HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-18 Leeward Exh D (Items 3 thru 8) 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, Hawaii, 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, Hawaii, 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, 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- 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) 6-9-008:021, 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, Hawaii, 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,
Hawaii, 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 parry
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 recommreport 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, Hawaii 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
proj ect.
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 Hawaii 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 Lani 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 districtdistance 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
following reasons. As we stated, SMA 25 initially allowed the development of two golf courses
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 Hawaii, 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 JI, J2, and L2. Sub-area JI 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 JI 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 the new 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 5h 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 effective date 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, 1-1 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. Okay, I got a list of
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, Ann Bouslog, Stanford Carr--
FUKE: Mr. Chair, unfortunately Stanford Carr 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
Hawaii, who'll summarize as may be needed the project's compliance with the General Plan
and other infrastructure-related matters. Mr. Stanford Carr, I'mhopefully 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
Hawaii. 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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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
Hawaii.
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 Hawaii Island's economic recoverablerecovery, 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 Hawaii, 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 Commissexcuse 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, projects are 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:
boutCARR: 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 Hawaii,
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 Hawaii 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
Hawaii 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
Hawaii. I, too, have such a deep connection with Hawaii. My very first job was with Ocean
Sports Hawaii 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 Carr 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 Hawaii 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 havingso, 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: Anymore
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
ise[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. Hawaii 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: Why don't I start on this, and I think, maybe Christian, or Sidney, or somebody else
could come up. Requesting three new SMAS, one would be for Area, what we call Ll, 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 AT'
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, JI 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? Sorry. 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 already been built and what's, what's remaining that can be built under that current
unit count. I think I had it written down from staff's 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 Ll, 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 Carr, 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
Carr 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 Hawaii 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 herseM
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 Hawaii, 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. Chairman, 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
Lani, 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 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.
CAMERO: Let me show you the larger conceptual map if you don't mind. I'm going to stop
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 Lani, 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 happyI
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 past was great,
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, Isorry, 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 bassorry, 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 weI'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
Secretary to Boards and Commissions
61
EXHIBIT D