-inent of a new brackish water irrigation source and distribution system to suort_te`landscape irrigation needs of the project within 3.1 acres of land identified as "Area C''o the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 022, 025, 028 (por.), 029 (por.), and 033. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-REZ-2021-00.0005.) Application for a Change of Zone from an Open, Multiple-Family Residential-4,000 square feet (RM-4), Multiple-Family Residential-6,000 square feet (RM-6), Multiple-Family Residential- 1 EXHIBIT D 8,000 square feet (RM-8) and Village Commercial-10,000 square feet (CV-10) zoning districts to a Project District zoning district for 133.822 acres of land identified as "Area B" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west (makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9-008:013 (por.), 022, 025, 029 (por.), and 033. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-SMA-2021-000002) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit for to allow the development of 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvements with an approximately 38.6-acre portion of"Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloaproject situated within the Special Management Area. The properties are located between tht5 and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west (makai) of the highwao'the=King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawa Li,,TMKs: (3*-9-008:021, 027 (por.), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPA Yw(PL-SMA-2021-000-00)w; Application for a Special Management Area Use"Permit for;_to ra1low the development of 25 single-family residential lots and_rel-ated infrastructure=within a portion of land within an approximately 7.3-acre portion of"Aea "sof the Kumuou at Waikoloa project situated within the Special Management Area. T'he properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highwaand esr(makai) of=tle,highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaelio`_ornalu and Waikoloa,-So thKohala lawai`i, TMKs: (3) 6-9- 2 r--_ ��_� �=.�__ 008:021 and0 8 o,.- APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (PL-REZ-2021-000004) Application for aChange-oZone._frrnv_an Open andMultiple-Family Residential 8,000 square feet(RM-8zongdstnctsTotipleaily R s e.,, tial 6,000 square feet (RM-6) and Single-Falifily Residential--10,0000 square feef( S-10)-zoning districts for 45.932 acres of land identified fas "Area A" ofte_�proposeKumu Hou=at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and=76-miletharkers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west (makai) of the high*Vito to the King's I rghway Foot=Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i, TMKs (3)6-9-008:021=iµ027 (por:), 028 (por.), and 031 (por.). Secretary's Note: "= _'_indicates_indiscernible words due to disrupted Internet connection, background noise, or simultaneous talk VITOUSEK: Continuing on with Unfinished Business, the Commission will take up Agenda Items 1 through—and at this time our public testifies can drop off the meeting and continue to view on the YouTube live stream, mahalo—continuing on with Unfinished Business, the Commission will take up Agenda Items 1 through 6 simultaneously. For all six of these the applicant is Waikoloa Land Company, and these six applications—I'll just read through them real quick. 2 _. EXHIBIT D Application 1 is to amend SMA Permit 25, to withdraw three non-contiguous land areas identified as Areas A, B, and C comprising the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project, which totals approximately 182 acres from the land area covered under existing SMA 25, which allowed the development of the Waikoloa Resort complex. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, makai of the highway and mauka of the King's Highway Foot Trail, Ahupua`a of`Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai`i. TMK are 6-9-008:013 portion of, 021, 022, 025, 027, 028, 029, 031, and 033. Applicant is also seeking application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 900 multi-family timeshare units, community brt facilities, golf support facilities, public parks, paths, related improvements withip roximately 133.8 acres of the Kumu Hou project area, which is in the same location preW zo sly described. The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone ordinancefrom Openad_Multi-Family Residential- 4,000 square feet, Multi-Family Residential-6 Q4squ.are feet, Mult matter, your Agenda Items 1 through 6, in some sort of capacity. In an abundance of caution, I'd like to let everybody know that prior to joining the Corporation Counsel's Office I worked at Mr. Major's law firm. I did not work on this matter in any capacity at the firm, and as Deputy Corporation Counsel, as you know, representing the Planning Department, I am not a decision maker here; so there is no actual conflict. But I did want to put our prior relationship on the record just so everybody knows. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Kanuha was not present at the last meeting, so before we get started, I'd like to ask him whether hehas been able to review all the materials and is ready to participate in this continued hearing ., KANUHA: Yes, I've had a chance to go over a majorityof, material that's been sent, watched over that meeting—that was a long meeting a-last=l emeeting that we had. Looks like ef%n this one will be pretty long as well. So, yeah, I dtely, I feetebffifortable and confident in asking some questions, and,yes, let's move forr VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo, mahalo, appreciatetThe applicant's consultant has given us some additional information in a letter dated Dece ler 1, 20 1.Unless thecommissioners need to see the staff presentation again, I'd=dike to begin by=asl i 1VIr. Fuke to summarize or expound on the information. Does anybody fee l7sff presentation=is_necessary at this point? [No response] Okay. With that, I would like too swear;in the app cant and_theirepresentatives. Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth o tl elnatter before the Leeward PlanningCommission? BOEDDEKER: I do. Win—audible affirmative response from the other representatives.] VITOUSEK =Malalo. AndAndIATOOTeatlfAffithe list 4of the re resentatives. And before speaking, please just state yourrnae and`te:town that=you=live in. Representing Waikoloa Land, we have Mr. SidneyFuke, Planning Consulta t,_we have Mr. John Plunkett, Waikoloa Land, Scott Head, Waikoloa=resorts Association,Waik *Resorts, sorry. Ann Bouslog, Cary Boeddeker, Stanford Cara.David Major, and=Bruce`Voss[Mr. Voss was not on Zoom]. Okay, I'll turn it over to the applicant. If you'd like to present any additional information stemming from the, the letter that was presented. [No reswonse]Mr. Fuke? Are you available? MAJOR: I think Mr. Fue= 'have disconnected from the call accidentally. VITOUSEK: Dropped off, okay. We'll just give him some time— MAJOR: —a minute to get him back. VITOUSEK: Okay, yeah. HEAD: Chair Vitousek, unfortunately, we are having technical difficulties right now. Sid should be joining us in just a moment. My apologies. 4 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, no worries. CARR: Chair Vitousek, this is Stanford Carr. May I respond to the allegations by the woman? VITOUSEK: It's the applicants time; you guys can present whatever you'd like, yeah. CARR: Okay, well, I feel it's appropriate in, in the fact of our reputation and name. You know, we have been in business for 33 years. We've completed over 6,000 units on three islands, over 2.5 billion dollars' worth of communities. We filed this lawsuit in Kualani in 2017. That is an ongoing litigation. Our pursuit of this litigation is to successfuy complete the project, so that woman's allegations is factually incorrect. It has been ltafn since 2017 against our partner for a breach of fiduciary duties, the duty of- - - appearance. Welke very confident we will prevail in this lawsuit: It's our intent to prevail in ths_lawsuit arido=�complete the project, because we have never left a project incomplete ern our history o doing business. VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo. And I just want torotate for the record that thfAtestimony appeared to indicate as though that the Planning Commission as selected==Mr. Carr, afar Tthat's just not how things work; Planning Commissan;has no say it vfil be doing the work: It's just a review of the requested application, s o=jt-:to clarify that„_ I see Mr. Fuke's name is back at the bottom. JACKSON: Chair, itL,looks=like erhas a video but,_tl_ere Vi r a audio`:icon, so he may not be able to hear us. HEAD: Bear with us,plea-a m My sere apologies We are getting there. VITOUSK No worries: [Tecnacal issuecntinues7 Would it make sense at this time to move onto thel ext agenda iteffi me b d coack to this one after you got it all squared away. JACKSON:=Chair, if you wo t4 like to do that, I'm going to move— HEAD: Excuse eltm sorry, here is, we have Sidney. We relocated Mr. Fuke. I apologize for our technical difficulfeT- - VITOUSEK: Okay— ---r HEAD: —we planned for redundancy; this is our backup plan. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. HEAD: Thank you for your patience. 5 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Good morning. Some kind of, it feels like conspiracy against my computer and me,but that's okay. Anyway, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I don't remember like what was said,but I wasn't listening,but I assume that all of the different parties were acknowledged in terms of like who may be participating in this morning's hearing. So, and probably the only new addition,just like the applicant's legal counsel, that's David Major is also on Zoom; he is with the law firm of Bays Lung, Bays Rose Lung &Voss. I'd like to kind of like initially express the applicant's understanding, applicant's appreciation really and understanding of the Commission's decision to defer at the last meeting,because, you know, to, I think you guys were just basically doing your due diligence and you are just doing your job. We appreciated that, we went back with all the additional items, and think as a result, you know, pending the outcome of today's meeting, I think the project* ld be much better, as a result of the deferral and the questions that you've asked. Your letter of December 6 pretty much identified three areas that you,wanted us to address, specifically, the connecter road to the north, the=impacts to police anfire services, the commitment on the workforce housing. Two:other items, however, whhwere discussed - - - which we would like to cover at this point in timnaddition to the first three:_items, were the construction timetable, which the Chair mentioned earlier, arida=also just trying to-kind of like cover also the updated public access accewVan,:requirement-417#liie that there was some discussion on that,but ultimately, there was never 44resolution on it andI think that's still kind of like on the table that probably the Commission would watto have addresed. First, in the area of the needtfor_more olive service y know, subsequent to that meeting I had a meeting with Chief Ferreira.-:And essentially, as, indof=like noted-in the letter, he said that m what's reallyneeded=K�ihis areaot so mucltle=�riew infrastructure new police station, and so on and so forth, is reall _a need for additionalpersonnel. Currently, the department uses— they - have a small little office in the}at-the,fire station, at the Mauna Lani fire station, all it does, essentially des i ne lonl to enable=th—-olicepfficer to kind of write their reports,but it's not considered-like a kobar or_like a station. S-6161-laid that he further noted that in terms of like trying to get additional service, heseesprojects like this, which has the potential to generate so much funds==will help toward =Flike enabling the county to provide funds for more police and fire services. I thnk:,I kind of pointed out that=}you know, in addition to the- - -real property taxes and the fair sharevassessment, which is kind of like made a condition of one of the zone change, in addition to that=the_Council recently passed a 3-percent TAT tax, which begins almost immediately and, younow, this=project goes down the line, with all of the existing condos and hotel units that you see-oerhereis going to be subject automatically to the 3-percent TAT tax, which gets retained right Herein the council and it also doesn't go back, county, it doesn't go back to the to the state unlike the original TAT tax. So, long and short of it, he said that the project will help by providing additional funds, you know, for police and fire protection services. In terms of the estimated construction timetable, I kind of pointed out that— VITOUSEK: Actually, Mr. Fuke, mind if I, mind if I stop you? We can maybe take that kind of item by item, if that's okay with you. 6 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Oh, sure, yeah. VITOUSEK: Right on, thank you. Was there, was there any specific request to the Police Department about the possibility of constructing a substation in that area? FUKE: Yes, I did, and the chief said that it doesn't make sense,because— VITOUSEK: Okay. FUKE: —he wants to like to kind of like centralize,_you kno,wiffiaintaining the existing stations that are in Kona and also like in Waimea, strengthen and enhance those rather than, you know, proliferation of— VITOUSEK: Okay, got you, thank you. I just, it wasn't clear inti e reporting whether that specific conversation had occurred. But, thankyou Okay, please go ahead—unless anyone else has any questions on the police. [No response]Okay, please proceed. FUKE: Okay. The other question that Commissioners hadwraised was about7the-estimated construction timetable. I had a, the:letter that in my response= basically kind of stated the two things, is that—first of all, in terms of:the==mea A area, vvch is the Hilton Grand Vacation, it was just they were just basically relocating t°he=correctly zoned area to this new area called Area A, they were like an existing Area B, so tley arelcld sof like reilifting it—so their timetable is kind of like unknown at this:_point in time;-it's a differe t-differentldeveloper. However, relative = -- 'c =` ot-tkilo^ reallythe applicant's the to the Area B, the Proj_ectDistrYct=zone area�whi h_�sa-y _w, focus, 900 timeshare units =1=kind of pointed out thatth ytantici ate the construction to begin no earlier than 10 years from the-effective date-of zone change, and to at least have 50 percent, at least 450 of these units com pleted�within L5 earsand the balance within an additional 10 years. So ��=�=-� " - � �-�--v��-w��^��'`�� not somethingthat's goingto although you�_dlbe_looking at=a 25-year build-out period, so it's o happen=likeovernigl t=and,,you-°know, it's grad ally kind of like work your way into the project, work your wway into, yeah into the-community. S-o`that's position on the construction timetable. If you have questions on tlidThypu know,and others, I can further amplify on that. VITOUSEK: Fair Commissioners, are there any questions on the construction timetable? =_ FUKE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair? ===J VITOUSEK: I was just asking the Commissioners if there are any questions. [No response] Okay, so,just so that I can understand it, the Area A, which includes the 254 units, as well as the—how many units of single-family? FUKE: Twenty-five. VITOUSEK: Twenty-five? Is there, is there a timetable on the single-family units, or is there no timetable on either of those? 7 EXHIBIT D FUKE: On the entire area-- -no timetable - - - VITOUSEK: Okay, and is there a timetable under the existing permitting that allows for those that's being shifted? FUKE: No, there is no timetable. So basically, what Waikoloa had to do was obligate themselves, obligate themselves to honoring the existing entitlement, to which HGV, Hilton Grand Vacation, was entitled right now, which is their own timetable, so they are just kind of building according to their needs, their demands. VITOUSEK: And for the 900, 900-unit, Area B, we aresigthat they don't intend to start within 10 years? FUKE: They intend to— .VITOUSEK: - - FUKE: Yeah, I'm sorry, I kind of rntpoke, they intend:torcb-egin within a 10-year window. And part of the reason why, like it takes some e, you kno* ecause there is a lot of—you know, the plans that you have before you areeoncepal_they have to,kind of be finetuned so to speak, and then you have to go through the permitting;-yoknow, deainyand permitting process. Just to give you some example:itEterms of how long a projectmlike thiklyou know, can actually, you know, take, is that I had=askedeith Kato = whoisth:._ executiver,director for the Hawaii Island Development Co oation� and they=s ecializeitdog affordable housing, senior housing, so on and so forth. They do have like a rajor projectJiYpe Hilo area off Mohouli Street; as of today it has over 200 units. But he= entioredto_me via erriail that for the first phase, for the first phase for that ro'ect=lit took.them flVe 'ears--to comp Tete And this is like with all the assistance that the Cork Viand eve�-1od:_-else--aa e in terms-of='ulst trying to see it completed. So, so based Coo-TV-id rY �Y�: g _dJ rY g p upon that you know, tli ij ike tfie applicant's understanding that, you know, like 10 years is a relativelyreasonable window==within which to start construction. VITOUSEK: In VITOUSEK: So we'd be talking about starting within 10 years of the effective date of the ordinance, and then within 15 years of that it would be 50% completion approximately, and then another 10 years after that would be the full completion, so looking at a 35-year time period? FUKE: Urn, yes, 35 years, yes, yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay. FUKE: So like, if you look at, for example, like the original entitlement like Waikoloa had in 1977, 78, and subsequent amendments in 1991, and you look_attheir construction schedule, this is almost like 30 years and this—[to Mr. Head] 30 years? HEAD: Forty. FUKE: Forty years—and yet, you still have undeveloped properties,anndso this is the best are normal progress for like a major resort in this-area So it's not like when_you are doing a standalone subdivision or standalone project where you can quickly turn around and get something complete. Notwithstanding that, I think that,you^ gr ow, when we discuss the whole notion about the developer's commitments to workforce lousing, in that you wilt=see that we are tying in the occupancy of any units within this 900 area tothe workforce housing, so, you know, it's obvious that for the developer it makes-every=sense to ki=nd of like have this component get started and get completed quickly,because the faster_they can l ave it completed, then, you know, they are not going tobe=hung up by the workforce housing=condition. But, you know, that's another story, and discuss it, asvwe, you know,discuss that, yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay, sounds good.commissioner=Paishon-Duarte. _ __ _-_- - _= ___ _-_- ___ ___ 'al units PAISHON=DUARTE_..Thank=you -Mr=Fake,, lease restate the total number of residents that are_going to he designated for workforce== =w_ CARR: =:-- FUKE: =FUKE: Sorry,1==didn't mean- HEAD: It's no less tlan_142 units. PAISHON-DUARTE: No=less than 142, and that - - - HEAD: No less than 142 units, and that's, that's the max that the zoning density that exists on that parcel, but the intent is to seek an exemption to potentially have more. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. No less and—one more clarifying question—no less, and then what's your est-what is your likely estimate that you will build out? CARR: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, this is Stanford Can. Let me interject, please, if I may? 9 EXHIBIT D PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure. CARR: Right now we have a tentative site plan to develop 228 units. And we would seek approval of that density through a 201H-38 process. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Are we—anybody have any more questions on the construction timeline, otherwise, we can proceed? Commissioner Yates. YATES: Not so much the timeline, the 200—well, I guess mayb =so the 228 units, you are hoping to complete it within- - - all? CARR: Pardon me? Would you repeat the question, please, Commissioner Yates? YATES: - - -yes, 228 units, you are saying thatill-be built, is thafthetotal number of units and, or is it in increments, and how long, you:know, how long for that? .=_ CARR: So we, it would be one phase, although the b xildingsill be- - - YATES: - - - CARR: - - - incrementally built,but once We stm=t=construction there will be no interruptions to the completion of thero:'ectWe are utiliIing a low-income housing tax credit private activity bond financing and utili4 _ ai FHA HUD 22-L d _4Wermanent financing. So, you know, to be conservative, with resect to the 20=1=H process-tb3hearings thaRITe will have to go through, discretionary approvals the,archaeological inventory survey, the approvals and permitting, we are conservatively commit-Wig to ithin-a five-yea=period, 2026. t the affordable ro riate to move onto VITOUS' K Okay:==l=tfiink, wtrthat it mgltTlie_app p housing=component discuss on of thmatter- - may_- YATES: - -_for all 228 unitsto be compete? CARR: Correct.YAnd_that's an - start commencement of construction, Commissioner Yates. It would take approximately 18A-0:1:---24 months to complete. But we would— YATES: - - - CARR: —we would expect to see occupancies within the first 15 months from the commencement of construction, with site work and vertical construction. YATES: Thank you. CARR: You're very welcome. 10 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, there has been some discussion already,but, Mr. Fuke, would you like to take us through the affordable housing component that's next on your— PUKE: Sure. Yeah, okay, thank you very much. It's a good segue to the workforce housing question inasmuch as some of the Commissioners raised that issue right now. Yeah, it was kind of pointed out that it's not a requirement,but this is something that the developer really wants to do as a long-standing commitment to the community. We have like—as a result of the last meeting you wanted to have perhaps likefa condition essentially to all the developer's commitment, you know, their feet to the fire—so we have a proposed condition that would address that we hope. And if I can ask the staff to—although it as kind of reflected in the letter that I transmit it to your office, to the Commission but if_ frithe screen, then it'll aid the discussion, and it'll go a little bit faster. CAMERO: Yes, Sid, let me just get that up for youMkay? FUKE: Okay, thank you. CAMERO: Can you all see my screen? FUKE: Oh, great. Okay, so, to ans er o h_of, you kno Like Commissioner Yates's question and also Paishon-Duarte's you know,t e f rsl��ection is like okay, this is what the applicant is representing. So we will cause the deverk-merita heworkforce housing project on this property here, Parcel 32,`�`in-accordance w thmutuall agreeable teEms between the Applicant _ =� pry and the CountyOffice o o usin_,and Comrnunit ;w "e relb ii ent."-Just to explain that anytime ,gam:.:_:_ --== ,y��w��= pP Y you have like an agreement,you kzrow, comm the t=to do a housing project, it's always good to have it tied down with-trip,'County Office of Housing, andthat's the first phase. And the second, the second sentence continues,"Thiers shall be;=established in a workforce housing agreement and shall lifeln at rM licant s!tnfrastr etur_e coris action and land conveyance obligations h��_ � and operational corisidefations such,_as tenant income and other eligibility criteria. The applicafas representedand they= ill bear the cost of putting in the road and all of the utilities to the site WIi_oever the developer is going to be, at this point in time the planned developer is Stanford Cal itmay not end uLbeing i but at this point in time it's Stanford Carr, you know, then the 1 d.would be conveyed by Waikoloa Land to either the County or Stanford Carr or nonprofit or whoa ever the C i ty deems it to be the appropriate entity to retain control. The other thing is the opef Pinnal c iii ideration and income and eligibility criteria. This is something that the Office of Housing=rea_lryneeds to nail down in terms of whether it's just going to be income level and other kirds_=of things established. So that's where their agreement comes in. Now the last sentence, this is where like it's really critical, you know, if it incentivizes the developer to kind of get this project off the ground, because this says like it would read, "An occupancy permit for the first workforce housing unit shall be obtained no later than issuance of an occupancy permit for any timeshare unit within the area covered by this ordinance"—"this ordinance"being Project District ordinance. So in other words, before the Project District, you know where the 900 units are actually going to be, can be, can be occupied, then this project, at least the first phase, has to be completed. So, that gives the developer all the, you know, the incentive; it gives, it incentivizes the developer to get this project off the ground as soon as 11 EXHIBIT D possible. So that's the proposed language that we would like to suggest be included as part of the Project District rezoning ordinance. VITOUSEK: Are there any questions from Commissioners? [No response] My question, would you be willing to specify a minimum number of units in the language of that condition? FUKE: I think this would have to be, you know, discussed with the Office of Housing. I'll give you an example, you know, I was kind of thinking about that, because when we talked to Stanford, he was saying like maybe it's going to be hard to do all 142 or 200 units, whatever that number ends up to be, in one- - -, and so I talked to Keith Kato_sand this is, I guess it's, you can make a master plan for all of the area, but pretty much you've=got to phase it in, and so phase— now this is a 182-unit Mohouli project developed by the T t a-i Island Community Development—the first phase consisted of 60 units, ani =teat tool them more than five years to kind of complete, as I mentioned earlier, the seconcfhase was 30nits, and that took him over two years to complete, and the phase three was_92iints that took them=rover three years to complete. So essentially, you know, you are looking at like almost liken=10-year window to construct a 182-unit affordable housing prof ect senior housing,that is. NoR;=fin this situation, what Mr. Carr had mentioned is that, you know, thbyfwouldAilMo have at leas t first component completed like within two or three years„What that etiftRiffiefit is, you know, wh=ether it's going to be like 100 units of 50 units, I have=n idea. So I think° t would be difficult at this point in time to specifically state that you are gongto=have a minimukof 25 units available or whatever. We would like to have that kind of be.cosidered-= =conjunctiowith the Office of Housing agreement. • _ - -- - asin t if we are establishingan VITOUSEK. I hear= ion that,�'adnot knov�rig=the ph g b_ overall minimum wheretou said that the—it's been told to us repeatedly the minimum was, what, 140-something units=? FUKE 0fie-hundred of hforty- vo that's bastion the existing zoning. VITOUSE -_� .Ri ht -- _ -- g _ - called 201H this is FUKE: So, however, as Stanford=shad indicated that, you know, there process as a State law, thatz_sa_provisiorl Section 201H, and basically it allows the County Council to grant zoning exemptions__for aff6rdable housing projects along these lines. So Stanford's plan at this point in time, prelinarils to seek an exemption of that such that they can raise the cap on 142 to whatever that number is. So the 142— VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific— FUKE: Yeah, 142 is largely based on the applicant's representation because that's the existing zoning, and we didn't want to, you know, affect any of the zoning, apply for any zone change in that area. 12 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: And that makes sense that we can't commit to anything that's beyond the existing zoning,but, you know,just for the sake of memorializing it in ordinance, establishing that the minimum of 142 units is the condition of the overall rezoning, with the understanding that the phases of construction of the workforce housing will follow the phases of construction of the Kumu Hou project. FUKE: So, so if that's the case, then if I can ask—Tracie, can you put up the wording again? CAMERO: Yes, sorry, let me get that up there. FUKE: On the workforce housing condition, proposed coed t to CAMERO: Here you go. =_ FUKE: So, if I hear you correctly, what you aresggesting is, generally is that like in the first line, "As represented by the Applicant, the Apgcant shall cause the development of the workforce housing project,"maybe to say, "cats Yre development of ani Ur um 142-workforce housing project." Is that what you are saying? e , VITOUSEK: Yeah, "cause the deveont_of a minimum042-unit workforce housing project." FUKE: Okay, so I think, like I'm listening-go-octing I didt _years—but I'm listening to Ann over here like plann ng eQnsultant, aria=the meat i edFthat if-We-,are going to do a 142-unit at least one fb to=Y�e= et aside f�-==he. a ein t so f would be best if you want project, un1�__, s b;,�s aarWt _man g rnent; to identify a number;= shall cause=the develop-it-Oita a minirrtum of 140-workforce housing project." _ VITOUSBI ==adunds_ ood tO= a Arid aid lwith the~=idea being that, you know, of course, proceed V tlfdoing=e er thing yogi can to ifierease the'density and provide more workforce housing but we don't warityou told =Less workfofce housing. So— PLUNKETT W_e are comfortable with A minimum. VITOUSEK: Okay: FUKE: So, Mr. Plunkettrthe=aplicant, is saying he is comfortable with a minimum of 140, the insertion of, "cause the development of a minimum of 140-workforce housing." VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, I see you've got your hand up. PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. Pardon me if, that I—I know the answer to this, but I'm just going to ask. So please help me understand, once you, say, you are successful and receiving your application is successful today, and you go through construction, who is the final owner, who is the final owner of the workforce development? Is that going to be, is that, who is that conveyed to? So I'm hearing land, the land title will be conveyed and,but who is going to own 13 EXHIBIT D the actual facilities and workforce house, the actual infrastructure upon completion of construction? FUKE: So, like, yes, per, like the agreement with Office of Housing would have, you know, we would identify who the ultimate landowner would be in the project; it would definitely not be Waikoloa Land because they are going to convey. And I suspect it will probably be, can be conveyed to like a nonprofit organization such as like one they have in Waikoloa Village, the rental housing foundation, it would be something similar along this line. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. And as a follow up question how far along are you folks in having preliminary discussions around who will be the ultimae=landowner? FUKE: At this point in time, we preliminarily idenWSrallfoftWarr as being the developer. So if everything goes according to, you know, the des e in-the plan,then once the Council approval is granted but we don't, we can't proceed now= excuse we don't knave,what the County Council is going to do, right—so after the Cou =Council, if hopefully=t ey approve and the language is as such, the first order of business is•=fotthe applicant and Stan=fd and the Office of Housing to get together and work on the agreeme e = PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. = = VITOUSEK: Okay. I guess continuing-at with thVupdate oirtkeiremaining items, the connection? FUKE: Yeah, as farI�mY�e north-4414th th c nn�c�'�=� ��_th sort o e t�onand I ve-got`to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up the issue-°because fyou didn't;Iltep that condition would have probably slipped through the cracks, so, you=know, I=said, you know, I praise you for your diligence in that because it_s iel =_a:north= ouutl=corineet on_is already reflected in the existing ordinance,but that exisf rig audiefali going to e repealed b thesenew sets of ordinance. So the existing ordinanTealready calls far this nort =south connection, and as the staff's report also kind of, you .know, poiyd out like we received lasi_ught, a similar requirement for the connection on the Mauna Lani e dwis also there -- it is ver appropriate to have that condition kind of like included. So weWould like to s ggest a language—and, Tracie, can I rely on you to, request you to put it on the screer?_ CAMERO: Yes, you can: S !Would you like to see the site plan first as well, for the visual output? FUKE: Yeah, okay. Could you— CAMERO: Okay. FUKE: —could you- - - CAMERO: Here it is. 14 EXHIBIT D FUKE: So this the area we are talking about is kind of like J1 and J2 and L2. So you can see Pukala Place, Puakala Place, rather; it's stopped short of the Mauna Lani boundary. So the existing ordinance already provides for a north-south connection, so the idea is, okay, the developer of, or the owner of that property, will be obligated to extend Puakala Place all the way to the property line. And you can see like there is some, there is like an open space, you know, like lava area between this property and Mauna Lani's property and also like the L2 area; so there was also a condition that required that a minimum of lava area be kept, but when that condition was imposed, it was done, you know, without the knowledge or without this commitment to now construct this road through this area, so weare going to be losing, you know, an area that's going to be natural lava. So what we_aresuggesting is that the area that we are losing in the natural lava area, we are going to try toicoorate it within J1, J2 area, but in the event we cannot, then we are going to lead into the 2 FUKE: Under the current zoning,because the zoning was like for a whole bunch of other properties, and Waikoloa was the fee owner and they were the applicant, so they had already designated an easement, you know, from the, for the extension of Puakala Place, and that's the reason why, on the second line, you see like, "within the existing right-of-way easement," because there is an existing easement. So that's the easement that's going to be used or maybe slightly modified to go a little bit north or south, or, not, it's east or west, mauka or makai. VITOUSEK: Right, I mean the question is whether this is adequate in ensuring that the connection will be completed, seeing as there is, there is absolutely no time frame on this project. And— FUKE: Yeah— VITOUSEK: —this existing requirement for the are ;that Area WB i also included under. FUKE: It's a good point, you know, Mr. Char an, it's a good point,beeause Hilton Grand Vacation does not really like happily, doesn't watdoes not want to be constrained by any development, you know, like timetable for this pro etty. So i1 wever, the wi is structured, the condition is structured, should Hilton Grand Vacat e*&b eed with the development of their property and there is no roadway ont e Mauna Lani sideAwell, Hilton Grand Vacation will be obligated to construct that road up to th=propety;line. Alternatively, if Hilton Grand do not have any plans to develop and the properttowribttatthe Mauria=hani side connects to this area, but it said like the last slide="but in any event no laterancompletion of a road on the adjacent property to the north." The,-tli =is an obli ation nOtIoh1y o HiltonfGrand Vacation but something that's goitb be negotiated with Waikoloa Land yeah. VITOUSEK: Right,but I=Mean that= au know fro hour perspective looking at it, these conditions)avelieen_on thein m-'for oV= ear w- ook�_ er��Q=Y d there is no connection, so obviously it appearseas tl�bu h thetesorts dolift4iave an in.celitive to put this connection in place, which is why we v ould like, I th ril a,_moreitnngent condition for the creation of this activity important to ensure that it will be dorferiiid not,lino t continue to float in the air as an incomplete condition of the overallordinance. FUKE: Well, oil-know like, Mr=Chair I thinkpart of the reason whyis that like you have the Y __ _ � road, you know, extended all the= ay to Mauna Lani, and then it's like a road to nowhere, where Mauna Lani has no plan-whatever, then the question then becomes, is it really logical to have that road be extended all tleay to the property line at this point in time when there is no connection? Alternatively, if and when Hilton Grand decides to develop the property, they are going to put in the road, but they don't want to, neither does Waikoloa Land, want to prematurely put in a road and connection. And so even if Hilton Grand Vacation does not put in, you know, has no development plans, so if you have a condition that requires like maybe within five years they put in the road and there is no connection on the Mauna Lani side, what it does then once you put in the road, you preempt the opportunity for Hilton Grand to do appropriate site planning of the area. Because that's why we had to include the provision to say that that right-of-way can be adjusted a little bit, you know, mauka or makai. 16 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: So I think there is a problem here then because of the fact that Hilton Grand is not here at the Planning Commission applying for any of this. Don't you see that as being an issue that— FUKE: Well, I guess, I guess I would ask you this: What is the objective? What is the objective you are trying to reach? VITOUSEK: Connectivity between the two resorts. FUKE: Okay. Does this achieve that? Does this language=aeieve that objective? VITOUSEK: I don't know that it does because it ties=t to~'something with no timetable. So we have that language there now requiring it that's been on the books=since 1991, and there is no connection, so it seems to me that there is an incentive not to have a-connection for some reason. And so if we are to require that connection to:be= ut in place, then we should do it at this time. And, you know, we can work with the neighbor=nependentlyrof this to riake__sure that they are in compliance with their conditions for their zoning= s well,b t that's a separate. issue than this. What we have in front of us is these-appliations, which arecovered by an existing condition to connect to the resort to the north. I don'_ think=that straddlin one of these applications with the burden that should be applied throughout entire ordinance areaTas it currently exists is appropriate; I think that AreasTA and B should share sharetWTobligatioffito,construct that connection tot e north, as is curter t y iri h=�e-zoning ordinance. -_- -= And then lastly— FUKE: VITOUSEK: —lastly, I=would sayt at I think theconditional language needs to be updated to indicate that will be public access that there will be, may not be dedicated to the County of Hawai`i, but that an easement for public access will be granted to the County of Hawai`i so that it won't be heldn._private and gated later on. FUKE: First, you know,first ofiall like if you look at the existing language, the existing language, there is no timetable terms of when that connection has to be constructed in both the existing ordinance applyingto'Waikoloa and also the ordinance applying to Mauna Lani's property. If I can read to you, what the condition really just says, "A roadway connection to the adjacent property to the north shall be provided meeting with the approval of Department of Public Works,"but there is no timetable. What we are proposing here is a specific timetable in a sense that under two circumstance the roadway will be completed: One is that if there is development of property, that roadway has to be completed; two, if there is no development on the property and there is a roadway connection on the opposite side, somebody has got to build that road. And in this case here that somebody is not going to be Hilton Grand but is going to be Waikoloa; that's the agreement that they have internally. 17 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, again, I don't see that as—you know, I hear you and I understand you—but I don't see that as satisfying the need to construct this, given the fact that there is no timetable on that one, and there is no, the condition for Mauna Lani is probably similar where there is no timetable. So, to me, frankly, it's just, you know, this condition as it is has been floating for so long that we need to tie it down and we need to get it completed. FUKE: So, are you- - - VITOUSEK. What's that? FUKE: So do you have specific timetable- - - when theaacshould be completed? VITOUSEK: I think, I think it would be appropriatetotie that timetable to the construction of either or any of the Kumu Hou, same with the grad-able housing whte_that connection should be completed prior to certificate of occupancyforTthe first phases of Kuu Hou. FUKE: So, will you add like one more sentence toAltenlikei="but in any evehto later than completion of a road on the adjacen jroperty to the rith-or==occupancy permit-for any unit within the Kumu Hou project, which-Wetecurs first?" � VITOUSEK. Yeah, I'd be okay with tlaF that s f e =-T FUKE: Okay, PLUNKETT: - - - tiedito;the Project District? = , FUKE: ea PLUNK-ETT: He wants same-language in there. FUKE: Yeah VITOUSEK: Yeah==-it_would be== t'll be tied to the Project District as well, yep. FUKE: Right, yeah, so-tlis_oriewould apply to, again, the new condition to the Project District and in this—well, that will b a-new condition for both rezoning applications, so that's acceptable, Mr. Chair. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Does anybody have anything further on the—and then as we are going,just a housekeeping thing, who is keeping track of the amendments that we are making to these conditions from the County side? JACKSON: Chair, I'm attempting to keep track of them. 18 EXHIBIT D CAMERO: I'm as well, and I think Christian is as well, too. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. And we've got, we've got what we've got so far? KAY: We do. I would make one change, and I think it was related to the workforce housing; it should be a minimum 140-"unit"workforce housing development. And that's just a clarification on the language that was out there. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I know this isn't a discussion thing, but=my only thought about tying this road, it feels like building a bridge that goes nowhere. You_Y:oliElifow, I mean it's an expensive thing to build an extension of a road that may never connect=t anythi g„so—and I understand, Mike, that you want, we want to get it done, I'd like to seeit^get done. Tish there was a road that connected those two resorts now that was functio al and I, I just don't=.anyway, I just wanted to share that thought. ==_- VITOUSEK: No, I hear you, and I just think thatTcreating performance requirement tying it to the construction of the Kumu Hou-that means we are_-co ering our side at this time. We are covering our side of what we can do and ft,preempts what do, so be it,but we have before us the opportunity to require this constructionV_and I think we need to take advantage of that. DEFRANCO: Well, I agree_with you, yourknow, bat tliss money spent, I mean what if you took whatever that cost-as'andfut it to some_- therpartofrcommunit empowerment? I'm just—anyway, it's dust a_resource='m just 10641 3.4t it that way. VITOUSEK: Okay. Anyvother—_we'vegot, the last one I believe was the updated public access plan? FUKE Yes. So again, `=Prate, can request you'to put the language that was discussed by the Commission-and never actedpon as'a �amended version? So Mr. Chairman, I think the underscored=was_the, you knoLLas a result=sof the discussion at the last meeting, then the underscored wheresthe, you know,description of the additional thing that I think has resulted at the discussion thatthe_Commission wanted. So, as it is, the applicant is prepared to accept this as a condition and have applied to all of the three SMA premise that are out there. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioners, any questions on this? [No response] Okay, seeing none—actually, while we are, since we are going back and forth on this, I would like to return briefly to the project timeline, if we could. I just want to see if there is any chance that we can tighten down the project timeline because—and I understand it, the purpose of it, for the zoning requirement of trying to change the zoning now, I get that, that's trying to establish what can be done and re-shifting the units allowable under the existing SMA to make it so they are possible to be constructed, and I get that, creating a Project District, that makes sense, and I don't see the necessity in doing the strict timeline on zoning—but when we are dealing with an SMA permit, we are talking about the assessment of impacts of the project on the current conditions of the 19 EXHIBIT D Special Management Area, meaning how will this project affect the environment now? We can only assess what's happening because we can only identify what's happening in the environment now; we don't know what will be happening in 10 years and 15 and 20. So, to me, allowing for a 10-year grace period before we even start construction is not adequately taking into account the effects of this project on the Special Management Area because we don't know what the conditions will be in 10 years. And I totally understand that a project of this magnitude will take time to complete. The requirements for Plan Approval for permitting for construction, it's going to, it's going to take time. But if we can—so, you know, I'm good with the back end of the, you know, 10 years or 15 years to construct and then another 10 years; that makes sense to me. But, is there a way that we can tighten down the timeline on the fronand to indicate that Plan Approval will be sought within a certain number of years,piOlilliitting within a certain number of years after that, and then commencement of the project wlltfake place within, I don't know, five years. That, to me, would be more adequately considerlii the effects of the Special Management Area. FUKE: Well, I would think like, realisticallyYyu-know, maybe plans-eafbe submitted for Plan Approval maybe within a three- or five-year wa_w—and I assume thaffs because, and, you know, obviously, we have to have like, although afiAIS was=cone, it's prob i11y going to be a need for like a preservation plan to establish clearly tlbffers and all that, so once those design parameters are kind of established, then_tt e7zdeveloper Will-li e in a better position to kind of place buildings, the landscaping, and all that s_tuff=a lobe prepar&f to submit a plan for Plan Approval—so I would think like, you kith*, maybelike a three=_to_five- year window needed to submit for Plan Approvakambwhat you sa iumaybe-secure_a cons action permit within, within a 10-yearperiod? I VITOUSEK: I mean, let's_just tall about actuality, what, what are we actually planning? Is, I mean, are we just entitlement bank n or is there=aetually a plan that Waikoloa has to build this? And what.is=; iiiFjctual p lan., - ==== FUKE-t ill defer to Mr-Piunkettlon_that. I doTiff think they have plans to just entitlement banking,'-epecially since tliehave di-Obligation to do the work by- - - PLUNKETT: VYveah, the way thAt_this works is we, we need the entitlements first, then we will get into the detailedd=planning. D tailed planning, as we warrant here, takes an enormous amount of time, more so thanthan projects that, you know, I've been involved in the mainland. But that's said, the plan is inti atei to bring in a timeshare up. The way these works is that the developer then, then plans yeritles,builds buildings usually one at a time, and then they are taking down over a long period of time as, as these things are sold. Just to give you a point of reference, Hilton Grand Vacation started, we sold them their project back in 2005, and they started—Scott, what year they actually started construction? HEAD: I believe it was 2007, but they are, they are only, they are halfway through the various phases of their development,what's that, 15 years later. 20 EXHIBIT D PLUNKETT: Yeah, they are about halfway through. So it does take a long time. You know, we are comfortable with a tighter timeline so long as there are some tests whereby that we can go into the planning director and say look, this is the progress this project is making and, you know, can you grant an extension, if more time is needed. I can't, I don't have a crystal ball for the market to know exactly when, you know, it'll be brought on. Our first, our first project is to get the entitlements to actually do it. And so, you know,but we do have to have some significant amount of latitude to adjust for the market and adjust for the timelines that's required, Mr. Chairman, to bring the project to operation. VITOUSEK: So, I mean, does it make sense then to—I guess WO, two possible options—does it make sense to proceed with the Change of Zone ordinanceOVand then you come back with the SMA permit when you are ready to discuss to do the-uctua=project? PLUNKETT: These are all joined at the hip, so Ido 't know how=we_could possibly separate them, I mean— VITOUSEK: I mean the issue, one of the issues project go,because that is how we are going to add back into the community all of these benefits that we spoke about. So whether or not we are tying specific language to it, but this is, as I've spoken before about the legacy of our family and what we've done here, the Foundation is that, and the funding will come from Kumu Hou. VITOUSEK: Thank you, yeah, I definitely appreciate that— FUKE: So Mr. Chairman— VITOUSEK: Go ahead. FUKE: If I'm hearing—Mr. Plunkett, correct me if I'mo =know, misspeaking but if you are talking about like a five-year construction commencement and FUKE: Yeah, Mr. Chair, so the idea was to at least make sure that the project gets started, you know, within, you know, a certain window and like a window also for completion. And Mr. Plunkett indicated that would be fine as long as there is an opportunity for administrative time extension, so I have drafted a language and I can initially forward it to thestaff, if my computer works; but basically, it would be something along these lines, "Provided that there are timely agency review and approval of the required plans, construction shell commence within five years of the effective date of the permit, which is the SMA permit, and completion of 50 percent of the units within 15 years of startof instruction. An initial extension of time for the performance conditions within this permit maybe granted by the planning director under the following ken_=s circumstances," and, you know, like three or four, they are litandard language that the Commission is familiar with. So, you know, that would beaeeptable, with the understanding that this construction window would apply to the ProjectDistret area only and not to the area that Hilton Grand Vacation has already been entitled to P = I think I'd like to also kind of point out that, you:-know, in the existinganguage there always is a requirement for the applicant to submit an anrigaReport to the planning ct rector, so that will give not only the department but also that the Commsspn an opportunity to selhow far they progressed or not progressed. VITOUSEK: Yep. Yeah, that makes== ee tto me. The-1 as .thing that I would ask is that we include language indicating, as a condition;b tally indicatig;that—so the possible language I have is, "If applicant requests a change ri the pro-Ned development, including but not limited to an extension of time periodsor=;other conditions requrredpermit approval, the Commission or the director shall consider extent t<o_,-which the:�,ro.-_osed apt o has changed in size, scope, intensity, use, locatio =timing, among other tl in g and/or whether there have been changes in the environment or community where the project Es_located such that the impact of the project would substantially differ==Brom thepotential impactat the time the permit was initially approved. =_=_ _ - the If there has een ehan e in an" ItiT ere claracteristcs_ which mayhave a significant effect, Commis on will asses jwhethermor:41ot to gfaitiSrv,ektension, impose different or additional conditia ;_or rescinded a proval of the permit."-Basically, the language being that if in, let's call it, 10 ears from now wehare,requesting an extension of time to complete the requirements, at that time tl eTlanning Com r%ission will:have to review the impact of the project on the, or the Planning Comr on isjor Director==;will have to review the impact of the project on the environment at that dime, whichay have changed between now and then. FUKE: You know, the initia`oaguage that I just kind of read, the planning director is enabled to give the initial time extens ==but a the 10th year, for example, - - - when it has to go before the Commission, what you are adding is language that the Commission would have to be considering in conjunction with any subsequent time extension— VITOUSEK: Yes— FUKE: —and that will be acceptable, the language— 23 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay. Yeah, that makes sense to me, so the initial five-year administrative time extension, and then after that, if there is a need for an additional time extension, then the Commission would have to review the change in the project based on the conditions that exist at that time— FUKE: - - - VITOUSEK: —meaning that it could be re-conditioned, could be rescinded, whatever that may be at that time. PLUNKETT: Yeah, we understand it's not a rubber stamplo wove understand. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay, so I think we can, we can*-€o Twith County staff to get that language included as condition. KAY: And just to be clear, these are condition-§Wmthe SMA permits. Istat correct? Or just the SMA permit for Area B? FUKE: SMAermit for Area B. 424- e - Y P PLUNKETT: Area B only, that's impoaiit VITOUSEK: Yeah, AreaB`rrb_ecause as I uderstand- 140existing Area A is already covered under the existing SM,l ut-the=;-are relocate _ thelo=eati ials_thafrn ht? PLUNKETT: Yes, correct.,�.We are-just shiftinwe are really just taking their units and shifting rte= across the fairway, that's;that's all care doing IQ make the plan work. are therer-- - diherquestions—so, and as a practical VITOUS`E �Okay'� omissroer_s, an-y matter rrV cell, I guess I'll-IeE play-out—any other questions? If not, can we seek a motion? Commissiaer DeFranco. =_ DEFRANCO:ul=think I attempte =_this before. So I will need help,because we have a lot of—so are we going to do:all six of these=Ynotions at the same time or are we doing each one with specific additions thate've added to them? So let's say,just an idea, so the first one, I move that the application for amendment to Special Management Area Permit number 25 be approved based on the planning directo !s recommendations, which shall be adopted, and in addition, with what motions we, I mean, we've agreed upon here between us—is there something added to that one, that specific one? VITOUSEK: It's a great question. So procedurally, how, how do we take this on? We don't want to close out AMEND SMA 25 until the other ones are issued—was that what I.remember from last time? KERN: Yes, that's correct. We want to- 24 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: So basically, what we want to do is, we want to proceed with agenda items 2 through 6, and then come back to 1, is that right? KERN: From my understanding that is correct. I would say you probably want to start with item number 2 in its completeness because of the amended conditions, especially for the timing factor related to number 2, to my knowledge,because that is Area B. Right? That's been the bulk of the discussion, and then the remainders will have the other conditions outside of the specific timing equation that was the last point of conversation. SCHLUETER: Chair, you do have authority to call the agenda tems out of order, as they make sense here. So I would recommend just calling which agedaitem that you guys decide to focus on first and go from there. VITOUSEK: Let me pull up our agenda real FUKE: Mr. Chairman, so— JACKSON: Chair, Chair Vitousek FUKE: —like item number 2, the SMAthy =ik's my undestanding that in addition to whatever the staff is proposing, if the Co hiss o :ecepts that tlien there would be like two amendments; one would.be-aitamendmenti n the coristruction, yiltiltnow, language that we just talked about, and the other=would_be the Condition5zeratiVto the a dated public access thing. VITOUSEK: Okay, so I think, so going to itern_Zwe can do it one of two ways where the person making the motion:can encs sass_all of tli amendments that have been made to the w -___ = - Wim.... conditions=or= can-which VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates, second, okay, thank you. Now we are into the discussion period, so if any Commissioners have any discussion, if they want to state, you know, their support or opposition at this time, it's allowable. Otherwise, we can proceed with secondary motions to amend the motion on the floor to approve SMA 2001[sic]-4. So, personally, I think that the conditions that we've worked with the applicant to create will serve to mitigate a lot of the adverse effects of the project. I would be willing to support the project with the amendments that we've all discussed already. If that—I guess I can make a motion to amend the motion that's on the floor? And help me out with all of the amendments that we've got. So the first one was— DEFRANCO: Construction? VITOUSEK: The roadway? _ = JACKSON: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Yes. JACKSON: This is Maija. So my understanding was that the roadway connector was just going to be placed in the rezone ordinances. =T VITOUSEK: Correct, correct. JACKSON: So the two conditions-that I showVfor S'MA Permit number 4 related to Area B, which is the 900-unit time-shares, i an initial five year administrative time extension, and then your language that you proposed related to handlingtime extensions before the Commission's and consideration of-chan es=in thesurro ndin environment. I have that in writin • I can show - _ - =- _ 't' nthatapply it to the-06Mmission, need bei=And then the ther condi io may to this is the public-access plan update had'b=een discussed-previously. Those are the two I show. VITOUSEKCorrect, yeah, I=think that's right for the SMA component. So I move to amend the motion on the=Ffloor to incorporate the two amendments that were discussed by Maija. Is that enough detail or dof ue need to read it out? JACKSON: I can put the fang age of both conditions up, once we hear a second, if we do hear a second, so that the Commission can see the actual wording. VITOUSEK: Okay. Y DEFRANCO: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner DeFranco? Okay, second by Commissioner DeFranco. 26 EXHIBIT D JACKSON: Okay. So this is not complete. The initial time extension[starts typing on shared screen]— VITOUSEK: It will be after the initial administrative time extension or—okay, okay, I see what you are doing, never mind. So I guess, yeah,project will construct,be constructed within five years. JACKSON: Sorry about this, my typing skills are not the best[continues typing]. I think that's where you were going for, Chair,but we can use our standard language that we typically use. VITOUSEK: Yep, yes, that sounds good. JACKSON: And we would add this underneath. Sr - VIOTUSEK: Okay. All right, that sounds good goo4foline. And then theirawage that was shown on the screen for the other condition, that one=sgood with me as well JACKSON: Yes, and Tracy can share that with your==This a t'he public acre splan. VIOUSEK: Okay. So those would b e th&amendments being proposed. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, can I, I just wanfed to clarify with staffs=you know, this is in regards to the time extension, so, asIunderstand that=there would be like twoseparate conditions relating to this aspect; one is like e tabl`shi constr ctionstirrietabie_and two would be a separate condition related speer scally to aWextensiolf-kkatiffiay be required. Is that correct? VITOUSEK: That's correctyeahtlat'=s_what ware hoping for. So we had the language that Mr. Fuke.read if d zeatin wha th =construction timetable would be, with the five years to commence the 15 yearsfor 50`percent, anotherIfyears for the remaining, subject to initial administrative time extension frori=t eplanning-director, and then any subsequent applications for an exfesion would trig-04t14e condition to evaluate the project based on the current conditions of tat time. FUKE: Yes, tharikmyou very muga Mr. Chair, and acceptable. VITOUSEK: Okay, we ilwpro&&1 with a roll call vote on the—Oh, Commissioner Yates, yes. Commissioner Yates. YATES: On the- - -part of the amendment, they say"an applicant"or is it—anyway, I'm just wanting to - - - specifically to this applicant or any applicant. Rewording or the re— VITOUSEK: Right, it would be this applicant, it would be to this applicant of this permit, correct. YATES: Okay, so that would be changed because it says, "an applicant." 27 EXHIBIT D KERN: Well, I'll make the correc,tion that the condition would follow with the land; so if the landowner were to change, they would still have to follow all of these conditions, which then at that time that landowner would be the applicant, so to speak, so it covers any, any owner, landowner- - - YATES: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Are we ready to proceed with a roll call vote for the amended, the motion to amend the main motion? Okay. Who is going to tally us? _412::: _ JACKSON: Tracy, are you going to—is your audio worx ryT CAMERO: - - - VITOUSEK: Can't hear you. KERN: Can't hear you, Tracie. You want to come- __,,,±7 :41---1,--= -e VITOUSEK: Oh, there it is, there it z, - - CAMERO: I apologize, I had computerifficulfysome techncaldifficulty. Okay, sorry, so this is on the motion to amendL the first motion. Chair= tousek?== VITOUSEK: Aye. T CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFtanco` W ===1_ - DEFRA O-: CAMERO^=Commissioneranuha?=arr _ KANUHA: Ayye CAMERO: Commissioner PaisiWn-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: AyeLL=ry CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye— CAMERO: Motion passes, five to zero. YATES: —aye. 28 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: At this point I think, if there is not any further discussion, we can take a roll call on the main motion as amended. CAMERO: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. _ CAMERO: That motion asses,fiVe to zero, asWv el VITOUSEK: Thank you:- Shall we-:takeup the zoning ordinance for area B as well at this time? Okay. That is a B enda item,so m === JACKSON: That's item=3 ==w VITOUSEK= That's item 3, okay. So thawis PL-REZ-2021-000005. And that's the creation of Project District==s-there a motionto approve? Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Yeah rymoved,tha a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the applicant='s proposed change of zoning, docket number 2021-000005 based on the planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Is there a second? KANUHA: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Commissioner Kanuha, second. Okay. Again, I feel like these, these conditions will adequately mitigate the impacts of the project, particularly the affordable housing component and the connection to the adjacent areas. I'd like to make a motion to amend the 29 EXHIBIT D motion on the floor to include the conditions that were discussed and agreed on by the applicant, to provide a connection between this project area and the project area to the north. Can we show that language? CAMERO: Yes, allow me share that with you. I did have a question on this one— VITOUSEK: Yes, CAMERO: —I wanted to know if it was "or any unit" or"prior to any unit being built"within the project, or if how it's being shown right now is the correct**. VITOUSEK: I believe we had a certificate of occupancyof` unit within the Kumu Hou project. Is that your understanding, Mr. Fuke? FUKE: That is correct, "prior to the issuance of the-certificate of occupancy for any unit,"that's right, that's - - - - - VITOUSEK: Okay. And then, last, can we incorporate language in here thatidicates that an easement over the road will be granted=n_favor of the County--of Hawaii for public access use? I'm asking the applicant if that is okay=addition to that,alis-condition. FUKE: - - -the easement would be to the:CountT-==for-4_,ublic usek_ VITOUSEK: Yes. PLUNKETT: It'll beva t'll be a privately owned-load, but— VITOUSEK:_2W es- --,, PLUNKETT: —we will rant an-eas=ement for pliblic access across that road. FUKE: So the;short answer toyour questi=on is yes. You know, it would be like any other road within WaikoloaResort, privately owned but publicly used. VITOUSEK: Yes, yepthat's tintention is that it's privately owned and privately maintained but available for use by thpulic. FUKE: That's the intent. HEAD: Correct. VITOUSEK: Okay. Yeah, so if we could add language to that condition, indicating that— JACKSON: Chair Vitousek? 30 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Yes. JACKSON: This is Maija. I just want to point something out. So even if we add that easement requirement to this condition, it would only affect Puakala Place, and Waikoloa Beach Resort [sic] is a, I believe it's a private road. VITOUSEK: Yeah, it—how is it handled throughout the Waikoloa community? Is there already an easement in place for the public access within Waikoloa Road? JACKSON: I don't believe so; I'd have to look into it,but I do=riot believe that there is. DEFRANCO: Mike, I'm having a hard time doing this.,_. itltthis being on the table for all of us to discuss these changes,you know. I, you are askingnow that=this be put in there, and we've not discussed that. We've discussed before. Nowwthi&is being added,_and we didn't discuss this. VITOUSEK: There will be opportunity to discuss absolutely. This is te language that I'm requesting to amend. This is part of my motion.And I don't think there hatbeen a second yet, correct? FUKE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, can I jus akethis a little easier? Rather than saying an easement— VITOUSEK: asement— V EK• Yeah. ITOUS e FUKE: —I can under stand words `atyou kno, se that-- question. How about simple rsta �� _ ��. � justp language like, "Said roadway upon completionshall be available for public use?" VITOUS K e:, absolutel v ould e shoulde eci that it will be privately owned but availablefor -ublic used?==Y FUKE: I=do 't think that'secessary t mean it's there that it's going to be set aside for public and, you know _if there are anYdisputes===you just need to go to the record, like all this discourse that we are in rightvnow- - - ap l cant's intentions are. VITOUSEK: Yeah,the_intentio is not to try to get it to be, you know, convert it to a County road or, you know, to create_aweasement where you don't need one; it's just we are making this road so that people can usei so that it can't be gated, is the only intention. But I think that, if that, if you are comfortable with that language, the "completed it will be available to public use," then I would be also. FUKE: We are, Mr. Chair. VITOUSEK: Okay. So that would be the first of the amendments that I would recommend, and then the second amendment that I would recommend would be the language regarding the completion of the, a minimum of 140 units prior to the certificate of occupancy, which is in my 31 EXHIBIT D opinion okay as written here. So those would be my, that is my motion to amend to include those two conditions. Is there a second so that we can have a discussion? YATES: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates, thank you for the second. Okay, discussion. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I'm still not comfortable with making them put this extension on there. I think it's in the original drawing that the map intends this to happenlYthat area is developed and if Mauna Lani develops the other way. Why have them do song that may not go anywhere? It takes up open space. It costs a lot of money. I meanJSIA-Ifiere another way to look at this? That's how I feel about it. VITOUSEK: Right, I mean these conditions hay been on the book far 3 0-plus years, and they haven't been done so obviously we need, we neeto have this connecfi ib to prevent overuse of the intersections and Queen Ka'ahumanu High v 3 nd allow for the resoftitiaffic to stay within the resort areas. I think it'll decrease the impact o =t e;gei jJiublic. So it part of the— DEFRANCO: Mike, I agree with you- _hose ideas,buift's going nowhere, if there is nobody on the other side that is actualI con eating to—arid ou know, they can't, they are not part of that, so they can't tell us, yes, it v ill_eventuallyconnect_ o-somebody. I mean— VITOUSEK: DEFRANCO: my question is it' like buildrig=_a bridge to nowhere and taking up money and land to do that. I want toc rinect k eprojects, an rn for that, I'm for the connection. VITOUSEK Okay:=-°S_ a mean=tome it's jus Mce you said, handling what we can handle, we have th r ow, and this before us,--ar if we are mandating it that actually happens, I think this is the best ---WW.of doing that. It s_not binding it in advance; it's saying that when they are building their proj eco;=that they have toalso maketlis connection, and then it'll be up to the Planning Department andyou know,potentially our board to work with the property owner next door to ensure that their WO their requirement, which does exist, is also met. DEFRANCO: Wouldn't ha e=the way— KANUHA: Yeah, and, Mike, Mike— DEFRANCO: —wouldn't that be the way to tie it in is when that, you know, with that project, not with— VITOUSEK: It's separate, though, it's separate. We are not reviewing anything from them right now. Commissioner Kanuha. 32 EXHIBIT D KANUHA: Yeah, and I hear what, you know, Commissioner DeFranco is saying but also agree with you, Mike. It has been on the floor, and obviously, it's been there since the 90's. I think just setting up this roadway to there will actually lead into us dealing with the separate property management to have something to be initiate, you know, that corridor in between the two resorts, to alleviate traffic off of Queen K, which is packed and, you know, on our busy season for visitors, such as this last summer and everybody came in, you know there is a lot of traffic moving around, I think it would, you know,mitigate. So I feel what you are trying to do, and I agree with it as well. VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo. Any further discussion'? Okay,w 11 proceed with a roll call vote on the motion to amend. CAMERO: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: [Inaudible aye] CAMERO: Aye? _ VITOUSEK: That was anaaye,Yyea - == CAMERO: Commissioner DeFraneo? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMBR Commissioner Kariul a? KANUHA A e. CAMERO: Cofnhissioner Paislon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUART =_Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. And if there is no further discussion, we can take a roll call vote on the motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the county council, as amended. CAMERO: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. 33 EXHIBIT D CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. = _ CAMERO: Sony. The motion carries, five to zea „ VITOUSEK: Thank you. Moving o to L-SMA-20 00 Q : That is for the-SMA permit to allow for the development of 25 singl ly_residential 1 -_;oh, wait, no, no, no, sorry, 000002, we want to move onto next- Wallow-allow the creiVe19,pment of 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvementswithiaroximatelo= 8.68-acre proportion of Area A. Commissioner DeFrarieo_ry-_ m - DEFRANCO: - - - = WI; e _= VITOUSEK: It's on muteGomnissioner DeFraieo DEFRAN O: Sorry I d like todhake a motioi to_approve. I move that the application for this Special Management Afea permit ntnber 2021-000002 be approved based on the planning director's recommendationM ich shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Is there a second?fls there a-second for the approval? Anybody? KANUHA: [Raises-had to sJ o d] VIOTUSEK: Commissioneranuha, second, thank you. Okay, for this one, I think that—is there any alterations to conditions—the only thing that I could think of would be to include the language about the update to the public access plan. Does that make sense— PAISHON-DUARTE: Chair, can we just review— VITOUSEK: Commissioner- 34 EXHIBIT D PAISHON-DUARTE: —all of the—thank you—can we just review the conditions that are related to this? Is there just one? I can't, I can't recall. VITOUSEK: That the conditions for this permit are represented in the background recommendation report. They are, those were given to us last time. Would it be possible for staff to pull up the list of conditions that we have in place? JACKSON: Yes, I can do that. VITOUSEK: Thank you. JACKSON: Just give me one moment. Okay. And sojuhe clear, this is for the SMA permit to approve the 264 timeshare units. And here ale=le codtions. Commissioner Paishon- Duarte, is there a specific one you are interested inj rdo you want r e to just scroll through slowly? PAISHON-DUARTE: Please scroll slowly, thayou. JACKSON: Okay, let me know if I_ too fast. -_ _= - PAISHON-DUARTE: [Reviewing the== ropes d conditions ik-screen]Please proceed. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you. -Thank_y_ou. Teak you. Thank you. Thank you. JACKSON: That's 4:= ar, PAISHON-DUARTE:'=Thank youery much.= V JACKS ON° =!re el corriWi =mm == VITOUSEK: So the applicability i the.discussed-conditions, I think the only one that would potentiallmyapply is the updatiof the public access plan. CAMERO: Yes;=Iwas just aboutrto mention that, Mr. Chair. Would you like to see that, Commissioner Paton-Duarte?= - PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure VITOUSEK: Shall we take a look at that? PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure, thank you. CAMERO: So the updated public access condition. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. 35 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, I would like to make a motion to include the language just shown indicating there will be an update to the public access plan. PAISHON-DUARTE: I second. VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. Are there any other—oh, Maija. JACKSON: I'm sorry, Chair. Did we get a second on that first motion? VITOUSEK: Yes, Commissioner Kanuha. JACKSON: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, are there any other amendments tobe added? No? Okay, we can proceed with a roll call vote for the secondary motion. _r CAMERO: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. - - CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte?= ==-_ -D ARTS: _ PAISHON U CAMERO: Vice ChairDeFranco-k DEFRANCO: Aye. _ _ _ -_ e_ CAMERA::==Commrssioher Kariuha? == w;,, KANUHA:=Aye. CAMERO: Aria Commissioner=mates? Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. e _ CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Okay, and then we can roll call the main motion. Mahalo. CAMERO: The main motion. Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? 36 EXHIBIT D KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. ivse VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Moving onto item==b no, item that would' =Waikoloa Land Company, PL-SMA-2021-000003. This is for, to allow tl e=development of 25 ih gle-family residential lots and related infrastructure=That's in 7.3-acre proportion of Area A. With this one, if someone would like to make a motion= approve this-4_0u can make the motion to include the language about the public access planrhatwas previously approved so that we don't need to do two motions._Commissioner De ranco. „T = =, =-_=== DEFRANCO: Yeah T motion, I move that theapp -cation for=Special Management Area permit number 2021-000003 be pproved-to and also to include the language that was previously accepted on public access=ion=the,planing director'sfrecommendation which shall be adopted. VITOUS= C-Mahalos_athere a second? PAISHON-DUARTE: [Raises_hand rto second] VIOTUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, second. Any discussion? [No response] Okay, we'll proceed with-t e roll call vote on the motion. CAMERO: Vice Chair D Fra co? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? 37 EXHIBIT D KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATE S: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERON The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Next is the rezoning ordinance;`PLtZ-2021-000004. This is the application for Change of Zone from Open and Mult=Family Residential 8,000 square feet, RM-8, zoning districts to Multiple-Family Residential 6,000 square-feet etcetera, etcetera. This is Area A. Again, we can make a motion and-ter proceed with the amendments to the motion or do it as part of the main motion, whatever yo .efer. Thisone is, we h-aemsome additions so maybe we can make a—or I guess the amendments== ould b = U same for this==as they would for item 3,right? Is that correct? JACKSON: Chair Vitousek, this is Majj-4.-fliblieve you wee n of going to add the workforce housing amendment to this rezone. 1412, VITOUSEK: Is that th iriterif=from the a plicant w _ PLUNKETT: Yes. = e ;Ft FUKE: Mr han�anI bele e~_liketsa kas-Nit reLate s to this property, there will be only like two rezoning amendments=thatWold be tied uto=Athis� one would be the north-south connection as wass-approved for the Project District zoned area, Area A, and the other one is a modification to the open pace ratio. So diose were the two proposed amendments that were articulated earlier and s-a ed with the Coi issiori telative to the workforce housing, that would be peculiar, or apply;=only to the Project District area, which is already approved. VITOUSEK: Okay. kay, so4fcommissioner is comfortable making a motion to include that, go ahead, otherwise, we=eanw DEFRANCO: Just a question, Mike. So, that to include, it would be, it was, one, the connection to the roadway and, two, the modification to open space? Were those the two? VITOUSEK: Yep. DEFRANCO: Okay. Then I'm comfortable making that motion. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. 38 EXHIBIT D DEFRANCO: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for proposed change of the zoning, docket number 2021-000004, that also includes the connectivity of the roadway and also the modification to the open space, as previously discussed, based on the planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Is there a second? KANUHA: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Commissioner Kanuha, second. Any discussa ?m[No response] Okay, let's take a roll call vote. CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. _ _CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAIS HON U CAMERO: Commissioer_Yates?===Y YATES: °e-= = = CAME : And ChairVtQ_usek? VITOUSEK =_y._e. CAMERO: The fil on carriesiltiVe to zero. VITOUSEK: Finishingotarkoloa, we will go back to number 1, and this is the application to amend Special Managemen Ai-ea Use Permit number 25 to withdraw three non-contiguous areas identified as A, B, and C, and also includes the removal of the golf course, the two golf courses, if I'm not mistaken, two and a half. Is there a motion to approve? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I make the motion to approve. I move that the application for amendment to Special Management Area permit number 25 be approved based on the planning director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Is there a second? 39 EXHIBIT D PAISHON-DUARTE: [Raises hand to second] VIOTUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, second. Any discussion? Commissioner Yates. YATES: Is there- - - I don't have, my paper- - - that the motion is. VITOUSEK: I didn't quite catch that. We are having some connection— YATES: Someone could read me what the motion is? ,Arte VITOUSEK: What the motion is? So the motion is to = =- YATES: - - - _ VITOUSEK: —connection- - -the application±is to amend Special Management Area Use Permit 25 to withdraw three non-contiguous landaxeas identified as A, B wand C, comprising the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project, which totls182 acres from the lancea covered under Special Management Area Pere itt:25, which all ied the development of the Waikoloa Beach Resort complex. So basically to=areas that we'veal�jeady approved for SMA permits, they want to take those out of the existing SM =area that thelhave already, so this would be, we just replaced 25 with what we just approved. -- _-__ =- n 4,7,524-7:22:„_ = - = KERN: Housekee i YATES: Okay, thank-you Than146u. VITOUSEKAndsthen in add tioi to-that-Ahe:director has taken the opportunity to work with the ownefo-remove CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. = _ CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. --- - CAMERO: Motion carries, five to zero: _°= _- VITOUSEK: Mahalo. To theapplicant, thank you fo= orking wthus, thank you for allowing us the time to get into_th mount=_of material that w:e7_1 ad _ d_I ho- e we've all worked out a project movin=r orward— ro goodP J g�_ - - -- REPRESENTATIVES: Thank y__o very much- of d= VITOUaSER.=Y—you'llb_e�no 7 BOEDDE ER: Thank you so--much-foryouur cooperation. We appreciate it very much. PLUNKETT:mwe=_appreciate thefime, Planning Commission, and your patience. The hearing ended at 11 =_22 p. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 41 EXHIBIT D