The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-12-16 Leeward Exh D (Items 1 thru 6) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 16, 2021 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the applications of WAIKOLOA LAND COMPANY (AMEND SMA 25, PL-SMA-2021-000004, PL-REZ-2021-000005, PL-SMA-2021-000002, PL-SMA-2021-000003, and PL-REZ-2021-000004) was called to order at 10:07 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Barbara DeFranco, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Faith"Faye" Yates 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) Application 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. 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- EXHIBIT D 8,000 square feet(RM-8) and Village Commercial-10,000 square feet(CV-10) zoning districts to a Project District zoning district for 133.822 acres of land identified as "Area B" of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, 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.). Secretary's Note: "- - -" indicates indiscernible words due to disrupted Internet connection, background noise, or simultaneous talk. VITOUSEK: Continuing on with Unfinished Business, the Commission will take up Agenda Items 1 through—and at this time our public testifies can drop off the meeting and continue to view on the YouTube live stream, mahalocontinuing on with Unfinished Business, the Commission will take up Agenda Items 1 through 6 simultaneously. For all six of these the applicant is Waikoloa Land Company, and these six applications—I'll just read through them real quick. 2 EXHIBIT D Application 1 is to amend SMA Permit 25, to withdraw three non-contiguous land areas identified as Areas A, B, and C comprising the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project, which totals approximately 182 acres from the land area covered under existing SMA 25, which allowed the development of the Waikoloa Resort complex. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, makai of the highway and mauka of the King's Highway Foot Trail, Ahupua`a of`Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii. TMK are 6-9-008:013 portion of, 021, 022, 025, 027, 028, 029, 031, and 033. Applicant is also seeking application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 900 multi-family timeshare units, community resort facilities, golf support facilities, public parks, paths, related improvements within approximately 133.8 acres of the Kumu Hou project area, which is in the same location previously described. The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone ordinance from Open and Multi-Family Residential- 4,000 square feet, Multi-Family Residential-6,000 square feet, Multi-Family Residential-8,000 square feet, and Village Commercial-10,000 square feet zoning districts to a Project District zoning for that 133.822 acres identified as Area B. Again, same location. Applicant is also seeking a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of an additional 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvements within approximately 38.6-acre portion of Area A within the proposed Kumu Hou project at Waikoloa. Same location as described. Applicant is also seeking a special management area use permit to allow the development of 25 single-family residential lots and related infrastructure improvements within a portion of land within approximately 7.3 acres portion of Area A of the Kumu Hou project in the same location. Applicant is also seeking a Change of Zone from Open and Multi-Family Residential-8,000 square feet zoning districts to Multi-Family Residential-6,000 square feet, Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet zoning districts for 45.932 acres of land identified as Area A of the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project. This is a continued from, hearing from last month. The initial hearing was November 181'. The Commission voted to defer its decision on all six applications so that the applicant could provide the condition with additional information, specifically on a connector road to the properties to the north, analysis of the impacts of police and fire, the timing of the workforce housing component and the overall construction timetable. CAMPBELL: Chair Vitousek, if I could jump in and interrupt for one moment? VITOUSEK: Yes, sorry,please go ahead. CAMPBELL: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners, this is Jean Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel, representing the Planning Department. I see that Mr. David Major is here with us today, and I understand that he is involved with the, with this Waikoloa Land Kumu Hou 3 EXHIBIT D matter, your Agenda Items 1 through 6, in some sort of capacity. In an abundance of caution, I'd like to let everybody know that prior to joining the Corporation Counsel's Office I worked at Mr. Major's law firm. I did not work on this matter in any capacity at the firm, and as Deputy Corporation Counsel, as you know, representing the Planning Department, I am not a decision maker here; so there is no actual conflict. But I did want to put our prior relationship on the record just so everybody knows. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Kanuha was not present at the last meeting, so before we get started, I'd like to ask him whether he has been able to review all the materials and is ready to participate in this continued hearing. KANUHA: Yes, I've had a chance to go over a majority of the material that's been sent, watched over that meeting that was a long meeting that last meeting that we had. Looks like this one will be pretty long as well. So, yeah, I definitely, I feel comfortable and confident in asking some questions, and, yes, let's move forward. VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo, mahalo, appreciate it. The applicant's consultant has given us some additional information in a letter dated December 1, 2021. Unless the commissioners need to see the staff presentation again, I'd like to begin by asking Mr. Fuke to summarize or expound on the information. Does anybody feel staff presentation is necessary at this point? [No response] Okay. With that, I would like to swear in the applicant and their representatives. Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Leeward Planning Commission? BOEDDEKER: I do. [Inaudible affirmative response from the other representatives.] VITOUSEK: Mahalo. And I'll just read off the list of the representatives. And before speaking, please just state your name and the town that you live in. Representing Waikoloa Land, we have Mr. Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant, we have Mr. John Plunkett, Waikoloa Land, Scott Head, Waikoloa Resorts Association, Waikoloa Resorts, sorry. Ann Bouslog, Cary Boeddeker, Stanford Carr, David Major, and Bruce Voss [Mr. Voss was not on Zoom]. Okay, I'll turn it over to the applicant. If you'd like to present any additional information stemming from the, the letter that was presented. [No response] Mr. Fuke? Are you available? MAJOR: I think Mr. Fuke might have disconnected from the call accidentally. VITOUSEK: Dropped off, okay. We'll just give him some time MAJOR: a minute to get him back. VITOUSEK: Okay, yeah. HEAD: Chair Vitousek, unfortunately, we are having technical difficulties right now. Sid should be joining us in just a moment. My apologies. 4 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, no worries. CARR: Chair Vitousek, this is Stanford Carr. May I respond to the allegations by the woman? VITOUSEK: It's the applicants time; you guys can present whatever you'd like, yeah. CARR: Okay, well, I feel it's appropriate in, in the fact of our reputation and name. You know, we have been in business for 33 years. We've completed over 6,000 units on three islands, over 2.5 billion dollars' worth of communities. We filed this lawsuit in Kualani in 2017. That is an ongoing litigation. Our pursuit of this litigation is to successfully complete the project, so that woman's allegations is factually incorrect. It has been litigation since 2017 against our partner for a breach of fiduciary duties, the duty of- - - appearance. We are very confident we will prevail in this lawsuit. It's our intent to prevail in this lawsuit and to complete the project, because we have never left a project incomplete ever in our history of doing business. VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo. And I just want to state for the record that that testimony appeared to indicate as though that the Planning Commission has selected Mr. Carr, and that's just not how things work; Planning Commission has no say in who will be doing the work. It's just a review of the requested application, so,just to clarify that. I see Mr. Fuke's name is back at the bottom. JACKSON: Chair, it looks like he has a video but there is no audio icon, so he may not be able to hear us. HEAD: Bear with us,please. My sincere apologies. We are getting there. VITOUSEK: No worries. [Technical issue continues] Would it make sense at this time to move onto the next agenda item and come back to this one after you got it all squared away? JACKSON: Chair, if you would like to do that, I'm going to move HEAD: Excuse me, I'm sorry, here is, we have Sidney. We relocated Mr. Fuke. I apologize for our technical difficulties VITOUSEK: Okay HEAD: we planned for redundancy; this is our backup plan. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. HEAD: Thank you for your patience. 5 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Good morning. Some kind of, it feels like conspiracy against my computer and me, but that's okay. Anyway, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I don't remember like what was said, but I wasn't listening, but I assume that all of the different parties were acknowledged in terms of like who may be participating in this morning's hearing. So, and probably the only new addition,just like the applicant's legal counsel, that's David Major is also on Zoom; he is with the law firm of Bays Lung, Bays Rose Lung & Voss. I'd like to kind of like initially express the applicant's understanding, applicant's appreciation really and understanding of the Commission's decision to defer at the last meeting, because, you know, to, I think you guys were just basically doing your due diligence and you are just doing your job. We appreciated that, we went back with all the additional items, and I think as a result, you know, pending the outcome of today's meeting, I think the project would be much better, as a result of the deferral and the questions that you've asked. Your letter of December 6 pretty much identified three areas that you wanted us to address, specifically, the connecter road to the north, the impacts to police and fire services, the commitment on the workforce housing. Two other items, however, which were discussed - - - which we would like to cover at this point in time in addition to the first three items, were the construction timetable, which the Chair mentioned earlier, and also just trying to kind of like cover also the updated public access plan requirement. I think that there was some discussion on that, but ultimately, there was never any resolution on it, and I think that's still kind of like on the table that probably the Commission would want to have addressed. First, in the area of the need for more police service, you know, subsequent to that meeting I had a meeting with Chief Ferreira. And essentially, as kind of like noted in the letter, he said that what's really needed in this area is not so much like new infrastructure, new police station, and so on and so forth, is really a need for additional personnel. Currently, the department uses they have a small little office in the, at the fire station, at the Mauna Lani fire station, all it does, essentially designed only to enable the police officers to kind of write their reports, but it's not considered like a koban or like a station. So he said that he further noted that in terms of like trying to get additional service, he sees projects like this, which has the potential to generate so much funds, will help towards like enabling the county to provide funds for more police and fire services. I think I kind of pointed out that, you know, in addition to the - - -real property taxes and the fair share assessment, which is kind of like made a condition of one of the zone change, in addition to that, the Council recently passed a 3-percent TAT tax, which begins almost immediately and, you know, this project goes down the line, with all of the existing condos and hotel units that you see over here is going to be subject automatically to the 3-percent TAT tax, which gets retained right here in the council and it also doesn't go back, county, it doesn't go back to the to the state unlike the original TAT tax. So, long and short of it, he said that the project will help by providing additional funds, you know, for police and fire protection services. In terms of the estimated construction timetable, I kind of pointed out that VITOUSEK: Actually, Mr. Fuke, mind if I, mind if I stop you? We can maybe take that kind of item by item, if that's okay with you. 6 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Oh, sure, yeah. VITOUSEK: Right on, thank you. Was there, was there any specific request to the Police Department about the possibility of constructing a substation in that area? FUKE: Yes, I did, and the chief said that it doesn't make sense, because VITOUSEK: Okay. FUKE: he wants to like to kind of like centralize, you know, maintaining the existing stations that are in Kona and also like in Waimea, strengthen and enhance those rather than, you know, proliferation of VITOUSEK: Okay, got you, thank you. I just, it wasn't clear in the reporting whether that specific conversation had occurred. But, thank you. Okay, please go ahead unless anyone else has any questions on the police. [No response] Okay, please proceed. FUKE: Okay. The other question that Commissioners had raised was about the estimated construction timetable. I had a, the letter that in my response basically kind of stated the two things, is that—first of all, in terms of the Area A area, which is the Hilton Grand Vacation, it was just they were just basically relocating the correctly zoned area to this new area called Area A, they were like an existing Area B, so they are kind of like re-shifting it—so their timetable is kind of like unknown at this point in time; it's a different, different developer. However, relative to the Area B, the Project District zone area, which is, you know, really the applicant's focus, the 900 timeshare units, I kind of pointed out that they anticipate the construction to begin no earlier than 10 years from the effective date of zone change, and to at least have 50 percent, at least 450 of these units, completed within 15 years and the balance within an additional 10 years. So although you'd be looking at a 25-year build-out period, so it's not something that's going to happen like overnight and, you know, it's gradually kind of like work your way into the project, work your way into, yeah, into the community. So that's position on the construction timetable. If you have questions on that, you know, and others, I can further amplify on that. VITOUSEK: Fair enough. Commissioners, are there any questions on the construction timetable? FUKE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair? VITOUSEK: I was just asking the Commissioners if there are any questions. [No response] Okay, so,just so that I can understand it, the Area A, which includes the 254 units, as well as the—how many units of single-family? FUKE: Twenty-five. VITOUSEK: Twenty-five? Is there, is there a timetable on the single-family units, or is there no timetable on either of those? 7 EXHIBIT D FUKE: On the entire area- - -no timetable - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: Okay, and is there a timetable under the existing permitting that allows for those that's being shifted? FUKE: No, there is no timetable. So basically, what Waikoloa had to do was obligate themselves, obligate themselves to honoring the existing entitlement, to which HGV, Hilton Grand Vacation, was entitled right now, which is their own timetable, so they are just kind of building according to their needs, their demands. VITOUSEK: And for the 900, 900-unit, Area B,we are saying that they don't intend to start within 10 years? FUKE: They intend to VITOUSEK: - - - FUKE: - -FUKE: Yeah, I'm sorry, I kind of misspoke, they intend to begin within a 10-year window. And part of the reason why, like it takes some time, you know, because there is a lot of—you know, the plans that you have before you are conceptual;they have to kind of be finetuned so to speak, and then you have to go through the permitting, you know, design and permitting process. Just to give you some example in terms of how long a project like this, you know, can actually, you know, take, is that I had asked Keith Kato who is the executive director for the Hawaii Island Development Corporation, and they specialize in doing affordable housing, senior housing, so on and so forth. They do have like a major project in the Hilo area off Mohouli Street; as of today it has over 200 units. But he mentioned to me via email that for the first phase, for the first phase for that project, it took them five years to complete. And this is like with all the assistance that the County and everybody else gave in terms of just trying to see it completed. So, so based upon that, you know, this is like the applicant's understanding that, you know, like 10 years is a relatively reasonable window within which to start construction. VITOUSEK: In that example it took five years to complete; what do you mean by complete? FUKE: When the time to get the funding, get the required permits, and get the first phase of a three-phase project completed and occupied. VITOUSEK: Built? So five years FUKE: Correct. VITOUSEK: to build the first phase, okay. Okay FUKE: Yeah. 8 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: So we'd be talking about starting within 10 years of the effective date of the ordinance, and then within 15 years of that it would be 50% completion approximately, and then another 10 years after that would be the full completion, so looking at a 35-year time period? FUKE: Um, yes, 35 years, yes, yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay. FUKE: So like, if you look at, for example, like the original entitlement like Waikoloa had in 1977, 78, and subsequent amendments in 1991, and you look at their construction schedule, this is almost like 30 years and this—[to Mr. Head] 30 years? HEAD: Forty. FUKE: Forty years—and yet, you still have undeveloped properties, and so this is the best are normal progress for like a major resort in this area. So it's not like when you are doing a standalone subdivision or standalone project where you can quickly turn around and get something complete. Notwithstanding that, I think that, you know, when we discuss the whole notion about the developer's commitments to workforce housing, in that you will see that we are tying in the occupancy of any units within this 900 area to the workforce housing, so, you know, it's obvious that for the developer it makes every sense to kind of like have this component get started and get completed quickly, because the faster they can have it completed, then, you know, they are not going to be hung up by the workforce housing condition. But, you know, that's another story, and we can discuss it, as we, you know, discuss that, yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay, sounds good. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, please restate the total number of residential units that are going to be designated for workforce. CARR: - - - FUKE: - -FUKE: Sorry, I didn't mean - - - HEAD: - -HEAD: It's no less than 142 units. PAISHON-DUARTE: No less than 142, and that- - - HEAD: - -HEAD: No less than 142 units, and that's, that's the max that the zoning density that exists on that parcel, but the intent is to seek an exemption to potentially have more. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. No less and—one more clarifying question no less, and then what's your est-what is your likely estimate that you will build out? CARR: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, this is Stanford Carr. Let me interject, please, if I may? 9 EXHIBIT D PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure. CARR: Right now we have a tentative site plan to develop 228 units. And we would seek approval of that density through a 201H-38 process. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Are we—anybody have any more questions on the construction timeline, otherwise, we can proceed? Commissioner Yates. YATES: Not so much the timeline, the 200—well, I guess maybe—so the 228 units, you are hoping to complete it within - - - all? CARR: Pardon me? Would you repeat the question, please, Commissioner Yates? YATES: - - -yes, 228 units, you are saying that will be built, is that the total number of units and, or is it in increments, and how long, you know, how long for that? CARR: So we, it would be one phase, although the buildings will be - - - YATES: - -YATES: - - -CARR: - - - incrementally built, but once we start construction, there will be no interruptions to the completion of the project. We are utilizing a low-income housing tax credit private activity bond financing and utilizing an FHA HUD 221(d)(4)permanent financing. So, you know, to be conservative, with respect to the 201H process the hearings that we will have to go through, discretionary approvals, the archaeological inventory survey, the approvals and permitting, we are conservatively committing to within a five-year period, 2026. VITOUSEK: Okay. I think, with that, it might be appropriate to move onto the affordable housing component discussion of the matter- - - YATES: - -YATES: - - - for all 228 units to be complete? CARR: Correct. And that's an - - - start commencement of construction, Commissioner Yates. It would take approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. But we would YATES: - - - CARR: - -CARR: we would expect to see occupancies within the first 15 months from the commencement of construction, with site work and vertical construction. YATES: Thank you. CARR: You're very welcome. 10 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, there has been some discussion already, but, Mr. Fuke, would you like to take us through the affordable housing component that's next on your FUKE: Sure. Yeah, okay, thank you very much. It's a good segue to the workforce housing question inasmuch as some of the Commissioners raised that issue right now. Yeah, it was kind of pointed out that it's not a requirement, but this is something that the developer really wants to do as a long-standing commitment to the community. We have like—as a result of the last meeting you wanted to have perhaps like a condition essentially to all the developer's commitment, you know, their feet to the fire—so we have a proposed condition that would address that we hope. And if I can ask the staff to—although it was kind of reflected in the letter that I transmit it to your office, to the Commission but if it's on the screen, then it'll aid the discussion, and it'll go a little bit faster. CAMERO: Yes, Sid, let me just get that up for you, okay? FUKE: Okay, thank you. CAMERO: Can you all see my screen? FUKE: Oh, great. Okay, so, to answer both of, you know, like Commissioner Yates's question and also Paishon-Duarte's, you know, the first section is like, okay, this is what the applicant is representing. So we will cause the development of the workforce housing project on this property here, Parcel 32, "in accordance with mutually agreeable terms between the Applicant and the County Office of Housing and Community Development." Just to explain that anytime you have like an agreement, you know, commitment to do a housing project, it's always good to have it tied down with the County Office of Housing, and that's the first phase. And the second, the second sentence continues, "The terms shall be established in a workforce housing agreement and shall include the Applicant's infrastructure construction and land conveyance obligations and operational considerations such as tenant income and other eligibility criteria." The applicant has represented, and they will bear the cost of putting in the road and all of the utilities to the site. Whoever the developer is going to be, at this point in time the planned developer is Stanford Carr, it may not end up being him, but at this point in time it's Stanford Carr, you know, then the land would be conveyed by Waikoloa Land to either the County or Stanford Carr or nonprofit or whomever the County deems it to be the appropriate entity to retain control. The other thing is the operational consideration and income and eligibility criteria. This is something that the Office of Housing really needs to nail down in terms of whether it's just going to be income level and other kinds of things established. So that's where their agreement comes in. Now the last sentence, this is where like it's really critical, you know, if it incentivizes the developer to kind of get this project off the ground, because this says like it would read, "An occupancy permit for the first workforce housing unit shall be obtained no later than issuance of an occupancy permit for any timeshare unit within the area covered by this ordinance"—"this ordinance"being Project District ordinance. So in other words, before the Project District, you know where the 900 units are actually going to be, can be, can be occupied, then this project, at least the first phase, has to be completed. So, that gives the developer all the, you know, the incentive; it gives, it incentivizes the developer to get this project off the ground as soon as 11 EXHIBIT D possible. So that's the proposed language that we would like to suggest be included as part of the Project District rezoning ordinance. VITOUSEK: Are there any questions from Commissioners? [No response] My question, would you be willing to specify a minimum number of units in the language of that condition? FUKE: I think this would have to be, you know, discussed with the Office of Housing. I'll give you an example, you know, I was kind of thinking about that, because when we talked to Stanford, he was saying like maybe it's going to be hard to do all 142 or 200 units, whatever that number ends up to be, in one - - -, and so I talked to Keith Kato, and this is, I guess it's, you can make a master plan for all of the area, but pretty much you've got to phase it in, and so phase now this is a 182-unit Mohouli project developed by the Hawaii Island Community Development—the first phase consisted of 60 units, and that took them more than five years to kind of complete, as I mentioned earlier, the second phase was 30 units, and that took him over two years to complete, and the phase three was 92 units that took them over three years to complete. So essentially, you know, you are looking at like almost like a 10-year window to construct a 182-unit affordable housing project, senior housing that is. Now, in this situation, what Mr. Carr had mentioned is that, you know, they would like to have at least first component completed like within two or three years. What that component is, you know, whether it's going to be like 100 units of 50 units, I have no idea. So I think it would be difficult at this point in time to specifically state that you are going to have a minimum of 25 units available or whatever. We would like to have that kind of be considered in conjunction with the Office of Housing agreement. VITOUSEK: I hear you on that, and not knowing the phasing but if we are establishing an overall minimum where you said that the—it's been told to us repeatedly the minimum was, what, 140-something units? FUKE: One hundred and forty-two, that's based on the existing zoning. VITOUSEK: Right. FUKE: So, however, as Stanford had indicated that, you know, there is this process called 201H as a State law, that's a provision in Section 201H, and basically it allows the County Council to grant zoning exemptions for affordable housing projects along these lines. So Stanford's plan at this point in time,preliminarily, is to seek an exemption of that such that they can raise the cap on 142 to whatever that number is. So the 142 VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific FUKE: Yeah, 142 is largely based on the applicant's representation because that's the existing zoning, and we didn't want to, you know, affect any of the zoning, apply for any zone change in that area. 12 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: And that makes sense that we can't commit to anything that's beyond the existing zoning, but, you know,just for the sake of memorializing it in ordinance, establishing that the minimum of 142 units is the condition of the overall rezoning, with the understanding that the phases of construction of the workforce housing will follow the phases of construction of the Kumu Hou project. FUKE: So, so if that's the case, then if I can askTracie, can you put up the wording again? CAMERO: Yes, sorry, let me get that up there. FUKE: On the workforce housing condition, proposed condition. CAMERO: Here you go. FUKE: So, if I hear you correctly, what you are suggesting is, generally, is that like in the first line, "As represented by the Applicant, the Applicant shall cause the development of the workforce housing project," maybe to say, "cause the development of a minimum 142-workforce housing project." Is that what you are saying? VITOUSEK: Yeah, "cause the development of a minimum 142-unit workforce housing project." FUKE: Okay, so I think, like I'm listening—good thing I did two years but I'm listening to Ann over here like planning consultant, and she mentioned that if we are going to do a 142-unit project, at least one unit has to be set aside for the management, so it would be best if you want to identify a number, "shall cause the development of a minimum of 140-workforce housing project." VITOUSEK: Sounds good to me. And, and with the idea being that, you know, of course, proceed with doing everything you can to increase the density and provide more workforce housing, but we don't want you to do less workforce housing. So PLUNKETT: We are comfortable with the minimum. VITOUSEK: Okay. FUKE: So, Mr. Plunkett, the applicant, is saying he is comfortable with a minimum of 140, the insertion of, "cause the development of a minimum of 140-workforce housing." VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, I see you've got your hand up. PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. Pardon me if, that II know the answer to this, but I'm just going to ask. So please help me understand, once you, say, you are successful and receiving your application is successful today, and you go through construction, who is the final owner, who is the final owner of the workforce development? Is that going to be, is that, who is that conveyed to? So I'm hearing land, the land title will be conveyed and, but who is going to own 13 EXHIBIT D the actual facilities and workforce house, the actual infrastructure upon completion of construction? FUKE: So, like, yes, per, like the agreement with Office of Housing would have, you know, we would identify who the ultimate landowner would be in the project; it would definitely not be Waikoloa Land because they are going to convey. And I suspect it will probably be, can be conveyed to like a nonprofit organization such as like one they have in Waikoloa Village, the rental housing foundation, it would be something similar along this line. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. And as a follow up question, how far along are you folks in having preliminary discussions around who will be the ultimate landowner? FUKE: At this point in time, we preliminarily identify Stanford Carr as being the developer. So if everything goes according to, you know, the desire in the plan, then once the Council approval is granted but we don't, we can't proceed now because we don't know what the County Council is going to do, right—so after the County Council, if hopefully they approve and the language is as such, the first order of business is for the applicant and Stanford and the Office of Housing to get together and work on the agreement. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay. I guess continuing on with the update on the remaining items, the connection? FUKE: Yeah, as far as the north-south connection—and I've got to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up the issue, because if you didn't, then that condition would have probably slipped through the cracks, so, you know, as I said, you know, I praise you for your diligence in that because it's already, a north-south connection is already reflected in the existing ordinance, but that existing audience is going to be repealed by these new sets of ordinance. So the existing ordinance already calls for this north-south connection, and as the staff's report also kind of, you know, pointed out like we received last night, a similar requirement for the connection on the Mauna Lani end is also there, so it is very appropriate to have that condition kind of like included. So we would like to suggest a language—and, Tracie, can I rely on you to, request you to put it on the screen? CAMERO: Yes, you can. Sid, would you like to see the site plan first as well, for the visual output? FUKE: Yeah, okay. Could you CAMERO: Okay. FUKE: —could you- - - CAMERO: Here it is. 14 EXHIBIT D FUKE: So this the area we are talking about is kind of like JI and J2 and L2. So you can see Pukala Place, Puakala Place, rather; it's stopped short of the Mauna Lani boundary. So the existing ordinance already provides for a north-south connection, so the idea is, okay, the developer of, or the owner of that property, will be obligated to extend Puakala Place all the way to the property line. And you can see like there is some, there is like an open space, you know, like lava area between this property and Mauna Lani's property and also like the L2 area; so there was also a condition that required that a minimum of lava area be kept, but when that condition was imposed, it was done, you know, without the knowledge or without this commitment to now construct this road through this area, so we are going to be losing, you know, an area that's going to be natural lava. So what we are suggesting is that the area that we are losing in the natural lava area, we are going to try to incorporate it within JI, J2 area, but in the event we cannot, then we are going to lead into the L2 area. So definitely, we will maintain essentially the concept of a lava barrier between the Mauna Lani area and the Waikoloa project. So now, Tracie, can you put up the language then? So it would read as follows: "Puakala Place shall be extended to the adjacent property to the north within the existing right-of-way easement, which may be adjusted to accommodate topographic or development requirements. This minimum resort standard road shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and in conjunction with any development within the area requiring access from Puakala Place, but in any event no later than completion of a road on the adjacent property to the north." So what this means is that, you know, if this area gets developed by Hilton Grand Vacation, then they are obligated to construct the road all the way to the property line; on the other hand, if Hilton Grand Vacation does not develop the property but there is a road come in on the side, then someone is going to be obligated to construct that road even there is no development of the Hilton Grand Vacation property. So that's how this condition is written; one way or the other, that road will be constructed. Now, because of the loss of the land area as a result of, you know, having to construct this road that, you know, was overlooked—Tracie, can you go to the other condition? So what we are now saying is that now, you know, after, you know, based on that, then, Ann and her people went back again to kind of recalculate the minimum acreage, so it was reduced by, what, two or three acres, so it says, "+/-nine acres (including a minimum of six acres of natural lava,which may include portions of the RS-10 zoned area) shall be set aside for open space as natural or re-naturalized lava, as conceptually represented in the Applicant's conceptual plans." So the underscored areas are all of the new language. So again, this, this is designed primarily because of the changes we've had to make to the other condition about punching the road through. VITOUSEK: Can we go back to the previous slide? Thank you. So this is being attached only to one of the rezone applications, is that correct? FUKE: Yes, this, this would apply to Area A, the Hilton Grand Vacation area, yeah. VITOUSEK: Under the current zoning, it applies to the entire area, correct? 15 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Under the current zoning, because the zoning was like for a whole bunch of other properties, and Waikoloa was the fee owner and they were the applicant, so they had already designated an easement, you know, from the, for the extension of Puakala Place, and that's the reason why, on the second line, you see like, "within the existing right-of-way easement," because there is an existing easement. So that's the easement that's going to be used or maybe slightly modified to go a little bit north or south, or, not, it's east or west, mauka or makai. VITOUSEK: Right, I mean the question is whether this is adequate in ensuring that the connection will be completed, seeing as there is, there is absolutely no time frame on this project. And FUKE: Yeah VITOUSEK: this existing requirement for the area that Area B is also included under. FUKE: It's a good point, you know, Mr. Chairman, it's a good point, because Hilton Grand Vacation does not really like happily, doesn't want, does not want to be constrained by any development, you know, like timetable for this property. So, however, the way it's structured, the condition is structured, should Hilton Grand Vacation proceed with the development of their property and there is no roadway on the Mauna Lani side, well, Hilton Grand Vacation will be obligated to construct that road up to the property line. Alternatively, if Hilton Grand do not have any plans to develop and the property owner at the Mauna Lani side connects to this area, but it said like the last slide, "but in any event no later than completion of a road on the adjacent property to the north." Then, this is an obligation not only of Hilton Grand Vacation but something that's going to be negotiated with Waikoloa Land, yeah. VITOUSEK: Right, but I mean that you know from our perspective looking at it, these conditions have been on the books for over 30 years and there is no connection, so obviously it appears as though the resorts don't have an incentive to put this connection in place, which is why we would like, I think a more stringent condition for the creation of this activity important to ensure that it will be done and not, not continue to float in the air as an incomplete condition of the overall ordinance. FUKE: Well, you know, like, Mr. Chair, I think part of the reason why is that like you have the road, you know, extended all the way to Mauna Lani, and then it's like a road to nowhere, where Mauna Lani has no plans or whatever, then the question then becomes, is it really logical to have that road be extended all the way to the property line at this point in time when there is no connection? Alternatively, if and when Hilton Grand decides to develop the property, they are going to put in the road, but they don't want to, neither does Waikoloa Land, want to prematurely put in a road and connection. And so even if Hilton Grand Vacation does not put in, you know, has no development plans, so if you have a condition that requires like maybe within five years they put in the road and there is no connection on the Mauna Lani side, what it does then once you put in the road, you preempt the opportunity for Hilton Grand to do appropriate site planning of the area. Because that's why we had to include the provision to say that that right-of-way can be adjusted a little bit, you know, mauka or makai. 16 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: So I think there is a problem here then because of the fact that Hilton Grand is not here at the Planning Commission applying for any of this. Don't you see that as being an issue that— FUKE: hatFUKE: Well, I guess, I guess I would ask you this: What is the objective? What is the objective you are trying to reach? VITOUSEK: Connectivity between the two resorts. FUKE: Okay. Does this achieve that? Does this language achieve that objective? VITOUSEK: I don't know that it does because it ties it to something with no timetable. So we have that language there now requiring it that's been on the books since 1991, and there is no connection, so it seems to me that there is an incentive not to have a connection for some reason. And so if we are to require that connection to be put in place, then we should do it at this time. And, you know, we can work with the neighbor independently of this to make sure that they are in compliance with their conditions for their zoning as well, but that's a separate issue than this. What we have in front of us is these applications, which are covered by an existing condition to connect to the resort to the north. I don't think that straddling one of these applications with the burden that should be applied throughout the entire ordinance area as it currently exists is appropriate; I think that Areas A and B should share the obligation to construct that connection to the north, as is currently in the zoning ordinance. And then lastly FUKE: Yeah - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: lastly, I would say that I think the conditional language needs to be updated to indicate that there will be public access, that there will be, may not be dedicated to the County of Hawaii, but that an easement for public access will be granted to the County of Hawaii so that it won't be held in private and gated later on. FUKE: First, you know, first of all like if you look at the existing language, the existing language, there is no timetable in terms of when that connection has to be constructed in both the existing ordinance applying to Waikoloa and also the ordinance applying to Mauna Lani's property. If I can read to you, what the condition really just says, "A roadway connection to the adjacent property to the north shall be provided meeting with the approval of Department of Public Works,"but there is no timetable. What we are proposing here is a specific timetable in a sense that under two circumstance the roadway will be completed: One is that if there is development of property, that roadway has to be completed; two, if there is no development on the property and there is a roadway connection on the opposite side, somebody has got to build that road. And in this case here that somebody is not going to be Hilton Grand but is going to be Waikoloa; that's the agreement that they have internally. 17 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, again, I don't see that as you know, I hear you and I understand you but I don't see that as satisfying the need to construct this, given the fact that there is no timetable on that one, and there is no, the condition for Mauna Lani is probably similar where there is no timetable. So, to me, frankly, it's just, you know, this condition as it is has been floating for so long that we need to tie it down and we need to get it completed. FUKE: So, are you- - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: What's that? FUKE: So do you have specific timetable - - -when the road should be completed? VITOUSEK: I think, I think it would be appropriate to tie that timetable to the construction of either or any of the Kumu Hou, same with the affordable housing where that connection should be completed prior to certificate of occupancy for the first phases of Kumu Hou. FUKE: So, will you add like one more sentence to then like, "but in any event no later than completion of a road on the adjacent property to the north or occupancy permit for any unit within the Kumu Hou project, whichever occurs first?" VITOUSEK: Yeah, I'd be okay with that. FUKE: Okay, that's fine. PLUNKETT: - - -tied to the Project District? FUKE: Yeah. PLUNKETT: He wants the same language in there. FUKE: Yeah. VITOUSEK: Yeah, it would be, it'll be tied to the Project District as well, yep. FUKE: Right, yeah, so this one would apply to, again, the new condition to the Project District and in this—well, that will be a new condition for both rezoning applications, so that's acceptable, Mr. Chair. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Does anybody have anything further on the—and then as we are going,just a housekeeping thing, who is keeping track of the amendments that we are making to these conditions from the County side? JACKSON: Chair, I'm attempting to keep track of them. 18 EXHIBIT D CAMERO: I'm as well, and I think Christian is as well, too. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. And we've got, we've got what we've got so far? KAY: We do. I would make one change, and I think it was related to the workforce housing; it should be a minimum 140-"unit"workforce housing development. And that's just a clarification on the language that was out there. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I know this isn't a discussion thing, but my only thought about tying this road, it feels like building a bridge that goes nowhere. You know, I mean it's an expensive thing to build an extension of a road that may never connect to anything, so—and I understand, Mike, that you want, we want to get it done, I'd like to see it get done. I wish there was a road that connected those two resorts now that was functional, and I, I just don't—anyway, I just wanted to share that thought. VITOUSEK: No, I hear you, and I just think that creating performance requirement tying it to the construction of the Kumu Hou that means we are covering our side at this time. We are covering our side of what we can do, and if it preempts what they do, so be it, but we have before us the opportunity to require this construction, and I think we need to take advantage of that. DEFRANCO: Well, I agree with you, you know,but this is money spent, I mean what if you took whatever that cost was and put it to some other part of community empowerment? I'm just—anyway, it's just a resource, I'm just looking at it that way. VITOUSEK: Okay. Any other—we've got, the last one I believe was the updated public access plan? FUKE: Yes. So again, Tracie, can I request you to put the language that was discussed by the Commission and never acted upon as an amended version? So Mr. Chairman, I think the underscored was the, you know, as a result of the discussion at the last meeting, then the underscored where the, you know, description of the additional thing that I think has resulted at the discussion that the Commission wanted. So, as it is, the applicant is prepared to accept this as a condition and have this applied to all of the three SMA premise that are out there. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioners, any questions on this? [No response] Okay, seeing noneactually, while we are, since we are going back and forth on this, I would like to return briefly to the project timeline, if we could. I just want to see if there is any chance that we can tighten down the project timeline because—and I understand it, the purpose of it, for the zoning requirement of trying to change the zoning now, I get that, that's trying to establish what can be done and re-shifting the units allowable under the existing SMA to make it so they are possible to be constructed, and I get that, creating a Project District, that makes sense, and I don't see the necessity in doing the strict timeline on zoning but when we are dealing with an SMA permit, we are talking about the assessment of impacts of the project on the current conditions of the 19 EXHIBIT D Special Management Area, meaning how will this project affect the environment now? We can only assess what's happening because we can only identify what's happening in the environment now; we don't know what will be happening in 10 years and 15 and 20. So, to me, allowing for a 10-year grace period before we even start construction is not adequately taking into account the effects of this project on the Special Management Area because we don't know what the conditions will be in 10 years. And I totally understand that a project of this magnitude will take time to complete. The requirements for Plan Approval for permitting for construction, it's going to, it's going to take time. But if we canso, you know, I'm good with the back end of the, you know, 10 years or 15 years to construct and then another 10 years; that makes sense to me. But, is there a way that we can tighten down the timeline on the front and to indicate that Plan Approval will be sought within a certain number of years, permitting within a certain number of years after that, and then commencement of the project will take place within, I don't know, five years. That, to me, would be more adequately considering the effects of the Special Management Area. FUKE: Well, I would think like, realistically, you know, maybe plans can be submitted for Plan Approval maybe within a three- or five-year window—and I assume that is because, and, you know, obviously, we have to have like, although an AIS was done, it's probably going to be a need for like a preservation plan to establish clearly the buffers and all that, so once those design parameters are kind of established, then the developer will be in a better position to kind of place buildings, the landscaping, and all that stuff, and be prepared to submit a plan for Plan Approval—so I would think like, you know, maybe like a three-to five-year window needed to submit for Plan Approval and, what you say, maybe secure a construction permit within, within a 10-year period? I don't know. VITOUSEK: I mean, let's just talk about actuality; what, what are we actually planning? Is, I mean, are we just entitlement banking, or is there actually a plan that Waikoloa has to build this? And what is your actual plan? FUKE: I will defer to Mr. Plunkett on that. I don't think they have plans to just entitlement banking, especially since they have an obligation to do the work by - - - PLUNKETT: Yeah, the way that this works is we, we need the entitlements first, then we will get into the detailed planning. Detailed planning, as we warrant here, takes an enormous amount of time, more so than, than projects that, you know, I've been involved in the mainland. But that's said, the plan is ultimately to bring in a timeshare up. The way these works is that the developer then, then plans entitles, builds buildings usually one at a time, and then they are taking down over a long period of time as, as these things are sold. Just to give you a point of reference, Hilton Grand Vacation started, we sold them their project back in 2005, and they startedScott, what year they actually started construction? HEAD: I believe it was 2007, but they are, they are only, they are halfway through the various phases of their development, what's that, 15 years later. 20 EXHIBIT D PLUNKETT: Yeah, they are about halfway through. So it does take a long time. You know, we are comfortable with a tighter timeline so long as there are some tests whereby that we can go into the planning director and say look, this is the progress this project is making and, you know, can you grant an extension, if more time is needed. I can't, I don't have a crystal ball for the market to know exactly when, you know, it'll be brought on. Our first, our first project is to get the entitlements to actually do it. And so, you know, but we do have to have some significant amount of latitude to adjust for the market and adjust for the timelines that's required, Mr. Chairman, to bring the project to operation. VITOUSEK: So, I mean, does it make sense then toI guess two, two possible options—does it make sense to proceed with the Change of Zone ordinance now, and then you come back with the SMA permit when you are ready to discuss to do the actual project? PLUNKETT: These are all joined at the hip, so I don't know how we could possibly separate them, I mean VITOUSEK: I mean the issue, one of the issues that I as you know, forgive me, there is a lot of information but one of the issues, the kind of big-picture issue with Waikoloa development is that the existing SMA allows for 3,000-something units, but the current zoning restricts the amount of the units that can be done under the existing SMA permit because of the larger density of certain areas. And so if we were to—and, as you all know, zoning is zoning that's tied to the land, SMA is specific project that's what is being built, that's a permit to build what you want to buildso, is this an opportunity to look at the zoning independent of the SMA or if they are all going to be joined and we are going to tighten down the timeline indicating that a project will commence within five years, with the option for an additional five-year extension from the director? PLUNKETT: You know, that's the type of thing that, you know, we don't mind coming in in five years, and say if we are unable to get underway by that point in time for whatever reason, then we come in and we can demonstrate that we have made a certain amount of project process, I mean progress, that then he would consider that a good faith and—Sid can give you the language—but, you know, that's the type of thing that I think is reasonable. I'm used to development agreements whereby you have to meet certain benchmarks to keep moving forward, and, but yet, you have the ability to get extensions if you are making progress. And there can be circumstances that slow you down. So there is no desire on our part to stretch this out longer than we need to; I just want the ability to know what we have, and then we can proceed forward because we need to invest a ton of money to get these things off the ground, and so BOEDDEKER: Chairman, can I just interject, too, from the Foundation's perspective? And I am a principal of Waikoloa Land as well, but VITOUSEK: Sure. BOEDDEDER: The funding, and really some of the sole funding for the Waikoloa Foundation will come out of this project. I can assure you that I will not let them wait very long to let this 21 EXHIBIT D project go, because that is how we are going to add back into the community all of these benefits that we spoke about. So whether or not we are tying specific language to it, but this is, as I've spoken before about the legacy of our family and what we've done here, the Foundation is that, and the funding will come from Kumu Hou. VITOUSEK: Thank you, yeah, I definitely appreciate that FUKE: So Mr. Chairman VITOUSEK: Go ahead. FUKE: If I'm hearing—Mr. Plunkett, correct me if I'm, you know, misspeaking but if you are talking about like a five-year construction commencement and a 10-year completion for at least the first phase, you know, of the project, which will be like 450, 450 units, with the ability to have a time extension, you know, administrative time extension, would that be acceptable? PLUNKETT: Well, what I was suggesting was that we would have to start construction within five years, then we can get an administrative extension, if needed FUKE: Yeah. PLUNKETT: the timeline on the construction for the phasing once we started, I would prefer to leave that one alone, but I think you are concerned about us actually getting underway, so, you know, let us get started, we'll make it to the end . KERN: Mr. Chair? VITOUSEK: Director Kern, yes. KERN: - - - a five-minute recess so we can stretch our feet for a minute and give the applicant time to discuss amongst themselves and get back to it? Cool. VITOUSEK: You bet you. Five-minute recess. [Chairman Vitousek called a recess at 11:18 a.m. He called the hearing back to order at 11:28 a.m.] VITOUSEK: Okay, are we ready to get back to the meeting? Awesome, looks like starting to trickle back - - - hey, breaktime over, come and get back to work. Just waiting on Commissioner DeFranco. Here you are, right on. Okay, we can get back to work. Let's see, the pictures are all in different places now. So getting back to the timing discussion, is there anything that you guys want to present after the break? It's on mute, here you go. 22 EXHIBIT D FUKE: Yeah, Mr. Chair, so the idea was to at least make sure that the project gets started, you know, within, you know, a certain window and like a window also for completion. And Mr. Plunkett indicated that would be fine as long as there is an opportunity for administrative time extension, so I have drafted a language and I can initially forward it to the staff, if my computer works; but basically, it would be something along these lines, "Provided that there are timely agency review and approval of the required plans, construction shell commence within five years of the effective date of the permit, which is the SMA permit, and completion of 50 percent of the units within 15 years of start of instruction. An initial extension of time for the performance conditions within this permit may be granted by the planning director under the following circumstances," and, you know, like three or four,they are like a standard language that the Commission is familiar with. So, you know, that would be acceptable, with the understanding that this construction window would apply to the Project District area only and not to the area that Hilton Grand Vacation has already been entitled to. I think I'd like to also kind of point out that, you know, in the existing language there always is a requirement for the applicant to submit an annual report to the planning director, so that will give not only the department but also that the Commission an opportunity to see how far they progressed or not progressed. VITOUSEK: Yep. Yeah, that makes sense to me. The last thing that I would ask is that we include language indicating, as a condition, basically indicating that—so the possible language I have is, "If applicant requests a change in the proposed development, including but not limited to an extension of time periods or other conditions required permit approval, the Commission or the director shall consider the extent to which the proposed action has changed in size, scope, intensity, use, location, timing, among other things and/or whether there have been changes in the environment or community where the project is located such that the impact of the project would substantially differ from the potential impact at the time the permit was initially approved. If there has been change in any of these characteristics, which may have a significant effect, the Commission will assess whether or not to grant an extension, impose different or additional conditions, or rescinded approval of the permit." Basically, the language being that if in, let's call it, 10 years from now we are requesting an extension of time to complete the requirements, at that time the Planning Commission will have to review the impact of the project on the, or the Planning Commission or Director, will have to review the impact of the project on the environment at that time, which may have changed between now and then. FUKE: You know, the initial language that I just kind of read, the planning director is enabled to give the initial time extension, but at the 10th year, for example, - - -when it has to go before the Commission, what you are adding is language that the Commission would have to be considering in conjunction with any subsequent time extension VITOUSEK: Yes FUKE: —and that will be acceptable, the language 23 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay. Yeah, that makes sense to me, so the initial five-year administrative time extension, and then after that, if there is a need for an additional time extension, then the Commission would have to review the change in the project based on the conditions that exist at that time FUKE: - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: meaning that it could be re-conditioned, could be rescinded, whatever that may be at that time. PLUNKETT: Yeah, we understand it's not a rubber stamp, so we understand. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay, so I think we can, we can work with County staff to get that language included as condition. KAY: And just to be clear, these are conditions of the SMA permits. Is that correct? Or just the SMA permit for Area B? FUKE: SMA permit for Area B. PLUNKETT: Area B only, that's important. VITOUSEK: Yeah, Area B, because as I understand, that the existing Area A is already covered under the existing SMA, but they are relocating the location. Is that right? PLUNKETT: Yes, correct. We are just shifting,we are really just taking their units and shifting across the fairway, that's, that's all we are doing to make the plan work. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioners, are there any other questionsso, and as a practical matter, well, I guess I'll let it play out—any other questions? If not, can we seek a motion? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I think I attempted this before. So I will need help, because we have a lot of—so are we going to do all six of these motions at the same time or are we doing each one with specific additions that we've added to them? So let's say,just an idea, so the first one, I move that the application for amendment to Special Management Area Permit number 25 be approved based on the planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted, and in addition, with what motions we, I mean, we've agreed upon here between us—is there something added to that one, that specific one? VITOUSEK: It's a great question. So procedurally, how, how do we take this on? We don't want to close out AMEND SMA 25 until the other ones are issued—was that what I remember from last time? KERN: Yes, that's correct. We want to 24 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: So basically, what we want to do is,we want to proceed with agenda items 2 through 6, and then come back to 1, is that right? KERN: From my understanding that is correct. I would say you probably want to start with item number 2 in its completeness because of the amended conditions, especially for the timing factor related to number 2, to my knowledge, because that is Area B. Right? That's been the bulk of the discussion, and then the remainders will have the other conditions outside of the specific timing equation that was the last point of conversation. SCHLUETER: Chair, you do have authority to call the agenda items out of order, as they make sense here. So I would recommend just calling which agenda item that you guys decide to focus on first and go from there. VITOUSEK: Let me pull up our agenda real quick. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, so JACKSON: Chair, Chair Vitousek FUKE: —like item number 2, the SMA, then I, it's my understanding that in addition to whatever the staff is proposing, if the Commission accepts that, then there would be like two amendments; one would be an amendment on the construction, you know, language that we just talked about, and the other would be the Condition 5 relating to the updated public access thing. VITOUSEK: Okay, so I think, so going to item 2,we can do it one of two ways where the person making the motion can encompass all of the amendments that have been made to the conditions, or we can, which might be easier,just make the motion, and then we can work on amendments as a secondary motion. And that way, we will need some help from the applicant and from Planning staff in formulating the secondary motion that will amend the motion. DEFRANCO: Okay, so then, if I go ahead, number 2, to make the motion, I move that the application for Special Management Area Permit number 2021-000004 be approved based on the planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. And then now we open this to the two amendments? VITOUSEK: Well, we need a second, and then we can do that. DEFRANCO: All right. VITOUSEK: Is there a second? YATES: [Raises hand to second] 25 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates, second, okay, thank you. Now we are into the discussion period, so if any Commissioners have any discussion, if they want to state, you know, their support or opposition at this time, it's allowable. Otherwise, we can proceed with secondary motions to amend the motion on the floor to approve SMA 2001[sic]-4. So, personally, I think that the conditions that we've worked with the applicant to create will serve to mitigate a lot of the adverse effects of the project. I would be willing to support the project with the amendments that we've all discussed already. If that I guess I can make a motion to amend the motion that's on the floor? And help me out with all of the amendments that we've got. So the first one was DEFRANCO: Construction? VITOUSEK: The roadway? JACKSON: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Yes. JACKSON: This is Maija. So my understanding was that the roadway connector was just going to be placed in the rezone ordinances. VITOUSEK: Correct, correct. JACKSON: So the two conditions that I show for SMA Permit number 4 related to Area B, which is the 900-unit time shares, is an initial five-year administrative time extension, and then your language that you proposed related to handling time extensions before the Commission's and consideration of changes in the surrounding environment. I have that in writing; I can show it to the Commission, if need be. And then the other condition that may apply to this is the public access plan update that had been discussed previously. Those are the two I show. VITOUSEK: Correct, yeah, I think that's right for the SMA component. So I move to amend the motion on the floor to incorporate the two amendments that were discussed by Maija. Is that enough detail or do we need to read it out? JACKSON: I can put the language of both conditions up, once we hear a second, if we do hear a second, so that the Commission can see the actual wording. VITOUSEK: Okay. DEFRANCO: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner DeFranco? Okay, second by Commissioner DeFranco. 26 EXHIBIT D JACKSON: Okay. So this is not complete. The initial time extension[starts typing on shared screen] VITOUSEK: It will be after the initial administrative time extension or—okay, okay, I see what you are doing, never mind. So I guess, yeah, project will construct, be constructed within five years. JACKSON: Sorry about this, my typing skills are not the best[continues typing]. I think that's where you were going for, Chair, but we can use our standard language that we typically use. VITOUSEK: Yep, yes, that sounds good. JACKSON: And we would add this underneath. VIOTUSEK: Okay. All right, that sounds good to me. And then the language that was shown on the screen for the other condition, that one is good with me as well. JACKSON: Yes, and Tracy can share that with you. This was the public access plan. VIOUSEK: Okay. So those would be the amendments being proposed. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, can I, I just wanted to clarify with staff, you know, this is in regards to the time extension, so, as I understand that there would be like two separate conditions relating to this aspect; one is like establishing the construction timetable, and two would be a separate condition related specifically to any extensions that may be required. Is that correct? VITOUSEK: That's correct, yeah, that's what we are hoping for. So we had the language that Mr. Fuke read indicating what the construction timetable would be, with the five years to commence, the 15 years for 50 percent, another 10 years for the remaining, subject to initial administrative time extension from the planning director, and then any subsequent applications for an extension would trigger the condition to evaluate the project based on the current conditions at that time. FUKE: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and acceptable. VITOUSEK: Okay, we'll proceed with a roll call vote on theOh, Commissioner Yates, yes. Commissioner Yates. YATES: On the - - -part of the amendment, they say "an applicant" or is it—anyway, I'm just wanting to - - - specifically to this applicant or any applicant. Rewording or the re VITOUSEK: Right, it would be this applicant, it would be to this applicant of this permit, correct. YATES: Okay, so that would be changed because it says, "an applicant." 27 EXHIBIT D KERN: Well, I'll make the correction that the condition would follow with the land; so if the landowner were to change, they would still have to follow all of these conditions, which then at that time that landowner would be the applicant, so to speak, so it covers any, any owner, landowner - - - YATES: - -YATES: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Are we ready to proceed with a roll call vote for the amended, the motion to amend the main motion? Okay. Who is going to tally us? JACKSON: Tracy, are you going to—is your audio working? CAMERO: - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: Can't hear you. KERN: Can't hear you, Tracie. You want to come VITOUSEK: Oh, there it is, there it is CAMERO: I apologize, I had computer difficulty, some technical difficulty. Okay, sorry, so this is on the motion to amend the first motion. Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye CAMERO: Motion passes, five to zero. YATES: —aye. 28 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: At this point I think, if there is not any further discussion, we can take a roll call on the main motion as amended. CAMERO: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: That motion passes, five to zero, as well. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Shall we take up the zoning ordinance for area B as well at this time? Okay. That is agenda item, sorry JACKSON: That's item 3. VITOUSEK: That's item 3, okay. So that is PL-REZ-2021-000005. And that's the creation of Project District. Is there a motion to approve? Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Yeah, I moved that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the applicant's proposed change of zoning, docket number 2021-000005 based on the planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Is there a second? KANUHA: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Commissioner Kanuha, second. Okay. Again, I feel like these, these conditions will adequately mitigate the impacts of the project,particularly the affordable housing component and the connection to the adjacent areas. I'd like to make a motion to amend the 29 EXHIBIT D motion on the floor to include the conditions that were discussed and agreed on by the applicant, to provide a connection between this project area and the project area to the north. Can we show that language? CAMERO: Yes, allow me share that with you. I did have a question on this one VITOUSEK: Yes, CAMERO: I wanted to know if it was "or any unit" or "prior to any unit being built"within the project, or if how it's being shown right now is the correct way. VITOUSEK: I believe we had a certificate of occupancy of a unit within the Kumu Hou project. Is that your understanding, Mr. Fuke? FUKE: That is correct, "prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any unit,"that's right, that's - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: Okay. And then, last, can we incorporate language in here that indicates that an easement over the road will be granted in favor of the County of Hawaii for public access use? I'm asking the applicant if that is okay, addition to that, this condition. FUKE: - - -the easement would be to the County for public use? VITOUSEK: Yes. PLUNKETT: It'll be a, it'll be a privately owned road, but— VITOUSEK: utVITOUSEK: Yes. PLUNKETT: we will grant an easement for public access across that road. FUKE: So the short answer to your question is yes. You know, it would be like any other road within Waikoloa Resort, privately owned but publicly used. VITOUSEK: Yes, yep, that's the intention is that it's privately owned and privately maintained but available for use by the public. FUKE: That's the intent. HEAD: Correct. VITOUSEK: Okay. Yeah, so if we could add language to that condition, indicating that— JACKSON: hatJACKSON: Chair Vitousek? 30 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Yes. JACKSON: This is Maija. I just want to point something out. So even if we add that easement requirement to this condition, it would only affect Puakala Place, and Waikoloa Beach Resort [sic] is a, I believe it's a private road. VITOUSEK: Yeah, it—how is it handled throughout the Waikoloa community? Is there already an easement in place for the public access within Waikoloa Road? JACKSON: I don't believe so; I'd have to look into it, but I do not believe that there is. DEFRANCO: Mike, I'm having a hard time doing this, without this being on the table for all of us to discuss these changes, you know. I, you are asking now that this be put in there, and we've not discussed that. We've discussed before. Now this is being added, and we didn't discuss this. VITOUSEK: There will be opportunity to discuss absolutely. This is the language that I'm requesting to amend. This is part of my motion. And I don't think there has been a second yet, correct? FUKE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, can I just make this a little easier? Rather than saying an easement VITOUSEK: Yeah. FUKE: I can understand words that, you know, use that- - - question. How about just simple language like, "Said roadway upon completion shall be available for public use?" VITOUSEK: Yep, absolutely. Should we, should we specify that it will be privately owned but available for public use? FUKE: I don't think that's necessary. I mean it's there that it's going to be set aside for public and, you know, if there are any disputes, you just need to go to the record, like all this discourse that we are in right now - - - applicant's intentions are. VITOUSEK: Yeah, the intention is not to try to get it to be, you know, convert it to a County road or, you know, to create an easement where you don't need one; it's just we are making this road so that people can use it so that it can't be gated, is the only intention. But I think that, if that, if you are comfortable with that language, the "completed it will be available to public use," then I would be also. FUKE: We are, Mr. Chair. VITOUSEK: Okay. So that would be the first of the amendments that I would recommend, and then the second amendment that I would recommend would be the language regarding the completion of the, a minimum of 140 units prior to the certificate of occupancy, which is in my 31 EXHIBIT D opinion okay as written here. So those would be my, that is my motion to amend to include those two conditions. Is there a second so that we can have a discussion? YATES: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates, thank you for the second. Okay, discussion. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I'm still not comfortable with making them put this extension on there. I think it's in the original drawing that the map intends this to happen, if that area is developed and if Mauna Lani develops the other way. Why have them do something that may not go anywhere? It takes up open space. It costs a lot of money. I mean, isn't there another way to look at this? That's how I feel about it. VITOUSEK: Right, I mean these conditions have been on the books for 30-plus years, and they haven't been done so obviously we need, we need to have this connectivity to prevent overuse of the intersections and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and allow for the resort traffic to stay within the resort areas. I think it'll decrease the impact on the general public. So it is part of the DEFRANCO: Mike, I agree with you on those ideas, but if it's going nowhere, if there is nobody on the other side that is actually connecting to—and, you know, they can't, they are not part of that, so they can't tell us, yes, it will eventually connect to somebody. I mean VITOUSEK: Right— DEFRANCO: ightDEFRANCO: my question is it's like building a bridge to nowhere and taking up money and land to do that. I want to connect the projects, and I'm for that, I'm for the connection. VITOUSEK: Okay. So, I mean, to me it's just, like you said, handling what we can handle, we have this now, and this before us, and if we are mandating it that actually happens, I think this is the best way of doing that. It's not building it in advance; it's saying that when they are building their project, that they have to also make this connection, and then it'll be up to the Planning Department and, you know,potentially our board to work with the property owner next door to ensure that their side of their requirement, which does exist, is also met. DEFRANCO: Wouldn't that be the way KANUHA: Yeah, and, Mike, Mike DEFRANCO: wouldn't that be the way to tie it in is when that, you know, with that project, not with VITOUSEK: It's separate, though, it's separate. We are not reviewing anything from them right now. Commissioner Kanuha. 32 EXHIBIT D KANUHA: Yeah, and I hear what, you know, Commissioner DeFranco is saying but also agree with you, Mike. It has been on the floor, and obviously, it's been there since the 90's. I think just setting up this roadway to there will actually lead into us dealing with the separate property management to have something to be initiate, you know, that corridor in between the two resorts, to alleviate traffic off of Queen K, which is packed and, you know, on our busy season for visitors, such as this last summer and everybody came in, you know there is a lot of traffic moving around, I think it would, you know, mitigate. So I feel what you are trying to do, and I agree with it as well. VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo. Any further discussion? Okay, we'll proceed with a roll call vote on the motion to amend. CAMERO: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: [Inaudible aye] CAMERO: Aye? VITOUSEK: That was an aye, yeah. CAMERO: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. And if there is no further discussion, we can take a roll call vote on the motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the county council, as amended. CAMERO: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. 33 EXHIBIT D CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: Sorry. The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Moving onto PL-SMA-2021-00003. That is for the SMA permit to allow for the development of 25 single-family residential lotoh, wait, no, no, no, sorry, 000002, we want to move onto next—that is to allow the development of 264 multi-family timeshare units and related improvements within approximately 38.68-acre proportion of Area A. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: It's on mute, Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Sorry. I'd like to make a motion to approve. I move that the application for this Special Management Area permit number 2021-000002 be approved based on the planning director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Is there a second? Is there a second for the approval? Anybody? KANUHA: [Raises hand to second] VIOTUSEK: Commissioner Kanuha, second, thank you. Okay, for this one, I think that—is there any alterations to conditions the only thing that I could think of would be to include the language about the update to the public access plan. Does that make sense PAISHON-DUARTE: Chair, can we just review VITOUSEK: Commissioner 34 EXHIBIT D PAISHON-DUARTE: —all of the thank you—can we just review the conditions that are related to this? Is there just one? I can't, I can't recall. VITOUSEK: That the conditions for this permit are represented in the background recommendation report. They are, those were given to us last time. Would it be possible for staff to pull up the list of conditions that we have in place? JACKSON: Yes, I can do that. VITOUSEK: Thank you. JACKSON: Just give me one moment. Okay. And so just to be clear, this is for the SMA permit to approve the 264 timeshare units. And here are the conditions. Commissioner Paishon- Duarte, is there a specific one you are interested in, or do you want me to just scroll through slowly? PAISHON-DUARTE: Please scroll slowly, thank you. JACKSON: Okay, let me know if I go too fast. PAISHON-DUARTE: [Reviewing the proposed conditions on screen] Please proceed. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. JACKSON: That's it. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you very much. JACKSON: You're welcome. VITOUSEK: So the applicability of the discussed conditions, I think the only one that would potentially apply is the update of the shoreline public access plan. CAMERO: Yes, I was just about to mention that, Mr. Chair. Would you like to see that, Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure VITOUSEK: Shall we take a look at that? PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure, thank you. CAMERO: So the updated public access condition. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. 35 EXHIBIT D VITOUSEK: Okay, I would like to make a motion to include the language just shown indicating there will be an update to the public access plan. PAISHON-DUARTE: I second. VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. Are there any otheroh, Maija. JACKSON: I'm sorry, Chair. Did we get a second on that first motion? VITOUSEK: Yes, Commissioner Kanuha. JACKSON: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, are there any other amendments to be added? No? Okay, we can proceed with a roll call vote for the secondary motion. CAMERO: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: And Commissioner Yates? Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Okay, and then we can roll call the main motion. Mahalo. CAMERO: The main motion. Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? 36 EXHIBIT D KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Moving onto item 6, no, item 5, that would be Waikoloa Land Company, PL-SMA-2021-000003. This is for, to allow the development of 25 single-family residential lots and related infrastructure. That's in 7.3-acre proportion of Area A. With this one, if someone would like to make a motion to approve this, you can make the motion to include the language about the public access plan that was previously approved so that we don't need to do two motions. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I motion, I move that the application for Special Management Area permit number 2021-000003 be approved to, and also to include the language that was previously accepted on public access on the planning director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Is there a second? PAISHON-DUARTE: [Raises hand to second] VIOTUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, second. Any discussion? [No response] Okay, we'll proceed with the roll call vote on the motion. CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? 37 EXHIBIT D KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Next is the rezoning ordinance, PL-REZ-2021-000004. This is the application for Change of Zone from Open and Multi-Family Residential 8,000 square feet, RM-8, zoning districts to Multiple-Family Residential 6,000 square feet, etcetera, etcetera. This is Area A. Again, we can make a motion and then proceed with the amendments to the motion or do it as part of the main motion, whatever you prefer. This one is, we have some additions so maybe we can make aor I guess the amendments would be the same for this, as they would for item 3, right? Is that correct? JACKSON: Chair Vitousek, this is Maija. I believe you were not going to add the workforce housing amendment to this rezone. VITOUSEK: Is that the intent from the applicant? PLUNKETT: Yes. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I believe, like I said, as it relates to this property, there will be only like two rezoning amendments that would be tied into this; one would be the north-south connection as was approved for the Project District zoned area, Area A, and the other one is a modification to the open space ratio. So those were the two proposed amendments that were articulated earlier and shared with the Commission. Relative to the workforce housing, that would be peculiar, or apply only to the Project District area, which is already approved. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay, so if a commissioner is comfortable making a motion to include that, go ahead, otherwise, we can do DEFRANCO: Just a question, Mike. So, that to include, it would be, it was, one, the connection to the roadway and, two, the modification to open space? Were those the two? VITOUSEK: Yep. DEFRANCO: Okay. Then I'm comfortable making that motion. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. 38 EXHIBIT D DEFRANCO: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for proposed change of the zoning, docket number 2021-000004, that also includes the connectivity of the roadway and also the modification to the open space, as previously discussed, based on the planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Is there a second? KANUHA: [Raises hand to second] VITOUSEK: Commissioner Kanuha, second. Any discussion? [No response] Okay, let's take a roll call vote. CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Finishing out Waikoloa, we will go back to number 1, and this is the application to amend Special Management Area Use Permit number 25 to withdraw three non-contiguous areas identified as A, B, and C, and also includes the removal of the golf course, the two golf courses, if I'm not mistaken, two and a half. Is there a motion to approve? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I make the motion to approve. I move that the application for amendment to Special Management Area permit number 25 be approved based on the planning director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Is there a second? 39 EXHIBIT D PAISHON-DUARTE: [Raises hand to second] VIOTUSEK: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, second. Any discussion? Commissioner Yates. YATES: Is there - - - I don't have, my paper - - -that the motion is. VITOUSEK: I didn't quite catch that. We are having some connection YATES: Someone could read me what the motion is? VITOUSEK: What the motion is? So the motion is to YATES: - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: connection - - -the application is to amend Special Management Area Use Permit 25 to withdraw three non-contiguous land areas identified as A, B, and C, comprising the proposed Kumu Hou at Waikoloa project, which totals 182 acres from the land area covered under Special Management Area Permit 25, which allowed the development of the Waikoloa Beach Resort complex. So basically, the areas that we've already approved for SMA permits, they want to take those out of the existing SMA area that they have already, so this would be, we just replaced 25 with what we just approved. KERN: Housekeeping YATES: Okay, thank you. Thank you. VITOUSEK: And then in addition to that, the director has taken the opportunity to work with the owner to remove the requirements to build another two golf courses in that area, which was on the books; they were supposed to have another two golf courses, and so they've said, hey, you didn't build them, you didn't meet the deadlines, and it's not environmentally appropriate at the time, so they've taken those two golf courses off the table. And this amendment allows us to do that. So, any further discussion? PAISHON-DUARTE: My, expressing just a comment, you know, there has been presentation this time and in the November meeting where Waikoloa Foundation strongly advocated that they will be front and center supporting community activities and so forth, so it's just expressing encouragement to continue to do that on the ground community work to, you know, make sure that community is brought along throughout the entire process. BOEDDEKER: I can promise you they will, we will do that. VITOUSEK: Great. Okay, any, any further discussion? [No response] Okay, proceed with a roll call vote for the final Waikoloa item. 40 EXHIBIT D CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: Motion carries, five to zero. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. To the applicant, thank you for working with us, thank you for allowing us the time to get into the amount of material that we had. And I hope we've all worked out a good project moving forward REPRESENTATIVES: Thank you very much - - - VITOUSEK: - -VITOUSEK: you'll be notified BOEDDEKER: Thank you so much for your cooperation. We appreciate it very much. PLUNKETT: We appreciate the time, Planning Commission, and your patience. The hearing ended at 12:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 41 EXHIBIT D