Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-24 TKona_REZ05026 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 24, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was SCD KONA 108, LLC (REZ 05-026) called to order at 2:30 p.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Vice-Chairman William R. Graham presiding. PRESENT:ABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea C. Kimo Alameda Hannah Springer Andrew Iwashita Fred Galdones Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner JeffDarrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SCD KONA 108, LLC (REZ 05-026) Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to Residential and Agricultural 1-acre (RA-1a) and Multiple Family Residential 3,500 square feet (RM-3.5) for 108.2 acres of land. The property is located mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, adjacent to and ending mauka of st Lowe€s,approximately400feetnorthofMalulaniGardensSubdivision,Lanihau1 and stnd Moeauoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-3:7, 8 and 9. GRAHAM:All right the Hawaii County Planning Commission will now come back to session. Our next agenda item is SCD Kona 108, LLD. This is a change of zone application so the commission will be making a recommendation to the County Council who will take final action. This is for a change from agricultural 5a to residential and agricultural 1a and multi- family residential 3500 square feet for 108.2 acres of land. The property located mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, adjacent to and ending on the mauka side of Lowe€s approximately ststnd 400 fee north of Malulani Gardens Subdivision, Lanihau 1 and Moeauoa 1 and 2, North Kona,Hawaii,TMK7-5-3:7,8and9.Normancouldyougiveusastaffpresentationofthis application? HAYASHI:Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Directing your attention to the overall site locationmapthesubjectpropertyisindicatedandoutlinedbythisredstrip.Itconsistsof108 acres. The applicant intends to rezone approximately 97 acres from agricultural 5 acres to RA 1 acreandRM,approximately11acrestoRM3.5.ThisistheQueenKaahumanuHighway. EXHIBIT E 1 Lowe€s Home Improvement Center is located adjacent to and makai of the subject property. This is Henry Street that would hook up to Palani Drive at this particular location. The darker purple shaded areas are areas that are zoned for general commercial and that basically includes the commercial areas, which include Borders and some of the commercial facilities at the corner of, excuse me off of Henry Street. Malulani Subdivision or Garden Subdivision is indicated in this general area. It consists of 120 plus residential lots. The green shaded areas are other areas that are currently zoned agricultural 5 acre. These lands are still within the State Land Use Agricultural district. Going to the applicant€s site map again as a matter of orientation, this is Queen Kaahumanu Highway going towards Ka€u and this would be in the Kawaihae direction. Access to the property would be from Malulani Drive and this is Malulani Gardens Subdivision. It would hook up in this general configuration and provide access to this particular property. Lowe€s again is situated here and includes their large parking area. At this particular location there would be the Walmart and Safeway complex. The applicant intends to again rezone the lower section of the property to a RM 3.5 zoned district. A proposal is to provide approximately 5acresfortheSalvationArmytouseasitsfacility.Shouldthechangeofzonerequestbe granted then the land will be turned over to the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army would have to come in for a separate use permit to establish their particular use. Mauka of that on the additional 5 acres the applicant intends to construct a 13 unit affordable housing project and that would be at this location. The adjacent area which would be zoned Residential Agricultural 1- acre will be used for the development of 57, 1-acre size lots. The construction time period schedule for this particular project will be to commence construction beginning 2007. The current General Plan for this particular area is Urban Expansion Area. Again the entire property including the area proposed for RA-1a is within the State Land Use Urban district. The property is currently vacant. And as I indicated earlier going to this map there are commercial areas, in this section of, the lower section, lower properties. We also have some multiple residential zoned properties and that€s basically the area that€s referred to as Hamburger Hill above McDonald€s. The Mormon Church is located in this particular location and it is makai of the subject property. Again access would be from Queen Kaahumanu Highway through Malulani Drive and extending to the subject property. Water is available to the property. The Planning Director is recommending approval with conditions and we recently provided you with a copy of amended conditions and that€s the yellow sheet. The amended condition was for condition M at the suggestion of the Department of Public Works. Are there any questions? GRAHAM:Commissioners do you have some questions of Norman? Should we wait a second while you? We€ll just wait a minute Norman if that€s all right; people look through their things a little bit more. HAYASHI:Commissioners there was also an amendment to proposed condition H as requested by the Department of Public Works. GRAHAM:That€s an amendment beyond what we have on the yellow sheet? HAYASHI:No that€s indicated on the yellow sheet. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer? EXHIBIT E 2 SPRINGER:I€m looking at appendix D of the application and is it proper to question staff just about what the department accepts. Maybe let me just (inaudible) my questions. I€m looking at appendix D of the application and that€s entitled StateHistoric Preservation approval letters. And those letters are dated 1996 and 1998, which were before the Public Access Shoreline Hawaii and Ka Paakai O Kaaina decisions were rendered. So I€m wondering again if we have sufficient information before us and is that something that I should have in my mind? GRAHAM:Norman if you have comments go ahead otherwise we€ll pass it onto the applicant when the applicant comes up. YUEN:We, the procedures of SHPD as far as archaeological review were roughly the same then as now so we would still accept it in terms of the archaeological review. We should have a, some separate, because there€s more to the PASH and then just archaeology we should have separate information about that but the age of the archaeological reports from €96, €98isokay. SPRINGER:Thankyou. GRAHAM:Anyquestionsfromanyothercommissioners?Willtheapplicantandhis representative please come forward? And again I remind the public anyone who hasn€t signed up to testify yet please pick up one of those slips out there and stop over at the corner of the table. So we have 3 of you if you all might be testifying. FURFARO:There€s 5. GRAHAM:All those who will be speaking on behalf here would you-. I guess what I€m going to do now is swearing in the applicant and his representative not so much the public testimony. So the 3 of you who will be speaking on behalf of the applicant would raise your right hand and I€ll swear you in. UNKNOWN:There€s 5 of them. GRAHAM:Okay all of the applicants. Sorry. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? APPLICANTS:I do. GRAHAM:Thank you. So each of you who will provide testimony please give your name and your address before giving your testimony but you can just go ahead one at a time as you wish. CARR:Good afternoon Chairman Graham and members of the Planning Commission and Director Yuen. My name is Stanford Carr. I€m one of the principals of SCD Kona 108, LLC, which is the applicant here before you for the Change of Zoning. Next to me is Marissa Furfaro from PBR our Planning Consultant and to the left of me here is Richard Wheelock also one of the principals of SCD Kona 108 LLC. We€re here before you today to EXHIBIT E 3 request our change in zoning. That will be taking a 108-acre piece of property and designing a 57 unit Ag-1 parcels. As well as in addressing the needs of the community providing a 5-acre site for the Salvation Army for a community center, pre-school in which Major Glen Doss of the Salvation Army is here to elaborate and speak about their plans. And also to address our affordable housing requirements with respect to proposing to build 16 multi-family apartments. GRAHAM:Thank you. CARR:You€re welcome. GRAHAM:So this is your chance to you know explain about the project or whatever you€d like to before the Commissioners here and then we can ask you questions thereafter so if you or any of the others wish to elaborate on any particulars you think will be helpful please do so at this time. WHEELOCK:Thank you Commissioner. I€m Richard Wheelock, 1607 Mokulua Drive, Kailua,Hawaii.Stanfordindicatedwe€reheretopresenttheproposedproject.We€venamedit Kona Coffee Estates. It€s conceived as a transition project above Lowe€s as has been pointed out. We intend to incorporate a number of affordable housing and a civic service, which is going to be provided by the Salvation Army. They€ve outgrown their existing facilities and along with the community that they serve they have greater needs. We€ve been working with them for several years and hopefully we€ll be able to help them achieve their new facilities. Above that is conceived a low-density agricultural residential component. As has been pointed out this land is designated urban not agricultural by the State Land Use Commission. We have all the utilities to the site including sewer, water, telephone and electrical. The conception of the project is a low- density, low-impact, transitional area focused on keeping the hillside as green as possible at higher elevations and keeping the more dense use to the lower elevations. That€s about all I€ve got thank you. GRAHAM:All right thank you. And, Marissa did you have anything to offer? Okay. Do we have some questions from the Planning Commissioners then? All right now reading of all this material I sort of had 2 separate elements that I was concerned. One was what I call the land use element by itself is it appropriate to zone more densely this area that€s otherwise surrounded by all Ag-5 lands. And the other of course are the infrastructure issues relating to water and roads and stuff like that. So I think the commissioners we all have read this so I€m sure we have all these issues in our mind but I just wanted to put forth that€s, both of those were concerns that I was feeling when I was reading through it. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Good afternoon. I wonder if you could direct me in your application to any figure or map that I might have missed that shows the arch sites that are intended for preservation in the context of a master plan. FURFARO:Good afternoon Commissioner and Chairman. I apologize; I€m losing my voice so bear with me. My address is 39 Kaapuni Loop, Hilo, Hawaii. Commissioner Springer there is figure 2 in the archaeological appendix. However the sites that are chosen for EXHIBIT E 4 preservation are listed in the text. I can take a moment to pick them out and circle them but I do need a moment to do that. SPRINGER:May we take that moment Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Certainly Marissa. You want to just take a moment to do that and then you can address us again? Fine. SPRINGER:Marissa is that figure shown in the arch report FURFARO:Yes. SPRINGER:I have that before me. I€m wondering if there€s a illustration that shows the arch sites in the context of the development plan? FURFARO:You€re speaking about on our concept plan? SPRINGER:Mm hm. FURFARO:That map up there? No we don€t have an overlay. SPRINGER:Thank you. GRAHAM:Any other questions from the-? Marissa did you have something for us? FURFARO:No I was just going to apologize. I€m not; I haven€t refreshed myself on the report lately so it will take me a moment if you want to move onto another question then I can-. GRAHAM:Okay, you want, you were going to address the question in respect to the, like this other map here. FURFARO:To the sites selected for preservation. GRAHAM:Okay sure. Do we have any other questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I€m not sure who I should address this to but we do have I guess a letter of testimony from the public that€s saying that possibly he should consider making that road a mauka-makai connector. Or having the potential to become a mauka-makai connector, which would sort of like reconfigure your subdivision. Right now it stubs off at the mauka side of the subdivision plan yeah and that wouldn€t allow for a mauka-makai connector. Would you have any objection to kind of like flipping those lots around? CARR:Commissioner Watanabe. It€s our intent and I€ll address this later in the current amendment before you on the Change of Zoning conditions. It€s our intent to have a EXHIBIT E 5 public access dedicable roadway coming up in through the entry of our community and terminating, if I may have a moment to illustrate to you. GRAHAM:Yeah go right ahead. So Mr. Carr is going to be pointing out on the map on the left CARR:Commissioner Watanabe, this is our proposed continuation of the existing roadway that will traverse through the community. It€s our intent if you€ll note on one of the conditions from public works in the amendment was to have dedicable roadways. We wanted to clarify that this would be dedicable County standard roadways up until the terminus of this intersection where there€s a planned north/south connection and from thereafter going further mauka that it would be private Ag standards for the reason being that it will be serving 57 agricultural lots. We do not have, or have any knowledge as to the intent of the owners above us of their intentions to rezone their property. I€m not even quite sure if they€re in the urban boundary.AsstatedbyMr.Hayashithispropertyisintheurbanboundary,StateLandUse Urban, County Ag. We are requesting a change from Ag-5 to Ag-1 (sic) only because the previous developer had intended and had planned to propose to develop about 400 somewhat units there. But in taking a step back and looking what has been built to date with respect to Malulani Gardens across the way here as well as the existing Lowe‰s and other commercial sites surrounding the property along the highway. We felt that we needed to mitigate any future density because of traffic and vehicular access. And for that reason we felt that an Ag-1 (sic)subdivision would be more appropriate but also addressing some of the community needs with respect to the Salvation Army as well as some affordable multi families. WATANABE:Thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer I think Marissa is ready for a more detailed explanation of your question. SPRINGER:Thank you. FURFARO:Okay there are 2 sites marked for preservation. One site falls within the Lowe€s area site 19039 and that preservation plan has been completed. The second site falls on, on this subject property and it€s 19056 and it€s above the scale. If you see the scale at the bottom of the page. And for the location of that site on this preliminary concept it€s approximately the rd 3 lot down on that southern edge of the property. Now whomever purchases that lot will be made aware of the site and be required to follow the preservation plan. Now the preservation plan is now in the planning stage. The data recovery plan, field work is to commence at the end of March. Do you have any further questions on that topic? SPRINGER:Not at this time thank you. FURFARO:Okay thank you. GRAHAM:Okay.DoyouhaveanyotherquestionsfromCommissioners? Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT E 6 IWASHITA:I€m generally aware in the past there was an issue about the Mauna Lani, Malulani, I€m sorry, Road, Roadway. And, I, so I€m has all of that been resolved in terms of-. I don€t know if there was threatened litigation or actual litigation involved in that whole, how that was done and the owners of Mauna Lani had issues with the use of what they perceived as their subdivision road. WHEELOCK:Commissioner Iwashita thank you for the question. There was litigation. It was commenced in Judge Ibarra€s court by the concerned citizens of Malulani Gardens group, which was a non-profit group, organized to fight the Lowe€s project, which was built below this project. The access off of Queen Kaahumanu Highway which is currently known as Malulani Drive was the only access lot that the State DOT when they built that road back in the I guess the 80€s to serve both the property that is now Malulani Gardens, the Kanuha property, which is the 70 acres immediately north of Malulani Gardens and between our project and them, and our project.AsyouprobablyknowStateDOTtriestolimitaccesstothehighway.Sofromthevery beginning I was with Hawaiian Development Corporation at that time and they sold the 24 acres to Brian Cook that became Malulani Gardens. That was always intended to be the access road for the Kanuha property and this project. We obtained urban designation for the entire property in 1997, I think it went on to rezone the lower portion to commercial in 1998. During that period of time Malulani Gardens was under development and many of the people who had bought their homes later in the stage were not aware from I guess the developer didn€t tell them or whatever. They were not aware that it was zoned commercial or that that road was going to be extended. When the Lowe€s project commenced construction there was a lot of shock and consternation expressed on their behalf. After numerous meetings and discussions various resolutions of some of the issues were made. The resolution to the roadway had to go through the legal channels. There was 2 arbitrations. First arbitration was about ownership of the road and the arbitrator ruled that Brian Cook and Hawaiian Development did have the right to build that road, use it and dedicate it. The second arbitration was about a residential use restriction that should be applied to that road. That arbitrator ruled that there was no residential use restriction. Many of the opponents from Malulani Gardens have become if not supportive of it they€ve resigned themselves to the fact that that area is growing in accordance with the General Plan that was approved in 1971 urban expansion. Some of the residents have not resigned themselves to that and I€m sure that you€ll hear their opinion later on. But, there is some concern from some of the residents there about the use of that roadway. From a legal standpoint it€s my understanding it€s my understanding and belief that we have every right to use that road and we intend to do so. Does that answer your question sir? IWASHITA:So the litigation has ended? WHEELOCK:Yes. IWASHITA:Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Wheelock. Any other Commissioners have questions for the applicant? Commissioner Springer? EXHIBIT E 7 SPRINGER:I€m looking at 2.0 the project description page 9 of your application. And there are 3 bullets there one regarding the creation of a high quality residential development that compliments site and surrounding area. Another that talks about provision of expanded residential opportunities for the north Kona area in a manner that improves economic and social well being of the community and that€s clearly represented those two elements are well represented in your application. I€m wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about how this project will be developed in a way that€s sensitive to the cultural historic and environmental conditions of the site and the surrounding area. GRAHAM:Mr. Wheelock? WHEELOCK:Thank you. I€ll take this one as well. The sensitivity to the cultural aspect is primarily on the mauka portion the RA section the residential agricultural and we€re going to focus on the emphasis on the Kona Coffee theme and emphasis. So from a cultural standpoint as farasthataspectofIthinkthatprimarilytheKonaCoffeethemetheemphasisonlocalresidents being able to live and have their children live near work and school is our focus there. Historically we, the original consultant on this was Mary Springer, she named the project Mohala which was to blossom forth. And subsequent to that we€ve consulted with the Kanuha ohana, Jerome, Zachary, Jr., Joe, they€ve had a lot of input into this. We€re working with them as far as improving their property in between ours and Malulani Gardens as well. From those sources we determine that there was extensive agriculture historically there but that there was not, there€s no ongoing cultural gathering activities or other great historic sites present there. So other than the one site that we intend to preserve in conjunction with the State DLNR€s approval that would be the historic aspect. Environmentally we intend to keep it green as possible up mauka. We intend to focus the emphasis on agricultural use and have a low density, low impact project. Thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. I hope that as you develop any interpretive elements and perhaps educational elements that you include that Leleiohoku was the alii who chose those lands at the time of the Mahele and that€s right out of your archaeological report. And that we not lose the place names of Lanihau or Moeauoa on the property or any interpretation of it. And was that the elder Mary Springer who helped with the name Mohala? WHEELOCK:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. We€re not related but by marriage. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah I have a question with regard to the traffic portion and I€m referring tocommentsfromthePublicWorks.AndtheyhaveindicatedthattheTIARdidnotaddressbut should have addressed you know left turn lanes and at intersection of Malulani Drive and what is thatKuakini? EXHIBIT E 8 WHEELOCK:Hale Kapili Street and Malulani and Malulani. WATANABE:Yeah, could you respond to that I mean I had, I know there€s some separation there already but I think they were looking at whether the length of those turn lanes were sufficient given the added density. WHEELOCK:Thank you Commissioner Watanabe. GRAHAM:Mr. Wheelock go ahead. WHEELOCK:I€m sorry. After we got that response we did request our traffic consultant M & E Engineering to make an addendum and study those 2 intersections. I€d like to introduce Warren Yamamoto our traffic engineer who did complete that study. Thank you. GRAHAM:Mr.Yamamotocouldyougiveyournameandyouraddressbeforeyou testify so we have it on the record please? YAMAMOTO:Okay. GRAHAM:Thank you. YAMAMOTO:My name is WarrenYamamoto at M & E Pacific Inc. 833 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii. And per Mr. Wheelock€s request we did prepare an addendum to identify the traffic impacts at the 2 internal unsignalized intersections along Malulani Drive and did the County receive it Mr. Emler? Okay. And we found that due to the low volume of traffic on the road that there would not be any adverse traffic impact. The, a concern was the length of cues along Malulani Drive from Queen Kaahumanu backing up and possibly blocking the access from Malulani Gardens and during the p.m. peak hour our forecast estimates are that the cue lengths would be about 6 vehicles. And we have storage for 7 to 9 vehicles there so, that€s 90% cue length will be at 6 vehicles so, there should be sufficient room for the vehicles from Malulani Gardens Subdivision to get onto Malulani Drive. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Yamamoto. Is that clear? WATANABE:Thank you. GRAHAM:Sure. Mr. Yuen. YUEN:We got a letter from Mark Norman dated, I guess we just got it it€s February 20, 2006 talking about a Kealakawila Road. Did you get to look at that letter? WHEELOCK:No we didn€t. But I did speak with Mark Norman earlier. He was here with his mother and we went over the issues. He owns the property immediately east or mauka of the mauka end of our project. EXHIBIT E 9 YUEN:Yeah, maybe you could take a look. Maybe we should wait till he testifies because the letter refers. They gave us a visual that has a lot of color use of color and I just can€t figure it out because we copied it in black and white. So I€m not sure where, what is going on with the maps. You want to say anything about it right now? WHEELOCK:Sure I€ll address that. Thank you Director Yuen. Mark Norman owns the property along with his mother immediately mauka of ours. It€s one of numerous agricultural zone lots that are accessed from Mamalahoa Highway down the long driveway next to Onizuka Store. He has expressed a desire to create an access for lots mauka of our project including his and others owned by families such as Yokoyama and some others old time families up mauka and has come up with several grid patterns for roadway access. It would actually extend our road project up to that area. In discussions with some of the other owners up mauka they did not share his enthusiasm for providing that roadway access. And I cannot speak for those owners nor for Mark for that matter, as he€s not here now. But I did speak to Mark and his mother at lengthandwehaveagreedtoworkwiththemtoprovidethemlimitedaccessacrossourproject, which is what he was after for his own goal if such be his desire. YUEN:And can you show us where that Kealakawila Road is that he mentions? WHEELOCK:Mr. Norman€s property is, I think it€s about 8 acres right here and the roadway goes up to Onizuka store and Mamalahoa Highway. On the old tax maps and in fact physically existing across the very mauka end of this property extending across Clarence Rapoza€s property on the QLT property and going south across Kanuha€s toward the old train track there is a double wall that is marked trail or roadway on various maps. I didn€t know it had a name but I€m assuming that that€s the one that he€s talking about. We don€t intend to build a new roadway there. As you know we intend to work with the County to build or to grade that section of the planned extension of Hienaloli Road at the lower elevation. What he was talking about taking this driveway, expanding it across the mauka end of our property and allowing Yokoyama, himself, some other owners above him and the owner of this property over here to access through the project. YUEN:Do you know what the legal status of this road is? WHEELOCK:I do not pretend to know the legal status of any road on the Big Island. YUEN:Is it physically located on your property? WHEELOCK:Yes it is. YUEN:Is it a exception to your title? WHEELOCK:No it€s not. YUEN:Okay thank you. EXHIBIT E 10 GRAHAM:Any other Commissioner questions? Actually I could make a question of Mr. Yamamoto if you want to come forward again for a second. This is only somewhat related to this application but it€s sort of a general issue I run into with Traffic Analysis Reports that we get before us all the time on larger application for rezonings. And it relates to the way you folks typically classify category A, B, C, D of whatever level of service. We typically, the Traffic Impact Analysis Reports are sort of long and tedious to try to read through for us and understand and all and so you tend to jump to conclusions and try to get a sense of the whole thing before you go into detail. And then we always see in the conclusions sort of to the effect that well currently levels of service is at D at some intersection and you add this project it€s still level D so there€s no adverse impact. To me that kind of reads like you classify a poor man as a guy who has less than $20 in his pocket, a middle class man who has 20 to 100 and a rich man as over a 100 and you say well I now had 80 and they stole 40 but he€s still middle class so there€s no adverse impact. Well obviously there is adverse impact and for me when there€s less traffic on the roads whether it€s still in category C or not there€s adverse impact. The adverse impact may beveryminimallikeyouonlyhavetowait3secondsormaybeyouhavetowaitanextra20 seconds. And I would really appreciate it if you would make a little more specific thing saying the level of the wait during rush hour will extend from so and so and so and so rather than just saying there€s no adverse impact which we all know doesn€t make common sense. So I€m opening it up just for you to comment on that rather than me just put forth my gripe. Please do. YAMAMOTO:Okay and in the United States of America the Federal Government, U.S. Department of Transportation through its various research agencies has developed standards for highway performance. And the Traffic, Transportation Research Board, which is one of the research arms, has developed different levels of standards for different types of roadways. For signalized intersections they develop one standard and like you say you go from say for signalized you go from 40 seconds to 41 seconds you change a level of service. And if you want to be die hard about it that, you had a change of level of service. And that is just the definitions that are set forth in the United States. Other countries do not use level of service they just use say delay, which is what€s the definition of (inaudible) based on. In our reports we also get besides the level of service we do give the delay alongside so you can compare that it went from 34 to 37 seconds. So you can see that there was a 3 second increase in delay and again that may be when you say that may not be an-. That€s the magnitude of change and that€s not really considered an adverse impact. Do I? GRAHAM:But there€s nothing in the Department of Transportation or there€s nothing in the United States Rules that say as long as you stay within a certain level there€s no adverse impact is there? Is that not your own, your own value judgement? YAMAMOTO:Every jurisdiction can make their own you might say call on level of service what they want. And, in some places that I€ve worked in say in California cities they have different acceptable standards for a urban say a heavy urban area like a downtown area. You may have level of service E as being acceptable. But in residential areas, level C you know this is in the same town that then you define level C as acceptable in a residential area but if you come downtown level of service E is acceptable. And the reason that they may not want to say, give too high a level of service for places they know that should be you know always congestion€s associated with say downtown areas is that if they said level, you have to have level EXHIBIT E 11 C thatmeans that they would have to put the money to provide infrastructure to create that level of service C condition. So you know we have that-. GRAHAM:Well thank you for the impact. I certainly don€t want to, I mean for the comments, I certainly don€t want to prolong the (inaudible). I just was hoping for more readability in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report because we do try to read all this material that€s all. Any further questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I€m not going to ask about traffic. Thank you. But I am looking at Mr. Norman€s letter and in his discussion of the Kealakawila he mentions water lines that apparently use the corridor of the, of the alakawila. Will those easements continue on for the cattle ranchers? If not at that location at some other site on the property? WHEELOCK:Those are technically not easements. Clarence Rapoza was ranching cattle onthispropertywhenitwasownedbytheNakaharaEstateformanymanyyears.Hecontinues to be our neighbor to the north. And we don€t have any problem working with Mr. Rapoza and his needs. He is still ranching cattle to the south. And we have, as stated earlier we€re proponents of culturally and historically sensitive development, part of that is the cattle industry. And the Rapoza family themselves are kind of cultural so we€ll support them. SPRINGER:Thank you. GRAHAM:Any further questions? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you. I don€t know if you were here earlier and I expressed concerns in the prior matter about, in the need to you know provide-. Your look in the long term right? How this area is going to be developed and providing for the transportation needs of the area and how that would impact the particular in this case, this application. So my sense now in terms of where this is and with the, thank you for the additional information about the mauka properties and what exists today. You know there€s obviously the present infrastructure such as it is I think in the long term and if you look at you know future development in this area we€re looking at-. Personally I think it€s important to look at the interconnectivity and to provide multiple access and just as a matter of good transportation planning. All right? And so, my sense is that that personally I would like to see a commitment to work with that. And in this particular case you know since historically there appears to have been this 2 wall enclosed infrastructure for access that that, and there is interest at least on one mauka landowner about this and-. But I think in the big picture our job is to not look at each individual landowner€s needs not just that we need to look at the big picture. That I would like to see that perspective given you know, being taken into account. And some connectivity or commitment to connectivity with the mauka parcels and the mauka road. And so that in the end, 20 to 30 years from now whenever it is you know that we have in your community, right, I don€t know what you got a consensus but you know a traffic infrastructure set up where you know there is connectivity and you€re not you know limited to one way to get out from where you live and so on. So I€d like you to readdress that because you know we addressed it earlier. GRAHAM:Mr. Carr do you want to respond? EXHIBIT E 12 CARR:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita may I go back up to the board sir to respond to this. GRAHAM:Sure. CARR:Again you know and I appreciate what your concerns are Commissioner Iwashita and the other members of this Commission and the Planning Department because what you have today in looking at Kona and I mean south of Henry Road is the missing linkages and connectivity between mauka-makai and north-south roadway systems which has caused a major problem today in gridlock. I can appreciate that. I€m, we€re an advocate of responsible planning and urban development and I think this is what€s happened or transpired over the decades with Kona area. And going south of Henry Road is an exemplification sometimes you need to plan long term. And I think all of your concerns are so that this doesn€t repeat itself again. In addressingthatwehaveprovidedforthenorth-southcorridorsthatareplannedforthefuture. That€s either subject to the adjacent landowners either north or south of us and their intentions to either urbanize their property or to develop it, come before the commission or for the County or the State to look at some condemnations in order to make those connections. With respect to what has already transpired with this piece of property and this community and the adjacent uses? Again as I said earlier this is an urban piece. It€s a 108 acres urban. There are actually people advocating a more urban community meaning single-family homes, 7500 square foot lots more multi-family, more need for affordable housing because we€re close to town. But one of the problems is and we had 2 meetings with the Malulani Gardens Association. And you hear their concerns because they live here now; they live in this community. And so obviously they€re concerned about any impact on traffic. But their problem right now is that they got a gated community here, which they really like having gated. And the gate is very close to this Malulani Drive right-of-way. And their concerns about the additional traffic is to how it will impact their neighborhood. One of the unfortunate things if I go back is that if you could, if your hind sites always 20/20. But had this entrance been moved up further, further mauka or had this gate been located further in the entrance so there€s a longer ramp for cueing just like-. As consistent with this condition now on the amendment that within any right-of-way no gate as well as having the turnaround be located no less than 60 feet within the public right-of-way. That would have addressed their concerns. There wouldn€t be as much of a problem today. Now for us to do on a 108 acres even a lower density community of 10,000. Homes with 10,000 square foot lots okay. You would still be looking at approximately 3, 300 houses right? And that would have, that much more of an adverse impact to their community as well as the existing infrastructure and transportation and vehicle access that we have today. I mean it€s kind of like the baby€s born. What can we do here that will not severely or adversely impact the community but can yet make economic sense that addresses needs of the community such as the Salvation Army and what their needs are? As well as some affordable housing components. So given what we have and that it is the urban designation. We took what we felt was the least impact with 1 acre plus lots or the rural setting than an urban setting. And like I said earlier if I recall I think the lands mauka above us is not even within the urban boundary and really have no control on the mauka-makai access here. Again we will be designing our collector road to County dedicable standards up to this first terminus of this intersection here that will provide for the north-south connections. And then the future north-south connection here further upland of the EXHIBIT E 13 property. But what I see that€s the extent really. I hear you. I think you know many of us that€s involved with the long-range plans north of Kona in the Kaloko area are looking at how-. In fact all of the landowners there we have all collaboratively worked with the Planning Department and the County to plan long range vehicular connections both mauka-makai as well as north/south. IWASHITA:Let me try ask you a specific, a more specific question. On the proposed, on the map with the proposed development. Currently you show us what I would call stub outs mauka for the north-south routes that you talked about right? I guess what I€m asking is would you be agreeable to basically doing a stub out at the mauka end similar to the north-south ones for you know basically possible future mauka-makai connectivity? CARR:Would we consider this? Yes. What kind of impact if that was ever to be implemented would have in the area? I€d have to defer to the traffic engineer as well as what would be the position of the Planning Department long term. IWASHITA:Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Carr. Do we have any questions further from the Commissionersorwecangotopublictestimony?Didyouhaveaquestion,no?Marissa? MARISSA:IfImayChairmanGraham,wehavesomeconcernswewantedreflected in possibly in amendment to the conditions if I can just go through them if that the appropriate time to do it or-? GRAHAM:It€s always a question of whether it should be now or it should be after public testimony but if you€re ready let€s do it now. st MARISSA:Okay. If you look on page 4, it€s the last sentence of the 1 paragraph, which we addressed earlier. The TIAR should but does not address the operation of the intersection of Halekapili Street and Malulani Drive or the existing Malulani Gardens Subdivision private road. If we could just have it reflected we did amend the TIAR according to the request from Public Works and unfortunately it came in after the staff report. The Planning DepartmentdoeshaveacopyaswellasPublicWorks.So,wejustwantedtoreflectthatwedid address those 2 concerns in traffic. GRAHAM:Okay I think we here today have a new set of conditions so I€m not sure wecanfindwhatyou€rereferringtoinourconditionseventhoughI-. MARISSA:It€sactuallynotpartoftheconditionsitspartoftherecommendations. GRAHAM:Okay. MARISSA:So it€s the staff report the background. GRAHAM:Okay. Norman do you want to comment on that? Is that accurate? EXHIBIT E 14 HAYASHI:I wasn€t quite sure I couldn€t find a place in my-. GRAHAM:I think she was saying the TIAR at the time when you wrote up this report maybe it wasn€t in but it is in now, it has been in. MARISSA:It is page 4 of your recommendation the paragraph at the top, the last sentence. HAYASHI:Basically what-. The recommendation was done and sent out to the parties as well as the Commissioners prior to receipt of the amended TIAR. GRAHAM:Okay. HAYASHI:So on that basis then we can make that change before it€s forwarded to the CountyCouncil. GRAHAM:Okay. MARISSA:Okaythankyou.Aswelltheparagraphbelowshowthearchaeological inventory survey dated 1992. There were 2 revisions, 1996 and 1998 the references are in our appendix. The next item 9 just below that it says according to the landowner on and on, there are no existence of any known valued cultural, historical or native resources and we just wanted to reconfirm that we do acknowledge there are valued cultural, historical and native resources on the property as evidenced by our archaeological inventory survey. So we didn€t want any confusion on that part. Condition M regarding restrictive covenants. Ric Wheelock can you address that? WHEELOCK:Yes, Condition M as contained in the recommended conditions of rezoning there is a portion of the southern boundary towards the makai end of the project that is within the floodway designated area. This condition states there should be no construction of dwellings and related improvements in that flood area. That€s fine. It goes on to state the restrictive covenants in the deeds of all lots shall give notice to the terms of this rezoning condition. We€d like to request the commission consider changing that to the lots that contain the flood zone. We don€t know what effect having that restrictive covenant in lots that don€t have the flood zone on them would have since they can€t do anything about others property. GRAHAM:Mr. Yuen would you have any comment on that? YUEN:That€s fine. I€m not sure you€re looking at the most-. You€re not, the yellow is the most recent though and not the goldenrod. That sentence is still in the yellow one though. That, that€s fine that€s not right to say that it should be all lots. WHEELOCK:Thank you. MARISSA:And I just have one last item. EXHIBIT E 15 GRAHAM:Sure. MARISSA:Condition Q. The first sentence says should any remains of historic sites. We would like to request a language change to should any unidentified remains or undiscovered remains cause our archaeological reports clearly state there are remains. So we just wanted it to clarify unidentified or undiscovered if that€s possible. And that€s my last request. GRAHAM:Thank you is that also okay with you Mr. Yuen. YUEN:Yes. GRAHAM:Mr. Carr? CARR:Thank you Chairman Graham. I have a couple of clarification comments aswellontheyellowamendmentonConditionI,whichreadsprovideconcretecurb,guttersand sidewalks in the RM-3.5 zoned area. No, that one€s okay, that one€s okay. Condition H. The previous condition. Provide roadway connections to adjoining parcels meeting with the approval of the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works. All roadways shall be constructed to dedicable standards, be open to public traffic and be dedicated to the County upon request at no cost to the County. We, our intent is to, and it€s picked up in Condition I that we will do County dedicable standards with curb, concrete curb gutters and sidewalks within the right-of-way adjacent to the RM 3.5 zone at which it terminates at that first north-south connection. Thereafter it is our intent to have agricultural standard roadways to this mauka up above. GRAHAM:So then the question perhaps for the Planning Director is if you do have agricultural standard roads at what (inaudible) conform to this condition. Is that correct? CARR:Correct. If-. GRAHAM:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:Let me hear Ki Emler€s comments on this. EMLER:Yes on Condition H we did make the recommendation and it€s based on the standards of the subdivision code. So if the Planning Director and the Planning Commission prefer to make the condition so that it did not reflect the subdivision code and this could be deferred to subdivision code later then it would be up to the discretion of the Planning Director and not the County Council. So what we did was we reflected what the requirements are in the subdivision code to provide dedicable roadways for serving lots of less than 3 acres. 3 acres and above is what the Ag standard roadway standard is for. YUEN:Yeah that€s correct. EXHIBIT E 16 EMLER:The reason why we recommended that they be dedicable is because if they€re going to be open to public and available for the County to request dedication of then they need to be constructed to our dedicable standards. YUEN:I think, we need a, I agree that it should be constructed to dedicable standards. There isn€t-. To construct an Ag 1-acre lot road to non-dedicable standards would require a variance. CARR:Okay, may I ask you a question? YUEN:Sure. CARR:Based on the topography and the grades that we€re dealing with on this hillside if we were to design dedicable standard roadways does that meet the conditions of the inclineoftheCountydedicableroadway? YUEN:That€sa-.Howsteepistheroad?Howsteepisyourroadgoingtobe? WHEELOCK:Theaveragegradeisabout12%.Thereareportionsthatexceed17%,one area in particular. Can I ask a question? At what point in time would we request a variance to not build to dedicable standards? We have no problem leaving it open for public use but the concept here is not to maximize the width of the roadway or to create an urban experience. We€d like to go with more of a rural feeling up in the mauka end. We€ve also had a number of our neighbors to the mauka side express concern about the urban feeling. In fact they€re going to express their own feelings about putting a through road through their property at some point in time as well. Our goal is not to go that route if possible. YUEN:The-, well the variance will be requested during subdivision process if you were to request a variance. On the question of grades, the subdivision code currently has a provision of maximum grades that says it can be altered under unusual circumstances. One of the amendments I€m proposing to the subdivision code is to delete that because its more been honored in the breech rather than in being followed over the years. There have certainly, there have been roads dedicated to the County in excess of 17%. The top portion of Hinalani being a good example. There€s also a DPW; there€s a DPW policy manual that was done in the mid-70€s that has generally been the guideline. I believe the maximum grade in that policy manual is 18%. So, and that€s the best answer I can give you as far as what is the maximum grade that can be constructed to dedicable standards. It depends on the classification of the road. This would be classified as a minor street and 17% is potentially dedicable. GRAHAM:Go ahead Mr. Carr. CARR:Thank you Director Yuen and it€s only because a lot of times conditions are imposed with dedicable standards without being cognizant of the grades. And so we end up accepting the conditions and then when we€re going through the process to effectuate and complete the project we€re getting hung up because now they won€t dedicate, they won€t accept dedication of the roadways. And I just (inaudible) a community on Maui. We can€t dedicate the EXHIBIT E 17 roadways because the County hasn€t accepted dedication yet but yet there€s community pressures to have it open because it opens up another transportation corridor. We still own the property someone gets into an accident we end up getting sued and we have to pay the price at the end of the day. And so I€m speaking of past experience in other neighborhoods or communities that issues that we have faced as well as the scars on my back that I have. WHEELOCK:The issue we€ve run into in the past is although the County may decide that they can accept a 17% grade, we will not be able to make Federal ADA code requirements and sometimes the County personnel involved don€t want to recommend acceptance of the property if you can€t meet ADA standards unless you can get approval from the grade differential, if there€s a sidewalk. Quick question I had is if we did not go forward with the subdivision which is you€re saying I think Mr. Emler that the code requires this. If we went with a Planned Unit Development project would that also require dedicable roads? YUEN:Wellyou€realso-.ThePUD-.YoumeanaPUDandownthelotsina condominium form? A PUD-. Because a PUD you still end up needing a subdivision. A PUD rolls the variances into the PUD. But you still end up with a subdivision. I don€t think you€re gonna have an ADA problem because the County standard is not going to require a sidewalk. Let me think about this a little bit more while we hear public testimony. GRAHAM:(inaudible) Mr. Carr? CARR:Yes, right now the condition provides for concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. And in our experience cause we€re facing the same conflicting issues on Maui with respect to public works as well as ADA requirements and have run into this where the ADA and the Counties are now deferring a lot of it to the State Commission of Persons with Disabilities. And we€ve got an ADA consultant on this. Is that we (inaudible) into that intersection when there€s a County dedicable roadway standards which is what we€re required to provide. Especially on a hillside and I€m speaking about our Kea Lani Master Plan on Maui. They almost want you at, coming up at the incline whenever you hit the intersection to have a tabletop plateau. So another bench in the site in order to meet the ADA and then continue on picking up embankment going further mauka on our roadways. It ends up having a lot of cut and embankment requirement as you€re, when you€re dealing with these types of hillsides. YUEN:Well the curb gutter sidewalk is only for the RM portion. How steep is that RM portion? CARR:It€s actually you know when Ric had referred to the RM-3, the lower portion of the site has a more gentle slope. As you get further up the incline is a little tougher than that. I can€t attest to the 17% grade at the moment. WHEELOCK:At one section. CARR:Well it-. Go ahead. WHEELOCK:Just one section is 17%. EXHIBIT E 18 CARR:Ric is saying that there€s an area that€s 17%. YUEN:Not low down though? Low down-? CARR:Low down we€re okay it€s the upper portion. YUEN:Yeah so it€s as I said the sidewalk portion is only in the RM. CARR:Correct. But again coming back to the-. As far, it was our intent to do a much more rural community with Ag standards 1-acre plus lots on the average. If it is the policy or the amendment now to ask us to say that all of the roadways be dedicable to the extent of meeting all our County standards. You know what my concern is, the impact on the cost and do I want to come in for more units in order to pro rate that cost. You know that€s the issue. It alwayscomesbacktookaywhat€stheeconomicimpactontheseadditionalimprovementsinthe community. See we€re trying to keep the cost down in order-. You know one perspective will say to go make more money and the other perspective is to mitigate costs for what we€re doing in public improvements and public benefits as well. GRAHAM:Can we leave this for now and get public testimony and then when you come back again after public testimony and then Mr. Yuen will have more time to think about it by then? Thank you all very much. EMLER:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yes. EMLER:While I€m up here may I bring a couple of things to your attention? I was going to ask that Condition L have a slight revision. The second sentence, I€m sorry third sentence. During, this is the same as the last application, yeah the last application Royal Alii we had this change made. Drainage improvements shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of final subdivision construction approval or. So final subdivision construction approval or is the added amendment and then continue as is. GRAHAM:All right thank you. EMLER:There was one other thing I€d like to point out and that is in the application, Figure 10 showing the flood map it depicts what they€re saying is the current flood insurance rate map. That is not how the current flood insurance rate map would look if you included the revisions that had been made using map revision, letters of map revisions over the past few years for Malulani Gardens and the Lowe‰s project. So that map is shown in Figure 10 I think it€s on page 39, is not, would not be the current map. And as stated in the narrative which is I think on page 37 it does reflect the correct status of the project in that a portion of it does lie within zone A. And it€s just the map does not. EXHIBIT E 19 GRAHAM:Okay. So even though this map reads at the bottom January 2005 that doesn€t mean it€s the current map. EMLER:That€s correct. GRAHAM:Thank you. Well thanking the public for your patience. You had to wait a long time but I guess the good side to waiting is that your public testimony will come closer to when the Commissioners are actually deciding on the application. So I have 4 of you let me find the names and I€ll ask you to come forward to the table. I have Joel Gimpel, Walter Kimura, Sammie Stanbro and Wattie Mae Hedemann. If any or all of you are here would you please come forward? Thank you. I€d like to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand and wait just a second. HEDEMANN:I didn€t know you wanted us to come up at the same time. GRAHAM:I€m sorry. HEDEMANN:That€s all right. GRAHAM:Could you raise your right hand? And do you swear or affirm to tell the truthonthismatternowbeforetheHawaiiCountyPlanningCommission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GRAHAM:Thank you. On my list I have Joel Gimpel. Would you like to testify first Joel? GIMPEL:Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM:I don€t suppose you need to give address and all again so go ahead. GIMPEL:I suppose not and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. First I have to leave in a little while because I have to head down to Kailua-Kona and actually to Kainaliu in traffic to conduct this evening. Anyway, thanks for Joseph the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat the opportunity to testify on this application. We note that it differs primarily from the first application that was filed by this applicant regarding which we did submit comments to both the Planning Department. Well to the Planning Department in June last year, in that the Salvation Army Complex and affordable housing units have been added, and also the affordable housing units will be on site. In December of last year, we filed comments with the Planning Department regarding the revised application, but as we noted then there were no changes designed to alleviatethetrafficsafetyandcongestionconcernsthatwe€draised.Accordingly,ourprevious comments regarding those issues still apply. Indeed, the addition of 16 housing units and the SalvationArmyComplex,whichwilladdatleast100vehicletripsperdaytothe250ormore trips that will be generated by the 57 residential units, will exacerbate the concerns we first expressedlastJune.Iwon€titeratethetraffic-relatedcommentswenotedinthoseJuneand December 28 letters other than to say that they should be in your record and you can refer to EXHIBIT E 20 them. I will note however that signalization of the Malulani Drive and Route 11 intersection the lane for drivers turning right from Malulani Drive onto Route 11, which is shared with northbound drivers on Route 11 seeking to turn right onto Henry Street, remains a dangerous situation that signalization won‰t solve. So although signalization will help make a bit safer drivers wanting to make a left turn into Malulani Drive from Route 11 it won€t help those, that other situation. We therefore recommend that the applicant be required to provide additional access to the property because there€s only one road Malulani Drive that would access the subdivision. If that road happens to be blocked by a brush fire by accident or something else emergency vehicles couldn€t enter and residents couldn€t leave. So, we need additional access to the property and to facilitate eventual connection to future subdivisions in the area in order to improve traffic flow. In that regard the applicant€s proposal to reserve a right-of-way for a crossover to Malulani Gardens is admirable, but Malulani Gardens is a gated community. We doubt whether access will be permitted. We also urge that you require the main road through the subdivision be built to dedicable standards, with no more than an 8% grade. When it€s too steep and I live on Hina Lani Street, it€s too steep. And Hina Lani Street was originally just a dead end street from Mamalahoa Highway. Now it€s a nice through street with about a 17 or 18% grade at the top. What could happen here? I don€t think we want the same thing to happen. There are a number of connectivity and access issues that could be addressed on a concurrent basis. And we outlined in our testimony and you€ll be getting copies of that that there are four north-south corridors that are emerging. I€ll name them but I won€t go into them; Kawena/Welo Street, Kakalina Street, Melelina Street and the Hienaloli Road/Kealakaa Corridor. That one however has 1.7 million dollars that has been allocated by Public Works for study, and we are investing as a County 5.3 million dollars in the intersection at Palani Road and Kealaka‰a. So in view of those issues we recommend that the developer be required to build County standard collector roads from the Kona Coffee Estates Development to connect to the corridors of Kawena/Welo, Kakalina and Melelina. That he be required to build a County standard arterial through the development along the Hienaloli Road corridor and that building permits not be issued until another access is provided specifically the Hienaloli Road is completed between Palani Road and Nani Kailua Drive. Finally, we urge that sidewalks be required in the development in order to encourage pedestrian use and facilitate their walking rather than driving to nearby stores including Longs and stores in the Crossroads Shopping Center. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Gimpel. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Gimpel? No. Thank you. GIMPEL:If you€ll excuse me I€ll take my leave now because I got a long drive. GRAHAM:Thanks for coming. The next testifier could you speak your name and your address so we have that on record and then give your testimony. STANBRO:All right. My name is Sammie Stanbro. Actually legally, Sharon Stanbro. I live off of Mamalahoa Highway just north of and mauka of the proposed development. I came to this totally against this development. I was able to find out a lot of information. I don€t think it€s as bad as it was when I came provided things are done. I live on a really prolific Hawaiian site. And I know all the places around me are very prolific Hawaiian sites. And it disturbs me EXHIBIT E 21 greatly to see bulldozing done when the sites are so special. I also live on an Ag level that according to the maps and you know these maps I wanted to point out that the tax map which says January 2005 is ancient. I mean I know there€s been more recent ones done because it shows Mr. Norman€s property is being this huge big long property. It was broken up years and years ago I think 30 years ago, you know it€s a long time ago. So this tax map is ancient. I wanted to address a few things on here first of all. I want to address that because it is in the book. I wanted to ask a question and maybe I should ask that first so that people can find it. I€d like to know where site, archaeological site 19056, where the description is. In their outline here I couldn€t find it I got to 15053 and then it jumped to 1136. So if the description of that one that they€re planning on saving can be found I€d appreciate that. That€s why I have the notebook here. I€m going to make several comments because there has been some things that are being addressed here and one of the things asking about Mr. Norman€s letter and his request and his, he does when he sold his land he kept easements a 40 foot easement on the properties. It€s kind of an isolated easement because the Komos and the Otas up above him in no way are going to give a40-footeasement.Butalsoifyouaskforastubout,thestuboutwouldcomerightinthemidst of the property and that stub out does not connect with Mr. Norman€s easements that he was proposing in that multi-colored sheet that he gave you. GRAHAM;Excuse me Ms. Stanbro, are you talking about the very mauka end of the parcel? STANBRO:Very mauka end of the parcel. The where you were wanting to do the stub out that stub out would be on the road, I don€t know exactly what it€s referred to but it€s where the old Onizuka Store is. That€s an extremely, extremely narrow little road, which has houses right up to the edge of the road. And there€s no way and they€re very long skinny properties. There€s no way that you would be doing a continuation mauka-makai road there because it€s people€s homes. On the other side of Mr. Norman where he was proposing it if you look at the map his land is, borders where his easement might be, borders clear over on the far left corner of the property there. So, the thing that he was giving you is not feasible. I do know that the properties mauka of him I am on the north side. I€ve asked the Bertrams, Peters and Otas are all people that are concerned about his proposed increasing our roads. Our farms are very productive farms. We have coffee, avocado, you name it right up to the border of that narrow old road. And in fact Komo€s property if you ever thought of continuing up there would be totally obliterated. So, I€m you know I€m thinking that the plan that they have of finishing at the top of the road as a very viable one and if you€re considering a mauka-makai corridor you go back over to Keauhou or Keopuka and make use of that huge corridor that€s already there. And come on down to wherever you€re going to be coming down with that corridor already there. If you step out to the end there€s no place to go once you get, once you head up towards Mamalahoa Highway. Are there any, is that at all clear if you look at the map? And if you look at the map you can see how narrow the Onizuka property is right there then to widen to do a County road there would be-. GRAHAM:Hold on a second please. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No, when she€s done I had a question. EXHIBIT E 22 GRAHAM:Oh okay. Ms. Stanbro you want to, since I€m not following directly on the map say which map it is you€re referring to. STANBRO:The tax key map. The one that I was saying was so old. GRAHAM:Right. STANBRO:That€s probably the best one is for showing the extent of the true ahupuaas going on up to Mamalahoa. GRAHAM:Okay thank you. STANBRO:And like I said it€s quite old. The property is directly above the development. Those were broken up, they€re not the big long slots that appear on the map. Mr. Norman€sistheonethat€stothefarnorthandthat€sonly8acres.Thereshouldbealineacross that then you go 8 acres more and put a line across there and then go up about 10 acres and put a line across there. So that€s all broken up. I don€t know about the other 2 parcels that are north. I do know there€s been a lot of breaking up going on in there though. So if you look at the little line that goes up from the middle of the property I€m assuming that that may be an old trail that goes up and then eventually gets up to the Onizuka Store, which would come to the middle of the property we€re looking at. GRAHAM:As far as how your testimony reflects on our conditions you were quite clear that you didn€t feel it was important to put a condition carrying a stub out is that correct? STANBRO:That€s right. GRAHAM:Okay. STANBRO:I think that what the one that they have what they have there with the cul- de-sac? GRAHAM:Mm hm. STANBRO:I think that is, would be, would suffice considering that they€re giving the road across, they are giving the County road going across the upper fifth of the property where it connects across there. You know that could connect to another mauka-makai like could connect to Keopu. That makes more sense. Also when you€re asking about the road that has the two, the two-walled road that has the waterline that was mentioned? That€s going north/south? I believe that waterline, it€s a white plastic, very small waterline. I believe that actually went to Uncle John€s old shack. And if you look at the tax map there€s a little square sitting in the middle of Clarence Rapoza€s property just at the far corner, north corner at the top there? You see that little square? I believe that was the water source for him. There€s a white plastic pipe and it goes along the road and I believe it went to that spot. I think that was that, that water source for him. But I don€t think it€s Clarence€s house. I think they get their water source in another spot. EXHIBIT E 23 Butthat water line is you know just a little white pvc and I don€t, don€t even know if there€s water in it anymore. But it was in question and I just wanted to mention. GRAHAM:All right thank you. STANBRO:What that was. One of the things that in looking at this whole layout in the General Plan and seeing how the General Plan lays out that that lands up to the top of there€s you€re planning on having that rural and that the lands above that remaining Ag. I€d just like you to know when you€re looking at that if you€re not familiar with the area that every farm that continues up from there, the Otas, the Kunitake€s, myself, the Bertrams to an extent, Loraine Peters to an extent. Those properties are all well productive farms. I know a couple of those people their entire income is off their farm. In fact Mako Ota if you ever got green onions at KTA and who knows what else he has a truck farm right there in (inaudible) soils. And the Hawaiians did a very very good job of moving the rocks to open up areas for planting. My entire property,the2longskinnyparcelsthatareontheedgeofLanihaunumber1ahupuaa.I€vegot huge huge mango trees, kukui trees, hao trees and very very productive deep deep soil extending into Liliuokalani Trust Lands and south of me. The coffee is wild and it€s huge and its everywhere. So the idea that these are not that productive Ag is really silly. I mean the soil is incredible there. And so when you€re looking at these other maps that are the soil county maps kind of take them with a grain of salt because the minute you move, pick up a rock and move it there€s tons of soil underneath and the rock actually helps hold the moisture in. So rocks are not bad things and the Hawaiians knew that and they used them really in clever ways. On my property I have a lot of graves I have a lot of raised bedding areas. I have home sites. I have a lot of sites like what is in this in the manual here. And I€m preserving them. They€ll be preserved forever. I would like to see more lands around preserved in that way. And actually talking to the developer of this property, how they plan on doing their acre and a half is selling them with as little disturbance as possible other than putting the roads in which is a breath of fresh air. Because if you happen to have a site on your acre plus land hopefully you€ll keep it and you€ll preserve it. And so if, you know if at all I€d love for it to stay 5 acres. But if we€re looking at developing these lands doing the one plus acre sounds okay to me. But I€d like to see a heavier density at the bottom. I think we have to really look at the availability to that big Crossroad Center. And walking and cycling. You know I think it would be very smart to make that a higher density at the bottom if anything and maybe a lower density at the very top maybe go up to 5 acre parcels at the top and do more density at the bottom. And with a road, the connector road that they have on there that goes over to you know that connects that they€ve put into effect. I have a concern that the Salvation Army site seems to be on the largest archaeological site. And I€m just would like to see them not get into hu hu later on when they go to develop that site because it is, it seems to be the most involved site. The footpath, the, I think I covered everything that I wanted to but I also have a question for the developer of where that, the description is of the sites that they do plan to keep. And I would like to suggest keeping more than just 1 or 2 sites if that can be done since we€re dealing with 1 plus acre parcels. GRAHAM:We can hold that question and ask that ourselves to the direct when he comes back up. Thank you Ms. Stanbro. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Yes Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT E 24 IWASHITA:Thank you very much for coming today and sharing all of your knowledge on the local area I think it€s very important that we get your kind of input. As far as this I don€t want to mess up, this roadway that Mr. Norman refers too, is it actually being used? He refers to it as being the access for these kuleana parcels so I wanted to know if you know if it€s actually being used by those kuleana parcels. STANBRO:I€m not sure. I only briefly he just kind of held it up and I saw the colors like Chris was mentioning. I don€t know which road you€re talking about. IWASHITA:There€s a that wall that double-walled area? It€s at the very very mauka-. STANBRO:Oh that goes north and south. IWASHITA:Yeah north and south I€m sorry. STANBRO:Not the mauka-makai okay north and south right? IWASHITA:Yeah north and south. STANBRO:Right uh huh. IWASHITA:And then I think you made reference to this kuleana which is tax map key parcel 26 that you said the waterline goes to? STANBRO:Oh it€s the little, the little tiny postage stamp? IWASHITA:26 or 25? STANBRO:You know I can€t see this map is so small I can€t see the number. But it is, it floats in the middle of Rapoza€s pasture. IWASHITA:Yeah that€s 26 then looks like. STANBRO:Okay mm hm. IWASHITA:So it€s that north/south roadway that apparently this waterline is located on. STANBRO:Mm hm. IWASHITA:Is that actually used for access? STANBRO:Actually it would be nice to be able to use it for access but the person that has the cattle in Keopu where they put the drainage ditch there there€s actually a cement bridge to drive over. Whoever has the cattle land right in there has put all their corrals and structures and everything right in the road. So you have to climb over fences and corrals and everything to EXHIBIT E 25 get on the first part of that road. But once you get pass where he put all those corrals, he did it intentionally so people wouldn€t use the road. It€s just right after you go over the bridge. Then it€s a really nice little road that€s double walled but no one uses it. IWASHITA:And so this, the corral is where which? Is it near the Kuleana parcel or on the other end? STANBRO:The corral? The corral is just and this map is really bad because it€s so old that you don€t even have the parcels of Keopu in it. But if you, if you look at the map, I don€t know if there€s a better map here. IWASHITA:Maybe I can, is it, is it on the northern, northern end or the southern end? STANBRO:It€s on the north side of Keopu. If you go right behind the houses that are rightlocatedrightonKeopumakai.Ifyougorightbehindthehousesthere€sastormdrainage ditch that they had to put in when they had massive flooding. And about a little more than half way down from Mamalahoa there€s an actual cement bridge that I don€t know if the County put it or if they had to put in but that starts you on that road. IWASHITA:So this bridge is along the-? STANBRO:That all houses, the house sits there and the people behind it all try to discourage people from going on it so they have gates and fences and stuff but it€s a road. IWASHITA:And so in the maps that Mr. Norman provided to us it shows the road extending from the Kuleana on the Rapoza property, actually 2 Kuleanas and then going-. STANBRO:To Keopu. It goes all the way through to Keopu south. IWASHITA:South. South to Keopu. STANBRO:Right. IWASHITA:Okay. And then, and so you can walk that entire but there are gate, people have put up gates and things but-. STANBRO:You can walk there but you have to climb over some corrals and some gates and-. IWASHITA:Okay. STANBRO:You know and there might even be a small kind of shed barn or something placed in the way but it was an effort to stop people from using that. But after you get through the first property coming from Keopu. There€s actually a, not a llama but a vicuna ranch kind of thing. People have brought vicunas at Keopu and that€s right where the road leaves Keopu and goes north. EXHIBIT E 26 IWASHITA:So it, it, this road on the southern end connects with the Old Mamalahoa Highway. Is that, is that, no? STANBRO:It connects with Keopu. IWASHITA:Keopu Road? STANBRO:Yeah. IWASHITA:Okay. Thank you. Can I have a different line of questioning? GRAHAM:Certainly go ahead. For this testifier? IWASHITA:Yes. GRAHAM:Sure. IWASHITA:Mysenseisyou€velivedinthisareaforalongtimeandyoufarmyour property. STANBRO:I first sailed to Kona in 1964. I€ve come back over and over, over the years, I€ve sailed back from Tahiti. I€ve come into Kona many times. I€ve only owned this land for about 10 years. IWASHITA:Okay, and what you€ve testified to you learned about this area just in the last 10 years? Or over the, your many visits? STANBRO:Oh well no. Just you know you always knew it was up there and it€s a special place but when we found the place we were looking for a place that hadn€t been bulldozed, hadn€t been touched. And fortunately the hui that we purchased the land from was given it in the Great Mahele. So we were able to other than invasive species that kind of took over Christmas berry and rose apple. We were able to slowly over the years clear that back and just constantly find amazing sites. IWASHITA:I like to focus on the big picture I call it. And so when looking and assuming you were here earlier you heard my questions about 20, 30, 40 years from now. How, you know how is the area going to be. I guess it€s, seems like it€s you would like to have it kept in this agricultural use that it is now in your area which is directly mauka of this property. STANBRO:Well I think for the future we need to preserve all our Ag that€s why in the wisdom of the people that set up the 5 acre Ag for the Holualoa area they were very wise in doing that. And, my sons will inherit my property. They feel even stronger than I do, which I don€t know if you can but my husband is buried on the property. There€s numerous graves that the land will be, if everything else is bulldozed around me mine will still be there. I€m also EXHIBIT E 27 passionate about preserving Liliuokalani€s land next door to me because there€s many sites there. And I just think the more that we preserve once it€s gone we never get it back. IWASHITA:Thank you. STANBRO:So that 30 year yes for sure I think all this Ag land, I mean we don€t know there€s so little good Ag land especially on this side of the island, we don€t know when we€re going to really depend on that. Like I say everything grows so well where we are. The idea of paving over anything up there just seems kind of silly. And fortunately everybody up in my area they€re handing their lands down to their families you know. There will probably be nothing ever to buy up there because the families know the richness of the land. IWASHITA:I€d like to see what your comments are as far as my concern about and the general concern to have more than one access to this property. And earlier I think you heard me talkaboutyouknowhavingthestuboutorsomeotherwayrighttohavealternateaccessormore than one access to this particular development. I€d like your input on how-. STANBRO:You know I, I-. IWASHITA:-you don€t want, I don€t want to do it in a way it sounds like that would adversely effect your lands and the other lands that are productive in agriculture today. STANBRO:No. I couldn€t agree more. Some of people here if they know me I€m usually always against the developer. I see it as a huge problem. Actually the same developer when they developed another property down on Alii I was at a, the Council meeting where everyone was calling for to have other openings for the development. And the Council turned us all down. And you know it was just, it was amazing. And then there was 2 places where they could€ve had easy egress. In fact the places are still there and the County didn€t require it of them. And so I always speak out. I think you always need an in and out. Unfortunately with the ahupuaas, they€re long narrow properties and it really kind of restricts being able to do things. And that€s our big problem here in Kona. Is that I think our planning could be better if we weren€t limited by this you know you only put a road where your development is. And then that€s one thing I think the County. I mean I€ve been squawking about Lako Street for 10 years and realizing the problems with the previous administration. And I, I mean I€ve gotta commend you guys. Just the fact that you€re concerned about the things that you€re concerned about that I listened to today is just a breath of fresh air from the last planning people. And so I agree. I think we€re kind of other than them giving, them giving that upland right-of-way for a County Road and giving them mid right-of-way and I think definitely in fact here just looking at my notes that they should definitely be connected with Mahulani that one road that Malulani has that someday should connect somewhere? So that the people from that subdivision can get over onto their street and get over onto their street and get into the Crossroads possibly walking. I think that€s a definite thing that that connection should be made. That should be part of the development. So then they have a way out, walking. But I don€t know, I know Clarence Rapoza is a pretty healthy guy and he€s going to run his cattle as long as he can. So, unless the County just takes over part of this land to run something out to the north I don€t know where that can be. I do know that going up, unless you went off to Keopu and connected up with Keopu and then EXHIBIT E 28 run on up. There really with all the farmlands you can€t have that stub out you really can€t go farther up. I mean if you had the time, if you look at the map if you look at the top where the stub out would connect up if you follow that line up and go all the way up to Mamalahoa you€ll see the Onizuka property on the north side of that little line. If you made a County road, you€d take out the old Onizuka store, you€d take out the house, you€d take out 2 dwellings that are, that I know of that are right there on Onizuka€s property, it€s for sale. You know if the County wants to buy it for a million and a half that lands for sale. But and you get down further and you have to deal with what 1, 2, 3, 4 about 7 property owners. IWASHITA:Is this road that goes to Keopu road is that one that€s, how wide is it do you know? STANBRO:The double walled road that you were asking about? IWASHITA:Yes. STANBRO:It€slikeforacart.Imeanacar,anoldcarcouldyouknowacarcandrive on it. Yeah 12 feet. IWASHITA:Okay thank you. STANBRO:At the most 12 feet. GRAHAM:Do we have any other questions from Commissioners? Thank you very much for your testimony. Again Ms. Hedemann? HEDEMANN:I won€t take too long. Wattie Mae Hedemann. 78-6863 Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona. I am talking, I am speaking in behalf of myself but I€m on the Board for Salvation Army. And even though we were intending to exchange properties to Lowe€s but possibly I€m hoping as a private individual to retain both properties because I think they€re very badly needed in the Community. Salvation Army does an awful lot and right now they have a Thrift Shop that they€re leasing in the Industrial, Old Industrial Area. They€re paying over 60,000 dollars a year for the lease which could be better spent in the community. And whether we can extend the thrift shop on the present site of Salvation Army by getting access into Queen Kaahumanu Highway across the Malulani Gardens that€s a possibility. We€re hoping perhaps that might be possible. Or putting the nursery school up above Lowe€s but I€m very pleased with the developers and what they€re planning to do for us here and I€m hoping that we€d be able to use both properties and that€s what I€m speaking about today. GRAHAM:Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners for Mrs. Hedemann? Maybe we could just take a quick 5-minute recess and then we can have the applicant come forward again? RECESSED:The Chair called for a recess at 4:22 p.m. RECONVENED:The meeting reconvened at 4:35 p.m. EXHIBIT E 29 GRAHAM:Will the Planning Commission please come back to order? We€re still on the Change of Zone Application REZ 05-026 by SCD Kona 108 LLC. And at this time if the applicant and representatives could come forward? So you€ve heard some testimony so if you would like to respond to the testimony further in any way or if you have some unfinished matters on with regard to conditions that the Planning Department€s recommending. And I do know that our Ms. Stanbro one of the testifiers had some questions about the location of the sites to be preserved so maybe you could address that. Thank you. Go ahead. WHEELOCK:Thank you Commissioner Graham. Richard Wheelock again. Let€s start with Ms. Stanbro€s comments and she shared her mana€o with me outside earlier. Specific answer to the question she had about site number 19056. That site is contained in the archaeological inventory report revised September 1996 on page 114. That site has been recommended by the archaeological consultants in conjunction with working for DLNR€s Office nd ofHistoricPreservationforpreservation.It€sinMoeauoa2 ahupuaa. It consists of 5 features including an enclosure, a wall and 3 terrace. It€s at the 780-foot elevation and made up of about 1,312 square meters or roughly 12,000 square feet. It€s on the southern border of the property rd about the 3 lot makai of the southeast boundary. The other 2 areas that were recommended for preservation have already been preserved. Those are on the Lowe€s site. And it€s not clear on this map and in fact she asked if we had an overview of the archaeological sites on the subdivision plan. We do not. The large site that she referred to as being in the location of the Salvation Army is actually site 19039. That site used to exist where Lowe€s is now. The archaeological map that you have is comprised of the entire 129 acres that was originally done for this archaeological report. And that site is already gone. We appreciate her concern about preserving as many sites as possible and we shared with her that we hoped to build a Ag standard road and minimize the grading and clearing on the mauka portion leaving that up to each individuallotowner.Inhercaseshehaschosentoleaveherpropertyasisandthat€sadmirable. Others may choose to farm or do other things with theirs as allowable under the code but as far as the sites on this property we are preserving the sites that have been deemed worth preserving by the State. I hope that answers her questions if not her concerns. GRAHAM:Thank you I think so. WHEELOCK:I have a comment as well regarding Joel€s comments from the traffic safety committee. His first concern expressed was the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The sharing of the on ramp and off ramp from Malulani Drive and then that same road lane goes off onto Henry Street. He may not know as it€s a recent development but the State Department of Transportation is widening Queen Kaahumanu Highway from Henry Street to Malulani Drive. They€re adding a second northbound lane. It€s now 4 lanes, 2 mauka. Or it€s 2 north 2 south and the turn lane is separate. So it€s actually going to help substantially alleviate the issue that he was concerned about. Regarding his additional roadway accesses. We are working with the State, I€m sorry with the County Planning Department and the County Department of Public Works. We share their concern about adding roadways as best as possible to alleviate the traffic congestion. Primarily in this area, there seems to be a north-south alignment and those are the ones that we€re working with. As far as being able to build those roads now, it€s really not feasible because to build a road you need the entire alignment it has to go to and from EXHIBIT E 30 somewhere it can€t just be a segment on our property. We€re not sure about archaeological features. We don€t control the adjoining property owners, lands and know engineering work as far as the grade and topo of the road layout has been done. As well as what we€re looking at doing on this property is the road reserve and doing the rough grade so that the County has the flexibility when they do get to the point of building the road to go ahead and build it within that right-of-way. To actually build it now, wouldn€t be feasible. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you. Do we have any question from the Commissioners of the applicant? GALDONES:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Yes Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:ThankyouMr.Chair.Mr.WheelockalsoMr.Gimpelhadmentioned something about making the grades at 8% is that feasible to do that? WHEELOCK:If we only build on the lower one-fourth of the property we can make the grades at 8%. As was mentioned in earlier testimony I believe by Ms. Stanbro the ahupuaa system is frequently long and narrow. The Hawaiian culture lived to a large degree moving mauka-makai and our western culture with a car and vehicles tends to move more on level land. It€s put them at juxtaposition to each other 90 degrees. In order to get 8 % grade we would have to wind the road and that would take us off at our land onto at least 1 or 2 other adjoining property owners who in this case are not inclined to develop. We have Clarence Rapoza to the north and he€s not inclined to do any development. To the south we have the Kanuha Ohana and the Burgess Ohana and they don€t seem to be inclined to do a whole lot development at the mauka portion of their properties either. Therefore in order to build a road within our project we have to work within our property lines and it will definitely exceed 8% at numerous places. GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah I have a question but I think this is like more for the Director however any conditions we would want to see that you would agree with. So, and it€s to do with the roads and whether they should be County dedicable or not. And they had mentioned that they would take the lower section up to the, the higher density area to County dedicable standards and provide the right-of-way for the 2 north/south connectors that more than likely you have a pretty good chance of meeting respectable grade. Would that be acceptable and still have that mauka makai road since it€s not going to be a connector from the testimony that we€ve heard or not likely to be a connector would that be acceptable as a Ag type of road? YUEN:Well actually for an Ag, for a RA 1 acre road any-. You need a variance to do a non-dedicable road anyway. What I was going to suggest as a alternative to the way the condition is worded is-, if you look at the yellow? And this is H the second sentence in H? It would say all roadways in the RA zone shall be constructed to dedicable standards and dedicated to the County upon request at no cost to the County or, if not constructed to dedicable standards shall be open to public traffic including access from neighboring properties. And what this, the EXHIBIT E 31 reason, what this does is it gives them an alternative if-, we were not really. What€s going to be dedicable is something that is really in process right now where we want to revise the subdivision code and change the road standards. The road that they have in mind is not because the way the shoulders are going to be treated it€s not a dedicable road right now. The idea behind this is our goal is that there be able to, that there be able to be access to their spine road. Access from the neighboring properties that will and if you have access from the neighboring properties and they also need to use the spine road? For example if, if there€s a stub out to, if a neighboring property uses that Hienaloli Road then they might, we would want them to be able to come down their spine road. Say the Rapoza property to the north is developed. We would want that to be able to be part of a gridded system. So, they have to be able to come down the spine road. But if the spine road is private you can€t do that. So if they€re willing to allow public use of a privately owned road that€s okay with us. WATANABE:That said though what about the issue of liability? It would still belong to themright?AmIright? YUEN:Theywouldhavethealternative.Becauseiftheymakea,iftheymakea dedicable road you can make the County take it. WATANABE:Oh I see I see. So either you don€t make a dedicable road but then you accept the liability because it is, you will allow public access or you make the dedicable road and you can give it to the County and then you get rid of the liability. Okay, okay. YUEN:I€m seeing the same from Mr. Carr. WATANABE:That dedicable road one of his concerns was about the curbing and also whether handicap accessible, ADA and so if the ADA and the curbing and all of that for the most part just applies to the north section anyway right? YUEN:Right. GRAHAM:Do we have further questions from Commissioners? WATANABE:Oh no thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Do I understand correctly that there will be minimal grading of the lots so some of the archaeological sites even though they€re not designated as deserving of or being required for preservation may be left on the lots. CARR:That€s correct. SPRINGER:Will you gentlemen be the brokers for the lots or are you the sellers of the lots? EXHIBIT E 32 CARR:Icould say yes we are. SPRINGER:Would there be any possibility that at the, buyers of lots might be informed of the sites of the features on their properties and be informed of them and educated as to their presence and although not required to preserve them be encouraged to preserve them? CARR:Definitely so. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Director? Would it, you€ve heard this indication from the applicant€s. I€m not sure if it€s proper to put it in the form of a condition or not. YUEN:We could say something like a copy of the archaeological inventory survey shall be given to buyers of lots that have sites shown on the survey and the seller shall encourage the buyer to protect the sites. And that way it€s not mandatory so it€s just an expressionofintent. SPRINGER:Wouldthatbeacceptabletotheapplicant? CARR:Definitely. SPRINGER:Thankyouverymuch,bothofyou,allofyou. GRAHAM:Other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you very much and did you have a comment? CARR:Yes Mr., Chairman Graham I have one more comment for clarification or amendment to this, this amendment. We€ve already stated for the record of and accept the condition with respect to public access through our roadways. With respect to Condition J, vehicular security gates shall not be located within 60 feet of any existing or future public right- of-way and a turnaround shall be provided on the public roadside of any such gate. It€s not our intention to have a gated community here because our acceptance of conditions to have public access. But with respect to the individual lot owners adjacent to this, as the Director said spine road, that they be precluded from this condition or this be carved out or you know with the consideration that we are accepting a public access without any gates that this be, this condition be omitted completely. YUEN:Well if you want clarification this we€ve, I, this hasn€t come up before as a question. This really applies only to the subdivision roads. It doesn€t apply to a security gate on an individual property for which somebody. You can, and I€m looking at Mr. Emler, I mean we never meant this to apply to. Somebody wants to gate their driveway at the property line they can do so. Right? Right. GRAHAM:Did we understand you correctly Mr. Carr that was your concern? CARR:That€s right because the language speaks that that it does say that it needs to be, any security gate needs to be located within, not no security gate be located within 60 feet EXHIBIT E 33 of the public roadway. And that a turnaround shall be provided on the public roadside of any such gate so it€s-. GRAHAM:So maybe we either need to remove that or change the words that way it doesn€t apply to the individual property owners? CARR:That€s correct. I just don€t want the ambiguity become an issue in the future. GRAHAM:Mr. Emler? EMLER:Well we would prefer to see some setback but 60 feet I believe with a turnaround is probably, is definitely excessive for individual houselot. So yes we did intend the condition for the subdivision roadways. It depends on how wide the right-of. YUEN:Yeah, I don€t think that we have ever put a condition on what somebody doeswiththeirprivateparcelonceit€sbeenpurchased.Soiftheywanttofenceoffthewhole thing and, on their property line including their driveway I just can€t see us. I wouldn€t put in a special condition for that so to the point that we need a clarification here I would say vehicular security gates for any subdivision road. EMLER:Subdivision road or commercial access. YUEN:That€s fine. CARR:Thank you. GRAHAM:Anything further from the applicant or from the Commission? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Maybe just a clarification. So Chris on the road situation? The roads in there will allow them to go with the Ag standard roads or I mean your recommendation? YUEN:They still, if they do a non-dedicable road they still are going to need a variance or in which could be in a PUD to do that. But we will, the ordinance will allow them to do that but then they have to allow the public to drive over these private roads. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have one last question. It seems like you€re quite familiar with you know the roadway improvements on what is that Queen K and Malulani Drive. And I was wondering if you were familiar with the timing with which those improvements would occur as well as the traffic light that is scheduled to go there? Or, or some? WHEELOCK:Ouch! Thank you Commissioner Watanabe. The traffic signal is scheduled to start construction by T & T Electric next week. That€s at the intersection of EXHIBIT E 34 Malulani Drive and Queen Kaahumanu. The widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway from what I understand from the DOT they started up towards the northern boundary of this particular section near the entrance to Honokohau and are moving south. I don€t know the exact timing for this particular area. WATANABE:Thank you but we know it€s coming so it€s physically being done. WHEELOCK:They€ve awarded the contract and it is underway. Yes sir. WATANABE:Thank you. GALDONES:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Just for clarification maybe Mr. Carr you might be able to answer this. TheroadhookuptoMalulani,isthatbeingbuiltasarequirementorisitbeingbuiltforwhose convenience Malulani or is it for your project? Because Malulani is a gated community right? CARR:That€s correct. And in fact the existing improvements go beyond Malulani€s entrance and so we will continue that roadway up the hillside so. GALDONES:No about half, almost about 2/3 way up on Malulani there€s that intersection that you€re going to hook up, you€re providing that intersection that road there? CARR:We€re providing just the stub outs for the accommodation of that in the future. That€s correct. GALDONES:Now is that a requirement or is that you just building that for the convenience of the Malulani? CARR:No that is being in the spirit of the long range plan of north-south connectors. YUEN:There€s an existing cross right-of-way through Malulani Gardens. But and the and in improving this subdivision we would make them put that across their property. But there is an intervening Kanuha property and there is a drainage-way between the two. GALDONES:Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I€m looking at the legal description, meets and bounds description which is part of the conditions of approval. And, I€m not a surveyor but it appears that this description starts at the mauka end of the property and works its way down. And on page 2 of the description call number 9 has the calls there and then it is called for 17.38 feet along the EXHIBIT E 35 remainder of road to a point. Is that reference to this 12 foot double walled road that has been testified to before? WHEELOCK:I believe that is correct. IWASHITA:So at least on this call it appears that the road is mauka or this property, your property, the mauka boundary of this property adjoins this north/south double wall road that ends up at Keopu. Is that correct? WHEELOCK:Actually the majority of this road appears to be on the property that we are currently before you on. And our intent is to leave that entire roadway segment alone unless required to do otherwise. There will be, that roadway will continue to exist at the mauka boundary of the lots at the top of the subdivision. And depending on the legal status of the road or trail or what its determined to be then that could be a required preservation or it could be at the optionoftheowners.Wedon€tintendtodoanythingtothatroad.Butitisonthepropertyas best I know. IWASHITA;I understand what you€re saying but it appears at this point anyway for-. Well it€s hard for me to say but the calls total-, if you add up all of the footage of the calls before the last one and assuming that all of you know all of them are along the remainder of the road then they have, one, two-fifty, three-fifty, four-fifty, five. Like about over 500, 550 feet of your property is basically along this road so the road is not on your property for that 550 feet. Does that appear to be correct? WHEELOCK:I think the 550 I believe is correct. I think that€s the approximate width of the top of our property going from north to south. IWASHITA:So from this description then it appears to be that this double wall road is actually outside of your property line. WHEELOCK:Yes it would (inaudible) that from this description. There are 2 walls up there and perhaps the makai more, makai most wall is our property line I€m not sure to tell you the truth. IWASHITA:Okay, so have you gone to check the, well I guess there are no pins this only talks about points. Did you go look at the pink flags that they put up when they built, when they shot this? WHEELOCK:Yes I did but it was about 8 years ago and I don€t recall exactly. IWASHITA:Okay the flags aren€t there anymore. WHEELOCK:The pins probably are but the flags I€m certain are not. EXHIBIT E 36 IWASHITA:Has it, has it been pinned because all of the references in this survey are not to › pipes in the ground they€re all just to points. It doesn€t appear that they have pinned or put any markers any physical markers when they did this survey. WHEELOCK:Theydid put pins or pipes, I did see those I do recall those. IWASHITA:So now each of these points has a › inch pipe? WHEELOCK:No but the corners do. I know the corners do. IWASHITA:Given, assuming there€s some correctness in what I€ve observed I would like to see some condition and I don€t know if this is the place to put it. But I€d like the applicant to address whether or not you know if this ultimately that this 12-foot double wall roadway you know at least in your area it appears to be maintained. And based on the prior testimony there is atleast,youknowit€suseableifnotactuallyusedthatsomeprovisionbemadeinthis development so that you know it may be accessible. It might be a historic trail or you know be used to end up having Ag tourism so you can walk to all these great farms you know. But there seems to you know it seems like we should try and make some provision for that. Would the applicant be open to-? You know I use the word stub out maybe that€s an over broad term but some provision so that there is access through your development up you know to get to this what appears-. It€s obviously a paper road. It historically was there and that you know may be of benefit to this community in the future you know when it€s further developed. Would you be open to, to having some sort of access I€m not sure. Not necessarily vehicular access but you know access similar so that you know the public would be able to use this road. WHEELOCK:We would not have a problem providing pedestrian access to it. Vehicular access may be problematical because of the lack of our knowledge as to whether there€s historic value there. Whether it was a trail, whether it was a road, liability issues as far as encouraging 4- wheelers to go up there and try make a 90 degree turn and not have a turnaround. Do we demolish the wall to make a turnaround? That would be hard. To allow public access to go up there and hike around and see an archaeological feature what may be historic we would not have a problem with that aspect of it. YUEN:Yeah I see where you€re going with this and I have a suggested condition which will say that before final subdivision approval the applicant shall determine the ownership of the north-south road near the mauka end of the property. After consultation with the State of Hawaii, County of Hawaii and adjoining owners if it is a public right-of-way the applicant shall quit claim any portion of their property within their right-of-way to the appropriate public owner. IWASHITA:That€s fine as far as it goes. I would like to see a, as far as the condition of approval to include a-, some measure of access. And not vehicular, not access in terms of having a County standard road but access so that-. So that assuming that this does end up being a road that can be used, you know pedestrians, bicycles, you know other kinds of uses like that. That you know that it, it, to the extent that it-. If it€s, to the extent as represented in Mr. Norman€s little drawings and all of that and you know it might be a substantial, it can be a substantial asset EXHIBIT E 37 interms of the future of this area and the surrounding property owners. Although you know its. I can understand the testimony each private owner might not be you know. Everybody wants their privacy I guess as it were but to the extent that this has always been there you know and in I think from the big perspective again that as this area is developed it can be used for the benefit of the public that a condition preserve that. YUEN:Well, I agree that it should be preserved but rather than even saying that there has to be public access across it at this point the issue that I have with that is that if it€s a public, if it is not a public right-of-way I don€t know that we should be saying that they should allow access across it. Then if it€s not a public right-of-way you have, then it€s there€s this, then none of it probably is a public right-of-way including properties of the other side so it just hangs there. If it is a public right-of-way then whoever if it€s for example it€s a state owned trailed. The state should make a decision on how they want to manage access on it. Maybe they may not want to open it up who knows. I think it€s premature for us to say here that there shall be access acrossit.Theremaybemanagementissueswiththat.Ifit€sapublicright-of-wayIthinkwe ought to have that determined because sometimes these things if it were not for the letter that came in it possibly could have disappeared in the course of all of this and you do a subdivision that ends up with a map that doesn€t have it across there and is gone and forgotten about. And I think we should determine that. But I don€t think we should say right here that there should be access across it because we just don€t know how it fits into any other kind of access system, trail network and the like. IWASHITA:Can you read what you-? Did you write down what you suggested, can you read it again? YUEN:Prior to final subdivision approval the applicant shall determine the ownership of the north/south road near the mauka end of the property after consultation with the State of Hawaii, County of Hawaii and adjoining owners. So they€d have to show that they€ve made inquiries of them. And then it says, if it is a public right-of-way the applicant shall quit claim any portion of their property within the right-of-way to the appropriate public owner. And that€s just to clear up any questions about title and then if it either is for example a State owned trail then the State will have it and the State can decide whether they want to, whether they€re going to mark it down as a public trail or whether maybe they don€t want to do that. IWASHITA:I would suggest that a provision be added that to have the applicant, if it is a public road or right of- whatever, you know if it€s public and there€s public access over it that the applicant provide comparable access from the mauka portion of this property to that right-of- way, or road or whatever it is. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Can I chime in a little bit here? Let€s assume that this is a trail, road, whatever and the only time you would have, it would really be affected by what you€re concerned about is if it turns out to be public correct? That trail leads somewhere. Apparently it leads to the Rapoza lots, which eventually leads to Henry Street yeah. So access actually could come from there because if you determine that we have a public road it€s not a public road that EXHIBIT E 38 just crossesthisparticular ahupuaa. It something that crosses several yeah. And so to me access would be from really Henry Street. And whether they€re going to park, whether they€re going to park you know, I don€t know at, Lowe€s or someplace. You know causeparking is going to be another issue if you€re going to provide access from this particular subdivision where are they going topark? And then we€re going to walk across an individual€s lot? I don€t think so. IWASHITA:Well that€s what, that€s why I€m saying wedon€t want you know right now the way the subdivision is laid out is basically is a terminus at the end andseveral lots right? That the mauka side of each of those lots would be along this roadwayright? So each of those individual lot owners would have access to that right of way. What I€m suggesting is that- that that be reconfigured so that there will be-. I don€t think it should be like Mauna Kea Beach Hotel or whatever but public access to a public right-of-way. It€s like public access to a beach you know. It€s a- and I don€t think it should be limited to the terminus of this right-of-way because historically obviously all of the landowners along this roadway had the use of it. Right soandit€snotgoingtobeusedinthesameway.Butifit€stherethenIthinkinthebigpicture basically you know we€re going to preserve as much of the, of the utility of it for the community as possible. And-. GRAHAM:Ms. Stanbro we€re not taking more public testimony now I hope you don€t mind. STANBRO:Okay, I just was going to clarify how far the road goes. It actually terminates at (inaudible) house. GRAHAM:Okay. Thank you. YUEN:What I have, am looking at is a road that historically only provides a lateral access and I don€t see a reason to open to have access for somebody to drive up to the top of this subdivision, walk across one of the lots and get to this lateral trail. IWASHITA:I don€t, I don€t you know I don€t know all the answers and I€m not suggesting there€s an answer right? All I€m saying is that basically we don€t have enough information-, right now we don€t have enough information. The Director€s suggestion is let€s go get more information to figure this out as a condition for final subdivision approval. I€m saying that€s well and good however if it turns out it€s a public right-of-way to me then there€s more that is on the table than the historical use. Because I you know, frankly again the big picture I€m looking at how this entire area including the mauka side of your proposed subdivision is going to end up being and how it€s going to use and how-. And it€s mainly for the community right, the local you know-. I don€t know this community. Stanford knows in this room probably most about this community and the mauka end of your property as anyone in this room. And and so I, all I€m saying is that keep options open. And if we approve the subdivision if it ends up the subdivision being approved and no options were held open right as far as access through your development to this road. I€m going to call it a road because that€s what it is right now. And then we€ve lost it like the Director said right? If we approve the subdivision and they cut it off that€s the end of it. Right? So I€m saying I€m not comfortable doing that. Not knowing what EXHIBIT E 39 this road is, what the extent you know the full extent of it is, the legal aspects of it and all of that. And so, I would like to see some language to keep the options open. GRAHAM:Could we have a suggestion from Ms. Springer? YUEN:If I can just comment on that. First the options are open in the sense that before final subdivision approval of the property we€ll determine where the stub out should go. But in terms of the, of how the major lateral connection, we do want to have a major lateral connection near the top of this property but its not right at the top of the property. It€s for various reasons it€s more like where they€re showing it. It wouldn€t be, it€s showing on the site map as 4 lots down there. And it€s not something that we are just looking at today. Okay. We looked at where the road should, where the cross road should go and it wouldn€t be at the top of the property. IWASHITA:AndI€mnotsuggestingthatitbe.I€mjustsayingthatthereareyouknow lateral connections are one thing. To me there are other you know if you€re looking at-, the mentality of roads and planning for roads is we end up with what we got today. And on Oahu we end up with what they got today. And that€s all planning for the car. Build a freeway, widen the road, they€re adding another lane to the freeway right. That€s going to add, they say it€s going to cut down the time for commute, yeah, right, how many of us really believe that? Because when you add another 50,000 cars there goes the lane right so. You know to me again the big picture right. We€re planning laterals are fine for planning for roads and cars and all that stuff. What I€m saying is that in this community right we don€t know sitting here today how it€s going to pan out 20, 30, 40 years from now. I personally I don€t live in this community but I wouldn€t want this community to end up with just you know the options being where do you want your lateral, where you want connectors that€s it. Where you want your sidewalks and that€s how we€re going to go right? Historically there€s this road. It was it has apparently not been used recently for any regular purpose but its legally a road. Right? That the State or the County owns. Then it€s something that the community can end up taking advantage of in some form right? And not necessarily to be used as a lateral, I€m not saying that that€s, that€s how its going to be. But we should not in this process cut off access to this road from this property by going through this process and getting that result. All I€m saying is we should preserve some ability to get access you know and define it when we know more and you know maybe the subdivision approval. This process the subdivision process is too cumbersome a way to do it and we can€t do it but. I€m saying we should consider doing that. GRAHAM:All right Commissioner maybe the way to handle this would be when we€re doing up a motion for approval or denial or whatever on this. And you can make a suggestion amendment in light of what you€re thinking and see if the Commissioners want to go along with that. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I€m wondering if Commissioner Iwashita is leaning towards a preservation of this corridor for recreational purposes? EXHIBIT E 40 IWASHITA:I don€t€ know the answer and maybe I can address the applicant and ask if you have-. You hear me talk enough I don€t want to talk anymore. If you have a suggestion what might be acceptable to you if anything. CARR:Okay. Commissioner Iwashita. Condition H of the amendments of the yellow sheets provides for that roadway connections to adjoining parcels meeting with the approval of the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works. I was, can you clarify cause you were talking about one-. We need to determine whether the ownership of the roadway for one thing, which we will we will do subject to the proposed amendments that Director Yuen has suggested. And we€re okay we€re amenable to that. I was a little fuzzy on the issue cause if we, if you are asking for pedestrian access to this road because of historical cultural heritage we€re okay with that, I€m amenable to that. IWASHITA:Thank you very much for that. I really appreciate that. So Mr. Director is paragraphHsufficientsothatifinfactthereis,thisisaroad,it€sapublicroad.Thatsome, something can be worked out with the applicant toward you know in getting to final subdivision approval? To provide pedestrian or if you know if it€s determined that more than pedestrian you know, bicycle access whatever else that you know should be allowed that something can be worked an approved through paragraph H? YUEN:Yes. IWASHITA:Thank you. Thank you for your pointing that out, it was very helpful. GRAHAM:Do we have any further questions for the applicant or the representatives of the applicant? You all can go back. Thank you very much. You certainly were well prepared today to deal with (inaudible) of questions I appreciate that. Well I think it€s up to the Commissioners now. We€ve had a lot of discussion on this and I€d be open for a motion or if someone wants to throw out their thoughts in the meantime that€s all right also. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I€d just like to clarify what conditions have have been amended. I have H, I, L, M. I€m not sure if P is going to be amended to reflect the discussion on encouraging preservation of archaeological sites or if there€s going to be a new condition to address that. So I€m just wondering what€s being amended. WATANABE:I believe J was amended too. YUEN:J was also amended. I think we would also have, we could amend P as we just discussed on encouraging preservation of sites. And we would add the condition about the ownership of the north/south road. SPRIINGER:Okay. Thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioners? Further discussion or a motion on this application for rezoning? Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT E 41 WATANABE:I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on application for Change of Zone REZ 05-026 based on, inclusive of the revisions that were just discussed. Based on the Director€s recommendations. SPRINGER:Second. GRAHAM:It€s been moved and seconded. Seconded by Commissioner Springer. Do the Commissioners want to do any discussion of this motion for favorable recommendation? I myself cannot vote in favor for 2 distinct reasons. One being regarding the testimony that this is agriculturally productive area and to down zone from Ag 5 to Family Ag 1 in an agriculturally productive area is not something that I can support. And also a long standing concern about the infrastructure in Kona and specifically traffic issues. Certainly common sense says will add traffic and so because of the (inaudible) I think what€s commonly called concurrency factor I cannotsupportitforthatreason.AnyotherCommissionerswanttomakecommentsatthis time? Norman I guess we€re ready for roll call. HAYASHI:Excuse me. Commissioner roll call. GRAHAM:Norman hold a sec please? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I just want to go on record. I€m probably going to vote in, I€m still deciding. I€m probably going to be voting in favor of this I-. In general I do agree with what you€re saying Bill but. I do want to commend, I do on the other side though want to commend these people for both for their, their public spiritedness if you want to say with, with helping out with the Salvation Army. I do also think that the idea of trying to preserve as much as possible the archaeological site the Kona field system I think is is a very commendable thing. And so I mean I am voting to (inaudible) of this I think. Thank you. GRAHAM:Any other comments by Commissioners? All right Norman thank you. HAYASHI:Yes just want to say just for clarification. The amended conditions would be conditions H, J, L, M, Q, a new condition regarding the ownership of the north/south road and I believe there was condition B or D I wasn€t quite sure as to-? WATANABE:P. HAYASHI:P? WATANABE:With regard to encouraging preservation of sites. HAYASHI:Oh okay. Okay Condition P. Okay. SPRINGER:I? Did you say I? WATANABE:No he said J. EXHIBIT E 42 YUEN:We did say I when we were talking about it but I don€t see what the amendment would be to I. I think that I was fine? SPRINGER:I think it was about the gates and putting some language that differentiated the residential? WATANABE:That would be J. YUEN:That€s J, we did mention J. HAYASHI:Yes initially the applicant referred to Condition I but then again he decided not to pursue that. Okay with that I€ll call the roll call. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:CommissionerSpringer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:CommissionerGaldones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Graham? GRAHAM:No. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair 5 to 1 motion carries. GRAHAM:Thank you we will notify you in writing of the decision today. This discussion ended at 5:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT E 43