2020-02-20 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)

Home

So pardon me the subject properties are situated in the North Kona District of Hawaii Island. For reference, we've got Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway running generally north-south through the slide, and Kuakini Highway running below the subject properties here, makai of the subject properties, north-south as well. For further reference, we've got Pualani Estates Subdivision here, mauka of the subject properties, as well as Kahakai Estates Subdivision makai. The existing entitlements in proposed projects for each are as follows: Suffolk Investment, LLC that was approved under Ordinance No. 05-113 approved on August 5, 2005, to change the zoning from Agricultural-5 acres to Multiple-Family Residential-2.5 for 14.872 acres. The applicant originally proposed a 250-unit market rental housing development, a 300-stall parking lot and a one-plus acre park. The applicant is currently proposing to reduce the number of rental units to 226 and intends to develop open space and a passive recreation area on the property. For the parcel mauka of the Suffolk parcel, Ordinance No. 05-115 was approved on August 5, 2005, to change the zoning from Agricultural-5 acres to Neighborhood Commercial for 14.973 acres. The applicant initially proposed to develop a neighborhood commercial shopping center, including a 93,600-square foot complex that would house varied commercial uses, such as financial institutions and office spaces. Also proposed was a 500-plus parking stall parking lot, with appropriate accessibility requirements. The applicant has currently downsized the project by reducing the size of the commercial space from 93,600 square feet to 72,600 square feet. Also included in the current proposal is the inclusion of a transit hub in the form of a public bus transfer station, as well as the addition of 100 multiple-family residential units. So here are the applicant's requests. I'll just leave them up on the screen here. The Chair already kind of mentioned what they were. I need to apologize; we had two planners working on different applications, so the language of the conditions as they were in your reports are somewhat different. In reality, most of the conditions that are being requested to change are the same, with the exception of, in the case of Suffolk Investment, LLC, is Condition D deleting the rental housing restriction, which essentially said rental housing would be provided for 20 years, and then for Puaa Investment's, it was Condition Y, which deleted the condition relating to a housing requirement tied to commercial construction, essentially saying that a certain portion of housing would need to be completed prior to receiving occupancy for any of the commercial portion. With the exception of those, the other conditions that are being requested to amend are essentially the same. The applicants' reasons for the requests are, according to the applicant, one of the reasons for not completing the projects within a timely manner is that due to the global economic meltdown that occurred over a decade ago, securing the required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented was too difficult to obtain, and thus they decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses of the properties and exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current economic outlook is amenable, however time is still needed for the applicant to, applicants to address the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the required financing. According to the applicants, they have worked on compliance for several conditions, including the conveyance of a five-acre school site for a future school as 3 EXHIBIT D