COM 0766.021 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

time, and no objections were raised by them at the time. By the time HDC started construction of the Lowes site in 2001, many more homes had been built in MG and some of the residents were upset that a Lowes was going to be near their homes. In spite of the County of Hawaii's requirements that the roadway from QKH and the planned mid-level road be connected to adjoining projects (see attached documentation related to the MG PUD approval), and in spite of the State DOT's policy of limited access to QKH and their plan to have all the adjoining properties use this access, and in spite of legal obligations allowing use of this lower roadway built on a 60 foot wide County standard roadway lot to dedicable standards, some residents formed a committee called The Concerned Citizens of Malulani Gardens and went to Judge Ronald Ibarra's court to attempt to stop "their" roadway from being used by others. The case was sent into Mediation, overseen by a judge acting as Mediator and attended by Committee members; Lowes personnel; the insurance company which has an $11,000,000 insurance policy assuring access on this lower section of road, now known as Malulani Drive ("MD"); Brian Cook; and HDC. After one and a half days of productive negotiations, the mediation was terminated when the Committee demanded $10,000,000 in damages. The case was sent into binding arbitration, where the Committee and their attorney Michael Matsukawa argued that the road was owned by the Homeowners Association of Malulani Gardens, or that at least the Associations' approval of use by others of the road was required. The judge acting as arbitrator in that case ruled against the Committee and in favor of HDC/Lowes' position, which was that the Kanuha ohana's parcel and the Lowes and KCE parcels all had the right to use that road. The Committee then raised new arguments, saying that use of the road should be restricted to "residential" users only, and not be able to be used by any "commercial" users, and also that the road can not be dedicated to the County without approval by the Association. These matters were sent to a different binding arbitration, and heard by a different judge sitting as arbitrator. This judge also ruled against the Committee's position, and ruled that the road can be used by all and dedicated without the Association's approval, and that the Committee can not interfere with said dedication. The road is now in the process of being dedicated to the County of Hawaii. The road has been completed but is not open as a "through road" yet as the County administration will not allow the barricades to be removed until the traffic signal at Malulani Drive and QKH is complete, a process that has been lengthened by the State DOTH decision to add another northbound lane and widen QKH at Malulani Drive. The County Administration encouraged HDC to work with MG residents to plan the remaining 108 acres of land above Lowes, and HDC held a series of meetings with MG residents in April of 2004 (attended by 32 residents); July of 2004 (attended by 25 residents); and August 2004 (attended by 20 residents). These meetings determined that HDC was not going to get any support for additional commercial land; affordable housing; multi-family housing; or even higher-density middle-income housing from the MG residents attending the meetings, so HDC decided to sell the land to Stanford Carr and myself, acting as SCD Kona 108 LLC (SCD Kona). SCD Kona had meetings with the residents and explained that SCD Kona intended to build a low- density, large-lot subdivision with either a Salvation Army site and a small number of multi-family affordable units or no Salvation Army site but a larger number of multi-family units. Based on a vote taken by MG residents, SCD Kona proceeded to design and plan the KCE project to include a 5-acre Salvation Army site plus 16 units of affordable housing plus 57 large lots, as SCD Kona had agreed to do with MG residents. It appears that many MG residents have changed their position since then, based on the oral and written testimony opposing the project, and based on the petitions asking the Council to deny the re-zoning. In