Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-11 TCLIFT PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the applications of CLIFTOÓS KONA COAST, LLC (REZ 03-010/SMA 03-005) was called to order at 10:17 a.m. in the King - KamehamehaÓs Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom IV, 755660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman Earl Fujikawa pres PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSED:Fred Galdones Bill Graham Jeffrey McCall Florence Kubota Bill Thibadeau Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Craig Masuda, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 30 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CLIFTO'S KONA COAST, LLC (REZ 03-010/SMA 03-005) Continued hearing on the following applications: a)Change of Zone from General Industrial 3-acre (MG-3a) to Project District for 83 acres of land. b)Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a commercial Î residential complex consisting of offices, retail uses, multi-family housing, facilities for transient accommodations, and related improvements. The property is located along the west (makai) side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (State Highway 19), approximately 2,100 feet south of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Î nd NELHA Access Road, Ooma 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-9:22. FUJIKAWA:Item No. 2 application, CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC (REZ 03-010/SMA 03-005). This is a continued hearing on the following applications: a) Change of Zone from General Industrial 3-acre (MG-3a) to Project District for 83 acres of land; and, b) Special Management Area Use Permit to of a commercial-residential complex consisting of offices, retail uses, multi-family housing, facilities for transient accommodations, and related improvements. Go ahead, staff. 1 st HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you recall, on August 1, this application was scheduled for a public hearing. At that time, the Director asked for a continuance of this hearing, to this particular meeting. We are again requesting that this application be continued since we are still awaiting comments from the Department of rd Transportation; and a memo was sent out to the Commission, dated September 3, from the Planning Director. FUJIKAWA:Is there any question from the Planning Commissioners? KUBOTA:I have. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Hayashi, can you explain to me the procedure that is, that we follow, I mean, you follow in acquiring input from the various State departments or departments? No. 2, is there a timeframe in which the agencies need to report back to us or to you? And, thirdly, what is the procedure for follow-up if such does not happen? This is two months and my understanding is, and correct me if IÓm wrong, this is purely based, the request for continuance is purely based on the fact that we are missing or are not in receipt of response from the Department of Transportation HAYASHI:Yes -. KUBOTA:It seems, wait, and if that is only reason for it, where the responsibility lie? I mean, it seems unusual, to say the least. HAYASHI:Okay. Procedurally, what we do is once we receive the application, we send it out to the various agencies for their review and comment. And just checking the files now, I note that we sent a memorandum to the agencies, including the State Department of Transportation in Honolulu, the letter, the memo was dated May 7, 2003; and in this memo we requested them to provide us with written comments by May 28, 2003. Since then we have constantly tried to contact the State Department of Transportation and remind them that we would appreciate their co particular application since we felt that this was a critical element regarding the review of this application. In fact, the Director has personally contacted the staff of the Department of Transportation regarding this particular application for their comment; and itÓs my understanding they will be sending comments, they are currently reviewing the application and theyÓll be submitting the application to us, or their comments to us shortly. KUBOTA:Not to belabor the point, Mr. Hayashi, but I realize that th traffic is a vital concern in this particular project. However, are you saying May 7, and th from May 7 till today we are still waiting? And the continuance -. No, the concern that I have is I hate to continue. I like to bring closure to things. And, I think, IÓve been told that time is money; and I think itÓs so totally unfair to every one concerned that one 2 agency can hold things up like this. Now, is it that theyÓre understaffed? What is their explanation for all of this? HAYASHI:Well, I personally did not speak with the staff from the Department of Transportation. Perhaps the Director could respond to that question. KUBOTA:Okay. Mr. Director, can you fill me in, please? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Mr. Yuen, if you could assist Commissioner Kubota with her question? YUEN:Well, first let me start by saying why we want a continuance and waiting for the Department of Transportation. This is a major application -. KUBOTA:Yes. YUEN:It would allow 23 acres of Commercial. ItÓs currently zoned Heavy Industrial. TheyÓre applying for, it would allow 23 acres of Commercial, 14 acres of Office. Just to put that in perspective, the Wal-Mart Center in Hilo sits on about 10 acres of property and Prince Kuhio Plaza sits on about 39 acres of property. So weÓre talking about a major traffic generator and considerably more than an Industrial project on the same site. It would also, well, the primary traffic would probably come out of the Kailua-Kona area, up the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, and then have to cross the highway at some point to get to the site. So weÓre talking about a turn across the highway. We know that the long-range plan of the Department of Transportation, well, not even the long-range plan, but in the next few years, is to change the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to a four-lane median separated highway from Kailua-Kona to the Keahole Airport. And, as a result, there would only be a few points in which the Department would like to have crossings of highway for left-turns. ThereÓll only be a few intersections, full movement intersections, to keep the highway as an arterial function. All thatÓs pretty clear. We would like, now, this particular application, seems that their entrance will be a signalized full movement intersection. If you think and, also, if you think about the level of traffic, itÓd be difficult to have a project like this and fully built out without such an intersection. We would like to know what the Department of Transportation thinks about this, about the project, what their plans are for the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. ThereÓs another application for an SMA Permit at Kohanaiki thatÓs going to come before the Commission very nearby. We would like to have an idea how these access points can be coordinated as best as possible. So we want to wait and hear from the Department of Transportation before we go ahead and, before the Planning Department makes a recommendation and t 3 Commission takes a vote on it. We think itÓs very important that land use planning be coordinated with transportation planning. Hopefully, we can avoid some of the problems weÓve seen in the past if we do that. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. KUBOTA:I agree with everything that heÓs talking about, okay, the importance of timing and all of that, and the impact that this project and Kohanaiki, especially, will have on the traffic. Okay. My question has to, my concern has to do more with the Department of TransportationÓs dragging their feet, so to speak. I mean, theyÓve had this project with them since May of, May, June, July Four months to come up with a report to say yea or nay? I mean, what are they doing? Are they short-staffed? I mean, thatÓs the usual excuse. YUEN:I canÓt answer for them. What we, what they discussed with me, and weÓve talked to them about, this is not the only project where weÓve had delays in having reports from them or not had reports; and so IÓve talked with their staff about this. ItÓs, the explanation in a nutshell has to do with coordination among a number of different branches of the Department of Transportation; but I shouldnÓt be the one to speak, I shouldnÓt be the one to speak for them on what their problems are. I did speak to the gentleman in charge with the Planning Branch about a week-and-a-half ago; and he told me that theyÓd get on it and give us a report. FUJIKAWA:Does that help you, Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:It doesnÓt quell my concern; but I donÓt know what else to do about it. I mean, I canÓt go over there and pound on their door and say hurry up. If the Department is satisfied with that explanation, then, it has to be. And I just feel that, I feel jerked around. ThatÓs what I feel. FUJIKAWA:Any other question from the Commissioners to the staff? If not, would the Applicant or his representative, please step forward. Could you kindly raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE:I do. FUJIKAWA:State your name and address, please, and you may procee after that. FUKE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sidney Fuke. IÓm a Planning Consultant. IÓm here assisting the developer, the Applicant, CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC. My address is 100 Pauahi Street here in Hilo, Hawai 4 FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. You may proceed. FUKE:Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I guess, initially, in response to the request for the continuance, we can understand, I guess, the importance of getting as many agency comments as possible before the Commission can make a recommendation or make a decision as in the case for the SMA application. We understand and, at the same time, feel exactly like Commissioner Kubota, in a sense that we feel, as the Applicant, that weÓve been jerked around, too. Because the, theoretically, I guess the application could have been heard as early as June, excuse me, as early as July. It was scheduled for a hearing in August, then it was scheduled for today, on the basis that the Planning Department needed more time to come forth with its recommendation and, mostly, I guess, waiting for the response from the Department of Transportation. thth Your file will show that on June 12, in a letter dated June 12, the State Department of Transportation did, in fact, respond. Their comment, however, just limited itself just to the noise issue. And if I can just read to you one of the other comments and, again, this is th a letter dated June 12, it says, ÐOur Highway Division is in a process of finalizing its concerns on the Traffic Impact Assessment Report for the subject development. We will provide these comments under separate cover as soon as possible.Ñ And I would assume that Ðas soon as possibleÑ would be like, at the most, a month. That has been like almost two months. I think we believe that in many respects that the so-called proverbial train is kind of like left the station and at some point in time a decision has to be made. Because otherwise the Applicant feels like, weÓre kind of fighting a ghost. You know, we donÓ know whether the position of the Department or the Commission is favorable one or one against it; and so we donÓt know how to properly address it. Likewise, you know, with each month or months of delay, you know, we donÓt know what the market economy will be like. So it places like an unfa any applicant if an item is deferred for the lack of comment from a particular agency. In other situations where the Department of Transportation, or an agency has not provided any comments and which may have an impact on that particular agencyÓs infrastructure, be it highways, or water, or whatever have you, there have been conditions imposed. Should the Department or the Commission act favorable on a request, there have been conditions imposed wherein like the applicant or the developer will be responsible in complying with the appropriate agencyÓs requirements, be it the channelized intersection, the traffic lights, so on and so forth. Perhaps in the absence of any comments from the Department of Transportation, you know, such an alternative can be worked out. ItÓs not as though that the traffic issue was not addressed at all by the Applicant. The Applicant has addressed the traffic issue, it did prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis Report, and this was done by professional engineers. In deference to the Department, you know, we recognize that the Planning Director does not have any recommendation at this point in time; and this matter has had, has gone through a public hearing twice in this area in West Hawaii. We would like to respectfully request that if itÓs going to have to be continued that at least that this matter be continued 5 nd to the next meeting in Hilo, which would be on September 22, and hopefully between now and then, with or without the Department of TransportationÓs comments, that the Planning Director would be in a position to offer its recommendation on this matter. Notwithstanding that, that thing, however, Mr. Chairman, IÓd like to just kind of share with the Commission some of the general essence of the project. CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC is the Applicant. The primary developers are, this individual by the name of Arnold Volny. HeÓs a San Luis Obispo developer who has done some exten residential developments on the mainland. HeÓs also associated, and their local representative is Cliff Morris, whoÓs also here in this audience today. The property is still owned by the Applicant. TheyÓre looking for investors. And if itÓs approved, and this would be a sizeable project, that would require participation by other investors; and that is why that they have been actively looking for interested investors. Just to give you some general background on the property itself, the original owners of this land, this 83-acre property, was owned by the government, b in the, and it was zoned heavy Industrial in the early Ò80s as part of the NELHAÓs expansion. Back in 1986 or Ó87, there was a land exchange between the State and the former owner of the property. The former owner got this property in exchange for 83 acres of coastal property thatÓs not of the subject area but on the coastal area. So itÓs actually between Kohanaiki, Ooma and the NELHA property. There was an 83-acre shoreline property that was exchanged between the former owners of that land for the subject area. But over the past 20 years, you know, since the property was zoned, nothing really happened to this site, yet weÓve known that market and land use trends have changed dramatically in this area, changes that perhaps have made the existing MG zone somewhat incompatible. WeÓve seen residential developments in t North Kona in the mauka area, particularly. WeÓve seen the Comm Industrial growth such as the Kaloko Industrial area, the Kohanaiki business park. WeÓve seen the success of NELHA, the growing resort activities in South Kohala and North Kona. WeÓve also had much discussions about the planned expansion by the University of Hawaii. And most recently, as reported in yesterdayÓs, excuse me, in todayÓs paper, thereÓs the existing and planned coastal park beginning from the Kaloko-Honokohau National Park, part of it stretching through, hopefully, the NELHA property, and, you know, through the CountyÓs laudable effort in trying to get a regional coastal park in that area. So when you look at the overall or the emerging land use pattern, you know, coupled with the proximity of the airport, what the Applicant felt was that, you know, rather than having heavy industrial activity, be it a concrete batching plant, or so on and so forth, the Applicant felt that a planned business park with some residential component would be much more appropriate. So, in that regards, conceptually, what theyÓre proposing is to have like some office spaces, a retail area, business or family-oriented type of hotel and multiple-family residential developments. 6 They would like to begin construction, if all of the permits can be secured, you know, beginning in the year 2005, with an anticipated build-out over 10 or 15 years. They have applied for essentially two requests, one is the Project District rezoning and the other one is a Special Management Area. The Project District zoning is being requested because of the exact location or the type of land uses, the density. TheyÓll have to vary according to, to accommodate the demand or the time. As such the plan before board right now is purely conceptual. And the request is not to establish a specific Commercial zone, a specific Residential Zone, or a specific office zone but to provide a design or zoning flexibility, a land use flexibility, vis-à-vis the Project District zoning. What you see before you and whatÓs contained in the application represents like a worst case or like a maximum density potential; and this is just to help with the evaluation. As such, if approved, there will be conditions that would establish maximum building envelope and constraints. Generally, when you have a Project District, in my experience, you donÓt find that a person maximizes the, what was considered by the Project District; and a good case in point is the Project District that was approved for both Maniniowale as well as for Hualalai. In the situation with the Maniniowale Project District, the approved project called for in excess of 900 units, and what you see right now is a little more than 150 maximum units in that area. Relative to this specific site itself, in terms of the public access, the access to the makai property, and through this property, and eventually to the shoreline will be provided. In terms of archaeological, there is a Mamalahoa trail that will be preserved with a 50-foot wide buffer. ThereÓs also a habitation cave adjacent to the Mamalahoa Trail, and that habitation cave will also be preserved. As the Planning Director had noted earlier, based on the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, a fully channelized intersection would be constructed by the developer and traffic lights will be constructed, when warranted by, at no cost to the County developer. There would also be a north-south connector road to NELHA as well as to the south to Kohanaiki. There is an existing easement over the Mamalahoa Trail from the State that runs through the year 2007 that allows for access to the Kohanaiki property to the south as well as, that allows the Kohanaiki, that allows access to the Kohanaiki property as well as the property makai of Ooma. The Applicant is willing and actually would encourage that access through this site to minimize the number of access points on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, proximity to the Kohanaiki Business Park. The long and short of it is that, you know, we would encourage that should the Commission and the Department favorably consider this application that there would be a condition that would allow for the landowner to immediately set aside the required right-of-way to allow for adjoining properties to gain access through the site to eventually hookup to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and thereby trying to minimize the number of access points along the 7 In terms of like a visual impact, the project calls for no more than all of the structures to be less than 40 feet, which is considerably less than what the existing zoning allows. That existing zoning allows for structures to be 50 feet, or even higher, subject to the Planning DirectorÓs approval. There would be generous landscaping throughout the site and particularly along the highway. All of the improvements would be outside of the 60 LDN level, and only a small portion falls within the 55. Actually, the whole site is outside of the 60 LDN from a noise standpoint, and just a small portion on the makai, northern, north-western end falls within the 55 LDN. They will construct an on-site wastewater system. And if the County processes an improvement district that stretches all the way to the Keahole Airport, then the Applicant would be a willing participant in this improvement district. But, during the interim, they will construct an on-site wastewater plant meeting with the appr Department of Health. In terms of water, thereÓs an existing commitment of 33 units. You know, understandably, itÓs not sufficient to accommodate the projectÓs entire needs. What the Applicant intends to do is that, thereÓs an alternative that they are looking at right now, possibly working with NELHA or proceeding exactly with what the Department of Water Supply wants, which is to extend a major line from Hinalani Street to the subject property. ThereÓs also like an on-site well on the site which can be used for, which will be used largely for landscaping purposes. In other cases, as with other developments that the Commission and the Department have thoroughly considered, the developer can proceed only so far as the water is available; and conditions along that line could be structured to make sure that that happens. In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, thatÓs kind of like the project. We do have not only the Applicant here but some of the technical consultants. So if there are any specific questions that the Commissioners or the public may have, weÓd be more than willing to respond. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Is there any question from the Commissioners to this Applicant? Go ahead, Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, if you could, I guess, like refresh my memory, if an applicant receives approval for a high number of units and initially develops a lower number of units, in the future if they want to increase the number of units, whatÓs the process that they must adhere to? FUKE:I would imagine if it fell within the cap of the Project District that the developer would still be able to do that. I believe like you could, excuse me, I think that you probably would not necessarily need to have an amendment. But if 8 you wish to exceed whatever has been represented here, then you would have to go in for the amendment. SPRINGER:So in the event that a, after additional development an increase in the number of units was desired, would that be an administrative process with the Planning Director? FUKE:No, it would have to be through the same process that weÓre going through right now, public hearing through the Planning Commission for the SMA; and depending on what the County Council ultimately conditions as a, for the Project District zoning before the County Council. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Sidney, this is not so much a question as more a heads-up for, you know, what is my concerns that will probably come forth if we have a continued hearing. When the Planning Director was speaking of the transportation issue, we have a Department of Transportation thatÓs taken into account the different parcels in this area and how to coordinate them. When weÓre talking about water quality and ocean resources, we donÓt have any department of that, that sort of looking at all the different possible projects and what effect they might all cumulatively have. And I noticed when I read your Appendices A, B and C regarding water quality, marine resources and all, it all seems, you know, just whatÓs coming from your project. So it ma upon you to put together the full plan for whatÓs going on but itÓs certainly incumbent upon me and us to consider the cumulative effect of all whatÓs going on. So I donÓt feel itÓs appropriate that we act in sort of a first-come, first-serve basis. Meaning that a certain amount of nutrient loading maybe wouldnÓt cause much problems, and if youÓre the first one to get here and get a permit for it, then you get to use it. That doesnÓt really feel right to me. So I have a concern about the overall planning as far as whatÓs going to be the impact on the ocean and the water resources. FUJIKAWA:Are there any questions or comments from the Commissioners to this Applicant? I have a question with the Director. Being that the Applicant had just stated that this is a land exchange with the State, is the State aware of that so they could assist these people in speeding up the process on the traffic control situation? YUEN:I donÓt know if the land exchange has any, I donÓt know if the Department of Transportation cares if the property was exchanged at, when, a dozen years or so ago, I think, with the State. FUJIKAWA:Maybe the County should inform the State that being that this was a land exchange that maybe they could look into it faster. Any other questions to 9 the Applicant or the staff from the Commission? If not, you may sit back and I have five people who signed up to testify. Please come forward you people who are testifying, Joel, Janice, Burke -. Joel Gimpel, Janice Palma-Glennie, Burke Matsuyama, Boyd Matsuyama, Lunakanawai, all seat forward, and we have Curtis Tyl can you kindly raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Now, letÓs start off with the left side, the right side of me, Mr. Matsuyama. Can you state your name and address? BOYD MATSUYAMA:IÓm Boyd Matsuyama, P. O. Box 407, Holualoa. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. And the next testifier? He already testified so youÓre already recorded, but give your name. Go ahead. HAUANIO:Lunakanawai Hauanio. GLENNIE:Janice Palma Glennie, speaking for the Sierra Club. My address is P.O. Box 4849, Kailua-Kona. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Mr. Tyler? TYLER:Mr. Chairman, good morning. I would like to request to speak after the public speakers so I can hear what the constituents have to say. My name is Curtis Tyler, representing Council District 8. My address is the Kona Council Office on Nalani Street. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Next? BURKE MATSUYAMA:My name is Burke Matsuyama. IÓm the president o Kohanaiki Business Park Association and my address is 73-4335 Haiku Place. GIMPEL:Good morning. My name is Joel Gimpel. I reside at 73-4686 Hinalani Street in Kailua-Kona. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Being that you got the mike, Joel, go ahead. LetÓs start off with you. GIMPEL:IÓll try and be brief. Thank you, I know itÓs a long mor for all of you. I testified, as you will recall, last month on behalf of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, and you have a copy in your files for the record. At that time, I discussed the CommitteeÓs concern for the effect on the traffic on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, and especially at the Palani Road and Henry Street intersections which are already congested, and for the concern on the added construction traffic that would occur 10 on Hinalani Street. I noted also that access to the Kohanaiki and Energy Lab properties that was indicated that would be directly across from the ApplicantÓs project wouldnÓt really relieve any traffic on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The traffic between those projects would probably be relatively minimal; and in any event because of limited access to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, itÓll all wind up there eventually. There are three things that have come to light following the testimony that we offered last month. First was the indication from Mr. Fuke that the plans are conceptual. In other words, they can be changed. The second was an article in West H appeared during the month that the property is for the sale. And the third is that, in todayÓs paper, regarding the Kohanaiki project, which will probably lead to even more traffic which was not contemplated at all by the Applicant. Those things all taken together could lead to greater effect on traffic then was contemplated. Because if the zoning application for the Applicant is granted and the SMA is granted, the developer could erect, for example, a big box of store instead of the smaller shops that are contemplated. And a big box store, we donÓt need another one, would lead obviously to much more traffic than would be generated by a number of small retail shops. We donÓt want another LoweÓs-type situation to occur. So we would urge that this Commission go slowly. IÓm originally from Chicago and we had a saying there that ÐGovernment is best when it moves slowly and nobody is safe when the Legislature is in session.Ñ So I take special note, also, that -. YUEN:We have a good government. GIMPEL:I know; and, parenthetically, I hope to be a part of it soon. We would take special note that even a four-lane highway, Queen Kaahumanu Highway, is contemplated eventually between Henry Street and the airport; but the first phase would ostensibly go to the harbor, wonÓt relieve traffic. In fact, itÓs going to add to traffic congestion at the north and south ends because then you will have two lanes that are going south trying to merge into one lane. And thatÓs going to really, itÓs like a funnel, when you pour into the wide end, itÓs very fast but it comes slowly out the narrow end. So we, again, urge going very slowly and waiting for the Department of TransportationÓs determination before, so that the Planning Department can make a recommendation that takes into account all these concerns for the Planning CommissionÓs consideration. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions to this testifier? If not, you may proceed, Burke. BURKE MATSUYAMA:Thank you, Chairman. Our park is located approximately a thousand feet, I believe, from the ApplicantÓs property. Our organization is comprised of about 40 landowners whose business is ranged from truckers, bus companies, equipment rentals; and we have a planned commercial center on the front that would have a service 11 station, restaurants and stores. Eventually, we believe the center would provide jobs for local people; and that opportunity will be expanding over the years. The subdivision was originally conceived by my father, Hiroshi Matsuyama, and was developed by a local hui named ÐKamaaina Eight.Ñ The objectives of the hui was to provide fee simple land ownership opportunities for small businesses in the Kona area. We have succeeded in this endeavor. All of our lots have been sold and rapidly becoming the home for over 40 businesses, and a place of busines employees. We have succeeded because we have fulfilled our comm respective government agencies and have invested millions upon millions of dollars in the improvement to the subdivision. One of these major investments is in danger of being negated, na intersection which services our subdivision. This investment will be negated by the actions of the State Department of Transportation when Queen K Highway is upgraded to a four-lane highway. The Department has stated that they will only allow right-in and right-out traffic to landowners along Queen K Highway. This traffic policy was set during a time when the State considered Queen K Highway to be a high-speed highway and wanted to preserve this characteristic. They also had plans for grade-separated intersections and service roads that would run parallel to Queen K to provide access to adjacent landowners like myself. All of these traffic improvements have been set aside. I believe we all realize that the fiscal constraints of the State has reached such a point where these grandiose plans have faced reality and cannot come about. However, this no right-in, no right-out policy is still in play and we have no where to go. The only solution at this point that the State has given us is that once Queen K is developed into a four-lane highway, those who will have only right-in and right-out opportunities must go to Hulikoa, to Hinalani Drive to do a u-turn and/or NELH. And I think in later testimonies by some trucking representatives here, youÓll start to understand that that type of approach is impossible for many of the businesses in the subdivi We believe that the State is unrealistic in their policy approach to Queen K. The highway between Keahole Airport and Kailua has not evolved into a business district that requires access by adjacent landowners. As for the high-speed highway concept, I believe we all have driven on Queen K during morning rush hour, pauhana time an ThereÓs no high-speed concept there, you know. Queen K has changed, and I think the Department has to make their concepts evolve to those changes. Secondly, the present plan to have vehicles that will either leave or enter our subdivision to do u-turns at Hinalani and NELH, again, is totally unrealistic and only increases the congestion to these existing intersections and to increase dangers to motorists. Thirdly, to only allow limited access to Hinalani and Kaiminani for mauka properties on Queen K is totally unrealistic. We have developed Hulikoa Drive and have included an access point to the mid-level road. And, so, this implements an opportunity to have the K-to-K Plan come into being. 12 Now, the Planning Commission is in a unique position to rectify some of the present problems on Queen K. They can do this by mandating applicants t create a comprehensive plan for access and egress along Queen K Highway. This is truly the whole objective of this Planning Commission, to plan for the community; and now is the time to do the planning. If landowners are allowed to go forward with their proposals and gain the necessary approvals of this Commission without first resolving this very important traffic issue, we will find ourselves in a heap of trouble. Because once tractors and bulldozers have done their work on the ground, the players and their position will become more rigid and less flexible; and the winners usually who win in these types of situations are those with more money and greater political influence, not small businesses like ours. We hope that the Commission recognizes the importance of the contribution made by small businesses and the opportunity provided to the community by the business park. The Commission should seriously consider placing conditions that preserve the long-term viability of the Hulikoa Drive intersection. The roadway provides greater access to mauka lands by tying into planned mid-level roads, thereby furthering the K-to-K Plan objectives written and promoted by the County. We should also preserve the investment made by the developers in the creation of this intersection. We are not pie-in-the-sky proposals. Monies have been spent, commitments have been fulfil business owners depend on easy access to Queen K from Hulikoa Dr Commission members to look out for the interest of us small guys. We do not have the big money or the time required to develop political influence. We are too busy building our businesses and taking care of our families. Given the application of Ooma and the future application of Kohanaiki, the Commission is in a unique position to mandate a comprehensive transportation plan to be established by all parties concerned. I call upon the Commission to do that responsibility. Thank you very much. FUJIKAWA:Thank you, Burke. Is there any question from the Commissioners to Burke Matsuyama? Go ahead, Flo Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Matsuyama, can you get up to the map over there and show me whereabouts youÓre located? BURKE MATSUYAMA:I believe IÓm located right here in reference to -. KUBOTA:I see. ThatÓs the project site? BURKE MATSUYAMA:Yes. KUBOTA:I see. BURKE MATSUYAMA:And weÓre on the mauka side of Queen K. 13 KUBOTA:Mauka side. I see. Okay. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other questions from the Commissioners? Okay, if not, letÓs have Janice. Go ahead with your testimony. PALMA-GLENNIE:Aloha, Commission Members. Before I start what I wrote out, unfortunately, our Board members of the Sierra Club missed the notice of the st August 1 meeting, didnÓt realize this was a continuation till too late. And though the application is complicated due to the default industrial zoning of the property, our group most likely would have asked for Contested Case against the project. But, however, the convoluted Contested Case application process precluded this possibility. I just had to mention that. Aloha, again. It has come to our attention that the owners of the above property is asking to upzone as well as receive a Special Management Area Permit for his OÒoma 2nd property. Though the property is now classified by the County as ÐIndustrial,Ñ it is only by default that this designation exists, as you know. That is due to a land swap approximately 12 years ago. This parcel was part of the NELHA where an Industrial zoning was meant to allow for the aquaculture facilities planned for that property. This zoning does not reflect any past or future intentions of the County or the owner of the property for what would be developed at OÒoma 2 Except by a TMK separation which occurred due to a land swap, OÒoma 2nd is part of the rightly zoned Conservation land on its makai side. Though we feel that this land belongs in other than an Industrial zoning, we feel that Project District zoning, as delineated by the plan before you, is an inappropriate change for this propertyÓs rezoning at this time. As you know, the Mayor, along the several community leaders, ha to secure a public access and a public park at adjacent Kohanaiki. This entire area -- from Kaloko-Honokohau, Kohanaiki to OÒoma -- has been a focus of community activism, protection and aloha which has been meant to secure this land, and its most passive use, environmental and cultural integrity, for the public and future generations. This area comprises most of what is left of undeveloped and unplanned coastal lands in West Hawaii. It has been used continually -- and with greater frequency as public resources diminished -- for recreation, subsistence, cultural rejuvenation, and open space. CliftoÓs, the owner and seller of this property, is asking for this change of zone for speculation purposes only. The Applicant has admitted, himself, will never materialize, nor should it. With the extreme lag and County, it behooves all of us -- including land speculators -- to take more than a cursory look at such a nebulous plan before allowing for hundreds of residences, hotel rooms, and commercial venues to be built, especially on precious, finite coastal land. By law, HRS 205A, the County is required to protect viewplanes towards the ocean (i.e., will a future developer build this land up as what happened at LoweÓs or 49 Black Sands Beach at Waikoloa? Even with the 40-foot limit height on buildings, it can be much higher. Will 14 they follow and maintain an appropriate architectural style, or build tall commercial structures which will mar the view both to and from the shorelin use but maintain adequate landscaping to ensure the beauty and integrity of what is now natural, open space?) Through this land is also a mauka-makai jeep road to the shoreline, whose fate is presently critical for continued community shoreline access, as well as a section of the Mamalahoa Trail which crosses this property. Questions of continued access, runoff, noise, and traffic, among other concerns, still exist, since this plan is not the one which will be built should you approve this rezoning and We ask that you look long and carefully at this proposal from many angles before you decide if this change is not only appropriate, but necessary to either the community or the owner of this land who seeks only to add more millions to his already ten-fold plus profit. We encourage you to await the transportation review of this project which will address another small but significant part of the infrastructural demands of so an intense a project. And, finally, we ask that you at least await further discussion and decisions related to the critical Kohanaiki parcel next door before you make your final decision on this project. Mahalo for your time and consideration on this matter. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Is there any question from the Commissioners to this testifier? If not, go ahead, Luna? HAUANIO:Aloha everyone again. My name is Lunakanawai Hauanio. This place you folks talking about, OÒoma, my father and my Uncle Aka, they come from over there. Okay. First of the firstest, the land no belong to the State. ThatÓs the first. The land belong to my father guys, my uncle guys, my ohana. Second, the intent of OTEC was to create alternative energy, yeah? Anything that was going build inside there was to help us with alternative energy. All of a sudden somebody now changing their mind. You look at the original palapala inside you folks record about OTEC, if they no going create alternative energy, they put Òem back. They supposed to put Òem back if they no going to create alternative energy. Now, the administrators of the OTEC facility have never been, ne stewards of the traditional and customary practices of the Hawaiian community, till this day. We just filed a complaint about NELHA desecrating Hawaiian graves. We filed a th complaint with the Department of Land and Natural Resources Director on the 30 of July. We never meet with DOCAR until Tuesday. So if it take that long to protect the traditional and customary rights just from the State level, how long does it take for the County level, until what? Whoever this guy is, the one that like develop over there, bruddah, no even think about you going get approval for the speculative plan. Eh, you know what, soon as I find out who you are, I going sue you, too, brah, put you into part of da kine, the conspiracy against genocide of the Hawaiian community. Sorry. ItÓs a little bit da kind sovereignty stuff, but anyway -. 15 Number two, oh, three. Where you thinking about putting that place, dats where I put in my, the kind, my haka, training area. So mo betta you think about moving Òcause you going be up against a lot of adversity, let me tell you. Now we going shut the gate, we going shut Òem. The only people I know go down there is Hawaiians, the ones at Hawaiians at heart. Because you know already. They not good for the community, theyÓre very deceptiv theyÓre Anglo-Saxons. I donÓt know what that means, but was this Indian lady who when tell me. But you guys, English people, you guys know what that As far as the Planning Commissioner is concerned, I got one point of clarification. Since the ruling came out, in the Hokulia decision, has the Commission revamped their rules regarding complaints versus contested case? FUJIKAWA:Let the Director answer that. YUEN:The rule, the decision came out two days ago and the Commission has not changed any rules. HAUANIO:Okay. Thank you. With that said, I think the best method would be under Title 6 of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, I declare that your process violates the Civil Rights. Until such time that you can make right those Civil Rights violations, I give due notice as of this date that the Commission is to cease and desist any prejudicial process until they come up w how they going take on complaints about people who violate our traditional and customary rights, our religious freedoms, our right to our fisheries, our rights to our greeneries, our rights to be left alone, our rights to take out this western influence that has devastated the Hawaiian community since November 25, 1892. Maha FUJIKAWA:Any question from the Commissioners to this testifier? Okay. Thank you. Next testifier, Burke, no, Boyd Matsuyama? BOYD MATSUYAMA:IÓm Boyd. For the record, I am not related to Burke. IÓm here on behalf of Matsuyama Brothers Trucking. WeÓre property owners at the Kohanaiki Business Park. And, for me, I am not against construc company operates on construction. But what concern me was the idea of eliminating the left-turn into the park. And that is a concern for me because, and I would think other trucking companies in that park, when you try to negotiate a 40-footer or an 18-wheeler on the road, you would want to turn at intersections that is least congested. And from what I understand by eliminating the left-turn, we would have to travel all the way to Hinalani, which is already a congested intersection, and then on top of that making a left- turn back onto Queen K coming back to Kohanaiki. Just making the left turn already would be a hazard because of the length. And, I donÓt know, even if the State Highways would paint a while line there and allow you so much room, thereÓs lot of times that you cannot make a turn in that amount of space so you would have to cheat by going over the 16 lines to make your turn; or if a car would jump that line, that would, you know, itÓs hazard right there already, you might not clear it. So -. I donÓt know what all the facts are as far as where the, this new development wants to put their intersection in and stuff. But I know that they are adjacent to the OTEC, that NELHA properties. And thereÓs an intersection there, also, with left- and right-turning lanes so, you know, if they could incorporate that in there; and from my understanding, they are only a few hundred feet away from the Kohanaiki Road, which is already established, you know. Why couldnÓt they incorporate that intersection into a crossing intersection, also? So, you know, for you as the Commission, I would ask that you look at this carefully before allowing this project to proceed. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you, Mr. Matsuyama. Is there any question from t Commissioners to Mr. Matsuyama? If not, Mr. Tyler? You may pro TYLER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and good morning to the Director, to your attorney, and to the members of the Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak last, Mr. Chairman. I was aware of some of these comments previously but I hadnÓt heard all of them, so I appreciate the opportunity to have heard them first. I believe that both Matsuyamas, Burke and Boyd, stated as clearly as anybody could possibly state what their concerns are out there. I wanted to let the Commission know that I have appeared before the Department of Transportation Highways public hearing recently on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program whe input from the community, albeit they didnÓt announce the meetings in West HawaiÒi in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, I did go there and suggest to them that this was a matter of urgence, great urgency because of the pending applications or processes of land use changes that are coming, and will be coming before you as well as the HawaiÒi County Council. I did so, again, last evening at the Kohanaiki working group meeting at which the Mayor was present, as well as the previous meeting, and said, well, indicated how strongly I feel about the need for this County, including the Planning Commission, the Planning Director, the HawaiÒi County Council, the Administration, to work in tandem with the State Department of Transportation-Highways. ItÓs commendable that members of this Commission want to have the process move along in an expeditious way. On the other hand, Kona has been left ou years; and the result is what we deal with every single day. And itÓs getting worse by the day; and, quite frankly, I donÓt see it getting any better in my lifetime. And I donÓt say that in a pessimistic way but development is happening and we just canÓt keep up with it. For this reason I think itÓs incumbent upon this body, as well as people like myself, as well as the Director, to make every effort to collaborate, to set up a process to support a pro-active process. And I think the key word is Ðpro-active,Ñ and Mr. Matsuyama 17 touched on this, to ensure that this community and the affected landowners and citizens are able to participate in the decision-making process and that these decisions are not made in a window-less room in another county far away from here and then present it. And I think, while I realize that none of us has authority, other than citizens, over the Department of Transportation, Highways Division, I canÓt imagine that they would want to enter into some kinds of planning agreements or documents that would create further problems for them in the future. And last evening the Mayor said that after he heard my comments that, indeed, he would be working towards that. Mr. Matsuyama, himself, Burke Matsuyam and if I mis-characterized your testimony, sir, I hope youÓll correct me, indicated the willingness of his group to collaborate with the Kohanaiki, excuse me, with Rutter Development, Kennedy Wilson, LLC, which will be developing the K I have personally met with Mr. Fuke to learn more about this when I read about it in the newspaper and he has been kind enough to come to Kona and spend again, I have strongly urged him on behalf of his representative, his Applicant, to see what they do to coordinate this. IÓve also spoken with the representatives of Rutter Development, Kennedy Wilson. The potential for a traffic congestion disaster out there is great because of the close proximity of these properties, and thatÓs because of the mauka-makai ahupuaÒa system. And, indeed, Kamaaina Eight has spent untold, perhaps millions i hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in a channelized intersection which, to me, from a common sense standpoint ought to be aligned with properties on the makai side. Certainly, and thereÓs another intervening parcel, the LeeÓs parcel. And Mr. Yuen was there last night, he heard me speak about this as well. So, I urge the Commission, in short, I urge the Commission to take the time if necessary to obtain the information regarding this whole area. DonÓt do this in a segmented fashion. Make sure you understand the cumulative impacts. And if the Commission is concerned about the timeliness of a response for a particular agency, in this case the Highways Division, I would urge the Commission, through your Chair, to contact the Division and ask them to come, to be here, so you could ask them after all, that is their kuleana. That highway is under their jurisdiction and they work for all of us. And if you have specific questions, and IÓm glad that you do, I would urge you to ask them to come here, or at least their representative, perhaps the district engineer who might be able to speak for the branch chief, branch engineer. And I think this could go a long ways, not only for yourselves but for those of us who live here to hear. It was suggested by Mr. Fuke that if this matter were to be continued, then it should, because of the length of time, that the, it should be continued to the next hearing in Hilo, nd I believe it was the September 22, and I would urge you in the strongest terms, please donÓt continue this to Hilo. The people in Kona will be greatly penalized if you continue this to Hilo in a work day. ItÓs hard enough for most people to time. And this is important enough, not only for the Applicant, but certainly for all of 18 those thousands of people that each of you represent, and that is your first and foremost obligation. So, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would ask that you continue this to the next available meeting in Kona. I realize October rd 3 is going to be quite a heavy schedule. But the fact is, this property, youÓll be given a conceptual plan. This may or may not turn out this way; and as we all know this property is for sale. And, finally, Mr. Fuke has stated to you this morning theyÓre seeking investors. So this is not something that is going to be breaking ground in the immediate future. On the other hand, Mr. Fuke has said to you, very clearly this morning, that it is the ApplicantÓs intention to work with the adjacent property owners to minimize the duplication of resources. And I want this Commission to know that I support that. I have spoken with him and I strongly support the collaborative effort so that the resources for the benefit of the public will not have to be duplicated, which is this, is a very possible outcome of this if we donÓt work together in a pro-active way. So I urge to you to do so, and I hope that Just a couple of final comments. One of the testifiers this morning talked, and perhaps it was more than one, talked about looking at the whole picture, not, looking at the cumulative impacts, especially as it relates to the SMA; and I know that youÓre required under State law to do so. Again, I think thereÓs an opportunity here, over the long term, for great collaborative efforts to not have duplications of public access roads, intersections, etc., etc. So I would encourage you to explore those. And, finally, with respect to the request for an SMA, as you well know, I have come before you on a number of occasions to talk to you about using the best available control technologies to mitigate any possible non-point source pollution absolute disaster for the AA pristine waters, not to mention some of the activities that are taking place to the north in terms of business. The Land Use Commission, in a recent decision for properties adjacent to these or nearby on the mauka side, further inland, have come up with, after rather substantial testimony and in some cases Contested Case, have come up with some pretty good requirements to protect the near-shore waters. And I would urge you to read those Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order so that you, too, can put these into practice. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I think IÓll end. If you have any questions, IÓll be glad to respond. FUJIKAWA:Thank you, Councilman Tyler. TYLER:YouÓre welcome, sir. FUJIKAWA:Is there any question from the Commission. Go ahead, Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Tyler -. 19 Tyler:Good morning, aloha. SPRINGER:Aloha, mai. Are Messrs. Matsuyama and Fuke participants in the Kohanaiki group discussions, especially with regard to traffic? TYLER:They have been present. I canÓt tell you whether they have specifically been collaborating because, certainly they have encouraged them to do so. They have indicated willingness to do so, but I have not been a party in those meetings. I think youÓll have to ask Mr. Fuke that question or Mr. Matsuyama, Burke Matsuyama. SPRINGER:Besides the Kohanaiki group meetings, are you aware of any other group meetings on traffic issues, in particular with regard to Kaahumanu Highway, that you can tell us about? TYLER:IÓm aware that the County has undertaken a study to develop a roadway circulation plan for the area from approximately the Kona International Airport, I think thatÓs Haumanamana, perhaps a little further north, maybe, till the lands of KaÒu, to the urban expansion area, all the way down to Honaunau. And I understand thatÓs, I read that itÓs on your agenda today, the Deputy Planning Director is going to be making a report. IÓll be very interested to hear what that is because I havenÓt heard anything further about it. There have been some public meetings; and needless to say there were scores of people who turned out for these meetings, they were well attended. But I havenÓt heard anything for some months. In addition, I know that the Kona Traffic Safety Committee to their credit has been, and Mr. Gimpel spoke to you earlier this morning about some of their concerns, have, meet monthly. Unfortunately, they do so in the evenings that IÓm in Hilo, so I donÓt, usually I havenÓt been able to make these meetings. But they have indicated concern, not only to the State Highways, County Department of Public Works, also to my office on some occasion. But itÓs very, you know, their work is quite considerable, given the traffic, infrastructure deficits we have here. Those are ones that immediately come to my mind, Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. TYLER:YouÓre welcome. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question from the Commissioners to Mr. Tyler or any of the testifiers? If not, thank you very much for testifying. TYLER:Mahalo. FUJIKAWA:And will the Applicant please come forward again? HAUANIO:Mr. Chair, just one more point of clarification. When Mr. Tyler said non-point source pollutant, does he mean anything that adversely impacts our subsistence? 20 FUJIKAWA:Okay, Mr. Tyler, the question is applied toward you. Can you answer that? TYLER:IÓm sorry, sir, did you want me to answer that? FUJIKAWA:Yes, can you answer that? TYLER:Uncharacteristically, one word, absolutely. HAUANIO:Mahalo. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Okay, Mr. Fuke, please step forward. FUKE:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Fuke, you heard the testifiersÓ testimony happening -. FUKE:Yes, IÓd like to just make a few comments and then, secondly, kind of make a request of this Commission. Just to clarify or respond to some of the comments that were made, one is that, you know, we wanted to emphatically make clear that the property is not a shoreline property. ItÓs approximately 4,000 feet mauka of the shoreline. ItÓs adjacent, highway, but itÓs definitely not a shoreline property. In terms of the land exchange, my understanding is that when the relinquish or gave up coastal properties, the value of the coastal property, relative to the existing MG zoning, was kind of like taken into account. The other thing is that like what Mr. Tyler had suggested about like the best available, you know, the BACT, best available technology for wastewater man your potential concerns for your ground water and your near-shore water, and pretty much along the line of what Commissioner Graham had raised, weÓr that. And the Applicant is prepared to accept conditions that would be comparable to what the Land Use Commission had required for the Lanihau project, as well as most recently by the County Council for the TSA industrial project, to afford greater protection of the coastal waters. On the roadway and the related type of conditions, I believe that there are ways that can be worked out to help address the concerns that were raised by Mr. Matsuyama, and Mr. Tyler, and Mr. Gimpel, and others, and, likewise, also, with the issue about the viewplane. And I understand like what Janice from the Sierra Club was talking about the viewplane, you know, you can represent that the building is going to be only 40 feet but then you raise the property by another 40 feet and, so, effectively, you have an 80-foot 21 tall building when viewed makai from the highway. And there are conditions, I think, that can minimize or eliminate that thing from happening. But more critical I think as it relates to providing another opportunity for the Kona community and the Commissioners to get the input, the Applicant would not mind having the hearing be continued to the next meeting in Hilo, excuse me, the next meeting in Kona. However, weÓd like to request that this hearing be on Thursday rather than on Friday. Because on Friday we noticed that your agenda is relatively, you already have a very, very full plate; and if we have this item like on a Thursday, then theyÓll be able to, the Commission will be able to give your undivided attention to hopefully, arrive at some decision on this issue. And, over the next three weeks, we would hope that Department of Transportation is sensitive enough to provide you with their recommendation of their position on this issue. FUJIKAWA:So youÓre asking -. For the staff, basically, heÓs asking for two days of hearing. Can that be done? FUKE:No, weÓre requesting not two days of hearing but -. FUJIKAWA:No, no, not for you, for us. HAYASHI:Well, I think we would not be able to meet the publication requirement. Because according to your SMA Rule No. 9, it says that the hearing notice for an SMA Use permit must be published 20 days prior to the hearing date. So 20 days prior to the hearing date would be, I believe on Monday, and we wonÓt be able to meet th that requirement, this Monday, September 15. rd YUEN:Are we publishing this for October 3, currently? rd HAYASHI:We donÓt have this for October 3. FUKE:Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. FUKE:Does this relate to, does the hearing requirement also pertain to matters when they are continued as opposed to like a brand new application? HAYASHI:I think that is the process that we have been using but -. FUKE:But is that necessarily like a, is that necessarily the, what the rules of, the requirements are? FUJIKAWA:Maybe the Corp. Counsel could answer that. 22 FUKE:I would imagine that thereÓd be a requirement for like the agenda has to be agendized within seven, you know, you have to meet the requirement for, you know, having it agendized. But in terms of a public hearing notice, I know that thereÓs an absolute requirement for the initial notice; but when whether that also applies -. FUJIKAWA:Corp. Counsel, go ahead. MASUDA:You can announce the continuance at the existing hearing without the publication. So if you announce the continuance today, thatÓll satisfy the Sunshine Law. If thatÓs what your question is. However, though, if you have internal rule, sorry, IÓm not versed in Commission rules. IÓm just standing in today. But if you have an internal rule that requires it, then thatÓs something else. HAYASHI:I think we have had prior verbal opinion from Corporation CounselÓs representative to this Commission that states that anytime you continue a hearing that they need to advertise it in the paper, in accordance with the, your rules. But, you know, IÓm not an attorney so -. MASUDA:Yeah, so like I say, if you have an internal rule that says you have to, then you have to follow the staffÓs rule. FUJIKAWA:Do we have an internal rule, Director? YUEN:Being said if we have a set of rules, weÓll take a look. FUJIKAWA:WeÓll look into it. HAYASHI:Yeah, as far as, you earlier asked, from the staffÓs nd standpoint, would the Thursday meeting, October 2, I believe, affect us and, at this point in time, I canÓt say because we wonÓt know whether weÓll get the Department of TransportationÓs comment by that time. So I think itÓs best that we leave this open- ended. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, he brought it to a point, Mr. Fuke, about the State again. And, I donÓt know, weÓre looking at the hearing of two days, which you want to do as soon as possible. But there, again, if the State is not ready to give us the information, what are we going to do? So -. FUKE:Well, itÓs unfortunate because, you know, under that basis, under that theory then, presumably, one agency is holding the Applicant hostage; and I donÓt think thatÓs fair. I think every best effort should be made to have the Department of Transportation understand the urgency behind their comments; and if they choose, you know, not to make this a priority, then so be it. But itÓs regrettable that they donÓt make a review on something that has significance on their highway system and something thatÓs important to the community a priority. 23 FUJIKAWA:Okay. Thank you. Director, do you have something to say? YUEN:No. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:While the Director continues to look for the appropriate rule regarding notice, I wonder if the Planning Commission could send a letter to the Department of Transportation supporting the Planning DepartmentÓs request for their comments and urging those comments be forwarded to us as quickly FUJIKAWA:I think it could possibly be done. Director, have you heard the comment from Commissioner Springer about the Planning Commission to write a letter? YUEN:I promise to convey your sentiments. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Have you found anything of that nature? MASUDA:Mr. Chairman -. FUJIKAWA:Corp. Counsel, go ahead. MASUDA:As far as getting the representative of the Department of Transportation here, while discussion was going on I was looking through your folksÓ rules. Since itÓs not a Contested Case, you canÓt subpoena him to come. However, however, as Mr. Tyler suggested, you can, as a Commission, invite him to come and strongly word it. I would also recommend that when you send that letter, you also send a copy to the Governor, at that point. And, in the past, for other Commissions, that has worked and has gotten the State people here. But, like I said, you cannot compel them to come. Okay? As far as a continuance, from my review of the rules, I donÓt see an exact rule of continuance. However, there is, as staff has indicated, a 20-day notice that has been applied in the past. However, like I said before, as far as Sunshine Law goes, I donÓt see thereÓs a violation if you do it within the 20 days. I mean, you donÓt have to have the posted requirement. But on the same token, too, you have the hearing, I donÓt know if youÓre going to have the Department of Transportation official here in time anyway. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Mr. Director, you have anything to say? YUEN:ItÓs up to the purview of the Commission. I think the ndrd Commission can go ahead and schedule this for either October 2 or October 3. Like I 24 say, itÓs up to the Commission whether they want to go ahead and do that. I think that the spirit of the rules are met by the fact that we would announce, if any -. The Commission could have come and taken a vote today. If you announce a continuance of this hearing to a new date, any member of the public who would come here would have notice of that new date and could not really complain if they hadnÓt been informed of it. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners? YUEN:We should though publish a supplementary agenda for the island if we put it, even though we wouldnÓt we make the 20 days, if we put it on either ndrdndrd the 2 or 3. As to whether we do it on the 2 or the 3, as I say, itÓs up to the Commission as to whether they can make that, make those days. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just a few comments on my behalf in regards to all these issues floating around. I certainly agree with Councilman Tyler that weÓd want to have the action meeting in Kona; and I certainly agree with Mr. Fuke that a super long meeting does certainly diminish my ability to be well focused and sharp in what IÓm trying to do. So the idea of having a second day, although it inconveniences us, I think itÓs really important as far as us doing our work properly. And then, finally, with regard to Department of Transportation, since IÓm the newest member on the Commission here, I havenÓt worked with them much s they are; and I donÓt see much sympathy for their position coming forth. However, you know, I tend to kind of like look out for the guy whoÓs not there. And from my perspective, when weÓre looking at the complexity of the issues and how fast things are changing with the Lanihau, with the Kohanaiki and all, it certainly would seem to me that the Department of Transportation could be really wrestling with trying to come up with a good plan and trying to get the latest piece of information in there. So IÓll just say that on their behalf. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioner Kubota, you have any comment? KUBOTA:I wanted to get back to rescheduling. When we talk about nd October 2, Thursday, weÓre looking at two days of PC meetings then, an overnight stay, or what are we talking about, the logistics of it? HAYASHI:Well, I think, first of all, we need to check our schedule and, secondly, we need to check whether we have a place to have everything is okay, then itÓll probably be a two-day meeting and possibly staying overnight. FUJIKAWA:I think itÓs up to the Commissioners to decide what they want, two-day or one-day meeting, or itÓs up to you. Commissioner Springer, go ahead. 25 SPRINGER:I would prefer to divide the workload into two days. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Mina? MINA:(No response.) FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:(No response.) FUJIKAWA:Any other? ThatÓs it? KUBOTA:You donÓt care if itÓs two days or one day? You prefer t days? Is that what you said? SPRINGER:Yeah. As with Commissioner Graham, if, especially when we have weighty matters that have a lot of reading to do, to try and condense it into one very long day -. KUBOTA:Yeah, I agree with you. I canÓt do it all in one day wit things piling up. Now does that mean provided that all arrangements can be made? Does rd that place a possibility that, what was it, SotoÓs that we postponed till October 3 can be ndrd taken up on October 2 to lighten the load on October 3? HAYASHI:Well, that could be an alternative. However, as I said, there nd may be some staff commitment that some of us may not be here on the 2, and this is what I need to have verified. KUBOTA:Well, yeah, I said providing all things are go. Do we need a motion for that? FUJIKAWA:I think so. nd HAYASHI:Well, I can say, from the staffÓs standpoint, October 2 for two of the staff members, myself and Phyllis, thatÓll be a very bad day. But if you still want to go along with that meeting, then weÓll have proper representation from staff. KUBOTA:Well, I think none of us wants to put in another day, and is a very bad day for me as well. But if we have to, we have to. I canÓt see any other way out of it. Can you? FUJIKAWA:WeÓre asking for two days. Now, the day that we are assigned for the meeting, how many, how much is there on the age ndrd HAYASHI:The October 2 youÓre talking about, 3? 26 FUJIKAWA:Yeah. HAYASHI:We have a major application, which is right next to Ooma, which is the Kohanaiki project; and we have three other applications that day, along with the Soto application, if it doesnÓt go for a Contested Case hearing. FUJIKAWA:Well, Commissioners? KUBOTA:Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that this Commission reschedule the Change of Zone Application REZ 03-010 and SMA Use Permit nd Application 03-005 to Thursday, October 2, provided arrangements can be made by staff to acquire the needed facilities and staff to hold -. FUJIKAWA:Continue the hearing not reschedule. KUBOTA:Oh, IÓm continuing. Did I say reschedule? FUJIKAWA:Yeah. KUBOTA:Oh. Okay. Continuing, whatever I said previous to this, to nd October 2, provided that all arrangements can be made in terms of facilit FUJIKAWA:Do I hear a second? SPRINGER:Second. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer, okay, you seconded it. Okay. I nd has been moved and seconded for continuing the hearing to October 2. As far as time- wise, I guess, itÓll be given by the County Planning Department. WeÓre going to take a vote right now. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? 27 MINA:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair, motion carries. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved and seconded and approved to continue nd the hearing to October 2. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 28