HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-23 TMEN
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JULY 23, 2010
MEN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT,
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of
INC. (REZ 10-124)
was called to order at 9:45 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach
Hotel, Ballroom I, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Frederic Housel
presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Geraldine
Giffin, Thomas Hickcox, Wayne Iokepa and Richard Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd
(Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning
Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner) and Kiran Emler
(Department of Public Works)
And approximately 25 people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: MEN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, INC. (REZ 10-124)
Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential–15,000 square feet (RS-15) to a
Neighborhood Commercial–20,000 square feet (CN-20) district for 3.67 acres of land. The
property is located adjacent to and south of the Kona Community Hospital, Haleki‘i, South
Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 8-1-25:11.
HOUSEL: The next item on the agenda is, applicant is MEN Real Estate Investment. This is a
rezoning application, 10-124, a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 15,000 square
feet (RS-15) to a Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet (CN-20) district on 3.67 acres of
land. The property is located adjacent to and south of the Kona Community Hospital, Haleki‘i,
South Kona, Hawai‘i. Planner Darrow, would you like to give us a presentation on this?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could direct your attention to our presentation on the
wall. As you had mentioned, our next applicant is MEN Real Estate Investment, Inc. The
applicant is requesting a Change of Zone. The location of our application is located in the right
on the boundary of the South Kona and North Kona District boundary line, and it is located in
the South Kona District. The actual boundary line is right here, so it’s right on the border. This
is in Kealakekua. Looking at the middle of the map, we have Mmalahoa Highway. Looking on
the left side of the map, moving in a mauka, or east-west direction, mauka-makai, we have
Haleki‘i Street. And the property is identified in a black outline. The different colors on the map
represent the different zonings in the area. The actual zoning for the property is identified with a
darker yellow color, which is representing Single-Family Residential 15,000 square feet zoning.
The light green zoning is representing Agricultural 5 Acres. And we have some different shades
of pink, which represent Commercial zoning – CV representing Village Commercial. This is a
little closer view. Again, we have Haleki‘i Street moving in an east-west direction, and we have
the Hawai‘i Belt Road moving in a north-south direction, with the subject property identified
1
EXHIBIT A
with the black outline. Access to the property will be from Haukapila Street, which is identified
in this area. As you’ll notice, it’s going to have, its access will be through an access easement,
which will be in this general location. This shows a little bit better how the access will happen; it
will come in through, you have the courthouse in this general location, the Kona Hospital, and
the access will come in right in this general location.
This is an aerial photo. Again, you have Mmalahoa Highway running in a north-south
direction, Haukapila Street identified in this general location. And you have, access will be in
this location at this point. The property is identified with a red outline. Currently it is vacant of
structures.
This is the Kona Community Development Plan for this particular area. The location of the
application is identified in this area. You have Kealakekua in this general location. And this is,
within this area that’s identified with a blue outline, which within the Plan identifies as a Rural
Town TOD, or Transient Oriented Development.
The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential 15,000 square feet
to Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet for approximately 3.67 acres of land. And this
is to construct a medical office complex. The proposed improvements will include five three-
story structures, each structure approximately 12,000 square feet in size, not exceeding 30 feet in
height. The ground floor will be designated for parking. And the project will be developed in
two phases with the initial phase consisting of two buildings. The reasons for the request: The
proposed facility is intended to provide office space for the doctors who provide services to the
Kona Community Hospital; the project will reduce commuting time for both patients and doctors
who must frequently travel between their offices and the hospital.
This is the site plan submitted by the applicant. We’ve made some additions to it, identifying the
structures on the property with blue, and we’ve also added a red outline identifying the location
of the access from the adjoining property to the north. This outline here only shows the subject
property in this particular area. It shows the preliminary layout of where the structures will be,
the internal circulation, as well as the parking areas and the proposed access from the property to
the north. This is an elevation front view of the structures, again, identifying the bottom floor for
parking and then the two upper floors for office space.
These are some site photos of the location. This is on Hawai‘i Belt Road looking to the south; as
you’ll see, the sign here identifying the hospital, Haukapila is on the left, and we do have a left-
turn lane designated for this particular area. This is looking north and, again, we have the sign
identifying the hospital to take a right; Haukapila is identified in this general area. This is
looking from Hawai‘i Belt Road up towards mauka, and this is Haukapila Street; so it gives you
an idea of the width and condition of the roadway. You’ll see that there is a sidewalk on the left
side at the roadway. This is in the general location on Haukapila where the particular access will
be; this is the sign that was placed for the proposed Change of Zone application.
The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable
recommendation with conditions to the Hawai‘i County Council.
2
EXHIBIT A
Before I conclude the presentation, I’d like to make a change to one of our conditions, as well as
to a portion of our Rec, and also bring to your attention that we have had several correspondence
submitted to the Planning Department since this application was distributed to the Planning
Commission. These have all been handed out to the Planning Commission. If we could look at
the conditions, specifically we are looking at Condition E, currently Condition E reads, “A traffic
signal at the intersection of Mmalahoa Highway and Haukapila Street shall be completed, prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project.” The Planning Director is
recommending that we add, that we make a change to this condition, and the change would read
as follows: “A traffic signal at the intersection of Mmalahoa Highway and Haukapila Street,
and construction of the Mmalahoa Bypass to the Npo‘opo‘o junction shall be completed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project.” The reason for this
addition is within the Kona Community Development Plan under TRAN-6.1 Official
Concurrency Map, it states that “Any rezoning in South Kona approved prior to the completion
of the Mmalahoa Bypass Road shall restrict occupancy until this bypass project is completed.”
So this is added based on that statement within the Community Development Plan.
Additionally, we would like to make one simple change to our Recommendation on Page 5, and
this would be on the last sentence of the first paragraph on Page 5; so it’s right in the middle of
the page -.
GIFFIN: Four?
DARROW: I’m sorry?
GIFFIN: Page 4?
DARROW: Page 5, yeah. And what it will state -. Currently it says, “A condition of approval
will be included to reflect this understanding, consistent with concurrency requirements.” We
would like to change the sentence to state, “A condition of approval will be included ensuring
consistency with the concurrency requirements.” So basically we are just stating that our
conditions that we are adding are ensuring consistency with both the concurrency requirements
within the Zoning Code, as well as within the Community Development Plan.
With that, that concludes our presentation. Are there any questions?
GIFFIN: Yes. Jeff, could you please go over the wording of the addition to Condition E,
please?
DARROW: Sure. Okay, this would be to Condition E?
GIFFIN: Correct.
DARROW: Okay, after “Haukapila Street” there would be a comma, and the following wordage
would be added: “and construction of the Mmalahoa Bypass to Npo‘opo‘o junction.” And
then the rest would remain the same – we’d like to remove the comma that’s right after
3
EXHIBIT A
“completed” – “shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
proposed project.” Are there any other questions?
HOUSEL: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
BOWMAN: I have a question on the C, “Construction of the proposed development ….” That
is the total development or Phase I?
DARROW: That would be the complete development, Phases I and II.
BOWMAN: Okay, thank you.
HOUSEL: Mr. Darrow, I had a question regarding the Condition E, and it says a traffic signal is
to be completed. Who will complete the traffic signal?
DARROW: The condition doesn’t specify who is to do the traffic signal, and the reasoning for
that is that if the traffic signal is constructed, say, by the County or the State, then that would be
that agency constructing that; if the applicant desires to receive certificate of occupancy at a
sooner, at a time quicker than that construction may happen, then the applicant will need to make
those improvements.
HOUSEL: I see. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? Okay. We’ll proceed. We
have five people signing up for testimony, so we have to keep moving here. Will the applicant
and representative please come forward? Could you please use the microphone, and raise your
right hand? I’ll do this all together here. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter
now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission?
FUKE: I do.
SUGAI: I do.
GHALAMFARSA: I do.
HOUSEL: Thank you. We’ll start on the right. Mr. Fuke, would you please state your name,
your residence address, and then proceed.
FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Commission. My name is
Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. I’ve been retained by the applicant to assist them with
the processing of this application. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i.
SUGAI: My name is Wesley Sugai. I’m one of the local physicians here. My address, P. O.
Box 669 Kealakekua.
GHALAMFARSA: Good morning. My name is Ali Ghalamfarsa. I’m the architect for this
application. My address is 77-6306 Ali‘i Drive, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i.
4
EXHIBIT A
HOUSEL: Thank you. Do you have a comment you’d like to make at this time?
FUKE: Sure. Yeah, we’ll be very brief this morning inasmuch as there are some public
testimonies that we’d like an opportunity to respond to those testimonies at the end of the
presentation. But very briefly, just to give you -. The staff’s report is very comprehensive in
terms of the location, the size of the property, what the developer’s intensions are and so on and
so forth. I just wanted to add several other items, which are covered in the submittal but was not
necessarily expressed in today’s presentation.
Just for the Commissioners’ and the public’s information, the access easement to the site was
conveyed to the former owners of the property way back in 1977, and the purpose of this access
easement was largely to facilitate the development of some medical related type of use. The
County Council ironically was the body that had to approve a resolution, and subsequently,
subsequent to the approval of the resolution, then the former owners paid the appropriate price
and they got that easement. The former owners of the property at that time was a group called
Kona Medical Associates, and they had the property ironically zoned Commercial
Neighborhood, which is what the current applicant is proposing to have, back in 1977. And like
all of the zone change conditions, you have time restrictions in terms of when you have to start,
when you have to complete, so on and so forth. After a series of extensions, they just couldn’t
do it in a timely fashion, and then they sold the property to the current applicant, which is MEN
Real Estate Investment, and one of the partners is Dr. Sugai over here. And so when MEN
Investment got the property, they realized they too couldn’t fulfill the time constraint. So they
said, well, you know, we give up and we’ll have the property revert back to the Single-Family
Residential zoning district. Then about a year and a half ago I was approached by Mr.
Ghalamfarsa on behalf of the applicant to say they want to resurrect the project. And so rather
than my explaining it, I think it’s best to have Dr. Sugai explain the reason why they are coming
back to this Commission and ultimately to the County Council for this project.
SUGAI: Thanks, everyone. My involvement with this project was more from the hospital and
the doctor’s point of view. At this time we have a major shortage of physicians on the island and
especially for hospital-based physicians here in Kona. I’m one of those hospital doctors and I
know firsthand because right now I’m putting in probably about 80, 90 hours a week, on a short
week. So we are looking at it from a physician’s point of view. Right now we have a difficult
time attracting doctors. If we are able to attract a doctor, however, the next problem is how to
retain that doctor here. At the present time we don’t have any office space that the hospital can
point to. So, you know, the only thing we can do for a new applicant doctor is to give him cards
of real estate agents to try and find him a doctor (sic) – that’s a very discouraging process. And
then a lot of the applicants who apply for Kona Hospital say, “I give up. I don’t want this,” and
they leave. So we lose a lot of prospective doctors because we have no place to put them. And
with this project, it was my intention to hopefully have enough office space so the hospital
administrative, when they attract a doctor, will be able to point across the road and say, “This is
where you can put your office and you can start practicing.”
The other important object was the location of this project. It was simply because a lot of
doctors, like myself, when I get called for an emergency C-section and the baby is, you know,
dying, I have to be up there as soon as possible and, you know, within three minutes, if I can’t
5
EXHIBIT A
get the baby started, the baby dies. So in other words, it’s a time constraint. And right now,
being down in Kailua-Kona, sometimes the traffic at 3:00 in the afternoon gets pretty tight. So
in other words, the location and the -.
DARROW: Dr. Sugai, he is asking if you can put -.
HOUSEL: Yeah, please speak closer to the microphone.
SUGAI: I’m sorry. I don’t want to waste your time; if I’m running over, please tell me. But
that’s my main concern for getting involved with this project. I hope that we can alleviate some
of the shortage that way.
HOUSEL: Thank you.
FUKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess that gives you the reason why we are now before
you. Now, I realize that based on the couple of letters that we received and additional letters we
received this morning, that there are some concerns that the surrounding property owners have.
And so we would like to, rather than second-guess what their concerns are, we’d like to have
them restate them and be given an opportunity to respond. I think that some of the concerns, we
can mitigate; others, you know, obviously we cannot. But we’ll try our best, so -.
HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? I just
want to double-check you did receive all the background information regarding this project.
FUKE: Yes. The staff’s background report and the proposed recommendations were received
by the applicant, and they found all of the conditions to be acceptable. We’d like to discuss a
little bit more about the concurrency requirement, particularly in light of what Dr. Sugai had to
say today.
HOUSEL: And you are okay with the changes to the conditions at this time?
FUKE: Well, as I mentioned earlier, we’d like to have some discussion on that in light of what
Dr. Sugai mentioned today.
HOUSEL: Commissioners, are you willing to hear our testifiers and then bring the applicant
back? Is that acceptable? Thank you. This time I’d like to call people that would like to provide
public testimony. Could you -. I guess we only have four chairs there and there are five people,
so I’ll call the first four people: Paul Hoist, Shelley Hoist, Deborah Nava and Gloria Woodwell.
If you could possibly share the microphones. I need to swear you in. Could you please raise
your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today
on this matter?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
HOUSEL: Thank you. I guess starting on my left here, could you state your name and address?
6
EXHIBIT A
WOODWELL: My name is Gloria Woodwell, and my physical address is 81-1025 A Kakou
Place in Kealakekua at Keala Plantation Estates.
HOUSEL: Thank you.
NAVA: My name is Deborah Nava. My physical address is 81-1001 A Kakou Place in
Kealakekua in Keala Plantation Estates.
S. HOIST: My name is Shelley Hoist, and I’m speaking for myself and also for my neighbor,
Teri McGuire. Her address is 81-1019 A Kakou Place, No. E2, Kealakekua, Hawai‘i. My
address is, physical, 81-1016 Ohe Place, Kealakekua, Hawai‘i.
P. HOIST: Paul Hoist. My physical location address is 81-1016 Ohe Place in Kealakekua.
HOUSEL: I want to mention to you that we’ve got a tight schedule today, and if you could
please limit your testimony to three minutes, we really appreciate that. Thank you. Ms.
Woodwell, would you like to start first?
WOODWELL: Yes. My main interest in coming here today is the lack of access for this facility
that’s being planned. The road, Haukapila Road, as you know, is the only access to the hospital.
Now this provides access and egress to the Community Hospital, as well as the courthouse, as
well as the residences on that main highway. It puts a burden on the road. The road is not big
enough. The condition of the road at times had been not the ideal. There were questions about,
for many, many years, there were questions about who would fix that road; would it be the
County, would it be the State, would it be the hospital? So that’s my primary concern – how that
would impact the neighborhood.
The second concern that I have, as testified by Dr. Sugai, yes, there is a shortage of doctors in
this community; however, the shortage, I think, is not because there is a lack of buildings for
them to occupy. I believe the primary reason for the shortage is the reimbursement; so that
unless the reimbursement rates are addressed, having a building back there is not going to make
a difference. Also, I’m kind of wondering what percentage of the doctors here now are in
support of this plan.
Then the other concern that I have is ultimately the plan for the hospital is to move downtown to
the Honokhau area. I’m not sure how alive that plan is, but that is the final plan. So that would
leave the existing Kona Community Hospital as, from what I understand, as a long-term facility
or an emergency room for that part of the area. So that then, again, having this building would
not really solve the dilemma that Doctor has presented with a lack of, so-called lack of space.
So that’s all I have to say. Having been a nurse there for 23 years or more, I have seen the
evolution of that building, as well as all the negative impact that that road has had on the nurses
and all the workers at the hospital.
HOUSEL: Thank you.
7
EXHIBIT A
NAVA: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. I previously emailed a
two-page letter that I believe you’ve all read. And I’ll be very brief, but I do have some things
I’d like to say. I’d like to touch on, my main subjects were the impact on the neighboring areas.
This is not a wise project for a family neighborhood where we raise children. The entire area, as
we saw up on the map earlier, is residential; if you noticed, it was all brown – I believe that’s all
residential, is it not? We would -. This particular area would be the only little spot in that large
area that would be considered commercial. Also, I’m concerned about flooding both during and
after construction. The trees, of course – Shelley was kind enough to give me a piece of this
Lemon Eucalyptus – these trees have been here over 100 years. I think that we should care about
some of the things in this area. These beautiful trees need to stay; they should not have to come
down. Also, the wastewater treatment facility, I’ve got real problems with. The chemicals that
are used in wastewater treatment disrupt endocrine function, which is, they are hormones
basically. As you notice, we have a small child here from Keala Plantation. When he was a
fetus, he was being raised in that area as a fetus and now is a baby. Do you want those kinds of
chemicals get into your child? We certainly don’t. Also, the use of Haukapila Street, which
Gloria has so eloquently addressed. Just please remember this proposed project is a financial,
for-profit commercial venture by real estate investors who stand to make a lot of money. I’m
very surprised to hear that one of them is a local physician. They don’t care about our residential
neighborhood’s quality of life; they don’t care now, not during construction, and certainly not
after construction. The infrastructure in this area cannot accommodate such a large project.
Emergency vehicles transport sick and dying Kona residents to Kona Community on narrow
Haukapila Street to receive vital, life-saving emergency services. Consider this, Members of the
Planning board: You could be in that ambulance – or one of your loved ones. Also, I ask Dr.
Sugai to remember the oath that he took: First, do no harm. Thank you.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Like to proceed?
S. HOIST: Hi, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity given to me this morning to speak. I’ll
be speaking for myself and then my neighbor, Teri McGuire.
My name is Shelley Hoist. I’m a neighboring residential property owner. I’m actually directly
makai of the subject property, closer to the highway than these other, than the proposed complex.
I respectfully ask you to not approve this request for rezoning for many reasons including the
ones you’ve already heard and were submitted earlier. But today I stand before you to speak for
the trees.
On the makai end of this subject property is a small grove of historic eucalyptus trees, able to be
seen from many miles away and the home to the i‘o, our previously endangered Hawaiian hawk.
These trees, which we believe to be Lemon Eucalyptus trees – I’ve given you Exhibit 1 – are
approximately 100 feet tall, with an estimated age of over 100 years, according to old time
residents of the area and photographs that I’ve also shared with you. Photographs 1 and 2 are
from the Kona Historical Society, circa 1915 and 1944, and show what appear to be these very
trees. They’ve been a landmark in Kealakekua for decades. It’s hard to believe that these
beautiful trees will be cut down and ground up so we can have yet more commercial office
space.
8
EXHIBIT A
HOUSEL: Could I ask you to please summarize your written testimony?
S.HOIST: Certainly. I realize that whether the property owners develop commercially or
residentially, their plans haven’t so far included saving the trees, but I’m hoping that we, the
County and the community can encourage them to do so in the future. Whatever development is
put in place, the trees should be considered worth saving and incorporated into the landscape.
Perhaps, they would be an excellent buffer zone desperately needed by the neighboring
residences. My hope was that they can be designated as exceptional trees by the County of
Hawai‘i. I understand that your, the County Code, Chapter 14, Article 10, 14-16 (sic) gives a
provision for this Planning Commission to be able to, you know, propose a development -. I
won’t read it to you obviously, if I’m running out of time. I haven’t shared this testimony,
though, so this is the first time you are hearing this. It says that you can request the advice from
the arborist advisory committee concerning the trees within any proposed development prior to
any grading or granting of final subdivision approval to assure that exceptional trees are retained
and to prevent the unnecessary destruction of such trees during development. The lack of
designation as an exceptional tree does not diminish the responsibility and the authority of the
Planning Department to recommend trees to be incorporated into the development plan. The
trees already meet many of these standards. They are very exceptional and they are very
historical, as you can see. If I don’t have time, I won’t read the rest of the explanation from the
Kona Historical Society about why these tress are very historical. Hopefully, you have enough
information that I’ve already provided you.
In summary, there are many reasons why this development should not be approved. These trees,
these trees need to be saved. They are structural elements of our traditional landscape, which
serve to remind and connect us to our history. Too much of the familiar Kona landscape is being
discarded in favor of new developments. Please require that the trees be evaluated and saved.
Thank you.
HOUSEL: Thank you very much. By the way, I want to let you know all of the document you
submitted will be part of the formal record.
S. HOIST: Okay, great, thank you very much. I will now speak for my neighbor, Teri McGuire.
“My name is Teri McGurie, and my home is located right next door to the proposed rezoning
development -.”
HOUSEL: Excuse me. Did you submit that document?
S. HOIST: Yes, I did.
HOUSEL: Okay, thank you.
S. HOIST: I won’t read her address – you’ve already had that. “Since I am unable to attend this
meeting, I wanted to make sure that my objections and concerns are heard.To start, I agree with
the other neighbors who border the property that such a development would have a bad impact to
a residential area like ours. My objections are simple: This should stay a residential zoning area
9
EXHIBIT A
only; the added traffic would only increase accidents and noise pollution; the water treatment
facility will have a malodorous impact on our neighborhood – it could cause any number of
safety issues – that alone should hold this rezoning project; my lanai faces the development and
with only a 20-foot boundary between us, all kinds of problems come to mind – litter, noise,
staring at 3-story buildings 20 feet from my bedroom, flooding, historic trees up for removal,
parking lot lights, exhaust fumes from cars, privacy, privacy, privacy; I was told only a hedge
would separate us, which is unacceptable – that will not deter pedestrian traffic or a car driving
through a hedge into my home. In short, I vote no, no, no on the rezoning from residential to
commercial now and into the future. We are Kealakekua, not downtown Kailua. That’s why we
chose this location to enjoy tranquility, and a commercial area will threaten this way of life.
Mahalo for listening and taking a serious ear to the surrounding neighbors and their concerns.
Teri McGurie.”
HOUSEL: Thank you.
P. HOIST: Hi, Paul Hoist here. I live in the property just makai of the property in question, and
I have personal knowledge. And I have three basic areas of concern – flooding, the
neighborhood and Haukapila Street.
I have personal knowledge of the flooding in the area, as I was there during the November 2007
flood where approximately six inches of rain fell in four hours – that’s 600,000 gallons of water
in four hours. This flood forced design changes to our home and property. And even though this
property and the surrounding properties are in Flood Zone X, I want to bring out that South Kona
Fruit Stand in the Kealia area was also in Flood Zone X and it bore the brunt of that flood.
Changes to the land above our neighborhood will change the flow of water and flooding.
Asphalt and concrete cannot absorb water. Where does the water and sewage flow when the
capacity of these dry wells is reached? What type of protection will be put in place prior to any
earthwork being done?
We are a residential area. We are zoned residential. What would the change be? We’ll have
more noise. We’ll have more lights. We’ll have more odors and dust in the day-to-day
operations of a commercial development of this size. The application, which I’ve read, makes
statements claiming that landscaping is important to mitigate commercial impacts on
surrounding areas, yet the site plans have little or no landscaping buffer zones. Why are there
loading zones located next to the residential properties and not next to the road or commercial
property? How does the noise and odors of a wastewater facility fit into our neighborhood?
Where will it be since it’s nowhere on the site plan? How will this facility operate during
flooding conditions?
And, of course, the impact of the development on Haukapila Street. I read the Police, Fire, and
Public Works Departments’ reports. It’s a private cul-de-sac. Who maintains this road since it’s
specifically stated that the County of Hawai‘i does not? Where is the State of Hawai‘i
Department of Transportation input on the development? Somebody has to take responsibility
for this road. The addition of any commercial property of 200 more additional parking stalls – it
seems to me that might be as many as 400 more cars a day using Haukapila Street – will put
tremendous stress on this already inadequate private road. The proposed traffic signal would
10
EXHIBIT A
help the intersection; it does absolutely nothing for the road. Just think of tearing that road up
when they put the waterlines in.
In summary, I’m a neighbor, I’m for people making money, I’m for commerce; I just simply am
against this specific rezoning, and I believe the best use of this property would be to remain
zoned RS-15. Thank you.
HOUSEL: Thank you, sir. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the testimony?
Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: Good morning. Several of you in your written testimony have referred to the flooding
as an issue and, aside from the last testifier, I just wanted more elaboration on that. Could you
tell us more about what happened in November 2007? I think Mr. Hoist -.
P. HOIST: Yes, I was there in November 2007. We were building the house. I’ve lived here in
Kona 40 years, but I just built this house there. And during the construction phase was exactly
when the rain happened. I think we all remember that rain; it was quite significant. And it
literally was a waterfall coming down the hill wherever there was bulldozing going on.
It wasn’t -. During the construction phase, the retaining walls, the flood controls that we have
them placed now, wasn’t placed yet. But what I’m concerned with is during their construction
phase -.
GIFFIN: Meaning the applicant?
P. HOIST: The applicant’s construction phase. This is, somewhere they claim ten – I think it’s
more like 16 – percent grade going down. It’s quite a drop. Where is all that water, as they
excavate this property, where is all this water supposed to go?
GIFFIN: Mr. Hoist, I think my question – and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear – was not about your
personal property during the specific flood, but the property in question. What was the effect of
the flood on the property? Do you recall that?
P. HOIST: No, I don’t.
GIFFIN: Okay. And there was another person who mentioned it in the written testimony –
Deborah Nava.
NAVA: Yes, it was me. The flooding, I’m not aware of how that year’s flooding affected the
subject property, but I am quite aware of how it affected Paul and Shelley’s property and our
property. The water -.
GIFFIN: In relationship, excuse me, in relationship to the subject property, where is your
property?
11
EXHIBIT A
NAVA: My property is located -. Paul and Shelley are directly makai of the subject property,
and my property is, I’m in Keala Plantation Estates, which is the subdivision directly south, and
we are the first house in the subdivision, the very first one.
HOUSEL: Could you maybe point your location on -?
NAVA: Let’s see, yeah, we are right there, okay? And what happened when all the water came
down – oh, I’m sorry, we are right there, yeah, right there, because this is Paul and Shelley’s cul-
de-sac right here and this is the subject property, so we are right here – when all the water came
down, sorry, not from the subject property yet, but certainly when it came down from the
clearing, clear cutting in the construction on this property, the water ran along this boundary line
right here, which is the boundary line between Paul and Shelley’s property and Keala Plantation
Estates. All the people who live in the Estates, well, we all have rock walls right here along this
wall, almost all of us. My husband and I had built a substantially tall rock wall right here – it’s
probably, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were maybe 20-foot high from the base. We were
concerned that it would become undermined. And in fact, when the water flooded, it started
running all the way down. We thought we would lose our wall completely. Now, who was
going to pay for that? We didn’t want to have to get a new wall. We didn’t want to have to ask
our new neighbors to give us a new wall. I’m sure they would have worked with us. But just
imagine, the impact of all of this -. This is almost four acres up here being constructed, clear cut
graded. And then, of course, you are not leaving the trees, which are a buffer zone. So all the
water is going to go down to the highway. It’s a really steep decline onto Mmalahoa Highway.
I wish that I had brought pictures so that you could see what the difference is in the levels. So
my concern is, when Paul and Shelley were having their work done, all this water came out and
it was trying to undermine our walls, which we were very concerned about – they were
concerned. And also, all this water was going out into the highway, onto Mmalahoa Highway.
So this was just one small, this was just one house they built. Just imagine, this large
commercial project – it’s going to be a nightmare, I tell you. And if you allow this to go forward
and it causes a lot of damage, the County of Hawai‘i will be sued, I’m sure, because the
homeowners will not know where to go. So, you know, we don’t want to do this, we want to be
respectful, but -.
HOUSEL: Thank you.
NAVA: Yeah, you are very welcome.
HOUSEL: Any other questions, Commissioners?
GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if it’s Ki that we should ask, but I would like to have
some explanation about the ownership of the road.
HOUSEL: Right. I’d like to have, after we finish the testimony, Mr. Emler come forward and
talk to us a little bit. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Okay, thank you.
12
EXHIBIT A
S. HOIST: I just wanted to say, enjoy while you guys have got this really nifty map up here.
You have people, we are right here, Paul and I are right here, you have neighbors today here in
this room from all the way along this side. This is all residential on all this side. The lady I
spoke for, her place is right here. So that’s just to give you an idea of the close proximity.
HOUSEL: Okay, thank you for your testimony.
S. HOIST: Thank you.
BOWMAN: Could you put the aerial map up, please? Just so, while we are waiting for the -.
Thank you.
HOUSEL: We have one more person to testify. Is this Kyla?
NARIMASU: Kaila.
HOUSEL: Kaila. Sorry. If you could come forward, please. Please have a seat. Did you have
a question, Commissioner Bowman?
BOWMAN: No. I just wanted to see the -.
HOUSEL: Okay, you just wanted to see that. Would you like to dim the lights a little bit to see
it a little better? Okay.
NARIMASU: Hi.
HOUSEL: Could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear to tell the truth before the
Planning Commission today on this matter?
NARIMASU: Yes.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Could you state your name and address, please?
NARIMASU: My name is Kaila Narimasu. I live at 81-1007 A Kakou Place in Kealakekua.
HOUSEL: Are you a neighbor also?
NARIMASU: Yes. My house is located in A Kakou Place in Keala Plantation Estates, and it is
actually right next to Paul and Shelley Hoist’s house.
HOUSEL: Okay. Yeah, please go ahead.
NARIMASU: My main concerns regarding this development is that – I am a stay-at-home
mother and my son is 18 moths old, and my husband and I are considering having another child
– and my concern is the noise pollution caused by this construction of the rock crushers, their
trucks coming up and down the hill, the continuous beeping and dust that would cause stress and
13
EXHIBIT A
also the air pollution that would come into my home while I’m at home with my children. In this
area during the day, it can get quite hot, and if I were to close up my home to diminish the dust,
my home would become like a closed-up car in a parking lot, and it becomes very hot and stuffy;
if I were to open up my home to let the air flow in, all that dust and pollution would flow right
through my home and into my children’s lungs and mine. And if I were to get pregnant again,
all of this noise pollution and air pollution would not be beneficial for me at that time, either.
And I don’t see how this will be beneficial in the sense that – my pediatrician is in a small little
resident home directly adjacent to the bypass access road that would be going into this
construction area – so I don’t see how that would be beneficial for all these small children going
to Dr. Herd’s pediatric facility to have their first-week-old visits or other visits to the
pediatrician, either wellness visits or visits when they are not feeling well, can be beneficial with
this construction right next door to the pediatrics office. So those are my main concerns
regarding this project.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions?
BOWMAN: Is your home in this aerial?
NARIMASU: My home is right above Deborah’s home, so -.
BOWMAN: Approximately -.
NARIMASU: So, let me see if I can tell from this map. Where is the -. Okay. Is this the post
office here? So if that’s the post office – sorry, my hand is shaking, I don’t know if this is very
helpful – but my home is probably right up in here; so it is pretty much directly next to Paul and
Shelley Hoist’s home.
BOWMAN: Okay, thank you.
HOUSEL: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you very much. I’d
like to -. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony today? Could I please call
Mr. Emler who can help us understand this a little better? Ki, I need to swear you in, if I can,
please. If you would raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning
Commission today?
EMLER: I do.
HOUSEL: Thank you. State your name and address.
EMLER: My name is Kiran Emler. My address is -. Physical or mailing?
GONZALEZ: Work address is fine.
EMLER: Mailing?
HOUSEL: Work address is fine.
14
EXHIBIT A
EMLER: Work address, 75-5760 Kuakini Highway, Suite 110, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i.
HOUSEL: Thank you. We had some question raised regarding Haukapila Road. Is that a
private road?
EMLER: Haukapila Street?
HOUSEL: Yes, excuse me.
EMLER: As far as the County is concerned, it would be a private road. On the makai portion
where it goes across private properties, it’s an easement road over private properties. And then
the hospital owns the road over their property. And this particular parcel that we are discussing
today has a non-exclusive easement over the hospital property access. So the makai portion of it
is going over private properties to get to the hospital property, and from there within the hospital
property there is a non-exclusive easement for the subject property there.
HOUSEL: I see. So from the connection to Mmalahoa, it goes across private property at that
point?
EMLER: That’s correct.
HOUSEL: I see. And then it -. When does it -. Is any of the road on County property?
EMLER: No.
HOUSEL: No.
EMLER: The County used to own the hospital property, but it was conveyed to the State.
HOUSEL: Okay. Who maintains the street?
EMLER: Well, that’s a good question, because the County does not assume the maintenance
responsibility for it – let’s put it that way – formally. However, in the past there has been,
because of the controversy that has happened over the roadway, the County has taken upon itself
to do some maintenance on the road, but voluntarily and not because it was our legal
responsibility.
HOUSEL: I see. Does this road meet County standards?
EMLER: Well, the standards that, I would think, you are referring to would be, say, a current
Subdivision Code standard. If that is your question, the answer is no. It is an existing private
road with existing commercial, industrial – commercial, I guess, the hospital would be
considered a commercial use – being used for that purpose. As far as I know, there is no
subdivision being proposed for this development. So it would be up to the members of the
Planning Commission and the County Council to decide whether that road is adequate to serve
15
EXHIBIT A
this need, or the Planning Director. Whoever is in the process of making the decision to rezone
this property needs to take that into account as part of your decision.
HOUSEL: If this application is approved by the County Council, one of the conditions of
occupancy is to install a stoplight at that intersection. Are there any plans by the County to put
that stoplight in?
EMLER: Not that I’m aware of, no.
HOUSEL: Not at this time, huh?
EMLER: That’s correct.
HOUSEL: Commissioners?
BOWMAN: Just a quick question. So when it goes over the private property, it is basically up
to the private property owners to maintain the road, is that correct? The area that goes through
the, the first easement through the private property. In general.
EMLER: I’m not aware of what there might be as far as a maintenance agreement between the
property owners and the hospital, the State hospital system. I’m not sure if there is such a
maintenance agreement, and all I can tell you is the County is not legally responsible.
BOWMAN: Thank you.
HOUSEL: Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: Ki, does Public Works have any kind of criteria in terms of, you know, construction
with that kind of slope, which I’m hearing from the surrounding property owners that exists for
the subject property?
EMLER: Criteria for construction -.
GIFFIN: Construction, yeah, on a piece of property with that kind of slope, which obviously has
some history of flooding.
EMLER: Well, in a grading context, when you want to place fill on a property that is, I believe
it’s 20 percent or steeper, you have to key the fill slope in to the existing grade. Other than that,
we do have maximum slopes for fill slopes and cut slopes. There isn’t necessarily a maximum
slope for, say, a parking lot in our grading ordinance; so there is no code or statute that governs
that. Is there any other criteria you wanted to ask that question for, drainage or whatever? Okay.
GIFFIN: Thank you.
BOWMAN: I do have a question. In Public Works’ memo, “A drainage study shall be prepared,
and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW,”
16
EXHIBIT A
that would probably take care of any flooding issues after the construction, right, but not during
the construction?
EMLER: Yeah, the requirement is for the developer to dispose of development generated runoff.
So the runoff that’s been described by the neighboring property owners, though, is runoff that is
occurring now, and that runoff is not required to be disposed of as part of the development
process because it is existing and the developer is not required to dispose of existing runoff; they
are allowed to let that continue.
BOWMAN: Thank you.
HOUSEL: Any other questions of Mr. Emler? Thank you very much, Ki. I’d like to recall the
applicants, please.
GONZALEZ: Mr. Chair, while the applicant is coming back to the table, I’ve been asked by
staff to make an announcement. Item No. 5 on the agenda – and this is for members of the
public who have signed up to testify and are waiting – it was scheduled for 10:30 a.m. There is a
request to withdraw the application, meaning that they are not going to ask for whatever it is they
are asking in the application. But you still have the right to give public testimony on Item No. 5
because it is on the agenda; but if you are objecting to the project, you don’t have to stick
around, if you don’t want to, because they are actually withdrawing the request, so the
Commission will be deciding on accepting the withdrawal later today. Thank you.
HOUSEL: Thank you, Counselor. Remind you, you are still under oath. Would you like to
respond to some of the concerns?
FUKE: Sure, thank you very much. And I think all three of us will respond in different areas of
our so-called “knowledge.” First of all, I’d like to respond to the area of the ownership. In the
application that I had prepared and submitted, I don’t know whether there have been some
factual changes to that, but I had attached a resolution that was approved by the County back in
1977 – it’s Resolution No. 128. And I’ll just read a certain section. It reads that the easement is
owned, the property “is owned by the Department of Health, State of Hawai‘i, but has been
transferred to the County of Hawai‘i by Executive Orders 1842 and 2486.” So unless there’s
been some nullification of that transfer, then I would assume that the County at this point in time
will still retain jurisdiction; but I don’t want to go down that road since I’m not an attorney and
whatever, but this is the only thing I had.
I know that there’ve been multiple concerns raised, and one of which dealt with whether there is
an effective demand for such a facility and whether if you build, will the doctors come, so on and
so forth, and on that I’d like to kind of defer that to Dr. Sugai.
On the issue of the eucalyptus trees, the value, its ability to be retained, so on and so forth, I’d
like to defer that portion to Mr. Ghalamfarsa who is the land planner and architect for this
project.
17
EXHIBIT A
On the wastewater system, you know, we can understand the concern. The original plan was
they were going to do like five or six buildings, and when you do a full build-out all at the same
time, then perhaps you would need to have, like, a small package treatment plant. However,
because of the constraints that they have in terms of the water limitation and possibly also by the
demand, it would be very foolish for them, or not only foolish but probably inconceivable for
them to develop the property in its entirety in one fell swoop. They are limited to only seven
units of water, so at this point in time they will probably, if the project is approved as proposed,
they will probably be able to build maybe one building and maybe at the most two buildings.
Now, under that basis, based on the investigation that Mr. Ghalamfarsa has had with the State
Department of Health, what would be appropriate would probably be separate aerobic systems, I
mean, septic system for each of those structures, which would be somewhat comparable to many
of the single-family residences in that area. And so that’s kind of like the plan now in terms of
how to address the wastewater system not to go over, like, one large or small wastewater
treatment plant package system but a series of septic system that would service each of the
proposed building.
On the issue of the drainage, as Ki had explained and Commissioner Bowman had accurately
pointed out to the Department of Public Works’ comments, there is, you know, during the –
maybe what wasn’t stated and maybe Mr. Emler can clarify it – but during the construction
phase, when you grade the property, there is a requirement that you have to come out with a
grading permit, and during the grading permit process, you must address how, you must
accommodate any potential impact resulting from the grading or the grubbing process. And
whether that’s done through the NPDES Permit or just a conventional review by the Department
of Health, you know, I kind of like to defer that to Mr. Emler. But as far as the subsequent
construction, you know, once you get beyond just the broad grading or the grubbing portion, then
as part of the plan review process, there is a requirement that the developer submit a drainage
plan for the review and approval of the Department of Public Works, and Planning, before they
can actually submit the plans for building permit review. And you get through that phase, and
then when you apply for your building permit, the building permit includes a drainage plan in
terms of how the overall project’s drainage is going to be handled.Now, in terms of the criteria
how the plan and the study must address is, as I understand it in my very simple mind, is that the
amount of water that enters the property and where it enters the property and where it exits the
property cannot be altered. You cannot also increase the volume, neither can you increase the
velocity of the water that goes through. All of the project-generated water has to be contained on
the site, you know, through a system of drywells or retention basins, whatever the situation is.
So if anything, the project, based on Public Works’ requirement relative to drainage, will stand to
improve the drainage rather than not improve the system.
In terms of the access, the residents’ concerns, like, for the most part, I think, as was pointed out,
the adjoining property owners, they access to separate roads; I think one is called A Kakou Place
and the other one is Ohe Place. So they don’t necessarily get access from Haukapila Road, you
know, but nevertheless they are adjoining property owners and their concerns relative to overall
traffic is very germane. So in that regard I’d like to kind of just make some general comments. I
think that, you know, when you look at the traffic – I think we are all familiar with the Kona
traffic situation – I think part of it might relate to the way Kona has developed, you know,
developed in a sense that it’s very lineal and then you have your major commercial activities
18
EXHIBIT A
pretty much centered in the Kailua-Kona area. And so you have a lot of pass-through traffic
coming in from South Kona moving to North Kona; it’s no different than, like, in Waimea, you
know, if you are in Waimea, there’s a lot pass-through traffic. And so the idea behind this kind
of view, I know it might seem a little bit inappropriate, is that you are trying to create
communities so as to minimize people having to go down to Kailua and then coming back up the
hill again, like Dr. Sugai had mentioned, to do their kind of business. So maybe it’s not the ideal
setting, because if you look at the map, it’s kind of like you have all green and then all of a
sudden you might have a magenta or like color there that will show Commercial, and so from
purely land use map standpoint, it might be an inappropriate fit. But if you look at the existing
uses in that area, given that this is really like medically oriented, and you have, you’re not going
to take away the hospital – the hospital is there. And there might be talks about trying to, you
know, eventually having the hospital be relocated but, you know, I was a former member of the
East Hawai‘i Hawai‘i Health Systems Corporation Board, and we used to interact a lot with West
Hawai‘i Board, and the prospects for having any new facility built, I mean, it’s a goal but, you
know, whether it’s going to be achievable goal within the next 15 or 25 years, in my mind I think
it’s going to be, a very worthwhile goal, but somewhat unachievable at this point in time – I may
be wrong, and maybe Dr. Sugai can speak to that. But if you make the argument that all of your
commercial uses would have to be next to the highway, then you are compounding the existing
problems that you have right now. If you travel north and south right now, a lot of the problems
with traffic deal with, you have to stop because a guy wants to make a left turn, dealing only
with the two-lane traffic. So what you’re trying to do is bring the traffic off of the main road and
create, like, a community. And I realize that, you know, you have to deal with the existing
community center; the way it was developed – very lineal rather than concentric. The Police
Department had recommended that Haukapila Street, you know, it should be mitigated right
now; it should be mitigated through a system of traffic lights. And so the applicant is prepared
to, if there is not going to be any other players around, then they have to do it – that’s a
condition; they are going to have to put in a traffic light, if there is no other players around. So
with the traffic light, it will help out the existing situation that you have over there. You have a
lot of public facilities, as you all know; you have not only the hospital, you have the court system
over there, you have the other State agencies like the Department of Health all in that area.
On the issue of the landscaping, Planning staff will acknowledge that you do have a requirement
that is called Rule 22 (sic) where they have to come up with a little bit more detailed landscaping
plan. What was submitted in conjunction with this application was very conceptual – it was not
detailed. But specifically as it relates to the eucalyptus trees, I’d like to kind of defer that to Mr.
Ghalamfarsa.
HOUSEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke.
GHALAMFARSA: Thank you. Regarding the trees, I totally, totally agree with Mrs. Hoist.
I’m a tree and nature lover. I think there will be some rule somehow that even in residential
project that we can preserve all the trees. And these particularly I will, we will do, we’ll get the
input of the neighbors of what to do with the trees. I would like to propose that we do keep
them. However, one thing that is very important is, always in any project, public safety and
health is No. 1. And we’ve had concerns, written concerns and phone calls from other neighbors
that this tree may fall over on their house – it’s so tall. So if it’s practical and it’s not going to
19
EXHIBIT A
pose any unsafe situation to the neighbors, I think it would be very nice to keep these trees.
They are beautiful trees. And we’ll get input of the neighbors on that.
And regarding the, if I may add, regarding the drainage, what we do will actually improve the
situation there. Whenever there is, for commercial projects there are a lot more stringent
restrictions of grading during the project than there are for residentials. In fact, the example was
given that when Mr. and Mrs. Hoist were doing their project, it did cause a flood. So in fact,
there will be improvement when we do that site work.
FUKE: Mr. Chairman, one more comment before I turn it over to Dr. Sugai. The other issue, I
think, dealt with the construction nuisance issue, you know, we are very sensitive to that issue,
because if I’m putting myself in the neighbors’ place, you know, we don’t want that to happen,
too. So what the owners are prepared to accept are two conditions I’d like to just kind of share
with the Commission at this point in time. The first one just deals with trying to involve the
neighboring community in helping better plan this property, you know, on a detail basis, whether
it’s trying to site the location of buildings, trying to site any potential wastewater treatment
system, these would be the septic system, where your parking is going to be, what kind of
lighting it’s going to be, you’re going to have, whether there’s going be any fencing with some
sort of security between neighbors, you know, those kind of things. So what we would like to
suggest in that regard is that, this proposed condition is that “Prior to submittal of plans for Plan
Approval, the applicant, its successors or assigns shall secure the input of area residents and/or
lot owners, particularly those within the Keala Plantation Estates, regarding the placement of all
proposed structures, wastewater system, parking areas; landscaping plans; fence and/or barriers
between the subject property and adjacent properties; drainage; and construction mitigation. A
report of this meeting shall be submitted in conjunction with the Plan Approval application.” So
what this does is that, you know, the applicant might not agree with all of the suggestions, but it
gives the Planning Director an opportunity, say, like, this is what the neighbors are saying, and
the Director has the opportunity to, has the discretion, rather, to modify any plans that are
submitted – that’s one thing.
The other one deals with the construction activity, and what we’d like to suggest is this following
condition that “All construction activity involving the use of heavy equipment or machinery
related to the development of the project and any structures thereon shall be prohibited on
Sundays, provided further that no construction activity shall occur on any day before 7:00 a.m.
and after 5:00 p.m.” I know that this might not necessarily appease all; like I said, nobody wants
to have bulldozing occurring at any point in time. But I think that if you look at the alternative,
you know, the alternative has been like, well, let’s just have, like, a residential subdivision; if
you do a residential subdivision over there, you might be able to realize, like, nine to ten lots,
you know, single-family residential lots, or given the water limitation, let’s talk about seven,
because right now they are limited only to seven, so if you have seven lots, then conceivably if
you have a seven-lot subdivision, construction activity associated with that, and then you had the
additional issue of each of those seven lots all being constructed upon, and without any controls.
So what we are suggesting here is that we know for a fact that this project will be built in
increments because of the water situation, they’ll have to be built in increments, and then they
will be subject to additional stipulation, which normally is not found for other, you know, normal
subdividers or homeowners.
20
EXHIBIT A
So on the question of the demand for it, I’ll defer to Dr. Sugai.
HOUSEL: Mr. Fuke, I had one question. One of the testifiers is concerned about the dust and
noise control. How do you plan to manage that?
FUKE: Well, as far as the dust and noise control, it’s already, they have to address that by
complying with the State Department of Health; the State Department of Health has regulations
that govern noise and also govern dust control measure. So the contractors are obligated to
fulfill that mandate. Now, if there are additional type of things that the neighbors would want to
have, then this is where I think, like, during the plan review process where the developer would
be, if this condition were accepted, would be obligated to meet with the community, then these
can be faired out and hopefully additional mitigated measures can be taken.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Commissioner Bowman.
BOWMAN: I have a question before Dr. Sugai, if that’s all right. Thank you, Mr. Fuke,
because I think the public realizes that we are just the first step, and if we can address some of
these now, you know, it’ll be a lot easier when they get to the other side, yeah, the Council.
There was a question, just real, it may be minor, but about loading, about the loading dock being
abutting residential areas, and I noticed, when you were talking about including the neighbors,
that that wasn’t mentioned. So I just maybe suggest that that be a part of, which I’m sure it is.
FUKE: That was part of, the loading requirement is part of the parking requirement, so when I
mention parking -. The Zoning Code requires standard parking stalls, handicap parking stalls
and also loading zone requirement, so it was generic. But your point is well taken.
BOWMAN: Thank you. And one for the architect, because I’m not quite sure where the
eucalyptus stand is in relationship to the roads. And I just have a minor question with whether
eucalyptus roots -. Because I know we’ve had a lot of problems with our roadways and roots.
And I think, you know, for those who want to save the trees, I appreciate it, but is it, is the stand
of trees near where the access is going to go?
GHALAMFARSA: No, it’s not near the access. Mostly the south-west, there, in this area.
BOWMAN: Okay, that’s the trees.
GHALAMFARSA: Yes.
BOWMAN: Okay. Pardon my ignorance, but I just wanted to make sure that I address that.
Thank you.
HOUSEL: One question. What is the existing slope of the land right now?
GHALAMFARSA: The average slope is between 16 to 18 percent.
21
EXHIBIT A
HOUSEL: Sixteen to 18.
GHALAMFARSA: Right.
FUKE: So I stand corrected in my report.
GHALAMFARSA: It is in the site plan – the topography shows that. And the maximum slope
of the, just one of the roads that we propose is about 15 percent. In fact, since we submitted the
application and received some concerns of the neighbors -. In fact, one of the concerns that was
not talked about was the height. We have kept, the height is, like, three-story, 30 feet. And since
then in the site plan – if you could, I’m sorry, please go to our site plan – we have, on the mauka
side we have these two buildings and this is the high point of the property, the highest point here.
So what we have done since then, since I received those letters from the neighbors, we have
moved this building to this parking, and moved this building further makai, and then placed the
parking on the mauka side of the property, because the slope is this way, so the height is
considerably less than what we’re proposing in this site plan. In fact, in one of the pictures that
showed the access to, the easement access, you see the house that’s built in this corner, it’s
almost, I can guess, about 20 feet high rock wall is way above the roofline of the proposed
homes here. Again, I would like to say that the restriction and the permit process for
construction, we all know, they are a lot more stringent, and residential I’ve seen some people
building, like we just heard, like, 20 feet high rock walls. But in commercial cases it will be a lot
more safer and, for the neighbors -.
HOUSEL: Which two buildings do you plan to build first?
GHALAMFARSA: The two on the mauka side – this one, which will be, now it is here, and this
one, which is actually in this area. Another thing we’ve done is, in this zoning the setback, this
is the setback line, if you notice there, we’ve added additional 15 feet to the building line from
this property line to provide more landscape buffer. Now, this preliminary landscape buffer
generally shows that we do meet more than the required 20 percent. This is the purpose of this
plan, but this is not definitely the final landscape plan – mainly shows the area that is devoted to
landscape, and there is a lot more than the minimum 20 percent.
FUKE: Again, this is only conceptual, because if the condition were approved as we had
suggested, then there may be further modifications based upon community input.
HOUSEL: Dr. Sugai?
SUGAI: Yeah, thank you. Where do I start? I initially took offence when I was accused of
being a profiteer and not concerned about the residents. But then I had to take a step back
because maybe they don’t understand where I am coming from. I was born and raised in the
territory of Hawai‘i, at the Kealakekua Kona Hospital, which is now the courthouse. And I’m a
third generation coffee farmer; my farm is actually right above this property, about 100 yards
above. And I’m a Konawaena School graduate. Just to clarify that.
22
EXHIBIT A
The other thing is, as far as the trees go, yeah, I really do want to save those trees because I do
like the ‘ina and I want to make sure that we preserve as much as we can.
And for the other person, I don’t know where she went, but -.
PUBLIC: Her baby was crying.
SUGAI: Oh, yeah, her doctor is Dr. Herd and he is located in a small little cottage, modified
cottage, which is just at the entrance of this project. He is employed by Ali‘i Health Care, which
is a subsidiary of the hospital. And he will be probably moved into one of these buildings once
the property is developed. And that’s why it’s important that we move on this project as soon as
possible so we can alleviate the shortage of doctors. Again, we are looking for a partner for Dr.
Herd, but in that small little cottage, which is I think only about 20 by 20, you cannot fit two
people in there. He really needs a partner. In fact, we all need a partner over here.
And some of the other reasons that we have a hard time attracting doctors, yes, is a
reimbursement issue. For example, just my practice alone, I’m up to 80 percent Medicaid right
now; Medicaid pays only about 50 cents on a dollar compared to HMSA. And, yeah, I’m hurting
too, but, you know, that’s the way it goes in medicine. So reimbursement is a major issue.
However, I’ve been on the MEC, the Medical Executive Committee, which interviews and goes
through all these applicants, for the last 23 years at Kona Hospital, so I’ve gone through literally
dozens and dozens and dozens of doctors. But we can, for every ten we interview, or maybe 20
we interview, one decides to come here, and of that one that comes here, they often times last
only a year or two because, again, of the difficulties of practicing medicine in Kailua-Kona
because there is no place to really practice.
And again, just the drive from my office down in Kailua in an emergency to try and get to the
hospital, takes such a long time. Especially in the afternoon, it becomes really difficult to try and
get anything done. I’ve lost patients because I couldn’t get to the hospital on time – that’s the
worst thing. I’ve already told the Police that I would prefer a ticket at the hospital rather than
losing a patient, you know, I told them before, “Give me a ticket, if you see me speeding.” I
mean it’s that bad. And that’s why if I -. In fact, just the other week, Dr. Herd was able to save
a baby because he is located right across the street from the hospital; there was an emergency, he
ran right over, saved the baby’s life, and walked back to his office after he’d done his job. And
that’s exactly what these buildings should do; they should house the doctors where there is an
emergency and we can get to our patients as quickly as possible. I think that’s all I have to say.
You know, I have to go to my office unfortunately – yeah, beat traffic.
HOUSEL: Yeah, thank you, Dr. Sugai.
SUGAI: I have to go. Thank you.
FUKE: And so, on that note, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just kind of now respond specifically to
the proposed condition, I mean, you know, that the staff is suggesting. And I recognize the Kona
CDP and the concurrency requirement, etc. So here you have a situation you’re going to have to
23
EXHIBIT A
try to balance off between healthcare providers and as well as, like, traffic. So if you hold fast to
what the CDP is saying that no commercial activity, regardless of whatever is being proposed,
you know, be considered for rezoning until the bypass is completed, we don’t know when the
bypass will be completed. So in the alternative, you know, if that’s the case, then it amounts to,
like, they don’t have any plans, they can’t proceed, they can’t necessarily start working on the
final design, start working on the construction financing, so on and so forth, you know, because
the banks are going to be asking when is the road is going to be done, because you can’t open it
up, I mean, you know, it’s that kind of issue. But on the other hand, for my healthcare
perspective, as Dr. Sugai had indicated, there is obviously like death kind of practical demand for
it. So what we would like to suggest, and this is really, like, subject to the Commission and
ultimately the County Council, you know, to be able to balance it off by giving the applicant the
opportunity to say, like, look, no earlier than three years you can get certificate of occupancy for
any structure or building. At least it gives them time to start planning for it, start doing, get the
financing, do the construction, and plan around that schedule, you know, rather than something
that’s totally open-ended. So if it’s something that the Commission would like to entertain, then
I would like to suggest a language upon Condition E that would read, “A traffic signal at the
intersection of Mmalahoa Highway and Haukapila Street shall be completed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project” – it will read at the end –
“provided that in no event shall a Certificate of Occupancy for any structure be issued no earlier
than three years from the effective date of this ordinance” – and just, essentially eliminating what
the staff had originally proposed because of the CDP concurrency requirements, and just make
that as a rider at the end of the proposed condition. But I’ll leave that as an option to the
Commission.
HOUSEL: Commissioners?
BOWMAN: I have a question. So the first phase is scheduled to take about how long, if, say,
everything goes through?
GHALAMFARSA: The construction phase for the first, it should not be more then nine months.
BOWMAN: For the first two.
GHALAMFARSA: Yes, yeah. They’ll probably go faster than building your home, each one of
them. In fact, when my client approached me in our first meeting, their constant concern and
point was we’ve got to keep this feel residential, they’re having a big hospital there, they have a
courthouse there. So as far as I’m -. It’s a lot more cost-effective for a medical center to have
one big building; it probably cost 20 percent, on the average, to 25 percent less to one building.
So this is a lot more costlier than a normal commercial development. But they are really, really
sensitive. But these buildings are not depicting the final look of it. The reason is that it doesn’t
make economical sense to spend a lot of money in design and planning when you don’t even
have the zoning yet.
BOWMAN: So nine months for the first phase, but occupancy wouldn’t take place until they are
all built, is that -?
24
EXHIBIT A
GHALAMFARSA: No.
FUKE: No, no occupancy until the traffic light is in, first of all, and secondly no occupancy at
least for three years or after -. Even though Mr. Ghalamfarsa mentioned, like, it’s a construction
timetable, it may be nine to twelve months for example, the time needed leading up to that might
take you about a year and a half, you know, to prepare the construction plans, have the
interaction with the neighbors, you know, securing input, having those plans reviewed and
approved by the government, etc. So, you know, when you introduce those kind of factors into
it, you might be looking at about two to three years.
BOWMAN: Okay, thank you.
HOUSEL: So are you saying that, regarding the stoplight, that per this condition that if the
County or State will not put this light in, that you would assume the responsibility for putting the
stoplight in?
FUKE: That is our obligation, correct; someone has to put it in, and if nobody steps up to the
plate, then they’ll have to do it.
HOUSEL: Okay. Do you have the text of the other two conditions that you wanted to add?
FUKE: Yes, I’ve provided that to the staff early this morning, yes.
HOUSEL: Okay, staff has that, okay. Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to get some input from the Director regarding Mr. Fuke’s last
suggestion for Condition E.
LEITHEAD TODD: If I understand Mr. Fuke’s addition or proposed addition to Condition E, it
basically modifies that so that not only is it contingent upon the traffic light but no sooner than
three years; so it means that even if they were able to get the work done within two years, they
still can’t get a certificate of occupancy – it’s three years. But I think that’s assuming that he
needs a certain amount of time to meet with neighbors, get input on landscaping, buffering, you
know, the impact, giving the neighbors an opportunity to kind of see what the plans are. And I
think three years that in all likelihood, given what I’ve seen of construction timetables here in
Hawai‘i, it’s unlikely that they really would be up and running within three years. But for me the
main thing is that it still requires that the traffic light be in place before they can get a certificate
of occupancy.
BOWMAN: I have a question maybe either you or Ki could answer. I know they talked about
the close proximity of the other traffic light and – what’s that word when you stagger them – is
that potentially going to be a problem? Does anyone know? Ki, do you know if that is a
problem? Because it was mentioned in the background about the close proximity of the other
traffic light.
25
EXHIBIT A
EMLER: The question is about the proximity of the Haukapila Street intersection with respect to
the Haleki‘i Street intersection on Mmalahoa Highway. I did take a look at the spacing and I
believe it’s about 570 feet center to center on the two intersections. We do have closer
intersections, at least one of them right downtown here in Kailua Village. So it’s been done. Is
it a good idea? I don’t like it. It’s difficult to deal with because you have to do something to
coordinate the signal timing. It makes it probably less efficient than having one, than having a
further space – definitely makes it less efficient than having light space further out. How will the
operation work and whether it will work, I need to leave that to the Traffic Division, which does
the signal timing. And I tried to get input from them, and it didn’t show up on time. So that’s
the best I can do on that question. All I can tell you is we do have such situations. I don’t like it,
though.
BOWMAN: Thank you.
HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. We do have one person who would like to provide testimony. So
could you please remain seated, so you hear this, and if you have any response to it, you can do it
then. Could I please ask Meg Greenwell to come forward? Hi, good morning. If you could use
the microphone and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning
Commission today on this matter?
GREENWELL: I do.
HOUSEL: Could you state your name and address, please?
GREENWELL: Meg Greenwell, 82-6190A Npo‘opo‘o Road, Captain Cook.
HOUSEL: Please go ahead.
GREENWELL: I respect and appreciate the neighbors’ testimony. I know that that would be a
disruption in their neighborhood and their community. My main concern is Haukapila Road; it is
substandard, it is narrow. It services the hospital, a school – there is a Waldorf school up at the
top – the courts, the Health Department and the residences of that area. And it is, it’s just a little
neighborhood road; it is not going to handle a whole another development. If this development
goes in, there has got to be some major, major improvements on that road because even with the
traffic light, that’s not going to do it. The impact on this road is just going to be too much.
That’s all I have to say.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions?
GREENWELL: Thank you.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Mr. Fuke, do you have a response to these concerns?
FUKE: Not really, I mean, you know, it’s, I would concur that Haukapila Road does not meet
County dedicable standards. What the applicant is trying to do, I guess, is trying to, I guess,
make-lemonade-out-of-a-lemon situation, you know, by helping out overall healthcare services
26
EXHIBIT A
and also trying to help out an existing, you know, safety issue at Haukapila and Mmalahoa
Highway through the installation of traffic lights, whether it’s this developer or another entity,
you know. I think notwithstanding Mr. Emler’s concern about efficiency of having two traffic
lights 500 feet away, but from a safety standpoint, even though you might have some prolonged
waiting time, it is much safer. So all I can say is it will improve the situation. It’s not ideal but,
again, you have to balance off healthcare versus some of the traffic limitation.
HOUSEL: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any further questions? Mr. Darrow, so we
are clear on these changes to the conditions, could you read them, please?
DARROW: Sure. I’ll begin with the added conditions requested by the applicant. There were
two conditions that were submitted to the Planning Department. These would be identified as a
new Condition D and a new Condition E. Condition D will state as follows: “Prior to submittal
of plans for Plan Approval, the applicant, its successors or assigns shall secure the input of area
residents and/or lot owners, particularly those within the Keala Plantation Estates, regarding the
placement of all proposed structures, wastewater system, parking areas; landscaping plans; fence
and/or barriers between the subject property and adjacent properties; drainage; and construction
mitigation. A report of this meeting shall be submitted in conjunction with the Plan Approval
application.” The new Condition E will read as follows: “All construction activity involving the
use of heavy equipment or machinery related to the development of the project and any
structures thereon shall be prohibited on Sundays, provided further that no construction activity
shall occur on any day before 7:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m.”
Regarding our new Condition G, which was formerly Condition E, we have two possible
conditions. One proposed by the Planning Department, which would state, “A traffic signal at
the intersection of Mmalahoa Highway and Haukapila Street, and the construction of the
Mmalahoa Bypass to the Npo‘opo‘o junction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project.” Or as proposed by the applicant, it would
state: “A traffic signal at the intersection of Mmalahoa Highway and Haukapila Street, provided
that” – and if you could, okay – “provided that in no event shall a Certificate of Occupancy for
any” – oh, I’m sorry, I’m jumping the gun here – “A traffic signal at the intersection of
Mmalahoa Highway and Haukapila Street shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project, provided that in no event shall a Certificate of
Occupancy for any portion of the project be issued within 3 years from the effective date of this
ordinance.” Is that correct, Sidney?
FUKE: Yes.
DARROW: Thank you.
HOUSEL: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. I guess one thing, a bit of the housekeeping here. That’s all
the people that signed up to testify, so could we get a motion to close the public hearing?
GIFFIN: I so move.
IOKEPA: Second.
27
EXHIBIT A
HOUSEL: Second, Mr. Iokepa. All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
HOUSEL: Opposed? Passed. Thank you. Do you have any comments? Would you like to
make a motion?
GIFFIN: No, I would like to make a motion.
HOUSEL: Okay.
GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion regarding this agenda item. But before I do, I
just wanted to state that I feel that what the applicant has done in terms of the two additional
conditions that they proposed regarding involving the neighborhood and the members of the
surrounding property owners to this project, is commendable. My history on this body is long,
and it’s not always where the applicant is so willing to work with the surrounding neighborhood,
especially when they have come out in force against this application. Knowing that this is just
one step in the process of the applicant must go through, I’m going to move that a favorable
recommendation for this Change of Zone application, REZ 10-124, be forwarded to the County
Council, along with the amendments to the conditions as suggested by our Director, including
those that are the new D, Condition E as proposed by the applicant and which include the
neighbors, a new Condition G – Mr. Darrow, did I forget anything else – and also, of course, the
re-alphabetizing of the existing conditions as they remain.
DARROW: Commissioner Giffin?
GIFFIN: Yes.
DARROW: At this time there are two options available for Condition G -.
GIFFIN: Yeah, the existing and then the proposed?
DARROW: There is the proposed from the Planning Department, and then there is the proposed
from the applicant.
GIFFIN: And it is the one from the applicant that I thought that I am proposing in my motion.
DARROW: Okay, thank you.
GIFFIN: Is there anything else, Mr. Darrow, that I should include in this motion?
DARROW: I think that covers everything. Thank you.
BOWMAN: I second.
28
EXHIBIT A
HOUSEL: Second by Commissioner Bowman. Do you have any discussion? Mr. Darrow,
would you like to take the vote?
DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable
recommendation to the Hawai‘i County Council for this application, with the added conditions as
proposed by the applicant; these conditions include the new Condition D, the new Condition E
and the new Condition G. With that, I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Bowman?
BOWMAN: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Hickcox?
HICKCOX: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa?
IOKEPA: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Nelson?
NELSON: Aye.
DARROW: And Mr. Chairman?
HOUSEL: Aye.
DARROW: The motion passes, seven to zero.
HOUSEL: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Thank you, Mr. Fuke.
FUKE: Thank you very much.
HOUSEL: And you will receive the formal application and the approval in the mail, I’m sure.
FUKE: Yes. As Commissioner Giffin had indicated, you know, we’ve still got a long road to
haul, and we have a lot of meetings that need to be done with the community – this will be
handled by Mr. Ghalamfarsa. But thank you very much for this comment and recommendation.
29
EXHIBIT A
HOUSEL: Thank you very much.
GHALAMFARSA: Thank you.
The discussion ended at 11:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
30
EXHIBIT A