HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-07 tpuaa
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
February 7, 2003
A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of PUAÒA DEVELOPMENT,
LLC (SLU 02-012/REZ 02-022) was called to order at 9:34 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou
Beach Resort, KahaluÒu Ballroom,78-6740 AliÒi Drive, North Kona,
Chairperson Fred Galdones presiding.
PRESENT:Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Geraldine M. Giffin
Earl Fujikawa Jeffrey McCall
Florence Kubota
Aurelio C. Mina, Jr.
Francis Smith
Hannah Springer
Grant Togashi
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner
Daryn Arai, Staff Planner
Norren Kato, Staff Planner
Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works
Glenn Ahuna representing Department of Water Supply
And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance.
GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on Agenda No., thereÓs no number. ItÓll be
No. 3. The Applicant is PuaÓa Development, LLC (SLU 02-012/REZ
application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a
Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A-5a) to
Multiple Family Residential (RM-2.5) for approximately 9.262 acr
ARAI:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Directing your attentio
the location map, this is a map of Kailua Village area. This is
Highway with the Kuakini Highway located here, rising up where it intersects with the
Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The project site is located on the makai side of Queen
Kaahumanu Highway between the highway and Hualalai Road and itÓs indicated here by
this little dot. For reference purposes, this yellow area here just mauka of the highway is
Kailua View Estates. Directly north of the subject property is The Pines residential
community on lands zoned multiple family residential. On the ma
side of the subject property on the opposite of Hualalai Road is
multiple family residential-zoned lands; and immediately to the south is the University of
the Nations complex.
EXHIBIT B
The Commissioners may recall a recent subdivision that occurred on approximately, just
under 5 acres, I believe, here, close to this intersection of Hu
and this was the Hualalai Villages change of zone from Agricultu
Family zoned district. And combined with lands, existing zoned lands to the north, they
are currently developing a 103-unit condominium development.
The Commissioners may also be aware that on the remainder of the Hualalai Villages
project site, where itÓs currently zoned Ag-1, the Applicant has submitted an application
before the State Land Use Commission to change the boundary, State Land Use
Boundary from its current Agricultural designation to Urban. And the purpose of that is
to eventually, and hopefully, provide an additional 300, roughly 300 additional
condominium units as well as a cultural center, a Pacific Cultural Center; and itÓll be on
this property here, if theyÓre successful in getting those land use changes.
This is the project site here, indicated or outlined in blue. I
9.262 acres and, again, with Queen Kaahumanu Highway on the top
on the bottom.
On this third map here is basically the ApplicantÓs current concept for the development of
this property should he secure the boundary amendment and the change of zone. The
current concept would allow for the development of the property into 144 units, of which
those units would be clustered in approximately nine individual unit clusters consisting of
16 units each. Again, that would then bring, come about a total of 144 units.
I should also note that while the concept is for 144 units currently, the zoning, which is,
the requested zoning of RM 2.5 would allow a maximum density of 161 units for the
entire property.
Also shown on this site plan, in addition to the units shown here in this tan color is a
neighborhood park as well as a community center here in blue. Access to the property
may be provided by a single access point onto Hualalai Road.
I should also note that as part of the ApplicantÓs proposal, they did disclose that, if
approved, they would be willing to provide improvements along Hualalai Road that
would include its realignment, basically to kind of straighten out the curved portion of
Hualalai Road that fronts the project site.
The Director has reviewed this request and finds that it is consistent with the General
Plan; therefore, the Director is forwarding a favorable recommendation of both the State
Land Use Boundary Amendment request and the Change of Zone request. The Change
of Zone request will be subject to conditions of approval.
And I must apologize, the initial recommendation report that was sent to you was an
older version that was developed prior to the DirectorÓs approval. What we passed out to
2
you this morning is the proper recommendation report that the Director has accepted and
is forwarding to you for your consideration.
Now if I can direct your attention to that recommendation report of the latest version, the
differences between the initial report that we erroneously gave to you and this version is
primarily concentrated to Conditions F as in Frank, G as in Gary and H as in Harold on
page 2 of the conditions of approval. And IÓll briefly go over them.
Condition F as in Frank basically covers a condition that emphasizes the preservation of
archeological sites found on the property, more specifically are the sites that contain
burials, and the proper easement for this preservation is executed.
Condition G as in Gary would require the Applicant to provide a left-turn lane at the
project site entrance on Hualalai Road. That would facilitate l
heading southbound into the property.
I should note that the ApplicantÓs Traffic Impact Analysis Report did not recommend any
mitigating efforts. The Director feels otherwise; and that is why heÓs recommending this
condition.
Condition H as in Harold basically states that the ApplicantÓs current concept of an
independent living residential community is based, the traffic modeling was based on
traffic volumes consisting of the Hualalai Elderly Facility. Are you familiar with that?
The Hualalai Elderly Complex, I think, itÓs located right in this vicinity here, just sort of
like makai of The Pines.
And with that said, the traffic report, based on that methodology, said that no
improvements were recommended. The Director is providing Condition H to basically
say that they will develop the project site within three years; or if they change from this
concept of an independent living residential community into a regular type of
condominium facility, which could demand higher traffic volumes, then we will require a
revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report, meeting with the approval of the Department of
Public Works.
KUBOTA:Daryn, just to make clear in my mind, your explanation that you
just gave, so the intent of the Applicant at this point is to set up a condo or multi-
residential units for the elderly. But the condition to do the TIAR kicks in when that
initial intent is changed to another purpose? Is that what youÓre saying?
ARAI:That is correct. Keep in mind that what theyÓre asking for is a
change of zone to a Multiple Family, so anything allowed in the Multiple Family zoned
district may be permitted. The traffic report, which was based
independent living facility did not recommend any additional improvements, aside from
what the Director is requiring here as a left turn. So which we find, you know, we would
support this request based on this concept. However, take it a step further, if there be
another type of use that could generate higher levels of traffic, we will then have the
3
ability to ask for a revised traffic study. And if that revised traffic study as adopted by
the County contains additional improvements to area roadways, then so be it. We could
require that those improvements be provided.
KUBOTA:Okay. I understand that. So my understanding was essent
correct.
ARAI:That is correct.
KUBOTA:Okay. I followed your explanation. Now when the Applica
comes in with a request, and this is for information purposes on
have a proposed development plan that they come in with and they say that the request is
for elderly, what do they call it now, independent living residential community-type
format, when and where, or how soon can they change that or can they change it?
Because, as you say, theyÓre coming in for change of zone. With
they can do it. But when they come in with a plan and they sell us on their intent, I mean,
is it wide open on granting of this change? What am I saying, how, how stringent are we
on keeping them to their intended purpose for which we were sold?
ARAI:That is a very, very good question. You know, excuse me, m
IÓm wrong but in my mind thereÓs no physical difference between an independent living
facility or a regular condominium as far as structure. And we basically approve
structures, right -?
KUBOTA:Right.
ARAI:When we do plan approvals and the like? So youÓre correct that if
they donÓt inform us, they could easily convert it over into a regular type of condo. Say,
for example, if itÓs already built as an independent residential community but they donÓt
get the type of sales they anticipated. IÓm suspecting that, you know, theyÓre going to
have to advertise in the papers and stuff. So, you know, eventually we will be aware if
there is a potential change in use. And as a condition in this ordinance which is law,
should it be adopted by the Council, it gives us the authority and the leverage to go and
ask them to provide the necessary revised traffic studies and address the potential traffic
impacts.
KUBOTA:Okay.
YUEN:Just to follow up on the answers, a good answer to a good
question -. Normally, we see somebody come in with a particular development proposal
or scenario requesting a change of zone, unless we put special conditions on the change
of zone, they can do a bait of switch. Whether they start out that way or not, very often
market conditions change and if you have the zoning, thereÓs a list of things that you are
allowed to do in the zoning, and you can do all of those things. For example, somebody
may come in for a Commercial zone but you can build -. If you get a Village
Commercial zone, for example, they may come in and say I want to do a convenience
4
store, but you can also build 35 residential units per acre in a Village Commercial zone.
So if there are no special conditions when they come to the Planning Department for the
Residential, even though they started off as a Commercial, theyÓre entitled to do it.
So we are trying to look very carefully at the potential for something different happening.
So, in this particular case, the most extreme thing to do would be to say youÓre limited to
an elderly housing facility. I have to say, though, had they come in just for an RM, we
probably would have approved it without it being an elderly housing; but we would not
have accepted the traffic report which was based on a pattern of, expected pattern of
traffic from an elderly housing. There is a big difference in that if most of the people are
retired, theyÓre not going to be having the typical commute pattern of get up in the
morning, get in your car, drive off to work or take the kids of
some leeway on that. So we did tag this though with a special condition that we can
change that analysis if they do change the marketing of the project, the scale of the
project. I think weÓre going to word the condition on the independent living a little bit
differently to be tied in specifically to elderly housing. Normally, we canÓt discriminate
by age in housing but there is an exemption in State law for a special, for class of elderly
housing. ThereÓs two, thereÓs 55 and over, and 62 and over elderly housing. So we
would tie it into that condition in State law which, in turn, follows something in Federal
law.
And, so, if thereÓs going to be a project thatÓs like that, and we have to, in order to
discriminate in favor of elderly people, they have to follow these regulations that is
restricted to elderly people. So thatÓs how weÓre dealing with that in this case. But I
think the condition needs to always keep in mind that when the Applicant comes forward
for a change of zone, unless we say something otherwise, they have the full, will
eventually, you know, five or ten years down the road, will have their full range of uses
that are possible under that new zoning category.
GALDONES:Any more questions of Daryn? Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:With regard to monitoring the marketing strategy of the Applicant,
how extensive does that monitoring, how extensive is the coverage of that monitoring?
IÓm looking at the County Environmental Report, page 25, where it indicates that the
project will contribute to the attainment of the goals of the Hawaii State Plan and that the
increased availability of residential products to Hawaii residents would contribute to the
stability, diversity and growth of the local and regional economies. But IÓm wondering
the product may be marketed abroad and does monitoring occur to that extent?
ARAI:I want to be honest, monitoring at this price, probably about as
frequent as when I read the morning newspaper. ItÓs not something we actively monitor.
We, knowing the condition in this ordinance, we expect the Applicant to inform the
Planning Department should there be a change. But notwithstanding that, we would just
have to be a little bit more diligent in monitoring. And it can be in various means, by the
papers; and there are other ways we can achieve it.
5
GALDONES:Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. IÓd like to ask for a clarification on
Condition H. In the middle of the paragraph, it begins by saying ÐThe revised TIAR shall
consider, at a minimum, development currently under construction and recently
proposedÈ.Ñ Does the timeframe being spoken of at the, currently under construction
and recently proposed, at the time of the revised TIAR which may
or is it at the time, effective date of the ordinance?
ARAI:Three years hence, for example. The reason being is, yeah,
development maybe is under construction now, but say three years hence is completed -.
TOGASHI:Right.
ARAI:When they do the traffic study at that time itÓs going to have to be
based on current counts, which would already take into effect those developments that are
in operation. So -.
TOGASHI:Okay. So youÓre speaking of three years from the effective date of
the ordinance, which would be the development currently being proposed there under
construction. ThatÓs what youÓre saying, yeah? ItÓs not now?
ARAI:ItÓs not now. That much you can say, itÓs not now.
TOGASHI:Okay. I wanted to ask you, also, with regard the standa
condition regarding extension in that they basically have, with regard to Condition H, as
much as six years to, would that be clearer -?
ARAI:Thank you very much for catching that. We would recommend
that Condition H be excluded from this time extension, if the Director doesnÓt mind.
And if you would allow me, you know, we can make the necessary w
exclude Condition H.
TOGASHI:I need to ask one more last question, and this is with regard to
Condition C. For the benefit of Commissioners who are not from
Condition C speaks of Welo Street, Hoene Place and the Aloha Kona reservoir. Can you
point these out? I have the map here but I donÓt see a Hoene Place nor do I see a Welo
Street.
ARAI:Why donÓt I turn it over to the Department of Water Supply.
AHUNA:We have a reservoir in the Kailua View Estates Subdivision that
would be servicing the project. And itÓs approximately, thereÓs no street names here, but
itÓs in Kailua View Estates anyway, in that line; and thereÓs two reservoirs there. And the
booster pump youÓre talking about is down in the Aloha Kona Subdivision.
6
TOGASHI:ItÓs not the Kailua View Estates Subdivision?
AHUNA:Well, the reservoir thatÓs going to be servicing that project is in the
Kailua View, but the booster pump that pumps the water from the existing reservoir is in
Aloha Kona, yeah.
TOGASHI:Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Hoene Place is the same as
Hoene Street? Is that what it is?
AHUNA:IÓm not sure.
TOGASHI:I see a Hoene Street over here, yeah?
AHUNA:Oh, probably, yeah. Probably, itÓs the same thing, I think.
TOGASHI:Oh, okay.
GALDONES:Any further questions of staff? Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA:Daryn, you know that map on the extreme right that you ha
there -.
ARAI:This one?
KUBOTA:Yeah, that one right there. You know that Hualalai Street, we
speak of improvements on that street to better the viewplane. Kailua Village Design,
their approval spoke to that. Their traffic study person said it was not necessary. Our
condition speaks to that. Condition I speaks to the improvements to Hualalai Street,
Road. Is that improvement including the straightening of the road so that, is it specific to
that? It doesnÓt say. It just calls for improvement, but it doesnÓt say to straighten it. Is
that understood?
ARAI:I believe Condition I does speak to -.
KUBOTA:Excuse me, realignment. It does speak to realignment. W
say realignment, that means youÓre making it straight?
ARAI:Right.
KUBOTA:Straighter?
ARAI:Right. In essence, realigning will involve straightening. I mean,
realignment can mean anything, youÓre right. You can make a 90 degree turn. But
because it all ties in with providing it in a manner with the CountyÓs approval, I mean,
obviously, weÓll try to straighten it out just to make it better.
7
KUBOTA:Tell me exactly where youÓre straightening out. Because
looks of that road as itÓs represented on the map, it doesnÓt look as though the viewplane
is diminished in any way. I mean, it doesnÓt look curvy or anything. What parts are you
talking about?
ARAI:Let me try my best, and if I stumble, Ki from Engineering can
come up. But if you look at this map here and IÓm hoping you ca
is Hualalai Road. You see how it, especially right in this area, itÓs sort of like a nice turn
toward Kailua town. And to compare that, constrict your vision right here to right here,
you may notice a slight straightening out of this alignment. So Hualalai Road will
basically be realigned and it may go actually into the property a little bit right here on the
southern end, and then sort of like swinging out and -. ItÓs not as extensive a
straightening out as one would hope for, but it is a straightening, much better than what
currently exist. So the area youÓll see probably the most improvement, I believe, would
be in this area on the northern end. ThatÓs where youÓll see most of the improvements.
GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:Daryn, is the County going to assist some way this Applicant in
this development? The reason why IÓm asking is that the State of Arizona does have a
program like this which is very, very, very successful and it has been with the helping of
the County and the State. I think that rather than questioning the Applicant as to, are you
sure itÓs going to be pertaining for a senior, I think the County should, also the Council,
assist this kind of applicant. IÓd like to see this happen. Like, can the County say put a
bus stop nearby there for the senior people, things of that nature, you know, help them
out?
ARAI:Well, the request thatÓs currently before you is a change of zone
request. ItÓs not really specific to the development of an independent living facility. I
mean, obviously, weÓre always in support of, in general, in support of providing this type
of facility for elderly residents. But, again, we have to keep
currently before you is a change of zone. So, in a nutshell, if the County does approve
the zoning, then, hey, you know, we are supporting the ApplicantÓs desires. But focus on
the change of zone and not so much on this concept here, thatÓs my recommendation.
Before we go any further, IÓm sorry, Mr. Chair, I guess I got sidelined -. So I did have
about one or two more items to address.
GALDONES:You may proceed.
ARAI:IÓm not sure exactly whether to put it the lineup of condit
we are looking at an additional requirement, one that would provide pedestrian and
bicycle pathway between the subject property and The Pines residential community just
to the north. So, again, itÓs just to create a puka where if people want to go riding or
whatever that can occur.
8
And we have come up with language where we can probably include it as a new
Condition K as in Kelvin. The new condition would read, ÐThe applicant shall provide a
bicycle-pedestrian pathway between the subject property and The Pines residential
community prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The location and
improvements associated with the bicycle-pedestrian pathway shall be determined by the
Planning Director.Ñ
KUBOTA:Where are you putting that?
ARAI:A new Condition K as in Kelvin. I donÓt know, what other K
is there? Kitchen?
GALDONES:Daryn, could you have that in writing for the Applicant or his
representative to take a look at?
ARAI:Sure.
GALDONES:Are there any other changes or any other comments you would like
to make on the conditions?
KUBOTA:Mr. Chair?
GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA:You know, we were talking about exclusion of, you know, i
Q, Condition Q, where it talks about extension of time performance conditions, and we
were saying we would exclude Condition H in that extension. Is that what we talked
about earlier?
ARAI:Yes.
KUBOTA:Okay. What about No. 2? DoesnÓt that speak to it?
ARAI:No. 2? No. 2 of Condition Q?
KUBOTA:Yeah, Q, Q. No., No. 3, excuse me, see, ÐGranting of tim
extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for granting of the change of
zone.Ñ So if the original reasons change, then Condition H would kick in, so -. Am I
reading it wrong?
ARAI:Yeah. When it meant the reasons, itÓs the guidelines for approving
a change of zone which is, does not necessarily speak to an increment residential
community. It just speaks to whether or not the reasons for supporting a Multiple-Family
Residential zone district are consistent with the General Plan.
9
KUBOTA:Right.
ARAI:So whether they go from an independent living to a regular
condominium unit, theyÓre not changing the basic reasons. ItÓs still Multiple Family
Residential.
KUBOTA:Oh, I see.
ARAI:Again, this is a change of zone -. You know, if you really wanted
to -. No, never mind, I wonÓt go there.
KUBOTA:Yeah, okay, okay. You see, in mind, theyÓre going to do
care, not extended care, senior retirement home. So, I have to erase that from my mind.
Okay.
ARAI:You know, in order to keep it straight in my mind, I put it
perspective: If they wanted to do only an independent living residential community and
they did not want any further option, they could have applied for a Special Permit. ItÓs
Ag-zoned now, Ag-designated plan. But they want the option of doing this; but if it
doesnÓt work out, then theyÓll go with the regular condominium-type of development.
So -.
KUBOTA:Yeah, okay, which is perfectly legitimate. Okay. All ri
GALDONES:Any other questions of Daryn? Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask you about your
Condition K on the pedestrian walkways and bikeways. And, so, this would be
maintained at the expense of the Applicant?
ARAI:Oh, absolutely.
TOGASHI:What theyÓre going to do is construct it up to The Pines, then. And
what happens, The Pines, theyÓre not going to touch, theyÓre not going to propose any or
put any bikeways or walkways in the other subdivision, right? ItÓs only up to and leading
to The Pines border, yeah?
ARAI:Exactly. ItÓs just to provide this connection so, should people
desire to drive or, how do I say, ride in that direction toward The Pines. The reason being
is that there is an existing road that deadends along the northern boundary of the project
site. IÓm sorry, itÓs not shown here. But itÓs simply to provide the connection to that
public road, and they can then ride out toward Nani Kailua Drive.
YUEN:If I could add to that. ThereÓs a Commercial zoned area in The
Pines within a walking distance of this community; and if you have a walking
connection, then people, retired persons in this community could walk to the other
10
businesses there that are in The Pines commercial area, whether itÓs -. And I donÓt why,
but they have pizza place, and eating places in there, frankly. But if thereÓs a little store,
they could go to that. Otherwise, they have to get in a car and, or they could walk. But
the only other way to get there is to go out to Hualalai, come down to the intersection and
then come back up. ItÓll be an amenity and in keeping with the general idea of letting
people in residential areas, particularly those who have higher densities, be able to walk
to amenities in their immediate neighborhood. I think, and to the extent that there may be
a legal problem with this, Òcause IÓm not sure what the rights are, I think we would say
they have to use their best efforts to secure those -. ÒCause IÓm not sure of the status of
the roads in The Pines. In other words, whether we can hookup like that because of -.
TOGASHI:Did The Pines also include curbs, gutters and sidewalks, too, up to
and leading to the commercial store?
YUEN:No. The Pines is under a Planned Unit Development. They h
they donÓt have sidewalks. They have a road curb. They have, they require cul-de-sac
streets, the road curb with peopleÓs yards going up to the edge of the road curb. But itÓs
not a, the streets are quite safe to walk on in The Pines. ThereÓs very little cross traffic
and -.
GALDONES:Any further discussion or questions to Daryn?
ARAI:Mr. Chairman?
GALDONES:Yes, Daryn?
ARAI:IÓm sorry, if they wouldnÓt mind, thinking on the sly as we
we make just a few other minor changes to Condition H?
GALDONES:What would the changes be?
ARAI:Where it says, ÐShould development,Ñ instead of saying
Ðdevelopment,Ñ if we can replace ÐdevelopmentÑ by this phrase, ÐShould actual
constructionÈ.Ñ And the reason for that is ÐdevelopmentÑ is sort of nebulous. So I think
itÓs better to say ÐÈactual construction of the subject property not commence within
three (3) yearsÈÑ
And further down in that same sentence where it makes reference to ÐIndependent Living
Residential Community,Ñ if you can take that phrase out, ÐIndependent Living
Residential Community,Ñ and replace with this passage: Ðhousing development restricted
to qualified elderly persons under 42 U.S.C., Section 3607.Ñ
KUBOTA:Try that again, that part, Ðhousing development -.Ñ
ARAI:ÐHousing development restricted to qualified elderly persons under
42 U.S.C., Section 3607.Ñ
11
YUEN:If I could explain this. This is the clause in the law that lets you
discriminate in favor of elderly people, you know, in a housing development. Under
State law, normally you canÓt do that. If you have a residential subdivision and if you try
to selectively market it to older persons, you have to follow this set of qualifications; and
thereÓs a set of qualifications for 55 and over, and thereÓs a set of qualifications for 62
and over.
KUBOTA:Okay.
YUEN:This doesnÓt mean that they have to do that kind of project. It just
means that if they donÓt do that kind of project, the new TIAR requirement kicks in.
KUBOTA:Okay. I understand.
GALDONES:Is there any more?
ARAI:Nothing further. Thank you.
GALDONES:Commissioners, any more questions of Daryn? If not, if the
Applicant or its representative is present, please step forward. Please raise your right
hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii
County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS:I do.
GALDONES:Thank you. Please state your name and residence address?
LIM:Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. IÓm
Steven Lim, on behalf of PuaÒa Development, LLC. Sitting to my left is Mr. Brian Cook,
whoÓs the representative of PuaÒa Development. Also, today, and also who have been
sworn in are Michael Riehm, whose our Planner-Architect, and Bruce Witcher, whoÓs the
engineer. What weÓll be doing today is to, I guess, acknowledge receipt of the
Background and Recommendation from the Planning Director and, I guess, subject to the
amendments that were proposed by staff. We do have some comment
thatÓll be for later on.
GALDONES:Would you have any more, Mr. Lim, any more to add to the
discussion that you have heard between the Commissioners and the staff?
LIM:Yes.
GALDONES:You may proceed.
LIM:WeÓll make a short presentation on the project proposal through
Mr. Cook. I think a lot of the details on the why and what on the project will convince
you that this is a good project to go forward. I guess the philosophical planning
12
discussion that was brought up by the CommissionersÓ concerns over the specificity of
certain conditions, we are applying for a Multi-Family Residential (RM-2.5) zoning.
Under that we can do a whole list of permitted uses. I think that, at least from my side of
the table, the description of the project is intended to show more feasibility to the
Commission. I think the CommissionÓs job is to anticipate what the potential max use
would be under the existing zoning; and the Planning Department has done a good job,
especially on the TIAR, the traffic report condition. So I think that weÓll have
Mr. Cook discuss the proposal for development; and weÓll have Mr. Richard come up and
discuss some of our exhibits that weÓll be passing out with regard to the drainage and the
water issues.
COOK:Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Brian Cook. This
project, the concept of it started back in 1998. I was developing my project called
Mauna Lani Gardens. Michael Riehm was my architect-planner for that project. He had
been attending meetings at Mokuaikaua Church where the committee
were trying to push forward housing for seniors. The developers had not been addressing
senior housing needs and they asked me if I would attend a couple of the meetings which
I did. And we met with the people and discussed their needs. As people get older, less is
more, and large homes, large lots become difficult to maintain. And so we started
looking into in late, early 1999 developing an independent living project for seniors. I
was working, at that time, part-time as a consultant for Kamehameha Investment
Company in looking at their various properties they had in Keauhou. And then they had
this one parcel next to The Pines that they had acquired from Kamehameha Schools about
10 years prior with the intent of using that possibly for affordable housing.
When I looked at the property and had met with the people to address the need for the
senior housing, I went to the mainland and started checking into independent living
projects, seeing how they were developed, and had Michael start laying up this project as
an independent living project working with Kamehameha Investment Company. Over
the couple of years of time that it took, first, we had to get the archaeologist out and do an
inventory survey of the property. There was one burial found on the property. We then
had to prepare a data recovery plan and a plan for the Burial Council to take care of that
one burial.
As we proceeded along, Kamehameha Investment was not able to mov
decisions and things so I asked them if they would sell it to us; and we did reach
agreement last year; and we bought the property from them so we could carry it forward.
When I met the attorneys and told them what we wanted to do as far as going into
rezoning to create this concept, Steve mentioned to me, he said, ÐWell, you know, the
math would be, it would have to be RM-2.5 to be at the density that you want and, you
know, youÓve got a good idea and good concept but sometimes things just donÓt work
because of things beyond your control. National politics or oth
youÓre trying to do. So when youÓre going in for the rezoning, he requested that, you
know, youÓre going for the RM-2.5 rezoning; and then if for some reason I couldnÓt get
financing for independent living or carry this concept forward then, you know, at least
13
you have a back door. Because itÓs quite expensive for a developer to buy the land, go
through all the process of going through the various studies necessary archeologically,
and feasibility studies. And weÓve already carried this project well along because I
believe so much in the project. WeÓve had the engineering well
architectural well along. I canÓt say to you or anybody that this is going to get built. ItÓs
my goal to build it. When I developed Mauna Lani Gardens, we took that zone, R-7.5,
and we took that R-7.5 zoning and said, well, rather than do another standard subdivision
with wide roads where people go faster, letÓs do a Planned Unit Development, smaller
lots, smaller houses and create a neighborhood and friendly community. And I donÓt
know if any of you have been up there and seen our project but if you drive through it, I
think youÓll get that feeling of what we did accomplish.
In developing that project, my buyer profile in there, people, many of them are retired.
Some of my buyers are in their 70Ós and 80Ós; and even our small homes on the small lots
are going to be too much for them. And, so, it just seemed to me that developers have to
step to the plate and give the community what the community need
address senior housing. People are healthier nowadays, theyÓre living longer. And, so,
weÓre really excited about the project. The first step, though, is to get your support on the
rezoning. As soon as we get through the process, and weÓre meeting the Burial Council
th
on the 20 of this month on the site and theyÓre going to do a site inspection. If they
approve our burial plan and we get our zoning, weÓre going to be in a position to go
forward immediately and continue our engineering-architectural design, and to create this
project.
Some of the issues, when you look at that map of Hualalai, this is existing Hualalai.
What weÓre doing, weÓre going to be straightening it out along here. You need a good
view corridor when youÓre coming out of here looking both ways. And so this road has
to be relocated. We have a burial thatÓs over here so that restricts how much we can
straighten the road out. But I think the civil engineer, Bruce Witcher, can tell you a little
bit about that. And, so, thatÓs pretty much everything. Do you have any questions?
GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of the representative for the
Applicant?
YUEN:If you go ahead, when you do an independent living, is it your
intention then that you would selectively market and, actually, you would restrict the
buyers to older persons? Is that how you do it?
COOK:Yes. We would probably restrict to age 62. This concept that we
have laid out, the community center will have a dining area for people if they want to
come in -. Each, around, one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments
far. The one-bedroom apartments are 690 square feet with a kitchen. Two-bedrooms,
980 square feet. People can eat either at home or, if they so choose, they can eat in the
cafeteria-sized dining area. WeÓll have an arts and crafts, wellness center, library, a little
chapel. There will be multi-faceted uses for the community cent
map there above the community center, we have a nice park area w
14
see that in the future as people are living there that they would have some Hawaiian
entertainment on a Friday night, people take their lauhala mats down and just listen to
music. And, so, you know, we really feel strongly about the project, the need of the
project, and being a developer I know what it is going to look like when itÓs done; and
IÓm excited about it.
GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Hearing none, is anybody
from the public here to testify on the subject matter? Sir, will you step forward. Could
you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter
now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
VILORIA:I do.
GALDONES:Could you please speak in the mike.
VILORIA:I do.
GALDONES:State your name and your resident address to speak?
VILORIA:IÓm Robaire Viloria and I live in Aloha Kona Drive in the Kona
Heights district. And the only thing that IÓm worried about with this project is the road
going from up Hualalai Road from town. The road there is very winding. I donÓt mind
having the project go through but I feel that they should not just improve the road in front
of the project but also the rest of the road down to the highway. You find too many
projects that go through and all we do is fix in front of the project, but they donÓt, you
know, concern themselves about a half a mile away which is going to cause more
congestion with traffic going up and down that road. ItÓs unbelievable. YouÓre going to
need a stop sign or a light to get from Hualalai Road into The Pines. The only way
youÓre going to get into that area is either go up, you know, you can go all the way
around where you go up to The Pines to get to the subdivisions above the highway. And
thatÓs about it, actually. ThatÓs the only thing IÓm worried about is the traffic. ItÓs
terrible there and itÓs too winding when you have a bunch of traffic going up there.
Especially if it goes from senior living to regular condominium use, then you really have
the people going up and down there who will be traveling. ThatÓs it.
GALDONES:Thank you for your testimony. Any questions to the tes
Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:I have a question with the Director on this. IsnÓt it that all the
developments that have happened or is happening on Hualalai Road, that they are
contributing to a fund for the street improvement?
YUEN:I think only sidewalks. I think thereÓs a sidewalk improvement
fund but there isnÓt a specific street improvement fund for Hualalai. Most of the
developments, the ones we have worked with have been required to
improvements to Hualalai. Up the hill we have the University of
15
and theyÓre improving their entire frontage on Hualalai which takes you just about up to
this property, so the top part is being improved.
FUJIKAWA:I see. Okay. So the University of Nations is also obligated on
their part to correct part of that besides Mr. CookÓs development, right, improvement?
YUEN:The immediate frontage of the University of Nations that yo
rezoned, now they do have a pending, they have a pending Land Use Commission
application for the rest of their property which is below the frontage area and what
conditions, there may be additional conditions put on on that. But the frontage of the
University of Nations which is mauka of this is being improved. Is there any general
fund to improve Hualalai Road that is being imposed on?
EMLER:No.
YUEN:I didnÓt think so. And who has to contribute to this sidewalk fund?
EMLER: Actually, IÓm not sure that we can call it a sidewalk fund.
Specifically, it was a fund that was set up from contributions made from the Hualalai
Elderly Living facility. I think two deposits of $100,000 each. I could be wrong about
that amount; and itÓs just sitting there waiting for a project. As far as we know, weÓre
keeping an eye on it to make sure it gets implemented on Hualalai Road if possible. But
IÓm not sure whether there is actually a requirement or anything stipulating that it has to
be used there.
GALDONES:Thank you, Ki. Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:At the end of last year, this was passed out to us. I donÓt think it
was in regard to any particular application but responding to a request that
Commissioners had made. And there is reference to Hualalai Road safety improvements
under Item 14, County and State, and it reads: ÐCounty and State agencies are looking to
future improvements of Hualalai Road. The State is considering realignment and
intersection improvements with Kaahumanu Highway to align the proposed Kahului-
Keauhou Parkway and the County is considering improvements from
Kaahumanu Highway to the proposed improved Hienaloli Road and be
I think that the concern is not so much from overall concerns with regard to moving
above, travel above the proposed development but below the propo
where the road is particularly curving, there are limited site distances, and this increasing
speed on the part of the users. Traffic considerations are of a great concern to me here in
Kona where applicants may meet all of the legal requirements of a zoning application.
The consideration of what occurs on the highways may or may not be taken up by us in
our discussions. But with the discussion on the trip generation by the target audience of
this applicant, my concerns are somewhat abated that in our disc
indicated that there are just fewer trips generated by the target audience of this
application.
16
GALDONES:Thank you, Commissioner Springer.
YUEN:And thatÓs actually part of the thinking behind the revised TIAR,
that if they did go to a regular, just a regular multi-family project, we would look at a
revised impact report and possibly have other conditions for improvement elsewhere on
the road.
SPRINGER:Thank you.
GALDONES:Mrs. Wilkinson would like to testify. Mrs. Wilkinson,
please come forward? Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
WILKINSON:I do.
GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your resident address?
WILKINSON:My name is Patricia Wilkinson and I live on Plumeria R
is in Alii Kai Subdivision. I live very close to the Royal Poinciana where all of the
humps and bumps were put on the road to try and stop the traffic.
I represent today the Kailua-Kona senior citizens from Hale Halewai. We meet every
Wednesday. When we read of this senior citizen housing development, we were very
excited. We have been attending meetings, weÓve been having mee
This has been going on for ten years. I came from Honolulu. An
important that we get senior citizen places close to town so that we can possibly walk or
ride a bicycle to the banks, to go shopping, to doctors, to dentists. When we live out of
town, itÓs, weÓre looking for rides. We donÓt have a bus service, we all know that. We
need something close to town, we really do. This is very interesting to listen to the
discussion that went on here today. And I did not realize until I heard the discussion that
there might be a possibility that it wonÓt be a senior citizen complex, it might be an
ordinary condominium. That would be very disappointing to a lot of seniors who are
looking for places to live closer to town. And then we urge these gentlemen here to
really try their very best to go around to all of the seniors, all the clubs. WeÓre going to
be your customers. Get in touch with us, give me information today if you have it to
bring down to Hale Halewai. WeÓre very, very interested. IÓm 75 so I met the 62 limit
that you talked about.
And thereÓs a lot of seniors who come over here on a yearly basis. TheyÓre called
Snowbirds and theyÓre constantly looking for places to live. And the only places they can
find are condominiums along Alii Drive that. They are very expensive places to try and
live these days on Alii Drive. So I would urge everybody concerned with this, letÓs have
a senior citizen development and bring your information to us. IÓll push it for you like
crazy. Thank you.
17
GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions for Mrs. Wilkinson?
Mrs. Wilkinson, thank you for being here this morning. Any furt
KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, are you asking from the public? Is it still o
public to testify?
GALDONES:IÓm going to be asking if -.
KUBOTA:Okay, sorry.
GALDONES:Is there anybody else from the public who wishes to testify? If not,
Mr. Lim?
LIM:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the best thing to do now i
assuming that the Commission is inclined to act favorably on this recommendation, weÓd
like to pass out some exhibits at this time and then march you t
approval, the comments to the conditions of approval, and give you the reasons why
weÓre requesting those amendments.
What theyÓre passing out to you now are, should be four exhibits. One is a February 3,
2003 Advertiser article indicating that the strength for the market and senior project is
booming. I think itÓs the right project at the right time. I think Mr. Cook is going to be
very successful. ThatÓs just for a general background on feasibility.
The second exhibit is a TMK map of 7-5-10 with the subject project outlined in yellow.
On the top of that youÓll see a stamp from the Department of Public Works indicating the
drainage ways that are near the subject property. ThatÓll be relevant to our discussion
among the condition changes.
The third thing are the archeological, the final data recovery plan that has been approved
by the State Historic Preservation Division dated July 2002 and the latest letter from them
of October 8, 2002 which indicates that they are recommending preservation of only site
No. 21762.
And the fourth thing is our proposed amendments to the conditions of approval. And
youÓll see the deletions that are shown by brackets and bold; and the additions are shown
by underlined and bold.
So if we go down the conditions, I think part of the theory on this is that weÓre looking at
creating a rezoning ordinance that will give us the opportunity to do both what we want
to do and what we might have to do.
And I think that leads to the first proposed change by the deletion of language from
Condition No. C. The deleted portion represents a request by the Applicant to not lock us
in a rezoning ordinance to doing the water system a certain way. And the reason for that
is that the, we know already the University of the Nations is co
18
TheyÓre going to do their own water system with storage tanks and lines coming down
the hill to the south of us. It may be more cost-effective or better for us to join with them
in their construction of the project improvements rather than to do our own line. And
thatÓs why weÓre requesting that the specific details of the water line construction plan be
deleted from the rezoning ordinance. The bottom line is that the portion thatÓs remaining
is that the Department of Water Supply will always have to approve what we do anyway.
And, so, weÓd just like the flexibility to not have to follow this particular alignment.
Next change is Condition No. E which relates to the burial treatment plan. As Mr. Cook
th
indicated, we will be proceeding for a February 20 Hawaii Island Burial Council
meeting. This is going to be about the, I think, third or fourth time that theyÓre going, so
theyÓll conduct a site visit. We would anticipate that the proposal to reinter the bone
fragments that were found along the site into the preserve site thatÓs located at the makai
end of the property in the refuge cave will be approved. So the proposal is that, there
really werenÓt two burials. ThereÓs actually, the way that Mr. Kennedy, the
archaeologist, explains it to me is there was one what you would call a burial, and thatÓs
in the refuge cave to the makai portion of the property. The others were scattered bone
fragments that they picked up on the ground; and they donÓt know why that was scattered
or when. And so theyÓve asked the Burial Council to take what he describes to me as two
handfuls of bone fragments to be interred into the burial that is in the refuge cave; and
thatÓs what the request is for the Hawaii Island Burial Council.
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:May I make an inquiry of Mr. Lim at this time or would you rather
take questions when he concludes his remarks?
GALDONES:After he concludes his remarks, then we can take questions. Thank
you.
LIM:And that is the reason for the deletion of the reference to two
burials. And so we just said that even if itÓs any burials, you know, so that we donÓt have
a terminology issue.
Next proposed change is on F, same reason weÓre deleting the reference to specific sites.
The one to be preserved is 21762. And we deleted the reference to the inventory survey
report Òcause we now have a final report that was approved by the State Historic
Preservation Division; and thatÓs that exhibit which we just passed out to the
Commission.
The proposed changes to Condition H with regard to the Traffic Impact Analysis Report,
in order to do that, that were proposed by Mr. Arai are acceptable to us with the
understanding that the section related to 42 U.S. Code, Section 3607, is the one that weÓre
actually dealing with. We donÓt have the sites available to us but the intent is that we
would be following the Federal regulations that require all occupants to be over age 62.
So I think itÓs the correct reference. One potential change on that is that, to the second
19
line. We talk about, ÐShould actual construction of the subject property not commence
within three years from the effective date of this ordinance.Ñ WeÓre going to request that
it be amended to the Ðeffective date of the Final Plan ApprovalÑ because the conditions
later on in the document give the Applicant five years to get Final Plan Approval.
Condition I, the change is intended to point out the fact that we can construct and submit
the improvements to the County for dedication but we canÓt control the date that they
accept it. And so we wouldnÓt want to be held up because, for whatever reason the
County Council do not want to accept it. You know, we would by then have finished the
construction, submitted the dedication deed to the County; and thatÓs really all that we
can control. So we donÓt want to have, you know, for whatever reason, the Certificate of
Occupancy held up for that reason.
Next condition change proposed is Condition J. This is a condition change that was
talked about at the County Council level for the University of the NationsÓ project, and it
was in one of our response letters to the agencyÓs comments. Essentially what weÓre
doing is deleting references to a proposed storm sewer system which is identified by the
Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. We had a discussion with Public Works. And as their
comments on this application show, I donÓt think that they are going to be requiring that
the retention basins or other criteria that were mentioned in the Master Plan be
implemented on this project. So the condition weÓre proposing, as you see the
amendment here are, is that which was adopted for the, by the County Council for the
University of the NationsÓ project.
The other condition amendments that you see are technical amendments just to make the
conditions of approval generic so that if we develop units or lots on the project that it
would just apply to both, as applicable.
So weÓd be happy to answer any questions. I think what, with respect to the Condition
No. J, thatÓs why we submitted this exhibit, the tax map showing the flood control areas
for the area. What youÓll see is, to the north, youÓll see the floodways, the AE floodways
significantly to the north of the property; and then, itÓs not quite shown but just very little
bit on the south side of the property, thereÓs another one that comes down and goes into
the area by the University of the Nations. So weÓre requesting that the, any of the
improvements that were initially mentioned in the Master Plan for the storm sewer
system be deleted from the condition as we believe the Departmen
not required that.
GALDONES:Mr. Lim, could you speak to DarynÓs proposal for the ne
regarding the pedestrian and bicycle pathway?
LIM:Okay. I guess, you know, IÓll let Brian do that.
COOK:Yes, we did not talk about this before. As you look at our
proposed layout right now, the boundary adjacent to The Pines, we have five building
groups abutting up to The Pines. As stated earlier, these are, there are 16 units in each
20
building. The cover creating this is a seniorsÓ independent living. What weÓre trying to
do is keep the grade as flat as we can for the roadway for people walking down the road.
So when weÓre developing these pads, we have about a 15-foot wall here in the pad thatÓs
level from the parking through the units; and then it drops another 13 foot here, and itÓs
level; drops 13 foot, level; and so on. So weÓre going to have to put sidewalls in the
property along here because our grade difference from The Pines will be different. This
roadway over there right now dead ends right here. IÓm not sure there would be room,
you know, we can certainly look into that and see. But our property line, our buildings
are laid about, I think, 10 feet from property line, and then thereÓs going to be a wall here.
So we can see, work with Engineering, Public Works, to see if it is possible. There is a
property, The Pines is right here. These are the rear property walls. There is an open
area to the property line. The conversation earlier about having a walkway coming
through here, this is, I understand, a private road. The commercial building at The Pines,
Bianelli (phonetic) has moved out. And so maybe itÓs their last, so there is no restaurant
now, there is no convenience store. Most of the businesses in there now are, most of the
commercial use is business now. You know, if they can get The Pines people to
cooperate, we have no problem here trying to come in this way.
other bike path would be to come down this way.
In developing our layout, weÓre trying to keep a nice greenbelt from Hualalai Road to the
entry of the project. We envision this to keep this whole wall in here and put some
pathways in here. So maybe we can work to try to, if we can acc
then The Pines maybe wouldnÓt like the idea of us coming into their private roadway.
You know, I donÓt know -. We did meet with, to try to be good neighbors, we did meet
with the owners of The Pines about six weeks ago and we gave them just a brief review
of what weÓre proposing, trying to do.
GALDONES:Thank you.
LIM:I guess our position would be that, you know, I think, the Planning
Director recognizes that thereÓs probably no statutory requirement to the public, I guess,
what amounts to be a public accessway through the project. I think, and especially, you
know, weÓve got liability concerns. I think we also have some security concerns for the
seniors in the project. They may not want to have people walking in through the project
from another development. And I guess maybe thatÓs something th
Department can implement as a best efforts clause at the Final P
to put it in a rezoning, I think, unless youÓre going to require it, itÓs probably not a good
idea.
GALDONES:Before I ask the Commissioners for questions, Daryn, could you
speak to the changes that were proposed by Mr. Lim?
ARAI:Sure. Looking at the what the Applicant submitted, the proposed
amendment to conditions of approval, Condition C regarding the Water Supply, we
recommend that the condition and its language remain as is, with one modification. And
21
it should read, Ðas recommended by and in a manner meeting with the approval of the
Department of Water Supply.Ñ IÓm sorry. In the second sentence, further down, it says,
ÐThese improvements,Ñ if we can take out the word Ðshall,Ñ and we just have it Ðmay
includeÑ and take out the words, Ðat a minimum.Ñ So that sentence would read, ÐThese
improvements may include the extension of a existing 8-inch water line in Welo Street,Ñ
and so forth, so on. I suspect that will provide some relief to
because it may, all it is is emphasizing those type of improvements that may be required.
And I think that would satisfy the ApplicantÓs intent.
Continuing on to Condition E as in Edward -.
LIM:Excuse me, Daryn, can I make comments as we go along?
ARAI:Oh, sure.
LIM:ThereÓs also another Ðshall,Ñ four lines up from the bottom, ÐIn
addition, the 170-gpm booster pump station, Ðshall be.Ñ I would like to change it to
Ðmay,Ñ if youÓre going to leave that language in.
ARAI:We wouldnÓt have a problem with that.
LIM:And then the last line will be Ðwill,Ñ I guess itÓs kind of like
Ðshall.Ñ So if we put the ÐmayÑ in there -.
ARAI:Okay. So, would you agree with the suggested changes to
Condition C?
LIM:So long as itÓs clear and we understand it, itÓs understood that we
donÓt have to do those if we find a different way to do it.
AHUNA:Yeah. I think we can mention the University of NationsÓ project.
TheyÓre going to have to build a reservoir along Hualalai Road and then come down
Hualalai across Queen K. So I can see why it would make more se
something out with them and not have to cross Queen K in two places. ThatÓs fine. Just
as long you understand that if that doesnÓt work out then this might be the preferred
route.
LIM:We understand, because youÓre going to be reviewing our plans
anyway.
AHUNA:Yeah.
ARAI:Okay. So I think that takes care of Condition C. Conditio
burial treatment plan for Ðany burials,Ñ as amended by the Applicant, I wouldnÓt have a
problem with that, or the Director wouldnÓt have a problem.
22
Continuing on to Condition F, we wouldnÓt, F as in Frank, we wouldnÓt have a -.
GALDONES:Mr. Yuen?
YUEN:Looking over the archaeological work that was done, 21760, the
only portion of that that was supposed to be preserved was the burial feature. So I
wouldnÓt, I would probably be deleting 21760. On 21762, I think thereÓs a burial cave,
thatÓs to be preserved -.
LIM:ThatÓs for preservation.
YUEN:ThatÓs to be preserved in the entirety. That should be specified.
Other than that, I think thatÓs all right. It was, should be data approved, the data of
recovery for 21760, except for the burial feature -.
ARAI:So the Condition F can actually remain as languaged.
YUEN:We would just, IÓm sorry -. Hang on just a minute. F woul
refer to the archeological site identified for preservation. Site 21762 shall be preserved
and appropriate easement established. And, as I said, the portion of 21760 thatÓs
supposed to be preserved would be covered under E.
ARAI:Oh, I see. Okay. So for Condition F, all we really need t
then, is strike out reference to Site 21760.
GALDONES:Daryn, is the question to the Director?
ARAI:Well, yeah.
YUEN:ThatÓs right.
ARAI:Okay.
YUEN:Okay. I see that 21760 covers most of it. The site as a whole
covers most of the property.
ARAI:Yeah.
YUEN:It was not, SHIP accepted the ApplicantÓs proposed treatment,
which was that they would do data recovery for some features and preserve the burial
feature. The data recovery is, for the sake of the Commission, usually means that the site
can be taken apart, but it has to done under supervision of an archaeologist to see whatÓs
in there.
ARAI:Mr. Chairman, may I continue on?
23
GALDONES:Yes, proceed, Daryn.
ARAI:Okay. Condition I regarding improvements to Hualalai Road, we
would have no problem to the suggested language changes offered by the Applicant.
Again, that just clarifies the dedication process, so we donÓt have a problem with that.
GALDONES:Daryn, before you go on to J, in Condition H, the Appli
submitted also a change to the word Ðordinance,Ñ to read ÐFinal Plan Approval.Ñ
YUEN:Yeah, let me -. I would not agree to that. I would agree to change
three years to five years. The proposal by the Applicant would essentially, this is a
condition, itÓs when do they have to prepare a new TIAR. ThatÓs the significance of this.
And what weÓre doing here is weÓre giving them a timeframe that they would be able to
operate under their present traffic study. If they donÓt develop, the way it was written is
if they donÓt develop and start constructing in three years, then conditions may have
changed enough that weÓd like to see a new traffic study. I think we could make that five
years. But if we say three years from Final Plan Approval, Final Plan Approval is five
years down the road to begin with, which is a, and then thereÓs a provision for an
extension of time, which makes it ten, and -. So we would be looking at 13, development
possibly 8 to 13 years down the road under the present traffic study, which may be very
obsolete by then as other developments come on line.
LIM:What I was trying to address was in Condition D, Final Plan
Approval has to be secured in five years, and Condition H would require actual
construction to commence within three years or you have to submit a new report. So
maybe we should change it to one year from issuance of Final Plan Approval, then we
submit a new traffic report. That way the Final Plan Approval, five years can kind of
stay there and thatÓll be unchanged.
YUEN:Okay. If we keep, H is, thereÓs no time extension under H.
ThereÓs no time extension of H. So you can still get, you can s
five years for Final Plan Approval. You can get an extension of Final Plan Approval for
five years; but if you do that, you have submit a new traffic report. So if you do get a
Final Plan Approval in five years, well, why shouldnÓt the traffic -. This condition should
still be five years. You do your Final Plan Approval, oh, actually, development, yeah,
you need to have some time. So that within a one year of Final Plan Approval would be
fine, yeah.
KUBOTA:Now where did we end up?
ARAI:Well, IÓm still a little confused myself because it is -.
KUBOTA:Oh, good, IÓm glad other people are.
ARAI:ItÓs one year from Final Plan Approval. But if they ask for an
administrative extension of time, thatÓll be 11 years all possibly, right?
24
YUEN:The H would say, ÐShould actual construction of the subject
property not commence within one (1) year from Final Plan ApprovalÈor should such
development,Ñ etc. Okay? And what this would do is the following: They have five
years to get Final Plan Approval. If they get Final Plan Approval within the five years
and they start construction within a year of that, then they donÓt have to do a new traffic
study.
KUBOTA:Okay.
YUEN:Right. If they ask for an extension of time for the Final
Approval, another five years, they can get that extension of time but they will have to do
a new traffic study -.
KUBOTA:TIAR.
YUEN:Because the extension of time will not apply to Condition H
KUBOTA:Okay.
GALDONES:Okay, Daryn, moving on, sorry for the interruption.
ARAI:Condition J on page 3. It speaks, we would not support the
ApplicantÓs proposed changes to this condition. In consultation with Public Works, it is
clear that a drainage study is recommended prior to any development of this property.
So, I guess, the issue of whether it will or will not is not an issue. It will be required. It
is also, I should emphasize that regarding the master, the storm sewer system in the
Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, it just says, Ðincluding an assessment,Ñ it doesnÓt say to do
it. So, again, I donÓt see a problem with why they canÓt even address it as an assessment.
Now, if Council or some department or administrative policy determines that the storm
sewer recommended by the Master Plan will not be implemented, then that is something
that can be incorporated within the drainage study as part of its assessment of what
theyÓre going to do.
So, and IÓve spoken to Kiran Emler of Public Works just a few mi
also not in support of the suggested changes and would prefer to leave the language as is.
YUEN:And to add to that, this is the concern: Back in 1994, the County
had a big study done by R.M. Towill called, resulted in a Master Plan for Kailua-Kona.
It showed on, one of the things they did was a master drainage plan that showed two large
sedimentation basins on this property as their recommended drainage plan, up against the
Queen Kaahumanu Highway corridor. It also showed, am I correct on this, Daryn, a
sedimentation basin on the University of NationsÓ property. At this point, IÓm not sure of
the analysis that went into that and why they came out with that result. However, we did
suggest the same condition on the department level at the University of Nations and it
was taken out by the Council. We are concerned about what is the drainage master plan
25
if this is not going to be implemented. Obviously, itÓll be a major problem for this
project if it, if that is implemented on the property; and it would take the condemnation
action to do so. However, I am concerned about approving development for properties
on a piecemeal basis when we donÓt know what the alternative is to that drainage master
plan that was prepared in Ó94.
ARAI:Mr. Chairman, within Condition J, the Applicant further suggested
an amendment regarding the submittal of the drainage study and r
recommend submittal prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval. We would disagree with
that suggested amendment simply because we donÓt know what the drainage study will
recommend. It could recommend improvements that would substantially alter, that could
substantially alter the layout of the project site. So we prefer to know what the findings
of the study is prior to them submitting plans for Plan Approval
recommendations of the drainage study can be incorporated within the Plan Approval
review process.
GALDONES:Mr. Lim?
LIM:I guess our response is that to some degree I think you have to trust
the developer to design a project that heÓs going to make money on, and heÓs not going to
design the project without knowing what the answer is on this drainage master plan. And
I think that all weÓre asking for is to be able to process the assessment on the drainage
alongside with the Plan Approval with the Planning Department. And if it turns out that
the Public Works Department says you have to do two sedimentation basins then,
obviously, weÓre not going to be able to get approval of the Final Plan Approval. But,
you know, on our side of the table, whatÓs going on our side is that we have, at that point,
determined that the drainage study is going to show that we donÓt have to do the
sedimentation basins, and thatÓs why weÓre going to go into the time and expense of
preparing the detail plans for the project. So, you know, I think thereÓs always a check-
and-balance. And, so weÓre not going to be designing something that the Public Works
Department is not going to approve.
GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:I have a question for Mr. Lim. Your Applicant has a civil engineer
present?
LIM:ThatÓs correct.
FUJIKAWA:Can he address this matter on your behalf?
LIM:Well, I can tell you generally what he would say is that the 1994
study was based on an area-wide drainage study that didnÓt take into account the things
like weÓre showing you on this tax map and that, you know, we think that the area, the
study area was too wide. And he didnÓt, they didnÓt, it was like an overall Kailua-Kona
Master Plan type of a study but it didnÓt actually go into the nitty gritties of calculating
26
the runoff for specific areas. Mr. Witcher can come up and tell
that, but thatÓs essentially I think what he would say.
WITCHER:Okay, what Mr. Lim said is absolutely correct.
GALDONES:Excuse me, before you proceed, I need to swear you in,
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now
before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
WITCHER:I do.
GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your resident address,
please?
WITCHER:My name is Bruce Witcher. My resident address is 75-5489
Mamalahoa Highway in Holualoa.
GALDONES:You heard the question and if you could address the question,
please.
WITCHER:Well, the question is about the, deals with the report that was
prepared by R.M. Towill. And IÓd like to point out that there have been several reports
on the drainage studies in this area, all of which are regurgitation of the one before and all
of which have the same mistakes made by the first guy. And I ca
of the latest one which was done by GPM. The other thing that this doesnÓt address is
where is the water going to be coming from thatÓs going to be draining into this thing.
You have a flood plain over here, the Hinalole which is to the north and to the south of
the Waiaha which are designated on the flood insurance rate maps. ThereÓs nothing in
between that would indicate that there is any sort of drainage at all.
Now, nobody has been able to tell me where this water is going t
than maybe a sheet flow down the hill, but thereÓs no culverts in this area. Well, there is
just to the south but not at this particular project under the highway.
YUEN:What was the original mistake that youÓre talking about?
WITCHER:It was when the, preparing the water service profile for
Hinalole; and it deals with the bridge on Mamalahoa Highway and how they had two
runs that were prepared for that. ThereÓs a number of errors on
in the latest versions of the computer program, it will not run, and this was picked up by
me and it was also picked by Chi Pin Chang, who is the hydrologist and hydrologic
engineer for DLNR.
GALDONES:Any further questions?
SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman?
27
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:With regard to the consultantÓs comment as to where the water
would come from, what does the section of property that fronts the Kaahumanu Highway
look like, is that higher than the road or is it at level with the road?
WITCHER:On the mauka side, itÓs higher, it varies through there actually.
COOK:ItÓs lower on -.
WITCHER:Lower, into the south is lower.
COOK:When you get up the hill, and thatÓs about, you would see Î
GALDONES:Excuse me, Mr. Cook. If youÓre going to go ahead and testify,
speak into the mike, please, so it could recorded. Thank you.
COOK:If you see, when you drive down Queen Kaahumanu Highway and
you pass The Pines, youÓll see thereÓs a slope after one, or slope coming up. And so itÓs
difficult for me to figure how the water is going to get across the road and up the hill.
And, so, I donÓt know what the topography was when they made the
you look at it on the site, it doesnÓt look like that you could get water into the settling
basin. I know when I brought Mauna Lani Gardens up, 24 acres, they showed that there
was a flood plain running right through the property; and it was on the FEMA maps.
When we did a topography of it again, water doesnÓt run up here, it didnÓt exist. So IÓm
not sure how detailed some of these studies are.
GALDONES:Mr. Yuen?
YUEN:If I could just ask Mr. Witcher a couple more questions. A
saying that the Towill drainage master plan incorporated the area that youÓre talking
about? Is that -?
WITCHER:Yes, I am.
YUEN:Were they, and there are no culverts in, across the highway
would feed the sedimentation basin that they plan to put in, that they put in this project?
WITCHER:Not that I know of.
YUEN:What about across, whereÓs the nearest culvert?
WITCHER:I think thereÓs one to the south but itÓd be on to the adjacent
property. But itÓs not in the area of this development.
28
YUEN:Is there a culvert that feeds something into The Pines?
WITCHER:No.
YUEN:Is there any drainage-way into The Pines?
WITCHER:No.
YUEN:So there is a culvert that, I know there were drainage
improvements connected with the Ben Corp., right?
ARAI:ThatÓs my recollection, yes.
YUEN:And, so, the culvert to the south feeds into the University of
Nations, something on the University of Nations?
WITCHER:ThatÓs correct.
YUEN:Well, you know, they may be correct. I would say that we would
like to stick to the language requiring an assessment. If the assessment turns out that
thereÓs no drainage to the property, then, thatÓs fine. If thereÓs no drainage to the
property, then they donÓt need a sedimentation basin.
FUJIKAWA:So -.
GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:So, in other words, to the Director, would you say that the drainage
problem, if the Applicant can prove to you by other studies, is that sufficient?
YUEN:Yes. My concern is that we have this plan that was done with the
County, actually, adopted by resolution. I think as it stands itÓs the only thing you could
call a Drainage Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, right?
EMLER:The master plan. I think IÓd like to address the issue of the culverts
that you brought up crossing Queen Kaahumanu Highway. There are two culverts to the
south of this property, they are not on the property fronting itself. And it appears from
examining the master plan that the intent was to take the outflow from those culverts and
bring it through this property, and provide a sewage system outfall all the way down to
the coast. That was the intent of this. In order to bring that drainage safely through the
area that they knew is going to be developed, just like weÓre talking about right now, itÓs
a way of getting that water across the highway and down; and this was what was
proposed by, and adopted by resolution.
GALDONES:So, Ki, your recommendation is to leave Condition J as is?
29
EMLER:Yes, it is.
GALDONES:Thank you.
EMLER:I just think that the developer should make the case, do an
examination of what is the, what is the possibility for actually implementing this
proposal, this master plan, make the case and then we can make a decision based on that.
LIM:Can we ask Mr. Emler what the County has done since the 1994
study to implement the drainage program?
EMLER:The only thing that the County has done is examine the dra
study submitted by the University of Nations/Ben Corp., on their
required as a condition in their zoning amendment. And we are still looking at what is
happening with that drainage coming from those culverts and where it goes. And thatÓs
why weÓd like to leave the condition in to make sure that weÓre not getting ourselves in a
corner.
SPRINGER:Mr. Chair?
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:Just for clarification of Ki. Ki, if I may? The master plan, if I
understood you correctly, anticipates a lateral transfer of water from the southern culvert
across the property. ItÓs not a natural flow of water thatÓs discussed in the plan?
EMLER:I believe thatÓs correct. It is a channelization of that outflow to
this, through this property. The exact direction of that outflow, IÓm not 100 percent
convinced yet. We havenÓt sufficient data, accurate enough data to really make that a
firm conclusion on that.
SPRINGER:Thank you.
GALDONES:Daryn? Shall we proceed with Condition M?
ARAI:Condition M as in Mary, we have no objections to the propos
changes of the Applicant. The Applicant is correct that this is not necessarily a
subdivision. A subdivision may not be required so -. I should note that this amendment
to the ApplicantÓs Condition M will be reflected in Condition N as in Nancy in our
proposed ordinance due to the inclusion of Condition K for public access or public bike
path.
GALDONES:So, then, youÓre saying that the changes proposed by Mr. Lim and,
meets your approval?
ARAI:Meets the DirectorÓs approval.
30
GALDONES:Okay, thank you.
ARAI:We likewise would have no objections to Condition N as shown in
the ApplicantÓs proposed revisions, and that would be reflected in Condition O of our
draft ordinance. Again, itÓs simply to account that this is not necessarily a subdivision
that will be a residential development, likewise to Condition O, as shown on the
ApplicantÓs draft.
GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions?
SPRINGER:Mr. Chair?
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:Just a question regarding the archaeological discussion. Mr. Lim,
up to this point, I know youÓre going before the Burial Council in the near future. Have
any lineal descendants been identified? Mr. Cook?
COOK:What was that, again?
SPRINGER:Have any lineal descendants been identified yet for the burials?
COOK:The archeological consultants put an ad in the paper some time
back; and I donÓt think they ever received any response.
SPRINGER:Thank you.
GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, I mean, Daryn, what did we do with the new
Condition K? Did we, are we going to insert it or are we finding thatÓs not necessary? It
has to do with the pedestrian-bike path requirement?
ARAI:Well, itÓs still a proposed condition weÓre like to see, unless thereÓs
any further amendments the Director would like to make.
YUEN:We would like to see that, that it would read that they mak
best efforts to create a pedestrian-bike connection with The Pines.
GALDONES:Thank you for the question, Commissioner Kubota. Any f
questions? Mr. Lim, closing statement?
LIM:Just briefly. I think that the need for the proposed development is
shown. I think that Mr. Cook and Mr. Witcher indicated in one of our prior meetings that
they need some place to stay sooner or later, anyway. So weÓd ask the Planning
31
CommissionÓs favorable action on this change of zone request for the State Land Use and
for the change to Multi-Family. Thank you.
GALDONES:Before we go to take an action, a decision-making, to be sure that
we know what we are voting for, Daryn, could you go over those two recommendations,
cite the changes, before we take action on those?
ARAI:Okay. I think IÓm ready. Okay, as amended, Condition C as
cat, the second sentence which starts off ÐThese improvements,Ñ take out ÐshallÑ and
replace with the word Ðmay,Ñ and then, also, just a way down, exclude or take out the
words Ðat a minimum.Ñ So itÓll read, ÐThese improvements may include the extension of
a 8-inch water line,Ñ etc. The following sentence which starts
replace the word ÐshallÑ with Ðmay.Ñ And the following sentence which starts of
ÐFinally, the existing 0.1Ñ replace the word ÐwillÑ with Ðmay.Ñ So itÓll read ÐIn addition,
the 170-gpm booster pump station at the 0.05-MG Aloha Kona reser
upgraded to accommodate the proposed project. Finally, the exis
reservoirs that would service the subject project may require additional storage capacity.Ñ
Condition E as in Edward, in the first sentence, replace the words Ðthe twoÑ just prior to
the word Ðburials,Ñ replace the words with Ðany.Ñ So itÓll read, ÐA burial treatment plan
for any burials.Ñ
Continuing on to Condition F, on the first line where it reads ÐSites 21760 and 21762,Ñ
strike out reference to Ð21760Ñ and also strike out the word Ðand,Ñ so itÓll read,ÑSite
21762Ñ only.
ThereÓs so much in Condition H. Is it okay if I just read Condition H in its amended form
completely?
KUBOTA:Sure.
ARAI:The proper reading will read, ÐShould actual construction of the
subject property not commence within one (1) year from the date of Final Plan Approval
or within six (6) years from the effective date of this ordinance, whichever occurs first, or
should such development not constitute a housing development restricted to qualified
elderly persons under 42, U.S.C., S.C. §3607, a revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report
(TIAR) for the proposed multiple family residential development
submitted for the review and approval of the Department of Publi
submittal of plans for Plan Approval Review.Ñ The rest of the condition will not change
as written.
KUBOTA:Perfect.
ARAI:Oh, okay, good.
KUBOTA:I had it exactly like yours.
32
ARAI:Terrific.
KUBOTA:How wonderful.
ARAI:That makes me feel good.
KUBOTA:We are good.
YUEN:Great minds think alike.
KUBOTA:Great minds think alike and work alike, yeah.
YUEN:Mr. Torigoe as well.
ARAI:Yes. Thank you. Condition I, on the second line down, fin
word Ðdedicate,Ñ replace that with Ðsubmit;Ñ and the following line down the third line
after the word ÐHawaii,Ñ include the two words, Ðfor dedication.Ñ So itÓll quickly, itÓll
read, ÐThe Applicant shall provide improvements to Hualalai Road in the immediate
vicinity of the project site and submit such improvements to the County of Hawaii for
dedication prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,Ñ etc. The rest of the
condition will not change.
Also after Condition J, on page 3, weÓll include a new Condition K as in kitchen. And
this new condition shall read, ÐThe applicant shall make best efforts to provide a bicycle-
pedestrian pathway between the subject property and The Pines residential community
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The location and improvements
associated with the bicycle-pedestrian pathway shall be determined by the Planning
Director.Ñ
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:With regard to that language, would it be more clear if you said
Ðbetween the subject property and The Pines,Ñ Ðlinking the subject property and The
Pines?Ñ
ARAI:So itÓll read, ÐThe applicant shall make best efforts to provide a
bicycle-pedestrian pathway linking the subject property and The Pines residential?Ñ
SPRINGER:If thatÓs your intention.
ARAI:Yeah, thatÓll work.
KUBOTA:The argument was not to link it.
GALDONES:Mr. Yuen?
33
SPRNGER:IÓm not sure which is -.
YUEN:ÐLinkingÑ is fine.
FUJIKAWA:Excuse me, wasnÓt it for security reason?
ARAI:Okay, I, IÓve replaced the word ÐbetweenÑ with Ðlinking.Ñ
KUBOTA:Mr. Chair?
GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA:I donÓt know that I like the concept of linking the two subdivisions.
I can understand it but do we need to specify if the intent is -? What is the intent of this
bicycle path, bicycle-pedestrian path, first of all? Is it to encourage movement by the
occupants, the occupants of this project, or is it for facilitating movement to another area?
I think, you know -. The argument was against linking because of the negative effects of
outsider, security, yeah, and liability; and I tend to accept that as a logical concern. And
to force linkage to a project that is already established when these arguments for
consideration come up is, unless there is another motive for linking it, I tend to feel
negatively about linkage.
SPRINGER:Mr. Chair?
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:Exactly, thatÓs what IÓm trying to get at, what the motive is, what
the intention is. Because if itÓs merely to provide movements for the residents within the
subdivision, I donÓt understand the utility of the additional condition.
GALDONES:Daryn?
YUEN:Well, the motive was to give the residents in this developm
ability to walk to the commercial development in The Pines.
FUJIKAWA:I have a question.
YUEN:Within each development, they can control who comes into th
development, whichever way they want from the front end. This would create a back-
end, though, into The Pines, that is true, and vice-versa.
GALDONES:Mr. Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:Well, I think itÓll have two different type of living, one is the
senior living which you do want the security and the other is the general living. And as
34
far as the business aspect that I can recall, thereÓs just a real estate office and various
things. ThereÓs no store that this people going to accommodate, benefit from.
SPRINGER:Mr. Chair?
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:With that in mind, I donÓt see the usefulness of this added clause if
the intention is not to accommodate the linkage; and thereÓs also the question of the roads
within The Pines being private. I think that it might not be useful for us to add the
additional condition.
GALDONES:Daryn, would you, what else is the basis of the proposal?
ARAI:As the Director mentioned, I mean, unless you provide this back-
way connection to The Pines, if people do want to go to the commercial area, they would
have to walk down to Hualalai Road, then along Hualalai Road to Nani Kailua and then
back up Nani Kailua. ItÓs all about providing options, thatÓs all. If you donÓt see the
value in that, then I guess, as part of the motion, you can then make the effort to exclude
that condition.
YUEN:I think we said what we have to say; and I donÓt like to, you know,
if the Commissioners feel otherwise, I donÓt want to debate it. Let me put this in a little
bit of a broader perspective. It actually has to do with a question of how much is your
neighborhood as we plan and develop society. Without a, you can look at it as do we
want to maximize security and exclusiveness for people within a particular area or do we
want to give them the feeling that they have some place to go?
to do, they want to take a walk, and they donÓt want to walk along Hualalai Road. Is
there another place for them to walk to? This is a judgment call. My preference, and
given some of the problems weÓve seen, is to try and expand the community rather than
to contract it. If the Commission feels otherwise, I think this is as much, at least, I want
to say on it; and the Commission certainly has the prerogative of voting otherwise.
GALDONES:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:In that regard, I would like to see State and County plan better
shoulders to accommodate pedestrian and bike traffic rather than placing the burden of
that movement upon what may already be private roads and a private subdivision. But I
concur with the philosophy of movement of people.
GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:This goes to the ApplicantÓs representative, Steve Lim. You
mentioned the word Ðsecurity.Ñ To what extent of security are you referring to?
35
LIM:I guess in any seniorÓs project, the reason why they like to stay in a
seniorÓs project a lot of times is that itÓs a relatively enclosed environment, that you donÓt
have people coming in from the outside. You know, weÓve got a,
about, essentially, I think you picked up from the issue, is that itÓs not a public access that
youÓre talking. YouÓre encouraging private access. And, you know, I think our position
would be is the Planning Commission and the County Council shouldnÓt be involved in,
even if the idea is good, encouraging private rights-of-way. ItÓs either public access over
to everybody or itÓs not.
GALDONES:Daryn?
ARAI:I forgot where I left off. I think we, oh, condition, yeah, I think
weÓre done.
GALDONES:So, Daryn, there is no change to the Change of Zone application
REZ 02-002, 02-022? I mean, yeah, right.
ARAI:IÓm sorry, I just want to remind the Commissioners to the
amended, to Condition Q as amended to Condition R, IÓd just like
Commissioners that after the word ÐordinanceÑ on the second line, we included an
amendment where it says, Ðwith the exception of Condition H.Ñ That was to exclude the
revised TIAR trigger.
LIM:Then thereÓs some other changes that we, I guess you already
approved the ones from Conditions M through, the original Conditions M through R
already, the technical changes.
ARAI:Right, right.
KUBOTA:Daryn, you are accepting M, N and O, the changes in M, N
that the Applicant provided?
ARAI:Yes.
KUBOTA:We havenÓt discussed that. But you are? You are?
ARAI:I thought we did.
KUBOTA:Okay. ThatÓs okay? All right.
ARAI:Yeah, we are accepting it, though. Sure, thatÓs fine. So itÓs more
grammatical than anything else. So we do appreciate the changes
GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? If not, Mr. Lim, IÓll just
give you one last opportunity before we go to decision-making.
36
LIM:Unless you have any further questions, weÓre finished. Than
GALDONES:Commissioners -?
FUJIKAWA:Question.
GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:Are we deleting the bicycle-pedestrian right-of-way?
GALDONES:That would be the wishes of the Commissioners.
KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, we can delete that condition in the process of approval,
canÓt we?
GALDONES:Yes, maÓam.
KUBOTA:Thank you. Mr. Chair, if there are no other comments, I would
like to move. IÓm ready to move along.
GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota, I would like to take the State Land Use
Boundary Amendment application first.
KUBOTA:Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move that SLU 02-012 be given a
favorable recommendation, along with the Planning DirectorÓs recommendations and
findings, and be forwarded to the County Council.
FUJIKAWA:I second it.
GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b
Commissioner Fujikawa that PuaÓa Development, LLC, State Land Use Boundary
Amendment application SLU 02-012 be given a favorable recommendation to the County
Council. Any discussion? Hearing none, Daryn?
ARAI:Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA:Aye.
ARAI:Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:Aye.
ARAI:Commissioner Mina?
MINA:Aye.
37
ARAI:Commissioner Smith?
SMITH:Aye.
ARAI:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:Yes.
ARAI:Mr. Chairman?
GALDONES:Aye.
ARAI:Mr. Chairman, motion carries with, oops, IÓm missing someone.
Your name is not even on the roll call sheet.
TOGASHI:I guess IÓm not supposed to be here today.
ARAI:Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHI:Aye.
ARAI:Motion carries with seven aye votes.
GALDONES:Thank you, Daryn. WeÓre acting upon Change of Zone app
REZ 02-022. Mrs. Kubota?
KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that REZ 02-022 be given a favorable
recommendation for Change of Zone and be forwarded to the County Council, along with
the Planning DirectorÓs recommendations and findings and the conditions, as amended by
and read by staff. I shall not go over it because I think weÓve beaten that horse dead.
FUJIKAWA:Second.
YUEN:Are you meaning to include or to delete the pedestrian-bike
KUBOTA:Excuse me, thank you, thank you. And with the deletion o
proposed new Condition K, so there will not be a need for renumb
MINA:Second.
GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b
Commissioner Mina that PuaÓa Development, LLC, Change of Zone application
(REZ 02-022} be given a favorable recommendation to the County Council. Any
discussion? Hearing none, Daryn?
ARAI:Commissioner Kubota?
38
KUBOTA:Aye.
ARAI:Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA:Aye.
ARAI:Commissioner Mina?
MINA:Aye.
ARAI:Commissioner Smith?
SMITH:Aye.
ARAI:Commissioner Springer?
SPRINGER:Yes.
ARAI:Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI:Aye.
ARAI:Mr. Chair?
GALDONES:Aye.
ARAI:Mr. Chairman, motion carries with seven aye votes.
GALDONES:Mr. Lim, you will informed in writing of todayÓs action
LIM:Thank you very much on behalf of PuaÓa Development.
GALDONES:YouÓre welcome.
The discussion ended at 11:34 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
39