Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-21 TSUFFOLKOPUAA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 21, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC and (SLU 04-010/REZ 04-024) PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 04-009/REZ was called to order at 3:35 pm. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 04-025) Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with First Vice- Chairperson Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah SpringerABSENT & EXCUSED:Fred Galdones William GrahamC. Kimo Alameda JeffreyMcCallEarlFujikawa Rene€ Siracusa Francis Smith Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works Sidney Fuke representing Suffolk Investment LLC and Puaa Development LLC Michael Riehm representing Suffolk Investment LLC and Puaa Development LLC Brian Cook representing Puaa Development LLC And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: SUFFOLK INVESTMENT LLC (SLU 04-010/REZ 04-024) Continued hearing on the following applications: a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b.Change of Zone for 14.87 acres of land from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Multiple Family Residential ƒ 2,500 square foot (RM-2.5) district. The property is located between Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) and Kuakini Highway, st directly west (makai) of the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki 1and st Puaapuaanui 1, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:19. APPLICANT: PUAA DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 04-009/REZ 04-025) Continuedhearingonthefollowingapplications: EXHIBIT E a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment for approximately 14.973 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b.Change of zone for 14.973 acres of land from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Neighborhood Commercial ƒ 20,000-foot (CN ƒ 20) district. The property is located along the west (makai) side of the Hawaii Belt Road st (Highway 11) and across from the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puaapuaiki 1 and st Puaapuaanui 1, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17:1. SPRINGER:We are now on Agenda Item No. 4. The Applicant is Suffolk Investment, LLC, SLU 04-010 and REZ 04-024. This is a continued hearing on the following applications. a.State Land Boundary Amendmentfor approximately 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b.Change of Zone for 14.87 acres of land from the Agricultural 5-A, 5-acre to a Multi-Family Residential - 2,500 square foot (RM-2.5) district. The property is located between Hawai i Belt Road (Highway 11) and Kuakini Highway, directly stst west (makai) of the Pualani Estates Subdivision, Puapuaiki 1 and Puapuanui 1, North Kona, Hawai i, TMK 7-5-17:19. Staff? Mr. Darrow, are you ready? DARROW:Sure. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. DARROW:If I can ask Corp. Counsel a question? Ivan, did you want to address the issue of doing both of them at the same time? TORIGOE:Oh, okay. I don€t know if, I think we should probably get the Applicant to come and make his request if he wants to do a consolidated infrastructure presentation. SPRINGER:Okay, Mr. Fuke, if you would please come forward at this time. And, at this time, I€d like to ask the Applicant€s representative and any individuals who have signed up to testify or who wish to testify on this matter to be sworn in at the same time. I have five folks who have listed themselves, Joel Gimpel, Harold Murata, Josephine Keliipio, Ann Peterson and Janice Palma-Glennie. If you could raise your right hands, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai iCountyPlanningCommission? TESTIFIERS:Ido. SPRINGER:Thankyou.Mr.Fuke,ifyoucouldpleasegiveusyournameand address, for the record. FUKE:Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Sidney Fuke,I€maPlanningConsultant.I€mhereworkingonboththe,bothpetitions,the Suffolk Development and also the Puaa Development. My business address is 2 100 Pauahi Street in Hilo, Hawai i. As the Corporation Counsel had noted, I would like to request that, you know, provided that there€s no objection on the part of either the Commission or the public, to have like the material that€s presented relative to the item before you, which is the Suffolk application, also the applicable, you know, to the subsequent application, inasmuch as the, not purely in interest of time, but more in the interest of having a comprehensive understanding of both projects. Because from an infrastructure standpoint, they are closely tied. From a functional standpoint, they are also very closely tied. The only difference is that they are two different developers. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, then what you€re proposing is that we would hear a consolidated presentation on matters of infrastructure and function but we would go through the decision-making separately for each application? FUKE:If the Commission and the public would not have any objection, wewouldrequestthatso. SPRINGER:Thankyou,Mr.Fuke.Commissioners,doyouunderstandthe request, have any questions on it or comments? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:It€s fine with me. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa, you affirm that, also? SIRACUSA:Yes. SMITH:That€s fine with me. SPRINGER:Commissioner Smith, that€s positive. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Which are the two we€re combining? SPRINGER:Four and five, Suffolk and Puaa. GRAHAM:Okay. SPRINGER:And the combination is strictly on infrastructure and a general discussion of function. Decision-making will still occur separately. Is that correct? FUKE:Yes. SPRINGER:From the members of the public, is there any objection to that? Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you may continue. I€m sorry, Mr. Darrow, you may continue. DARROW:Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may address a few in-house issues first. This is a continued hearing for Suffolk Investment LLC, as well as Puaa Development. Previously, the Background Report and exhibits have been distributed to 3 the Planning Commission. More recently, the Recommendations as well as conditions have been distributed. Very recently, we received comments from the Department of Transportation. It has been distributed to the Commissioners, as well as the Applicant€s representative. In reviewing those conditions, on the comment letters they do, they are addressed pretty thoroughly within the conditions in the Recommendations. If I may direct your attention to the location map, again, the area of these applications is within the North Kona District of Hawai i. This white, white line that€s running north- south through the map is the Queen Kaahumanu Highway or the Hawai i Belt Road. This area in yellow identified as Single-Family Residential zoning is the Pualani Estates Subdivision. Directly across from that makai is the area of these applications. The area identified in red is Puaa Development. The area identified with the blue dot is Suffolk Investment. Suffolk Investment has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to Urban as well as the Change of Zone applicationfromAgricultural5-acretoMultiple-FamilyResidential-2,500squarefeet. This request, both requests would include 250 units within twenty-four 2- and 3-story structures. There would be over 300 parking spaces for residents and guests, and a private 1-acre park which would be located in this general vicinity on the site map. Looking at the site map, this is a previous submitted site plan. As you can see on the wall directly across from me that there has been some adjustments made to the site maps; and those would be addressed a little later by the Applicant€s representative. The Puaa Development has submitted a similar application, a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for State Land Use Urban to, Agricultural to State Land Use Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acre to Commercial Neighborhood-20,000 square feet. This is 14.973 acres of land. The project would include financial, possibly range of, uses ranging from financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. There have been some changes to that; and this would also include housing as well; and, again, that would be addressed more specifically by the Applicant€s representative. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission to be forwarded to the Hawai i County Council. If I may address, very shortly, some conditions. To bring to your attention, there is a Suffolk Condition No. D, a condition, it€s stated by the Applicant€s representative that this was going to be a rental housing project. To be able to assure that, the Planning Director has placed in Condition No. D which states, As represented by the Applicant, the project shall be restricted to the use of rental housing only for a period of not less than 20 years from the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Any change to this condition will require an amendment to the Change of Zone ordinance.‚ There are numerous conditions related to traffic improvements; and, again, those appear to be, address the concerns of the Department of Transportation, as well as the Department of Public Works. 4 The Department of Public Works has recently asked that a change be made to Condition I on both this application as well as the Puaa. And that is that Condition I, after the word provided‚ on the third line, that the words on Kuakini Highway‚ be added. So it would say, right turn deceleration shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at the Easement 1 access.‚ And that would be, again, on Suffolk condition, as well as Puaa condition. This concludes the presentation. Are there any questions? SPRINGER:Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Jeff, maybe this question is more to Mr. Takemoto than yourself. But in regards to whether the County should be processing these applications, I know in our Background material we have a letter from the Land Use Commission and reading, th. directed to Planning Director Chris Yuen on October 20And in that letter, Land Use Commission says, While we don€t have specific objections, we do have strong objections to the manner in which these applications are being processed. We believe that both the Village Center and the rental housing project are part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and had been deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission.‚ So I would question Mr. Takemoto about what the Planning Department€s discretion is as to whether we take these up or not and why they made the decision to go ahead and recommend approval at the County level for these two applications. TAKEMOTO:The Director, subsequent to the Land Use Commission€s letter, had been in touch with the Executive Director of the Land Use Commission and, basically, there were two conditions that he wanted us to establish before agreeing to what we€re doing. One is that we have confirmed that these are, in fact, separate owners and that this whole developmentwasnot,youknow,some,whatyoucall,therewasn€tarelationship between the two developers. So, on that point, the Director did check them out and confirmed that they are independent and separate. The second point is that between the Land Use Commission and the County is just a matter of who€s making the decisions. The issues and criteria concerns in terms of public interest are the same. So, for the Land Use Commission, they just wanted to make sure that the cumulative impacts of the two projects were being considered, cause that is what actually would occur if these lots went before the Land Use Commission together, as basically you€ll be looking at the impacts of both projects at one time. And we feel that we are addressing the cumulative impacts of the projects. GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:Other Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I€m having trouble with these maps, of putting these all together. This section, in the upper left-hand corner, is what you€re showing us for the Suffolk. 5 But over here I have the parcel just below it that€s darkened. And, so, and then the other one on the Puaa is, includes this one and the parcel to the right of it. So, I€m not sure what we€re talking about when we€re talking about Suffolk as opposed to what we€re talking about when we€re talking about Puaa. I€d like some clarification and guidance on this, please. DARROW:Sure, Commissioner Siracusa. The colored renderings that you have was submitted to you this morning; and, again, that€ll be addressed more specifically by the Applicant€s representative. The area that you€re looking at on that map is a portion of Puaa. That, right there, is the Suffolk property which is identified here. So they are, to say the least, they€re strangely configured lots. But this area here is the Puaa property just above the Suffolk property, so this is the relation of both. SIRACUSA:Yeah. So we have a breakdown of how that Puaa section looks, butwedon€thaveabreakdown,really,whatthiscolorrenderinghere,fortheothertwo areas. Makes it hard to envision the totality if we€re supposed to look at this as a unity and, you know, in some respects. DARROW:Yeah. If I could defer that to the Applicant€s representative, he€ll address those issues with his presentation. Thank you. SPRINGER:Any other questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Graham, you have anything? GRAHAM:No. SPRINGER:Okay. Mr. Fuke, did you receive the Planning Department€s Background Report and Recommendation? FUKE:Yes, and a copy was provided to both of the Applicants; and both have indicated that they had no objections to the proposed conditions. I would like to note, however, at some point in time, you know, I did pass out some proposed amendments; and these amendments are designed exclusively not to affect any of the substance of the conditions as proposed by the Director but deal more with clarity and just tightening up certain language. With that, Madam Chair, I€d like to also acknowledge the, you know, the presence of Mr. Brian Cook, who€s head of Puaa Development. He€s over here. With him is also his Planner-Architect, Michael Riehm, who did the design; and I€ll go into that and Mr. Riehm will also go into a little bit more detail on the design. Mr. Dru McCrue, Dru McCabe, rather, he€s from Colorado and he was not able to make it here, but he did give assurance that the conditions were acceptable. Before going on the presentation, however, I€d like to just touch very briefly upon like, I guess, the question that Commissioner Graham had raised in terms of the Land Use Commission. We do concur with what Mr. Takemoto had indicated. You know, first of 6 all, like, neither of the Applicants had any part in creating that subdivision before you. Back in June of 2004, a 5-lot consolidation and resubdivision action was approved by the Planning Director. And the 5 lots essentially, if you, if I can direct you to the map on my left, the farthest to, on the mauka side. There are actually, that area consists of approximately 64, 65 acres of land, and it€s this general area. And there was a consolidation and resubdivision application which resulted in a creation of one lot which was like this, this is one lot. The second lot was over here. This is the third lot; and this th is the fourth lot. There was the 5 lot, which is this little guy over here; and that€s the road lot. So there was a 4-lot consolidation and resubdivision. After that was done, Puaa Development acquired three parcels - This top portion over here, and these two gray colored parcels. Suffolk Investment bought this property over here. There€ve been a lot of communications between Mr. McCabe and Mr. Cook, largely from an infrastructure standpoint; and I€ll go into that to some detail a little bit later. But just in terms of trying to address the Land Use Commission€s condition, it was not as though that, you know, neither of these, first of all, neither of these applicants had anything to do with the creation of this lot, trying to, you know, so-called undermine the intent of the land use law. They bought the properties as is. Secondly, as Mr. Takemoto pointed out, neither of these applicants have any relationship aside from a desire to do what they believe might be suitable for the community and try to specifically address both in terms of the affordable housing issue as well as the infrastructurequestion.TheLandUseCommission€sletteralsotalkedaboutaPualani- Makai master planned community. And I looked through the files, and there was nothing formally filed for a Land Use Boundary Amendment for that area. So these concepts were like independently developed and had no relationship with whatever was developed; and if it were filed, I don€t believe there was any action on that. And, as Mr. Takemoto had indicated, I think, and that€s partly the reason why I had made the request earlier that both of these applications should be more appropriately reviewed collectively, so at least the Commission and the public would have a better understanding of the cumulative impact of both projects. Having said that, I think that the staff€s recommendation at the last meeting, you know, was deferred because they were waiting for Department of Transportation€s comments. I think that during that time, over the last month-and-a-half, it was a good period because both applicants have had a chance to sit down and discuss some of the more critical issues that the Planning Department, particularly that the Planning Director had. And, you know, we acknowledge, you know, the insights and the input provided by the Director, particularly the issues relating to infrastructure and, also, the affordable housing issues. So after we complete the presentation, I would hope that, you know, it€s not as though that neither of these applicants are not concerned with the infrastructure, not concerned with affordable housing. But I think that as we go through this presentation, we would 7 hope that you can find that these projects will actually help, not necessarily hinder the fulfillment of those two objectives. Oh, I€m sorry, like what I forgot to mention was that, you know, when they had that 5-lot consolidation and resubdivision, what was also required, wisely by the Planning Department, was the setting aside of a 60-foot wide roadway easement thatwould effectively connect Kuakini Highway with the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway; and this is the 60-foot wide roadway easement. The staff kind of generally, maybe I should just, first of all, talk about like the Puaa neighborhood, the neighborhood shopping center. Very briefly, I think that what motivated the Puaa to come forth with this neighborhood shopping center concept was primarily to look at trying to find an area that would service the needs of an under-served area; and at the same time by being able to service the need, you€ll be able to mitigate the trafficissue.AndI€dliketodirectyoutothismapoverherewhichisamapthatwas,it€s Figure 10 that was taken out of the County€s Keahole to Honaunau Traffic Circulation Plan. And, generally, this first red dot here represents the area of Keauhou, and then this other dot here represents Kailua. And it€s basically like a 7-mile stretch between Keauhou and Kailua, and then, you know, you have essentially no commercial areas. So the thought was to have, and at the same time, if you look at these maps you can find like there€s a lot of subdivisions coming along in that area. This is kind of like a blow-up of that particular area. Again, this is Keauhou and this is the subject property. What this map more accurately shows is that this area shaded in blue is the already existing Kahakai Estates Subdivision. This area on the mauka side of the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway is the developing of Pualani Subdivision; and that Pualani Subdivision is basically on this map over here. If and when, not if, when that Pualani Subdivision is completed, there will be a new road that connects from, and this is Hualalai Road, there will be a new road that connects from Hualalai Road all the way down to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway in this particular area. So the thought that Mr. Cook and his people had was by having a neighborhood commercial center in this particular area, you€d be able to capture a lot of the existing and developing residential homes in this, the central part of that area between Kailua and Keauhou. Because absent that you€re taking, you€re forcing the traffic to go either down to Keauhou or to Kailua and beyond. And so this is the whole idea. By having this extension, knowing that it€s going to be completed probably within the next year or 18 months at the latest, that this area will be fully signalized, this roadway will be completed. So the thought then was how you€re going to bring this connection down to Kuakini Highway, and that was partially like this answer. At the time as we discussed it with the Planning Director, there was always the issue about, there were two issues, as it related to this proposed commercial neighborhood shopping center. One was that not trying to create a strip mall kind of appearance and, secondly, was still trying to see whether there was a way that some measure of affordable housing could be addressed within this particular area. So what you see on the map on 8 Jeff€s or the staff€s, what would that be, your left - yeah, I€m sorry, I€m left-handed so I get confused - is the original proposal. You see the original proposal, it kind of like stretches from this point here to the, on the north side going all the way down to the south side over here. But what you see, the difference is that it€s only on the northern quadrant is the proposed commercial area and portion of like at the intersection of, you know, this new mauka-makai road. The balance of the property would be set aside or reserved for housing. There is a condition that€s outlined in the Planning Director€s Recommendation that mandates the requirement for housing to be constructed in conjunction with a minimum of 50 units to be constructed in conjunction with the occupancy of any of the commercial area. So it€s definitely, you know, you can€t have the commercial area without this multiple-family development. And so the focus there was really just trying to address the housing needs. Mr. Cook, in his acquisition of the property, was able to secure like 51 affordable housing credits.Youwillnoticethatinyour,intheDirector€sproposedcondition,noneofthese existing credits can be applied to any of these projects. So that means that if the Council changes the ordinance, or whatever the prevailing affordable housing code is, he must, the developer must fulfill that requirement on site and cannot get credit. So in that way, like it€s a direct way to address the affordable housing issue for the commercial area, let alone having this commercial neighborhood facility also service the existing and growing residential population of that area. The other project is by Suffolk Investment Corporation. It€s, this area is another parcel consisting roughly about like 14 acres of land. And Suffolk has committed to the County, and we had submitted a letter, that this would be exclusively a rental housing project. And that€s why like the Planning Director, as the staff had indicated, there is a condition that state, that stipulates that, as represented by the Applicant, that this will be a rental housing project. And we all know that what is really critically needed in this area because a lot of people can€t afford to buy, you know, buy homes, that you need to provide rental. And, so, there is this stipulation that requires these 250 rental units to be constructed on the site. So that€s one way to address the affordable housing issue. The other one is like traffic, traffic and more infrastructure concerns. So as I tried to indicate in the beginning, you know, you do have, we know that this roadway is coming down and it€s going to be signalized, you know, from Hualalai Road, I mean, this Hualalai Road coming all the way down to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. What your staff is recommending, and what these developers have also committed themselves to, is that prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the commercial, or the multiple-family area, or also for any portion of this 250 rental unit housing project, this light has to be signalized. Because what Pualani is obligated to provide is just signalization to accommodate their project, not signalization to accommodate any traffic on the makai side. So your condition, the staff€s condition requires this area to be signalized, but more so, or equally so, that this 60-foot wide 9 roadway be developed in curb, gutter, sidewalk and be completed before occupancy is issued for these, the rental unit project or the commercial project. There is also this proposed access on the south end of the property which is designed to be exclusively a right-turn in and a right-turn out, provided that the State Department of Transportation allows that. But it€s already a permitted access. This property is already permitted like two, you know, two accesses. So this would be your primary and this would be your secondary access. The Director€s Recommendation also called for having the necessary improvements be done at this Kuakini Highway. And that Kuakini Highway, this point over here intersects with, if I can stretch this map, just follow me for a while, this lower side is Kahakai Estates. And, so, if you continue on you€ll go directly into Kahakai Estates. So, you know, the intersections would line up over here. So the staff€s condition requires like, youknow,channelizedintersectionwithleft-turnpocket,soonandsoforth. SothatisthewaythatbothApplicantsbelievethatyou€llbeabletofulfillthe,atleast this particular region, the infrastructure needs very immediately by having, first of all, a commercial area that would service the neighborhood and minimizing excessive movements to either Keauhou or to Kailua and, secondly, at the same time, constructing major infrastructure work. So that if you€re traveling on Kuakini and you need to get, you know, you need to move north, you€d have a safe place to get out, and which would be at this intersection and not over here, which is close to where the Kona Outdoor Circle is. The other thing about the Suffolk project which I forgot to note is that there will be, if you can look at the middle map over there, the concentration of units will be like more on the, that area; and then the bottom portion, although this is part of the property, is still like a portion of a floodway. So the intent is to have this area serve both as a floodway as well as like a passive recreation area, pretty much similar to in concept to what, you know, Hilo Bayfront area is. You have like a soccer field and, at the same time, when you have inclement weather then, you know, it€s used as a drainage way as well. There is a sewer line that presently bisects the property that services Pualani. So both of these projects, if approved, will be sewered to the County system. Water is already available. They have over 510 water commitments for this property. Can I, Madam Chair, you know, with your indulgence, call upon Michael Riehm to kind of like give a little bit more description in terms of what he visualized, you know, in talking with Mr. Cook and understanding what the Planning Director€s concerns were relative to minimizing the effect of any like strip type of appearance and like what he visualizes this neighborhood commercial facility would look like? SPRINGER:That€ll be fine, as soon as he gives us his name and address for the record. 10 RIEHM:Michael Riehm. I€m with the firm of Riehm Ownesby Planners Architects. The address is 75-128 Kamilo Street, Kailua-Kona. Thank you, Sidney. When we approach projects like this, especially commercial projects, one of the most difficult things to do is to fit them into the neighborhood, not only aesthetically and in terms of the architecture but also in terms of traffic and, most importantly, pedestrians. So when we first looked at this project, our goal was to make it neighborhood-friendly and to fit it into the local environment as best as we could. What we first looked at was rather than allowing the commercial to go all along the frontage of the highway here, we decided to do a much more compact shopping village. The main reason for doing that was by making it more compact we could put more services closer to people who would park in this facility that would help mitigate them fromdrivingfromoneshoptotheotherusingtheircar.Sobyputtingthevastamountof commercial services, which would be mixed use, including both retail and office, everybody who would park in the shopping center would be within a two-minute walking distance of any shop in the project. The other thing that we looked at was integrating it into the community in terms of secondary road access. Like Sidney said, this would be a multi-family rental project. We decided to have a connector street that could go in and attach this, providing more circular access around the center. One of the things that is real important to us is making this a pedestrian-oriented center. And things, studies have shown that if you provide a safe walking distance, a five-minute walking distance, that people will use or walk to a destination versus driving a car. So the location of this center, particularly in relationship to the other development, most of these residents would be within a five-minute walking distance of these basic services. The other thing that we wanted to do was to create a character in this neighborhood, this neighborhood shopping center. That was more of a, what I would call a traditional town development versus what Sidney had said before, you know, avoiding the look of a strip shopping center. And some of the devices that we use are, I€ll go ahead and point those out. As you come into the project, we want to create what we would call more of like a main street character; and this is a character that would encourage pedestrian activities. We would have a mixed use of office and retail along that. And I€ve included some photographs of some examples of what I call pedestrian-oriented commercial villages that I believe you all have copies of. What makes that work is that the architecture, the buildings are brought closer to the street, we€ll provide street trees, traditional lighting fixtures, the parking is done parallel to the street, and it provides a buffer between the pedestrians and the roadway. And we€re using this main street character to more or less establish the character of this shopping center being more of what we would call a traditional neighborhood development versus a strip shopping center. 11 The way that it€s laid out also allows convenient access for people whowant to just get in their car, buy, get their products and leave, but it also would encourage people to stay and hopefully become more of a, what I would call a small town center versus just a very quick shopping experience. So, in summary, there€s a number of devices that we would use architecturally. I think the landscaping is very important, the development of the streets to be pedestrian- oriented, street trees, traditional lighting fixtures; and, hopefully, this would look more like some of our most, or nice shopping areas here on the Big Island versus some of the more suburban sprawl type projects. Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions for the architect? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I€matreepersonso,ofcourse,myfirstquestionaboutthisis going to be -. I see you have a lot of trees marked on here. I assume they€re shade trees, or maybe not. Maybe I should ask that as a question. RIEHM:I hope they are. SIRACUSA:I hope so because I always look for the tree in the parking lot to park under. I don€t like my car to heat up, and I know a lot of other people feel that way, too. So I€m wondering what types of trees you had in mind for this and whether their canopies would be consistent with their root systems in terms of, you know, affecting the paving. RIEHM:Well, let me just preface this by saying that I€m not a landscape architect so I couldn€t tell you exactly what type of trees that we would use. But the landscaping is a very critical thing, especially for large paved areas. These definitely would be done as canopy trees or shade trees. For example, my favorite, one of my favorite parking lots on the island is the Prince Kuhio Mall in Hilo with the beautiful monkeypod trees. Now, a lot of people have problems with monkeypod but there are ways to mitigate their tree growth. So other projects that I think are remarkable are what they did on Oahu with the Mililani project with all those beautiful monkeypods that they had planted in their town center. So I think an integral part of this would be not only the shade trees in the parking lot but, most importantly, the trees that we would be using along our main street to create that pedestrian atmosphere. The type of tree, I don€t know. I mean, that would be up to the landscape architect for the project. SPRINGER:Thank you. Any follow-up questions, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:No. Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioner McCall? 12 MCCALL:I guess my question on what you saidon the TIAR that was done, I€m not sure whether, I think it was never addressed. But on situations like this,from what I understand, the general idea is you€ll be putting multi-family housinghere, rental housing. It seemsto me what in effect we€re actually to do is reduce the housing out on Ocean View, Waikoloa and a number of people who areactually, you know, driving into Kona to work, or whatever. But I€ve never seen, you know, I suppose it requires conjecture to say that this actually is going to potentially relieve some of the traffic, say, on Queen K Highway coming in, or coming through Kainaliu, or something. I mean, I€ve never see anything, I suppose that€s a little bit too hypothetical to actually put down in a TIAR. So can you address that in any way? FUKE:This is Mr. Brian Cook who has a wealth of experience in homebuilding here in the Kona area, so I just as soon defer it to him. SPRINGER:And,Mr.Cook,ifyoucouldpleasegiveusyournameandaddress for the record? COOK:Yes. My name is Brian Cook. Address is 75-5608 Hienaloli, Road No. 25, Kailua-Kona. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. You may proceed. COOK:When we first looked at this property, the developers who we had acquired the property from had it subdivided it into five lots, as Sidney said. They had played out this proposed, what we call a strip mall,‚ running the whole frontage of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. We didn€t want to create that type of development. We think our community here, I€ve lived here in Kona for over 15 years and been in Hawai i for 45 years; and in construction and development all these years we€ve seen a lot of things done bad and some things done good. When we go in and try to do a project, we€ve not motivated by density. We€ve motivated by trying to create something that€s needed in our community. Living here ourselves, we see project after project that isn€t really taking care of the concerns of the, of our community. As a developer, when I first started back in the 1960s, water, sewer and drainage were the three criteria that you would worry about. As we got into the 70s then the environmental assessment areas got in; and then coming over to the Big Island, it was the archaeological, and now it is traffic infrastructure. So when we looked at this project, we said, if we develop something that is not just neighborhood-friendly as far as a commercial area, we have been talking to Suffolk who has the adjacent property, and to create the neighborhood shopping center and the rental housing project, it takes the two projects together to pay for all the infrastructure to be developed. If you take a look at, if you€re familiar with Kailua-Kona, creating a neighborhood shopping center like this will benefit projects on the makai side of the road coming from the south to the north of Kailua circle, you come up to Komohana Kai, there€s Kuakini Makai, and Kahakai, and going mauka, you go from Sunset coming north 13 all the way through Kona Vistas, and to Pualani Estates. And the Lako Street intersection, I understand they said that the, the engineer told me yesterday that they have finished the road design, and they have awarded the contract to Isemoto, and they€re concluding some final reports. And we hope that within a year we€re going to be looking at two accesses coming off of Hualalai Road, which then means everyone living up in Holualoa and central area and Hualalai Road can come right down across the lighted intersection to a Neighborhood Commercial area; and we feel like this mitigates the traffic congestion and problems. Because if you look at what happens right now people will have to go from Holualoa all the way down Mamalahoa Highway to Pualani Road, and all the way down Pualani to Crossroads and Lanihau. We€re trying to do something that€s going to benefit our community where we€re going to lessen some of the traffic. The rental housing project, very important to our community. Single-family homes are, someone was saying earlier that they€re up over, like there€s like a hundred under 500,000.Idon€tthinkthere€smorethan12or15homesonthemarketnowforunder 500,000. It has gotten to be a critical issue here. Working with the Planning Director, our project, we€re looking at maybe a Neighborhood Commercial and a hundred multi- family units; and we will abide by the, whatever the County Council comes up. Whether it€s 20 percent or 30 percent affordable housing, we€ll build it within that community. We€ve gotten the assurance from Suffolk Development. They also, whether it€s 20 percent or 30 percent, they will create the rental housing on those guidelines. So we feel like if you have a neighborhood shopping center and some of the people down south can move into town and have a grocery store right there, if the husband has a car and the wife doesn€t, she can walk to grocery store. And we need to do more things like that to help mitigate traffic. If we don€t, it€s just going to get worse. And even our project as we propose it, if you folks approve it and it goes before the County Council and we get it approved, for us to go through the engineering to get a design approved by DOT, we have a FEMA issue of a flood plain running through the project so we have to go through the County and FEMA, and that process, to get the plans processed and approved and actually developed, is probably going to take us three years. So we won€t be building apartments or shopping centers for that period of time. Our community is really going to be suffering by then. That€s why we need to consider projects like this that are going to mitigate some of the traffic woes and not add to them. FUKE:If I can just kind of supplement and directly answer your question, so, by increasing the inventory at the affordable housing range, then it could possibly minimize people having to find places in Hawaiian Ocean View and Waikoloa. SPRINGER:Thank you, gentlemen. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah, I have heard, you know, like prices like $250,000, for example, mentioned when people talk about affordable housing as single-family units. But I€m wondering for rental housing, what kind of range are we looking at for, say, a single bedroom, two-bedroom, that sort of thing? 14 COOK:I think that what we received from the County, a one-bedroom,I think, was $956 a month, two-bedrooms are $1,100 and something, and three-bedroom, $1,300 and something. Those are the guidelines. FUKE:The County affordablehousing, and perhaps Mr. Takemoto can speak to that directly, but the County proposed ordinance, they do have like guidelines in terms of, you know, when you try to satisfy the affordable housingrequirement for rental, what would be the rentalratesfor the 80 or 100 percent and whether it€s one-bedroom, two-bedrooms or three-bedrooms. And, so, those would be the guidelines that they would have to adhere to. The other provision, I think, as I mentioned earlier is that, you know, the Director had recommended per the representation of the Applicant that this be a rental. So you have a 20-year cap that is going to be rental, so you don€t have the opportunity for the project to becondominimizednosoonerthanit€sdeveloped,youknow.Andtheonlywaythatit can be condominimized, of course, is that you have to, the Applicant would have to go through the same process that they€re going through trying to get the initial entitlement, which is County Council action. SPRINGER:Is that sufficient, Commissioner? SIRACUSA:Yeah, I really, I just -. I€m blown away by the thought that a single bedroom apartment could be $900. And I think I€m going to have to urge my County Council to review those and make those levels more realistic, because otherwise they€re really not serving theneeds of most of our people. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner. Deputy Director? SIRACUSA:Right now we€re stuck with what it is, right? TAKEMOTO:Let me just briefly address that. The definition of affordable‚ is pretty much a formula; and it€s based on the income group that you€re trying to reach. For Sale‚ housing, it€s, I think goes from 100 percent of median income to 120 percent; and the factors that determine the affordable sales price is based on the interest rates prevailing at that time and the income group that you€re trying to hit. So we€re trying to provide homes for sale for income groups that earn less than 120 percent of the median income. Now, rental we€re trying to dip further lower. So about 80 percent of the median income is the target for the rental housing. And the basis to determine the affordable rent is that the rent should not exceed 30 percent of this median income group income, 30 percent. Those are kind of like Federal guidelines from HUD. Below 80 percent it gets very difficult for private sector to burden, to take on that burden of providing housing that reaches down at that lower levels of rent. And so below 80 percent public policy is that perhaps that should be the realm where government should step in and provide public housing or encouraging non-profits to step in with all kinds of other incentives. 15 SPRINGER:Commissioners? I have a couple of questions. Will the affordable units be concentrated or willthey be dispersed throughout the project? FUKE:Well, Mr. Cook can talk about Puaa. But asfar as like the Suffolk project, it€s, that would have to be determined ultimately by, I guess, bothprojects will ultimately have to be determined bythe County Housing Agency, which is the, which consists of the members of the County Council. So they could then stipulate whether it€s like spread out, you know,within the project area, or concentrated, or however. SPRINGER:Thank you. I have another question regarding the Department of Transportation correspondence that€s dated January 21, 2004. In the first section, thefirst paragraph, it says that there are assumptions regarding certain improvements that will be provided by the adjacent Pualani Estates. Can you discuss that with us? FUKE:They were referring to the signalization at that main intersection, soweknowthatthat€safactthatit€sgoingtogoin. COOK:Italkedtothedevelopersandtheysaidthattheyhavethe,the plans are being processed for the street lights for the, three-sided street lights, and they anticipate it will probably be about a year. They€re obligated to install them before that road opens up to Hualalai, but they€re saying within a year to year-and-a-half. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUKE:So in answer to, you know, your question about Department of Transportation€s comments, we received a copy this morning. And we noticed that as we went through all of them then they have been addressed, I think, very well by the Planning Director€s recommended condition. And, in that regard, like I had also passed out, you know, if there are no further questions, you know, by the Commissioners or you, Madam Chair, I did pass out earlier like proposed amendments to both the Puaa Development as well as the Suffolk Development. And these, do you want me to go through them right now? GRAHAM:Maybe we should take some public testimony pretty soon, huh? FUKE:Oh, okay, sure. SPRINGER:Yes. I€m wondering and, Mr. Torigoe, the amendments that have been circulated are not, they€re not the same for both. I€m wondering at what time we separate this discussion. We€ve had a good introductory discussion on the areas of commonality. I€m wondering when we should separate out discussion of, first, Suffolk and then Puaa. The amendments are not the same for both. Per Commissioner Graham€s comments, we should be accepting testimony on the two or if the testifier should separate out their comments for one and the other? 16 TORIGOE:Well, I suppose that in order to allowany members of the public to testify intelligently about these things, I don€t know if these amendments have been made available to the public at this point. If not, then, you know, perhaps they should be made available. And if there€s going to be discussion regarding these, I suppose you may want to allow the public to have a look at these and present testimony before you go into your discussion. SPRINGER:Sidney, are we about ready to bifurcate the discussion and proceed starting with Suffolk? FUKE:Sure. Generally, though, you know, just for the Commissioners€ information, both the proposed amendments are not really substantive in nature and they, because most of the conditions are, were the same for both Puaa and as well as like Suffolk.Theamendmentstotheconditionswouldbeidentical.Butifyouwishtohave it separated, then we can just look at the proposed amendments to Suffolk. SPRINGER:Commissioners, are you comfortable with some, proceeding in this way? We€ve had a discussion of the, a comprehensive discussion of the two developments, and especially with regard to public testimony. I€m thinking that we should now separate out the discussion and proceed with one Applicant and then the next. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:My thoughts on this would be perhaps if we, my thoughts would be that public testimony would probably also be the same for both applications. Perhaps if we take public testimony jointly, we could ask each testifier, you know, do their comments imply to both, or just to one. And in that way we could kind of, you know, go through where, so -. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Mr. Torigoe, would reading the proposed amendments to the conditions be sufficient with regard to public notice of them? TORIGOE:Well, that would be a start. Perhaps you could try reading them and then see if any member of the public would like to take some time to take a look at a copy, or perhaps obtain a copy, then that can be considered. SPRINGER:I would ask the staff if we have a copy of the amendments that could be made available to the public for review. FUKE:And, Madam Chair, perhaps like in the interest of having some general public information, if I were to review them, you know, using this process, I think that they€ll be able to understand like what these changes are intended to do. SPRINGER:To read them? 17 FUKE:Sure. SPRINGER:Please? FUKE:Okay. Relative to the amendments, the suggested amendments to Suffolk€s project, we would like to suggest that Conditions F, G andI, F, G andI relate to making improvements to the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, you know, the traffic light, so on and so forth. G and I relate to the improvements to the 60 foot wide mauka-makai road, you know, through the property, and I refers to the improvements to Kuakini Highway. Now, if you look at all of those conditions, none of those conditions say when those improvements have to be in. And, so, what we€re suggesting out of good faith and, you know, just out of clarity, and I think it€s kind of understood but we would suggest that, you know, you just tack on the last sentence and, you know, add to the last sentence to all of those conditions. And thatwould read as follows:Saidimprovementsshallbecompletedpriortotheissuanceofacertificateof occupancy for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures.‚ SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions on this amendment? Thank you. Mr. Fuke? FUKE:And on Condition L, what -. SIRACUSA:Page -? SPRINGER:We€re on page 3 of the conditions. We€re looking at the change of zone application. SIRACUSA:Oh, okay, okay. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. SPRINGER:We€re looking at the Change of Zone application. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Sure. On Condition L, what we wanted to do is just to clarify this restriction. Because as it€s currently written, it would prohibit non-habitable structures or improvements within the Zone AE or the shaded Zone X area. For example, you can have the project and, you know, you would want to have like your driveway or your landscaping or improvements in that area. That would be prohibited just based upon the language. So what we would like to suggest is that if you delete the first sentence and then you start with what I had suggested like, No residential structures shall be constructed within areas designated AE or shaded Zone X by the FIRM map, as amended,‚ etc., etc. And then the, and I think the intent is like, you know, to have the restriction, you know, of this relative to single-family residential lots, although the Applicant does not have any plans to have single-family residential lots, but to have the restrictive covenants be applicable only to single-family residential lots, and that no 18 single-family residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. So I just kind of like wanted to make this separation, because I think theintent of that condition was two-fold. One is to make sure that, you know, you don€t build structures where people are going to utilize in a floodway, and that€s understandable. And so we wanted to just clarify that to say like, well, there may be other improvements that could go within the AE areas, such as your roadway, your landscaping, you know; and if you€re going to have your park area maybe some improvements that are non-habitable, you know, they should be allowed within the AE area without having an absolute prohibition as initially recommended. And, secondly, if there are going to be any single-family residential lot subdivision, although the zoning would allow it but, you know, that€s not the intent, but in the event that there are single-family residential lots then what you want to do is make sure that the respective lot owners know that they cannot build within any portion of the property that€sdesignatedZoneAEorshadedX.Sothatwasmorejustdesignedforclarification. SPRINGER:Thankyou,Mr.Fuke.Mr.Takemoto,doyouhaveanycomment on this proposal? TAKEMOTO:I understand the AE. Why Zone X? FUKE:What is the shaded Zone X? TAKEMOTO:Yeah. FUKE:I had to ask your staff. Maybe Mr. Hayashi can explain that. HAYASHI:The shaded Zone X is an area that€s designated for 500-year flooding. TAKEMOTO:No problem with your clarifications. SPRINGER:I just have a question. Your fourth amendment there, the insertion of the words, If appropriate a copy of the proposed covenants.‚ What would be an example of the inappropriate case? FUKE:Well, if there€s no single-family residential lots. SPRINGER:I see. FUKE:Yeah. So that was the intent, yeah. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, we€ve heard the proposed amendments on the Suffolk Development conditions. Do you have any questions or comments on them? 19 GRAHAM:I€d just like to see the public get their testimony in so, cause it helps us focus our interest and all stuff, if we could, since they€ve been waiting so long. SPRINGER:Yeah, I think, Mr. Graham, what the intention is is to go through these so that the public has a chance to hear what the proposed amendments are, and then we€ll invite them up as soon as we finish the Puaa conditions. GRAHAM:Okay. SPRINGER:So, Mr. Fuke, if we may then turn to your proposed amendments for the Puaa Development. FUKE:Sure. The proposed amendments I found on Page 1 of what I passed out, conditions, the proposed amendment to Conditions F, G and I, again, would beidenticaltowhatwehadproposedfortheSuffolkproject,andspecificallytoindicate when these improvements have to be in. And what we€re saying is that they have to be in prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the non-residential structures or inspection of any, Final Inspection of any residential structures, the so-called concurrency issue that Mr. Takemoto had intimated earlier. Condition J requires like the designation of an easement; and that€s very understandable because the County just wants to make sure that there are interconnectivities of road. And, so, what Condition J is talking about is like having an easement that would be directed to the properties to the north. And that easement, you know, if you look at that map over there, would preliminarily be, and it may change, would preliminarily be right after you get off the primary intersection and head north. SPRINGER:Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comments on this proposed amendment to Condition J? FUKE:Well, what we were going to suggest was just to add the second sentence like, again, to clarify like when it has to be done. And then, basically, we€re saying that the designation of this easement and its terms shall be established prior to the issuance of a CO for non-residential structures or final inspection of any residential structures. Again, it just makes it clear. And, you know, I had to add the easement and its terms because, you know, they€re going to be providing the easement. And we would, the respective property owners would still have to get together to figure out like, you know, who€s going to do what, what are the liabilities, the interim access, so on and so forth. So that€s the description of the easement and its terms. TAKEMOTO:That€s acceptable. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUKE:On Condition K was just more an editorial change. That thing was just an omission, the word, minor editorial change, add the term to‚ between the words 20 improved‚ and County‚ in the first sentence. So it would read,All roadways within the proposed development shall be improved to County dedicable standards.‚ So that€s an editorial change. Proposed Condition M would be the same thing as what I had suggested for proposed Condition L on the Suffolk project, which was to make clear that you can€t have non- structural type of or non-habitable type of activities, you know, within the Zone AE area, such as your parking lot and your roadway and all that. Because if you were going to say that, if you leave it as it is and you have that easement designated as such, then that roadway would not be possible, you know, that north-south roadway interconnectivity. DARROW:I think that€s different, Sid. Condition M? FUKE:That would be to Condition M. Correct. DARROW:This is referring to the drainage. Condition O would be similar to theConditionL. FUKE:Oh,youarecorrect.Oh,that€sright.I€msorry,thankyouvery much, Jeff. The Condition M, what we€re suggesting here was to say that not mandate that the study have to be submitted to FEMA, cause you already have, an application to FEMA has already been filed, you know, for an amendment. And, understandably, you need to also have like additional drainage study done for all of the planned improvements within the project. And, generally, when you do a drainage plan, that€s not subject to any FEMA amendment, you don€t have to send it to FEMA. But the way that the language is written it implies, or at least it€s not clear, that that same drainage study would have to be directed to FEMA. So we wanted to kind of like make it clear that, as well as like to indicate like when the drainage study would have to be done. So it would read, The drainage study shall be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval.‚ The drainage study is important to, prior to issuance of Plan Approval. Because once you get Plan Approval then pretty much you€re on your way to doing specific design pursuant to the plans. So you need to pretty much know how your drainage system is going to work. And to delete the second sentence, and I just kind of added that, If deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency clearances and/or approval shall be secured prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit affecting the area covered by the work within the AE zone or the corrected effective base flood plain.‚ So, Public Works reviews the drainage plan and they can say like you need a FEMA amendment. If that€s the case, then the plan has to go up to FEMA. So that€s all we€re saying, which is current law right now. And, then, again, making sure that all of the necessary drainage improvements have to be completed before occupancy is done, the concurrency notion. 21 SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Takemoto, any comments? TAKEMOTO:Let me kind of defer to Public Works. Ki, you got any concerns about this amendment? EMLER:Yeah, unfortunately, I didn€t get this recommendation until yesterday late so I wasn€t really, I didn€t really go over the conditions on the drainage issues very well. I thought our conditions in our Recommendation were pretty well down. But I don€t have any objection to the Applicant€s proposed changes to the conditions. I think they€re well done. Chapter 27 regulates that anyway; and, so, any work in the flood plain falls under Chapter 27. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Emler. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Emler while he€s up. Thanks again. And, then, finally -? FUKE:Sure. And, finally, the last amendment is amendment to ConditionO,whichrelates,again,totheprohibitionofanytypeofimprovementswithin the Zone AE or shaded Zone X, like I had discussed earlier on the Suffolk application. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions on these proposed amendments? Any other further discussion with the Applicant€s representatives before we begin public testimony? DARROW:If I could just ask the Deputy Director a quick comment? Condition O and Condition L of Puaa and Suffolk, would it be more appropriate to say Zone X-500 versus shaded Zone X? TAKEMOTO:Do you know if shaded Zone X is a term of art? It would be clearer if it said X-500, or 500-year flood plain, or something like that. DARROW:So X-500? TAKEMOTO:Yeah, or then put in parenthesis something like 500-year flood zone?‚ SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, is that acceptable? FUKE:Sure, that€s the intent. SPRINGER:Thank you. If the Applicant€s representatives could stand back now. We have on our testimony sign-up sheet, Joel Gimpel, Harold Murata, Josephine Keliipio, Ann Peterson and Janice Palma-Glennie. I don€t see Ms. Palma-Glennie in the audience but -. PETERSON:She left written testimony. 22 SPRINGER:Okay. PETERSON:And she wanted to know if the Planning Department could acknowledge her written testimony out loud. SPRINGER:Thank you. Then I think we have enough chairs for all of you. You€ve all raised your hands and been sworn in. Before you begin your testimony, if you could please give your name and address for the record; and we€ll begin with you, Mr. Gimpel. GIMPEL:My name is Joel Gimpel. I live at 73-4686 Hinalani Street in Kailua-Kona. Good late afternoon. I represent the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. And we€ve reviewed both the Puaa and Suffolk applications for State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone; and I€d like to combine my comments on those two. I submittedwrittencopiesoneachsothat,tothestaffsoyou€llhaveitintherecord. WeunderstandnowthatthePuaaproposalistodevelopacommercialshoppingcenterin the northern end of the property and housing at the southern end of the property. Principal access, of course, would be from Route 11 at the north end of the property, with a signalized and channelized intersection directly opposite the access to Pualani Estates. And the Applicant also proposed a right-in, right-out only access to Highway 11 at the south end. There would be a road with a 60 foot right-of-way through the project connecting with the Suffolk Investment property immediately makai. We have a number of concerns and suggestions regarding the Suffolk proposal, I mean, the Puaa proposal and recommend as you are doing, that it be evaluated in conjunction with the Suffolk application. Traffic on Route 11. The TIAR predicted that the project would add 3614 trips per day to traffic on Kuakini Highway and Route 11, which is already operating at capacity. But the TIAR, while predicting no change in the level of service at the Pualani Subdivision intersection with Route 11, which should be signalized, failed to take into account the traffic that will be added to that intersection by the 21-unit Uluwehi Properties Development that has been approved by the County Council, and the 250-unit rental development that€s proposed by Suffolk Investment. And because the traffic counts used for the TIAR were taken before commercial delivery trucks were needed in the area, it also failed to account for the many delivery vehicles that will enter the development, especially in the morning peak hours. Furthermore, the TIAR projected, predicted that the proposed right-in/right-out driveway on Route 11 would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the afternoon peak hours. And, even with the right-turn acceleration lane, entering Route 11 will be dangerous because the speed limit at that point is 55 miles an hour. Second issue: Traffic on Kuakini Highway. Because of the existing and projected congestion on Route 11, we believe (and the TIAR predicted) that many drivers would 23 use Kuakini Highway to access and leave the project, which will invariably increase congestion on that two-lane road and result in increased traffic through the residential development proposed by Suffolk. Third: Trip Length Reduction argument. We understand and recognize that the proposed development will somewhat reduce trip length for area residents to and from commercial and office uses, but it will nevertheless add significantly to the already congested traffic on Route 11 and on Kuakini Highway. We have another, a few other safety issues with respect to the Puaa Development. We€re concerned that speeding on the 60 foot wide mauka-makai road to be constructed that connects Route 11 and Kuakini Highway will raise safety problems, especially as it crosses the proposed 250-unit housing project makai of the subject property. Soinviewofthoseconcerns,andoftheMayor€soppositiontocommercialdevelopment, where supporting infrastructure is already operating at capacity, as we know it is, we urge that you carefully evaluate these traffic-related considerations and apparent shortcomings of the TIAR, and delay the project until: 1) the community development plan is in place; and 2) infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. At the very least, we ask that you: 1)Prohibit occupancy until the Pualani Estates/Route 11 intersection is signalized and fully channelized, including a northbound left-turn pocket lane from Route 11. 2)Require the Applicant to provide right-turn deceleration lanes from Route 11 into both of the access driveways, and a right-turn acceleration lane from the right- in/right-out driveway onto Route 11. 3)Reduce the speed limit on Route 11 to 45 miles an hour from Hualalai Road south to the Kuakini Highway/Route 11 intersection. I know that isn€t your jurisdiction but that could be your recommendation. 4)Require a left-turn pocket lane from Kuakini Highway into the mauka-makai road, and right-turn deceleration and acceleration lanes into and out of the mauka- makai road at its intersection with Kuakini Highway, and a pedestrian grade separation (either overpass or underpass) or a pedestrian-activated stoplight at that intersection to facilitate safe pedestrian access from nearby subdivisions along Kuakini Highway. Let€s get rid of the cars to go shopping a few blocks away and allow people to cross Kuakini Highway into the area. 5)Lastly, limit speed on the mauka-makai road between Route 11 and Kuakini Highway to 25 miles an hour, require a traffic-calming design, and provide sidewalks and bike paths. 24 Briefly, I€d like to outline a couple of the considerations and concernswe had with the Suffolk Investment proposal. We do appreciate that the Applicant proposes to provide much-needed rental housing in the Kailua-Kona area. Nothing in the applications, however, describe the affordability of the rents to be charged. Because the shortage of affordable housing for low-income workers in the Kailua-Kona area contributes greatly to our traffic congestion, we urge that you require the developer to designate a substantial percentage, at least 30 percent,ofthe units on-site for low-income households, and that in-lieu of fees not be permitted, and that the developer also comply with other requirements for affordable housing that are in effect when construction begins. In addition, we recommend that you require the developer to restore the old Kailua- Keauhou Road, which is the Middle Road that€s designated on Page 10 of Appendix D-2 on the application, that runs mauka of the old Kuakini Highway which is the western boundary of the project, and designate it as a bicycle and walking path which will benefit all area residents. We note that the project, that the TIAR anticipates that the project upon completion will add1405dailytripstotheroadwaynetwork.Inotherwords,KuakiniHighway/Route11 and that Route 11 is already a capacity. Furthermore, the TIAR on this application didn€t anticipate the service and delivery vehicles that will be entering and leaving the adjoining commercial complex that was proposed by Puaa Development. So thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I€ll be happy to answer any of your questions. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Gimpel. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:That€s a lot to chew on there. But the first thing you€re talking about a Community Development Plan that you€d like to see. Is that underway now? I€m not aware of what€s going on with the development plan. GIMPEL:Yes, that is underway. The Council is considering the Draft 1 of the General Plan in which calls for the, and will be working on community development plans as well. And that we think is important because the current General Plan, until the revisions are adopted, isn€t something to base this on. GRAHAM:I understand. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Other Commissioners, questions or comments of the testifier? The testifier€s comments peaks some questions that I have for Deputy Director Takemoto. I€m interested in this failure to take the Uluwehi Development, is that correct, into consideration. I€m also interested in, if the Planning Department took into consideration the increased commercial traffic that would result from this development. And if you could, we had some discussion about the tension between providing much-needed affordable housing close to places of 25 employment and the burden onto the existing roads. Could you comment onthose, Mr. Takemoto? TAKEMOTO:As far as the factors that went into the TIAR, I cannot comment on that. I haven€t reviewed that study. But, you know, commonly, TIARs can be criticized just like an EIS, you know. Everybody who picks it up has something to say about it. So I would need to take the comments and compare it to the TIAR, and possibly get Public Works€ input on that as well. SPRINGER:Okay. Then perhaps a more general statement regarding how the Planning Department evaluates the benefit of affordable housing close to places of employment against the cost of increased traffic? TAKEMOTO:This kind of goes to an earlier question raised by Commissioner McCall,actually,about,youknow,thestrategyhereistodirectgrowthtotheexisting urbanized areas, which is called in-field development,‚ and provided that this in-field development does have an affordable housing component. Because the trend is that the people are being pushed out to the periphery because they cannot afford housing close to town where their jobs are so, which is what€s causing these long commutes to Kona. So, to counter that, the idea is to direct growth to the in-field areas, which are the vacant urban areas in existing urbanized areas, that have infrastructure or can be developed to provide infrastructure. As long as there is a component for affordable housing so that these people have a choice to move closer to where they work, we cannot guarantee that that would actually happen. I think the whole exercise here is to provide opportunities and choice; because without even that, we don€t stand a chance. And that is kind of a paradox to hear you increasing development in the urbanized area in the interest of reducing congestion, but that is the long-term solution. We need the, the congestion that is occurring now is a symptom of the existing conditions. So we need quick fixes to clear up as much as we can the congestion that€s occurring now. But in the long term we need to reverse this land use trend to not aggravate the existing trends. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Takemoto. Commissioners, any questions of either Mr. Gimpel or Mr. Takemoto on this matter? Okay, thank you, Mr. Gimpel. Next, Mr. Murata, if you could please give us your name and your address for the record. MURATA:My name is Harold Murata. My address is 77-6452 Alii Drive, Apartment 305, Kailua-Kona. My compressed statement is the Suffolk-Puaa project should not be approved. The Suffolk Development proposes 300 parking stalls, the Puaa Development proposes over 520 stalls. This kind of high traffic-inducing project, such as these, do not fit into the existing transportation infrastructure in Kona. These projects will further impact traffic flows and traffic circulation, not only on the roadways here in central Kailua and in the vicinity. But if you go mauka, about 10 more miles south, the effects of all these cars that will be generated will spill over to the Honalo-Kainaliu area, and continuing on 26 to Kealakekua and Captain Cook. These areas are already suffering from trafficjams today. I don€t know how many of you travel this route, but it can get pretty hectic. Traffic movement at the junction of the two roads, Mamalahoa and Kuakini, is jammed in the afternoons and evenings. On Kuakini Highway going southbound fromthe junction about three to five miles back, there€s a traffic jam cars creeping along. Some cars will , scoot mauka, go to Mamalahoa, and then use that like a grand prix highway to get to the junction so that they can merge into the main line traffic, beat the others who are seating by further back. The drivers are pretty lucky because they can, you know, they can get in, what I call driver courtesy, you know, people are nice. But as projects like this increase the volume of cars, I think that kind of spirit, you know, karma it€s going to diminish. There€s going to be driver, drivers are going to cut in and , cut off; and that€s not a healthy traffic situation. Accessfromdrivewaysaregettingmoreandmoredifficult.Farmersare,theyhaveto adjust their life to sell their coffee because of all this heavy volume. If you don€t get out in time, you know, it€s going to, they have to adjust their lifestyle tremendously, the quality of life. Projects such as this worsens already a bad situation. If you were stuck in Honalo and Kainaliu, you€d go nuts. Signficant adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. You can use your reins and say, oh, slow down. Because once a project is approved, mitigation is pretty much out of the question, but avoidance can. It€s time to do some thinking and say, you know, what can we do to prevent the worsening of the traffic situation. So I ask you, please don€t approve this project that will add 800-plus car stalls and over 5,000 average daily car trips. Don€t add that to the inadequate transportation infrastructure. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Murata. Are there any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, Ms. Keliipio? KELIIPIO:My name is Josephine Keliipio. My address is 76-168 Royal Poinciana Drive, Kailua-Kona. And I have lived in this area, general area, where this commercial area is going to be built. I live on Alii Kai€s, sorry, I live on Alii Kai, in Alii Kai Subdivision. It€s a very old subdivision. It was built back in the 60s; and I moved into that area in €88. Now, if I were to walk from my home up to this commercial area would be about a little bit over a mile, because I€d have to follow the road up to the commercial area. And as much as this developer thinks that they€re doing a good thing for the community, they€re talking in terms of it being very car-oriented. In order for them to, in order for them to be useful to the Pualani Estates Subdivision, those people are going to have to cross that very, very busy, busy, busy, busy highway. And highways aren€t nice to pedestrians, which means that they€re going to have to jump in their cars and still drive across. Okay? So, as much as the developer is saying, oh, you know, this is going to be more walkable, yes and no. It€s mostly no. It€s still designed for the car. And I€m wondering how am I going to get over there and walk and shed some pounds, 27 which I need to. So it€s not quite compatible with our surroundingneighborhoods. And the developer is only looking at how they can accommodate Pualani Subdivision, which is directly mauka of the highway, and how they can accommodate the rich guys in Kahakai Estates, which is about, maybe about 100 lots in there. We have 200 lots in our area. And I think there are lot of people that wouldn€t mind walking up there if it was walkable to that area; and it€s not walkable. And, so, I wanted to bring that to your attention to maybe quiz the developer on, you know, how walkable is it to the rest of us. I€m below Komohana Kai Subdivision, okay. And, so, how walkable is it for us because they didn€t mention us; and, you know, we€re kind of off the map over here, you know, where -. So, and, you know, and then this frontage road deal, that€s ugly to put a frontage road right next to the highway. That€s mainland style. Is there some way that they can hide that behind their building so that it€s not obvious? Are we setting a bad precedent for otherdeveloperstodothesamethingwhentheywanttoadjusttheirdevelopment because the land is irregular-shaped? Is that what we€re going to do? And another question I have is, now, developer mentioned the town center. Now, you know, usually the community determines who, where the town center is going to be placed. Not, but we€re letting the developer tell us where our town center is supposed to be? So these are all the, these are questions that come up that I€m hoping that you guys can quiz the developer on. You know, where I live, actually, the ideal town center for us would be right there next to the Lako Chevron Station. You know, from there south there€s all that big area, acreage. That would be really ideal because people already walk across the highway and cars are used to stopping in that area, so it works well for us. But that town center that they€re claiming -. And, and, please, can you ask the developer if we can get a rough idea of how large this town center is? Can he give us an example of an existing mall that€s here either in Kona or Hilo, so that we can relate to how large this town center, this commercial area is going to be. Now, he cut it in half, right? According to the new, the changes, it looks like only half of this Puaa project is going to be the commercial area and then they€re going to put homes on the other side. And, but, you know, you still want to know what kind of impact it€s going to be, how ugly it€s going to be next to the highway. And that frontage road really bugs me, because even though he has permit for that secondary access and even though his traffic study says that it€s not going to affect us, it will. Right now there€s nothing there, so the highway flows very smoothly in that area, very smoothly. And to put two, even if it€s a right-turn in, right-turn out, it still affects traffic. And then I question that secondary access because right after that is the turn-off to go down Kuakini, and, so, this sort of disrupts the driver before the turn-off. And I€m just wondering, you know, what kind of impacts that secondary access is going to be to the next turn-off down in Kuakini. So, you know, there€s just so many questions. I don€t really think that this development is ready for, to go; and I think maybe we should wait until like two other people have 28 said, wait till the regional plans are in place and the community can have better input into where our town center should be located. So, let€s see what else that I want to say. Also, if this thing goes through, and if it goes through because they€re going to put in all the housing, would be good to put in senior housing because I think Kona is very limited in that. And there was a woman that came, she left, she€s trying to get into senior housing. So, those are considerations; and I think that, oh -. Mauka-makai road, one last thing. I have a real problem with mauka-makai roads. I live on a very important mauka-makai road where speeding was the norm until we had seven speed humps put in about three, four years ago. And, so, this mauka-makai road, maybe the developer can design it in such a way that it is no more than an eight percent slope. And the reason for that is if there€s a speeding problem, it€s easier to put in speed humps or some kind of traffic calming when it€s not as steep. And in order for the, you know, thedevelopertoputinagraduallessthaneightpercentsloperoad,hemightneedtostart that mauka-makai road further up by the highway rather than, you know, in other words, to give more land for sweeping curves, more curves, to accommodate eight percent slope. But these are things that, can you guys please ask the developer abou? Because unless it€s resolved, I don€t think that this project should go through. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Commissioner McCall? Question for the testifier? MCCALL:Yes. Could you identify where your subdivision is on the map? KELIIPIO:Where is it? DARROW:Royal Poinciana, this is Royal Poinciana here. What€s your cross street? KELIIPIO:I€m way down at, it starts with a P. DARROW:Pakalana? KELIIPIO:Pakalana Road. DARROW:Pakalana, so that would be right in this area. The area that we€re looking at in this application is here. You can see the streets. It appears that -. NOMURA:Microphone, please. DARROW:Oh, thank you, sorry about that. It appears to be able to access the Hawai i Belt Road. You have to actually go from Royal Poinciana or these subdivisions here, come up to Kupuna Street and then access off of Lako Street. 29 KELIIPIO:I€m .7 miles from that intersection, yeah, from that intersec ƒ, at Lako and the Queen Kaahumanu; and then I€d have to walk across to that shopping center. That€s going to be a real challenge, yeah? MCCALL:And my other point would be that still might be closer than driving all the way to Keauhou, or over to KTA, or something. KELIIPIO:So still jump in my car? You don€t believe in walkability? MCCALL:No -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner -. MCCALL:I€m not here to testify. But I€m just saying that even if you have to,somepeoplewillneedtodrive.Theycan€tgoto-.Imean,iftheycangotoshopping center or close enough to anybody that they can walk, that would be great. KELIIPIO:Mr. McCall, this is Kona. We have the weather to walk. Fifty percent of us are obese. Look at me, I€m on Weight Watchers, you know. So we need to walk, we need to be encouraged to walk by putting in the right developments that make us do that, make it pedestrian-friendly. Right now, everyone is designing Kona to be car- oriented. It€s a real turn-off, well, for people like me. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, two things. One is, after I ask my question, if you, I€m going to ask Mr. Emler to comment on your questions about lowering the speeding by, you know, changing the grade or the speed bumps and that sort of question that you raised. But, first, I want to ask you if you have any concrete suggestions for making the area more walkable, more pedestrian-friendly. If you were me or if you were the planners or, you know, Mr. Fuke, and you wanted to plan for pedestrian access from any of these surrounding areas to this commercial complex, what would your suggestions be? KELIIPIO:Open up Kahakai Estates so we can go up that road, nice area. Or, let€s see, we have a vacant property above us, there€s some archaeological, it€s vacant, you know, put a pedestrian walkway through that property so we can access Kuakini, to stop the traffic on Kuakini so that we can walk across it. You know, I mean, we could probably go down to Kahakai Estates and cross there but, you know, make the sidewalks super big, super wide so that the cars know that they need to stay back from the pedestrians. Improve the sides, the shoulders of Kuakini and Queen Kaahumanu, make them super wide so that pedestrians know they€re safe. See, that€s the problem, we€re not safe when we€re walking next to the road. You know, we€ve had people get killed on Alii Drive, you know. And this is a, these are two highways, and especially in that area. So, you know, it needs to be, somebody that€s a pedestrian planner needs to come in here and help us. 30 SPRINGER:Thank you. Follow-up? SIRACUSA:Okay. My second question was for Mr. Emler from Public Works, to come up and comment on your remarks about changing the grades so cars can€t go so fast and that they could put in speed bumps. EMLER:Yeah, generally, we wouldn€t restrict the grade on a local street to eight percent. However, Josephine has some knowledge of the guidelines for installation of speed humps because they were done in front of her house. Correct? Eight percent is the guideline maximum; and that is part of a, I believe it€s part of the Traffic Code. I€m trying to think which code it€s part of, but we do have some speed hump guidelines. The installation of speed humps in a County road that€s proposed for dedication to the County would be sent to the Traffic Division for review and comment. I do not want to makeacommitmentatthispointastowhetherthatwouldbeallowed.However,Ido concur with Josephine€s understanding of the maximum grade. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Thank you. SPRINGER:CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:No questions. SPRINGER:Okay. Other Commissioners? Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Ms. Peterson, your name and address and then your testimony, please? PETERSON:Aloha, I€m Ann Peterson, 77-180 Kekai Place, Kailua-Kona 96740. Before I begin my testimony, I just want to say a little bit about traffic calming. And there are many, I don€t like speed humps, personally. But there€s all different other ways, bulb-outs and chicanes and there€s a lot of ways to get really creative that have ; been done in communities all over the nation that can slow people down. We know when we built mauka-makai€s wide, 60-foot wide on a slope, that people are going to speed. So, you know, that should be built into any project that you guys take a look at. When I sat down here I was really in support of this project. I like Josephine€s idea about having the community decide where a shopping area should be, but I am really supportive of shopping areas in, near neighborhoods. We need small, little units. I€ve lived in Japan for three years before moving here and there€s zero zoning there. It was so convenient to walk right across the street to the drug store, get my hair done, go to the fish store, the tofu shop, everything was right there. It was wonderful. I didn€t own a car before I moved to Hawai i and I€ve gained 40 pounds in 10 years; and I€ve lived in cold climates and, you know, it was never a problem. 31 And that€s why I€m here today, is if this shopping area has the right kind of stores in it, not like the Pines. I don€t know what happenedto the Pines. I think that was a good idea that went bad. Now, who does that service? It draws people in. It doesn€t have the kind of service stores that this kind of neighborhood needs -- and I don€t know if that€s something that you guys can control -- needs a supermarket, needs a laundry, you know, those kinds of things, a hairdresser that will service the people around there. I have a, this area was a real heartbreak for me. The old Walua Road, biking/pedestrian scenic route, if you€re familiar with that area, it€s up in the Sunset Subdivision. And we worked really hard to get that opened and we were going to extend that down into town. Mayor Yamashiro was on board with that. Henry Cho was on board with that. Curtis Tyler was on board with that. Peter Young was on board with that. We went on hikes in there. We brought in consultants from the mainland to help us figure out that we could use the two culverts that are there near Lako Street to go under the highway, you know, divertthewaterintooneandhavetheotherforapedestrian/bikeaccess.WhenIsawthe construction going on in there in the storage unit, and talk about a total mis-use for that area, that€s the kind of thing that belongs in the industrial areas. I don€t know how that got in there. I was told in the Kona side Department of Planning by Norren that if anybody touched that right-of-way, they€d be in big trouble;‚ and I don€t want anybody to be in big trouble. But that, we found out later that got sold, that alignment got sold; and not only got sold once, it got sold six times by the State. And, yeah, I don€t know how that kind of thing can happened but there€s this major disconnect. This pathway was on the State Bike Plan as a bike route. It was on the County Department of Public Works Roads in Limbo to be a bike plan, to be a bikeway, bike and pedestrian-way I should say. But from what I understand, when the request comes through to purchase this, it doesn€t, it goes to the Department of Finance. It doesn€t go to Public Works. It doesn€t go to, you know, the right people that have this broader vision of what€s happening; and, so, this is a tragic disconnect. When I hear the developers talk about neighborhood-friendly and pedestrian-friendly, this could really be a wonderful little development, I think, in my head, but it needs to bring down the people - I€m sorry, I€m cold, I€m not scared, I€m just shaking - to bring people down from Sunset Subdivision and Kailua Village, or whatever, Kona Heavens, whatever they call it, Kona Heights, I don€t know my subdivisions, sorry, but, and from down Lako Street. But as Josephine said we need more pedestrian-friendly. And that frontage road doesn€t say pedestrian-friendly. It says you€ve got to get in your car to get here. Doesn€t it? So I€m going to leave it at that. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Are there any questions for the testifier? Mr. Takemoto, then Commissioner Siracusa. TAKEMOTO:Ann, I€m a little bit confused on the Walua Road Extension of that pedestrian-way. Was the intent to come down Lako Street, cross Kuakini and then use 32 that old Kuakini Highway right-of-way that goes through the property? Is that what you€re saying? PETERSON:Yeah, that Kailua-Keauhou Road. You know how Walua Road is, it€s Walua Road up there and then when you get down by Tres Hombres, it€s Walua Road again. Well, that, there€s, if you look on the map, that old alignment is there, and I think on the older maps that was called the Kailua-to-Keauhou Government Road or,you know, it€s gone through anumberof names depending on which map you look at. But we weren€t really sure how people would get from the upper to the lower; and that€s why we thought initially they could cross at Lako Street. But the ultimate would be to open up that culvert and have, and extend. The road actually, the alignment actually extends behind that car dealership, Orchid Isle. And there could be a little switch-back down to the culverts, come under the culvert, and continue on along that alignment. Now, you know, I do want to say that the alignment is gone; and I don€t think that it needs to be on thatexactspot.Youknow,itcouldbeclosertothehighway,itcouldmeanderthrough this development. The developer should not be, you know, constrained in any way, I think, by this old alignment, even though there€s some wonderful berms in there. It€s just a beautiful old highway, scenic. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. Is it appropriate for me to ask a question of the developer or Mr. Fuke? SPRINGER:He€ll be coming back. If you can reserve your question for him when he returns to the table. SIRACUSA:Okay. SPRINGER:Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments for the testifier sitting at the table? I do have a question for you, Ms. Peterson. You mentioned Janice Palma-Glennie€s testimony. You€re saying that it was left with the staff, was it? PETERSON:She said she was going to leave it with -. HAYASHI:Yes, she gave the testimony to the staff. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. Has that -? HAYASHI:We€ll make that as part of the record. SPRINGER:Has that been distributed or -? HAYASHI:No. She only had left one copy. SPRINGER:Thank you. 33 HAYASHI:So we could circulate it. SPRINGER:Okay. And it will also be copied and entered into the record. Thank you all. PETERSON:Aloha. SPRINGER:Aloha. PETERSON:Can I just applaud you all. It€s really commendable what you€re doing; and I know you€re volunteering; and -. SPRINGER:Thank you, ma€am. If the developer€s representative and the consultantscouldcomebacktothetable,please.Mr.Fuke,mayweinviteCommissioner Siracusa€s question at this time? FUKE:Sure. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you, I assume you were listening to the comments from the people that came up to testify from the community, and Mr. Cookas well. And I€m wondering if there is any way that you folks can see to address some of the concerns that were raised by members of the public in terms of moderating your plans in some way here and there and possibly cost-effective ways to address some of those issues that they raised? Or, would you be willing to, if we were to say let€s defer to give you a chance to go back to the drawing board, and look and see how you could make a win-win for the community, as well as for your development? FUKE:One of the Applicants is here so I just as soon defer the question, the issue on the deferral issue to, you know, Mr. Cook. But before he responds, I think that there were like a number of suggestions that were offered. I think that, I€m not necessarily speaking for Mr. Cook but, I think, you know, just overall like from the standpoint of like the mitigation, the added mitigation, they can be accommodated. I think there has been some misunderstanding in terms of like when Mr. Riehm talked about like the village concept that the whole place is going to be, it had to be like pedestrian-accessible. And it was clearly, and I think as Commissioner McCall accurately pointed out, that the project, the commercial component was, you know, within the project component, plus the multiple-family portion that, you know, you could start the beginning of what, I guess, what Ms. Peterson was talking about, just trying to create a greater sense of village environment within the project. You can€t go beyond that. But in terms of the beyond component, trying to minimize like the visual impact of, number one, like not having, you know, the sprawl, you know, the strip mall kind of 34 notion, by having this kind of revised proposal, I think, eliminates, visually eliminates that kind of notion. You can also have, introduce extensive landscaping within the proposed right-of-way, not the proposed right-of-way, but within the parallel roadway. You know, that would help visually screen and try to create more like a village enclave. We can€t do much in terms of providing pedestrian movement from other subdivisions to over here. But within the project area to make it pedestrian-friendly, it can be done; and it has been suggested and made conditions, such as the provision of curb, gutter, sidewalk along the main spine, the spine-way. There were also discussions about, to further the notion of like a pedestrian-friendly along the Kuakini Highway portion, for example. It could possibly be, and this is something, I guess, Mr. Cook and Suffolk would have to look at, is, since they already have to make improvements to the Kuakini Highway, as proposed by the Planning Director,thatyoucouldhavelikeapedestrian-activatedcrosswalk,youknow,asthey have like in Kailua and other areas, you know, to make it more like whatever you can,‚ to make it more and more pedestrian-oriented. COOK:Yes. Listening to some of the comments by these folks, they bring some good points; and I think the first gentleman who spoke was referencing traffic concerns, speed limit and on the highway. Now the Hawai i Belt Road, the speed limit is 55 miles an hour in that area. When the traffic light goes in, I€m not sure but I think that would automatically reduce the speed limit to 45 miles an hour. I think that that is much better; and that€s a preference to have that lower speed limit on the highway. And we will work with DOT and try to see if things like that can be accomplished. Some of these other comments of concern about how the intersection would be designed, the main intersection coming in connecting to the intersection at Pualani Estates would be a complete DOT-required intersection, which would be a deceleration lane and acceleration lane. There would be a pocket lane turning north. Then the southern right- turn only, again, there would be a deceleration lane; there would be an acceleration lane. The intersection of the new, they€re calling it the Spine Road, to Kuakini Highway, the requirement there I€m sure will be there will have to be a pocket lane for the left-turn. So I think many of those issues, and I would like to meet with him, that gentleman, and talk to him further about it, cause it seems like he has a lot of knowledge about traffic; and, certainly, that€s an issue that we really want to make sure we all work together on. Some of the other issues, Josephine was asking about the percentage of grade on our project. And as I look at the topography map, it looks like that the roadway could be designed, for the most part, with possibly an 8 percent grade. As I looked at the current topo at Kuakini Highway, our elevation is in the neighborhood of 260, whereas when we get up to the main highway it€s about 330. So I don€t perceive it as being a steep intersection or a steep roadway. Lessening the speed limit in that area, too, is a good idea. I think that€s good. 35 Josephine and, also, Ann were both mentioning, you know, how you can get pathways through differentgiven areas; and we would be certainly willing to try to look at different areas. We don€t control adjacent properties. But as I look at Royal Poinciana, that road goes up, and it just stops before it gets to the highway. You know, we would certainly try to work with them and see if there€s any way we can get pathways and things like that to better accommodate people that want to walk, even if it€s a distance to go to the store. The type of project we€re proposing is truly what I feel like a Neighborhood-Commercial. We€re not trying to create any big box stores. In meeting with the Planning Director and staff, we were sensitive to not creating a shopping center that would have a, like an Office Depot, or something that where people from outlining areas would come into there specifically. We€re looking at more like a supermarket and getting some banks in there, getting a satellite post office in there, hair salons, barbershops, a restaurant -- a restaurant more fitting like the Kona Ranch House that we all had that we all enjoyed here for so manyyears--healthfoodstores,abakery,amixofofficespace,smallretailshops, maybe a drugstore and then the gas station, car wash. We have two car washers in West Hawai i, one of them is by the County offices, it€s very congested. The other one is out past Honokohau Harbor. Simple thing like that, we€re driving all the way out there just to get our car washed. We€re on the road creating more traffic. So we would want to work with the community; and we€re not calling this a regional shopping center. It€s just a neighborhood shopping center for the people of that area, and we will be soliciting their input as to what they would like to say in the way of retail shops and businesses there. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, thank you very much for clarifying a lot of that. And I€m wondering if I look over can I see, you know, any kind of response from the testifiers as to how they, you know, feel, if they would be able to work with the developer on addressing some of those problems? SPRINGER:I see that you€re nodding assent. If you have a verbal response, if you could come to a microphone, please. And, again, this is Ms. Peterson. PETERSON:Aloha. Just to say Joel had to leave, but his comments are from the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. Those are created by the whole committee, so you might want to come to one of those meetings sometime, get on the agenda, and hear the input from everybody. He kind of drafts something and everyone throws their two cents in. Your comments were encouraging, you know. I just, I hope the County can help get on board with, and figure out some way to complete that pathway. I know Roy has a passion about this as well, and I€m glad he€s on board. And I know that having Michael Riehm at the table, he€s very pedestrian-oriented, and that makes me feel very comfortable. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Commissioner Siracusa. 36 SIRACUSA:Thank you. Mr. Murata, did you wantto respond to that, also? MURATO:I€d like to give additional comments. SIRACUSA:Please, I would like to hear your comments, yes. SPRINGER:If you could please come to the microphone. SIRACUSA:I€m looking for a win-win here. SPRINGER:And if you could please come to the microphone, Mr. Murata. MURATA:I would like to comment, perhaps this is more to the Commission thantothedeveloper.Ithastodowith60footroadways.They€remagnificent.They add a lot of traffic. I don€t know, I think Deputy Director Takemoto may know. The right-of-way on Kuakini Highway when it ends in Honalo, then it comes, it goes into a country road in Honalo and the greater part of Kainaliu. I understand the right-of-way is 30 feet. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO:I don€t know the exact right-of-way but it does narrow, because it turns into from a State highway, it turns into County, County road, through that town, and then it picks up again as a State highway. MURATA:Yeah, it€s just mind-boggling to have so many, such a wide, large capacity for cars, you know, getting into constriction. So my question is how are issues such as this addressed? I think it€s beyond the scope of the project itself. But it€s the impact of the project in an urban area having a tremendous impact on the country road; and, so, that€s my comment. SPRINGER:Mr. Murata, thank you for that comment and the question in it. Mr. Takemoto, can you respond to his concern of cumulative impacts and enlarging highways, which eventually narrow down to County roads? TAKEMOTO:Okay. When you€re referring to the 60-foot road, you€re referring to the proposed mauka-makai that will eventually connect to Kuakini, yeah, the lower, the County Kuakini. And, if that€s the case, then what they€re dealing with is our existing road standards which require a 60-foot for a collector. We can, so they€re only doing what we told them to do, is my point. But aside from that, we recognize your concern that our current County standards need to be re-looked because it does encourage, it is very vehicle-oriented, very, it€s designed to be as maintenance-free as possible. So you just pave as much as you can and minimize the landscaping; and that needs to be changed, we understand that. Within the 60 foot right-of-way, you can have a narrow travel-way and have more space for pedestrians and bicycles. So the width of the right-of-way may not necessarily be the issue, it€s how you design within that right- of-way. And we can control that through subsequent phases of the project, whether 37 through Plan Approval, or if they come in through subdivision, we can doit at that stage as well. SPRINGER:I think the concern is also when that broad thoroughfare feeds onto the narrow County road. TAKEMOTO:When it intersects with Kuakini? SPRINGER:That€s correct. TAKEMOTO:Okay. SPRINGER:Or with the traffic that€s going to be coming out of this subdivision and eventually going up to Honalo where it narrows down again. TAKEMOTO:Well, the whole function I see as then value of that mauka-makai roadistoprovideanothermeansfortheresidentswithinthatprojecttogetdownto Kuakini, if they€re heading to, say, Kailua. Instead of having to go all the way up to Kuakini, the upper Kuakini or Queen K, or actually it€s Queen K at that point, loading up that highway for a short distance and coming back down to Kuakini, so avoiding that segment. So just bringing them down, and then they have a choice to go to Kailua. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:If that€s the primary purpose, then I think we should be considering that a lot of those households would have children. They would be doing a lot of walking and running, a lot of them would have bikes. And, so, if some of that 60-foot wide area could be used possibly for a bike lane, that might narrow the actual motor vehicle part of it and create an area where, that would be safe and that would encourage this pedestrian and biker-way. And you can lose a lot of weight riding a bike, too, you know. And I€m wondering if the developer would be willing to consider something like that as part of that 60-foot wide road. COOK:Well, right now, as I stated, the County requires for a collector road a 60-foot wide right-of-way. In Michael€s layout, you€ll notice coming off of that through the rental housing project, we have a much narrower road; and then going into the little neighborhood shopping center, again, it€s a narrow road. Those would both be private roads wherein we could design the roads where they€re more narrow, it slows traffic down, you have street trees; and that would be the intent. The area that runs through the commercial, what we€re trying to propose is something like this where you have parking on the side, trees, a narrow road where you don€t have traffic moving quickly. The neighborhood shopping center would own this road in private. The rental housing project would own this road in private. But we really, at this time, have no control over the 60-foot wide corridor. It€s a County requirement. FUKE:So if I can add to that -. 38 SIRACUSA:And the County requires that it all be used for fourlanes, or whatever it is, or -? FUKE:No, if you look atthe, Commissioner Siracusa, if I might direct you to Condition 8 that the Director has proposed. Basically what you€re saying is that the Applicant has to, within the existing 60-foot wide right-of-way, construct a roadway in that area with curb, gutters and sidewalk to County dedicable standard. So as Mr. Takemoto has indicated, if the County requires other improvements that would still satisfy the dedicable standard requirement, then that is the requirement that the developer has to comply with. So, you know, hearing what the community or members of the community raise relative to how to make it more pedestrian-friendly, if the administration is in a position to require that in conjunction with the Construction Plan Approval process, then the developer has to comply with. SPRINGER:Mr. Takemoto, do you have any comment? TAKEMOTO:Yeah. Commissioner Siracusa just raised another point about children;andKahakaiElementarySchoolispossiblywithinwalking-bikingdistance. And, so, the comment raised by the Kona Traffic Safety Committee about a safe pedestrian crossing at Kuakini, is that something already being incorporated? FUKE:Yeah, like I was, actually, I had a proposed language along that line but I didn€t clear it with Mr. Cook. But, you know, they already have to make improvements along the Kuakini Highway section, you know, channelizing intersection and all that. So, if you were to amend Condition I on both applications to just read, you know, like if you look at on Page 2 on Condition I, this would be the Suffolk Investment, you know, cause it€s the same for either Suffolk or Puaa -. And if you go down to the first, second, the third sentence, it reads, required improvements may include but not be limited to pavement and shoulder widening, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities.‚ What I would suggest is that after pavement and shoulder widening,‚ you put in pedestrian-activated crosswalk.‚ PUBLIC:On Kuakini and Queen Kaahumanu Highway? FUKE:At the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, it would be a truly signalized intersection. So it€s almost a mandate that they would have like a crosswalk at that point. PUBLIC:Okay, but -. SPRINGER:Excuse me, if you have questions if you could come forward and put them into the microphone. But if the testifiers could sort coalesce your thoughts and just bring them forward, that would be good. Okay. So, Mr. Fuke, in response to what we heard from the back of the room, you were saying that when the traffic signals are installed, there will be a crosswalk there. And what we€re talking about now is across Kuakini to have a pedestrian-activated crosswalk. Is that correct? 39 FUKE:Yeah. That portion of Kuakini is under the County€s jurisdiction; but the Queen Kaahumanu Highway portion, the Hawai i Belt Highway, that falls under the jurisdiction of the State. So if the State requires it or does not want to have a crosswalk, then there€s very little that the Applicant can do. But there is a provision here that already states that they have to do whatever is required by the State to fix up that intersection to provide, you know, a four-way traffic system and the left-turn movements down to makai. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, could you refresh my memory, and do we have a timeline on that traffic signal? FUKE:Sure. Both of them would be, as the suggested amendments I had offered earlier, would be prior to the issuance of occupancy permit for any activity on the property. SPRINGER:Anddowehaveatimelineonthesignalizationofthat intersection? FUKE:If you were to amend Condition I and put in the section that I just read, the pedestrian-activated crosswalk,‚ and the last sentence to Condition I would be as what I had read at the beginning of the meeting where like these improvements would be in prior to issuance of occupancy permit. SPRINGER:But what I€m wondering about is the signalization of the intersection on Kaahumanu Highway. Do we have a timeframe for that? FUKE:Same thing, too. SPRINGER:What date would that be then? COOK:Excuse me. I talked to the developers of Pualani Estates and they said that their plans are in now processing for the street light. They said that the roadway from Hualalai coming down to their project would be completed probably within a year; and they said that, at that time, they have to have the street light. So, to give or take six months, I would say between a year and 18 months that traffic light would be in. It would be a three-way traffic light. If our project is approved and going forward prior to that, we would hope to have our design done so that it would be completed at the same time their work is going on. SPRINGER:So about 18 months? COOK:Right. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? 40 GRAHAM:I just had one question for Mr. Fuke. It€ssort of off topic of what we€re talking about but it€s with regard to the Suffolk project with the rental housing and there€s going to be like 20 years held inrental housing. What does it mean when it comes down to ownership and stuff like that? Does that mean that Suffolk will continue to own the, all the property for 20 years and have somebody manage rentals, or what does that really mean as far as what€s going to happen? COOK:My conversation with them, they intend to develop it and own it, I think. Now, that€s not to say that they might not sell it in the years to come, but it would still remain the rental project. We didn€t put the 20-year date in there. The Planning Department did that. GRAHAM:So what does it mean? Let€s say you sell something and it€s going to still be a rental project. What does that mean, you put in some agreement, some sales conditionsonasalethat-? FUKE:Oh,yeah,yeah. GRAHAM:Thatyoucan€toccupyitor-?Ijustwondered,isthatsomething that€s commonly done -? COOK:Would that go with the deed? GRAHAM:Is that a problematic issue or what? FUKE:Yeah. That would go with the deed as part of the disclosure, correct. GRAHAM:And that€s something that€s commonly done so there€s sort of language that€s already established for doing that kind of thing -? FUKE:That is correct, yes. GRAHAM:That will keep it in rental? FUKE:Sure, yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:At this time, I€d like to offer Ms. Keliipio the opportunity to comment. I think Commissioner Siracusa had asked about a response. If you care to say anything, a couple of the other testifiers have come forward. KELIIPIO:I think the Commissioners haven€t asked them how large this project is going to be, and I think, to me, that€s still a concern. Because, I guess, what I€m still looking at is how much of the highway traffic is it going to attract into that area 41 and to make sure that it is for the surrounding neighborhood. So, but if it is, I mean, it€s good. It€s good to have something like this if it€s to service all of us, so that we all can get there and not necessarily on our cars. So that€s kind of what I wanted to know, is like how large is it; and I think Ann had some other concerns about pedestrians. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you, Ms. Keliipio. Can her query about, I guess, the total number of acres or units -? COOK:I think she€s addressing the size of the neighborhood shopping center. And, in general, as I said, we were looking at a supermarket, and we€re looking at a supermarket, and something similar to the one in Waimea. If you take a look at the Safeway at Crossroads, I think it€s about 44,000 square feet. We€re looking at something more in the 35,000 square foot range for the grocery store. And, like I had said, we were going to be trying to get the banks in there, satellite post office and the amenities for a neighborhoodshoppingcenter.ThePlanningDirectordidrestrictanythinginexcessof 45,000 square feet. So the, as we said earlier, we didn€t want big box stores in the neighborhood either. We want to just have a truly neighborhood shopping center. And if we get through with the Planning Commission and before we go to the County Council, we would be trying to meet with people in the community and see what they want to see in that neighborhood shopping center. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Cook. So, Mr. Fuke, would that take the form of some organized public meetings with the members of the surrounding neighborhoods? FUKE:Yes. And related to that, you know, I don€t want to leave that point out but as what Mr. Cook was referring to is a proposed Condition D by the Planning Director under the Puaa Development which restricts the no-single commercial business shall have more than 45,000 square feet. So that condition automatically eliminates those big boxes type and tries to create more like a pedestrian or village type of atmosphere within the commercial area. SPRINGER:Thank you. We€ve allowed a full and free discussion. We still have many more agenda items before us. We have had an expression on the part of the Commissioners to hear from the members of the public that came up to testify. Are you satisfied with the discourse with the community? SIRACUSA:Yes, I am. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, I feel comfortable that the community has had input; and I think that, it sounds like the developers are very cognizant of the need for community input and the need to fit in with the neighborhood. It sounds to me like they€re going to continue to work with the community to fit in at some time. I€m definitely in favor of the project as it is. 42 SPRINGER:Okay, Commissioners, is there any, are there any questions or is there any further discussion with the Applicant€s representatives, the consultants or the Planning Director? Mr. Takemoto, do you have any closing comments for us? TAKEMOTO:No, just one loose end. That pedestrian walkway that would possibly extend the Walua Road trail or whatever it is, I€m not sure how to word a condition. There€s nothing addressed in here. But should that potential alignment traverse through the subject properties, whether it€s Suffolk or Puaa, a condition to the effect that you would be willing to set aside an alignment to accommodate that pedestrian-way? COOK:I think we would work with the community. And I know Michael, he is on the Committee (PATH), I think. Are you still on it, Michael? RIEHM:Yes. COOK:Oh.Andifit€sappropriatetothepropertiesthatweowntohelp create something that would be a bikeway path, we would certainly work with the groups and community to accomplish that. SPRINGER:Mr. Takemoto, are you anticipating including a condition to that effect? TAKEMOTO:Well, that would be the Commissioners€ choice to do so. But something I suggest, although when I look at the right-of-way, I€m looking at a map, it does seem to, that old right-of-way seems to be outside the subject properties. But I€m not sure exactly how it goes and would need to have some dialogue with somebody more knowledgeable like Ann Peterson to exactly determine that. But to accommodate the potential that, should that be possible, to have it as a condition. SPRINGER:I€m looking at the Suffolk recommendation sheet for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. And on that map is the treadway that we€re discussing, that which arches over the word urban‚ and agriculture.‚ If so, it is outside of the subject property. On the back page where you have the State Land Use Boundaries map -. FUKE:Okay. You€re referring to the map, okay, go ahead. SPRINGER:From the map and to our right of the project area, off of Kuakini Highway, there€s the word urban‚ and the word agriculture‚ -. FUKE:Correct. SPRINGER:And there is what appears to be a roadway above that. FUKE:Yes. 43 SPRINGER:Is that what we€re talking about? FUKE:I don€t know, but therewas, you know, that road actually, that sliver actually kind of continued on through the subject property. And what happened was that then the property was then subsequently acquiredby the former or former property owners which resulted in the consolidation and resubdivision of the property. So if you€re asking of like whether that roadway exists right now on the property -. COOK:Sidney, that is where the self-storage facility roadway goes up. FUKE:Goes up. COOK:There is a reservoir site up there. And, so, it starts right at the southsideofourproperty,actually,withintheadjacentproperty.Andthatroadwaynow goes up to the self-storage facility and reservoir, and then wanders back over by Lako Street. So that€s not on our property. FUKE:Correct. SPRINGER:So even, so we€re discussing a possible treadway that is not part of this subject application. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO:Not so much Puaa, possibly Suffolk, though. FUKE:On that small little portion on the makai section? TAKEMOTO:Yeah. FUKE:Yeah. TAKEMOTO:It could be accommodated within the proposed park area. So -. FUKE:Correct. That absolutely would not be a problem, cause that€s in an area that€s all zoned AE right now in the floodway. Can I ask you another question, may I ask the Deputy Director a question? SPRINGER:Certainly. FUKE:You know, not withstanding all of the discussion on this pedestrian or the bikeway area, is it within the jurisdiction of the County offices to require like, you know, within the proposed 60-foot wide right-of-way to achieve the objective that you were thinking about making as a separate condition? TAKEMOTO:What€s -? 44 FUKE:Bikeway, pedestrian-friendly, you know, those kinds of things? TAKEMOTO:Yeah, that will be part of it; but Ithink that the intent of this Walua pedestrian-way is to provide a north-south off-highway route -. FUKE:Oh, okay. TAKEMOTO:Rather than mauka-makai. FUKE:So from that standpoint and inasmuch as the two makai properties are not part of this petition, then it would not be possible to require any conditions to that. But relative to the Suffolk property, because it falls within the, and it may be within the, you know, the former road right-of-way, you know, we would have no objection, you know, to having such a condition on the Suffolk property. SPRINGER:And that addresses a very short distance of this longer system? TAKEMOTO:Yeah, I take it, but it may not be necessary. Because if it is necessary,itwouldgothroughtheproposedparkareawhichisinthefloodzone. SPRINGER:Yes,weunderstandthediscussionandhaveagreementthenthat there would be no condition addressing this because the section of trail or road is already in the open space. Okay. Good. Commissioners, do you have any questions or discussion on this matter? If not, Commissioners, I€d like to go back to the Suffolk Investment, LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment application and following any decision-making on that, next take up their rezoning application. So we€re returning to Suffolk Investment, LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment (04-010) and their Change of Zone (REZ 04-024). Do we have all of our correct papers before us? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Getting away from all the specifics and getting back to the overall situation, I carry along the same concern, I think, Commissioner McCall put forth at the beginning of, you know, how does the infrastructure handle something like this. I feel like it€s well-planned with obviously a lot of input from the Planning Department as far as making rental housing, as far as a lot of other things. But still I see the, you know, we have a tremendous primary, primarily traffic infrastructure problem in Kona. And we€re, if this is presumably to move forward, then whatever the effects it might have to help solve that problem, it€s adding more urbanization which by itself is going to exacerbate the problem. So I think Commissioner McCall€s words were conjecture. It doesn€t feel just plausible on the face of it, to me, that the net result is going to be a positive one as far as the infrastructure deficit in Kona. As I thought about this as we go along, the last time I can remember voting in favor of a sort of large urbanization project in this area was back at the Kohanaiki one. And that case, you know, that was a year ago; and in that case they were putting forth a big 45 shoreline park that kind of compensates or something. So, you know, theonly thing I can see is somehow as we do infill in Kona, we are running out of open space. So, to me, if the developer wanted toput up a real plum to kind of compensate, the real plum would be maybe one of these other two parcels be and totally turn into a public park and open space for Kona, or something like that. I know that€s asking for a lot. But I feel like this project, although it€s well planned, given the bad infrastructure deficit right now, I think it€s going to be more harm than help to it. So I don€t feel like I can vote in favor of it, given that overall picture. SPRINGER:Other Commissioners, comments? MCCALL:I guess, a little comment time. I guess, I generally am in favor of this. I think that your comments are very good, Graham, but I think this is a step in the rightdirection.IthinkthereispotentialformoretrafficbutIalsoseethepotentialfor this to actually relieve traffic in other areas. I€m hoping to see what the potential for this actually giving us less traffic in Kainaliu, because there€s going to be less people living in Ocean View. I mean, I followed six cars from Ocean View all the way to, you know, this morning, I mean, the same six cars, we came all the way from Manuka, you know; and I left them at, when I turned down, you know, right here in Kailua. But, you know, there€s an amazing amount of traffic coming from Ocean View. And I see the potential for even two or three of those cars be coming from here from, you know, be generated locally rather than being all the way down there; and same thing whether they€re coming from Kohala, or Waikoloa, or Honokaa. Because there€s an incredible number of people who are commuting to Kona because that€s, because there isn€t a place to live here. I mean they€re living in garages or living everywhere else. I think there€s a good potential for this to actually, it may not actually relieve the traffic situation directly there in, you know, on Kuakini, but I see it relieving some of the traffic situation in Kona. You can have people that are going to live there that may only have to drive, maybe they still have to drive to work but they€re only driving five miles to work instead of fifty miles. So I see this as definitely a step in the right direction. I mean, we certainly need the infrastructure also; and I think all the powers that be know that and are working towards that direction. But, I think, to me, this type of development needs to go forward, to me, regardless. I think this is important enough and it, to me, it€s definitely a step in the right direction, so -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:In a lot of ways, this is a push me/pull me. I can see Commissioner McCall€s points and I can also see Commissioner Graham€s points. And I€m wondering, there was another development on this side that Mayor Kim wanted to delay pending the development of, I believe was, or was it Queen Kaahumanu Highway? Is there a scheduled date for that now; and would that help to alleviate if we said let€s hold it off until, just like they did with the other one, would that help to alleviate a lot of those traffic concerns? It would certainly give time for that mauka development to get their traffic signal in and stuff like that, and time for these developers to work more with, 46 closely with the community. Is there anything planned like thatthat would, on the State level that you know of, that would help toalleviate some of those traffic problems? SPRINGER:Mr. Takemoto? TAKEMOTO:That€s actually a really good question. Along Queen K, there was the Clifto€s project that you€re referring to where Mayor Kim initiated the concurrency policy. The situation there is Queen K is like the only corridor in that region. Mauka of Queen K, there are no County network of roads. Makai there€s nothing. So everything flows and depends on Queen K. And the State knowing that had prioritized improvements on Queen K, so the improvements were imminent. And based on traffic counts, that segment of the highway, Queen K from theairport to Henry Street, received the most volume of traffic. So that was a critical segment of the highway. Inthiscase,IcanthinkoftwofactorsthatkindofdistinguishesitfromtheQueenK situation. One is that we are working towards a network of other local roads that take off the pressure on Kuakini. We€re looking at Hualalai extensions that would give residents a choice to go a further distance along Hualalai and then dropped down, instead of always having to come down to Kuakini and load up that highway, and eventually connecting that Hualalai to Palani, so that it€ll totally avoid that Queen K-Palani intersection. And another thing in this segment is the State; the level of service here is not as bad as Queen K; but it is bad and it€s getting worse. But the State has not prioritized this area, this Kuakini, as highly as the Queen K improvements. So we€re kind of caught in a bind here. So our strategy on, because their plans for Kuakini widening is 10 years out, at least, to get into the ground. So the strategy here was to put a redundant corridor that would take some of the traffic volume off of Kuakini, which was the Ali i Parkway; and you know what happened to that one. It€s still, it€s not a dead issue but having Ali i Parkway, or whatever the name is now, if it should come through, it would come out north of this project. And so that segment of Kuakini, should that road be completed, would be relieved of the substantial traffic volume that it gets now. SIRACUSA:Thank you. SPRINGER:I have a -. Do you have any follow-up, Commissioner Siracusa? Do you have any follow-up on that? SIRACUSA:No. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. I have a few questions. Does the County anticipate that people will move in from outlying areas or that new arrivals will occupy these newly-built structures if approved? TAKEMOTO:There€s no way to control that; and, hopefully, people in the outlying areas just by market forces will be attracted into the infield areas just for quality of life choices. Instead of spending two hours on the road, commuting 50 miles, they can 47 just commute half an hour or less, or even walk. So the whole idea is to providechoice; and by imposing affordable housing requirements and limits, hopefully, that€s hitting the local needs. Constitutionally we cannot restrict who qualifies for these homes. But income is the only way we can control it and,hopefully, that will hit the local people already living there. SPRINGER:My tendencyis to concur with Commissioner Graham€s comments that as well-planned and articulated the proposal as we have before us regarding this project, the existing and surrounding infrastructure is still overburdened. And I haven€t heard anything if the Kuakini is not prioritized, and we€re looking at a 10-year timeframe for address of that. That definitely concerns me. To Mr. Torigoe, in our SMA discussion, it was very clear that the Topliss decision directs us to look at all factors, not to focus on traffic-related issues singularly as a reason perhaps to deny an application. Does Topliss apply to Land Use Commission Boundary Amendment applications and the rezoningapplications? TORIGOE:IbelieveToplisswas,hadsolelytodowiththeSMApermit application; and so it really doesn€t apply directly to this. SPRINGER:Okay. So the scope was limited to the SMA. Mr. Torigoe, it has been a long day. We went through a number of SMA, three SMA applications, where you gave us direction with regard to a split vote, what the outcome would be if there was a split vote. On these items, could you give us a similar overview with the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and the Rezoning? You also gave us some timeframes if we did have a split vote; and if we deferred it, what that implication is to the Applicant. TORIGOE:Okay. Let€s see. I think with respect to the zoning amendments, the County Code provides for a decision to be made within 90 days, I believe, after it is transmitted to you, which I think staff indicated that the time of your last hearing on this matter was when it was transmitted to you, or at least that€s what staff is deeming it to be. nd In that case, the 90 days would be up sometime in March, I think, March 2. If that is th the case then the February 18 meeting would still be within the initial timeframe for the zoning. I think staff is now checking the Code to see if there€s any difference with the State Land Use Boundary Amendments. Staff is indicating that the same timeframe would apply but I -. HAYASHI:There€s no timeframe in the Code. TORIGOE:Okay, or that there€s no timeframe in the Code with respect to State Land Use Boundary Amendments. So, as far as the zoning is concerned, I think the Applicant also has the option of asking for further continuances or of, well, basically, if the Commission is unable to render a decision one way or another within the 90-day timeframe, then it either goes up to the CountyCouncilwithanegativerecommendationortheApplicantcanaskforfurther extensions of time. 48 Staff is indicating that neither the rules nor the Code has any kind of deemed negative recommendation provision. So it seems that there would be the opportunity for the Applicant to request at least some extension of time to try and get a revote on these matters, to see if you can get five votes one way or the other. So it would seem that you got at least one more hearing that you can deal with this; and then, in the meantime, I think we can take a closer look at, you know, what your options are. SPRINGER:Commissioners, do you have a -? Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioners, do you have an understanding of our options that are before us? Do you have any further questions for Mr. Torigoe? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Wasn€titonthe,onefromthelastmeetingorsomething,theone that was on Palani Road that they had a split vote when I was not here, but rather than coming back to the Commission they decided to go directly to the Council? So might that be another alternative for this Applicant? TORIGOE:Right. And that€s, I kind of alluded to that earlier in that once you hit that 90-day deadline, if there€s been no decision made on a zoning application, then it€s deemed to be negative and it goes upstairs that way unless the Applicant asks for further extensions. GRAHAM:But that only takes place after 90 days? TORIGOE:Right. GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah, I have the feeling that the, when we take the vote on Suffolk and Puaa, that we might not get the same mix of ayes and nays. And, so, I know my vote will not be the same on both of those. And I€m feeling that the commercial part of it should probably go on because that can benefit a very wide community without adding appreciably to traffic. Because local subdivisions would be able to go and use that, the services that that would provide, and without increasing density or, you know, putting more cars and people on the road in that area. So maybe, we were planning to vote on those separately, were we not? SPRINGER:That€s correct. SIRACUSA:And, so, there is a possibility that, I€m wondering if that would affect the developer€s decision on how they would move if one got approved and the other did not. 49 SPRINGER:And my next question would be to the Applicant€s representative. You€ve heard the discussion before us. And what would your pleasure be at this time? FUKE:Okay. First of all, can Ijust respond -? SPRINGER:Yes. FUKE:To Commissioner Siracusa€s question. I think we indicated in the beginning that these are two separate entities and the infrastructure requirement, you know, to kind of make things easier, you know, are very, the requirements are very extensive that no one developer on its own would be in a position to complete. And, so, effectively, the denial of one would essentially result in the denial of the other one, even if you get an approval. Because the conditions would be so onerous to the point where nothingwouldhappen. Youknow,havingsaidthat,IthinkthatweunderstandliketheCommissioners€concern about like, primarily like traffic. And it€s really, it€s really like an unfortunate situation because you not only have traffic but you also have that issue about affordable housing. And the question is like if projects are denied, then the question becomes who puts in affordable housing? And the only thing that you€re going to have to look at is probably like the government. Because, generally, affordable housing conditions are made part and parcel of zoning changes. So you can have the 40 or 60 percent affordable housing requirement changed by the County Council tomorrow, I mean, you know, at its next meeting; but if it€s not made a part and parcel of a zone change addition, then it really is like a hollow requirement. You know, you won€t have it. The other thing, too, is like the same thing with the infrastructure question, I mean, it is a very real issue. But the question is like if all projects were denied, who builds the infrastructure? And that€s very critical because you can stand still and homes will still be constructed on all of those subdivided, existing and undeveloped subdivided properties. They€ll continue to be built; and they will not necessarily directly address the infrastructure question. The only way the infrastructure can be constructed, new infrastructure can be constructed, especially in this particular mini-region, is that you have to look at developers. It has to be a participation between the governmental sector and the private sector in getting infrastructure done. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I want to thank Mr. Fuke for reminding me something that I had forgotten because he said it so long ago at the very beginning about the sharing of the infrastructure costs. And I realize in a lot of ways it€s unfair to expect, and the traffic problems weren€t of your creation; and, yet, whether your project goes forward or not is going to be dependent to a large extent on those problems that you never had anything to do with in the first place. But, you know, I guess those are some of the facts of life; and maybe we should just go ahead and take our votes and see how the chips fall. 50 SPRINGER:Mr. Cook. COOK:Yes, just one comment when you were saying earlier, maybe defer a project, deferring a project like we€re proposing until the trafficlight gets in. In order, if, if we had approval in rezoning today, for us to have our engineers design the flood plain issue and go through FEMA, and to design the State Highway intersections and the Kuakini, it will take us probably three years to get through all that process where we would actually have the site work done before any building starts, be it a commercial building or a rental housing project. In three years from now, our problems are going to be so much more acute than they even are today. I am very, very convinced that what we€re proposing to do is going to help. It€s not going to eliminate traffic problems at all, and they€re going to get worse, but it€ll help from getting as bad as it€s going to get. Because when you have people living up in Holualoa that have to drive to all the way downtooldMamalahoaHighwayandallthewaydownPalaniRoad,thatcreatesalotof traffic; and they€re just going to go to the shopping center, go to the grocery store. What we€re trying to provide, and it is in a central area, is a neighborhood shopping center where many of these developments and subdivisions that are existing and going to be built, that are already zoned and are on the way, will have a place to shop. And I€m not sure about TIAR€s and how you can prove this or that. I just know that, I live here myself, been here 15 years, live up in Hualalai, I fight the traffic like everyone else. We really felt like what we€re trying to propose and do is going to be helpful to our community. And I just, you know, as you look at these different neighborhoods and say, gee, if they can come to this neighborhood shopping center, they only have to cross a lighted intersection, it has got to help, it really does. And I have to go to the post office a lot of times, and if it€s just one thing to do, and I get my car on the highway and go to Lanihau and fight the traffic and wait in line for 20 minutes. If a satellite post office is right there, in five minutes I€m down there and I€m back up to my house. I mean, it€s just, it seems to make common sense that when you look in our community and all the developments in that area, if people can shop right there, it€s going to eliminate a lot of the traffic that€s out there everyday. The rental housing project that Suffolk is proposing, whether they€re going to be people from the mainland renting or locals, we would hope they€ll be the local folks, we would hope that there€s some way they could get the people from living down south enter our community with a store right there. So if the husband has a car and the wife doesn€t, she can take the baby buggy and take the kids up to the grocery store. Our community really is going to need something like this. There€s no quick fix and it€s not an easy solution. And for you folks it€s very difficult. No matter what you do, someone is going to be mad at you. I mean, as a developer, I have the same thing all the time. But we really tried to think through this; and we€re certainly open to discussion and dialogue in and people with ideas. But you really have to think seriously when you say, well, we€re going to deny this because of a traffic problem. We€re really trying to come up with avenues to help mitigate that, so -. 51 SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe is reminding me that in our advisory capacityas we pass our decision whether it€s yea or nay on to the County Council, a record of our discussion would go with that vote, and our concerns would be articulated as a part of that record. And when we come down to deliberating on the particularmotions if we€re careful to express our reservations, our concerns, those things that we feel positive about the matter, either way the vote goes, that€s captured by the record and would be there for deliberation by the County Council should we choose to move forward. Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I don€t mean to be argumentative or anything like that. But just coming off the comments by Mr. Fuke and, excuse me, Mr. Cook, I don€t doubt the good intention, I don€t doubt the good planning. And, to me, it sounds sensible, what you€re talking about with the regional area, what you€re talking with the rental housing. But, you know, I€ve lived in West Hawai i for 30 years now, and I heard comments 20 years agoabouthowthetrafficsituationwouldgetbadifthisandthatweren€tdone.And,you know, we€ve had 20 or 30 years of developers coming in and putting in a contribution to the infrastructure and doing all this, but the net result of it was we got a terrible infrastructure problem. So, it didn€t have to happen that way. And if something was a little different in government or something was a little different somewhere, it probably wouldn€t have happened that way. Those infrastructure contributions by the developers would have taken a different turn or the State would have done something. But I€m not convinced that whatever that little turn is, so that I could feel like, well, from now it€ll start working in the right way, I€m not convinced that little turn has happened. You know, and if something kind of convinces me or, you know, that I can see this is on the road to improvement -. Whereas before it was working the same process, developers are putting in their contributions, the County doing what they can, it got worse and worse. I haven€t seen that turn yet. So, I just don€t feel like I can, I have the evidence that makes me believe now I can see things differently. I can€t see things differently. That€s my personal feeling. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. I think, and another thing that we€re laboring under as a regular user of these sections of highway, regardless of what the miles per hour are indicated on the signs, regardless of whether lanes are double- striped or the center lines are broken, there€s just some human behavior isn€t all that we would hope that it would be. So, just for myself, you know, I€m looking at what I know about the behavior that occurs on these highways; and I can just weigh in my 52 years of living in Kona. I€ve yet to see the traffic get better at any given year. But, Commissioner McCall, you€ve had a chance to express yourself. Commissioner Smith, do you have any comments to weigh in on with? SMITH:Yes, I have. I think this project is great, that we should push it forward. Other than that, I€m done. SPRINGER:Yeah, I think all of us have had a chance to express our reservations, our enthusiasm with the project as well. We€ve heard from a number of Commissioners to proceed and make motions and vote on them. Again, Mr. Fuke, 52 you€ve heard our discussion this evening, would you care to request a continuance, or would you like to see us proceed with the vote? FUKE:I think given the situation and as the way you had described, the ultimate decision-maker is, you know, it€s really like the County Council; and I think that the dialogue expressed among the Commissioners and, you know, by the public, I think, you know, will all be made part and parcel of the public record. So the Council will be fully aware of like all of the, you know, the agony that the Commission has struggled with. And, so, deferring it for one month I don€t think necessarily the outcome will be the same inasmuch as it€ll probably the same Commissioners, maybe you might have like a different set of Commissioners but still five or six. And, so, I think it€s going to be difficult to achieve like five-way, you know, having five votes one way or the other. So, given that situation, I would suggest that the Commission just take action on it. SPRINGER:Thankyou,Mr.Fuke.IwouldjustsaythatthevotethatIwillcast is with reservations with regard to the discussion that we€ve had; and those reservations focus on the existing and surrounding infrastructure. This is a well-articulated project that represents good planning. But the context in which it is being recommended, I have concerns with. So anybody else care to weigh in on this matter before we entertain a motion? Would someone care to make a motion? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I guess, Suffolk is first? SPRINGER:We€ll take Suffolk first, we€ll take their State Land Use Boundary Amendment application. MCCALL:Okay, Suffolk Investment LLC, State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-010), I will make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, given the proposed amendments articulated earlier. SPRINGER:So including the amendments, and the Background Report, and Recommendation of the Planning Director. MCCALL:That€s correct. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there a second? SMITH:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Smith. So the motion by Commissioner McCall and seconded by Commissioner Smith is to send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to the County Council, including the Background Report and the Recommendation of the Planning Director, and all the amendments that have been discussed during this discussion. Is there any discussion? Thank you, Jeffrey. Jeff, if you could take the roll call vote. 53 DARROW:Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:No. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:No. DARROW:The motion does not pass. SPRINGER:Thank you. If we could take now the rezoning? MCCALL:For Suffolk Investment, LLC, Change of Zone application (REZ 04-024), I€ll make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, along with the Background Report, the proposed amendments and the, what else do I have -. SPRINGER:And the Recommendation? MCCALL:And the Recommendation. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. SMITH:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Smith. It has been moved by Commissioner McCall, and seconded by Commissioner Smith that a favorable recommendation for a Change of Zone be forwarded to the County Council. Is there any discussion? Mr. Darrow, roll call, please. DARROW:Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. 54 DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:No. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:No. DARROW:The motion does not pass. SPRINGER:Thank you. You€ll be informed in writing of this decision. Sorry. Therewillbenowrittencommunicationtoyouofthisdecision.It€llmoveontothe County Council. TORIGOE:Well, are you going to, well, you have a couple of options. Either you can move to defer it until, I guess, the next meeting, or you can just, I guess, you can just let it sit until the 90 days passes and then it goes up with a negative recommendation, unless the Applicant requests for the continuances. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, what is your pleasure then, having heard Mr. Torigoe€s comments to us? FUKE:Yeah, I think we noted earlier that, you know, given the concerns and the struggles that the Planning Commission has, we don€t believe that waiting an additional 30 days will affect the outcome of, you know, today€s recommendations. So we would like to suggest that this matter just be directed to the County Council. TORIGOE:I don€t think the rules make anything, tell you anything specific about what you do. I guess if you take no further action on this thing then it€ll just go up after 90 days with a negative recommendation. SPRINGER:On the Hoawe application, we all received correspondence from the Planning, forwarded to us from the Planning Director that they were going to proceed to the County Council. So would that be the case, might Mr. Fuke send a memo to the Planning Director, and we€d be informed of his action? 55 TORIGOE:Well, it wouldn€t hurt for Mr. Fuketo send a memo like that, just, you know, acknowledging that they€re not going to be requestingany further continuances. But then he stated down on the record he already, so, you know, it€s probably not necessary. SPRINGER:Do we need to do anything more, Mr. Torigoe, on this matter? TORIGOE:Perhapswhat would be helpful, though, is for -. I guess, Mr. Fuke, just to be clear, are you requesting that the State Land Use Boundary Amendment matter also be sent up with a negative recommendation? Because this is, I guess, the staff and I looked at the rules and it really doesn€t clearly state what happens if you don€t have five votes, you know, within the 90-day period, or any period for that matter. It basically just says that after close of the hearing within, there€s supposed to be a decision made. FUKE:Therequestreallywouldbeforbothapplicationsinasmuchas they€re kind of like, they€re twin applications, basically. TORIGOE:Okay. So, I guess, with that request being on record, the, it sounds like the Planning Department would be authorized to go ahead and send the State Land Use Boundary Amendment up with a negative recommendation that is congruent to the treatment of the zoning application. Roy, you have any comment on that? TAKEMOTO:No, that€s fine. We€ll follow through. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Torigoe and Mr. Takemoto. May we move on to the next agenda item? We turn our attention now to the Puaa Development applications; and we€ll start with the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. Is there a motion? MCCALL:Madam Chairman? SPRINGER:Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:As far as Puaa Development LLC€s State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 04-009), I make a motion that we send a favorable Recommendation to the County Council with the Background Report and the Recommendation of the Planning Director, as we stated earlier. SMITH:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioners McCall and Smith. The motion and second is to send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to the County Council. Discussion? Again, I would state for the record that my vote will be made with reservations. Again, it€s a well-articulated and well-planned application before us, but I am concerned of the context in which this application is being made and its cumulative impacts on the surrounding community. Commissioner Graham? 56 GRAHAM:I would also just like to add on top of what you just said, and Commissioner Sircusa€s comment before, about the value of a commercial center. I do feel, as Mr. Fuke said, that the two really work well, work better together because this commercial center can serve with a walking distance by Suffolk Investment. But if, in fact, that€s not there, then the commercial center standing alone looks like sort of a spot commercial zoning to me. So I feel like it€s, you know, less attractive alone. Thank you. SPRINGER:Is there any further discussion? Mr. Darrow, the roll call vote, please. DARROW:Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye, with reservations. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:No. DARROW:The motion does not pass. SPRINGER:We now take up the matter of the rezoning application. Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:Puaa Development LLC Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-035), I make a motion that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, along with the, let€s see here, along with the Background Report and the Recommendation from the Planning Director, and the amendments that were articulated earlier. SPRINGER:Getting better every time. SMITH:Second. 57 SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioners McCall and Smithfor that. The motion is that a favorable recommendation for the change of zone request be forwarded to the County Council. Discussion? Mr. Darrow, we€re ready for the roll call vote. DARROW:Thank you again, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye, with reservations. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:No. DARROW:The motion does not pass. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, will you be taking the same course of action with these two applications? FUKE:Thatiscorrect.That€scorrect.Thankyou. SPRINGER:AndthatwouldbetogodirectlytotheCountyCouncil? FUKE:Yes. SPRINGER:Wouldyoulikeanymoreinformationontherecord,Mr.Torigoe? TORIGOE:No,Ithinkthatwillsuffice.Thankyou. SPRINGER:Good.Thankyou. FUKE:Thank you very much. It was a very healthy dialogue. SPRINGER:Good night. 58 The discussion ended at 6:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 59