Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-20 TKONAHEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 20, 2008 KONA HEIGHTS, LLC (REZ 07- A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 000075/SMA 07-00024) was called to order at 1:35 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona nd Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with 2 Vice Chairman Alvin Rho presiding. PRESENT: Lani Bowman ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rene’ Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner  Maija Cottle, Staff Planner Jhq`mDlkdq+Qdoqdrdms`shudneCdo`qsldmsneOtakhbVnqjr And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KONA HEIGHTS, LLC (REZ 07-000075/SMA 07-000024) a.Change of Zone for 11.054 acres of land from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Single-Family Residential 7,500-square foot (RS-7.5) district. b.Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 65-lot single- family residential subdivision and related improvements. The property is located at the south end of Naniloa Street and adjacent to the White Sands Beach Estates and Keauhou View Estates Subdivisions, Kapalaalaea, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-7-8:121. RHO: We are on the Agenda Item 4, I believe. And the applicant is Kona Heights, LLC for a Change of Zone and an SMA Use Permit. This is a continuation hearing from the last Kona meeting. Just to remind the Commissioners, at the last Kona meeting the State Land Use boundary for this project was passed for 11.054 acres of land from Agricultural to Urban District. And today this continued hearing focuses in on changing the zone from Ag 5-acre to Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet and the Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 65-unit single-family residential subdivision and related improvements. With that, I’ll turn it over to Jeff. EXHIBIT A 1 DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a real quick brief presentation nd to refresh the Commissioners’ memory. This is a continued hearing from our May 22 hearing. The applicant in this case is Kona Heights, LLC. The applicant in this case is requesting a State Land Use boundary amendment for 11.054 acres from Ag to Urban; at our last hearing a motion was made to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the State Land Use boundary, which passed. So at this time that request is being forwarded to the Hawaii County Council for action. The applicant is also requesting a Change of Zone for the approximately 11-acre parcel from Agricultural 5-acre to Single- Family Residential 7,500-square foot or RS-7.5. And lastly, a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 65-lot single-family residential subdivision and related improvements. For reference, this application is located within the North Kona District of Hawaii. For reference, we have Alii Drive running along the ocean side in a north-south direction. We have the proposed Kahaluu to Keauhou Parkway, which is identified with a thicker white line running in a north-south direction. And lastly, we have Kuakini Highway near the right side of the map. The subject property is identified with a black outline. This is just south of the White Sands Beach Estates Subdivision, the Keauhou View Estates Subdivision, and we also have the Alii Heights Subdivision. A little closer, a location map, we can show that the access to this project site will be from Naniloa Street; from Alii Drive, we will -, actually the proposed access is from Queen Kalama Avenue into a stubout that’s off of Naniloa Street. There are other options that may be conducted for access by the applicant, which is identified in Condition E of the conditions. The colors that are on the map represent the different zonings; the yellow is representative of RS-7.5 and the light green is representative of Agricultural 5-acre. We do have an aerial of the proposed location; again, we have the White Sands Beach Estates Subdivision, the Keauhou View Estates, and the project location is identified in this particular area. Referring to the applicant’s site plan submitted with the application, just for reference, we have the stubout from Naniloa Street that’s located on the north portion of the left side of the map. Alii Drive would actually be located on the west side of the left side of the map. We have the proposed Keauhou to Kahaluu Parkway. And again, this is a proposed layout of the subdivision, which identifies two connector roads that will be to the south in the event that there is a project that is conducted to the south to bring connectivity to this area. We show the proposed layout, the floor plans and the elevations of the two different types of units; the applicant is proposing single-story and two-story type units.We have the one-story floor plan here and we show the elevation of the one-story on the lower portion of the slide. We show the first and second floor of the two-story unit as well as the elevation of the two-story unit. This is a picture standing on the north side of the entrance facing south; this shows the stubout that will be the proposed entrance to Kona Heights subject property. Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone application to the Hawaii County Council, and that the Planning Commission approve the Special Management Area Use Permit. Do you have any questions? EXHIBIT A 2 One thing to add, we have had several letters submitted; these have been passed out to the Commissioners. Also including, we have a June 19, 2008, letter from the applicant’s representative, which does some changes to the Change of Zone as well as the SMA nd conditions that kind of brings into those changes that we had spoken about at out May 22 hearing. Thank you. RHO: Jeff, those changes basically are only on the recommendations, right? I mean the conditions -? DARROW: Correct. On the conditions -. RHO: For both the Change of Zone and the SMA, yes? And then there is, the last couple of pages, which references the Kona Development Plan. Right? Okay. Any questions for staff? Yes, Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. Jeff, what are they doing as far as the affordable housing requirements? DARROW: In the application the applicant is proposing to conduct the affordable housing requirements on the property just mauka of this particular application. They are allowed to do it offsite; it doesn’t necessarily have to be on site. So they are proposing to do these requirements in the future project that’s just mauka identified in this particular area here. And if we could have the applicant go into greater detail as to how they are going to achieve that requirement; but that’s my understanding through the application. RHO: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Would it be appropriate to ask -, maybe have the Public Works Department come up; but I’d like to know the status of the Parkway now and in the future. RHO: Okay, I see Mr. Emler in the audience. If you can come up. EMLER: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. The question is what is the latest status on the Kahaluu to Keauhou Parkway project. To my understanding, the latest is there’s going to have to be some more data recovery done on the project, which is being planned or in the process. I checked the State transportation improvement list and it’s on the schedule for 2011, as far as the funding is concerned right now. But these lists are continually revised; so it could be moved up if the project were made ready. So it’s possibility. I don’t want to say that’s, you know, cast in stone. DOMINGO: Thank you. RHO: Thank you. Any other questions? If I can now have the applicants or the applicant’s representatives come up. Can I swear both of you in again. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? EXHIBIT A 3 LIM: I do. ATTA: I do. RHO: Okay, you may proceed. ATTA: I guess the question is about the affordable housing. Yes, our plan is to do the 30 percent of affordable housing on the mauka portion that’s not part of this application. We are actually working on the application; that application has to go to the State Land Use Commission because the parcel is larger than 15 acres. So we are in process of finishing that application right now. RHO: Do you have a question? DOMINGO: Yeah, one question. I understand that there’s an ongoing discussion with regards to the park? ATTA: We are making some minor, I guess, design changes to the park that’s up there, and we have been in discussions with the Parks Department on some of those issues. DOMINGO: Now, where would the park be located? ATTA: It’s also on the mauka parcel and -. DOMINGO: Mauka parcel. What’s the square footage on that, how -? ATTA: We have actually -, we spoke to Ms. Engelhard, and the active park will be three acres; that’s the one that we are talking about dedication to the County. We also have two private park-like mews that are common areas in the courtyards between the multi-family areas; that too would be dedicated open space. DOMINGO: Will the three acres be developed and then turned over to the County, or -? ATTA: That’s the plan. When we spoke with the Parks Department, they told us that their normal preference is a five-acre park for 1,000 residences; we don’t have 1,000 residences, but they said that the minimum that they would take for dedication – otherwise it has to remain a private park – was a three-acre park. So we kept that. And they also indicated a preference for active ball fields; so most of the park will be an active ball field. DOMINGO: Very good. Thank you very much. RHO: Yes, Commissioner Bowman. EXHIBIT A 4 BOWMAN: Question. Your affordable housing on the mauka parcel, which is -. Could you, or maybe Jeff, show what parcel? I think we talked about it before, but I just want to be clear. DARROW: I believe it is this parcel. Is that correct? ATTA: Yes. BOWMAN: And access? ATTA: It will be Kapukapu Street in the Alii Heights Subdivision. BOWMAN: That’s -? ATTA: Yeah, those two roads that are coming from Alii Heights; they would both be connected into our project on the mauka side. BOWMAN: And the size of the parcel? ATTA: Two together is a little over 26 acres. BOWMAN: Two together, where -? ATTA: There are two parcels that are part of our mauka project. BOWMAN: Which – I’m sorry – which two? ATTA: You actually, I think, see four parcels there; the two middle parcels -, there is a small rectangular one on the mauka side that is not part of our parcel. BOWMAN: Okay, so it will be the two on the -, one, two -. ATTA: Right, those two, yeah, those two, that’s right. BOWMAN: And the total acreage is 26? ATTA: Twenty-six acres on the -. BOWMAN: So would the affordable housing and the park be -, once you get the State Land Use, are those your only two plans for that area? ATTA: Well, we have, of that mauka two-lot combination, we have our multi-family there. So there is a park, a small commercial area and then a mix of single- and multi-family units in those parcels. BOWMAN: And that will come later? EXHIBIT A 5 ATTA: Well, yeah, that will come later. We actually filed the application for the two, you know, about the same time; but because that one went to the State Land Use Commission, they asked us to do some additional studies on arthropods and some additional economic impact studies. So we ended up doing some further studies and that’s what delayed that application. So we are still finishing up those revisions and additional studies, so that we can re-file it. BOWMAN: So – I’m sorry – but your affordable housing would be on the kind of L-shaped parcel, and the County park? ATTA: Yes. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. RHO: Other questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Has there been any action taken on the boundary amendment by the Council already, or is it too soon? YUEN: I think we suggested to the Council that they not act on it until the rezone came up simply because rather than Council – a lot of the same issues will come up at the same time – rather than look at the project twice, wait for the rezone to come through. LIM: And we also will be submitting a letter to the Council to request the deferral until the Commission acts and submits their recommendations on these matters also. DOMINGO: I can see the logic on that, but by the same token, you know, having have to entertain the application for the SMA Permit, I think it’s contingent upon what the result of the zoning bill will be because they may impose certain conditions on the rezoning bill, which will then impact the SMA Permit application we have before us, and probably would have to be amended or reconsidered by the applicant. RHO: Director Yuen, would you like to respond? YUEN: Well, the recommendation on the Permit is written so that it only takes effect if the rezoning is passed by the Council. It is true that if the Council does something with the rezoning that’s inconsistent with the version of the SMA Permit that’s in here, if they passed the rezoning but, say, limited it to a certain number of units or had some other kinds of conditions, it’s possible that the SMA Permit would have to be redone. BOWMAN: I just have a quick question. And that area there is -, what is the LUPAG? EXHIBIT A 6 YUEN: It’s Low Density Urban. BOWMAN: And Low Density Urban is -? YUEN: Low Density Urban is primarily a single-family residential in character, although it doesn’t eliminate -, you can do multi-family. But the General Plan talks about an overall density of not more than 6 units per acre – so this conforms to that – and other kinds of neighborhood type uses that may be consistent with a residential area, but primarily residential with maximum of 6 units per acre. So this does conform to the General Plan for the area. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman. RHO: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I understand the developer will be establishing the development based on the PUD concept. So what we actually saw on the drawing is -, is that the exact configuration of their buildings and everything? YUEN: No, that’s not required by the zoning; the zoning is much more open. They can change the concept of how the buildings would be laid out at the time when they come in for a Planned Unit Development or for an ordinary subdivision. DOMINGO: And the Planned Unit Development will be reviewed by you and the staff. YUEN: That’s correct. There is notice to neighboring property owners and there is a published notice that a Planned Unit Development has been applied for; but it’s strictly an administrative determination. th RHO: I have a question. In the write-up that’s dated June 19 for the th cover letter, June 19, in the last two pages there is a chart that refers to the Kona Community Development Plan, and I didn’t have a real good chance to actually look at that Plan in depth – tonight at 6:00 we have our first public hearing on it. But what I gather is that they want to develop, or the Plan calls for, these villages, and along that area between the airport or the planned university to, I would say, Keauhou Shopping Village – but I could be wrong – there are these what they’re called transportation pods or transportation – I’m not sure of the terminology. So in reference to your project, where do you think that pod would be, if there was a pod that’s supposed be in that area? ATTA: Well, the CDP draft is somewhat general; so the exact location of the pod is not clear. But if I look at it, it seems to be right around where that makai parcel, the parcel just makai of our site that is owned by the Metzlers, that seems to be the EXHIBIT A 7 approximate location of the Transit Oriented Development, the TOD site. But that’s what it looks like to me. RHO: But because the Plan is not specific, you can’t really tell -, I mean, that’s the best you can do. It wouldn’t be that the pod would be located – as I call it a pod – would be located mauka of the Keauhou Parkway? ATTA: I think because it’s in a draft form, obviously it can always be amended. But the way the -, if you look at the figure that’s in the CDP, those pods seem to run along Alii Drive right now. So I think that’s why I’m, you know, interpreting it that way. RHO: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. One thing I did notice in the Community Development Plan is they are encouraging what they call infill that is in areas that are already developed; if you are going to have a development, put it in between two areas that are already developed. And it would seem to me that this would fit that criteria. RHO: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I’m not seeing exactly what Mr. Woodward described or said, but when you referred to the Community Development Plan, it states that, in regards to compact villages, “the majority of future growth should be directed north of Kailua, with some future growth in the Kailua to Keauhou area in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and mixture of homes, shops, and places to work.” So you know, it seems like this application is in keeping with the Community Development Plan statement. RHO: And your question is? DOMINGO: No, I’m just -. RHO: Oh, you don’t have a -. DOMINGO: Citing that out, yeah -. RHO: Oh, okay. DOMINGO: And it’s not of a concern, but I just wanted to point that out for me, you know, just for me, just thinking out loudly. If I were to consider future development, of course, the Community Development Plan such as more of the development will go north of Kailua, but at the same time they are saying that “with some future growth in the Kailua to Keauhou area in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and mixture of homes, shops, and places to work.” So as I interpret this, I believe that the proposed project before us fits in that description. RHO: Yes, Director. EXHIBIT A 8 YUEN: Well, this is actually a good lead into tonight’s discussion because if we want to talk -, I think probably the clearest thing would be to look at, we have our Exhibit 10 on our recommendation; it’s the last thing before the background, that’s a map, that’s from the Community Development Plan’s transportation network map. And if you -, it’s a map with a big circle, it’ll be the last thing in your packet ahead of the yellow recommendation, it’s not in the -, right there, and I see a couple of Commissioners have it. Well, first, there is a land use map for Kona that has an urban area in Kona, and it basically corresponds to the General Plan urban area; so this is still within the future urban development area of Kona as it is in the General Plan. Then on a more specific level, if you look at this map, there is a Transit Oriented -, the one of the concepts in the Plan is a Transit Oriented Development, which would be a master-planned area, which would have sort of a denser area around, at least in the beginning it would be a bus stop, you know, where you would have more of a gathering or congregation area with some commercial. This is on the fringes of that. But if you see where the Kahaluu to Keauhou Parkway is, this is on the makai side of the Kahaluu to Keauhou Parkway; so you can’t really – although if you just draw theses sort of circles, it’s within that Transit Oriented Development – it can’t really be integrated into something on the mauka side of the Parkway. This is really a separate piece of property, once the Parkway comes in. So it has to be considered, as one of the Commissioners mentioned, an infill type of project that’s a project that’s adjacent to an existing development area; it’s adjoined by a zoned area in urban residential zoned area. So it’s like, in planning you call infill that is, you know, the things that got missed when the other areas got zoned. And the Plan does encourage infill areas. It does encourage this sort of -. The PUD that they have proposed is more of a compact, master-planned, clustered type of housing development; and so in all those respects, it is consistent with the concepts in the CDP. RHO: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: It appears to me that if this applicant is given approval, that because they are -, it would kind of fall into play that the upper two parcels would be developed because that’s where their affordable housing and their park is going to be. I mean, it just seems logical, right? YUEN: Well, it’s a separate decision that has to be made on its own merits. Again that is an area that is urban in the General Plan and it’s an urban area in the CDP, and it is adjacent to an existing subdivision; so it’s likely to have a favorable recommendation from the Planning Department. I would mention that although they plan to do their affordable housing there, if they come in for their approval on the makai piece first, they have to have -, if they are going to build their affordable housing on another piece of property, there has to be some security that that actually happens. And that’s been done in the past either by pledge of land or some other kind of security, or there are other options they don’t have to do their affordable housing in the mauka property. So they’ll have to take care of that; if the makai property gets its entitlements first, they’ll have to at least take care of guarantying that the condition would be satisfied when they do the makai development. EXHIBIT A 9 BOWMAN: Thank you. I just kind of -, overall long-term planning -. The other question I have is they have stated that it will be a LEED development, and would that be a requirement, I mean, if they get the rezoning, how do we make sure that happens? YUEN: I don’t think we put it in – is that a condition of the rezone – no, I don’t think we put it in as a condition of the rezone. One of their incentives for doing it is that the water conservation aspects of it will -, they are discussing with the Water Department, getting more water meters and otherwise available by agreeing to certain water conservation measures. So that would be the main assurance of that. BOWMAN: That would take care of the water. I’m just curious about the photovoltaic. I mean, I think the idea is great; but if it’s truly going to happen, I just have my concerns. Thank you. RHO: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This project and other projects that have recently been approved are predicated upon the completion of the Parkway. And we’ve heard the representative from the Public Works Department somewhat gave us a rough estimate based on the existing conditions that probably we’ll see it by the year 2011. How would this then affect this particular project, if it’s approved, and the other projects that we’ve approved recently? RHO: Director Yuen. YUEN: You mean if it does happen or if it doesn’t happen? DOMINGO: Yeah, if it goes on; because surely they cannot go on, if there is no Parkway. And they mentioned the utilization of the Parkway in some form of fashion, and if there is no Parkway, then you know, what are they going to do with that? The completion of the project seems to be just impossible because there is no Parkway. YUEN: Well, we have not conditioned this project on the building of the Parkway, and they do not actually need it for access to their property. DOMINGO: But you know, on the other hand, without the Parkway -, for me, for me, you know, it gives me a sense of comfort to know that if this project is built to its full extent, that there are possibilities that the traffic would be probably going on through the Parkway rather than all of them coming down on Alii Drive. And already we’ve heard concerns with regards to the existing conditions of the traffic on Alii Drive. So you know, if the project is directed to Alii Drive, it further exacerbates the situation that exists now. And that’s my concern. ATTA: May I answer that? EXHIBIT A 10 RHO: Sure. ATTA: Yes. Director Yuen is correct in that the completion of the Parkway is not a precondition. And actually Mr. Emler from Public Works had raised the question to our traffic engineer what if the Parkway is not completed in any kind of timely fashion; so our traffic engineer actually redid the traffic calculations to see what would be the effect, if the Parkway were not in construction by the time this was completed. And the results of that are actually part of the application, when you read it; so the conclusion was that the impacts would remain at the current Level of Service D. And Mr. Emler has also mentioned that part of that is that we would have that alternate access either to Alii Drive through the Metzler property or do some improvements to Naniloa and Queen Kalama as a condition. So in either way, that would be a question of impact on Alii Drive and on Queen Kalama. The Public Works was okay with either option; we either do the alternative access or do the improvements to Queen Kalama. And we are okay with those conditions to mitigate the potential impacts without the Parkway being developed. DOMINGO: So in essence what you are saying is that the Public Works Department is comfortable with the existing conditions and with the additional traffic that would be created by the development. ATTA: I would have -, that’s my understanding, but I’d rather have Mr. Emler make that statement than myself. DOMINGO: Okay. RHO: Would you like Mr. Emler to come up? DOMINGO: Yes. RHO: Mr. Emler, can you come back up? DOMINGO: I’d just like to see what his response is going to be because it reflects the total department’s outlook on the existing conditions that exist and with additional built-out of the projects we’ve adopted so far. And if we do adopt this one, then it certainly would cause further traffic on Alii Drive. So I’d just like to know what the Department’s opinion is on that. RHO: Mr. Emler. EMLER: Well, certainly any traffic study is limited in accuracy to the inputs that are provided to the computer programs and so forth that are used to reach the conclusion. Now, I have to tell you that nobody reviewed this traffic study in enough detail to determine whether we agree with all of the inputs that were used into that traffic study. So if you are asking me, am I absolutely sure that their traffic study is accurate, I can’t say that. DOMINGO: Thank you. EXHIBIT A 11 EMLER: Okay. RHO: If no further questions and if I can ask the applicant and his representative to step back, we have public testimony. We have six people, well, actually five people signed up. If I can call them up now: Luna Hauanio, Dr. Ted Leaf, Jane Dulaney and Shawnie Stephens. We are missing somebody. Oh, no, no, Dr. Ted Leaf. QUINTO: May I on his behalf? RHO: So you are representing him. Okay. So can I swear you all in, all four of you, and can you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. RHO: Okay. Then we can start on my left – I’m not sure what your name is – but will you state your name and your mailing address, and then you can proceed with your testimony. STEPHENS: Hi, my name is Shawnie Stephens, and -, address is what you are asking for? RHO: Yes, your mailing address. STEPHENS: Okay. It’s 77-6561 Naniloa Drive. It’s the home that’s right next to the proposed road that’s going from Naniloa into this subdivision. I’m here really not to be against any of this; it’s more just to be in support of what I believe is to be a big concern of mine and possibly a lot of people in the community. One is that I find after reading the traffic study that it really isn’t complete; they’ve completely disregarded Naniloa Drive in terms of representing the effect of traffic, and in the actual study Naniloa Drive is not included in this report. So I think that what I would like to see happen is that traffic study done with that being included, considering that traffic is probably going to be increased by about 3,200 percent coming into that area from what it is now. And the other concern I have is that this is at this point the only entrance to the property. I’ve been told by the developers that they are looking at making an agreement with Metzler. And I would just propose to you that there would be a condition of approval that that be done before any zoning requests be approved. My concern is that, you know, they hope that would happen, but then they get approval, then we wouldn’t see it happen. So those are my two biggest concerns. Like I said, I know development happens. And of course I would love to keep my little area in Kona, and not have to deal with all the traffic and the new -, you know. But I am in support of development cause I know it happens, but I’m really concerned about the traffic and the safety. And I don’t think those things have been addressed. And so just in ending this, I just think that the condition of this zoning should be based on an egress off Alii Drive. You are concerned about the Alii Drive traffic. I can’t imagine what would EXHIBIT A 12 be like to live on Naniloa Drive and Queen Kalama with that amount of traffic coming through. Thank you. RHO: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? BOWMAN: Could I, because I don’t live in Kona, could I be shown where Naniloa Drive is? Thank you. DARROW: Naniloa Drive is the proposed access and it’s just at the lower northern or the north-western portion of the property. I might have a closer -, so it would be this, right here. RHO: Jeff, can you come up again. I think we discussed this at the last meeting, but when you go back towards Kailua, there is a road that goes up into the subdivision. Does it actually, well, you can’t really see it, at the top or your diagram. DARROW: We are speaking about Laaloa Avenue? RHO: I don’t know. I think it will be better if you went back to the same -. So I see Alii Drive. I think I know where Kalama Street (sic) is. DARROW: Queen Kalama Avenue would be this street here. RHO: Yes. And then there is one that parallels Alii Drive. DARROW: Correct. And that will go through White Sands, Keauhou View Estates and Alii Heights; and its intention is to connect in the future with Kuakini Highway. RHO: But then at the very top it looks like Alii Drive connects to the parallel road. And then it goes further up. So is that just proposed, or is that actually existing? DARROW: Laaloa Avenue is existing. It does go from Alii Drive on through these subdivisions, and then it turns to the north onto a property that has not been developed at this time. That’s the connection that they need to go to Kuakini. RHO: To Kuakini. Okay, thanks. If no other questions for the testifier, we can move onto the next testifier. Your name and address. DULANEY: My name is Jane Dulaney, and I live at 77-153 Kaakoa Street, which is a couple of blocks from the proposed development. I’ve been watching this for some time, and have to say that the LEED certification and some of the aspects of paying attention to the resources that we have at this development is what’s encouraging me about it. I think that if they are given the opportunity, it leads a way for a lot of developments in the future, if they can conserve water, if they can do those kinds of things. And that’s why I like the effort that they are trying to make. That’s why I’m here. I also submitted a letter on EXHIBIT A 13 behalf of my employer back in April. Since then I’ve done a little more research, involved in it, and I think it’s the way that we have to go in looking at developments that come on to the island. Thank you. RHO: Thank you. Questions for the testifier? Ms. Dulaney, I have one. The development is going to be a LEED development, and then you are happy with that. And since you live in the neighborhood, can you talk about any concerns you have about traffic? DULANEY: I think that there are concerns about construction traffic, and I think that from my understanding I believe that part of that is addressed at least for the construction phase of it. I know that the entrance onto Alii Drive from Queen Kalama is steep and it’s a sharp corner to try to get out on. Most of the traffic that I see coming in and out of both the lower portion and the higher portion of that road comes in on Laaloa, which is a much wider, broader version. RHO: And that’s the street at the very top of that diagram. DULANEY: Yes, yes. There is going to be increased traffic. It’s my experience working from my home and traveling up and down Alii Drive that the majority of the traffic that I experience is from the main village part of Kailua around the bay and the King Kam, this area, versus that section of Laaloa, unless the surf is up and people are at White Sands and Kahaluu, then the traffic slows down to a crawl because everybody is along that road. RHO: Okay. So we can proceed to the next testifier. QUINTO: Good afternoon, my name is Gladys Quinto. And I am reading testimony on behalf of Dr. Theodore Leaf and his wife Diane Stone. And their mailing address is P.O. Box 45 Kailua-Kona, 96745. This is written testimony in support of the La‘ipala Makai project proposed to be developed in Kailua-Kona. While 65 single family homes will increase the traffic somewhat, it should be insignificant and the design of La‘ipala Makai will benefit our community. Furthermore, the owners are working on securing a second access point to the project, which will help ease the traffic situation in the area. La‘ipala Makai is the first LEED registered private residential project in Hawaii County. The LEED design of this project will, for one, reduce overall water consumption by approximately 30 percent per unit. Our community will certainly benefit and we should encourage more projects that follow this prototype. La‘ipala Makai is also an infill project that is designed to connect with other communities resulting in alternatives in traffic flow. The County has already planned for this connectivity as there are existing road stubouts at Naniloa Street into the project. Without this project roads will end or remain in cul-de-sacs forcing cars onto existing main arterials such as Alii Drive in order to get from one neighborhood to another. The people proposing La‘ipala Makai have taken great care to help preserve the culture of the area where retaining EXHIBIT A 14 a cultural advisory committee of lineal descendents and cultural practitioners. The group has also been working with the community for over a year and has been very responsive to their concerns by implementing some suggestions into their plans. Cordially yours, Dr. Ted Leaf and Diane Stone. RHO: Thank you. Questions for the testifier? None? We can move on to Lune Hauanio. HAUANIO: Aloha. Thank you, Commissioners, for giving me this opportunity to speak. RHO: I need your address. HAUANIO: Yes, my address is coming. Yeah, my name is Lunakanawai Hauanio. My address is Post Office Box 871, Captain Cook. It was, I guess, my second – it’s been going two years – I guess, Kevin, one of the developer’s workers has been trying to contact me because I have history in the area, concerns about the cultural and archeological sites. And so those are my concerns. I’ve been on the advisory board for the, I guess, the traffic for Laaloa, and hearing some of the information today really helped me structure my testimony for today. I guess one of the things that caught my attention and the reason why I’m here is the idea, the concept, of utilizing some of, I guess, 20 years of my own personal time – I guess, me and Chris, we go way back – about the things that I felt developers should do when they put projects, subdivisions in an area that impacts cultural activities. On the makai side, you have Hokulua Heiau. The developer project is within the ahupuaa of Kapalaalaea. These, these areas are areas where our, we’ve been, we’ve had a number and a number of cultural, religious practices that has gone on. And one of our major concerns is the safety of community; for years, it’s been that. Having been involved with the Hawaii Hotels Security Association back in the ’80s, we did a disaster management plan for the Kona Coast. And one of our major concerns was when time comes, we’re in an evacuation, how do we get them out of the area. So when I heard about the, you know, the traffic stuff, that kind of concerns me. And of course, you guys know I’ve been an advocate against a lot of poor development in the past. But this caught my attention because there were several elements. I mean, you’re losing a lot of alternatives for energy, water; that really caught my attention. Utilizing, you know, putting in all the resources as far as keeping the community a community, walk to the park, walk to -, those ideas, those concepts really caught my attention. I favor that. One thing that I -, I kind of like to impose on the developer and hope that when – or to Ernie guys – but I express it with Kevin was today we’ve really got to look at when we do do approvals, we’ve really got to look at the social impacts as well. We’ve really got to see whether or not this developer is going to give a fair share contribution that really would benefit us as a whole. I know we have rules, we have, you know, that the Commissions, they EXHIBIT A 15 follow, and I know for years being involved with contested case hearings, that when we go into the judge’s chambers, a lot of times the rules, you know, were set aside. And one of them is, I think that if we’re going to talk about making a, you know, a good faith effort in doing affordable housing, then implementing those two elements should be simultaneously. So if we have this representation that, hey, we’re going to put affordable housing, we’re going to put parks, we’re going these things that benefit the community, then those things should be implemented simultaneously. That’s what I hope that is implemented as a condition. And if I understand correctly, earlier in the testimonies, that the LEED condition was not a requirement. I say, put in. The approval for the -, well, that Parkway element is a nightmare. There still exist several family burials within the right-of-way. And I’m very concerned about that. We’ve had years of desecration, and they say, well, it’s inadvertent and so be it. But I think in all, in a nutshell, I really like the idea, and I hope that the idea continues as far as the sustainable community development. RHO: Thank you. Questions for the testifier? BOWMAN: I have a quick question. RHO: Sure. BOWMAN: You mentioned that – and maybe I didn’t hear this right – that the area was used for a lot of cultural practices? HAUANIO: Correct. BOWMAN: What do you see? Do you see any impact, I mean, are there specific areas within the development that you have questions about or just the area? How will this impact it? HAUANIO: Well, for number one, the practices of the past was, if you identify a cultural site, you know, just box it off and everybody keep out. No. I think we should be a more proactive community and share the knowledge of our culture with all, so that it’s respected a hell of a lot better than it is. If you’re going to the Laaloa Subdivision, you know, I don’t know about you guys, but when I see an archaeological site being turned into somebody’s backyard putting green, you know, I really do not appreciate stuff like that. So as a condition in, you know, in your decision making, that traditional cultural practitioners should be a vital instrument in a development. They should actually be a partner in the beginning, up front. RHO: Thank you. Other questions? If not, can I ask you folks to step back and we have another set of, at least, four testifiers? Michelle Kreusling, Laurie Gusman, Virginia Isbell – I don’t see her – Mikahala Roy. Is somebody here representing Virginia Isbell? How about Mikahala Roy? Well, I’ll move to the next one; it’s Kale Gumapac. And if I can have you all swear in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? EXHIBIT A 16 TESTIFIERS: Yes. RHO: Okay. If you folks can start from the left. We’ll start with Michelle, I guess, right? DANIHEL-KREUSLING: My name is Michelle Danihel-Kreusling. I live at 77-147 Queen Kalama. And I just wanted to inform you guys that I am in support of this development with the caveat that alternate access be found such as that Alii Drive access. The LEED certification, the parks, the -, just the development in whole, the intent of the development, I strongly support. And I hope that more developments follow in this stead, because that will keep Hawaii -, the sustainability factor really appeals to me. And I’m kind of in that demographic of a young family. So, we definitely want to make sure we have parks and natural resources for my daughter in the future. RHO: Thank you. Questions? If not, let’s see, Laurie, I guess. FISH-GUSMAN: Yeah, hi, I just wanted to say that the last -. RHO: Can you start with your name and your mailing address? FISH-GUSMAN: Laurie Fish-Gusman, 77-125 Queen Kalama Avenue, Kailua- Kona. And I just was wondering, the last time I was here, I didn’t have a chance to speak again after they had spoken. But there were five people in my living room the night before we had this last meeting here. And I just wondered if you guys had read through everything because things had totally changed from 5:00 the evening before the meeting to, as the next afternoon when they were here talking. I mean, all of a sudden there was a park that was behind Shawnie’s house. And I don’t -, I was just wondering if anybody had a chance to go down there and check out the site from Alii Drive because there’s orange fencing all over the place, you know, which is surrounding all kinds of archeological sites and burial sites. And, you know, I’d just like to make sure that you guys have really checked it out, because they changed their story overnight as to what they were going to do. And what I’ve heard -, my husband is, you know, in construction, and I know a lot of developers, and they’ve all said that Metzler is not going to sell that property. So I’m just asking that you make sure that there’re other roads other than Queen Kalama and Naniloa in order to get in and out of there, because Alii Drive just has so much traffic already. RHO: Questions? BOWMAN: I have a question. Are you talking about construction traffic or after the building of the subdivision? FISH-GUSMAN: I’m talking about after the building of the subdivision; because I think they’ve misrepresented in their telling you that they’re getting all these permission to use this and that or that these roads are going to go in. And I don’t think there is, you know – I don’t know. I’d like to see proof of it before it happens. EXHIBIT A 17 BOWMAN: Thank you. FISH-GUSMAN: Thank you. RHO: I have a question for you. I don’t really understand that you -, I don’t understand the part where you say you had a meeting at 5:00 with five people at your house, and the next day it gets changed. So can you give us one change that, one significant change that you -? FISH-GUSMAN: Yes. I’m sorry. The map that they showed me the day before had the 65 houses, and there was no park behind Shawnie’s house. They took that first 5,000 feet and said that there was going to be a park there. That changed from the day before. The three developers, the lady that was just up here reading a letter for somebody else, and George Atta were at my house in my living room the night before this, telling me totally different stories than what they gave last, you know, the last meeting that we were in here. RHO: And that wasn’t a change as a result of your meeting? FISH-GUSMAN: No, it wasn’t. It was like it just changed overnight, though. You know, the little parks that went in, that’s not what they showed us. They showed me and the Waites that live right next door to me some totally different stuff. They said that they had no plans of doing any other development; but these developers are actually, I think, they’re only concerned about developing and not really, you know, what’s good for Kona because they do have other plans of building up above. And I know that they’re involved in that, which I don’t really care, except for I just want to make sure that, you know, there’re some other roads that are accessible for other people to use. RHO: Okay. Do you have a second example? FISH-GUSMAN: Well, there’s some eight-plexes that are supposed to be going up above Alii Parkway, and they are the ones that are going to be doing that development also. RHO: Okay. FISH-GUSMAN: Thank you. RHO: Thank you. DOMINGO: So, ma’am, your concern is that there’s this little park that’s going to be built next to one of the residences near the development, and the traffic? FISH-GUSMAN: It’s not really the park. It’s the fact that the park was all of a sudden an archeological burial site that they decided not to put a house on overnight, and now it’s going to be a park. And that happened from 5:00 in the afternoon till 8:00 the next morning when you had the meeting. So -, and then they dropped that pile of papers on you EXHIBIT A 18 that, you know, it was like, I was just sitting here in total shock because the story had changed from my living room the day before till the next morning. DOMINGO: Well, I’m sure there is an explanation for that, for one reason or another, and I’m sure they will come up before you and explain what had happened. FISH-GUSMAN: And if you can go down Alii Drive and look at the property on Metzler right next to Queen Kalama, I mean, you might get a little bit better picture of it, too, because it’s just -, I mean, there’s orange all over the place, you know, of places that are all blocked off. I don’t even know how they’re going to make a road through there, but I’m sure they’re not going to sell that property. I mean, it’s prime property. It’s got a view of the ocean; because the house is on the makai side set down, so you can see the ocean. And what I’ve heard is he has no intentions of selling that property at all. And you can tell, actually, there’s a -, the menehune wall; it boarders to my property, which is one of the houses that’s right on the corner of Queen Kalama and Naniloa. And on the city plans that’s the menehune wall. So, I mean, and it runs all the way through that property of Metzler, which is right next to where they’re going to build. So, I mean, I wish I had pictures of it. There was somebody that was going to be here and something happened; so they couldn’t show up that had pictures that -, anyway, thank you. RHO: Thank you. Virginia? ISBELL: Thank you very much. Virginia Isbell from Kealakekua, and I’m testifying -, first of all, I’d like to mention that -. RHO: Virginia, can we have your mailing address? ISBELL: Oh, yeah, P.O. Box 9 – I don’t live in the box – but 926, Kealakekua, 96750. And I’ll read out of a piece of paper here. I would like to say that we all have the same concerns. And I think that’s the Kuakini Wall that, if I’m not mistaken, that goes down that far; but there are lots of very important archeological sites. But I also have reviewed their Environmental Impact Statement. Their big book here took me a while to get through it. But they can’t just change willy-nilly. If it says it’s in here, and that’s what they’re asking for, they cannot just go and change it overnight. So, my feeling is that having looked at this and studied it, if they follow exactly what it says here and you approve that, then they have to do what it says, which includes this – and I’d like to just read my testimony if I can, because it kind of gives you a better idea than just my blowing it off, right? Okay, it’s just not that long. RHO: Go ahead. ISBELL: I have reviewed the environmental report that provides support for the State Land Use boundary amendment from Ag to Urban District plus the SMA, A5a to RM, RS plus CV and/or CN. Those are all abbreviations that Mr. Yuen and I know of and are really familiar with, and I know all of you are too. EXHIBIT A 19 nd I provided testimony on May 22 before the Planning Commission, and continue to strongly support the proposed La‘ipala Makai residential project. The draft Kona Community Development Plan, which is before you today – as well as finally you got a whole book of it to look at since last month – includes in its eight “Guiding Principles” that the future growth should be guided by a principle of respect for the land, environment and natural resources, provide connectivity and transportation choices such as sidewalks, trails and bike lines; offer a broad range of mixed housing choices. The Kona Community Development Plan includes Consistency with Sustainable and Smart Growth Principles utilizing compact building design; create a range of housing opportunities and choices; create walkable communities; foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; mix land uses; strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. La‘ipala Makai is a proposed residential project that appears to mirror the Kona Community Development Plan. La‘ipala Makai also includes the “Leadership and Energy and Environment of Design,” which is LEED, L-E-E-D, that was created in 1994. LEED has grown from one standard for new construction to a comprehensive system of six interrelated standards covering all aspects of the development and construction process; that includes “Green Building” – establishing a common standard of measurement; promotes integrated, whole-building design practices; recognizes environmental leadership in the building industry; stimulates green competition; raises consumer awareness of green building benefits; and transforms the building market. La‘ipala Makai will be the first registered LEED on the Big Island. And to me, it fits like a glove with the Kona Community Development Plan. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I encourage the Planning Commission to act favorably on this application. RHO: Thank you. Questions? If not, we’ll move on to the next testifier. Kale? GUMAPAC: My name is Kale Gumapac, HCR2 Box 9607, Puna. I come before this Commission to give testimony with regards to La‘ipala Makai. And in reviewing and talking with George Atta about the proposed development, the sustainability that is being proposed for this, for this neighborhood is a bomb.This is one of the first ones that is taking the bull by the horn and coming forth to make an effort for the entire development to be green. The Kanaka Council is taking the position that we have a conditional acceptance of this project based on the cultural side as far as inadvertent finds and the archeological finds that are there. However, on the sustainability issue in talking with George Atta, we think that this is a kind of building that needs to take place everywhere on this island. Bar none. You guys are the Planning Commissioners; you guys are the ones that need to take to be able to make sure that all of the developers and everybody else that come in start building green, because we have to malama the aina and also malama the people that are here. EXHIBIT A 20 One of the biggest issues that we are addressing is unchecked fossil fuel cost us that’s increasing. And we know that it’s going to be a huge impact on this island. And this is one of the first major projects that are stepping forward to make sure that these things happen. Now, as the Planning Commission, you need to make sure that the project developers as well as the plan designs that come through, that they make sure that they build green, that they use whatever green buildings or LEED buildings the LEED points that they need to use, that it comes through; because if they don’t do that, then it’s -, then you should cut their line. But if they come through, which I believe that they will after talking to George Atta and listening to what he has to say, as well as the developers of the project, I believe that that is going to come through, and they’re going to put their best effort forward to make sure that the things that they put together is going to be beneficial to Kona. And this is the first project. Now, all we’ve got to do is make all of the other projects exactly like this, and we’re going to do good. Mahalo. RHO: Thank you. Questions? If not, we have two additional testifiers – if you can step back – Tami Gouveia and Mikahala Roy. Can I swear both of you in. Can raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? ROY: I do. GOUVEIA: Yes. RHO: Okay. Let’s begin with you, Tami. Your name and mailing address. GOUVEIA: My name is Tami Gouveia, and my mailing address is 73-1427 Kaloko Drive, Kailua-Kona, HI. And I’m here in support of La‘ipala Makai. I graduated Konawaena High School. Mr. Rho was one of my counselors. I, just a child of the residents of Kona and grew up in this community, and I just wanted to share some of my feelings about it. I have known one of the developers, well, the developers for two years now. And I learned about the project about two years ago, what their intentions were. And to be invited to be a part of it as it grows up and continues to be, you know, go through the controversy into the next stage of approval, I think I’m honored to be here. I have five kids of my own and I have to raise that have to come from school here locally. And some of the things that they’ve talked about with me are, that are important to them, are the educational funds. Of course, I’m not going to – excuse me – I’m not going to repeat what everybody else is saying. I totally believe in this project. I think what they’ve brought to Kona is wonderful as far as the development of it. I’ve seen the pictures. In fact, there’s a board out in front that has pictures of everything that they’re displaying that they’re going to be building. And the rainwater harvesting system for irrigation, the solar panels, the photovoltaic, I’ve just seen some here and there of properties outside of Kona Community, but down in the south end of the island and over in the Hilo district or Keaau, that have off-grid dwellings; and it really makes the living a lot cheaper for those of us who live here. And, you know, the cost of fuel -, I have a diesel truck and I have a gas vehicle, and I figured that I’d buy the diesel because EXHIBIT A 21 it’s cheaper than the gas, but now the diesel is more expensive than the gas. So, you know, I mean, the cost of our electricity, and having this type of house built is really important to our resources. And water is one that is very important. It’s getting to be more expensive. Being in the beginning stages of this, I just think that their community awareness is something that they’ve really wanted to be a lot of emphasis on to allow people to share their feelings about it and to see how great a LEED project is. We have a Waikoloa area that’s coming up. There were large parcels of land up there that the Waikoloa Development actually put on the market. And I know of one gentleman that was a bomb sweeper walking through there, and he’s like, how am I going to afford something like this, I’d have to pay three or four hundred dollars a month in electricity bill and gas bills. And I’m like, you know, there’s other ways of cutting back. And for us to have the properties already built with the LEED program in place, I think, is very important. And I do believe that it will attract people to the island that are going to also be resourceful. Going green is number one to me. I live in a rainy area, and I have three tubs outside and that waters my animals. You know, it’s not all that sunny up there because you have a lot of cloud, but, you know, that’s where we get our water from, is Kaloko. You know, there’s a lot of water storage up and down the mountain over there. And the infill, I was glad to hear about it today.I think that that’s very important. I have not seen the updated village plan. I’m looking forward to being at that meeting later on today. And I think the small commercial that comes up within our community also needs to have to meet the LEED, the LEED example, and everybody gets on using our sun as a major generator for our energy here. I’d really like to see more of it. Thanks. RHO: Thank you. Questions? If not, Mikahala, can you begin with your name and mailing address. Thank you. ROY: My name is Mikahala Roy, P.O. Box 596, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Distinguished Members of the Hawaii Planning Commission: Aloha Kakou. I am Mikahala Roy, President of Kulana Huli Honua, a Hawaii non-profit organization based here at Kamakahonu, Hawaii. Here at Kamakahonu is where our inherited purposes for existence as an organization finds nurturance. Here is Ahu‘ena Heiau, restored temple of Kamehameha the Great, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s first capital. Kulana Huli Honua’s mission is three pronged: to guide the life and care of Ahu‘ena Heiau and advocate for all sacred sites of this Kona coast and elsewhere in Hawaii, and to educate all desiring to learn about the heritage of the Hawaiian people in language, history and culture. The third emphasis is the creation of land-based archives to help to keep the wisdom of the ages of Hawaii while serving as places from which to keep watchful eye upon the historic sites themselves. Kamakahonu and Kapalaalaea ahupuaa have much in common. Kapalaalaea borders the Kahaluu Historic District.The Kahaluu Historic District, like Kamakahonu, is a national historic landmark for reasons of incredibly high incidences of Hawaiian history and culture here. These places are supposedly protected against desecration, disrespect and rampant EXHIBIT A 22 development. How does this development even begin to apply for this SMA Permit? Why hasn’t the SHPD disapproved of this developer’s desires in maintenance of compliance with State Law 6E? My organization is wholeheartedly against this development for the above-cited reason and for detrimental effect to present traffic conditions this development will bring. Kulana Huli Honua participates in numerous community projects to help with identification of traditional mauka-makai trails, and we work to collaborate with established families of this land, who know this land best, to help our community grow into the future. Developments like this one coming before you to get in under the gun, that is, prior to the widespread teaching to Kona’s public the wealth of history our lands contain. We urge you to deny this application for the detrimental effect this development will bring to the past heritage and to the present safety of the lands of Kona. I have not had the opportunity to look over this EIS because, if you bear with me, the lands of Kona are enraged with such applications for use by developers. When I say “under the gun,” I say to you that for programs that teach about Kona’s very peculiar and very special history are not in place yet, or they have not begun in strength to educate the new people who live on the land. How is it that the Kahaluu Historic District can begin to see this application? There are comments that have been made about their plan to go green. Green upon desecration? We don’t understand the Kahaluu Historic District. If you were to ask people why is this land declared a national historic landmark, I bet you, the majority of them would not know. I say that if it weren’t for community non-profits and other educational centers, we would not even have a voice to talk about the past history. I have testimony that I’ve also prepared for tonight’s presentation. But I ask you, because it has pertinence to this matter here on this application, Members of the Commission, would you direct me to wait till tonight or I have given you my testimony for the second matter? RHO: I would, I personally would prefer that you presented it tonight, to address the Plan at six. But do you have any other comments or anything else you want to share with the Commission in terms of this specific application? ROY: I would. There have been comments that have been made about this application complies with the Kona Development Plan. Well, I say this: the Kona Development Plan is not heard by the majority of people. And that’s what my testimony will be tonight. And so, no, when they say it conforms to this or that, does it conform to the very things that I may bring up at this time? For example, does it -, do these people add or wish to help the story of this unique place live? Have they even contacted persons like myself? Our organization has long been in service to this coastline. I have not met them. They have not called. Why is this? My father restored Ahu‘ena Heiau. I am now kahu of this precious temple, the first restored in the modern era. Kulana Huli Honua has been in service for 10 years. I think this is suspect. And I say this is precious kapola alaea to me and to people of Kona. I do not like to see the partitioning of these lands without having adequate voice of this past, so that it is understood before they EXHIBIT A 23 desecrate and carve up, as if they would a commodity they own. Let me remind you we do not own land – God does, especially true in Hawaii. At this point, this is what I have to say. RHO: Thank you. Questions? If none, if I can ask both of you to step back, and ask the audience whether or not there are others who wish to testify that didn’t sign up. At this point, we have exhausted our list. And if I can ask the applicant’s representative and the applicant to step forward. And at this point, maybe if you could address some of the points that the testimony brought forward; and then the Commissioners may have questions for you. ATTA: Okay. I guess I can start with the comment about the meeting the night before the last hearing. We did meet with Ms. Fish, and I think it’s more a questions of miscommunication. The park – the comment about the park that was – yeah, at the time the park issue was something that just came at the hearing, basically. So, it is a last minute addition to change in the plan. We did not have that top lot park the night before. And so, during the course of the meeting, some of the people who were here at the public hearing had recommended to us that it would be a good idea to add a top lot. So, yes, and we made the decision during the hearing process to add that top lot. The other things about the Metzler access, we do have a written agreement with Metzler; so in spite of the comment that we didn’t have any kind of -, for construction access, we definitely have a written agreement with the Metzler people to use their property for construction access. FISH-GUSMAN: Just construction. RHO: Excuse me. FISH-GUSMAN: I’m sorry. ATTA: Right now, it is for construction access, and we are in the process of negotiating with them about a permanent access. And so, yeah, those are things that I want to make sure that that’s what’s been happening. I think the miscommunication on the issue of the mauka section is, when we talked to Ms. Fish, we said that we were only before the Commission for this makai parcel; and so we said that the only thing that we’re working on was this makai parcel. And the fact that the partnership also owns the mauka area and is preparing the application for the mauka parcel, I think that maybe was not clearly stated to Ms. Fish. But that’s not before this Commission, and that’s something that’s still waiting. And we haven’t filed the application yet. RHO: Any other comments you want to present at this point? LIM: One of the issues raised by Ms. Roy is that the project may be within the Kahaluu Historic District. The environmental report which forms a part of the application at Page 1-5 contains Figure 1-2, which is a depiction of the Kahaluu Historic EXHIBIT A 24 District map. Essentially, I don’t know if you have that in front of you, but it says here what you’ll see when you look at that, is that the Kahaluu Historic District, which is on the National Register of Historic Places – okay, Jeff, I’m not very good at this, so excuse me – but it’s going to run approximately in this area. Excuse me, I’m on the wrong place. There we go, there we go. On this – sorry, George, you do this, this is your -. It goes higher up the hill above the Parkway. ATTA: It really takes up this, this area. It goes both sides of the Alii Parkway. And if the map were bigger, it would be this area. So, it’s basically is the area includes -. According to the archeological studies that our archeologists worked on, the Kahaluu Historic area basically comes here, goes to the Kamehameha III Road and then it includes a portion of this subdivision that’s there, and then it comes down to Alii Drive. So our site is actually north of the District, as far as we’re aware of it. So, we’re not in that Historic District. LIM: So, you’ll see that picture as Figure 1-2 on Page 1-5 of the environmental report that is with the application. RHO: Any other comments before I turn it over for questions from the Commissioners? LIM: I think, for purposes of meeting some of the comments from the public with respect to, you know, their support is based in large part upon some of the sustainability commitments by the developer, we’ve talked to Mr. Mansi who is the principal that’s with us today; and we’d like to suggest a proposed condition. And I’ll read it to you if it’s okay: The applicant shall implement and/or require implementation of water and energy conservation measures in the development of the houses within the proposed subdivision utilizing measures similar to the LEED Standards of the U.S. Green Building Council, which shall be binding on the owners association and owners of all lots in the proposed subdivision. I think that would address a lot of the concerns by members of the public and some of the Commissioners that there would be some commitment that the developer implement these water and energy conservation measures. The reason why I’m saying “utilizing measures similar to the LEED Standards” is because at this point in time the LEED’s new development and the project standards are not clear. I’ll let George explain; he knows a lot more about the LEED’s program than I do. ATTA: Okay, yeah. Our project is listed right now with the U.S. Green Building Council website as a LEED new construction project; that’s one form of the – Ms. Isbell mentioned six different types of LEED categories – that’s a current form of LEED standard. Now, we’ve always said that our whole project, not just individual buildings, is going to be LEED. Currently, in the LEED program, there is a LEED for Neighborhood Development, which is a more comprehensive standard. And that program is in a pilot phase right now. And it’s -, they’ve selected some pilot projects nationwide on which to test the criteria. Our understanding is that LEED-ND standard is scheduled to become a final standard in ’09, EXHIBIT A 25 sometime in 2009, at which time we will then retroactively apply for the ND standards. But right now, we’re not able to apply for the ND standard because it’s in a pilot phase, and we’re not one of the pilot projects. But the new construction standard is already in place, and so we’ve already applied for that. And we will retroactively work for the ND standard as well. RHO: Questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Atta, you mentioned that your discussions with the neighboring properties or the individual that has an access, and the conclusion is that you’d be given use of that property for the duration of the construction of the project, and that ongoing discussion is still going with regards to negotiations with regards to that portion being a permanent access to the property. Is that right? ATTA: Yes. DOMINGO: And that would be the only access to the property? ATTA: We are also simultaneously working with Kamehameha Investment Corporation to the south of the property boundary. We’ve already discussed with them the possibility of using the HELCO utility easement that runs parallel with our property. Right now, that easement has a four-wheel drive access with which HELCO services the power line that runs along the property. When we talked to KIC, they told us first to talk to HELCO if HELCO had any problems with us sharing that easement with them. We’ve subsequently spoke to HELCO, and HELCO had no problem with us sharing that easement. And then, we’ve then gone back to KIC about us also getting an easement to use that; and we’re in discussion with them on that possibility as well. So we really have two potential options for alternate access to the site. DOMINGO: Now, the first choice – not the first choice – but the first item that access would go to Alii Drive, the Metzler property? ATTA: Our preferred option is the Metzler Drive alternative, yes. DOMINGO: Alii Drive? ATTA: Yes. DOMINGO: And then the other option or the other possibility that south of that would be going through that easement that HELCO is using. And that -, where would that actually lead to of the existing roadway? It would go to Kamehameha III or -? ATTA: No, the easement runs right along the edge of this property that belongs to Kamehameha Schools. And in our site plan, we show two stubouts going in this direction. So, since the easement runs along the edge, if that becomes our preferred option or EXHIBIT A 26 the alternative, it would run along the edge of the property and connect to that stubout on this side, and then that would be the access to the property. DOMINGO: And that would terminate at Alii Drive again? ATTA: Right, yes, down to Alii Drive. DOMINGO: Okay. You mentioned that you’re anticipating some work or some development on the mauka portion of the property, and that an application is going to be submitted for that? ATTA: Yes. DOMINGO: And when -, would that indicate that access to that part of the property be onto the Parkway? ATTA: Yes, I think -, we had actually also discussed with the County about -, and this was when we had talked to people in the community; and most of them had concerns about construction traffic going through Alii Heights and stuff, and they asked us if we could look for some alternate ways to avoid construction trucks going through. So at that time, we talked to Public Works, I think, and asked if it was okay for us to kind of, at least, use some of this easement when we were going up to our mauka side. And I think they said tentatively – and there’s no final word or anything or approval from the County – but for logistical purposes, they said they would consider. We haven’t gone beyond that verbal discussion because we don’t have this application yet. But so the possibility that, you know, once we, you know, we get through this area, yes, you’re right, that we’d have to cross over here. And then we are still in conversation with Kamehameha Schools about using the upper portion of their easement to move our construction up to our site there. So those discussions are ongoing right now. DOMINGO: When the Parkway is completed, then would it be in your plans to make, have egress and ingress into the property that we’re talking about now? ATTA: We have two cul-de-sac dead ends in our site plan. We’ve talked to both the Public Works and Planning about that possibility. And in the discussion phase, what we were told is that, at this point, the preference was just to have an emergency access at that point, and not a permanent access. I think part of it relates to what the final design of the Keauhou-Kahaluu Parkway will be. And so until that has been finalized, they were not going to make any final decision about whether we could make a permanent connection. But they are allowing an emergency connection for emergency purposes. DOMINGO: As you can sense by my questioning, I’m concerned, primarily concerned about traffic, you know, being averted to Alii Drive for one thing. That’s a major concern of mine. But the other concern is to further split the load from that development either going to Alii Drive or some alternate entry to the property, egress and ingress to the property. That’s my concern, the traffic that the project will generate. EXHIBIT A 27 ATTA: Our hope, actually, if you look at that Alii Parkway easement, there’s that little square-ish box that’s the wider section of the Parkway; my understanding was that it was supposed to be a potential conceptual future intersection of the Parkway. We would like to connect up to it, but that’s in KIC, Kamehameha School’s property. And so if it gets developed, we would love to see that intersection, and we would be more than happy to try to link our roadway systems to it, if that develops. Again, that’s a future thing, and I think everybody knows the Parkway plans and timing is still uncertain. So if we can, we would do so definitely. RHO: Director Yuen? YUEN: Yeah, there is an intersection planned on the Parkway on KIC property just slightly south of that wider area on the Parkway right-of-way. The wider area actually is for culverts, though. And so in our view of how this development should proceed, the site plan would incorporate stubout to the south, so that – and I believe that KIC property, although it’s zoned, I believe they need a time extension at least on the RM portion of it; so at that time, there would be a requirement for them to allow this cross connection to that intersection – so that all of the traffic could flow from this neighborhood through the KIC property and reach the Parkway through that intersection. If that’s not a requirement of -, if it doesn’t need a time extension on the zoning, if the zoning is valid, that still could be required at plan approval or subdivision approval because the property isn’t developed. So that would be the overall plan to get people to the Parkway; it was not planned that there be an intersection to the Parkway on this property. RHO: Follow up, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Can that be reflected as a condition in the SMA or -, yes, in the SMA? YUEN: Yes, they have to provide stubouts, two stubouts to the property to the south. And then, of course, at this moment, if this project goes forward, those stubouts are to vacant land and there’s nothing further. But, if and when KIC comes in to develop their property, if hopefully the Planning Department is paying attention and requires and -, it is very much part of the Community Development Plan that they would be required to open the right-of-way that would flow, not just to get to the Parkway, but also that traffic from their property would interconnect with all of these neighborhoods to the north. So you’d have a traffic interconnection there rather than KIC property all coming out to Kamehameha III, which is the way -, KIC is actually sort of developing that way now. They have gated entries on Kamehameha III, and the development is pushing north; but the idea is that you would require the interconnection of the KIC property to these, to this property and then also to the neighborhoods of going north and create an interflow of traffic through that whole area. I believe we would not be able to, at this point, open up the Kam III gated entries, but at least we could create interconnected traffic area in the undeveloped areas on KIC property and on this property. EXHIBIT A 28 DOMINGO: Am I correct in saying that the southern part of the property now all belongs to KIC? YUEN: Yes, that’s right. The yellow and the brown that you see south of them is KIC property. I believe that the yellow zoning does not need a time extension. I believe the brown does. DOMINGO: Okay. Thank you. RHO: Are there questions? Just a minute. So do you folks have any other comments or -, but can I ask you to just remain there? YUEN: I have a question. RHO: Okay, Director. YUEN: On the construction access on the Metzler property, is there an existing road that you’d use? ATTA: I’m not -, there’s no existing road on the property right now. YUEN: So you’d need a grading permit and you’d be grading a gravel road across property? ATTA: Yes. YUEN: Would you have problem with a zoning condition that requires you to take construction access from adjoining property from either the west or south? ATTA: I don’t think we have a problem with that condition. LIM: Can I -, I guess we had talked about it with Mr. Mansi also during the discussions; so we drafted something for your consideration: During the construction of the proposed subdivision, the applicant shall cause vehicular construction traffic to utilize an access route across the property to the west and/or south. That would give us -, we could either go makai across the Metzler parcel or we could go to the south into KIC and come out. YUEN: That’s fine. I think that would be a good addition. We have had, you know, I think we have to be more sensitive to construction-period traffic. We have been getting a lot of complaints from neighborhoods during construction; because you have, people have big trucks going back and forth, some, you know, ready mix trucks, Trusses, and the like. So this, I think, would be a good addition as far as making this a little more neighborhood friendly during the construction period, and especially given Queen Kalama is not the best street. EXHIBIT A 29 RHO: Any other questions from Commissioners? If not, I’m going to take prerogative of the chairman and open it back up again for public testimony only for Mikahala Roy on the condition that you limit your testimony or your question to one, well, two minutes. Mikahala? ROY: Thank you. May I ask you, how did this fee simple property be purchased by your company? RHO: Mikahala, I think you should be addressing your comments to the Commissioners. ROY: I’d like to know, though, because was this once -. RHO: Yeah, but you can ask the Commissioners that question. ROY: Okay, very good. I’d like to ask that question. Was this part of Kamehameha Investment at one time, Chris? No? YUEN: No, they didn’t buy it from Kamehameha. But I think they have their deed in here somewhere. ROY: Okay. It is all a part of the precious lands that are part of this very historically important area. I wish to say, when he spoke of the Kahaluu Historic District being south of this, it is so, but so do Hawaiians who are descendants of royal families say. If there is a capital site here, what does that tell you about the surrounding lands? And I use that statement again right here. If this is an area deemed a historic district, my goodness, from the national government, what does that tell you about these lands? The next statement I’ll make is about, you know, what Mr. Yuen just said about complaints from neighborhoods. Well, have you heard the testimony from people who have had spirits coming to them daily as they live in these areas? I have testified to the County before on this because it is not a new phenomenon. It happens here on this very sacred coastline very often. And I repeat it again: It has happened here, people have called me, people have asked me to come to their residences, and have asked me to come to community meetings here. I say again, for the record, this coastline is just being ravaged by people who don’t care to know Hawaiian history. And it’s all we can do to preserve this history.My own organization is working very hard to work on putting on public access, a story of the history of the Kona coast, the coastline that began the national identity of the Hawaiian Islands. And you speak here about making a decision about doing more of the same. I implore you to not. You are speaking as if Alii Parkway will be done, a done deal. I will tell you that many of descendants here have great reservations. They are finding burials right in the pathway; yet, there’s nothing done about that. So please do not make plans so as if they are so pat. You still need to listen to the people. RHO: Thank you, Mikahala. Questions? Applicants, do you want to comment or respond? EXHIBIT A 30 ROY: I wish I had met you earlier -. RHO: If not, what we’ll do is -. FISH-GUSMAN: Can I say one thing? RHO: Excuse me, I only recognized Mikahala Roy. FISH-GUSMAN: Okay, I’m sorry. RHO: Thank you. Okay, if we can move into deliberation, or do you Commissioners need a break? Okay, why don’t we proceed with the discussion and see where we get. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: One clarification, Mr. Chairman. Okay, so we sent up a boundary amendment, and now we’re considering the rezoning bill and the SMA Permit application? RHO: That’s my understanding. DOMINGO: Would it be proper or probably prudent to send the rezoning bill and see what the Council will do with that bill, how they would respond to that bill? And whatever the outcome of that bill would dictate what action we should be taking or, if any amendments or whatever that need to be taken in. RHO: I need to defer your question to the Director. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, if I might just give my opinion. I think we could approve a conditional SMA, if we decide to do that based on approval of rezoning; because until that happens, it’s a moot point. I’ll defer to the Director, but that would be kind of my take on the matter. RHO: Director Yuen? YUEN: Well, you can, as we have it presented to you, approve it on a conditional basis that the rezoning does pass. You have the option of deferring action on the SMA Permit, and it’s really up to the Commission how they want to handle it. We get the applications together, we -, the concurrent processing of the permits are allowed, and it does have some advantages to look at them together just from a standpoint of not having to – exactly as the Commissioner Woodward is saying on the side of me – you have it in front of you, you remember where it is, and you have all the issues and you’re chewing it over at one time. But it really is up to the Commission if you want to send up the rezoning and wait to see what happens at the Council, and then deal with the SMA Permit after the Council has taken action on it. EXHIBIT A 31 RHO: Okay. I’m being advised that if we continue the hearing, there’s no timeline that we would run into trouble with. So that’s for your information – on the SMA Permit only. TORIGOE: Let me just clarify, Mr. Chairman. Basically, as the Director said, you could keep the SMA Permit open; basically, under the SMA in your contested case rules, the time for your making a decision doesn’t really begin to run until after the hearing is done. So if you don’t finish the hearing, but just keep it on the agenda pending the Council decision on the rezoning, you could do that.The rezoning, however, does have the usual time limits on it. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, if I might ask Mr. Torigoe. Isn’t the SMA dependent on the rezoning anyway? I mean, I think that’s almost redundant to put a condition on it since it seems to me it would be conditional by the way it’s written on the rezoning being approved by Council? TORIGOE: May I respond, Mr. Chairman? RHO: Yes. TORIGOE: Yeah, you’re correct in terms of the SMA Permit being -, well, there’s a legal requirement that it be consistent with the zoning; but it doesn’t hurt to have a condition that clearly says that, and then there’s no question about it. WOODWARD: All right. Would it be appropriate to make a motion? RHO: Yes. WOODWARD: I think we are about to beat this horse to death. With regard to REZ 07 – whole bunches of zeros – 75, I move that we send a favorable recommendation to County Council. And that with regard to SMA 07 -. RHO: Can we take that up separately? WOODWARD: Oh, we’re going to do it separately? RHO: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay, all right. I’ll just cut it off there then. RHO: Okay. So you’re just talking about the Change of Zone and your recommendation to send it up to the County Council. Is there a second? DOMINGO: Second. RHO: Seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Discussion? EXHIBIT A 32 BOWMAN: I have a comment. I know, like many of you who grew up here, that all used to be green, mauka of Alii Drive. And I know we look at the cumulative impact. I wish none of that was yellow – but it is. I look at this as being a precedent setting because I do believe that with the mauka land that they own, it will be ultimately developed. I appreciate Ms. Roy. I appreciate the people that continue to bring testimony to us. I think as a lifelong resident here, it’s difficult; but I also know that we have planning documents. We have a developer that has come in, I feel, with good intentions with the -, as far as being a green development. So I just thought I would make this comment. Thank you. RHO: Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate somebody being nurturing, you did a good job. And I do, I do appreciate everybody’s testimony. But I think given all of the choices that this land might undergo, the fact that they are willing to go out of their way to make this a sustainable development – they’re going to use as much green technology as is currently available – I think this is certainly the lesser of the evils that might occur. And I would be in favor of this development. RHO: Any other comments or concerns? Yes. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to the maker of the motion, we do have several added conditions, as well as revised conditions, that we may want to address in regards to the motion. WOODWARD: Yes, I would add the conditions that Mr. Lim had suggested. There were two, I believe. Jeff, do you have that written down? One had to do with access for the construction vehicles -. DARROW: I can re-read those, if -. WOODWARD: Okay, all right. DARROW: One of the conditions states, “The applicant shall implement and/or require implementation of water and energy conservation measures in the development of the houses within the proposed subdivision utilizing measures similar to the LEED Standards of the U.S. Green Building Council, which shall be binding on the owners association and owners of all lots in the proposed subdivision.” This is one of the conditions. Additionally, we have another condition regarding construction vehicles: During the construction of the proposed subdivision, the applicant shall cause vehicular construction traffic to utilize an access route across the property to the west and/or south. th Additionally, we have the proposed conditions and revised conditions within the June 19, 2008, submittal from the applicant. EXHIBIT A 33 RHO: Those are underlined that begin with C and the letters are reconfigured. There’re also some line additions to G, the new G, I guess, as well as to S. So is that acceptable to the maker of the -? WOODWARD: Very good. I would revise my motion to include all those amendments, if that’s acceptable to Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Yes. RHO: Okay, so it’s moved and seconded with the amendments. Director Yuen? YUEN: Yes, there’re a couple of changes to the conditions that I’d request. One is on the LEED condition; that we add a sentence that says, “Compliance with this condition shall be verified by a LEED certified architect.” And that’s just to explain how the enforcement of this would occur. RHO: So that would be a friendly amendment and acceptable to the maker? WOODWARD: That’s fine with me, if it’s acceptable to the applicants. ATTA: It’s a standard criteria anyway that a third party certify the project. WOODWARD: Very good. RHO: Back to the Director. Do you have other -? th YUEN: Yes, turning to Mr. Lim’s June 19 letter and turning to G, I’d like to change the last sentence slightly. And, let me read how it would read. This is the sentence that currently begins, “If the streets.” And it would say instead, “Any streets that are part of a route providing connections between Naniloa Street, Alii Drive, and the adjacent property to the south (TMK: 7-8-010:004) shall either” – and then add “to the west” and the TMK of that property – “shall either be constructed to County dedicable standards or as otherwise required by the Planned Unit Development Permit, and shall be dedicated to, and accepted by, the County upon completion.” RHO: Is that acceptable to the maker of the motion? WOODWARD: That’s acceptable. RHO: And the second? DOMINGO: Yes. EXHIBIT A 34 RHO: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Just a quick question – and maybe it’s just semantics. It says to the construction roads and to “cause” vehicular traffic to go on that road. Is that the same as “require?” YUEN: Yes. BOWMAN: Okay. Thank you. RHO: Any other discussion? Yes, Commissioner Ogata. OGATA: I feel that the intent of the developer has been communicated fairly well and that it is a positive move towards the different kind of development; however, I would hope that good faith effort be made to reach out and keep an open communication line with the organization Kulana Huli Honua, and that for the future developments in the other parcel, the mauka parcel, that you start the negotiations or the communications earlier, or sooner rather than later. That’s all. RHO: Any other comments? Before we actually ask for the vote, I do have a comment, and basically it’s along the lines of what Commissioner Ogata mentioned. In reading over the EIS or this thick document, as well as everything that we received throughout this process, I personally got the feeling that the developer was very inclusive. And I was actually surprised with Ms. Roy’s comment today. And I, like Commissioner Ogata, would really encourage the developer, the applicant, to reach out. And I guess that really concerned me that another testimony received today also dwelled on this idea or this perception that the developer is making overnight changes. And I really do think that the applicant, the developer, should reach out to that segment of the community to, I guess, allay some of the fears because of the fact, as I see it anyway, that you folks have tried to reach out, have tried to be very sensitive. In the EIS, I was really looking at the 14 sites that they described as archeological historical cultural significant, and I actually found the answers I was looking for by going through their report. And just as another comment, it does, in the report, talk or -, it reports that communication was made to descendants of the property, etc.; and so it’s documented. And I know at least one testifier at our last meeting, who I don’t think was given – well, did not testify as far as I can remember – was listed as somebody that was quoted in the report. So, I did want to at least mention that and encourage the developer to reach out to the community. With that, I guess we’re ready for the roll call. EXHIBIT A 35 DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation of this Change of Zone application with the proposed added and revised conditions. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? RHO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. RHO: Okay, we have another issue on the SMA issue, the Permit request. Commissioner Domingo, did you want to elaborate on your thoughts? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I guess, you know, I’ve elaborated in the fact that my primary concern was on traffic. And I think we’ve -, I don’t want to belabor the point, and it has been proven that they are or will be taking whatever steps necessary to address it, address that by the conditions that they’ve agreed to. And I don’t think they can do any more than that. But, you know, expressing your concern and Commissioner Ogata’s concern also, it’s a fact that when you come in with a development in a community, it’s so important that you touch, you meet with everyone, every segment of the community and not leave anyone out. And that this discussion should be held periodically to make sure that, you know, there’s always an understanding as to what has happened or what will be happening. And I always say that because, you know, the success of a project is dependent on the support of those people who live and surround the project itself; it’s not by us who live in other districts. And for the future development of the area, which I suppose will be coming because the land south of that is yet to be considered, you know, it’s important that those discussions are being held and that, you know, a mutual respect and consideration be given to those who have concerns. Though it may seem small, but to any individual who would express a concern, to that individual, it’s a huge concern and lays a heavy burden on them. And as a Commissioner, I try to see that those things are done and that’s why -, throughout the hearings, I’ve heard EXHIBIT A 36 concerns about the traffic, and that’s, that again, is a primary concern of the people who live there and of mine. And with that, I’d just like to say that, you know, the developers have done their best in trying to meet with the public, and they can do more and hopefully as they go forward, they will bear that in mind. Thank you. RHO: Okay. Commissioners, do we have a motion? I’m looking for a motion. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. RHO: Yes. WOODWARD: I seem to be the prime mover here today; so I’ll make a motion that we approve SMA 07 – whole bunches of zeros – 24. RHO: And does that include the applicant’s recommended changes that are provided by that letter that was just received or recently received? WOODWARD: Well, I thought those were part of the rezoning, which I guess - , do those need to be added to the SMA Permit also? RHO: Well, it’s a totally different motion, and the applicant has, at least, done at minimum underlined, what, three words, maybe four words, and crossed out a number; so I would assume that -. WOODWARD: Yes, with those changes. DOMINGO: Second. RHO: Okay, so we have a motion and it’s seconded. Discussion? Okay, seeing none, roll call? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve this Special Management Area Use Permit with the revised condition No. 2 stated in the th applicant’s June 19, 2008, letter. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. EXHIBIT A 37 DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? RHO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. RHO: Thank you. You’ll be notified of the decision in writing on both items. LIM: Thank you very much. And Mr. Mansi would like to thank you very much also. RHO: Thank you. The discussion ended at 3:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 38