Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-04 TCLIFTO120403 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 4, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of CLIFTOÓS KONA COAST, LLC (SMA 03-005) was called to order at 9:15 a.m. in the Hapuna - Koa Room, 62100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, Hawaii with Chairman Fred Galdo presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED:Bill Graham Earl Fujikawa Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Patricia OÓToole, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 34 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CLIFTO'S KONA COAST, LLC (SMA 03-005) Request for reconsideration on the action taken on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a commerc 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 nd feet south of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Î NELHA Access Road, Ooma 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-9:22. GALDONES:Commissioners, there were two agendas that were mailed out to you. There was an addendum that followed the agenda. And on th that the Applicant is CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC and it notes in the notice that it will be taken as the first agenda item. So we will be dealing with that The Applicant is CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC. This is SMA 03-005. This is a request for reconsideration of the action taken on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a Commercial-Residential complex, consisting of EXHIBIT A offices, retail uses, multi-family housing, facilities for transient accommodations and related improvements. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. Just for your information, the maps pertaining to this application are on the wall to my left. And since all of you are familiar with the project, I would dispense with the description, going through the description of the project. For your information, at its meeting of th November 7, the Planning Commission took action on this particular application for an SMA Use Permit. The vote was to, the motion was to approve the request and that particular motion did not pass. There were six Commissioners in attendance and the vote was recorded as three ayes and three noes. As a result of this voting action, the application was declared denied since there was no majority vote of five. th Since that time, per letter dated November 12 that was received in our office on the same date, the ApplicantÓs representative, Mr. Sidney Fuke, had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission Chair requesting that this action be reconsidered and, therefore, this matter is brought before you today. Since that meeting, we also received, based on the file that I have, we have received three correspondences regarding this Petition. There may be others that may have been submitted this morning that I donÓt have, that may be brought to your attention at a later time. First of all, this is a letter from James Sogi and, basically, stating that his organization, which is Na Keiki Hei Nalu O Hawaii, is recommending denial of this particular SMA request. We also received a letter from Na Ala Hele, the Hawaii Trails and Access System, signed by Irving Kawashima, requesting that the development work with the Hawaii Island Advisory Council concerning ways to integrate the historic Mamahaloa Trail into the future development of this area. And, finally, we received a letter from Mr. Duane Erway, who wanted us to read this particular letter into the record. However, since youÓve had an opportunity to review a copy of this letter, I would dispense with it. Basically heÓs representing Plan to Protect Kona; and theyÓre recommending that this particular request be denied. Are there any questions at this time? GALDONES:Commissioners, are there any questions of Norman? SPRINGER:No, thank you. GALDONES:Okay. Hearing none, will the Applicant or its representative please come forward? Good morning, Mr. Fuke. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? 2 FUKE:Yes, I do. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, could you please state your name and your residence address? FUKE:Sure. My name is Sidney Fuke, IÓm a planning consultant. IÓm here representing or assisting the Applicant, CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC. My residence address is 1358 Mele Manu Street in Hilo. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, as stated by Norman, there were some new communications that were submitted over to the Planning Department for our consideration, and I believe that you have also gone over the recommendations. Do you have any comments to those? FUKE:I guess, perhaps, like the first, well, IÓd like to, initially, acknowledge our appreciation for this CommissionÓs reconsideration on this matter, you know, particularly in light of the gravity of this project and the fact that there were only six Commissioners present at the last meeting. So I appreciate the Commission entertaining this reconsideration. Before moving on, however, I probably would want some clarification from the Chair, or if the Chair deems appropriate from your counsel, you know, rega appropriateness of, the type of testimony that may be broached with this Commission, you know, in light of the fact that the Commission hearing on this matter has been closed and now this is just a reconsideration. GALDONES:Ms. OÓToole? OÓTOOLE:Well, I donÓt know what Mr. Fuke means but the public is allowed to testify on any agenda item. So if they wish to testify on this motion, then we will allow it -. FUKE:Okay. OÓTOOLE:Or we should allow it, yeah. FUKE:So, essentially, then we can, the primary, the primary reas bringing that question up, Mr. Chairman, was just whether, I wanted to find out whether procedurally it would be appropriate to share with this body the information, to share with this body the County CouncilÓs Planning Committee recent action on this application. And hearing what Ms. OÓToole had to say, I guess, it would be appropriate? GALDONES:Ms. OÓToole -? 3 HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, while weÓre waiting, I just want to also add that the staff had, the Planning Director had submitted a recommendation to you on this particular request, and that is the recommendation at the top itÓs dated 11/26/03; and the Planning DirectorÓs recommending approval of the SMA Use Permit. YUEN:Mr. Chair, if I could just state my position that I have no objection to Mr. Fuke making additional comments, including discussion of what happened at the Council. FUKE:Okay. GALDONES:With that statement and, Mr. Fuke, I was looking over t recommendation to see if the final action was supposed to be taken by the County Council or it was going to be taken by the Planning Commission. But looking it over, the recommendation, the Planning Commission will make the final deci any problem with the testimony in reference to the County Council be introduced on this one. FUKE:Okay, sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So in light o information, then, IÓd like to kind of bring the Commission up-to-date as far as like what happened at the last Council Planning Committee meeting. And I also noticed, for the record, that the Chair of that Council Planning Committee is also in the audience, Mr. Leningrad Elarionoff. Generally, on zone change applications, the Council acts on that like three levels. You know, you have the Planning Committee and, then it has to, depending on what the Planning Committee does, then it goes up to the full Council for first reading, and then, ultimately, the second reading. The Planning Committee, if memory serves me correctly, generally consists of like all members of the Council. At the CouncilÓs Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday, by vote of six-to-two, the Committee recommended that the rezoning, the project district rezoning, be approved and that it be approved with several changes as, several changes that were somewhat different from what the Planning Director and the Commission had forwarded to the Council for consideration. One of the most significant change from the ApplicantÓs perspect cap to what the original representation was, which was from 200 to 400 maximum transient accommodation rooms. They also clarified that affordable housing would be applicable not only to the multiple-family portion but to the transient accommodation portion. That was a change that was also made as a condition. And, finally, the third change was they clarified that the archeological preservation plan, which is your Condition 33, your proposed Condition 33 of the draft SMA recommendation that the Director had prepared, they had proposed some change, some language change to that which was more editorial in context. So, substantively, the major difference between the DirectorÓs position and the Council Planning CommitteeÓs positio basis, was just the question of the rooms; and so the Committee had agreed with the ApplicantÓs proposed request of 400 maximum number of rooms. 4 Again, like in summary, like weÓre again asking the CommissionÓs favorable consideration of this matter. Again, if you look at the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation on both the Change of Zone as well as the SMA recommendation that he has forwarded for your consideration, you know, the only difference lie in the number of the room count from 200 to 400. We have always stated that the room count is important. The Director noted that itÓs, if I can just quote it, Ðspeculative nature of the market for an airport-oriented business hotel.Ñ And based on that reason, he had suggested that the room count be reduced to 200. We have always stated in the past that thatÓs always the developerÓs risk, itÓs not necessarily the CountyÓs or anybody elseÓs risk. If thereÓs no market then that hotel or that number of rooms will not get built. Inspite of that, the infrastructure and all of the related obligations that are contained in the proposed ordinance as well as the proposed conditions of approval relating to roadway, your water system, inter-connectivity, your access, the preservation of the Mamalahoa trails, so on and so forth, regardless of the number of rooms that are constructed or not constructed, those obligations would still have to be fulfilled. There may be some other issues that the Commission may have that -. But, again, in the interest of brevity Òcause we have discussed all of those issues at different, you know, at four different Commission meetings on this matter, IÓd like to open myself up to, you know, further discussion or questions that the Commissioners may have. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, the amendments that you had mentioned, are yo proposing that these amendments that were acted upon by the County Council be inched up, inserted in the recommendations or have the recommendations been amended to include those? FUKE:Well, that would be our request, Mr. Chairman, specifically have the Planning DirectorÓs proposed recommendation on the SMA to increase the count from 200 to 400 rooms. The other one that the Council acted upon which was clarifying the affordable housing condition, thatÓs not a condition thatÓs contained in the SMA so it doesnÓt necessarily apply. And the third one deals more like an editorial correction on the archaeological preservation plan, which is your Condition 33 on the proposed SMA recommendation offered by the Planning Director. GALDONES:Norman, did you get those amendments that Mr. Fuke ment HAYASHI:I got the general gist of the -. GALDONES:Commissioners, any comments or questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I have a few. But starting with the recommendation before us that was circulated this morning, IÓm looking at page 20. And IÓm looking at that Condition 5 33, and IÓd just like some clarification, and theyÓre referenced both to Mamalahoa Trail and also the KingÓs Highway. Are these two different features? FUKE:No. ThatÓs one of the editorial changes. TheyÓre basically the same feature. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUKE:So the way that the Council had changed the, the Council Committee had changed that language and IÓll just read it to you. It reads, ÐAn archaeological preservation plan shall be prepared and submitted by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The archaeological preservation plan shall address the Mamalahoa Trail and associated habitation cave and ensure that they are not damaged by construction activities.Ñ So, essentially, they say the same thing but itÓs a little bit cleaner language. SPRINGER:Thank you. YUEN:If I could just comment on that. When we wrote the recommendation, we were under the misconception that there were two rights-of-way through there, that the Mamalahoa Trail and the KingÓs Trail were separate, and this is because the deed that the Applicant has on the property in 1986 identifies the KingÓs Highway as being the makai boundary of the property. The known feature, the well- known Mamalahoa Trail actually cuts through the property. So we did manage to verify that there isnÓt anything on the ground that, that there is no separate KingÓs Highway on the ground. The only thing that exists is the Mamalahoa Trail that cuts through the property. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners -? Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Yes, a couple of questions. Thank you. Mr. Hayashi, this project was for a rezoning from Light Industrial to Project District? HAYASHI:That is correct. KUBOTA:Okay. That was the rezoning that was requested. Okay. Within the Project District, is there any limitation as to transient room numbers that weÓre talking about? As I understand Mr. Fuke to say, the only unresolved thing between the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation and the ApplicantÓs is the 200 versus 400 transient rooms that are to be made available. Is there a cap on, in the Project District requirements? LetÓs say that you can go only so high? 6 HAYASHI:There is no cap. ItÓs what the Council would approve as far as the limit -. KUBOTA:The maximum? HAYASHI:That is correct. KUBOTA:Okay, thatÓs the ceiling? HAYASHI:That is correct. KUBOTA:And is it also correct that, according to Mr. FukeÓs testimony this morning, that the Council has met, the Council Committee on Planning has met already and had gone through the first hearing on it? HAYASHI:Yes, the CouncilÓs Planning Committee met on Tuesday; an of the items they had discussed was the transient accommodation or the number of hotel rooms. And although the recommendation that was sent up to the County Council from the Planning Commission was 200 rooms, the CouncilÓs Planning Co increased that to indicate that they could go up to 400 rooms, hotel rooms. KUBOTA:I see. HAYASHI:This still needs to be approved by the full Council. KUBOTA:Okay, okay. Then I go back, oh, well, no, weÓre not in t process yet. Okay. So thatÓs the current status of this application? The latest is that the County CouncilÓs Planning Committee has looked at it once and th recommendation that we set at 200 to 400. Is that correct? HAYASHI:That is correct; and that is what they will be requestin Council consider. KUBOTA:Okay. One more question to the consultant. Mr. Fuke, your analysis that you presented to the Commission with your application regarding economic feasibility, traffic impact and so forth and so on, the whole write-up, what was the number that was, that that study was based on? Was it 400 that youÓve recently based all of these studies on? FUKE:That is correct. The environmental report that accompanied application discussed the impacts of a 400-unit project. ItÓs not like a situation where the application and the analysis called for 200 and at the last minute weÓre trying to increase it to, by additional 200. So the direct answer to your question is, yes, the evaluation and the analysis made was based on a 400-room hotel. KUBOTA:Thank you. 7 FUKE:Just one other technical correction, the existing zoning of the property is not Light Industrial but instead it is Heavy Industrial. KUBOTA:Oh, Heavy Industrial to Project District? FUKE:That is correct. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of Mr. Fuke? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:This is a process question so perhaps Norman would be best suited to answer it. But what if the application is not approved? What happens to the CouncilÓs Planning CommitteeÓs action? HAYASHI:Well, the CouncilÓs Planning Committee and the full Coun adopt the Project District with a maximum of 400 hotel rooms. If this request is denied or this SMA Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission with the 200-room limit, then thatÓs what has been approved. So thatÓs all the Applicant would be able to construct, unless they came in for amendment to that particular condition to increase that at a later time. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, IÓm looking at your Chapter 6, the infrastructure and public facilities. FUKE:Okay, go ahead. SPRINGER:And IÓm looking at page 6-9. FUKE:Sure. SPRINGER:ThereÓs a discussion of average stoppage delay per vehicle, on the second paragraph of that page, mid-way through the paragraph. FUKE:Okay, go ahead. SPRINGER:Now is that average stoppage delay at the intersection or during the course of travel along the Kaahumanu Highway? 8 FUKE:I didnÓt do the traffic study so -. But I would imagine just reading it, Commissioner Springer, that that relates to the average dela SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman, we have discussion on the application itself now, or would you like to wait for a motion on the matter? GALDONES:If you would like to raise any questions for clarification of the Applicant or the staff, weÓll do that. But if itÓs to debate the issue then weÓll wait till we have the motion. SPRINGER:IÓll wait. Thank you. GALDONES:Okay. Any further -. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:If there arenÓt any, I did want to say some, speak to the Commission just a bit about our recommendation that we made here. We had been recommending that the Commission defer action on this until the Council acted in order to reduce the possibility for conflict between the two actions. At the last meeting it was quite clear that the Commission wanted to go ahead and vote on t the vote on the request for deferral was five-to-one against. Rather than continue to be overly stubborn on this point, we are now issuing a recommendation. It is part of our job to make recommendations to the Commission. And if the Commission does not want to keep deferring the matter as far as the SMA Permit, then thatÓs fine, then we would issue this recommendation. We are making the recommendation for appro Just to speak for a moment about the relationship between the rezoning and the SMA Permit, if the Council does not pass the zoning, then the SMA Permit, if granted by the Commission, would be of no effect. If the Council did pass the zoning, but then the Commission denied the SMA Permit, youÓd have a piece of property thatÓs zoned but cannot yet be developed because they have no SMA Permit. There would be a waiting period to reapply for the SMA Permit. The Commission can pass an SMA Permit that has fewer units than allowed by the zoning, and it can also pass an SMA Permit that has more conditions that are protective of the environment or cultural sites, historic sites and the like, than are contained in the rezoning ordinance, as long as that limitation and those conditions are tied to things in the SMA law. The SMA is a separate layer of protection beyond the zoning. So in considering an SMA Permit, we have to, there are things that we have to look at; and those may cause the Commission to decide to restrict the project beyond what was allowed by the zoning or to put additional conditions on the project at that time. So the major difference between the recommendation that weÓve ma ApplicantÓs request is the number of hotel rooms. The basic reasons for recommending approval are that this is an area that has been identified in the General Plan for urban development and the current Heavy Industrial 9 zoning is clearly not the right zoning for this project. It was perhaps the right zoning when it was part of, for this area, that it was perhaps the right zoning when it was part of the NELHA project. This property was originally State-owned and was supposed to become part of NELHA. NELHA was given a Heavy Industrial zoning not to create power plants, or rock crushers, or cement batching plants and the like, or other kinds of what you call classic Heavy Industrial uses. But it was a way in which you could do the aquaculture, OTEC or ocean-thermal power plant. It was the aquaculture tanks, fish farms. You could have labs, ocean-related labs. It was a wide-opened category for that. Now that the land exchange has occurred and itÓs privately-owned, the Applicant is not interested in being, continuing as part of that OTEC area. There is a considerable area within NELHA and OTEC for their own expansion. And this is not a coastal property. This is a highway-oriented property. I think we received some letters about the coastal area here. We have not, this is separately-owned. The coastal area is still in the Conservation District. The approach of, my approach to the coastal area is contained in our proposed General Plan amendment that would create an open area along the coastline setback from the coast. The County General Plan currently has the coast as a resort area. But we would want to have the area along the coast kept in open space as much as possible. However, the remainder of the lot we do show as an urban expansion area in the proposed General Plan. I do have some reservations about the project, that is a very large-scaled project that is speculative, not just the hotel aspect of it but the commercial aspect in this location is quite speculative. But turning to the hotel units particularly, I would urge the Commission to keep some control over the scope and level of the development here by keeping a 200-room cap rather than the 400. That this is, what we are recommending is a very large project and a very large up-zoning from what they really can do under their present zoning designation. We hear very heartfelt concerns and testimony from people in Kona over the scope of growth, and the traffic, and the impacts of more and more people in Kona. Sometimes I think these are misplaced in times when people oppose residential development that make people, allow people to live closer to where they work. That, in this case, however, this project thereÓs no question will be a traffic generator beyond what is allowed by the present zoning, and that the hotel development would throw more fuel on the fire. So, for these reasons, we are urging that the Commission adopt t our support is contingent upon that. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if the Director would care to address the issue of, raised by Jim Sogi regarding that the high-rise blocks the seaward viewplanes, and that the proposal creates a density thatÓs higher than the surrounding parcels. 10 YUEN:It would create a density higher than the Kohanaiki project that was recently approved, but that was more -. ItÓs hard to compare that because in Kohanaiki weÓre dealing with the coastal area. Even Kohanaiki has a mauka area that is currently conservation that corresponds to this parcel. ItÓs the area along the highway. As far as the viewplane, the ApplicantÓs analysis shows that there isnÓt much of a viewplane from the highway here; and I think that is true. I mean, IÓve driven it and looked at it, that most of the property is in a cut, most, that there is -. And IÓm trying to remember the exact details. They do have a viewplane analysis in the application. I checked that writing, and looking, and it seemed to be accurate that thereÓs only a relatively small portion of the frontage along the Queen Kaahumanu Highway where you can see out and see past the road cut that the highway is in. As you get closer to Hinalani Street and when youÓre on the Kohanaiki property, the ground makai starts to drop away and you do have a much more sweeping view. But in the Ooma area paralleling on the highway, you donÓt seem, you canÓt see much makai currently. You may, if they develop this project, you may be able to see the roofs of the taller structures; but even the lower part of the structure should not be visible from the highway. FUKE:Mr. Chairman, could I just add to that? GALDONES:Okay. FUKE:Just a couple of other things. One is that the Applicant had represented and the Director is also reflecting that representation in your Condition 11 which, proposed Condition 11 which talks about a 150-foot natural buffer between the existing edge of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the development of the project. The other point is that the application was predicated upon reducing the existing height from its present 50-foot height limit for the Heavy Industrial zone to no higher than 40 feet. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:No, I was just going to make a point that Mr. Fuke talked about so I shall pass. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Question to Chris. I guess my, trying to figure how to v my question, I guess, is -. I know we are only looking at the mauka area, not the coastal area. I guess my concern is that we arenÓt setting up, that our development of the mauka area, I mean, how can we, if -? You voiced your goal to keep the makai areas open. I mean, is it reasonable that if we allow the development of the mauka area that we arenÓt, that we can keep the, or is there a way that we can keep, you know, put something in it to keep the makai areas open? 11 YUEN:Unfortunately, I donÓt think that we can tie, directly tie the two together. You have two separate parcels of property and they are applying for this mauka area. What I didnÓt want to do -. And we did contain some, put some language in our recommendation to make it clear that the recommendation for this site is based upon the site and partially that the site is along the highway and not along the coast. I am concerned that someday when they, if they come in for the makai section, they would say, ÐLook, we have this at the mauka area so why not give us certain zoning on the makai area.Ñ TheyÓve represented that theyÓre not doing that, that they recognize that itÓs two separate areas that need to be looked at separately. Beyond that, I donÓt know what we can do. FUJIKAWA:I have a question. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:I have a question with the Planning Director. I believe thereÓs three different parcels in that area, right, three different owners? YUEN:In what area are you talking about? FUJIKAWA:You have that Kohanaiki, Ooma, and thereÓs another one in the center, right? YUEN:Yeah. Well, yeah, thereÓs three, well, if you -. Norman, could you point to Kohanaiki makai? Okay, the Kohanaiki makai portion, which is about 470 acres, th is the group that was here at the last Planning Commission, November 7, the last one we had in Kona; and thatÓs the SMA Permit that we just granted there. ThatÓs owned, itÓs a Rutter Development, partnership of Rutter Development and Kenned mauka of Kohanaiki, along the highway, there are 92 acres thatÓs two-thirds owned by the same partnership and one-third by another independent owner. Okay? Now along the highway in between the Kohanaiki mauka area and Ooma, the 83 a small sliver of property thatÓs owned by the Lee family, I believe. I donÓt know how many acres that is but itÓs pretty small. ItÓs maybe 10 acres or something, all right, that separates these two highway properties. Then we have the 83-acre Ooma mauka property that weÓre dealing with here today, with this SMA Permit, thatÓs owned by this CliftoÓs group. And then makai of that thereÓs 217 acres thatÓs also owned by this same CliftoÓs group, separate parcel. ItÓs in the State Land Use Conservation District and does not have any new development permits. And then proceeding, you know, toward the, the next property toward the airport is NELHA, State. FUJIKAWA:I see. So now my other question is, with all this ownership, has the County come up with a General Plan for these developers? Because why my concern is you have all this, each one of them going to have their own sewa canÓt they have one and consolidate it in one? 12 YUEN:They could. It would depend upon the economics of whether, are requiring that you either have an on-site sewer treatment or you hook up to the County Kealakehe plant, which is a considerable distance away, and itÓs expensive to pump. I donÓt know what the, whether, I think the economics are going to lead to development of a wastewater treatment plant. ThereÓs, I donÓt know that thereÓs, and the private owners can get together and decide to have the wastewater treatment plant on one of these properties rather than have two. From an environmental point of view, I donÓt know that thereÓs a big difference between having one or two private sewer treatment plants. FUJIKAWA:I see. So, in other words, on your condition on item N could add on to the developer that in event that they do come to a decision of consolidation, they may? Right now youÓre applying to one individual person on his own treatment system. YUEN:You mean -? Well, we have Condition 18 and it says that, ÐAll wastewater shall be treated at an approved wastewater treatment plant, to a minimum of secondary treatment, with R-2 effluent, unless a greater level of treatment is required by the Department of Health. Wastewater shall be used for irrigation of landscaping or other beneficial reuse to the maximum extent feasible.Ñ So this doesnÓt mean that they have to do one, a wastewater treatment plant could be on the adjoining property; it doesnÓt have to be on their property; but they do have to have a secondary treatment -. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, but what IÓm saying is that according to the condition that the developer as well as Kohanaiki may consolidate together. IÓm trying to avoid all these sewer treatment plants all over the area. YUEN:Yeah, thatÓs -. I donÓt think a change to the condition needs to be made in order to accomplish that because it doesnÓt say that the wastewater treatment plant has to be on-site. It also, the way itÓs written it also would be acceptable for them to pipe it to Kealakehe. FUJIKAWA:ThatÓs it. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I would like to go back to this issue of this recommendation by the Planning Department on the SMA application. And I would like to argue, again, about the numbers 400 versus 200, and IÓve done this before on record and I wish to bring it up again. I guess, to some extent, my belief that 400 versus 200, 400 ought to have been the number that was allowed but we did recommend to the Council a lesser number. However, when I considered this recommendation again back, supported by the Planning CommitteeÓs decision yesterday, I think it was, I am more convinced, I am re-convinced, more convinced, that the reason or the rationale that Mr. Yuen presents to us to bring it 13 down to 200 from 400 is, just doesnÓt sit right with me. Because he keeps talking about the speculative nature of the market, and itÓs printed in black-and-white in our recommendation, and he said it verbally this morning, Ðdue to the speculative nature of the market for an airport-oriented business hotel.Ñ Now that may be perfectly true. But I donÓt think itÓs any of our, itÓs not our jurisdiction to determine what the economic feasibility for the developer might be. I think thatÓs something that the developer decides within the scope of the analysis that they make. And if he, if the developer wants to go for 400 and the laws allow it, I donÓt see how we, as Commissioners, can sit here and act like an analyst, business analyst, which we are not, and say itÓs better to have 200 versus 400. And, so, therefore, when the time is appropriate, Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment to this recommendation that is before us from our Plan GALDONES:So noted, Commissioner Kubota. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, can you direct me to any place in Infrastructure and Public Facilities chapters where there is a discussion of stop delay per vehicle along Kaahumanu Highway while in transit? FUKE:Unfortunately, IÓm not a traffic engineer. So if I had known like all of those questions were coming up, I would have had the consultant over. SPRINGER:IÓm sorry. FUKE:As I had explained at the last meeting, I think what one really needs to take into consideration is that, as the Director had indicated, this becomes like a traffic generator, thereÓs no question about it. But if you look at the situation in, along the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, lot of the bottleneck is a result of like from the Hinalani Street moving south, and particularly up to Palani Road. What this project intends to do is to have that kind of, you know, have much of the traffic in the northern section, you know, of Kona, the North Kona and the South Kohala area, pretty much like migrate to this area to obviate or minimize the number of traffic movements that one may need to take towards town, and then further compounding it. So if youÓre looking at the load on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, particularly from Hinalani Street moving south, then, conceivably, any and all other activities south of Hinalani Street is the one thatÓll further exacerbate the problem. So what this project was intending to do was trying to, as we kind of like pointed out in the beginning of the environmental assessment, is trying to recognize that there is a different level of growth activity, the growth pattern, in the North Kona district. You know, youÓve got the upcoming West Hawaii University of Hawaii campus, you have the NELHA, you got the airport, you got the, lot of residential developments on Kaiminani, you know, all along that section, which has essentially created, has kind of like created like a different so-called like a land use pattern. And IÓll give you a classic point. ItÓs an information that I had shared with the Council Planning Committee. IÓm reminded of a situation about 25 years ago when the County administration, and I was part of that, you know, we had been ve keeping all of the commercial activities within the downtown core and the KaikoÓo area 14 when the proposed Prince Kuhio Shopping Center came about. And, from now, you know, you see that. And, you know, on hindsight, IÓm thinking that, you know, if that Prince Kuhio Shopping Center was never constructed, the infrastructure stress on the existing downtown and the KaikoÓo area right now would really be horrendous. I donÓt think that you would have enough infrastructure to support it. So to the extent that you have some measure of dispersal of land use activities, then it helps to dilute the kind of impact; and, conceivably, this type of project could help do that. ItÓll definitely add some load, you know, thereÓs no question about it, and the traffic study does demonstrate that. But I think that if you have projects that are south of the Palani Road intersection, for example, which are major economic generators, then youÓll find a greater gridlock at that Palani-Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I appreciate the emphasis on the traffic load from Hinalani south. IÓm curious if thereÓs any analysis done with regard to traffic on Kaahumanu Highway even north of the Keahole Airport and then thus north of the Kaiminani intersection, and if there was consideration that already traffic to avoid the gridlock in the Hinalani area is going up to Kaiminani and creating additional loading on the Mamalahoa Highway and the Kalaoa, and that vicinity? FUKE:I canÓt speak specifically to the traffic report Òcause, you know, I didnÓt do the report. But my reaction to, you know, to that statement would be that the Queen Kaahumanu Highway is your major thoroughfare. ItÓs like your H-1, your H-2, H-3. And, so, to have like necessarily one particular developer be responsible to creating like another main highway, major, primary arterial, personally, I donÓt think thatÓs realistic. ThatÓs basically becomes like a function of your different levels of government. IÓm reminded of a situation where at the last Planning Commission meeting, there was a lot of debate going on like on another residential rezoning project. But that issue over there dealt like with the, that proposed development and that access from that development leading to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. And when you think about it, like there was no discussion about the impact on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. But, to get back again, every activity that happens along the west side will have an impact, will have a load, on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Just like how, if you have development on the Honokaa, for example, or even like on the South Kohala area, it will have an existing, itÓll have an impact on your existing Mamalahoa Highway that goes through the town of Waimea. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, no further questions? Mr. Fuke, we have three individuals who have signed up to testify. 15 FUKE:Just before that, can I just respond very briefly to like, I guess, Commissioner McCallÓs question? GALDONES:Yes, you may. FUKE:Not, I guess, the comment that he had made. I think that t Planning Director is accurate in his comment about thereÓs very little that can be done, you know, on the makai section Òcause youÓre dealing with two separate parcels. I think that he has tried and, you know, we have tried also to kind of allay that fear. And, you know, in his recommendation to you on page 11 is already kind of that donÓt let the development of this area kind of lend credence to what may happen on the makai side. But inspite of that comment, if you look at Ooma as being in the same context as the property to the south, which this Commission just passed, the Kohanaiki property, we know that that property was zoned for like 11-plus years; and it was just kind of stuck inspite of like the well intention efforts by the community and, particularly, by the developers. And what it showed is that it took a lot of give-and-take and participation between the government, the community and the landowners in coming up with what is called like maybe perhaps like a community-oriented type of program. And I think that this is kind of like the new wave, so, relative to this particular parcel, you know, on the makai side. ÒCause, bearing in mind that any development on that area you would have to go to the State Land Use Commission to try to change it from Conservation to Urban. That would also be subject to a contested case hearing; and even if youÓre successful then one would also have to go through, possibly, if you donÓt get it settled at the Land Use Commission level, you probably have to go through a similar type of hearing before this body under the SMA application. So itÓs like 11-plus years on the Kohanaiki one. So I donÓt think itÓs going to be very simple for any developer to come in and expect to get fast entitlement on the makai side without community type of support. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, IÓm referring to Jim SogiÓs letter. And if you have a copy of it or have had a chance to read it, IÓm wondering if you can respond to a statement therein. We just received it this morning. FUKE:Okay. Thank you. SPRINGER:YouÓre welcome. Thank you. IÓm looking at the cover page which is fairly brief. The last three lines read, ÐChris, hereÓs our position on the Ooma CliftoÓs requests. Please recommend denial of the SMA and zoning change unless he enters into a written agreement with us. So a written agreement as we did with Rutter KW.Ñ Is your client prepared to at least enter into discussions and a possible written agreement as was in the Rutter case? FUKE:I guess like, first of all, like weÓre not necessarily dealing with the makai property. You know, weÓre dealing with the property thatÓs about three-quarters of a mile or a mile away from the shoreline, as the Director and the record indicated. But 16 notwithstanding that, the, you are still dealing with the same owners. And, so, the Applicant and the landowner of the makai side did submit a letter to the Planning Director, and I do have copies, which essentially stated that there would be like an interim coastal access management program for the makai property. And the way that the makai area would be managed would be generally similar to the way that the Kohanaiki property has currently been managed in terms of access use, maintenance responsibility, who foots the bills, so on and so forth. And thereÓs also discussion relative to the possible installation of a gate, provided that thereÓll be, you know, community approval, you know, so that thereÓll be more control, you know, at the mauka end and having people then get access on the, to the NELHA entrance, you know, for more control purposes. ThereÓs discussion along those lines, too. It was recently sent to the Director, I believe, like within the last 10 days I think, Chris, yeah? I do have a copy of that, but this is regardless of whatever happens in the mauka side. There is a generalized commitment in how the makai coastal property will be managed, at least during the interim. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:So those discussions focused on the makai portion below the Kaahumanu Highway, not the portion closest to the Kaahumanu Highway? FUKE:Correct. Yeah. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, hearing no further questions, there are three individuals who have signed up to testify. I would like to call upon them. Irving Kawashima, Karen Eoff and Maile David, please come forward? Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Could you speak into the mike and please state your nam residence address. We shall begin with, maÓam, you on the end o DAVID:Aloha and good morning. My name is Maile David. My address is 78-6894 Mamalahoa Highway, Holualoa, Hawaii. My testimony th basically what I see of this application, the process, and how the SMA law requires, among other things, satisfaction of the 10 objectives and the 10 policies of Chapter 205. Potential impacts must be identified upfront to make sure that these impacts are adequately addressed in this process. My concerns are the jeep trail, the mauka-makai access, and the 1847 Mamalahoa Trail. The application recommendation provides that except for the jeep trail, the 1847 Mamalahoa Trail shall not be breached without State approval. My question is, has the proposed breach approval been obtained from the 17 State; and, if not, shouldnÓt the State recommendations be a part of this application process for assessment? Another provision states that the Applicant may create a new mauka-makai access; and this certainly will impact upon the Mamalahoa Trail. And with that regard, will this action, the mauka-makai proposal, breach the trail, in fact, or, and where is the location of this proposed new mauka-makai trail? How will the impacts be identified or assessed, in accordance with 205, with respect to preserving and protecting the trail if the application itself states that they may create it, when, in fact, I think on one of those maps in the file shows the location of where the new mauka-makai trail is planned? So, in this case, how will interested parties, native Hawaiians and the Kona community, have an opportunity to have their concerns about the potential impacts regarding this breach addressed? Once the permit application is granted and th been closed, apparently, how will these issues and concerns be addressed? Because theyÓre not being addressed now. These are important issues that have to come before this body and before any permit can be granted. The developer has the, the property on the market for sale. He doesnÓt have funds to move forward with his plan or build what heÓs proposing, basically. So why is the application even being considered at this time, given the general nature of the Project District zoning in comparison to the much stricter SMA laws? I suggest that the, at the minimum, the Project District zone change be allowed, because I believe the recommendation has gone ahead with that to submit it to the Council, but that the approval of the SMA Permit application should be done when the developer can come forward and knows what his definitive plans are. In that way, the specific impacts can be addressed at that time. I can see no hardship on the developer because he will have his zone change. But I do see great hardship upon the people who have expressed their concerns if this SMA Permit is granted. The application is for a proposal that may change in makeup anytime within a 10-year period. Imposing conditions to address issues that may come up after a permit is granted sets a very bad precedence and practice. How can conditions be meaningfully addressed when the project itself might tend to change in the future? I see that, I see this as a shift of our agencyÓs burden and responsibilities to determine matters upfront as required by Section 205 to conditions of approval that no one will be able to monitor once the permit is granted. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. David. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. David? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:IÓm wondering if we might ask the Planning Director to respond, in particular, to Ms. DavidÓs concerns about monitoring? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? 18 YUEN:The conditions are, for the most part, quite specific. And give example of the Mamalahoa Trail, thereÓs, the proposed condition is that there be a 50-foot natural lava buffer on either side, plus a 60-foot no-build area. So if anybody, if thereÓs any physical development of the site, then it needs something called Plan Approval from the Department, so they have to submit plans. And just to use as an example, the staff is supposed to look at the plans versus the ordinance and make sure that the setbacks are kept up; so that would be enforceable. There a few types of conditions that are sometimes difficult to enforce; but I think the key ones are specific. And I would have to see the ones that sheÓs concerned about. She did, to explain on the mauka-makai Òcause this is a question that was raised -. ItÓs a little easier if I go to the map, I think. Right on the Kailua side of the property is where thereÓs an existing jeep trail that then crosses out of this property and goes all the way down to the ocean on the Ooma property. The Mamalahoa Trail runs like this here and actually cuts across where this jeep trail is and continues on into Kohanaiki. When they, along with their exchange deed when they got the property, they did get an easement across the Mamalahoa Trail at this point where the jeep trail cuts it. So they do have a place right here to cross and they can go down into the lower property. These two properties were under the same ownership at that time as well. The people that own this got, that own the 217 acres, got the 83 acres. So I presume thatÓs why they wanted this crossing point. There is no other approved crossing point on the Mamalahoa Trail. If you noticed, their site plan shows a crossing. They do not have approval to do that. So thatÓs why we put in our condition that no further crossing of the Mamalahoa Trail, unless they get approval from the State, Òcause the State owns the trail. That also means, by the way, that there is, that they do have an access problem to this lower wedge of the property, unless they come in from below or come across from NELHA to the north. They would not be able to get to this portion of the property thatÓs makai of the Mamalahoa Trail. You canÓt really do it at the southern or Kailua point because this is just a wedge here, and actually the trail takes up this whole corner of the property. So, but at any rate, this is a difficulty that they have. TheyÓll have to take care of it. In the rezoning ordinance, our recommendation was to say that this zoning of this wedge here does not become effective unless they establish access rights to it. GALDONES:Karen? EOFF:Good morning. My name is Karen Eoff. My address is Post Office Box 1602, Kailua-Kona 96745. IÓve been asked by Jim Sogi to read portions of his testimony in the record this morning, so IÓm going to say, read that first; and after that IÓve been asked by Angel Pilago on behalf of Kohanaiki Ohana to read a short testimony; and when IÓm done I can give you copies. Okay? GALDONES:You may proceed. 19 EOFF:This is on behalf of Na Keiki He'e Nalu written by Jim Sogi ÐI testify on behalf of Na Keiki He'e Nalu O Hawaii, a public charity whose purpose is to preserve family building activities, preserve and continue Hawaiian cultural practices and promote community sustainability. For the past decade our group has personally done periodic clean ups of the O'oma area, policed and done sweeps to remove the homeless and drug addicts as we have at Kohanaiki. These efforts have been documented in the newspaper over the years. We have raised funds to support our efforts at the beach. Our group and our members have a personal interest and stake in the use, protection and proposed development of the O'oma parcel and requests the Commis efforts to make our island a good place to live. ÐWe oppose the request for an SMA Permit for the following reaso Ð1. At a meeting with Mayor Harry Kim, Clifto verbally promised to donate and build a park in the same manner Rutter/Kennedy Wilson did at Kohanaiki, but Clifto has not fulfilled any of that representation in the plans presented or engaged in any good faith discussions to that end. Any permit should be expressly conditioned on developerÓs prior written agreement to donate the makai parcel for a park and build and maintain all improvements for the park with parking, bathroom showers, camping recreation, archeological preservation, ecological protection and with permanent and free access. This process worked well with Rutter/Kennedy Wilson and we request the CommissionÓs support in requiring Clifto to satisfy community needs by negotiating with community representatives to negotiate the terms of the public park, beach access and usage prior to and as a condition of any permits. The developer has not cooperated with community groups in negotiating terms of access and maintenance but has been contrary in all respects. Ð2. The public and native Hawaiians have the legal right of access for cultural practices as well as public historical accesses along the old mauka-makai road. The developer should not be permitted to close it after a period of time or after development. It is a legal right which we intend to enforce in court if necessary. Ð3. The proposed plan and rezoning does not comply with the County General Plan. The high rise blocks seaward viewplanes, and it is of different and much higher density than both surrounding parcels, it does not process for adequate resolution of traffic problems, it does not consider and preserve Hawaiian cultural values, it does not preserve recreational assets. It does not address public recreational needs and the need to gather food. It basically does not fit in well with the area at all. Allowing the spot zoning would be poor from a planning perspective, creating an eyesore of urban high density development in the prime tourist corridor from the airport, in w rise, low density area recreational corridor. The high density should be saved, as provided in the General Plan for the downtown area, not out by the airport or beach areas. CliftoÓs plan does not provide permanent free public access to the beach as required by law. 20 ÐThe Hawaii County Council adopted Ordinance No. 96-17 in 1996 to require the dedication of land for public rights-of-way as part of subdivision approval or the issuance of building permit for the construction of multiple-family residential development under certain circumstances. The County may also require the establishment of public rights- of-way as part of the issuance of other types of land use approval such as Change of Zone or Special Management Area Use Permits. Based on the General Plan, the County should require the developer to donate, build and maintain a public park on the makai parcel owned by the developer as a condition to any development on the mauka parcel under consideration. Ð4. The developer has refused to cooperate with Na Keiki He'e Nalu O Hawaii and Kohanaiki Ohana in prior clean up efforts. Developer is lying about his prior efforts. He promised to help clean and maintain the property but has refused to do so. The property is in the worst condition it has been in over a decade due to CliftoÓs neglect and refusal to spend even small amounts of care to care for the land. His latest and recent efforts are a show timed with the rezoning request. The developer has not been cooperative or forthcoming with community groups. His posturing that heÓs cooperating now is a sham. ÐWe have reviewed and agreed with the testimony for the Moku Loa Group, Sierra Club, Ponoiki Kanawai and Kohanaiki Ohana. The entire development proposal is a sham. The developer has admitted he has not enough money to care for t seeks permitting and zoning to enable the sale of the property at higher value and has not presented it in good faith. In view of this, the Planning Commi conditions on the limits of any development to be satisfied in written and in binding form binding all subsequent purchasers, prior to any approvals or permits in order to protect the public interest. ÐThank you for your help. I look forward to your continued support in working with you to develop a park at O'oma. ÐVery truly yours, James Sogi, Vice President, Na Keiki He'e Nal Okay. ÐAloha, Chris Yuen and Planning Commission members. On behalf of the Kohanaiki Ohana, I would like to urge the Commission to deny CliftoÓs SMA Permit request for Ooma II. ÐThe Kohanaiki Ohana has been involved in legal issues, stewardship programs and projects along this coastal area since 1990 when we organized to protect the natural and cultural resources of both Kohanaiki and Ooma from the threats of resort development. The Kohanaiki case, PASH and Angel Pilago versus Hawaii County Planning Commission and Nansay Hawaii, was a victory for native Hawaiian gathering rights and the rights of citizens to participate in agency hearings that affect our quality of life and future growth of the island. The current project proposed for Kohanaiki is a reflection of the last 13 years of work and should be a template for future de 21 our coastline. It is an example of community participation in the planning process and of developers willingness to meet the needs of the community. ÐCliftoÓs project should also be held to the same standards and conditions, and conditions should be imposed that would bind future landowners and developers of Ooma property to commit to provisions similar to those at Kohanaiki. The high density of CliftoÓs proposal is not in keeping with the General Plan and itÓs clearly an example of developer- driven planning, not community-based planning. This is a speculative project with no direct benefit to our community. The impacts to our roadways, scenic views, accesses and gathering rights are not fully disclosed and cannot be mitig th Sodeberg and the 8 grade Kealakehe students are especially concerned with potential impact to the old Mamalahoa Trail. ÐFor over ten years, Kohanaiki Ohana has helped organize the trail maintenance program with the students. To date, approximately 1,500 students have worked on the section of trail through Ooma and Kohanaiki. The concurrent applications for both the zone change and SMA Permit should not be approved at this time. ÐMahalo for your consideration. K. Angel Pilago, Kohanaiki Ohana.Ñ GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Eoff? Mr. Kawashima? KAWASHIMA:My name is Irving Kawashima and I represent the Na Ala Trails and Access Program. My address is 19 East Kawili Street, Hilo, Hawaii. The Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program would like to request that the developer work with our Hawaii Island Advisory Council concerning ways to integrate the historic Mamalahoa Trail into the future development. ÐThe Na Ala Hele is the Hawaii Statewide Trails and Access Program that was established through legislation in 1988 and directs the Department of Land and Natural Resources to plan, develop, acquire land or rights for public use of land, construct, and engage in coordination activities to implement a trail and access system. ÐOur Advisory Council, also required by law, are made up of members appointed by the Chairperson of DLNR and represent interested constituencies such as Hawaiian Cultural representatives, trail and mountain clubs, mountain bikers, hikers, equestrians, hunters, fishermen, environmentalists, landowners, and trail and access advocates. ÐThe Mamalahoa Trail is owned by the State of Hawaii and traverses through the proposed development. Na Ala Hele would like the developer to work closely with the Advisory Council concerning trail protection, buffers, public access and adjacent landscaping. ÐThe council meets once a month and can be reached by calling me at 974-4217.Ñ 22 Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Kawashima. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Kawashima? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Kawashima, as I read and have heard you testimony, is that to say that the developer has not yet contacted the Na Ala Hele Program for advice or guidance? KAWASHIMA:IÓve just gotten into this position for about two months now and I donÓt have any record. SPRINGER:Mr. Kawashima, do you have any response to the issue raised by Ms. David and Chris YuenÓs response as far as the issue of the north side of the property and that wedge created by the Mamalahoa Trail traversing the property? KAWASHIMA:What is your question? What do you want to know about the Mamalahoa Trail? SPRINGER:What your response to Ms. DavidÓs concerns are about breaches to the trail? KAWASHIMA:I donÓt think the trail should be breached. I think the trail should be left as is and that the public should have the right to use the trail going through the development. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Kawashima. KAWASHIMA:YouÓre welcome. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Chair. GALDONES:Commissioners, there being no further questions, I will excuse the testifiers. Mr. Fuke, you have heard the testifiers. Are there further comments? FUKE:Well, I think in relation to the trail and the breach, I think the Planning Director accurately reflected that. TheyÓre reflected also as conditions of approval as proposed by the Planning Director, specifically, Conditions 28 and 33. Proposed Condition 28 would not allow any additional breach with appropriate consent from the State. And, so, the Director is correct in a sense that that ÐwedgeÑ of property would have to find some alternative means of gaining access if no additional breach is granted by the State. Condition 33 requires that the Applicant prepare like a mitigation plan which would, which addresses specifically the trail and the associated habitation cave which would be still subject to the review and approval of the State Department of Land and Natural 23 Resources. So I believe, like during that time, there will be ample discussions with the Na Ala Hele Trails Advisory Group and any other interested parties regarding the appropriate mitigation. There are also additional mitigative conditions over and beyond this soon-to-be developed mitigation plan as proposed by your Director, because the Director is saying that, and I donÓt know which condition that was, but a minimum buffer be established along both sides of the trail. If I can find that for you. Oh, IÓm sorry, itÓs Condition No. 27. The Condition 27 requires that there be 50-foot wide undisturbed buffers of natural lava along both sides of the Mamalahoa Trail and additional 60-foot buffers without structures beyond that point, unless the DLNR Historic Preservation Division recommends a wider buffer. So you already have like a natural buffer on both sides of about 110 feet, thatÓs over and beyond whatever approved plan by the DLNR, HPD may approve. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Mr. Fuke, I would like to have you respond to some of the allegations, very negative allegations made by Mr. Sogi, SogiÓs letter, as read by his representative - specifically, not only having to do with the makai open area, open space thing but generally in terms of negative input by, as perceived by the public on the developerÓs part in terms of working relationship with the public. Are you familiar with any of the allegations that were made by the testifier just a while ago? FUKE:I canÓt really speak for what Mr. Morris, you know, Clifto, may not have done, you know, specifically with Mr. SogiÓs group or Mr. PilagoÓs group. I do know, however, that the level of discussion, you know, between the owners of the adjoining property, the Kohanaiki group and the community have been, you know, understandably very intense inasmuch as that related to the development of a coastal property where the public is actually using. That level of discussion did not occur, to my understanding, with this application because this application is about three-quarters of a mile or a mile away from the coastal property. The only commonality, of course, is the ownership. As I prefaced my earlier comment, you know, in response of Commi question, I think that any development scheme or plan for the makai property would have to go through the same level of intensity in terms of community involvement and discussions in coming up with a workable plan, not only for the developer but also for the community. So, specifically, in answer to your question, IÓm not aware of whether there were any separate discussions with that, between Mr. Morris and the community. I do know, 24 however, as I indicated to Commissioner Springer and the balance of the Commission, that a letter, and I do have a copy, copies of letters, you know, relating to the stewardship of the makai property which is not really related to, you know, this property. But, again, theyÓre the same owners but, nonetheless, relating to the stewardship of the makai property that they own, you know, what their plan is, and what theyÓre going to do over the next coming years, you know, have been articulated to the Planning Director. And, as I indicated earlier, the tentative plan includes essentially the same type of maintenance and program that was, that has been currently implemented by the owners of the Kohanaiki property. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, I have one more question. GALDONES:Ms. Kubota. KUBOTA:I was under the impression that Mr. SogiÓs letter reflected both the mauka and the makai -. IÓm not interested in the makai portion our deliberation. But in the area of the allegations I thought it pertained to the mauka area as well because it seemed like a general lack of reciprocal cooperation, discussion taking place. And youÓre not familiar with what has been going terms of working relationship? FUKE:Well, itÓs only generalized information and they may be mor hearsay and not my direct involvement. So I would hesitate to comment any more than what I just shared with you. Mr. Morris, however, you know, if I can just add to that, however, Mr. Morris has told me that he has not, because the public currently uses a portion of the property and then it goes over the existing, you know, where thereÓs an existing breach to the Mamalahoa Trail, you know, they go through his property and then eventually also down to the makai section, you know, to get down to the coastal area. ItÓs my understanding, based on conversations with Mr. Morris, that he has not blocked off that access. And I think that if you look at, and IÓll pass it on, I do have copies, but the letter that he had sent to, you know, Mr. Yuen, reflects that, a commitment to continue to leave that access open, you know, until such time that the community and everybody else agree that maybe it should be closed and an alternative access, you know, coming from the north end through NELHA be developed. And if thatÓs the case, then, he would pay for the construction of a gate. But, you know, he does not want to unilaterally do that, you know, unilaterally cut it off. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any more questions of Mr. Fuke? Hearing none, Mr. Fuke, could you, again, go over the amendments that you are proposing to the recommendation? FUKE:Specifically, what, if youÓre working off of the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation, then we would recommend that on page 1, and, again, this is the most 25 critical portion, but on page 1, the transient accommodation section be changed from 200 to 400 rooms which basically reflects the ApplicantÓs original proposal. And continuing on with that same page, where it begins, ÐThe Applicant has requested three hotels,Ñ then, you know, that entire sentence be deleted. Continuing on with, on page 13, where it reads, again, you know, ÐThe Applicant has requested three hotels totaling 400; however, the Planning Director recommends 200,Ñ that the first two sentences be deleted and that paragraph begins with, ÐApproval of this request is subject to the following conditions:Ñ And on Condition No. 6, the number 200 transient accommodation r 400 transient accommodation rooms. And, lastly, only for editorial purposes, to amend Condition 33 to read, ÐAn archaeological preservation plan shall be prepared and submitted by the Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The archaeological preservation plan shall address the Mamalahoa Trail and associated habitation cave and ensure that they are not damaged by construction activities.Ñ That change would make it consistent with the proposed, well, with the action of the Council Planning Committee. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further discussion? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Mr. Fuke, what about page 2, bullet number 4? That should be changed also, right, from 200 to 400? If we follow in your -. FUKE:That is correct. It should be 400. KUBOTA:Okay. FUKE:I think that to begin with was like an editorial error because it was reflecting what the ApplicantÓs proposal was; and the ApplicantÓs proposal was for a 400 room. So, but, you are correct, technically, it should be 400. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of Mr. Fuke? If not, Commissioners, a motion in order to have this public hearing be closed? SPRINGER:So moved. HAYASHI:Mr. Chairman? 26 GALDONES:Norman. HAYASHI:Before you do that, we note that in the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation, proposed Condition 18 and proposed Condition 31 are quite similar and redundant, so we are deleting Condition 31 and retaining Condition 18, this is regarding the wastewater treatment system, and renumbering the subsequent conditions accordingly. GALDONES:So noted, Norman. OÓTOOLE:You already closed the public hearing. So itÓs not necessary to close it again. GALDONES:Commissioners, I have been informed by counsel that the public hearing has already been closed at the last meeting so itÓs not necessary to do it again. But, thank you, Commissioner Springer. Commissioners, you have before you the recommendation from staff and also an amendment, a series of amendments that was introduced by the Applicant. What is the, and it also comes with a recommendation from the staff. We got course. What are the wishes of the Commissioners? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:I would like to move that we accept the Planning Director recommendation for a Special Management Area, SMA 03-005, along with the findings and the conclusions with a couple of amendments to be made. On recommended, as requested by the Applicant, the transient accommodations be changed from 200 to 400 rooms, and all the subsequent changes in the tex changed. GALDONES:Okay. KUBOTA:No, wait, IÓm not done yet. And under the conditions, because No. 18 and 31 which speak to wastewater treatment are redundant, that we delete No. 31 and renumber the subsequent conditions accordingly; and we make an editorial amendment to Condition No. 33, which speaks to archaeological preservation plans as read by the Applicant, to be, not compliance but, what am IÓm trying to say, to borrow the words of the County Council Planning Committee. I think that was about it. FUJIKAWA:IÓll second it. 27 GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Fujikawa that CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC, Special Management Area Use Permit application (SMA 03-005) be approved, along with the recommendations and findings, with the amendments so stated by Commissioner Kubota. Commissioners, any questions? Discussions? SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:While I agree with Commissioner Kubota that we should not, as a Planning Commission, burden any one developer with the weight of public needs, in this example highway infrastructure, neither should our decisions burden the public with the weight of any one developerÓs marketplace desires. In another application that has received some discussion under this agenda item, the Kohanaiki application reflected a tremendous amount of good faith discussion and negotiation both with the Applicant and community groups; and I donÓt see that reflected in our discussion nor the application before us today. As I reviewed our material before us, I looked again to the testimony of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. And especially when I consider the cumulative detriments in the area of vehicular loading on the Kaahumanu Highway, I believe that those outweigh any public benefits at this time that may be had by this application Further, in the testimony by the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, they caution that our present road infrastructure is sorely lacking and the planned widening of Kaahumanu Highway will probably create more traffic snarls than presently exists. But even that planned widening of Kaahumanu Highway is somewhere in the not foreseeable future, so IÓm speaking against the motion as proposed. GALDONES:Thank you, Commissioner Springer. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to my motion, I would like from a different angle. I agree with everything that Commissioner Springer has brought up. My objection, my amendment to the Planning DirectorÓs recom numbers of transient rooms has nothing to do with the impact that you speak of, which is of a more general and greater nature. I speak because I feel we are embarking into an area that weÓre not, what was it, itÓs not within our jurisdiction to make economic feasibility predictions. The objection by the Planning Director is merely because itÓs of a speculative nature, and I donÓt think we have the right to do that. So that, therefore, my objection to it. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Any other speakers before I call on Commissioner Spring If not, Commissioner Springer? 28 SPRINGER:My concern is with the traffic. My concern is with the traffic. KUBOTA:Yes, always. SPRINGER:And when we consider matters of the marketplace, while should not make decisions to deny the opportunity to engage in m neither, I believe, should we maximize marketplace opportunity by our decision. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further discussions? Hearing none, Norman, on the motion. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I take the roll call vote, I just wanted one clarification. Commissioner Kubota, did you also, does your intent also to amend Condition 6 from 200 to 400 rooms? KUBOTA:Every reference to 200 be changed to 400, and I may have many within the context of the recommendation. I donÓt think we missed too many. HAYASHI:Okay, so that would include Condition 6. KUBOTA:Everything that refers to 200 should be up to 400 is my intent. HAYASHI:Thank you. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. 29 HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. HAYASHI:And Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries with six ayes and two noes. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Mr. Fuke, you will be informed in w todayÓs actions. FUKE:Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 10:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 30