Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-16 TSUNSTONE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT March 16, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of SUNSTONE KONA, LLC (SMA 05-005) was called to order at 11:18 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani st Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with 1 Vice Chairman Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED:Andrew Iwashita Takashi Domingo William Graham Alvin Rho Rene€ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 30 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SUNSTONE KONA, LLC (SMA 05-005) Discussion and action on the Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of 289 multiple-family residential units and related improvements, including associated commercial space. The property isbordered by Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway, nd approximately 1,040 feet south of the Lunapule Road-Alii Drive intersection, Kahului 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-19:1. GRAHAM:We€ll have a five- or ten-minute break right now, and then we€ll go on to our next agenda item. I believe on our next agenda item Commissioner Alameda will chair the meeting, because he did previously last year when this was first begun. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Kimo st Alameda.I€mthe1ViceChair.IstartedoffastheChairman,presidingofficer,earliersowe just thought that I just continue as the presiding officer. It€s a little less cold. I remember the last timeitwasabitcold,soIappreciatethewarmerairthistime.Letmejusttellyouthatthis agenda item has been a hanahou for us ƒ or hana-hanahou maybe. And I€d like to just turn over toJefftogiveusabriefintroduction.Manyofusalreadyknow,butapparentlyforthenew 1EXHIBIT C Commissioners as well as for the new citizens whoare here today. So Jeff, could you give us briefing on this particular application? DARROW:Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is to bring the new Commissioners up to speed on the application. This application is located in the North Kona District of Hawaii. More specifically we are looking at Alii Drive running in a north-south direction. The area of the application is identified in two red dots. On the ground we have ƒ this is in the location of the Kona Hawaiian Village ƒ the Kona Sea Ridge condominiums. Up on the mauka side of the project is the Kona Sea Villas, which runs along Kuakini Highway. At our last hearing, if you recall, it was learned that the residents of the Kona Sea Villas condominium project had not been notified of the project, being the fact that they are actually located on the same TMK as the subject parcel. Since our last hearing, the applicant has notified the residents within the Kona Sea Villas of the application. Briefly this is the location map that was submitted by the applicant. Originally, this is a Special ManagementAreaUsePermitapplicationforSunStoneKonaLLC.Thisisfora289-multiple family residential condominium project. The area identified in black is actually the project area. Again, Kona Sea Villas is identified on the mauka side of the project along Kuakini Highway. We have the Kona Sea Ridge condominium project and the Alii Park Place condominium project that are located on separate TMKs. Originally the applicant had requested access from Alii Drive along a mauka-makai connector that was on the south side of Alii Park Place. As a result of that, there were numerous petitions for standing for contested cases filed by residents within the Park Place. Later it was amended; access would be from Alii Lani Drive on a portion of the proposed Alii Parkway, and then up to Kuakini Highway along the south side of the upper portion of the project and along the south side of the Kona Sea Villas condominium project. Additionally there are drainage improvements that are proposed for this project. The first hearing was on May 26, 2006, where there were intervenors that were granted standing. These were people located in a subdivision called Hawaii Planing Mills, located in this particular area. There was a contested case conducted on two days with attorney, Sandra Song. At our last hearing the intervenor had withdrawn their contested case. And then again that€s when the situation occurred with the notification. Since our last hearing, the Planning Department has received numerous letters. I€ll just briefly mention the names: Donna Scott, Lillian Fox, Barbara and Russ Nielsen, Jannelle and Myles Spann. And this morning we have received a letter from the Association of Apartment Owners for Kona Sea Villas and from Josephine Keliipio. The Planning Director and the applicant have submitted a stipulated agreement, which you folks should have, as well as there has been the hearings officer€s report, as well as quite a bit of information submitted to the Commissioners. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Any questions, fellow Commissioners? Jeff, are there any other contested case requests made? 2EXHIBIT C DARROW:Since our lasthearing, after the notification went out to the Kona Sea Villas, the Planning Department has not received any requests for petition for standing in a contested case hearing. ALAMEDA:All right. Seeing no further questions -. DARROW:Oh. If I could. ALAMEDA:Sure, go ahead. DARROW:Sorry about that. Lastly this morning we received proposed changes to Condition 15 and Condition 22 from the Department of Public Works. I can hold onto those until later, but we do have those. ALAMEDA:Thankyou,Jeff.Seeingnofurtherquestions?Allright.Okay, here is the deal. You know, with our previous agenda item we actually -. When there is testimony, we should take it first. And Mr. Torigoe is myCorp. Counsel, which means that he guides the presiding officer, making sure that we stay true to the procedures. So if it€s okay, Mr. Torigoe, I€d like to call up our testifiers. Is there any comment? TORIGOE:Well, Mr. Chairman, that will be consistent with your Rule 4-21, which says that the presiding officer shallafford all interested persons an opportunity to present testimony prior to the commencement of the hearing and prior to proceedings onanysubsequent day to which the proceeding is continued. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you. Before I call up the testifiers, let me just share this with you. Right now it€s about 11:30. And I asked my fellow Commissioners about what time will they go brain-dead without food, so they indicated to me that about 12:30. So wherever we are at with our proceedings, if it€s okay, we€ll just take a break at 12:30. And if we need to come back, then we€ll come back. But hopefully we can get all the testimony in bythen. And so to make sure we get it in by then, let me just advise you that if you can keep your testimony to the point ƒ keep it concise. We have a littlerule of thumb, if we can be about three minutes or under three minutes, we€d appreciate it. Also, if this is your first time as a testifier, don€t be nervous. You know, I€m just as nervous. So go ahead and just share your opinion, your feelings; your voice matters to us. And we€ll take that into consideration along with all other documents that we€ve had as well. So feel free to come up and voice yourself. I have eight testifiers here. I want tojust ask staff, is there any more? NOMURA:That€s it, so far. ALAMEDA:Okay. Also, in your testimony you basically make a statement. Some testifiers want to ask us questions. And basically with your testimony, you make the statements; we ask the questions. All right? So let me call up, first, Joel Gimpel, Donna Scott, Lillian Fox, Charles Flaherty ƒ let me see how many chairs we€ve got there ƒ and how about Larry Jensen. Okay, we€ll go with four, and then we€ll pick up on the next bunch of testifiers. All right, could you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? 3EXHIBIT C TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please start off ƒ maybe from my right ƒ with your name and address, and you may proceed with your testimony? GIMPEL:Good Morning. My name is Joel Gimpel, G-I-M-P-E-L. And I€m here representing the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. My address is 73-4686 Hina Lani Street in Kailua-Kona. I€ll try and be as brief as possible. We understand that the zoning for these parcels that are covered by this application is appropriate. Accordingly, our comments focus on the effect of the traffic that will be generated by the development on shoreline access, and on related traffic safety issues. So with respect to the effect on shoreline access, we estimate that the residential units and the relatedcommercialspacewillgenerateatleast1,500vehicletripsaday,andthat€svery conservative. We acknowledge and appreciate that the applicant proposes to construct a two- lane mauka-makai connector road between Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway that should, according to the applicant€s traffic consultant, divert a portion of the traffic along Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway and have a positive effect on levels of service. Nevertheless, if we assume an even split of traffic, the development would add at least 750 vehicle trips per day to each road, which would severely compromise shoreline access via Alii Drive. So we believe that certain traffic issues must be considered in evaluating applications for SMA permits, because the recreation facilities contemplated under HRS 205 could include recreation corridors such as Alii Drive and the Alii Parkway. Accordingly, there should be enough room along Alii Drive to provide for all mandated traffic lanes, two minimum 5-foot bicycle lanes and two minimum 5-foot pedestrian ways. On-street parking along the development should be prohibited to protect the sight lines and avoid hazards to pedestrians and cyclists along Alii Drive. And adequate right-of-way must be available for roundabouts if the County determines that they are appropriate for intersections of the mauka-makai collector with both Alii Drive and Alii Parkway. In many locations, legal shoreline access is hampered by the absence of sufficient parking, and the public€s right to enjoy natural beauty has been especially compromised by the existence of only a few parking spots along Alii Drive. That Drive was originally designated as a scenic drive, but it continues to be morphed into an unscenic corridor of concrete and asphalt, active with robust and competing uses by cars, bicycles, and people. Unfortunately, the virtue of conserving natural beauty appears to be a lower priority. With respect to traffic safety, the traffic consultant€s Preliminary Concept Report notes that a TIAR for the Laaloa Avenue Extension concluded that warrants for traffic signals were satisfied for signals at the Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway intersections with Laaloa Avenue, and that similar or possibly higher traffic volumes were anticipated for this applicant€s proposed mauka- makai road. Accordingly, their consultant views it as probable that traffic signals will be warranted for safety reasons. We agree that safety must be a prime consideration, but suggest that roundabouts be considered as well. 4EXHIBIT C To assure safe shoreline access, the mauka-makai road must conform to County standards for collector roads. The grade of the makai portion below the proposed Alii Parkway is approximately 4 percent. The mauka portion between the Parkway and Kuakini Highway is roughly 7 percent. The roadways should be reconfigured to minimize the effects of the grade by using the available land to further reduce the grade while providing functional traffic calming that is integrated into the design. Also the 50-foot right-of-way isn€t adequate to serve as a collector. It should be at least 60-feet wide to satisfy County standards. And sidewalks should be included and adequate room for safe bicycle operation should be provided. That€ll take some of the cars off the road, perhaps. With respect to public safety, a single access and exit within a tsunami evacuation zone is unconscionable for the Block D development that has approximately 150 units, especially when that single access and exit requires people to flee toward the shoreline in the event of a tsunami. Furthermore,culdesacsservingmorethan18residencesƒandthisoneservesabout150 residences ƒ are prohibited by Section 23-48(a) of the County Code for obvious reasons, and a single access for emergency equipment is irresponsible for a residential area of this size. Accordingly, the internal road for Block D should connect to the Kona Sea Ridge Subdivision, which also only has a single access. And two, roadway access must also be extended all of the way to the north property line to allow for connectivity to future development. A few other issues: The plan for the commercial area provides for one additional space above the County minimum standard, but fails to meet ADA requirements. So the number of parking spaces proposed for the commercial space should be increased to accommodate users of expanded public transportation and carpooling. Two, at least six ADA spaces must be included in the plans for the commercial development. And three, additional on-site parking for the residential areas should be considered to eliminate existing parking effects along Alii Parkway. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I was as brief as possible, but I€ll be happy to answer any questions. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Gimpel. Any questions? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. Mr. Gimpel, when you were referring to an extension should go all the way through to the north property line, you were referring to the proposed Alii Parkway? GIMPEL:No, I€m referring to an extension within Block D that should go to the north property line, so that it will connect with the next subdivision north, so we won€t have a cul de sac any more, because now there will be two exits. SIRACUSA:I€m sorry, but the map here we are looking at, I don€t see where it designates the Blocks ƒ D or E or anything. I€m having a difficulty -. GIMPEL:Oh, I€m sorry. I believe it would be in your file in the original application. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, would it be easier for someone to point? 5EXHIBIT C SIRACUSA:Could you just point that? That€s the Block you are talking about? GIMPEL:That€s correct. SIRACUSA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Gimpel? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Mr. Gimpel, you indicated that to you it would be a lot better to have a roundabout to help the traffic flow rather than put a stop light down there. Can you give us any more information about what€s involved in making a roundabout ƒ like how much land is going to have to be taken from adjoining property owners, what€s the reasonableness of that, thosekindsofissuesƒsoweunderstandwhat€sinvolvedifthatwouldbethecase? GIMPEL:Okay.AllwearesayingandallIsaidwasthataroundaboutmay be appropriate as determined by traffic engineers and so forth. I€m not an engineer. Clearly you need land for a roundabout, but it does allow the traffic to flow. The County is considering ƒ or should be considering ƒ requiring roundabouts in appropriate situations. I€m not positive that this situation is appropriate, but there ought to be a consideration ƒ a room ƒ for it to be included in it. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Commissioner Siracusa, one more question for Joel? SIRACUSA:Yes. Well, not actually a question maybe. It€s just that I went to a workshop on roundabouts, and I hope that maybe we can get one for the Commission because this is bound to come up again. But possibly later on we can ask Mr. Emler for some information about that sort of thing. ALAMEDA:Sure. Seeing no further questions for Mr. Gimpel? Thank you very much for your testimony, sir, you may be seated. GIMPEL:Here? ALAMEDA:Okay, you can stay there. Just promise not to grab the mike again. All right. Ma€am, could you please state your name and address for the record? SCOTT:Yes. My name is Donna Scott. My permanent address is 1346 Point Clear Drive, Sunnyvale, California. My local mailing address is P. O. Box 390233, Keauhou 96739. ALAMEDA:Okay. Ms. Scott, I believe you did send us a letter as well. 6EXHIBIT C SCOTT:Yes, I submitted it last Friday. And if theCommission has had a chance to read it, I will try to keep my comment short. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. SCOTT:Basically I€m the owner of an Alii Lani unit in the building that will be right next to the connector that€s been proposed. First of all, in the event this is approved, I€d like to ask, as I did in my written comment, that the developer be required to put some kind of landscaping or sound mitigation and nuisance mitigation barrier along that side to protect the property values of the Alii Lani, in conjunction with Alii Lani€s Board€s approval and any other government authorities. My main concern here is about flooding ƒ the chance of flooding from this large development. And as I understand it from having heard the consultants for the developer speak, the engineering forfloodcontrolsandmitigationmeasureswillbedoneafterthispermit.Thatseemstometobe ƒ by the way, I also own a unit at Casa de Emdeko, which is also down gradient ƒ that seems to me to be backwards. I would like to urge the Commission to require any engineering or flood mitigation measures to be done to the Commission€s approval, and that that be a subject of the next public hearing; in other words that this matter be continued until after this kind of study has been done. Because I know nothing about engineering of flood mitigation measures ƒ but what I understand on the south side, one of the things that€s going to be done is the whole flood plain is going to be channelized ƒ and where that comes out, I€m not sure. There€s been mention of retention ponds to slow it down, to absorb it. How big will those be? Where will they be? Will they attract mosquitoes? Will they be cleaned out of silt periodically, or will the silt in the next big, big storm flow on down into the ocean or across our property? It€s really impossible for a layperson to give a real go-ahead for this project not knowing the answers to these questions. So I would really urge that this matter be continued, and that this kind of study be required and made available to the public and to the public€s consultants, so they can have a better chance to assess what is the danger of flooding from re-channelizing a whole storm system. And I also have concerns about traffic. I would say that ƒ perhaps the language I used in my written comment was a little strong ƒ I know that something is going to be developed there, and it may well be this project. But again it€s sort of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing; if the public doesn€t really see the traffic study until after the approval is given, it has no chance to comment on whether the traffic mitigation measures are really going to be adequate or not. I would urge that this be continued and that the developer be required to submit its engineering plans or traffic mitigation plans, so that the public can properly assess what the impact is going to be on Alii Drive, which is my main concern. And basically I did have one issue, which is really more of importance to the overall water recipients there. I don€t understand exactly the water supply system, but I did in reading the documents noticed a discrepancy where one government authority said that there would be 77 units of water, and another letter said that there would be 100 units of water but that 73 of them were already assigned to Kona Sea Villas, which by my math means there would only be 27 units of water left out of this allocation. So I€m a little confused about this. And I only raise this, not that I€m an owner of Kona Sea Villas, but because if everybody went short of water, my properties and all my neighbors will run short of water, too. So I just would like to make sure 7EXHIBIT C that there is some consistency in that there would beadequate water supply for this project without impacting the water supplies of the neighbors. Thank you for the chance to comment. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Scott. Any questions for Ms. Scott? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Could I just direct a question to Mr. Darrow in regard to your testimony, which is -. I think drainage issues are a big thing that we€re all considering and I know the intervenors before were concerned about that. Jeff, could you just give us a little presentation on, show us on the map? We read in our documentation about the Waiaha Drainage way and the Waiaha Splitflow No. 2 and all. Can you just show us what€s involved with those and where they are? DARROW:Well, to let you know right off the bat, I€m not an expert in these fields.Butinregardstohowthisaddressesthisproject,apparentlythereisafloodwaythat crosses the property right on the south side of the upper portion of the property above the proposed Alii Parkway. The applicant is proposing ƒ rather than have the floodway continue as it does ƒ the applicant is proposing to put in a channelized drainage channel right in this particular area. If we could defer more detailed information to their engineer when the applicant comes forward, but it€s my understanding that whatever the flow is coming into the particular channel, it cannot be increased; it has to remain the same or less flow than when it entered the channel at the area that it exits, which will be in a property located just to the south of Alii Park Place. That€s in this particular area here. At this time, this is a vacant property that I believe is owned by the Kimi family. And again there are different types of mitigation that they use to be able to slow down the water within this hardened channel. And again that would be something to request of the applicant€s engineer. The applicant is also proposing to be able to utilize this particular portion of the roadway along the Alii Parkway proposed area, and this is going to have to require some sort of culverts or those types of items as well within this drainage area. So there are extensive drainage improvements that are required, as well as they are also conditions within the Ordinance that affects the entire property, which was Ordinance No. 87-47, which is addressed in the Conditions in regards to the drainage improvements. GRAHAM:Thank you, Jeff. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? Oh, go ahead, Mr. Director, real quick and then -. YUEN:Yeah, just to complete the picture, there is also another flow of the Waiaha floodway just to the north of this property ƒ actually the main Waiaha flow ƒ what Jeff had described is the one we are mostly concentrating on here because it€s the one that affects the development itself. But the main Waiaha channel is just off the property to the north of it, and eventually comes out and crosses Alii Drive under a little bridge where there is the white house and a surfing area; and that€s the main stream of Waiaha. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Director. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. I€m a little bit confused. You are talking about the channelized floodway on the south side of the makai portion of the mauka-makai, and then it€s 8EXHIBIT C going to be draining down onto this vacant parcel, which is owned by somebody else. I thought that we couldn€t have -. I thought a standard condition that weusually have regarding water runoff is that it be disposed of on site and not go into neighboring parcels. Am I confusing apples and oranges? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:They have to dispose of increases in their water on site, but they€re entitled to pass through water that comes from off-site through their property. But where it leaves a property it has to exit at the same place, the same volume and thesame velocity that it would absent the development that they are doing. So that€s what they are doing, you know, there is a floodway that goes across their property, mauka-makai. We don€t have a flood map up here, but it greatly affects this property that€s makai of them ƒ that€s still zoned Ag 5 acres. It has not been rezoned possibly for that very reason. But to be allowed to put the floodway in a channelontheirproperty,theyhavetojustifytoFEMAandDPWthatwhereitleavestheir property, it is, as I said, the same volume, velocity and location as it was before. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I wanted to make sure that we couldn€t get sued by that property owner down the line for saying that, oh, our decision increased flooding on his property, you know, and made it unusable or uneconomic for him. YUEN:Well, there is actually a Hawaii Supreme Court case and that says the County is not liable for its review of plans done by a private developer. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, any follow-up? Any other questions for Ms. Scott? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Scott. You can stay there. Ms. Fox, we also have your letter. If you could not read it, but summarize your concerns. FOX:Well, this is a little different. My name is Lillian Fox, and I reside at 75-6081 Alii Drive. I speak for the -. I€m the president of the Alii Lani Homeowners€ Association and also the disaster preparedness coordinator for the Alii Lani Homeowners€ Association. To date I am not aware of any environmental assessment having taken place regarding SunStone€s proposed development of 289 condos. As this area involves the need to acquire an SMA, HRS 343 requests the preparation of such a statement. And the Planning Commission€s own amended Rules, Rule 9, in minutes of 9/22/06 it states, A Special Management Area Use Permit application is incomplete until such time as the Planning Department has complied with the requirements of Chapter 343, HRS and Title 11, Chapter 200, Hawaii Administrative Rules.‚ Additionally Rule 9-11, B.1.d. commits the Planning Director to ask for an EA and/or an EIS before the SMA Permit is issued. I would be happy to read you Statutes. And I believe the Rule needs to be followed because there will be a significant alteration to the drainage of the property that would redirect flow of possibly millions of gallons of water per hour into a FEMA designated flood channel makai of the property and adjacent to Alii Lani. Because this stream creation and flow modification has a potential of creating a major impact to the environment by 9EXHIBIT C sediment or suspended particulate matter discharging into the ocean and broadening the floodplain to include a section of Alii Lani, by your own Rule 9, an EA is required. Additionally Mr. Yuen was kind enough to send a letter to Stanford Carr and Kahakai Estates asking for the use of the easement road in times of Civil Defense declared coastal evacuations for tsunamis or hurricanes. In the last paragraph he states, among other things, It may also not be possible to use the emergency evacuation route during construction of these roads.‚ The lack of a road here in the event of an emergency concerns the safety of thousands of citizens along Alii Drive. I find it incomprehensible that this emergency evacuation route would be compromised before any other replacement is built. In the room today there are many concerned citizens who either live on or near Alii Drive or in SunStone€s other developments. We are all gathered here because we are living history of what SunStone has created in the past, and we are really skeptical about SunStone€s newest proposal. Intheeventthatfloodingoccurs,thesetestimonieswouldbeamatterofpublicrecord,andas such it could place the County of Hawaii, the developer and the Planning Commission at a risk for lawsuits to recover damages as a result of the failure to recognize and respond to the dangers of building in a known floodplain. I ask that the Planning Commission abide by its own Rules and at the very least have an environment assessment done before addressing the issue of an SMA. At the very best case scenario, of course, would be to deny an SMA to this development today. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Fox. Any questions? Thank you very much. Moving on to Charles. I believe you€ve stated your name and address already. FLAHERTY:Yes, sir. ALAMEDA:Okay. So you can proceed with your testimony. FLAHERTY:Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for allowing me to testify today. I€m here to testify against the SMA application 05-005. The subject property, as it has been pointed out, is in the Waiaha floodplain; and I have actually submitted to you all a DVD that was prepared by the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District through a FEMA grant that will help you to understand just how dangerous this proposed project is relative to the realities of the floodways in Kona. The floodways in Kona are immature floodways. They are still changing; they are changing course, they are changing volume. In addition to that, we€ve seen unprecedented amount of development occurring here in Kona. And more importantly, up mauka we are seeing extensive areas that are being deforested and converted into coffee land. Forested land absorbs far, far more water than grass land covered with coffee trees. And so additional amounts of water are being generated above this project, and will be flowing down hill. This is going to increase the hazard to this development. In addition to that, I€ve spoken with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and they shared with me that channelization of Kona€s floodways in the near shore environment is not a prudent idea. As you can see, I€ve attached two maps ƒ do you have my letter there I submitted to you all? There are two maps there. I€d like to point out to you that both the Splitflow No. 1 and No. 2, it becomes wider as it approaches the shoreline. This is a natural occurrence that causes the 10EXHIBIT C flow to reduce in velocity, which allows debris to fall out as well as sediment, and this serves to protect the near shore waters from sedimentation basically. Channelizing this flow, especially with the unknown effects of deforestation up above, is creating a very hazardous condition because the debris will not be allowed to fall out. And if there is a culvert, it€s very likely that this culvert will become blocked, causing a damming effect, and then there is unknown implications to the adjacent properties as the water tries to find other ways to get across Alii Parkway. I€m trying just to summarize my letter. And also, if you notice the two maps ƒ if you compare them ƒ you€ll notice on the Kuakini side there is a little indentation on both maps to give you a reference point. If you notice, the road that€s been proposed enters the property where the flood channel currently is, and the flood channel is moved to the south. As the Planning Director pointed out, you cannot change the location of where a water course enters a property. So this plan is not legal. I€ve talked to Bruce McClure and Galen Kuba also in the Department of Public Works, and you cannot change where afloodwayentersaproperty.Ifyoualsonotice,aboveKuakiniHighway,you€llnoticethatthe Waiaha Splitflow is flowing towards Kona Sea Villas and then takes a jig towards the south. I don€t know if plans are being made for the other side of the highway or not, with the Lava Kuakini development, but regardless the Natural Resource Conservation Service Federal Agency says that channelization of this area is not a good idea. In addition, the Kona Community Development Plan, which the Planning Director is very familiar with, is -. The community was very clear; they want to see the floodplains in Kona become green space and open space. And that is now being reflected in the consultant€s reports to the Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee. So this area actually should be -. Another use of this property could be as a green space, open space, to allow the waters coming from mauka to spread out and slow down and decrease the danger to the surrounding residents. I don€t know if transfer of development rights could take place or actual purchase of development rights, but there are other options for this property than the one that€s currently being entertained. And again this is the last chance that the County government has for discretionary approval; after this all becomes ministerial. And the bottom line is this applicant has already made a substantial amount of money in developments in this area, and I don€t understand why the Commission would want to endanger hundreds of people just to allow one person€s increase in wealth. So I hope that you€ll follow the letter, spirit and intent of the SMA law and the wishes of the Kona community, and at least delay this application till additional information and concerns can be addressed. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Can I follow up with the Planning Director on one of the points raised there? We know that with the drainage issues that the developer has to -. Where the water leaves his property, he can€t have increased that amount of water and he has to sort of give it the same profile as far as velocity and width and all. But Mr. Flaherty spoke of it going through a wider course coming through, it can leave behind its debris and sediments. So my question to 11EXHIBIT C you is kind of -. Is the developer also required to be sure that the quality of the water coming out is the same before his project as well as after his project, not just the volume and speed? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:The question of increase in sediment and erosion is part of the approval for the channel itself. If the speed of the water is such that it can erode out the sides or the bottom of the channel, then those have to be lined. The developer is not -. Your question of how much brush and debris gets into the channel is kind of an interesting question because when you have a natural channel ƒ if you go into Waiaha now, it€s full of brush. And if there is a big flood, that brush will ƒ a lot of it will ƒ get rooted and flow out to sea. So it€s not necessarily true that having a channel is going to increase the amount of debris that flows through it. Because the floods happen very rarely, they do get a lot of vegetation growing in them over time. If you look at pictures, there are pictures of I think the last really big flood in Waiaha, and this mostlyaffectedthenorthernƒthemainchannel.Thereisabigriverthatflowsthroughthere, and there is a lot of junk in the river as it flows out. But what I mean is that a lot of brush, trees, grass and things that people have thrown in the channel do get washed out with a big flood like that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRHAM:No, thank you. ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. We do have four more testifiers. It€s about ten past twelve right now, so I want to again encourage the testifiers to keep your testimony brief into the point, so we can finish by at least 12:30. Let€s call up four: Eugene Levin, Larry Jensen, Susan Golden and Gwen Ilaban. YUEN:I just want to mention one more thing in relation to your last question. Where this southern channel of the Waiaha stream flows out on the makai side currently, there is a condominium development. I mean so it€s not like the northern channel where you have an actual channel ƒ very visible channel ƒ that goes out to sea; this floodplain goes through condominiums that are on the makai side of Alii Drive there. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? PUBLIC:Which condominium is that? ALAMEDA:Excuse me, we ask the questions. Commissioner Graham, follow- up? No? If you€d like to testify, please, you can sign up if you need to. But from what I see, we have three testifiers here, but I did call up four: Eugene Levin, Larry Jensen, Susan Golden, Gwen Ilaban. Okay, we are missing one. All right. Let me just ask that. Are there any other testifiers? NOMURA:That€s it. ALAMEDA:Okay. Could you all raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? 12EXHIBIT C TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record ƒ and we can start with you ƒ sir? LEVIN:All right. My name is Dr. Eugene Levin. I am the owner of Unit J-22, Kona Sea Villas, which is mauka of the proposed development. I€m also the owner of Unit J-23, Kona Sea Ridge, which is just makai of the development. And I previously owned units at Alii Lani. So I€m very familiar with the area and with this particular developer. My comments are strictly with respect to the mauka-makai road that connects the Alii Parkway to Kuakini Highway. I have no opinions or opposition to the general development other than these. Specifically I want to thank the developer for proposing to build a little piece of the Alii Parkway,whichweallhopewillcomeintoexistenceeventually.It€simportantwithrespectto my comments to note that the General Plan for the Alii Parkway includes a connector to Kuakini. It loops up to the north of Kona Sea Villas and connects to Kuakini Highway in the plan, which we all hope will someday come to be. Now this new road that he is planning to put in, which is right next to the flood control channel and in fact pushes the flood control channel out of its normal pathway, would occur about 200 to 300 yards away south of where the proposed road is already planned for the Alii Parkway. So along Kuakini Highway within a few hundred yards, we€ll have two major intersections added together with the additional traffic that has been described of 750 vehicle cars coming in per day. I don€t want to re-engineer the thing for them or re-develop it, but it makes all kind of sense, if you are going to have this little piece of the Alii Parkway connect to Kuakini, that should be the access. So the Alii Parkway gets further along its development, people can say, yes, it really is so. However, there are some other considerations. That additional road, which is the mauka-makai connector connecting Kuakini to Alii Parkway to the south of Kona Sea Villas, is very steep; it€s in 7 percent grade. It has displaced the channel to control the flood. Presumably the channel is appropriately engineered to control normal flood conditions. We have noticed that althoughour average rainfall is relatively mild here in Kona ƒ we do have periods of very extreme rain and are getting worse. They may get worse still. Also, there is debris that flows down from the makai portion of this development, which could clog up the effectiveness of the drainage channel they are proposing. If that occurs, the excess water first goes onto this road ƒ this mauka-makai road ƒ at 7 percent grade, and comes roaring down at very high velocity to the units below, which happen to be including my Kona Sea Ridge, which I€m very concerned with. So my primary point is that due to traffic consideration on Kuakini Highway, namely two major intersections within a few hundreds yard, but they are not necessary; the displacement of the flood control channel by this road, which is not necessary that the consideration of putting the road to the south of Kona Sea Villas should be re-examined both from a traffic and flood control perspective. That is my primary point. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Levin. Any questions? We appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. May I ask, ma€am, could you please state your name and address for the record? 13EXHIBIT C ILABAN:Yes, my name is Gwen Ilaban. My address is 76-6182 Alii Drive. ALAMEDA:All right, Ms. Ilaban, you may proceed. ILABAN:Okay. Aloha, Planning Commission members. With all due respect to the Planning Director, Mr. Yuen, I find that I differ with him. It€s my recommendation that the SMA Use Permit application be denied. I€ve lived in Kailua-Kona for many years, and there has been recurring flooding in this area and in some years very severe flooding. I spent yesterday afternoon examining the SMA application file relating to this property in the Planning Department€s office. I found no evidence of any hydrology or drainage and flood studies for this project. Mr. Yuen apparently intends to require the applicant to prepare such studies for the project. Yet, he doesn€t require compliance with any specific criteria; he merely required a study ƒ any study. This position fails to comply with the CZMobjectivesandpoliciesƒSMAguidelines.Isn€tthisacaseoflockingthebarnafterthe horses have escaped? The above referenced studies should have been completed prior to the Planning Director€s recommendation, so that he and the public would have had the benefit of the information that would have been contained therein. Approving this project under these circumstances is foolish and reckless. It subjects the County to the risk of litigation, and additional hardship on homeowners and tenants that could be potential victims during an unforeseen catastrophic incident. Mahalo nui loa for your time. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Ilaban. Any questions? We appreciate your testimony. We appreciate your coming out today. Thank you very much. You can be seated, or you can sit there. Ma€am, could you state your name and address for the record? GOLDEN:Yes. My name is Susan Golden. I live at Kona Pacific condominiums, which is 75-5865 Walua Road. My opportunity to work with SunStone began many years ago when they were building Alii Cove on Alii Drive, between that and Walua Road. Because that increased the density in the area, as residents along Walua Road, we requested mitigation, so that pedestrians would have safe access along Walua Road. As part of that, there also was not only pedestrian access along Walua Road but another pedestrian/bikeway access going mauka-makai from Alii Drive all the way up to Kuakini originally. Neither those have been completed, but Alii Cove is built out now. And we are still waiting. Now talking to SunStone prior to this meeting, they indicated there is some plans. But the problem seems to be that although they intended an accessible ramp in both cases along their access north of Alii Cove, when they brought their plans to the County, the County said, No, we don€t want a ramp. Let€s put in steps.‚ And that€s what was done. There are steps instead of a ramp. I don€t call that an accessible standard. And although I€m angry at SunStone for not keeping their promise, my comment is that if you request anything of this developer, you get it done prior to them building what they want to build, because they probably won€t keep their promise. Either that or you require some bond, so that if the County is left holding their bag on this developer they€ll have money established for that purpose. Now what angers me, although I€m angry at SunStone, I€m outraged at the County. I€m so outraged that I almost can€t speak. And that is the attitude less than an hour ago from the County 14EXHIBIT C engineer; he said, We have no obligation for accessibility.‚ I€d like to inform you that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, became law in 1990. That€s 17 years ago. The requirements and regulations that apply to the County are over 15 years old. You are obligated to build accessibles according to the ADA standards. The idea of the ADA was that we may not be able to fix all past building, but the building environment will be accessible from now on. Now an hour ago I heard the County tell me accessibility is not an issue with them. I€m outraged. Quite frankly, suing the County isn€t good enough. You are all 17 years older, and I assure you as you get older, access will impact every single one of you. If we are still not feeling that we have no obligation to build accessible environment, I€m outraged that you are not feeling that you need to follow the law. As far as I€m concerned, if the lower level engineer is saying, oh, just putting steps, it reflects the higher-ups and the mayor, the administration, and all leaders of the Planning Department. If that€s their attitude, at best they should all be fired immediately. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Golden. Thank you for your testimony. And thank all of youforcomingtoday.Andallofthecommentsthatweremade,everyCommissionerhasan opportunity to revisit the testimony when we have discussion. So even if we are not kind of hashing it out or talking about it now, we are all making notes or mental notes of the testimony, and I€m sure it will come up in our discussion when we deliberate. So thank you so much for your testimony again. We don€t have any other testifiers, but it is 12:30. So I would like to, if there is no further objection from my fellow Commissioner, I would like to break for lunch, and reconvene at -. One thirty? How€s 1:30? An hour? One forty-five? Okay, we€ll reconvene at 1:45. Thank you very much. RECESSEDThe Chair called a recess at 12:25 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:43 p.m. ALAMEDA:The Hawaii Planning Commission will now return in order. Thank you for waiting. And now that we are re-energized, we can move forward with this agenda item. I€d like to call up the applicant or his representative. Please come forward. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? APPLICANT PARTY:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your names and addresses for therecord? LIM:Thankyou,Mr.Chair.MynameisStevenLimfromCarlsmithat 686 Waianuenue Avenue in Hilo. With me to my right is Mr. Curtis DeWeese who is the principalforSunStone.TomyleftisMr.GregoryMooerswhoisourplanningconsultant,a chief planner. Also with us today is Ms. Sanoe Kauhane who is one of my law clerks, who€s out oftheUniversityofHawaiiandspendingsometimewithusthissummertotrytoseewhatthis area of law is all about. We€ve also got Dr. Ron Terry back there who did our visual analysis, andDavidBillswhoisourprojectengineer.Priortodecidingonit,youknow,thishasbeena long process for us; we are nearly two years into the process on this SMA permit. But ƒ and we will start out our SMA presentation shortly with Mr. Mooers kicking it off ƒ but I think for 15EXHIBIT C purposes of follow-up on the public testimony that was given just prior to the lunch break, I would like to have Mr. DeWeese make a presentation. ALAMEDA:Sure. Before that, there is amazing glare right behind you, Mr. Lim. I was wondering if we could close the door slightly or -. It€s making me see cross- eyed. Sorry about that. Okay, there you go. All right. Go ahead. DEWEESE:Thank you, Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners. Good afternoon. I want to take a brief moment to clarify something that was stated by one of the testifiers just before our lunch break, and that was Ms. Golden. I just want to clarify for the Commission and the public that SunStone has an agreement with the Kona Pacific Homeowners Association. Unfortunately, Ms. Golden is not in the loop of what the agreement is. Marshall Blann who is a representative of the Homeowners Association has finalized that agreement with us. And after working with the County for approximately 12 to 14 months, we€ve been able to modify the planssothattheshoulderimprovementadjacenttotheirprojectcanbeapprovedbytheCounty and, more importantly, can pass through the rigorous requirements that the State Disability and Communications Board has. That is under way that is agreed to by all the parties, and we are doing what we said we were going to do. One other quick point that I thought was important to note, several of the ƒ I shouldn€t say several ƒ one of the testifiers indicated ƒ perhaps gave the impression ƒ that SunStone doesn€t do what they commit to do in front of these types of bodies. I think that one merely needs to drive down Walua Road and Alii Drive. And if they see Honl€s Beach Park, they see the comfort station, they see the showers, and they see the 20-stall parking lots that we built for the County. They see the multi-million dollar improvements on Walua Road among other improvements. One can see that we do what we say we are going to do, and we are committed to do that here in front of this body and all State and County bodies. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, sir. I know Mr. Lim introduced you, but just for the record, could you please state your name and address? DEWEESE:My name is Curtis DeWeese. I live here a half of the time and I live on Oahu and on airplane the other half of the time, if that adds up. But my Oahu address is 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1240. ALAMEDA:Thank you, sir. Mr. Mooers, name and address again for the record. MOOERS:My name is Greg Mooers. My address is P. O. Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii. I€m the planning consultant for the project. Mr. Lim has asked that I review a few items and try to address some of the issues. I do appreciate the opportunity to finally get to speak to you about the SMA issues. It has been 18 months since we started the process, and this is actually the first opportunity we€ve had to actually discuss the project. We€ve had a contested case, we€ve got a stipulated agreement, we€ve reached resolutions on a number of issues, but we€ve never had an opportunity to present a case to you and explain what the project is about. So we are pleased with that opportunity. 16EXHIBIT C I do want to take this opportunity to point out what I think may have been a misrepresentation by Mr. Darrow in the presentation this morning. It factually was correct, but I think it implied something that was not correct. He made a statement about initially we had a plan to have the mauka-makai roadway be entirely on our property that we owned, and then he indicated that some contested cases had been filed and as a result of that we relocated the road. Those are all true statements, but that was not why we relocated the road. The road was relocated at a request of the County because the County had previously determined that the Alii Lani alignment would be where there would be the mauka-makai connector. And because the County had previously made the determination, they had given certain assurances to the developers of Alii Park Place that where we had proposed to build the road would not be where the road would be built. And so that€s why they were understandably upset. We relocated the road at the request of the County so that it complied with their plans for the Alii Parkway. So I just wanted to clarify that. It made it sound like if people yelled and screamed, we moved the road; it only took one person to yell and scream. When Mr. Yuen told us that€s where the County wanted it and that€s where it hadbeenplannedtobe,thenitwasrelocated.Sothealignmentnowdoescomplywiththe alignment that was determined at the time that Alii Parkway was set up. This property was re-districted 36 years ago from Ag to Urban, and 24 years ago rezoned. And I think Jeff did a good job of pointing out all the various condominium projects in the area. They were part of this original parcel. The Sea Villas project, which is directly above this proposed project, was given an SMA in 1986. The Alii Park Place, which is a project immediately below us, was given an SMA in 1996. And Kona Sea Ridge, which is below and a little bit north of the subject property, was given an SMA in 2000. So this has been a process that€s been going on for a number of years. The project at the subject property that we are requesting an SMA on is ƒ this is the last portion of this property that was rezoned in 1983 ƒ it is in conformance with all the State and County plans. State: Urban District. Medium Density Urban in the General Plan, and the Kona Regional Plan calls for multi-family dwellings between 10 and 20 units per acre. What we are proposing is slightly less than 7 units per acre. The zoning is RM-4 and RM-7, and a portion of the property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial CN-10. The SMA has some very specific criteria to review. I think Commissioner Graham at the last meeting had made a point that, gee, we€ve had a lot of conversation but we really haven€t ever gotten into discussing the SMA issues. Chapter 205A has some very specific guidelines, and the application as written and the background report as prepared by the staff itemizes each one of those criteria and explain why we believe and why the Department agreed that we did comply with all conditions of this SMA. I will mention a few of these. I don€t want to read you a 50- page document as justification; I€d rather just do an overview. And if you have any specific questions about any of the aspects of the SMA, then certainly I or any of the other consultants that are here today would be prepared to answer that. Essentially the SMA is an analysis of whether or not there are going to be significant impacts to the coastal resources, if there are going to be impacts on historic resources, if there€s going to be impacts on the environment ƒ particularly the coastal environment. And we have in the application tried to systematically go through and point out our belief that we are not going to have any negative impacts, and that we are complying with Chapter 205A in all regards. We have done a number of studies: Dr. Terry did the visual impact analysis. Dr. Alan Haun did the historic analysis. We do have an archaeological inventory survey that€s been reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Division. We have a treatment plan that€s been 17EXHIBIT C reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Division. And we have a burial treatment that€s been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Division. We had a cultural impact assessment done by Curtis Tyler, and his conclusions are also in the application. The viewplane issues, I think Dr. Terry did a very good job in the viewplane analysis, which is a part of the application; there are some graphics that demonstrate that there will be a minimum impact on viewplanes toward the shoreline or from the shoreline mauka because of the existing developments that occur along Alii Drive. This project is really designed to be consistent with all the other projects you see in the area. This is part of Urban-Core. It€s going to be 2- and 3- story buildings. They are going to be multi-family dwellings interspersed with the landscaping. So what you see on the surrounding areas would be very similar to what this project would look like. There are some criteria stated in your Rule 9-7, B. (sic) that requests that no development be allowed unless certain things have been found. And I don€t want to go through each one of these,butwehaveaddresseditinourapplicationonapointbypointbasis.TheDirectorhas reviewed that on a point by point basis, and the conclusion has been that we do comply withall criteria for Chapter 205A and your Rule 9. It appears clearly in the contested casewe had and in the testimony today that there is considerable concern about drainage. And I would like to defer the discussion of drainage issues to David Bills who is our civil engineer and I think one of the top drainage guys in the state. So I think he will be very clear about what the situation is currently, what we propose to do, how that will be accomplished, how those studies will be reviewed and approved by government agencies. So I will not pretend to offer his comments at this time. I think he will be far better suited to do that. I did want to make one last statement procedurally about the notification. As you know, there was a problem with notification. We initially notified about 650 people when we filed the application, and that was the properties to the north. And when we were asked to relocate the road to the south, we ended up notifying about another 450 people to the south. And then at the last hearing you recall there was found to be people ƒ they were within 500 feet of the project site, they were in fact living on the project site ƒ the Sea Villas people. So at that time we did notice them. I did meet with them in person this week to review questions that they had. And they have, as you see in your file, submitted a letter today saying they have no objection to the project as proposed. One of the notification issues I noticed in Ms. Scott€s letter she made some indication that she was concerned with a lack of notification to her about the change of the location of the roadway. I have researched my files and find that she was given notification on two occasions with the correct map showing where the road was being proposed. And I€m not sure if there was misunderstanding, but those lists have been certified by the U. S. Postal Service, and the County has copies of those notifications and the list when they were mailed. Hopefully now we have addressed all of the notification issues. As I€ve indicated in the past on a couple of occasions I think at some point it would be wonderful if the County assumed the notification process and charged the applicant a fee, so that there will never be any question about who was notified or why, because it is always problematic and particularly in areas where there are high concentrations of multi-family units because the turnover is such that the change in addresses, the joint ownerships of project and stuff, there always seems to be some problems. I can truthfully say we always do the best job we can to 18EXHIBIT C notify everybody, and certainly I don€t think this project has been a secret to anybody. In fact, in the case of the Sea Villas, their sales documents, their deeds and the condo documents notify them that this project will occur. You can understand that when the developer built the Sea Villas project, he had full intention of developing the balance of this property. He made sure there is adequate notification in all of those documents that such a project will be developed. And that notification is in all those documents. So I think we€ve made every effort to notify according to the law and made every effort to try and let people know about this project. ALAMEDA:Mr. Lim? LIM:Mr. Mooers, there was comments made during the testimony, and I think in some of the written submittals, that an environmental impact statement pursuant to HRS Chapter 343 would be required for this project. Is that true or false? MOOERS:Idonotbelievethatthereisanytriggerfor343,wasestablishedby this project; I do not believe that there is a 343 requirement. Rule 9 does allow the Planning Director to make determination if he would like to have the 343 done, and no such determination was made. But as far as any of the other triggers that appear in the law, I€m not aware of any trigger to require a 343 assessment. LIM:There was I think written communication some time ago that the Great Wall of Kuakini was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore that was a trigger for the requirement to process an EIS. Is that a true statement? MOOERS:No, it€s not. The Great Wall of Kuakini does not appear on either the Hawaii or National Register of Historic Places. It is eligible for placing on the National Register, but it has not been placed on the National Register. LIM:I will be submitting an Exhibit now, which is a letter from our archaeologist, Dr. Alan Haun, dated March 14, 2007, in which he states that although the site was determined to be eligible for this thing, it was never formally listed. We€ve also attached several pages from the National and the State Register of Historic Places for Hawaii Island, which shows that the sites that are indicated on the list with the capital E are those that might be determined eligible but have not been formally put on the Register. So it€s our position that the Chapter 343 requirements are not triggered for the Great Wall of Kuakini. In any event, that€s one of the preserved sites ƒ an archaeological site ƒ in the archaeological studies and we will be preserving the site. ALAMEDA:Mr. Lim, may I ask ƒ €cause there was deferring to the expert on the drainage ƒ would you like to just do your presentation and then entertain questions, or -? LIM:I think what we€ll do is -. I think Mr. Mooers is pretty much through with his summary report. I think that the drainage obviously was one of the big issues. I think there was also some -. Okay, so I think what we€ll do is we€ll entertain questions from the Commission as to the subject matter that they want to discuss. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Domingo? 19EXHIBIT C DOMINGO:Just for clarification. Mr. Mooers, you indicated that this development is only part of the total acreage that the developer owns and that the other parts of the land has already been developed. MOOERS:That is true. There were other owners as well that bought portions of this property. The Alii Park Place project was actually developed by Mr. Phil Tinguely. There was also portion of the property, I believe north of Waiaha, Mr. Yuen, it was Kona Hawaiian Village. And so the rezoning encompassed a much larger area. Mr. DeWeese has developed two other projects, the Sea Villas and the Sea Ridge projects, that were part of this zoned parcel. This is the last remaining portion of that parcel. DOMINGO:I see. So in actuality then the total parcel was rezoned in one entire package. MOOERS:Yes,sir. DOMINGO:Whenwasthezoningactiontaken? MOOERS:Ibelieveitwas1983. DOMINGO:Nineteeneighty-three. MOOERS:Yeah, 24 years ago. LIM:Eighty-seven. MOOERS:Oh, I€m sorry. Eighty-seven. DOMINGO:Nineteen Eighty-seven. MOOERS:Eighty-seven, so-. DOMINGO:Do you know what the adjoining parcels to the south is zoned for, or is it still in Agriculture? MOOERS:No. The parcel to the immediate south is the Kahakai Estates that was developed by -. DOMINGO:Okay, and beyond that? MOOERS:Stanford Carr Development. Yeah, the Kahakai Estates goes over, then I believe it€s Kuakini Makai and some other residential projects. It€s primarily to the south that€s pretty well developed. DOMINGO:I see. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Any other questions? Commissioner Graham? 20EXHIBIT C GRAHAM:Yes. Mr. Mooers, I think you were here earlier today when we were talking about coastal water quality issues, specifically on the Waikoloa golf course project. The report we got from University of Hawaii, Hilo referred to all West Hawaii, and there are serious water quality concerns. And since I€ve been on the Commission for four years, we€ve had two other studies specifically done for SMA projects: One at the D-Bar Ranch one just down the coast a short ways, and another one was down by Keauhou Bay. And in both of these cases there are nutrient excesses beyond what€s specified by the Department of Health; but in neither of these cases did they feel there was any concern about causing the degradation in the ocean. When I look at all the materials that I€ve received from you guys and from also the Planning Department ƒ the application, the recommendations, the background report ƒ I haven€t seen anything addressing the coastal water quality. There is a lot of paper, so maybe I missed something. But I€m concerned in three ways: One way of course is the drainage which we€ll deal with later, another way is all the irrigation on the landscaping works its way into the groundwaterandcomesout,andthethirdwayofcourseisthesewage,andthesewageisgoing to move back to the sewage treatment plant, but then it gets just injected into the ground. So it seems to me like these ways all impact coastal water quality, and I don€t feel it has been addressed at all. So I just want to know if you have any comments on that. MOOERS:I appreciate your comment, Commissioner. I do have a fair amount of history with water quality monitoring. My professional training was as a chemist, and I did water quality testing for a period of time on, you know, with schools trying to demonstrate certain chemical principles by doing it. I was also on the Board of Natural Energy Lab for a number of years when we looked at water quality monitoring, and then I worked on two projects with Dick Brock. The biggest problem in trying to assess the impacts in an area like this is that there is an almost infinite number of influences right here. As opposed to the situation like Waikoloa Resort where you have one landowner and essentially one project immediately mauka of the shoreline, in this case you have literally thousands of condominium units and single family residences and residents mauka, in some cases still using cesspools with drainage problems. So that the ability to try to assess what the impact of one particular project is I think virtually impossible. Now that being said, I think that you have to be concerned about what are the impacts or how do you minimize the impacts. And I think you identified the three areas: Groundwater, as far as just normal watering irrigation, rain, essentially how we would deal with the drywells, and then there is the storm event, and finally the sewer. Start with the sewer, okay, we will be fully sewered; all of our projects will be connected to the county sewer line, which will then go to the Kalakeha treatment plant and then the water will be disposed of. I think the assumption is that the Department of Health has control over how the water is, you know, dealt with and what the impacts are. As far as on site ƒ our water ƒ I think Mr. Bills will certainly address the drainage issues and how that water would be treated. We€ll actually be reducing the area of the site that will be feeding into the drainageway. Because by developing portions of the site with structures and parking lots and landscaped areas, all of that area of the site will be funneled into drywells to promote, you know -. We€ll actually probably decrease the amount of water that flows across the site right now by the drywell action. I did read the study that you referred to, and I think one of the things that€s important is that there be a program established, standard testing as far as what we are going to be testing the near shore waters for, and the protocols as far as how we do that. And I think if that€s something the 21EXHIBIT C County wants to embark on, I would applaud that. And I think this developer would participate in the project, just like every other developer should be willing to participate. I don€t think there is any value to having each developer try to develop their own testing program. There€re some systems like, you know, Dr. Brock€s at Waikoloa where they control a large area, where they can establish protocols that are innovative and can provide a great deal of information. But in order for this data to be valuable, there has got to be a constant program along the coast, so that we are all collecting the data in the same manner using the same protocols, and all testing for the same nutrients or the same contaminants or the same particulates. And if that were the case, then I think we would all be willing to participate. But as far as an individual program for each individual development, I think it would be scientific chaos; the data wouldn€t be able to be shared. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Follow-up, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah.Sincewedon€thavespecificdataforwhatthequalityof water is below your project and all, and trying to sort of guess what the other impacts on that would be, given we have to look at the accumulative impacts when we deal with SMA permits, there are a whole bunch of ƒ I don€t know the number of homes down at the Hawaii Planing Mills Subdivision ƒ are they just cesspools and feeding into the groundwater, or are they hooked to the sewer system? What€s their situation? MOOERS:I have no idea. GRAHAM:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Would the Corps of Engineers and the Board of Health still be monitoring the facts of all these developments as they€re doing in West Hawaii in the Waikoloa area? MOOERS:Well, I€m not quite sure if I understand your question. Let me take a crack at answering it. I mean clearly that this development or any development is going to have to comply with the regulations of the Army Corps and the Department of Health. And specifically as it€s related to storm water, you know, the Army Corps, Public Works, FEMA, they are going to be looking at all work done on the drainage ways and how the water is treated, what the situation is now and what will it become. As far as the drywells and other things and wastewater treatment, those are all governed by Department of Health and Public Works. So everything that€s done on site will have to be approved by the appropriate regulatory agency. I took Commissioner Graham€s questions to imply that maybe we are looking at something greater than that, that maybe we should be looking at, you know, a coast-wide monitoring program that really talks about what impact of urban growth is on the near shore waters. And I guess my comment would be that if we are going to do a study like that ƒ if we are going to develop certain protocols ƒ we would participate in that. And I think that that€s important. DOMINGO:My question was just to ascertain whether the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Health is at the present time monitoring the waters on our shoreline. 22EXHIBIT C MOOERS:I€m not aware if they are or not, no. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. On this side? Commissioner Rho? RHO:I have a question for Mr. Lim. You mentioned that there was no trigger for the EIS; the Director didn€t trigger it, either. Then you mentioned this Great Wall of Kuakini. LIM:That€s correct. RHO:Which is not on the Historical Register, either State or Federal. LIM:That€s correct. RHO:And I guess my question really is whether or not -. If it was on, let€ssay,theFederalRegister,wouldthatautomaticallytriggeranEIS? LIM:Notnecessarily.ButthatisoneofthetriggersontheChapter343 ƒ placement on the National Register. RHO:How about if it was just on the State Register? LIM:Either/or. RHO:Either/or. How about if it was on both? The tendency would be that it would trigger it? LIM:I think if it€s on one or the other, it€s a trigger. RHO:And if it was on both, would you agree that it would be a more substantial reason for having an EIS? LIM:I don€t know the answer to the question. RHO:Okay. On the second page of this handout, it talks about, as a note, it says under National Register and E after the date indicates those sites that were determined eligible for the National Register but have not been formally put on the Register. So I guess my concern is that it€s eligible and I€m not sure what the definition of eligible is. Is it just a formality that if somebody submits a document and reasoning for, and it just gets adopted or placed on the Register? Do you have any idea how the process works? LIM:I can only tell you what one process was that I was familiar with where it had an E on it. On the State Register my understanding is that requires fee owner authorization to be on the Register, and on the National Register it does not. And in the particular case I was working on, a third party put it on the National Register without the fee owner€s authorization. So I don€t think it necessarily makes a decision that it is significant 23EXHIBIT C enough to be on the Register. I just don€t know enough about the archaeology to tell you what those criteria are to get it actually on the Register. ALAMEDA:Mr. Mooers? RHO:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Is that it? All right. Any other questions? MOOERS:Could I make a comment on that just to clarify? ALAMEDA:Sure. MOOERS:There are a number of sites that may be on the Historic Register, anditdoesnotalwaystrigger343unlessyouareusingthatsite.That€smyunderstanding.Ijust asked Dr. Terry who€s I think pobably top 343 guy on the island, maybe in the state. The trigger would be if you are going to use the site, and in this case we are proposing to preserve the site, you know. And any use of Kuakini Wall or any of these historic features on the site has to be approved by the State Historic Preservation Division before we can do it; it€s not a decision that the developer can make unilaterally. So if we are not going to use the site, even if it were on the Register, it would not trigger 343. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho? Okay? On this side? How about Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:You spoke before about Mr. Tyler€s work for the cultural resources and impacts and all, and I know eventually we are going to get around to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order recommendations and all. And when I read what we have on that, which is a stipulation between the developer, SunStone Kona, and the Planning Director, I read that impacts upon any cultural resources or upon any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights practiced on the development site can be mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures outlined in the cultural impact assessment. But it doesn€t say it will be mitigated by that, or that any of these recommendations will in fact be carried out. Is that kind of like a typographical error, or have you gone over the mitigation measures recommended by Mr. Tyler and come to a conclusion about which ones you will in fact carry out? MOOERS:I think we are committed to follow the mitigation measures. I€ll let Mr. Lim answer that. But if you feel uncomfortable with that, then maybe the condition can be strengthened to the point of identifying the mitigation measures; but we are committed to the mitigation measures. GRAHAM:Yeah, so when we get to that point, we€ll deal with that. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Domingo? No? Any other thoughts? DOMINGO:In respective (Irrespective) of whether or not the Kuakini Wall is on the Historical Register, whether it€s the State or National Register, the bottom line I think is 24EXHIBIT C depending on the Planning Director, with his discretion and powers can determine whether or not an EIS should be called for. Is that right or wrong? That€s what I understand. ALAMEDA:Whom are you asking? Okay. Mr. Director? YUEN:There are some situations where an environmental assessment is mandatory, and those are spelled out in the law. Under Chapter 343 there are things that they call triggers‚ in the law; there is a list of these. It€s a matter of staff review of any application to come in to determine whether there is a trigger. We can make a mistake, and if somebody points out to us there is a trigger that we missed, then we have to go back and make them do an environmental assessment. And you do the environmental assessment and determine whether a full EIS is needed. If it may have a major effect on the environment, then you require a full EIS. Sometimes applicants will know there is a trigger ƒ it€s going to be a major effect ƒ they go straight to do the full EIS; they don€t even talk to the Department first, they just go and do an EIS.UndertheSMArulesalsotheDirectorcancallforanenvironmentalassessmentoranEIS even when there isn€t a trigger. In this case, normally I don€t do that simply because basically the same studies that are done for an environmental assessment or an EIS are contained in part of the application, as they are in this case. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:That was one of the issues that prompted me to ask the question whether or not the lands south of this particular development have already been developed or not. And I think by the indication I got, it has been developed, and that the so-called impacts and other factors that might affect the whole area may have already been a concern to a certain degree already. YUEN:Yeah, if you look at the map behind Mr. Darrow, you see the red dot. The yellow area to the right of the ƒ Jeff, could you point to that? That€s the Kahakai Estates subdivision that€s immediately adjoining this property on the south and mauka side of the property ƒ mauka of the future Alii Parkway right-of-way, which is shown on there. So that€s been developed to one-acre lots. Immediately makai of the property ƒ the light green area ƒ there are two 5-acre lots that have not been developed; those are vacant. Those are -, well, Mr. Darrow is pointing to those. Then much of the property was one rezoning, and that€s what you see on the left-hand diagram. And you see some of those were already broken up and developed earlier, and then so they are coming in for the balance of this development. On the north side, on the other side of the Waiaha Drainageway on the northern side is Kona Hawaiian Village timeshares ƒ a separate rezoning; it was done around the same time but a separate rezoning. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the applicant€s representatives? Seeing none, I do have a comment or question for Mr. Torigoe. The Department is also a player in this. Do I need to ask the Department to respond to the testimony or -? TORIGOE:You can certainly do that. ALAMEDA:Does the representative from the Department, Mr. Yuen, does he have to go up in the front or -? 25EXHIBIT C TORIGOE:This is not a formal contested case, although technically it is a contested case. I would basically say that if the parties are agreeable to Mr. Yuen addressing issues from where he sits, that will be fine. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Lim? LIM:That€s acceptable to the applicant. ALAMEDA:All right. Mr. Yuen, do you have any other comments to make on the testimony or anything else? Okay. All right, fellow Commissioners -. I see a new party. Would you like to add anything? If so, please state your name and address. BILLS:My name is David Bills. I€m president of David Bills Engineering. Myaddressis1124FortStreetMall,Honolulu,Hawaii. ALAMEDA:Okay.Isthereanythingthatyouwouldliketoadd,oryou€rejust kind of waiting for our questions? BILLS:Being honest with you, I€m prepared to make a presentation on drainage, or I€m prepared to entertain questions. Either way would be fine. I was prepared to make a presentation, but either way would be acceptable to me. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:I think I€d rather hear your presentation, rather than just the Commissioners asking you specific questions. And I say that because it€s for the benefit of the rest of the people sitting here, so that they will know the reasons why we would be making decisions that we will do later on. ALAMEDA:Okay. That sounds good. Sir, would you like to make your presentation up here or there? BILLS:I€ll be honest with you, it probably is going to be a combination of both. I€ll give you some of my testimony here, but maybe I€m moving up there to point to emphasize some items and locations. ALAMEDA:Sounds good. Just keep your microphone €cause everything is being recorded. All right. Go ahead. BILLS:Okay. Once again I€d also like to mention that I€m a licensed engineer in the State of Hawaii, and I€ve been practicing civil engineering in the State of Hawaii since 1978, and I do have specialty in drainage. I€ve been sitting in many meetings, and this is I think the first time I€ve got the chance to actually talk about drainage because there have been other particular reasons. But I would like to give an overview of the drainage, because sitting in the background and looking at it, I have seen some misconceptions of what we are trying to achieve, what we are trying to do in some representation. So I€d just like to walk through a little 26EXHIBIT C scenario showing what the existing conditions are and that what we are proposing to do in respect to proposed condition, so you€ll have a pretty full picture of the overall situation. The project ƒ this is where I€m going to start walking around ƒ the project is bounded by two existing FEMA floodways. You€ve seen those like AE Zones or Flood Zones on the map. I€m going to come over to the site plan. And on the south side of the property there is an existing FEMA floodway; it€s called Waiaha Drainageway Splitflow No. 2 ƒ it€s how they identify it on FIRM mapping. That shows an area that mapping and drainage and hydrology studies have shown carries a relatively significant flow of water. Those drainageways are usually analyzed so we know what the 100-year flow is. In this particular drainageway on this side, FEMA floodway projections are that the stream flow is 2,500 cubic feet per second ƒ that€s the term we use in drainage analysis. To put that in perspective when you have your little catch basin out on the street and you see the water running down the side of the gutter into the catch basin, that€s maybe 4 cubic feet per second. You know, so we are talking a very large amount of water that willcomedownthesideoftheproperty.Onthenorthsideofthepropertywealsohavethemain Waiaha Drainageway; that carries a 100-year stream flow in the neighborhood of 7,500 to 9,000 cubic feet per second. Now these events are events that occur once every 100 years. So most people who€ve lived over here haven€t even seen any water really cross Alii Drive, or very minor particular cases but nothing like the 2,500 cfs we are talking about. But that is an existing condition. The water comes from the above, comes over and under Kuakini Highway, comes down through the property and continues, goes across Alii Drive and goes out into the ocean. It€s going to occur whether the SunStone property is built, it€s going to occur whether Alii Parkway is built; it€s going to occur. That€s the existing drainageway, and that€s what€s going to occur. The same thing occurs over here. There is nothing this project will do to it or against it which will decrease or increase what the flow of the particular drainageway is. It€s an existing condition. There are ƒ I€m going to be point-blank with you ƒ there are structures which are smack dab in the middle of the FEMA floodway. And they have been built on time €cause FEMA floodways have been only in existence since 1980. What happens if this project never gets built and you have that storm ƒ the 2,500 cfs comes down the road? Well, that€s why FEMA as an agency maintains the practice; you get one flood and if you loose your property, they will give you insurance but you can€t build there again. So I mean that€s the long-term situation what would happen in those particular cases regardless of what development goes on right now. SunStone€s property is looking at -. Now coming into the property and doing development of that, we have obligations, or I ƒ as the civil engineer, as I design ƒ have obligations to make sure that I meet and achieve these design standards of FEMA, the design standards of the Flood Insurance Rate Map System and the design standards of the County of Hawaii, their drainage standards. Whatever I do cannot violate any of those standards. I just want to give you that as a premise and saying we are complying with every regulation that we have that is appropriate for drainage. Now what we are going to do -. Water comes over the -. For the 100 -. Like I say, I think it€s really important to recognize it; we are putting in a structure that€s going to collect, maintain and confine the 2,500-cubic foot per second storm. But probably in all of our life times and maybe even your children€s life time, you know, you may not see water flowing in it. But when we design for civil engineering standards, these are standards that we have to design to. 27EXHIBIT C Water is going to come over and under Kuakini Highway and into the property. We are going to collect it by excavation, creating a channel, then we are going to route it into a channel. Right now the water spreads over the property ƒ pretty wide range ƒ spreads over the property. I don€t want to have my houses in it, so I€m going to construct a channel. It€s going to have a typical trapezoidal section; it€s maybe 50-foot wide at the base and may have 2 to 1 side slopes. But I know that the 2,500 cfs will flow down the channel, and I€ll have above the maximum water surface 3-foot of what we call freeboard‚ to make sure it doesn€t overtop. I€m going to carry the water. And this channel designed in section will be riprapped, it will be lined, it may even be natural if the rock has enough integrity to it. And I€m going to carry it down through the property, and the channel will meet the County design standards. When I get down to the portion where it leaves off the property ƒ it€s in a channel, moving fast ƒ I want to make sure that I€m not passing on this problem down to the property below. So I€m going to widen out the channel at the bottom. I€m going to create a control structure. A control structure is basically an engineering device that reduces the flow; I can put impact barriers down there, I can put a basin wherethewaterdrops,whereIdroptheenergyintheflow.AndthenI€mgoingtoputina culvert, and I€m going to spread the water out underneath the culvert. So when the water flows, leaving my property, it€s going to match the exact same conditions that the current FEMA flood mapping shows. If I don€t do that, I can€t do the channel and I can€t have the property move forward. I know I have to do that. The County engineer knows I have to do that. The sections that we are doing at engineering techniques that we are going to be using are nothing new; they are very standard. But I just have to make sure that the width of my box culvert maybe has to be ƒ I€m expecting it€s going to be 60 feet wide. It may have to be 70. But all I know is when it leaves my property, it€s going to match exact same flow characteristics as what the FEMA floodway shows when it€s not developed. Now the way we are developing this scheme is not revolutionary or it€s not new just for the SunStoneproperty.AliiParkwayhasbeenafeaturethatalotofresidentsinKona,thePlanning Department and Public Works have been looking at for a long time. When Alii Parkway is built, and it comes along over here, Alii Parkway is raised. Guess what. You know all the water that was coming down from this FEMA floodway? It has to get under Alii Parkway. Guess how it€s going to get under Alii Parkway. It€s going to get under utilizing culverts, exactly like I€m describing. The reason I€m using those culverts is I went back and I€m looking at what Alii Parkway is doing, and trying to model as closely the same technique as the Parkway is using. Number one, so when the Parkway comes in, we made the commitment to try to assist in the development of the Parkway. We are using the same engineering techniques that the County€s design engineer is using for that section of the Parkway to handle the drainage section of it. Now we€ve agreed -. The studies that we are talking about to do these ƒ you know, I can give you terms we use: HEC-1 analysis, HEC-RAS analysis, they are computer models that we use. Trust me. They are very tedious and it takes a lot of work. We can do them; we can have them as part of an EIS. But again I mean as far as this Special Management application, but very clearly in the narrative that I prepared for Greg, I very clearly stated the techniques we are going to do, how we are going to carry the water through. And I€m committed to doing it, or to be honest with you, Curt DeWeese is not going to be able to do anything on his project until I get the drainage study that€s approved. So the concepts and techniques we are doing are very standard and they are very straight forward. And by the time I€m done, it€s going to be about that thick. But I€m still going to do the exact same things as I€ve shown to everybody. 28EXHIBIT C We€ve gone one step forward in consultation with the County engineer. The original FEMA study probably was done prior to FEMA. It was part of the North Kona Flood Study and they did it for some other reasons. So we even made a commitment in our drainage study to re- analyze the old drainage study just to make sure that the validity of the floodway location and the mapping is still current ƒ which is a standard thing that we€d have to do to go through FEMA anyhow ƒ because we want to make sure that the water is coming this direction and the water is coming down the other side, and see how they€re coming across the property. So that€s an additional commitment that the developer has made to the County to get the drainage study approved. I think that€s the main part of the presentation that the key points that I wanted to add. I wanted to show you what€s going on now, what happens regardless whether this project is here or not, and the improvements we are proposing to put in. I can talk to you about details of energy dissipation devices one way or the other, but I can assure you whatever we do will meet all FEMAstandards,FIRMstandardsandallthedrainagestandardsoftheCountyofHawaii. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Let me ask Commissioner Siracusa, and I€ll go to Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. This may sound very na´ve, and it probably is because I€m far from an expert on drainage. How do you get the water into the channel in the first place? I mean water is going to be -. If you€ve got one of these major rainfalls like your 100-year ƒ and this may come more frequently now with global warming and more rainfalls ƒ and you say you are going to try to keep it from spreading out over the entire property, so how do you get it into the channel? What about what€s above mauka of that? BILLS:Yes. And it€s not a foolish question at all. That will probably be one of more significant things we have to do. It will spill over Kuakini. Some water will come underneath Kuakini Highway and some will spill over. We will have to devise a collection system that spills over to make sure we get it into the channel. It just will be the length of the collection system and the width of the collection system, but we just will have to run it so it goes that far. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? SIRACUSA:So are you saying that you would do some sort of collection along the mauka boundary ƒ the Kuakini boundary ƒ in order to collect all the water that€s coming from mauka? BILLS:If it spills over the -. I€m not going to do anything in the Highway, but if it spills over the Highway, I€m going to do something on the mauka boundary of the SunStone property to collect it into the channel. SIRACUSA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Domingo? 29EXHIBIT C DOMINGO:I understand that the drainage would address only water that now comes through the property. Is that right? And the drainage is going to be designed to also address the water that will be going out of the property. And as Commissioner Siracusa indicated, any water above Kuakini Highway at the present time flowing through that drainageway will be addressed with your proposed drainage. BILLS:Correct. All the water that comes above, we€ll take care. DOMINGO:Yes. And drainage runoff from the property would be addressed on the property itself and not diverted to the drainage. BILLS:Correct. DOMINGO:Okay. I wanted to get that clear because I think that€s one of the overridingconditionsimposedonalldevelopersthroughthePublicWorkDepartmentthatall waters generated on property will be addressed by thedeveloper. And I think this is to prevent any liability that would be directed to the County or to the developer. BILLS:Commissioner, I probably want to provide a little bit of modification, by that the County€s policy is that the amount of water that you have leaving your property after you develop cannot be any more than what it was under the existing condition, so there€s not aggravation. In this particular case, because we are concerned there is some nuisance water that may come down to that, we are actually going to design a drywell system to pick up more than just the amount of water that would be the increase amount of runoff. We do plan on having more drywells. DOMINGO:Will the drywells system be included as part of the drainage or scattered throughout the development? BILLS:It will be scattered throughout the development. DOMINGO:Okay. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Thank you for your presentation. It was very comprehensive, and gave us all a good footing. The issue I wanted to just bring up was the question of whether all this takes place later, your work, or whether it should take place before the permit is issued. I know some of our testifiers are concerned about that. And I know that one of the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act is to enhance public participation, and this is just the sort of thing. And we do have from the Department of Public Works a memorandum regarding the Waiaha Drainageways, says, Therefore, DPW does not recommend SMA permitting of the applicant€s proposed channelization of this flood plain as shown without addressing these issues.‚ So my sense is they are asking us to go farther down the road with you guys rather than leaving it all something to happen in the future. And taking that whole presentation and the fact that we are already getting detail from the developer on just what the 8-plexes are going to look like and the elevations in the floor plans, it would seem reasonable to expect that maybe these sort of large scale issues could have been worked out before it came before us. 30EXHIBIT C BILLS:Well, that€s a fair question. Let me give you a couple of thoughts on that. In this particular case I€ve told you what the drainage solution is going to be; you know, I€ve told you what kind of channel it is, and I€ve told you that I€m going to use energy dissipation. I€ve just not given you the thick book thing doing that. I know I can do it. This is not a drainage solution; as a civil engineer practicing drainage solutions in the State of Hawaii, that I know that, boy, I really hope this one I can make work. I know I can make it work. It€s very tedious and it€s very time consuming. And the developer is going to be spending a reasonable sum of money. But this is not a question whether the answers can be satisfied; I know they can be satisfied. And if I can€t, he can€t move forward anyhow. So I hear you. It€s a chicken-and-egg. But this is not something that I€m crossing my fingers that we can find a drainage solution. I know there will be a drainage solution and the commitment is done before it moves any further. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? GRAHAM:Yeah.Itcertainlysoundsreasonablewhatyouaresaying.Given what you are saying and also given that you€ve had numerous discussions with the Department Public Works as you said, they still are recommending that these issues should be addressed before SMA permitting. Were you unable to convince them in the way you are speaking to me now or -? BILLS:Your county engineer would still probably prefer to see it, but I believe the condition is written into the Special Management Permit. And that€s ƒ I€m not privy to that, but that€s discussions that occur and negotiations that occur that it would be acceptable to do it prior to the actual any type of earth work activities, but not prior to the Special Management Permit. I mean, that decision making process, I€m going to leave up to the applicant, to Mr. Lim, to Mr. Mooers. I€m just telling you from the technical standpoint what I can do. LIM:In fact that is what has happened; we€ve consulted with the Planning Director and with the Department of Public Works, and we€ve come up with a set of conditions as proposed in the stipulated Decision and Order. I think Mr. Yuen has further amendments that we talked about with him and the Public Works today, that will address the fact that these studies will be happening, and everything will happen prior to the issuance of any construction or grading permits for the property. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. I want to go to Commissioner Siracusa, and then Commissioner Watanabe. SIRACUSA:Very often when planning infrastructure projects in order to get a proper amount of data to determine, say, load ƒ carrying capacity or whatever you want to call it in the drainage jargon ƒ we look at what€s happening now, what are the figures now, and then we postulate a certain amount of, say, growth for the future. So in traffic study they€ll say, well, right now this is how many cars are going through the intersection, and we are postulating a growth of, in 20 years, a population growth of X amount, and therefore we want to build this road to carry the amount of extra traffic. So the question comes to you in terms of drainage. Are you calculating everything based on what the current rainfall patterns are, or are you adding a little extra wiggle room to consider that with global warming there may be a lot more water 31EXHIBIT C coming down in the future? And in which case what kind of figures are you using? What kind of assumptions are you working with in order to determine how much more wiggle room would be necessary, so that in 20 years time if our rainfall patterns change dramatically, this would still function as needed? BILLS:As I understand, you are asking me what€s my fudge factor. Let me back up and just give you a little bit of historical background on that: Alii Drive; you have Kuakini Highway, we have culverts, we have crossings over those ƒ some of those culvert crossings are maybe 60 years old, 70 years old, some of them are 40 or 50 years old. Back when some of them were originally designed -, if I had to design them today, they would be five times as big. So yes, we learn more with time. Most of the State highway standards are -, like on Oahu, if you look at Kamehameha Highway, all the bridge culvers are too small. We have gotten smarter with time in our modeling programs in that we have added factors into it. But yes, maybe 50 years from now when engineers are sitting around and looking at the County standards,theenvelopecurvesweuseforthatwillhaveabigtweakonit.Theoneswehave right now recognize annual rainfalls that we see. There is more data around it; it recognizes the type of ground development and the various zones you are in drainage. When we are doing drainage analysis, we can use the term timer concentration, how long it takes water to get down to watershed. We hopefully have got smarter with time, and we are a little bit more conservative with antecedent moisture contents, describing how dry the land is and how much it percolates. But the ones we have are the tools that we have in our pocket right now. And hopefully from some of our past, you know, undersizing and efforts and more data avail -, but we€ve done it. But we don€t throw an extra fudge factor in based on the design standards that we use currently as of today. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:My only point was that, you know, with regard to Mr. Graham€s question, if you were to look on the revised Condition No. 15, it does indicated there that building permit will not be issued until the flood study and all of this is completed. So you know, nothing is really going to happen prior to that. And my only comment to you, Ms. Siracusa, is he did mention that it€s based on the 100-year flow, not the average flow. So you are looking at an exceptional rainfall. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the applicant€s representatives? Seeing no further questions, Mr. Torigoe, to the protocol, do we ask them to be seated or -? TORIGOE:I think you should check and see if that has completed the presentation of the applicant. ALAMEDA:Mr. Lim, is there any other parts of your presentation you would like to share with us? LIM:Just to add an ending to this is the applicant€s request for this Special Management Area Permit is ƒ in addition to the things that have already been raised ƒ is also based on providing the mauka-makai roadway for safety for the tsunami evacuation. Civil Defense during the hearings officer€s proceeding indicated that the location of the proposed mauka-makai roadway where we have it now is going to be sufficient to address the Civil 32EXHIBIT C Defense issues. Because this is relatively ƒ I guess we could call it the fourth phase and last phase of the development under the change of zone Ordinance No. 87-47. This particular project is going to shoulder the additional burden, and provide significant improvement with the public interest by paying for approximately one and a half million dollars for the Waiaha flooding improvements, and approximately 483 thousand dollars for the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway in addition to giving over 3 acres of land within the project for the right-of-way for that highway. So I think that there is compelling public interest to have the project move forward, as these are improvements that are solely needed by the County. So we€d ask for your support on this application. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. And one more time, fellow Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Rho? RHO:This has to do with drainage, though. Go back to you. We receivedtestimonytoday,writtenaswellasverbal,fromCharlesFlaherty.I€mnotsurethatyou have a copy. Can you give them -? BILLS:I have a copy. RHO:You do have a copy. It€s the second page, the top paragraph. And he makes two points. One, on the second sentence: County law forbids a property owner from changing the places where watercourses enter and exit their property.‚ And basically he says that the applicant€s plan shows that the floodway entrance onto the property has been moved to the south. So can you respond to that? BILLS:Our intention very clearly is in the drainage. In the Exhibit you are looking is a site plan, I can see, if you are looking at the Flood Insurance Rate Map Exhibit in that. Our intention is to pick up the water exactly where it comes into the property. It€s just a graphic representation on the site plan, which is a very general picture; the site plan is showing picking up the water, going through a channel, leaving the property at the same place. That was not drawn by me. That was not the civil engineer who got involved in that drawing. That was an architect who got involved in that drawing. But the commitment is to pick up the water where it comes into the property, carry it through the property by a channel, and discharge it exactly the same location where it leaves the property today. RHO:And then on the ƒ I guess it€s the last sentence of the paragraph: More disturbing, the applicant has placed the mauka entrance to the planned mauka-makai road directly across the street from the floodway. Do you have some comment or clarification on that? BILLS:Well, that€s actually -, that€s one of the things that, the mauka access point where we meet Kuakini Highway that€s right where the water flows over the road right now. So once every one hundred years and when there is something overtops the road, yes, the intersection would have some impact. But it€s not going to have impact for -. There is two ways you are going to address something like that. If we verify that all the water comes underneath that, you put an improvement under the road. But the County€s policy is you leave existing conditions of a road. So under our 100-year flood or something of significant interest, yes, there would be some impact at that intersection. Frequency of that would be nominal. 33EXHIBIT C RHO:How about the water rolling down that roadway? BILLS:With the frequency when you generated a storm, you know, that would have the flows that we are talking about, yes, there would be water coming down Kuakini. There would be water jumping Kuakini everywhere you have a crossing in a floodway. RHO:But would it come across the Highway, and would you then divert the water into the channel or would you allow the water to run down the new road? BILLS:The object is to catch the water coming across Kuakini in the SunStone property and carry it down the channel. RHO:So, okay, maybe some other person can answer. What developmentsarecurrentlyaboveKuakiniHighway,orifyouknowofanyplanned,andthen above Queen K. And specifically what I wanted to know is whether or not Pualani current subdivision was above the development. If you just draw a straight line, would you hit Pualani? BILLS:I can€t answer the question. YUEN:I can basically answer what you are -. The yellow is Pualani Estates. The flood channel that we are talking about comes across the corner of Pualani Estates and crosses under Queen Kaahumanu Highway, and then it crosses these properties that were subject of a rezoning Ordinance a couple of years ago: Suffolk and Puaa properties. They are proposing to channelize the floodway within their property, and then it brings it down to Kuakini to this point that we are talking about. RHO:So the existing Pualani subdivision has a culvert ƒ I guess that€s what it€s called ƒ and there is a little bridge. YUEN:Exactly. Right. RHO:So that water actually goes under the road? YUEN:There is a culvert under Queen Kaahumanu to carry that under the Highway. RHO:And so before it gets to the road, it slows its speed to whatever we are doing here? YUEN:Supposed to. I don€t know any of the specifics of what happened in the Pualani rezoning, but the channelization -. You see there is a bridge there, and there is some channelization there. There was some work done there to control the water there, and bring it across ƒ because this is part of the whole same waterway, they had to do some work there ƒ and it does come across and hit a culvert, and then there is a culvert under Kaahumanu at that point, and then it flows across open ground right now. If this Suffolk and Puaa project goes through, they have a channel that they are planning to build to carry the same water we€ve been talking about here, and bring it down to Kuakini Highway. 34EXHIBIT C RHO:Can I continue? ALAMEDA:Sure. RHO:My last question has to do with this 2,500 cubic square feet, or cubic feet of water -. BILLS:Cubic feet per second. RHO:Per second. And that€s based on a study that was done prior to this FEMA flood control or whatever the title might be? You didn€t indicate the year, but it€s basically an older study? BILLS:SomeoftheolderstudiesweredonepriortotheFEMAanalysis, since that was done, were incorporated and then made part of the FEMA analysis. RHO:And that€s where you get the 2,500 cubic -. BILLS:Correct. RHO:So would it be fair to say that the more development upstream, the more water will be generated? BILLS:Yeah, there is going to be -. You know, it€s-. In the watershed area, the amount of development you have in the watershed will influence the amount of runoff you have. A lot of the watershed upstream over here -. In the Big Island it€s slightly different because, you know, your developed properties, the ones that go through zoning, anything else, your County drainage standards and principles and policies already require that you cannot increase the runoff from your property. The ones that are probably a little bit more sensitive to are maybe agricultural development, forestry development, that we don€t have any controls on for a use. But as far as the built environment, we are already obligated as designers in those systems to make sure that the runoff matches the pre-developed conditions. So I wouldn€t expect -. As development gets more intense, we€ve already put drywells in or something to handle the built environment. But the ones ƒ forested areas or upstream ƒ may be a little bit more sensitive as far as adding into the watershed. RHO:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Rho. Any more questions for the representatives? All right, seeing none, we could entertain a motion and then go into a discussion. Commissioner Wanatabe? WATANABE:I have a question for the Director. I€m holding this light yellow version of the revised recommendations. And I guess you are recommending that we incorporate these revisions to Conditions 19 and 22? I€m just trying to make sure we are clear on -. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? 35EXHIBIT C WANATABE:Conditions. We, you know -. YUEN:What we are asking of the Commission to do is to move to adopt the recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, that is a stipulated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order. It€s a little bit of a different format because we went through the contested case hearing process and came up with this. There are two slight changes to Conditions that we mentioned at the outset that we would recommend - and Mr. Darrow can read those ƒ but if you look at -. The specific document that we are looking at is to approve this stipulation. WATANABE:Stipulation of SunStone Kona, LLC and Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director? That one? YUEN:Right.StipulationofSunStoneKona,LLCandChristopherJ. Yuen, Planning Director. WATANABE:Do you want to articulate the two changes? DARROW:Sure. In regards to your question, Commissioner Watanabe, I believe those Conditions that you are looking at are already integrated within this particular set of Conditions. The Conditions that we were referring to earlier are requested changes from the Department of Public Works. These would be two minor changes: One to Condition 15 ƒ if you could turn to there, this would be on Page 32 ƒ it states, Prior to the issuance of any building‚, and then DPW is adding or grading permit‚ ƒ so they are adding in the word or grading‚ ƒ for Blocks B and C‚, and then they are adding in a phrase or for Block A between the existing Kona Sea Villas project and the southern property line.‚ And that would be the end of the additions for Condition 15. YUEN:Yeah, to clarify, these are not the exact wording requested by Public Works, but some wording that with I came up with after talking with, concerns of Public Works. Specifically what this does is that it says something that I think is already covered but to make it more explicit in this that the drainage study has to be done before a grading permit as well as a building permit, and also before a grading permit between the existing Kona Sea Villas, which ƒ Jeff, if you point that out at the top of the diagram ƒ and the southern property line. So they couldn€t do something in there before doing a flood study. So that€s the gist of that amendment. DARROW:The other condition would be a change to Condition 22, which is on Page 33, and again if I could read it from the beginning: Access to Kahului to Keauhou Parkway Phase 1 or successor project‚, and then the addition would be and to Kuakini Highway.‚ And that would be the only addition for the Condition. The remainder would be the same. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, I€m going to ask Commissioner Domingo if he had a comment. Is that okay? WATANABE:Yeah. 36EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Just a question. During the course of the discussion the consultant to the developer indicated that he had met with people of the adjacent development, and that they have come to some kind of agreement. Is that right, Mr. Mooers? ALAMEDA:Mr. Lim? LIM:That€s correct. DOMINGO:Is that a part of the conditions of the rezoning of the SMA Permit? LIM:No, it€s not. The Association of Apartment Owners of Kona Sea Villashassubmittedtoyoutheirletteroftodayindicatingthattheydonotobjecttotheapproval of the SMA Permit. DOMINGO:Okay. Based on your discussions and whatever assurance that you gave them? LIM:That€s correct. DOMINGO:Okay. And that would be attached as part of the records for future reference. ALAMEDA:Commissioner -. WATANABE:We are king of getting into the, it€s the same thing. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:The letter is part of the record. DOMINGO:Okay. YUEN:I think you may have meant, though, there was a subdivision makai -. DOMINGO:Well, you know, again I go back to the previous discussions last week where certain commitments were made to the neighbors or to the adjacent subdivision, and that after it€s spelt out and after time, as time goes by, then they find that some of the agreement struck by both the developer and the adjacent subdivision is not taking place, and that upon the adjacent subdivision€s initiative trying to have it resolved, then the developer would have a lapse of memory and not remembering what was actually discussed. You know, we want to -, I want to be assured that whatever commitments the developer has made to the adjacent owners of the subdivision or the development will be kept in the future. That€s my whole feeling. It€s just to keep people honest. 37EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? I guess so the question is if the document would be part of the record, so that we can have a full and complete record. Okay -. LIM:The agreements we€ve reached with the adjoining property owners are, I think, both of them are confidential. And it was the agreement of both parties that they be confidential, so all you€ll see is a letter of no objection from both the HPM subdivision lot owners and also from the Kona Sea Villas Association of Apartment Owners. Those are ƒ just to address some of the concerns raised by Commissioner Domingo ƒ those are contractual agreements with enforcement provisions. ALAMEDA:All right. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I€m wondering if then ƒ bearing that in mind that it€s confidential ƒ could you nevertheless give us some assurances that there is no conflict between any of the terms ofthoseagreementsandtheConditionsthataregoingtobevotedoninashorttime. LIM:Wecanrepresentthatistrue. SIRACUSA:Thankyou,CommissionerSiracusa.CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Okay.IthinkI€mreadytomakeamotionthen.Imovetoaccept the Stipulation of SunStone Kona, LLC and Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director, County of Hawaii, regarding the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Laws, and Decision and Order recommending the approval of Special Management Area Use application, SMA No. 05-005, as revised in Condition 15 and Condition 22. ALAMEDA:Is there a second? DOMINGO:Second. LIM:Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I know I€m a little bit out of order here, but I forgot to make a comment. The proposed Stipulated Decision and Order was drafted up prior to today€s meeting, so I request that the Planning Commission also include some Findings relating to the occurrence of today€s meeting. Thank you. ALAMEDA:You know, that€s very good. That€s appropriate. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah, I€ll accept that as a friendly amendment. ALAMEDA:And the second? DOMINGO:I have no objection, second is okay. ALAMEDA:Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Discussion? Commissioner Graham? 38EXHIBIT C GRAHAM:I would like to just ask the Planning Director a question. I know in prior developments in this area between Keauhou and Kailua, both Commissioner Rho and myself have expressed our concern about just, you know, solid development without any open space and park area and contrasting that to what we€ve seen in other places in the islands. And so I think originally like with this 87 rezoning they were talking 72 acres, and today we are talking like 40 acres. But we don€t see any park space in there. I know just mauka of the property, when you were mentioning a minute ago, Suffolk development, they had a 15-acre project and set aside one acre for a park, as I recall. Why aren€t you asking the developer to set aside some open space park area in this project? And if not, are there other particular areas in this area? Are there other particular parcels in the whole Kauhou to Kailua area which you think would be made into park and open space that would sort of compensate for the lack in this area? ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Theprimaryreasonfornothavingaset-asideofanotherparkarea here is it€s not a condition of zoning. So rather than add a condition of the SMA -. When it€s not a matter of a public recreational area ƒ I mean we are not talking about a coastal area where that€s used for the public for recreation. As to what the County is doing on open space and recreation in the general area, the County did purchase Honl€s beach area for 3 million dollars last year. There are a few parcels that are of open space and park parcels as a result of other zoning conditions elsewhere in the general area, not in immediate vicinity. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up? No? Other questions or thoughts? I€d like to share with the public that as Commissioners we ask a lot of questions. We hear the testimonies, we make notes, we question each other, we question our staff, we question the Director, €cause we want to make sure that the testimony is not in vain. And these kinds of applications we want to make sure the developer takes into consideration the mitigating factors, the potential adverse impacts. We want to make sure that the developer looks at the SMA guidelines, that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. And so these are some of the things and thoughts that we have as Commissioners going on in prior to making a decision, such as this, whether aye or nay. So there is a lot of, and a bunch of reading materials. So just so you know that we don€t just make a decision like that. I mean we leave no stone unturned is kind of my little phrase. So I really appreciate that, fellow Commissioners. But we do have to make a decision. And I don€t know if we€ve got to the point yet, so I just want to offer -. Are there any other thoughts or comments? We€ve got a motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Seeing no further thoughts or comments, staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is for approval of the Stipulation of SunStone Kona, LLC and Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director, County of Hawaii, regarding the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order recommending approval of Special Management Area Use application, SMA 05-005, with added Findings of Fact and amendments to Conditions 15 and 22. With that, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Domingo? 39EXHIBIT C DOMINGO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes, five to two. LIM:Thank you very much. ALAMEDA:Thank you, and thank you for the public for sharing your testimony with us today. The discussion ended at 3:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary 40EXHIBIT C