Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-08 TLava Kuakini PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 8, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of LAVA KUAKINI, INC. (SLU 05- was called to order at 10:45 a.m. in Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, Alii 004/REZ 05-013) Ballroom II, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Second Vice-Chairman Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCallAllen Salavea Fred Galdones William R. GrahamHannah Springer Rene Siracusa Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: LAVA KUAKINI, INC. (SLU 05-004/REZ 05-013) Continued hearing on the following requests: a. State Land Use boundary amendment for 14 acres from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Change of Zone for 14 acres from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Multiple Family Residential „ 2,500 square foot (RM-2.5) district. The property is located along the northeast side of Kuakini Highway, adjacent to and south of the Kona Hillcrest Subdivision, Kahului 1, st North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-17: portions of 2 and 5. ALAMEDA:Okay folks, were taking up agenda item number 2. The applicant is Lava Kuakini, Inc., SLU 05-004 and Rezoning 05-013. This is a continued hearing on the following requests. Request A, State Land Use boundary amendment for 14 acres from the Agricultural to the Urban District. Request B, Change of Zone for 14 acres from an Agricultural 5-acres to a Multiple Family Residential „ 2,500 square feet district. The property is locatedalong the northeast sideofKuakini Highway, adjacent to and south of the Kona Hillcrest Subdivision. Staff? DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chair. If I could direct the Planning Commissions attentiontothelocationmapontheboard.Againthisarea,theareaofthisapplicationiswithin the north Kona district of Hawaii. For reference this white line running in a north-south directionisQueenKaahumanuHighway.Thisparticularlineherethatsidentifiedinredand white is Kuakini Highway. The red line symbolizes the special management area line. Below EXHIBIT B 1 the line is the special management area. The area of this application is identified in blue. It is just above the special management area. For reference thisparticular area identified in yellow, which represents single-family residential zoning is the Kona Hillcrest Subdivision. Across the street from thearea we have the Kona Sea Villas Condominium Unit. Just recently the Planning Commission heard requests from Puaa Development and Suffolk Investment. These are located in this particular area. We have the Kahakai Estates Subdivision, Puu Lani Subdivision. The applicant in this case Lava Kuakini, LLC is requesting a State Land Use Boundary amendment from agricultural to urban for 14 acres of land as well as a change of, change of zone for, from agricultural 5 acres to Multiple family residential 2000 sq. ft., 2,500 sq. ft. or RM 2.5 for 14 acres of land. The applicant is proposing to develop a 212-unit housing project of which a minimum of 50% will be allocated for affordable housing. There have been a few changes that have happened occurred since the original submittal. One has been the submittal of a revised site plan, which would be identified as condition m in the background report. The applicant has recently submitted a presentation of that site plan. If I could direct your attention to this site plan. The major changes that have occurred on this have to do mainly with drainage as well as roadway access to the project. The applicant is proposing an additional access from Kuakini Highwaylocatedinthisarea.ThisisKuakiniHighway.ThishereistheKahuluitoKeauhou Parkway. The other access, the original access was identified from Kuakini Highway onto a portion of the parkway or the right of way, which is located on the applicants property and there would be a right in, into the project and a right out. That would be, once the parkway is constructed that would be what would be required right in, right out, there would be no left turn. But until that, the parkway is constructed the applicant would propose that the access would be from the parkway onto Kuakini Highway from this area. Theres been several changes that have occurred to the recommendation, weve submitted to you a revised recommendation mainly dealing with condition F and J. And there was also another, just so that this isnt confusing, another submittal this morning from the applicant which is identified in white. And that is a revised conditions as well from the applicant. So, thats the reason why you have 2 sets of revised conditions. Weve also had several submittals from the public this morning. One from Joel Gimpel and he stated that he would be reading that to the Commission in his testimony. Weve also received 5 letters of support. Unfortunately weve only received 1 copy. And basically theyre supporting the project. I will try to pronounce the names but some of these are difficult to figure out what the handwriting is saying but 5 letters of support within the file. If youd like I can pass those out to the Commissioners. Okay, there you go. They basically say that, the body of the letter is basically the same. The Planning Director or the Planning Department originally had received 1 letter of opposition that was from Robert Davison. That is identified as exhibit O within the background report. There are several changes that the Planning Department would like to make to the background and recommendation. Im not going to go into great detail on this. Basically wed like to clean up the background, recommendation and conditions to be able to reflect the name of this particular parkway. Our representative from Department of Public Works confirmed that the proper name is the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway. What were going to do is go through the background recommendations and conditions and just clean that up. Well refer to it in that manner. In your background, recommendation and conditions youll, youll notice that it changes between Kahului to Keauhou Parkway to Alii Highway to Alii Parkway. Those basically all refer to the same roadway. Additionally, we, the changes that are on condition, if I could refer to that. The revised recommendation from the Planning Department. Id like to reflect the changes that the EXHIBIT B 2 Planning Department will be making in reference to the access number 2, Kuakini Highway access, which is this particular access here. In our background and recommendation we refer to it as a right in andright out. But with our, with our recent change in the condition which we received just recently we had sent out this particular revision this morning. And so we had made the changes last night. We would also like to reflect the background and rec. to reflect that this will be a right out only unless at a time in the future the Department of Public Works feels that it, otherwise. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation for both applications to the Hawaii County Council. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall questions for Staff? MCCALL:Yeah, can you give me a update on the current disposition of the Suffolk and Puaa Development projects? Just where they are in the planning? DARROW:In the background recommendation oh Im sorry the background report under surrounding properties gives a little bit of information regarding those particular applications. They actually were, were passed from the County Council. MCCALL:Theyre both passed by the County Council? DARROW:Yes. MCCALL:Okay. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Jeff if you dont mind Id like to ask maybe a series of questions just really pin down what the housing, affordable housing offer and proposal really amounts to. So Ill just start. Our condition D speaks of not less than 50 percent of the units shall be sold or rented etc. at prices that you know qualify as affordable housing. Lets see, my understanding of the current policy is its, our general policy is like 20 percent right now but that 20 percent is based like on the median income, that would be affordable to the median income. But if you make them affordable to someone earning less they can count maybe up to 2 for 1. But if you make them affordable to someone making more lets say 120 percent or they still have affordable value but there maybe only count half as much or something right? So by saying in this proposed ordinance that 50 percent should be affordable its not really comparing with that 20 percent right? It could be that a regular development that wants to make their affordable units affordable to somebody making 120 percent of the median would have to make 40 percent affordable because theyre only getting half credits for that. So if this one is saying 50 percent are they really only 10 percent away from the normal? And maybe the Planning Director has a comment on that. ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? EXHIBIT B 3 YUEN:If they, if they produced all of their affordable housing at the top end of what qualifies for affordable housing, they would only, they would only be making 10 percent more than is generally required under the affordable housing ordinance. The way the ordinance works on and Ill just do it on the for sale sliding scale all right rather than talk about rentals okay because I believe this is a for sale, its intended to be a for sale project. But the basic requirement on the Chapter 11 affordable housing requirement now is that you earn credits equal to 20 percent of your total number of units. And you can get more than one credit or less than one credit depending on how, depending on your sales price. At 120 percent of median income you earn 1 credit per unit. GRAHAM:120? YUEN:120 percent of median income all right? At a unit thats affordable and, and just to give basic numbers thats in todays interest rates and with todays median income for people in the County of Hawaii thats roughly a $250,000 unit. The top end affordable is 140 percent of median. Thats the top end thats going to get you an affordable housing credit. Again,andthatsabouta$290,000unitattodays,todaysprice,todaysinterestrates.Itsvery, the sales price is very, the affordable sales price is very interest rate sensitive. That level of unit gets you a half credit. Its still affordable but because its at the top end of affordable youre only getting a half credit for it. So if you produce, if you do your whole project, if all your affordable units are at the 140 percent of median level then you, you essentially you have a 40 percent requirement. You have to produce 40 percent or your units affordable. My understanding of the offer made by, or the proposal made by the applicant in this is that they said that 50 percent will be affordable. So, if they did all their affordable units at the top end, they, theyre doing 50 percent where the ordinance would only make you do 40 percent. So thats, so youre correct in saying that thats a 10, thats 10 percent more all right? ALAMEDA:Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:Can I continue with other affordable housing related things? ALAMEDA:Sure, very interesting. GRAHAM:Sure. Good. I think it also says that credits in excess of the basic requirements shall be credit to the applicant, its successors or assigns. So does that mean since I believe the applicant owns adjacent parcels and all if he develops another parcel next to it in the future then however much other than whats standard requirement now he doesnt have to do on that one cause he can apply the credits he got on this one to that one is that correct? YUEN:Yes. GRAHAM:So that really whatever offer hes making beyond standard is really just a, maybe a timing thing. Hes doing a little more affordable housing than required for this part of it but then he can catch up and get back to normal if he develops some more houses in the future. Thats the way it kind of sounds to me when I narrow that together. EXHIBIT B 4 YUEN:Well, yes. Its, and the credits apply not only to rezone property but they can be used off site within a 15 mile radius. So, but the reason that this wording is in there is to make it clear that they can earn credits if they produce housing in excess of their basic requirement. GRAHAM:And is that offer extended to all applicants for rezoning? YUEN:Yes. If the basic you know we, this, in-. In February 2005 the Council passed a changes to chapter 11, which I had worked on and the County Housing Administrator had workedon and what, and these applied partially-. These applied to some extent retrospectively to people that had an affordable housing condition on rezonings but had not developed yet and so had not satisfied the affordable housing condition. And they, our intent was also to apply them in a standard way prospectively to rezonings that come in. And this is the, the base requirement so that you dont end up with constant negotiations on a project by project basis. So, and the way that it worked it was important to change this going backwards because the policy at that time had a inloofy loophole that was very generous. Then to explain thereasonforthis,forthecreditsituationisthatwere,youknowweretryingtoencourage people to develop affordable housing. And it may be, it may be more practical to do it on one particular site and to do a project thats largely affordable housing on one site. At the same token you may have developers who simply dont, who have an affordable housing requirement but dont want to do it on their site either for the standpoint of mixing the type of units that theyre producing or the market theyre trying to produce. Or maybe they have an area thats very expensive to make units in the first place. So, then you have, we create this opportunity for a private trading mechanism where the, say the high cost market developer who has an affordable housing requirement can get together with a person who wants to create affordable housing and subsidize-, theyll in effect subsidize the affordable housing by buying credits that are generated by the affordable housing developer whose creating more than they need. And we do have, including this applicant; we do have a number of applicants that are interested in doing that kind of, doing the affordable housing part of that project in order to-. And, generating, and as a sweetener to their own projects, which often times need some financial help to be viable theyre interested in having these credits. So, what we wanted to make sure though was if somebody comes in up front and says that theyre going to do more than, than theyre requirement on site that were, that were not, and we put that in as a condition of the affordable housing ordinance. That they still get the same number of credits, as they would have if they just had an ordinary requirement. Now, in the case that, the example that I just that we started off with of they make only 50%, 50% affordable and its all at the top level at 140 percent of median level then theyre not going to earn that many credits. Theyre only doing. Theyre earning. Say its a hundred; just use a hundred to make it simpler okay. They made a-; they made 50 units at the top end of affordable. Theyre only earning 25 credits for that. They gotta earn 20 credits for their project so they only got 5 extra credits. ALAMEDA:Very good. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Maybe I can keep addressing the Planning Director if its easier, whatever you think. As far as how this implements in time, the affordable housing. Lets say the affordable housing is $250,000 homes in a project where the non-affordable part is lets say EXHIBIT B 5 $450,000. So when this goes to market theres going to be a certain series of $250,000 homes now can you or I buy those? Can somebody from Long Beach California buy them? Or you know is there any way that wed know that these homes go to the people who really can only afford them? And then if maybe its like, if then if somebody buys one of them they can turn around and sell it for $450,000 you know a week later if they want. I presume. So really you know were just giving them a little windfall. Am I wrong to think in that direction? YUEN:There are, theres going to be an eligibility restriction based on income and typically theres also a first time home buyer kind of restriction then if you cant fill the project off the eligibility list then you drop away some of the criteria. And the other, theres, theres, and the other thing about the ordinance thats built in is that you can be, you can earn up to-. You can earn somewhat more than the 120 percent of median and still qualify to buy the house. Or you can earn say the 140 percent, you can earn somewhat more than that and still qualify. Cause otherwise you end up with too narrow a window of people who qualify. You, if you have to, if you, if youre too, if you earn too little youre not going to qualify for the loan but if we set the eligibility too strict then you earn just a little bit too much and then you cant buy theunitcauseyouearntoomuchmoney.Butthereareboth,theresaeligibilityrequirementand these parts are still in the works but there will be buy back or shared appreciation or some other kind of limitation on speculation by the initial buyer. These are, these parts are not fully worked out in the rules right now and, but they, theyve been, mechanisms like this have been applied before to other affordable housing requirements and there will be these kinds of controls. GRAHAM:And, so even though we dont write all what you said into this law can we all assume that in this project and all other projects that have affordable housing requirements all of that kind of eligibility process will always be in place? YUEN:Yes thats, its another, its a Council and Office of Housing Agency issue but those are, those are parts of what, those are parts of what are in place, yes. Its, certainly you want to have a targeted, you have to have a qualified, you have to have a qualified group of buyers. And they have to meet certain, these qualifications and then there will be restrictions on somebody just coming in and flipping the unit. GRAHAM:Okay. And then I think this is my final one. When I read the material, the background material on this project, even though we have like behind Jeff there a diagram of how they propose the development to look. When we read the numbers in here thats you know 4-1/2 million dollars theyre going to spend on infrastructure and they have a timetable for providing the infrastructure and all that. But theres really nothing about whats going to take place in the development other than that picture. Im wondering since I am developing, I am devoting my attention to affordable housing now does that have any impact on the affordable housing assuming that maybe theyre not going to develop and somebody else will and whatever. Because what theyve really speaking to in their application is doing the infrastructure, the 4-1/2 million-dollar project. Should I be concerned about any of the linkage between that and what it finally winds up when somebody does build the houses which may or may not be like whats in that plan? EXHIBIT B 6 YUEN:I think you should ask the architect about their intentions and how far theyre planning to take the project. It is always true though that an applicant can sell a project at any stage. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Graham. Appreciate your thoughts on that. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Is this an appropriate time to ask a question of Mr. Emler? I mean is he considered staff in that regard? Mr. Emler? Is he? ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler feel free to come up and use Jeffs mike. EMLER:Good morning. Good morning Commissioners and public. SIRACUSA:I noticed in Condition T that it refers to the applicant shall perform an engineering study to determine if the sewer line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed flows in accordance with the City and County of Honolulu Waste Water Design Standards. And Im wondering does this island not have standards like that or is the City and County of Honolulu more or less stringent? Or, could you explain that to us please. ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler, first, full name and position for the record then go ahead and you can proceed with that answer. EMLER:Im sorry. ALAMEDA:Could you give us your full name and position just for the record. EMLER:Oh, my name is Kiran Emler, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division. ALAMEDA:Thank you, perfect. Go ahead. EMLER:Okay, Commissioner Siracusa your question was about Condition T, and the City and County of Honolulu, Waste Water Design Standards and why this wouldnt be County of Hawaii. Im sorry but I dont have the answer to that question because thats not a Department of Public Works issue. It would be Department of Environmental Management, Wastewater Division. So, I really dont know what their standards are. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Thank you. So, in other words were putting a condition here and does any other member of Staff or the Director have any idea about why it was the City and County of Honolulu Standards that are put in here? EXHIBIT B 7 ALAMEDA:Mr. Darrow? You have any thoughts on that? DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Siracusa in the original application we received a comment from the Department of Environmental Management if I could refer to it. Let me see what exhibit it is. SIRACUSA:Did that have to do with whether there was a sewer connection or not? DARROW:Yes. SIRACUSA:Is that the one? DARROW:This would be Exhibit E on your background report. And within that exhibit, wastewater comments stated that there was no County sewer plan for this area. The applicant submitted information to the contrary showing that there actually is sewer fronting the project area. I was asked by the Planning Director to contact Department of Environmental Managementtofindout,toclarifyiftherewasorwasnotsewerinthisarea.IspoketoPeter Boucher who confirmed that there was sewer in this area. I asked if he could submit revised comments for the record and he had said that he was just about to leave on a lengthy trip and could not. So, I asked him specifically for wording for a condition and he had basically stated this condition per himself. And then I had also asked are you sure Department of, I mean, City and County of Honolulu and he said yes. He didnt go into detail as to the reason for that but he did confirm that that was the language that he did want. SIRACUSA:Could you clarify for me who this Peter Boucher is? DARROW:Hes the, I believe the Director of the Wastewater Division, is that correct, Chris? YUEN:Of the division yes. DARROW:Yes. SIRACUSA:So over here we do not know when hes referring to this, these design standards whether theyre more or less stringent than our own County ones. Can the Director clue us in on that? YUEN:I strongly suspect that the reason they refer to the City and County standards is that we dont have a separate County of Hawaii Standard. If they did Im sure they would refer to County of Hawaii. SIRACUSA:Thank you. YUEN:I dont know that for a fact but Im, all the reading between the lines leads me to that conclusion. EXHIBIT B 8 SIRACUSA:So were still sort of guessing on that one then? I mean noone knows for sure. Were just assuming. YUEN:They told us this is how they want the condition written. So, we put it in that way. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Since Mr. Emler already spoke with us and I had other questions for him maybe it would be appropriate for me to ask him now? Good morning. EMLER:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah, I have your memorandum on this topic and I think its very helpful and Im just trying to make sure I clearly understand. In your first paragraph, under the subject heading where you have sort of a long sentence in bold face type. It kind of explaining an overallsensewhatyourthingis.Yousaystartinglikekindofinthesecondboldfacelinethe applicant should not be given additional development entitlement prior to and you speak about the widening of the Kuakini Highway to 4 lanes. Is this additional development entitlement speaking of the zoning change were looking to make now or you saying that if we make the zoning change then nothing further should take place? EMLER:Well the entitlement Im speaking of is the zone change. GRAHAM:Okay. So, your recommendation is that the zone change should not be made until we have that 4 lane road to handle with, handle the traffic issues is that correct? EMLER:Thats preferable to the Department of Public Works yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. And also on the traffic report, the traffic impact analysis I know, I believe in the revised conditions the Director is conditioning that we will get a traffic impact analysis but again it looks like the Planning Department is okay with having that come after we do the change of zone rather than having that available for you and for us at the time we act on the change of zone. Is it also preferal to you, preferable to you that that be in hand before we act on the change of zone? EMLER:Well I think it would be a moot point if we were waiting for the entitlement until after the projects are completed but provided the change of zone is going to happen normally we would be looking for the traffic report in order to determine whether the capacity of the existing facilities was adequate for the project to go through. I realize that the Administrations position on residential developments however is that were not looking for concurrency for residential rather for commercial so-. I understand where the administration stands on this. But I am stating what our normal position would be concerning, you know, adding capa-, adding additional traffic load to the existing facilities. EXHIBIT B 9 GRAHAM:Thank you and can I have one final clarification on the very end part of this long boldfacesentence? When I read the sentence I just in a-, its kind of like the English student problem or something Im not questioning the content. But as I read along the entitlement should be conditional on the completion of the widening of the highway to 4 lanes from such and such to such and such and then it says to include the connection from Kuakini Highway to Kaahumanu Highway. Im not quite sure how that fits logically in English. Can you explain what you mean what you want for that connection. EMLER:Okay I believe Im speaking about the connection from Kuakini Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway by way of the Alii Highway or Kahului to Keauhou Parkway using our most current name. GRAHAM:So what youre saying then is that if this parkway thats called the K to K Parkway gets built this applicant should have the connection made at his expense to the Queen K Highway.Butsincethathasntbeenbuiltyetwecouldntrequirethatbeforethisrezoningor you thinking we should be, as far as, do you have any comments on the timing of that or whether Im stating accurately what you intend? EMLER:Well I didnt in my comments ask for the applicant to be making the connection between Kuakini Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. So, Ill just leave it at that. GRAHAM: What, what do I understand- EMLER:If thats your question. GRAHAM:-by this then is my question? What do I understand by this last 10 words or so in this long sentence? How do I understand what youre saying? EMLER:Well you should understand it as the County plans to build this highway. Were not expecting the applicant to build it. But wed rather that the entitlements be given after the highway is constructed. GRAHAM:So the entitlement that we would give for this rezoning you would rather happen after that highways been constructed. EMLER:Correct. Thats the intent of the comment. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Graham. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I got a follow-up to all of that. I recall reading in here that you dont have the right-of-ways currently to develop all of the planned mauka-makai connectors. Is that correct in that, this development? You would need a right-of-way through this development right to complete the projects as planned? EXHIBIT B 10 EMLER:Thats correct. The right-of-way has been obtained through the subject property yet. YUEN:I would also add that the right-of-way has not been obtained through much of the northern section of the parkway. It exists, its been mapped out and it exists in, and theres a design for the highway but its not actually been acquired. Other, for example, if you look at the map-. Jeff if youd point to where this property is all right on blue. And then you see the alignment in the Alii Parkway going below that its in white there. That has not been acquired either. Thats through another piece of property but its, its, its, its, theres-. The zoning conditions through that property and typically through other properties require that the, the landowner dedicate the right-of-way upon request. This, it just has not been, it just, so its locked in, in that sense but it hasnt actually been acquired. ALAMEDA:CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Follow-uptothat.Youknowtypicallywithinyourconditionswewould have a time limit of 5 years, thats my, been my experience anyway and it seems that this time you looked for something that was a little shorter like 3 years. Can I safely assume that youre trying to accelerate some of these improvements by shortening that time? YUEN:This morning the applicant asked us to put it as the more standard 5-years and I dont have a problem with that. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Watanabe. Other Commissioners before we move forward? Very good. Well thank you for that good discussion as you know we read every paragraph, sentence, word, letter so, we appreciate the discussion on that. Alrighty, staff anything else to add before we move forward. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:I do. Commissioner, Im sorry, Ki Emler had asked that at some point if he be given an opportunity to comment on the revised conditions submitted by the applicant. So at a time you feel appropriate, either before the applicant comes forward or after. ALAMEDA:How about we do it after? DARROW:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Will the applicant please come forward? Or its representative? All right. Ill swear all you guys in at the same time. Will you please raise your right hand? Do you affirm or swear to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Before we proceed let me just make a procedural note. This is, Mr. Lim this is really your chance to present of course and I just want to stick to protocol. EXHIBIT B 11 Once this part is over and we call you and after testimony when we call you back, pretty much when you come back thats our opportunity just to ask you questions. And for you not to state any comments so now is your chance. Mr. Lim go ahead. LIM:Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Steven Lim from Carlsmith as the attorney for Lava Kuakini LLC the applicant. Seated to my left are Kevin Blalog and Mr. Barry Crivello both of whom are members of the Limited Liability Company. The, first of all I guess who is Lava Kuakini LLC and its somewhat unusual for all of us. We are and myself included are all members of the developer entity Lava Kuakini LLC. We got together oh about a year ago and started to talk about the fact that were all you know kind of in the real estate business in some form or another as is most people on the island. And other members with us are Mr. Ed Rapoza who youve probably seen in other applications and Mr. Phil Tinguely whos the principal of Tinguely Development. We were looking for development opportunities and discussing you know what it is that we wanted to do as project developers. WevedoneityouknowforotherpeoplemanytimesandwethoughtinprimarydrivenbyI think Kevin and Barry that we wanted to do something to give back in some small way that we could to the community. So we chose to enter into the sale contract for this 14-acre piece. Weve since closed about approximately 2 months ago now from the Tomono Trust. So this 14- acre piece is not the same ownership as the surrounding property. So Lava Kuakini LLC now owns the 14-acres. So as we you know proceeded through looking through the various opportunities for development I think what came up strong was everybody felt that they wanted to do something that they could give back to the community like I said. And the best way that we felt would be to try to develop a project that would be helping one of the, what we see as one of the great needs is the affordable housing need in the County of Hawaii. I think everytime I go to talk with Mayor Kim these days I, I get the standard speech about the fact that theyve got thousands of people that are either homeless or you know basically homeless, just one or two nights away from going on the street. And so while that may not help that segment of the population I think the thing that were seeing is that the market level housing and the prices that are going with those things are going up so high that the normal guy cant afford to buy a home in Kona. So, thats why we looked at this site. Its one of the better sites we think for affordable housing. Its right in the urban core and planned for urban growth for many years. We did know that the sewer line ran in front of it and thats partly why we purchased the property. And it would be the same sewer line as is being used by Suffolk and the properties. Pualani, Suffolk coming, coming in a northerly direction toward the wastewater treatment plant. The, I think the, I know Mr. Yuen explained to you somewhat what the affordable, how the affordable housing game is played. We could choose to do it one of 2 ways. One was to develop, Im going to use round figures 50-units at the 80 percent and below for sale to that bracket. Get 2 credits for every one that we sold and so we would have you know a hundred roughly, which would be 50 percent of the project. We discussed this as you were having that discussion on table. And I think its always been our intent that unless market trends significantly show us that that is what the market wants were going to be doing the 50 percent of the total units proposed which is 106 out of the 212. In order for us to get one for one credits for each sale, we would have to sell those at the 120 percent median price. Just to give you kind of a idea on what that might be for a family of 4 under the current sales guidelines for the, that the Office of Housing and Community Development uses for family of 4 at a mortgage rate of 6 percent the sales price to 120 percent family would be up to $258,100. We dont know, and what were intending to do with Mr. EXHIBIT B 12 Rapoza is to conduct a affordable housing forum, a symposium just prior to going into final design. And what we think, because right now we dont know for those people who are income qualified what size of family they are you know what do they want. Theres no sense us building the 3 bedroom 2 bath house for the family of 4 if thats not the people that are out there. There are also opportunities for the affordable housing people to come in on family sizes of 1 or 2. And those types of sales prices for, lets say for 2 people, itd probably be a one bedroom or studio but at 6 percent at the 120, 6 percent at the 120 percent of median sale price would be $206,500. So thats probably 50 percent at least of what you got on market sales now. So I think a lot of the you know how many units at what rate and at what product type are still unknown. But thats you know our intent is to try to get as many affordables out there as possible. I think you know weve had informal discussions about hey why dont we do just 100 percent affordable. I think its our goal to try get to as many affordable as we can on the market. But I think that the reality for us is that the affordable housing game and I call it a game because it somewhat is depends upon the interest rate. The higher the interest rate and you know that thatsclimbingupthelowerthesalesprice,theaffordablesalesprice.Anditgetstoapoint when it gets up in the 8-1/2 percent interest rate that the developers because of the high land cost and construction cost were seeing now just cant build it. So, while it is our goal to go over that 50 percent I think 50 percent is what we can commit to safely and that is our commitment to the commission and to the County. The issues obviously of traffic and water that are raised in this application are also challenges that we have to meet. The Water Department initially gave us a water commitment for 100 units and that was because the application was for a land area that straddled 2 TMK parcels. I think youre probably familiar with the Department of Water Supplys policy that they will at least current policy that they will that they will allocate 50 water commitments to each parcel of record if you come in for a rezoning. So when we came in for the rezoning and filed it we were, because we were straddling the 2 TMKs we got the 100 water commitments. Since then the subdivision has completed and thats why were dealing with only 50 water commitments. About I guess earlier this year the Office of Housing and Community Development and the Mayor and Mr. Yuen conducted a symposium with all the various West Hawaii Developers primarily and made a commitment along with the Department of Water Supply that although we dont fall directly within that water commitment guidelines that theyre currently using that they would be assisting all affordable housing projects that committed to do at least 50 percent of the units as affordable housing sales. So that is our intent and that would address we hope the water commitments. We expect that the project of lets say 212 units is supposed to be at least its planned out on the diagram that you see in front of me, four-plex units in townhome design. And what that means is that you wont be living on the bottom and another family living on the top. Itll be top and bottom in one corner, top and bottom in another corner etc. etc. So, depending upon that housing symposium and our market study it may change that we will do studios, one bedrooms or six or eight plex buildings just to match the market because I think that thats-. When youre, when were dealing with the, the affordable level buyers that its very, very product sensitive and its very, very price sensitive to keep them within the affordability guidelines. The, the Public Works comments weve taken that under consideration. Weve discussed that both with Mr. Emler and with Mr. Yuen. I think that the conditions that Mr. Yuen has proposed to you in his recommendation basically reflect what I think our agreement is. Weve got some technical comments and maybe one or two substantive issues but Ill discuss that at a later date, at a later time here. I think primarily once and you know Ive worked on a number of projects where the former State policy of 60 percent affordable, which EXHIBIT B 13 was in effect I think this was in the early 90s through Governor Waihee initially resulted in a lot of projects not being built. In my experience in working on a couple of projects at that time was that once the lenders and investors saw that it was 60 percent affordable essentially what you were doing-, they thought in their mind was developing 100 percent affordable project. Because they felt I think that if you, you couldnt get the very high-end market level sales prices in the same subdivision as the affordable housing project. This, and we recognize that doing this and thats why we did it this way is just because we want to meet that middle market. We dont know that theres many people building for that middle market anymore and its going to be our small attempt at trying to get there. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Lim. Any other, I assume you got the background report and all the 29 conditions? LIM:Thats correct I guess what we can do if youd like to go through that now th isI,ImassumingIhavethat,thelastone,whichistheDecember7 memorandum? ALAMEDA:Sure. LIM:Yes thatsthe last one? Okay. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. LIM:I can go through very quickly. Instead of looking at the one that we submitted Im going to work off this yellow so that we dont have to keep looking back and forth. ALAMEDA:Okay very good. LIM:Going down to the conditions in condition C proposed by the Director. On the first line wed like to amend that from 3 years to 5 years to reflect the, its fairly standard time for development. Due to the unusual nature of the market study that we have to do were expecting its going to take a little bit more time to get into project planning. Most developments by the time they come to you already have you know kind of the drawing set out already because theyre going to go market no matter what. We dont even know you know what kind of units were going to sell truly yet. So, were expecting that we will need that 5-year timeframe. Going down to condition number D on the last line all the way to the end of the line. It should betheaffordablehousingplanshallbeapprovedbythecapital,AdministratoroftheOfficeof the Housing and Community Development. I guess thats his title. Some of these are just technicalthingsandIllexplainthesubstantiveones. ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Those,bothofthosementionedarefine. LIM:Okay.ConditionnumberE,thetrafficimpactanalysisreport.Wedlike to add a sentence onto that, that states, the Traffic Impact, the TIAR shall include a schedule of EXHIBIT B 14 improvements describing when each improvement will be required in development of the project. This condition E amendment would relate to the requested amendment also to condition H where we add in front of that sentence pursuant to the schedule of improvements established in the TIAR approved by the Department of Public Works the applicant will then do these improvements. The reason why I wanted to put in a timing issue on that is that there is a pretty good possibility that we will be doing phase development of the project anywhere between 20 and 40 or 50 units in each phase and its very likely that for the initial phase we wont have to do the full intersection improvements that are mentioned in paragraph number H. So, wed just like the flexibility to build as the need arises pursuant of course to the TIAR that would be approved by the Department of Public Works and would be specialized TIAR that would include lists of improvements and the schedule. You know, probably by, you know X number of units you have to put in this, X number of units you have to put in another portion. So thats the reason for that requested amendment. Okay moving further down into condition number H, thats what I just spoke about where we would like to add that language pursuant to the schedule of improvements establishedintheTIARapprovedbytheDepartmentofPublicWorkstheapplicantshallprovide full improvements you know all the other improvements in that paragraph. Lets see. I, in my submittal on condition J those are all just reference corrections from the Alii Highway to the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway so those can be made as a ministerial matter. Moving to the next one, which would be a substantive one is to condition number K. And, the condition K basically says that for the lot that is located to the mauka and thats on the top part of the drawing there behind Mr. Darrow thats lot 1A. The access points for that, for that project should come through this project and what weve discussed with the Director and Department of Public Works is that towards the, the mauka edge of the property on the map there behind Mr. Darrow. The present project and lot 1A would cooperate in the construction of a roadway that goes northward into the new parkway. The Director in his condition K is proposing that it also, that the traffic from the lot on the mauka also come through this project down to the access onto the Kuakini Highway, which is located on the southern portion of the makai part of the project. This is I think a standard road connectivity issue that you usually see when you see subdivision developments and more- most likely in subdivisions which are dedicating their roadways to the County. This will be a private driveway, private roadway through a condominium project which then raises you know respective of the traffic circulation issue, it raises liability and maintenance concerns. You know, whose going to assist the affordable housing buyers to pay for the traffic from the other project coming through. We believe that the traffic circulation for that lot above this project can come out onto the parkway and then theyll be doing like we did we just construct a driveway down to Kuakini and then go out and exit out onto Kuakini rather than coming through the project itself. So we request that the commission delete the portion that requires it to come through the project to Kuakini. Although we do agree with the proposal to have it go through the project out to the Parkway to the north. YUEN:I disagree and we can discuss this now or later. ALAMEDA:I would like to take up this matter now. Thats okay with my fellow commissioners? SIRACUSA:Yes. EXHIBIT B 15 ALAMEDA:Okay. Director? SIRACUSA:As long as were on it. YUEN:We, we are trying to encourage inter-connected, inter-connected movement between neighborhoods and areas. And so for, what we have here is an area that after the construction of-. If you look at the site plan there is an area immediately at the top of the page. If you point to the top of the site plan. Theres another potentially developable lot above there. And, its going to be, its going to be cut off on the south side to the right by the Waiaha Drainage Way so you probably wont have access into it from the south. And, its on the mauka side, its bordered by the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and we would probably not want direct access to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. They, what they were, what they were agree, the part that they agreed to is, solves the basic circulation of getting in and out which is that if you point to the access road at the top of the property. If thats where the final access is to the Queen KaahumanuHighwaythentheywouldhaveawayouttotheQueenKaahumanuHighway.But you wouldnt be able to get from, from-. What theyre proposing is, is, is, you dont have a way to get from one neighbor, from, if you point to that other lot. You cant get from there into the subject property. And, also you wouldnt be able to get out. If you look at the, point to the Kuakini exit. The idea behind having a exit to Kuakini is that if somebody in this project or the other lot wants to go directly to Kailua-Kona from this area that they can take Kuakini straight in without having in without having to go up to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and coming back down. So those are the reasons for having the road inter, to having a road interconnection between the two parts of the property. ALAMEDA:Mr. Lim any feedback? LIM:I think our, you know we dont have an issue with the connectivity. I think its a good idea but I think that the-. Like I say most of the time that you see that its on subdivision roads, which are dedicated to the County so the liability and maintenance issue doesnt become a problem. Once you run it through a private condominium development then the issue of cost share, insurance, you know all that kind of stuff runs out. And we just, you know, we just see this as being, having them go out onto the parkway and then come back down to Kuakini as were going to be doing should be a feasible solution. ALAMEDA:Okay Mr. Lim I know you have further feedback for us but I wanted to ask our Commissioners if you have any questions regarding this particular item. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah, just a follow-up on that to the Director. Do we have any plans for the County, you know it being dedicated to the County at some point? Is that something reasonable? Seeing that you know we want to open this in-. YUEN:Well they could create, they could create a County dedicable road but I dont think thats in, thats how they plan to develop the property. It would be, if their internal road were County dedicable it would be-. EXHIBIT B 16 WATANABE:60 foot. YUEN:It would be quite a differentstandard than what they have in mind. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes I wanted to backtrack just a minute to condition C since were moving on here. I want to say that having seen a lot of cases where were presented with a partial plan for a property and then we dont know what the full you know thing is going to be down the line. And Ive commented on this before about my dissatisfaction with having to make decisions based on-. Parker School was one of those, yeah where we had a big lot and were only talking about developing part of it. And I felt very uncomfortable with that. And so I want to thank you for even though youre planning to develop in phases about giving us the full picture ahead of time that really helps a lot. So I want to thank you for that. And, say that with that understandingIpersonallyhavenoproblemwithextendingthe3yearsto5toallowforthat.So I just wanted to get that. You know since were moving along from number to number here. Before we get too far towards the end of the alphabet to make that point. ALAMEDA:Okay. With that note. Commissioners any, any, if you had to backtrack on some of those proposed changes in the conditions, feedback? Okay, Mr. Lim continue. LIM:Okay Ill go through and really quickly here. A lot of these are just technical changes I think. Going onto condition number N. At the end of the sentence we would like the improvements, drainage improvements to be constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. Theyre asking that the drainage improvements be constructed prior to issuance of any construction permit. So, I think just common sense wise we should change it to CO. On the condition O, the next one. The third sentence in there states, no residential lots may be created which lack a buildable area. This restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. Ive talked to the Director about this I think he doesnt agree but in my mind that, I dont know what exactly that means because its basically a statement of the law. The residential lots have to, have to meet a certain buildable area under the zoning code but you know its up to him as to what he wants to do on that. The next sentence states that a copy of the proposed covenants to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. Id like to propose adding or Final Plan Approval, as applicable. Final Subdivision Approval is usually for lots. Final Plan Approval is usually for a condominium development like this. Going down to condition P on the next page, on the fifth line. Basically were trying to establish compliance by the issuance of the Certificate of ththth occupancy on both the 5 line and 10 line. And on the 9 line which says that the improvements, it states a list of improvements. I think we should say that the hazard barrier fencing,andshallbecompletedpriortotheissuanceofanyCertificateofoccupancy.That would give us a very consistent deadline for completing everything. ALAMEDA:Director? EXHIBIT B 17 YUEN:I dont have a problem with the second, that the improvements will be constructed before, the improvements will be completed before the CO or rather than the construction of permits for the other residential structures. What Im concerned about in the prior one is if that you have to, if you need a, if you need a letter of map change to build certain buildings-. LIM:Right, I just wanted to be able to work on other portions of the project. I mean obviously yeah we need to get a letter of map change and we have to do that prior to getting any construction permits. But for our areas of the project that are outside the drainage area I think we should be able to grade over there. Thats probably where were going to go first I think. YUEN:I can work on wording that will do that, thats fine. LIM:Thankyou. SIRACUSA:Excuseme.Clarificationplease. ALAMEDA:Sure.CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:WellIvenevercomeacrossthisletterofmapchangeandIwonderif somebody could explain it to me. ALAMEDA:Staff? Director Yuen? YUEN:Theres an existing FEMA map for the property that shows the flood zones and sometimes the, the, because of the way these are done theyre not done at a great level of detail. In other words, that they may not be completely accurate. And, say very often an applicant or a landowner will want to, will say well this is not where the flood really goes. And so theres a process for getting the flood zones, for getting the mapping changed and thats called a letter of map change. And essentially, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does the heavy lifting on this. It does get approved by the County but its sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review and see that its accurately done. And then the Army Corps of Engineers authorizes it then the changes get entered onto the FEMA maps. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa any follow-up? SIRACUSA:No, that, I needed a definition and explanation, I got it thank you. ALAMEDA:Yeah, thats good thank you. Mr. Lim? Go ahead. LIM:Continuing on condition W on the second line, wed like to add the words within the project. So it would read, the applicant, its successors and assigns shall be responsible for the cost of any sound abatement measures within the project that are required to qualify the Alii Parkway for Federal Construction Funds. This is that section that talks about the issues for traffic noise to the project. And then we have a couple of more, just technical things. Condition EXHIBIT B 18 X, third line, Department of natural, Land and Natural Resources with a ‚sƒ. Condition Y, second line, mitigate the potential regional impacts from development of the project. Line 7-, 6 and 7, the fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of final plan approval or final subdivision approval, as applicable. Then going down to condition Y at the very end, 3 lines up from the bottom, 4 lines up from the bottom. These are the credits against the fair share, ‚Improvements to the drainage as it crosses under Kuakini Highwayƒ, I would suggest crossing out the first, ‚may be credited against the road fair shareƒ and then it reads a little bit better. But basically the idea is that the credits against fair share would be for the drainage improvements under Kuakini Highway and that the land value of the Alii Parkway right-of-way, or excuse way the Keauhou, the Parkway right-of-way and the Kuakini Highway right-of-way should be credit against the fair share for road and traffic improvements. Weve had a discussion with the Director regarding this issue also. ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Im okay with the, this is a-. It says the same thing its a better wording of thecondition. LIM:OkayandImsorryforthelongrunthroughbutthatsitforourproposed changes. ALAMEDA:Commissioners any questions on those proposed changes before we ask Mr. Emler to add, add actually to some of those conditions? Correct Mr. Emler? Could we do that at this time? Very well, Mr. Emler would you like to add to some of those? Applicant you can stay, we may have questions for you. Would you like to do it up here or? EMLER:Would it be alright if I did it on the table? ALAMEDA:Sure. EMLER:It will be easier. ALAMEDA:Okay, if you dont mind grabbing a chair. EMLER:I can do it from over here. ALAMEDA:Okay. Go ahead Mr. Emler you may proceed. EMLER:Okay Im going to begin with the applicants proposed change to Condition E. We have no, Public Works doesnt have any objection to the concept of the TIAR being done to include a schedule of improvements however for the purposes of the zone change conditions I think its going to make it inconsistent with what weve conditioned the improvements on, which is the issuance of any certificate of occupancies so we would need to change the other conditions to go along with this. So-. ALAMEDA:Director? EXHIBIT B 19 YUEN:I didnt quite understand that. EMLER:Okay, the condition change by the applicant says the TIAR shall include a schedule improvements describing when each improvement will be required in development of the project. But, if you look at the conditions for improving Kuakini Highway and I need to point out which condition that is. ALAMEDA:Thatd be H. EMLER:Okay. LIM:(not speaking inmike) I guess I can see what Mr. Emler is saying (inaudible) modified to enable the applicant to close Certificate of Occupancy for the portion of theprojectthatsrelevanttothoseroadwayimprovementssothatwedonthaveto,wewont, otherwise we wont be able to pull a CO for the, for any portion of the project until all of the improvements are done. ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Right, the, we can work on the exact wording of this but the basic idea is that for, the improvements to the intersection can be done in phases that the improvements have to be completed before certificate of occupancy is issued for that phase of the project. What, the idea that the TIAR contain suggested phasing is also okay with me. But, what I want to make, I want this to be written in a way that makes it clear that any phasing of improvements has to be approved by DPW and not-. The wording that is in Mr. Lims condition suggests that the TIAR determines the phasing and so, and so Mr. Lim says that, the, well DPW can reject the TIAR. But, I look at the TIAR as more of a technical document and, and so the TIAR may say well 50 units does not warrant a left-turn pocket whereas I look at that decision as more of policy. And the TIAR will tell you your typical delay with somebody wanting to turn left will be 15 seconds or something. And, thats the technical part and to me the decision of whether, when you have a left turn pocket is partially technical but also partially policy. If I understand correctly and correct me if Im wrong Ki that theres not really a set, theres not a set standard that says if you have to wait so many seconds you should have a left turn pocket or its-. Theres an element of engineering judgment to this and Id like it to be really clear that they can approve the analysis in the TIAR but and the TIAR may say well we dont think you need a left turn pocket yet but Public Works thinks you do and so then youve got to put it in. I am myself leery of having any significant level of development either 50 units on the property without a left turn pocket. But we can, we dont have to sit here and decide that right now. As Ki, am I, am I, are we on board with this? EMLER:Okay. ALAMEDA:Ki? EXHIBIT B 20 EMLER:I think we are. Yes. Yeah. It does leave it really, very much open to discretion and probably itd be better not to,in our case. YUEN:Would you, would you recommend a left turn pocket regardless of the level of, if like for 50 units for example? EMLER:It really depends, if we were looking at this as just a 50 unit project? Its probable that the existing volume of traffic on Kuakini Highway would not warrant the left turn pocket there. But it is, because its a 45-mile an hour posted zone at that location right now itd be a good idea to have one even thought there are other developments right almost across the street that dont have one. YUEN:You mean that Sunstone does not have a-? EMLER:Correct. YUEN:Theyhavea-? EMLER:Thatscorrect. YUEN:Mm,hm.Okay,theyhaveaexcel-deceland,buttheydonthavea,aleft turn. EMLER:They dont have that either. YUEN:On the other hand, most of the movement into that, into the makai side. My own thinking anyway is that people are, there are not that many left turns into the makai side. EMLER:Thats true. YUEN:Because most of the people go north from this area. And that you, and I mean I wasnt involved-. EMLER:I would concur with that yes. YUEN:Yeah, I wasnt involved certainly. I dont think I was involved in what, whats required for that Kona Sea Villas. EMLER:Yes most of the traffic would be south bound. YUEN:Well I think its okay to leave the exact improvements to further-. What Id like to say is that, is to, is to state the way that weve required it and, unless otherwise determined by DPW, you know the channelization? We require, we said its required and I think Im, I put in a condition that says-. Id be willing to modify it, our recommendation to say that it can be, these things can be done in phases but to leave it that its, that its still required unless EXHIBIT B 21 otherwise determined by-. We can say either DPW or the Planning Director. I think weve typically said DPW so I put it that way. Its, you tell me at that point. EMLER:Yes, Im fine with that, leave it at that. YUEN:Leaving it with DPW or? EMLER:Just leave in the requirement. YUEN:Leaving it required but then who has the authorization to, to waive it? I think we should have some authorization to waive the requirement based on phasing. EMLER:To me thats just exactly what hes asking for. LIM:Yeah,allwereaskingforisifwecanprovetoDPWthattheneedofthe plans of that phase of the project doesnt need, doesnt generate the need for this big intersection that wed be allowed to keep it as is until such time as we trigger it. And, theyll control that, we agree that they control it. YUEN:Okay. Well, Ill work, Ill write this up that way. ALAMEDA:Very good. Mr. Emler continue. EMLER:Okay Im going to go ahead and cover some other changes too at the same time that the applicant didnt call for. So on condition F, going right into condition F. We asked to have this no vehicular security gate amendment made to the original conditions, the one thats underlined here in condition F on the Planning Departments copy. However, the last sentence, a vehicular turnaround shall be provided within the project property on the egress, and Im going to add the word side in there, of any such gate. SIRACUSA:Excuse. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:How would that read then? EMLER:Okay, it would read, A vehicular turnaround shall be provided within the property-. Excuse me. A vehicular turnaround shall be provided within the project property on the ingress side of any such gate. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I got a question. So thats, that mean that where you have that gate you would, it would, youd have a pocket there right before the gate so that people could turn around? EXHIBIT B 22 EMLER:Correct. WATANABE:Is that what youre implying? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, you okay with that? I mean, does that answer your question? WATANABE:Thats fine thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Continue. EMLER:Okay. On condition G, this is a, an addition by Department of Public Works. I would like to add after Kahului to Keauhou Parkway and Ill go ahead and read it with the full sentence. The proposed alignment and right-of-way for Kahului to Keauhou Parkway, includingtheintersectionwithKuakiniHighwayand/orKuakiniHighwayimprovementsphase II. Strike, which has been and substitute, as determined by the Department of Public Works shall be reserved by subdivision of the proposed right of way to create a separate lot for future road improvements, roadway improvements prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy and conveyed to the County upon request, at no cost to the County. DARROW:Ki can you read that one more time, from-. EMLER:Okay, full sentence would be, the proposed alignment and right-of-way for Kahului to Keauhou Parkway, including the intersection with Kuakini Highway and/or Kuakini Highway improvements phase II as determined by the Department of Public Works shall be reserved by subdivision of the proposed right of way to create a separate lot for future roadway improvements prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy and conveyed to the County upon request, at no cost to the County. ALAMEDA:Okay, Staff? Continue. EMLER:Okay, condition H, again we were, were okay with that change because it states, approved by the Department of Public Works. So thats why we were okay with the applicants change of condition H. ALAMEDA:Other comments? EMLER:Yes. Okay, condition J. This one has some inconsistencies in it that need to be clarified or cleared up. Public Works had suggested the change at the bottom of the condition here. The location of any access to Kahului-Keauhou shall be. Excuse me let me start that over. The location of any access to the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway shall be approved by the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works, prior to plan approval or subdivision preliminary plat approval any other access to the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway shall be terminated upon the construction of Kuakini Highway-. Excuse me. Upon the construction of Kahului to Keauhou Parkway if required by the Department of Public Works. However up in the condition it, instead of giving that responsibility solely, or to both the EXHIBIT B 23 Planning Director in consultation with Public Works it gives it the responsibility of determining the location of the access or approving the location solely to Public Works. I think thats an inconsistency in here that needs to be clarified. Also, this condition states that there are 2 accesses to the project and thats it. The applicants plan shows 3 so, thats the reason why we suggested this termination. So, thats not an inconsistency, the termination is not an inconsistency but who makes the determination is somewhat inconsistent. What Id like to suggest is this sentence, upon construction of the Alii Parkway, the applicant its successors and assigns shall be responsible for the cost of constructing a replacement access from the project to Alii Parkway. And so public works is okay with that up to there. Now where Im concerned about this, at one or more, one or other of the 2 potential access points shown on the applicants revised site plan exhibit M to the Planning Departments background report DPW may approve further revisions to the site map to finalize the location of the Alii Parkway access point. ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler? Mr. Emler I just wanted to make note that our fellow commissionerhaslefttheroomsoIwantedto-. EMLER:Oh. ALAMEDA:Just,cause,yeah,ifwecouldtakea5-minuterecessandthenwecancome right back. Mr. Lim? LIM:Mr. Chairman, I know we have some public witnesses, maybe we should take them? ALAMEDA:Well, yeah, well, we need quorum. Also, just to let you guys know, I want to ask, were thinking of, Im thinking of going straight through and not breaking for lunch until this whole agenda item is completed cause I know our testifier has been here early in the morning so. But for now lets take a 5-minute recess. Thank you. RECESSED:The Chair called for a recess at 12:10 p.m. RECONVENED:The meeting reconvened at 12:25 p.m. ALAMEDA:Will the Hawaii County Planning Commission now come back to order? Okay picking up where we left off again, Mr. Ki Emler had feedback regarding the conditions and Im going to ask that he continue. EMLER:Okay the Planning Director and I came to a agreement on, at least on the recent change to the condition J, the one thats underlined. That, rather than the first line saying by the Planning Director in consultation with,it will say, shall be approved by the Department of Public Works in consultation with the Planning Director? YUEN:Yes. EMLER:Okay.Priortoplanapprovalorsubdivisionpreliminaryplatapprovalany other access to the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway shall be terminated upon construction of the EXHIBIT B 24 Kahului to Keauhou Parkway unless allowed by DPW to be reconstructed for right in movements only. ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Thats fine and I thought we said unless required by DPW to be constructed, reconstructed for right in improvement, right in access only? EMLER:Either word, I think yes, either word is finethere. YUEN:Okay. ALAMEDA:So noted. Continue. SIRACUSA:Excuseme?Clarification.Ididnthearthepartafterreconstructed. EMLER:Reconstructedforrightinmovementsonly,righthypheninmovements only. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Continue. EMLER:I think Im going to leave condition K up to the Planning Directors discretion that applicants change and-, Public Works is okay with the applicants proposed change on condition N. Again on condition P we were okay with that. Except for, P, and I believe the Planning Director already brought up that we were concerned about this. We dont agree with the applicants proposed revision to condition P to make that-. Obtain a letter of map change prior to the issuance of any construction permit change to a certificate of occupancy and the reason for that is partly because the condition does already give Department of Public Works some discretion by saying if required by the Department of Public Works and depending on what improvements are being proposed where. After Public Works reviews the flood study we can make a determination as to whether or not the applicant needs to obtain a conditional letter of map change prior to doing construction. Or issuing a construction permit, which in this case would be a grading permit, most likely first. We wouldnt sign off on a building permit not having or not knowing whether we were going to have some possible flooding problems based on this condition. LIM:Were, the applicant is agreeable as long as it doesnt stop us from doing work outside of the flood area. EMLER:Well the flood area that the applicant is referring to then I would assume is the flood area as determined post flood study. In other words, we want the flood study done before they can get any kind of a construction permit and we want to be able to review that flood study and determine whether or not the applicants consultant has adequately addressed the flooding issue. EXHIBIT B 25 LIM:Okay, I think its fair to require the applicant to conduct a flood study were just worried that when you go in for these letter of map changes they take a year sometimes and we didnt want to wait for the whole project for that. So if we, as long as Public Works is telling the applicant that you can, with the Department of Public Works consent do work in some areas that are clearly not impacted or not going to be impacted by the, by the flood then, then thats okay with us. EMLER:Well, we want the flood study done prior to any construction permit being issued period. ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Yes and-. LIM:MysuggestedchangeIguesswewouldjusttakethisportionthatsays prior to the issuance of any construction permit and put it on to the end of the first sentence. So that essentially what hes saying is we do the flood study prior to pulling any construction permit and the next sentence would just reiterate if required by DPW then we submit the, the letter of map change for processing. EMLER:In other words were not necessarily asking for the LOMAR, the final letter of map revision prior to any construction permit. What were asking is to be able to evaluate it to determine whether a conditional letter of map revision is required prior to them doing their land alterations. YUEN:Then I would add this to the end of the second sentence that were talking about here. We would, we would say, let me start from the, the only part Im going to change is at the very end but let me start from the beginning. If required by the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall submit the study to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA and obtain a letter of map change, LOMC, prior to the issuance of any construction or grading permit comma, within areas determined by DPW. And that makes it clear that DPW could let them have a construction or grading permit for some areas of the property while they pursue a letter of map change for other areas. I think what Mr. Lims concern is that this sounds like if DPW wants a, a LOMAR then they are precluded from getting any construction permits anywhere until the LOMAR is issued. Thats not what you want right? EMLER:Thats correct. Thats why I used the more generic term, letter of map change so that were not having to write this extensive explanation of it. But I am on the record as basically going on, going along with what you just said. YUEN:Mm hm. Okay. Well let me. I think to make it clear we can just add that little clause at the end of the sentence. Okay? EMLER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Continue. EXHIBIT B 26 EMLER:We can answer that question later. Condition W. I can see the applicant wants to try and clarify this by making sure it, it doesnt require them to do work inside the Countys proposed right-of-way for Kahului to Keauhou Parkway but the Federal, the possible needfor sound abatement under the Federal standards would normally require the County to do the sound abatement improvements. So, what Im trying to do is indicate, is just explain that, I dont think this is necessary to put in here. In other words this, this qualification seems to turn it back to the County to have to do the improvements in our right-of-way. YUEN:I think what theyre-. EMLER:Because the Federal government would not require, they would not think that, I mean they would not propose that the adjacent property owner be the one required to put these improvements in their property rather than it being done with the project right-of-way. So, Idontthinkitsnecessarytoputthisin. YUEN:Well,noIthink,IthinktheintentofMr.Limsamendmentistomakeit clear that the sound abatement measures are only those necessary to protect, to reduce sound impacts in their property and that it was too broadly worded as stated that it could be any, any sound abatement including you know, potentially Kona Hillcrest or some-. Is that right Mr. Lim? LIM:Thats correct. YUEN:And as a, like the big picture on this is that if the development goes in and then Alii Parkway goes in, the Federal standards may require noise abatement to protect adjacent, an adjacent existing residential area. And, I dont want us to rezone the property, allow a development and then have to spend a lot of-. The County to have to spend a lot of money protecting that rezoned area from noise impacts. So thats the intent of this condition. What, and as far as whether the, whether the abatement is done in the right-of-way or within the project area, I think the, which is I think the issue Ki is raising here. I would say let me rewrite this. I just did something here okay and it-. The first sentence of W would say, the applicant, its successors and assigns shall be responsible for the costs of any sound abatement measures to reduce sound within the project that are required to qualify the Parkway for Federal construction funds. And then, then thats I think clear that it, that the abatement measures could be either within the right-of-way or within the project but theyre only limited to measures that protect the project itself and not any other property. ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler? EMLER:I would concur with that change yes. ALAMEDA:Mr. Lim? LIM:I understand the requirement. Its a practical problem more than anything else because the design of the Parkway in that area has not been completed as far as I understand EXHIBIT B 27 and it certainly hasnt been funded. So, you know who knows what will be required. In certain instances the Federal officials have required you know 8 or 10 foot wall, 8 or 10 foot tall concrete walls and things like that. You know thats not something that we think this affordable housing project should pick up. So, to the extent that you know we can well try to abate the sound. I think most of the you know, the other part of this very long condition was Mr. Yuens desire to provide notice to the purchasers that there is going to be a highway coming pass their house and, you know were fully in agreement with that. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Lim. Mr. Emler continue. EMLER:Okay. GRAHAM:Excuse me could I just ask one clarification? ALAMEDA:Oh,goahead,sure.CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:Onthelastthing.Justlookingtothefuture.Ifyoufolksdevelopeda project and then homeowners come in and buy condominiums and all like that and then lets say this highway gets built in 10 years and maybe you dont have ownership interest anymore and all so if there are conditions leftover from this rezoning that the County has applied does that mean each homeowner gets this great long recitation of all the things he might be liable for in the future? Or how does that go in practice? LIM:Thats correct the way its phrased now the affordable owners and the market owners in the project would pick up this requirement. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? Follow up? No? Thank you. Commissioner Emler? I mean, Mr. Emler continue. EMLER:I dont have any further proposed changes but I did want to say as I stated in my comments the first paragraph of my comments to the application. Department of Public Works is very concerned about this project going in prior to the construction of the highways for the very reasons that were talking about right now, noise and impacts on the existing residences assuming that the project goes first before our highway. And I can tell you just by being, working in an office within 100 feet of the Kuakini Highway improvements phase 1 that theres going to be some vibration, noise, dust and you know traffic disruptions, a lot of impact to the residents. And, we would very much prefer not to have the complaints and the additional burden on the contractor to do the additional work because its going to cost more money to do the project. And the contractors going to bid higher because there are going to have to be some considerations for the, the homeowner there. LIM:I guess my- ALAMEDA:Mr. Lim? EXHIBIT B 28 LIM:-my last comment on this issue is that you know I havent done a lot of the rezonings for, recent rezonings for projects along the Parkway alignment but that runs from Keauhou all the way up to this project and up to Queen K. And Im, at least Im not aware of any similar conditions that require the project developers to, to pay for the cost of sound abatement measures that would be required to qualify the Parkway for Federal construction funds. I mean I, I know that there are numerous projects even just across the street that these, that the parkway, runway, parkway, right-of-way runs through and none of those people are being asked to pay for that. So, you know with respect to the overall attempt by us to provide affordable housing Id ask that this portion of the condition be deleted. ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler or Mr. Yuen response? YUEN:As far as other rezonings, most of the ones that Im aware of along the Parkway are mid to late 80s and I dont know that they paid as much attention to this issue of sound.Im,asabottomlineonourrecommendationIamdefinitelyagainsteliminating,Imfor keeping the requirement that the apartment owners bear the responsibility of any necessary soundproofing as a condition of allowing this project to move forward before the construction of the Parkway. If you look at the rec-, as far as what is likely to happen, if you look at the recommendation theres as much as we really can say about this at the present time. The analysis based on the 1996 EIS makes it, it looks like nothing significant would have to be done. If anything the current, if the Parkway were built according to the current plans it should be, the sound level should be not even as bad as, as indicated in the 1996 EIS. Being that this is still something that is going to take place much in the future, its difficult to, to be, to make any absolute statement about this. They do have, this is partially a function of distance from the Parkway itself. They do have 4 buildings under their site plan that are really quite close to a right-of-way. The remaining buildings are not, are not that close. And distance will reduce the impact. But I do, you know Im sticking by the condition. I think that a rewrite as I did is in order to make it clear that any soundproofing is related to protecting the project. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners we also have a opportunity to comment on the Directors condition. We can disagree or agree. We also are, you know we can also have opinion so feel free to come forward. Mr. Emler any thoughts or final comments? EMLER:Pau. Thank you. ALAMEDA:All pau. Mr. Lim, yourself as well as your applicants can also speak if they need to. LIM:We ask to defer after the public witnesses. I know theyve been waiting all morning so Id like to get them on. ALAMEDA:Also please, please note that I just checking on the protocol again making sure that were following protocol. So after, if we allow public testimony then Mr. Torigoe and then the applicants will come back. Can they again continue to present their case if you will? Or should we do it right now and let them get it all on the table? EXHIBIT B 29 TORIGOE:You want to get as much out on the table as you can at this point just in terms of the applicants position and presentation and then if you have further questions after the public testimony then you can address those and-. ALAMEDA:Right. TORIGOE:-perhaps just give them, give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the testimony. ALAMEDA:So thats the protocol. So its going to be when you get, come back, its going to be more so responding to our questions or public testimony and not further presenting your case is that okay? LIM:Thats clear. ALAMEDA:Okay thank you. You may be seated then. GRAHAM:Can I? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham go ahead. GRAHAM:Yeah, I had, just a little follow-up to what weve been going through. ALAMEDA:Sure. GRAHAM:First I think for, its been such a long, lengthy detail thing were doing and I just wanted to put forth my understanding of what the role of us Commissioners are in this kind of thing. Its because this is a matter that will be decided by the County Council it feels to me like whats going on is Planning Director, Department of Public Works and you folks are putting out a lot of discussion and trying to tune this thing to whats acceptable and will go to County Council and its all being done out here in the open which is good and its all being done in front of us so if we have anything constructive to say about individual things we get to do it. But that basically its all a process thats towards you know like making it right as it goes to County Council. And then I did have 2 particular, 2 particular things I wanted to say about the conditions that I think are just clarifications of what have already, has already been said. One, you did speak Mr. Lim about there may be phasing of this project. And I know when I first started this meeting I was trying to focus in on affordable housing a little. So, I am assuming that any phase parts of the project will meet the affordable housing requirements applicable to that phase along the way so it wont be something left till the end. LIM:We will commit to that. GRAHAM:Okay. And the other thing is when I originally spoke of you know what is this 50 percent represent as to what tier of the affordable housing demand it satisfies you did say that as I recall that you were intending the 50 percent to apply to those making not more than 120 percent of the median income. EXHIBIT B 30 LIM:Thats correct. Thats our goal to try to get the 120 percent buyers in and it helps us also cause we get a one to one credit for that. GRAHAM:So in the particular condition of this rezoning can we flesh out that 50 percent number by making it refer exactly to that target group, those making not more than 120 percent of the median income? LIM:Because we dont know what the market is yet we havent done that study that were going to have. I would prefer to leave it open. A lot of this has been subject to management by the Office of Housing and Community Development. And because of the changing nature of the market and the interest rates it may be that well do less 120 units and more 140 and 80s, you know depending upon what we can sell. So, that, thats why Id ask for the flexibility. I think you know our commitment to do the 50 percent of the 212 proposed, you knowwhatevernumberofunitswebuild.Wewanttobuild50percentaffordableissufficient. GRAHAM:Butforourperspective,forthepublicsinterestthenwedonthave anything in the ordinance as proposed that precludes you from building all 50 percent to the 140 percent of median income group. Correct? And, thats the best you can do? LIM:Well, yeah if we did all at 140 percent then wed have to do, Im not good at math but at least twice as many. Is that what? GRAHAM:No. LIM:Its not a full credit. The 140 is half a credit. GRAHAM:So your 50 percent is then not 50 percent of the residents as qualify as affordable housing in some manner but that the 50 percent represents to the number of units in the current mix that were using for affordable housing. Is that right? You understand the content of what Im trying to say? LIM:No. GRAHAM:I think Mr. Blalog does. LIM:Well, why dont you answer that. ALAMEDA:Mr. Blalog could you state your name and address for the record. You may proceed. BLALOG:Kevin Blalog. P.O. Box 368, Paauilo, Hawaii. ALAMEDA:Thank you go ahead. EXHIBIT B 31 BLALOG:What youre asking is that the commitment were making for 106 units will fall somewhere within the 140 to the 100 percent range. If we cant commit to only doing 120 percent of the median income because we dont know how many guys qualify for that. But we will build 106 units that will be sold within the affordable housing requirements. GRAHAM:Okay it sounds to me that youre clarifying what Mr. Lim said and all I was trying to get at is Mr. Lim said that youre targeting-. BLALOG:Were targeting the 120 percent the one to one. GRAHAM:Right, so then what I would like would be if youre going to do 140s, you should do 100s in a comparable amount to make up your 50 so that the whole 50 doesnt wind up drifting up to the 140 thats all. Im not wanting you to all do it at 120. BLALOG:Right.Right. GRAHAM:Ijustwantanythingabovebebalancedbysomethingbelowthatsall. BLALOG:Thatscorrectandthatswhatweregoingtotrytoachieve. GRAHAM:Soyoucancommittothatifyouputsomethingtothateffectinthe ordinance? BLALOG:Yeah. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Graham for paying attention to the details. Other questions before we allow our public testimony? Very well then, you may be seated. Okay, this is a public hearing and we have 3 testifiers. Any others please see our-, Lynette or Phyllis to sign up. Will Mr. Gimpel, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Ishibashi please come forward. I could take all you guys all at once. Theres 3 chairs so 3 testifiers. Again just to remind you about public testimony. This is your opportunity to share your thoughts about this application. I also ask that you keep it to the point and not go off on tangents if you will. If you do I will do a non-verbal like that bring you back on task. Otherwise feel free to share your thoughts on this particular application. Before that let me ask you to swear you in. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Well start off with Mr. Gimpel. If you can state your name and address for the record and then you may proceed. GIMPEL:Yes my name is Joel Gimpel. I live at 73-4686 Hinalani Street here in Kailua Kona and Im representing the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. As you know we EXHIBIT B 32 provided written comments to Mr. Yuen in August and written testimony to you on October 21, which hearing was deferred until today. And because those documents are part of the record I intend only to summarize the principal points we made and comment briefly on the Planning Directors recommendations. First, we noted a number of errors in the original application including surprisingly a mistaken description of the propertys location. It is as confirmed by our personal inspection and the maps that were provided with the application south, not north of the Pottery Terrace Development. In addition to the erroneous description of the location and the many collating errors we found in the application and supporting documentation we drew attention to the following concerns. First, deals with traffic safety. The site plan showed only one access to the property from a 30 foot extension of Kuakini Highway on the Keauhou- Kahului Parkway right of way, which is supposed to be a limited access highway. No provision was made however for any safety improvements for the proposed intersection with Kuakini Highway and the Parkway that will be used by the many vehicles to be added by the proposed development. These we noted should include left turn access and pocket lanes. A right turn accelerationlaneandtrafficcontroldevicessuchasstoplights,stopsignsorpedestrianactivated crosswalk lights. Nor were there any provisions for bicycle and pedestrian safety such as bike paths, marked crosswalks and sidewalks. Indeed the application still fails to acknowledge the existence of any traffic safety concerns. We also suggested that the applicant provide a bus pull out zone that could serve Pottery Terrace, Kona Hillcrest, Lava Kuakini and other area developments. And we noted that safety would be compromised in the event that fire or other disaster blocked the single access route. Accordingly we recommended that a second access/exit route be required. Now, weve reviewed the Planning Directors recommendation that you approve this application if certain conditions are satisfied including admirably conditions requiring a second access route and compliance with the Department of Public Works requirements concerning road and safety improvements. That could include turn lanes and traffic control devices. We do believe that the Planning Directors conditions will satisfy many of our concerns but most importantly we believe that occupancy must be conditioned on the completion of the required infrastructure improvements. Now with respect to traffic congestion although not directly related to traffic safety the applicants assertion that road improvements in the area will not be needed when the area is development belies credibility. Even without the benefit of a TAIR, TIAR excuse me, which the applicant hasnt yet provided we assume that 212 residential units will generate a minimum, minimum of 800 to 1000 trips per day with most of those occurring during the morning and evening peak hours. And those trips will all require use of Kuakini Highway which is now a 2-lane road that leads to Highway 11, which already operates at capacity and to downtown Kailua-Kona which suffers from gridlock most of the day. Even more incredible is the fact that the inch thick application acknowledges only that quote, short-term negative impacts to traffic may occur during the construction of the project roads and infrastructure and that construction vehicles will slow area traffic while on the public roadways. Theres no other reference to traffic issues and no mention is made of the long term effect of adding a thousand vehicles a day to the already over-burdened roadway system in the area. An area that will soon see the effects of additional traffic due to the recently approved Puaa Suffolk, we call it Pualani makai project with 350 residential units and a large commercial area less than a mile away. We conclude that the proposed use, especially when added to the already approved Pualani makai development will greatly exacerbate the already unacceptable congestion. And in this regard we note that the States transportation improvement plan has delayed the Kuakini Highway widening project into 2009 and beyond. And that the Hawaii County General Plan no EXHIBIT B 33 longer includes the redundant leg of the Kahului-Keauhou Parkway between Kuakini Highway and the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension. Now with respect a bit to affordable housing the applicants proposal to allocate 106 units for affordable housing while commendable and needed in the area doesnt do anything to alleviate the traffic safety and congestion concerns that we have. Although the application acknowledges that new buyers and Im quoting here, will probably come from the existing local population that will be relocating from areas outside Kona it fails to recognize that the relocating buyers old residences down in Puna and South Kona will be occupied by people that are using the same congested roadways to reach their employment in North Kona and South Kohala. So while the new buyers commutes may be reduced or eliminated, their replacements commutes in their old homesteads will take their place. This added housing whether its affordable or otherwise isnt desirable in this case absent the supporting road infrastructure. So we recommend in view of these many indicated shortcomings of the application including the absence of a TIAR and our stated concerns we believe that this application should be denied. If approved however we urge that it be conditioned upon 1, submissionofasatisfactoryTIAR2,provisionofpedestrian,bicycleandtrafficsafetydevicesas suggested and as may be required by the Department of Public Works and 3, full compliance with all conditions placed by the Planning Director and the Department of Works, of Public Works. Finally, we urge that occupancy be denied until the improvements are completed and infrastructure concurrency is achieved including widening Kuakini Highway to 4 lands from Hualalai Road to the project entrance. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and Ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners questions for Mr. Gimpel? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:You spoke of the redundant leg of that highway Kahului to Keauhou but I think weve been talking about that leg here in our thing. Can you explain why its redundant or whether were on the same page or not on that? GIMPEL:Well there are other ways to get from Kuakini to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. GRAHAM:So, by calling it redundant youre saying, youre not saying its not going to happen, youre just sort of saying its not fulfilling a real need because theres other ways? GIMPEL:Thats possible. The Puaa-Suffolk Development included a new road from Kuakini Highway to Queen, the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension and thats already been approved. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners? All right please note that Mr. Gimpel as we move to our next testifier that you cannot provide anymore testimony. So do you have anything else to say before we move forward? EXHIBIT B 34 GIMPEL:Unless theres somebody that has a question to ask, Im through. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay, seeing none. How about our next testifier? Thank you Mr. Gimpel. Mr. Greg Gauthier? Could you please state your name and address for the record and you may proceed? GAUTHIER:Sure. Greg Gauthier. 64-5303 Puanuanu Place, Kamuela 96743. ALMEDA:Go ahead. GAUTHIER:Thank you Commissioners for your time. Im sure your stomachs are rumbling at this point but I would like to take this moment to speak in favor and also to commend you all for your volunteerism as I too am a commissioner from a slightly some would saymoreimportantcommissionaLiquorCommission.Iwouldprobablybetheonlyoneonthe island who would say that but, but and you guys have conducted yourself with a lot of eloquence and I really appreciate it. Ive learned a lot from you today. I speak in favor. You may say well what was my interest. I am a representative of workers in that area including Sheraton Keauhou Bay. I mutually represent Outrigger Keauhou, Pepsi, the workers at Hawthorne Pacific. And over the last couple of years and I know youve probably heard this many times in the past. We have had a mandate from our workers. Its not really even top down, its definitely bottom up. Its our workers been saying we need a place to live, we need affordable. A lot of them are renting, a lot arent tra-, some, many like Mr. Gimpel said are travelling from South Kohala and the Puna areas all the way over. But many are renting and so often were finding that theyre purchasing, I mean their owners are selling. So what were doing as an organization for these workers is were going to start training classes. So as these projects continue to avail themselves and within these particular price ranges we are starting a training program. Take you know a year to two years to help them qualify for these loans so that workers can have a place to live in close proximity. And in conjunction with that I do hope that certainly public transportation on Alii Drive is you know around so it can get the people to and from work. But what youre gonna, what, what the future of Kona looks like with less affordable residences for local population. Work will need to be done in the area and the wealthy do get the work done one way or another. And usually its from immigrant labor and immigrant labor tends to be able to afford rent at $2500 a month because they can live 9, 10 people to a house and most of the money gets funneled back to their countries, which I would probably do too if I were an immigrant to support my family. Thats just the nature of the beast. Were trying to find work for, places to live for a lot of our workers who may also be immigrant but who are working legally who want to provide and stable, a stable lifestyle for their family in beautiful Kona. And, the more of these projects that come up you know I find myself speaking in favor because of the mandate they are placing on me. You know theyre coming, we hear it so often so we are in, I am in favor, we are in favor of this development and again thank you so much for your time. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Gauthier. Questions for- Commissioners? Thank you very much. Seeing none. Mr. Ishibashi could you please state your name and address for the record and you may proceed. EXHIBIT B 35 ISHIBASHI:Okay. Wallace Ishibashi. 27469 Mamalahoa Highway, Papaikou, Hawaii. Good afternoon Commissioners. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the ILWU. We represent couple of thousand workers along the coast, Hamakua Coast and on Kohala Coast. So we appreciate the opportunity to have affordable housing. To have the American dream of owning a house is a mandate from our membership and we support developers who try and instill affordable in, as part of their project. And the foresight of this developer to see the need and address that need for moderate income people is something that we appreciate and we, we work again like what brother Greg said is, we mandated to have affordable housing be provided, the American dream to our workers. So, thats what were all about. And we just sup- ask for your support in this project. And I thank you for the time. Any questions? ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Ishibashi. Questions Commissioners for Mr. Ishibashi? How about for any other of the testifiers? Okay very good then. Well, thank you so much for yourtestimony.Thankyouforyourpatienceinwaitingaswell.Reallyappreciateit.Allright will the applicants again please come forward? Fellow Commissioners now this is our chance again to ask our applicants representative or the applicant directly any questions that we might have regarding this particular project. So any questions for either Mr. Lim or Mr. Blalog? Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Mr. Lim aside from I guess condition W is the one that you had some concerns about regarding the noise abatement. But, aside from that you have no problems with all the changes or revisions that have been made today? Or for the most part can accept them lets put it that way? LIM:Yes, if the Planning Commission is inclined to go with the Directors recommendation yeah we have some issues but I think we can live with those. We believe that the main issues for us were the ability to phase in the traffic improvements as a need arose. The ability to work on site, obviously we need to do grubbing on site to be able to do our planning, final planning for the project. And to be able to work on the portions of the project that were not impacted by the drainage way. And I think the only other issue was the traffic coming through the project from the other lot. I talked to Mr. Yuen. I think that hes willing to propose some language with regard to cost share for the liability and maintenance of any traffic from outside the project coming through the project to Kuakini. So -. WATANABE:That would be, that would be, Im sorry but that would be-. You would be in favor of that as opposed to LIM:Yes thats our-. WATANABE:-creating a County dedicable type of road? LIM:Yes I think the County dedicable road coming through this project is going to-, I think is going to rob too much land area and I dont think anybody really wants to see that kind of a road coming out there. So, so long as theres a cost share that on the insurance and maintenance and that should solve our problem. I guess with respect to the affordable housing EXHIBIT B 36 th issue thats raised by Commissioner Graham. For condition D when it states at the 4 line that as represented by the applicant not less than 50 percent of the units shall be sold or rented at prices that qualify them as affordable under said policy. Would it clarify it for you if we put the word developed after not less than 50 percent of the units developed? Cause thats kind of what were saying is you know we, were proposing lets say 212 and we dont know what the final number is but its going to be near there. Were proposing that 50 percent of the units that are developed on the ground will be sold according to the affordable housing guidelines with the County of Hawaii. I just cannot commit to what range were going to sell them in because we need the market study in order to do that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I thought youcommitted a few minutes ago that if for anything thats above 120, targeted to above 120 there would be comparable built, developed below 120? So thatstheonlycommitmentIllaskthembecauseIdontwanttoseeyougoinginandsaying affordable but then building it all for 140 or building the bulk of it for 140 without balancing it around the 120 that you indicated in the earlier testimony you were shooting for. LIM:Okay, maybe we can put in some language that relates to the, I guess related to the affordable housing credits. Because that you know-, GRAHAM:Yeah. LIM:The range of houses thats how it does, so were willing to live with that. GRAHAM:Okay. ALAMEDA:Very good. Mr. Lim sorry I also didnt allow you opportunity to respond to any of the testimony. If you had any reactions to that. You do have that opportunity. LIM:No we have no comments to the testimony. We appreciate the support from the working groups that theyve come to support us. Weve discussed the project with them and theyre hopefully you know theyve indicated that they want to be in line to, on sales of the project. With respect to the traffic thats a you know historic problem with Kona. I dont think we can solve it by ourselves. Were going to do our small part to improve the traffic on Kuakini where were going to come into the project. But I think at least from the way that we look at it the affordable housing need may be a more pressing need. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I want to acknowledge Mr. Crivello. If you could state your name and address for the record and then, if you have any thoughts regarding the testimony wed appreciate it at this time. Go ahead. CRIVELLO:I do. My name is Barry Crivello. My address is 73-4341 Papaana Place, Kailua-Kona. I also work on Kuakini Avenue. Okay, Kuakini Highway. There at Hualalai and Kuakini so Im faced with the noise on a daily basis but I know its temporary. The other thing is there is a real critical need for affordable housing. Im sure that you guys are all aware as the EXHIBIT B 37 City Council and everybody in the community that our young people are leaving this island and going to the mainland because they dont have affordable housing. All theres a lot of works is really a burden for them to have to commute from south to work in Kona. I think that this is actually going to alleviate some of the problem. Our motivation really was the fact that you know theres been a lot of development. Theres been a lot of people who have prospered as a result of that. But the cost to the culture, the cost to the community and the cost to the families has been astronomical. And so theres, theres something put out. Lets do some affordable housing for our children and for those people who cant afford the rising cost of real estate today. Now, were not asking for all kinds of concessions. We just want to be treated fairly and want you guys to understand something. There is a inverse relationship between interest rates and what an affordable house is. So the higher the interest rate the lower the affordable house. Time is of the essence. The interest rates are rising. We need to put affordable units on the ground soon. And so anything that you can do to support that would be I think appreciated by myself and I think some of the commentary that has been given today represents those people who really needtheaffordablehousing.AndIreallyappreciatethosepeoplewhocameforwardontheir behalf. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Crivello. Mr. Blalog. BLALOG:Just, I gotta give a couple of comments based on some of the testimonies-, ALAMEDA:Sure. BLALOG:- that was given. The, the real gist of this for myself and not the other members of the, our entity was, our, the company I work for hires people that arent part of organized labor. Theyre just a regular employee and I work with many businesses like that. And I also, our company also works with organized labor. But, theres an urgency for people to be able to have a unit to live in. I personally know of probably 10 maybe 12 people that sleep in cars because they have no place to live. So when, when you look at people trying to say that transportation or cars wont be cut down I can personally tell you it will. Our company hires people from as far away as Puna and they drive everyday down the Hamakua Highway to get to our place of business. And the people we do business with has people that live in Hilo and Puna and drive all the way to Kona to work because that is where the work is, or along the Kohala Coast. So, my interest was from ones under- you know having no planning experience and being taught about planning that you needed to have residential homes near where the jobs are. Not so much of the stuff we do but like the previous application that you guys heard today. You know I went, I didnt realize but I went to school with Mr. Kimis daughter. And, we were outside talking and he says, what are you here for? And I said, well Im here for Lava Kuakini, were trying to do some affordable housing. And he said well we hope something happens because we cant get workers because the workers live all the way in Kau and they cant afford a house in Kona so now were taking away hotel rooms that people would come to Hawaii to stay in and put workers in them cause they have no place to stay. So you know my, my thing is, is, I think its time that the County as a whole and I gotta commend Director Yuen. Looks at projects and says, eh, our goal is to help the people who are here. And thats really our goal. If we were doing this for market. I wouldnt be here I know for sure and I dont know about Mr. Lim or Mr. Crivello but I know I wouldnt be here. Because we do enough of that in our daily business. Eh, EXHIBIT B 38 we take their money, they do their big projects and we provide jobs to our employees. But the part thats lacking in this County which needs a huge, huge emphasis and at some time, at a point we gotta figure out which, in my mind the point is today is we need to have affordable housing. We cant talk about it anymore. We cant read about it in the newspaper. We cant do another study and we cant say its someone elses problem. So, I just want to, you know I want to let you guys know I come more from the employer side that looks at people that actually pays people and want the people that we employ to be able to afford a place to live on this island and not have to worry that they gotta make a choice between putting a roof over their head or putting food on the table. Thats a bad choice. And, you know were trying to do our best. I know were trying to narrow down how much we do. And you know our 3 goal, the 3 of us right here when weve had, when we had our initial meeting we said were going to do 100 percent. And you know the reason why we arent doing a 100 percent is we know it might not be possible. In our heart wed like to see 100 percent of this go. But were committing to do at least 50. If we can build more units and its a good unit for people to live in at that price level then were going tokeepsellingtheunits.Thatswhatweregoingtodo.ButyouknowIwanttoletyouguys know that at least where were coming from its, you know were not motivated by being the guy on the coastline over there thats going to sell a lot for 5 million dollars. Cause this project aint going to do that. So, thats all I got to say. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Blalog. Fellow Commissioners questions as we come to a close over here? Mr. Lim? LIM:I have a suggested affordable housing condition amendment that might hopefully get us there. Looking again at condition D, fourth line, as represented by the applicant, not less than 50 percent of the units shall be sold or rented at prices that, and this is the new language, that generate affordable housing credits equal to 50 percent of the units developed. Thats a roundabout way of saying you could do 80s and you know 140s and so long as you balance out at 50 percent of the units developed then you did your job. And if you guys can think of a better way-, ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? LIM:-then please go aheadbut thats my shot at it. GRAHAM:The Planning Directors much more akamai than I at understanding how that language plays out in the law and I know he understands where I was coming from so Ill just ask whether it sounds like it addresses it. It wasnt clear that it clearly addressed it to me. ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:It significantly increase their affordable housing requirement from that which is in the present condition. So if theyre willing to do that Im not going to turn it down. GRAHAM:Was the wordage that he said? YUEN:Yes. EXHIBIT B 39 GRAHAM:-correct for doing that and? YUEN:Yeah, yes because he says if, it says they generate affordable housing units. Well, I think the word is develop right? Develop rather than generate. LIM:Create or whatever you know. The idea being that whatever types of units we develop the end result will be 50 percent of the units developed will equal the amount of credits that well get from housing. YUEN:Well okay just so that were on, what I read this language to say is that you will develop-. If it says you will develop affordable housing units equal to not less, not less than 50 percent. Develop a, hang on a second. Okay. Id say generate affordable housing credits on site equal-. Let me, let me state this and then make sure we understand correctly okay. Generateaffordablehousingcreditsonsiteequaltonotlessthan50percentoftheunits.Yeah and then, affordable housing credits in excess of the basic requirements would be credited the applicant all right. What this, what this makes you do is with, you would have the determination of the product mix and the pricing but you would have to create, youd have you say returning to numbers. If you did a hundred units youd have to make 50 credits. Youre nodding thats okay. Thats what you want to do? LIM:Thats correct. Were, you know we wanted to. We know that its more than the standard requirement but thats what our commitment has always been. YUEN:If youre, the prior, the way the condition was written before they only had to make, they had to make 50 units but that couldve been as few as 25 credits. This way they have to make 50 credits anyway they do it, which could be 50 units that earn a credit each or it could be a hundred units earning a half credit or some that earn 2 credits and you know. If theyre willing to do that then thats fine and that does significantly increase the actual affordable housing requirement. ALAMEDA:Mr. Graham are you okay with that? Mr. Lim? Fellow Commissioners? WATANABE:Oh um. ALAMEDA:Sure Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I think there was some type of wording about the cost sharing that the Director was working on? Maybe we could? I dont know if youre (inaudible). ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:I, yeah I have, you know what Id like to do is go through this. Id like to perhaps take, I mean the Commission can continue with the discussion. I need about 5 minutes to finish going through. Cause you know weve discussed all these piece meal. Id like to come up with a revised recommendation that Ive largely written out that I can give to the Commission EXHIBIT B 40 before the Commission proceeds to a motion and a vote. And we can, if you want to discuss any particular point I mean we can do that right now theres just a few things that Im working on while this is going on that would enable us to have a complete you know, list of conditions as weve been discussing them here. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Maybe we should take 5 then? ALAMEDA:Sounds like a plan. It sounds like our Director has enough information for him to go ahead and work up his draft. Why dont we take 5 minutes come back and we can finish up this agenda item. RECESSED:The Chair called for a recess at 1:25 p.m. RECONVENED:The meeting reconvened at 1:45 p.m. ALAMEDA:The Hawaii County Planning Commission now come back to order. Okay just picking up where we left off. Basically we wanted to give our Director some opportunity to draft up or clarify all the recommendations that weve looked at today. And so, I wanted to turn it over to the Director. And then to Mr. Lim to see it all sits well and thenbring it back to our fellow Commissioners for questions, deliberations and a possible motion. Director Yuen. YUEN:Okay and this would be, the base of, the base document that Im working from is our yellow document that is attached to December 7, 2005 memo. Okay. And this is revised recommended conditions of approval. A and B are the same. C as Mr. Lims document it would say, Construction of the proposed development shall be commenced within 5 years of the effective date of this ordinance and the remainder is the same. D. To ensure that the goals andpoliciesofthehousing,Illalertyouwhentheresachangeokay.Toensurethatthegoals and policies of the housing element of the general plan are implemented the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to affordable housing policy provided further that as represented by the applicant and this is the change. The applicant shall generate affordable housing credits not less than 50%, Im sorry credits on-site, not less than 50%, Im sorry, is not less than 50% of the units developed. Okay? Then the next sentence remains the same. And then the next sentence is the affordable housing plan shall be approved by the administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development and the remainder is the same. E, there is an added sentence that says, the TIAR shall include a schedule of improvements describing when each improvement should be required in development of the project. Slightly different than Mr. Lims request. F is the same. Am I going too fast? ALAMEDA:Staff? YUEN:Im sorry, you want me to repeat E? LYNETTE:Yes. EXHIBIT B 41 YUEN:E, there is an added sentence saying, the TIAR shall include a schedule of improvements describing when each improvement should be required in development of the project. ALAMEDA:Lynette? YUEN:F there is a slight change to the last sentence asrequested by Mr. Emler. A vehicular turnaround shall be provided within the project property on the egress (sic) side of any such gate. Okay? Then G is again a change requested by Mr. Emler. The first sentence, the proposed alignment and right-of-way for the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway, and this is the change, including the intersection with Kuakini Highway, and Kuakini Highway Phase II, as determined by the Department of Public Works. EMLER:Addimprovementstothat?ThetitleisKuakiniHighwayImprovements Phase II. YUEN:After Phase II the word improvements? EMLER:After Kuakini Highway Improvements. To be consistent with the title of our-. HAYASHI:Can you speak into the mike please? EMLER:-six phase project. Okay, and Kuakini Highway Improvements Phase II. YUEN:All right thats fine. And then, comma, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the remainder would stay the same okay? Now H were going to take out H but, were going to take it out but were going to put it back in what was J. So its a void, it gets confusing when its separated like this okay. And J is going to be the big one. Then "I" goes down below what is now J, okay? And so "I" just gets relocated. Okay now J. If the project and Ive have this handwritten out but its partially scratched up so that Ill have to work on this again when, when we finalize this okay. If the project is built before the portion of the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway is built through the property, access shall consist of 1) a main project entrance located in the right-of-way of the future parkway, with an intersection on Kuakini Highway, and 2) at Kuakini Highway north of the Waiaha Drainage way. Okay then, were essentially going back to H now with-. What Im going to read is currently in H but with some slight changes alright? The applicant shall provide full improvements to the Kuakini Highway intersection consisting of but not limited to pavement widening, a dedicated left turn storage lane, drainage improvements and any relocation of utilities meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, Im sorry Department of Public Works period. Just for note were going to eliminate the next part of that sentence because its already been covered in another paragraph. Okay. Then were going to add this-. Im sorry after the Department of Public Works there should still be a comma and it says prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the project period. Then it says intersection improvements may be constructed in phases as the project is built out with the approval of the Department of Public Works. EXHIBIT B 42 EMLER:Director Yuen? Could we add one thing in there another clause? Another improvement thats in this condition J right now underlined here. Including but not limited to one other item the right turn deceleration lane. YUEN:Okay, do we have, staff has that? Okay, hes going back to a dedicated left turn storage lane then we would say right turn deceleration and right turn deceleration lane and then drainage improvements. Thats that sentence there okay? Now, the driveway from the intersection with Kuakini to the main project entrance shall be constructedmeeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works and shall. This is, let me stop just, this is, Ive gone back to J. What was J right and Im just reading from that. And shall to the extent that it can be done without greatly increasing the cost to the applicant beyond the access needs of their project be built so thatit can be converted to be used as a portion of the Parkway when the Parkway is built. Upon construction of the Parkway the applicant, its successors, and assigns shall be responsibleforconstructinganyreplacementaccessfromtheprojecttotheparkway,ata location meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Okay? The applicant shall have the right to require the Department of Public Works to finalize the access point prior to issuance of Plan Approval for the Project. The necessary improvements shall be determined by the Department of Public Works and shall be limited to right-in, right-out only unless otherwise determined by DPW. DPW may approve a secondary access to the Parkway as long as limited to a right-in only. Access 2 shall remain gated and used for emergency access only until the Parkway is built at which time it will be limited to right-out movements only. Okay? If the Parkway is built before the residential project the applicant shall construct intersection improvements in Alii Parkway and the Kuakini Highway as determined by DPW, at its sole cost, before the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy. SIRACUSA:Excuse me. Its a little bit unclear when you say at its sole cost whether youre referring to applicant or DPW. YUEN:Alright. At applicants sole cost before the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy. Good point. The location of the access point on the Parkway and any necessary improvements shall be determined by Department of Public Works and the access shall be limited to a right-in right-out only unless otherwise allowed by DPW. The applicant shall also construct the Kuakini, shall also construct an access at Kuakini Highway north of the Waiaha Drainage way, which shall be limited to a right-out only. Then we say again DPW may approve a secondary access to the Parkway as long as limited to a right-in only. And thats the end of J. To allow for the coordinated development and then K is the same except that at the end of the first sentence okay were going to add another sentence and it says, the easement to the Kuakini access point in favor of Lot 1A shall be required only if Lot 1A is rezoned with a condition requiring it to share maintenance costs and liability for the easement. Then and let me remind us that between. Im going to keep, just so that we dont get confused, Im going to keep calling these by their paragraphs, by the paragraphs that theyre in the recommendation. But between what was J and K is that street lights one that was ‚Iƒ before. Yeah, okay. Then L is the same. M is the same. N theres a slight difference, a slight change. A drainage study shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a construction permit. No thats the same. Any required drainage improvements, if. Any EXHIBIT B 43 recommended drainage improvements, if required, shall be and this is the change, completed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any Certificate of occupancy. The last part has changed. ‚Oƒ there, Im going to make some slight changes but not to the extent requested in Mr. Lims letter. First sentence is the same. Second sentence says, restrictive covenants in the deeds of all lots, and this is the change, or condominium units shall give notice of the terms of this rezoning condition. Then the next sentence is the same. The next sentence is the same. The next sentence is changed only at the very end and at the very end of the sentence after the, after we say final subdivision approval we say, we add, or final plan approval as applicable. Then the next sentence is the same. Now P, first sentence is the same. Slight change to the end of the second sentence. Let me read the whole sentence. If re-, and the, but the only change is at the very end. If required by the Department of Public Works the applicant shall submit the study to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA and obtain a Letter of Map Change, LOMC, prior to the issuance of any construction or grading permit, for areas determined by the Department of Public works. Thenthenextsentenceisthesameandthenextsentencewillbechanged,Imgoingto.Illlet you, the first part Im going to read is the same and Ill let you know when theres a change. It says, itll say, these improvements may include, but not be limited to, interceptor channels, revetments, permanent erosion control and hazard barrier fencing prior to the issuance of any, and this is the change, strike construction permit and substitute Certificate of occupancy. The next sentence remains the same. Q remains the same. R is the same. S is the same. T is the same. U is the same. V is the same. W, the only change is to the first sentence. It starts out the same but it let me read the whole sentence. The applicant, its successors, and assigns shall be responsible for the cost of any sound abatement measures to, and this is the change, to reduce sound within the project that are required to qualify the Parkway for Federal construction funds. The remainder is the same except that throughout this whole document where we referred to Alii Parkway we should either say simply Parkway or Kahului to Keauhou Parkway as, as may be appropriate. X is the same. SIRACUSA:Excuse me? Didnt we want to make that correction that DLNR is Resources plural in X? Its a housekeeping but-. YUEN:Please say that again? SIRACUSA:In X where it refers to the DLNR? It should be Resources plural. YUEN:Yes please. SIRACUSA:Wed want to make that change dont we? YUEN:Yes please thank you. SIRACUSA:For accuracy. YUEN:Y we would make the changes as shown in Mr. Lims version of Y. DARROW:Chris is that all changes in Y? EXHIBIT B 44 YUEN:Yes. DARROW:Okay. YUEN:Z is the same. AA is the same. BB is the same and CC is the same. ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler? EMLER:Chairman Id like to propose one additional changes just to strike out. On Condition N, I dont think theres any need for the wording ‚if requiredƒ in the drainage study condition. ALAMEDA:Condition N okay. EMLER:Any recommended drainage improvements shall be constructed meeting withtheapprovaloftheDepartmentofPublicWorkspriortotheissuance-. ALAMEDA:Mr.Lim?ConditionNisthatfinewithyoustrikingoutrequired? LIM:Itsfine. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Emler anything else to add regarding the Directors feedback? EMLER:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. Director did you miss anything or? YUEN:No. ALAMEDA:Just checking. Mr. Lim? LIM:I think hes got most of them. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe whats your pleasure? WATANABE:Well, Im convinced that this project is not really profit motivated and that theyre true to their intentions. And I realize that we have some issues with traffic but you know when I first joined the Planning Commission Mr. Yuen provided us with a summary of all the issues that we had with traffic and where the money comes from and how the rates work and all that and I think hes right you know. Its going to be with us for a while. In reviewing this I think its really what comes first the chicken or the egg. I know Public Works has some concern about you know, whether improvements first or the housing but based on the benefits of the housing I would speak in favor. EXHIBIT B 45 ALAMEDA:As you make note fellow commissioners, that theres 2, theres a A and B part of this application. So Im just checking in with Counsel before we can proceed to the Part B of the application we gotta look at Part A first correct? TORIGOE:Normally yes you do the State Land Use amendment first. ALAMEDA:So, fellow Commissioners is there a motion in order in regard to the A part of this application? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Okay I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on applicant, application for State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application SLU 05-004. ALAMEDA:Is there a second? MCCALL:Second. ALAMEDA:It was moved by Commissioner Watanabe. Seconded by Commissioner McCall.Discussion?CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:IhaveconcernsaboutconcurrencyissuesandthestuffIspokeofaswe began and as did Mr. Emler. So, on the you know, the overall merits of this thing I dont know that I will be supportive but I am supportive of the fact that we could change the State Land Use designation you know appropriately because I think at this point its a County issue of concurrency so you know I can speak in support of this but I will speak to the rest of the content of the issue at the rezoning side. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Graham. Other thoughts regarding this particular aspect of the application? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah I, I came in here with grave reservations primarily because of the traffic issues and Im still weighing very heavily about it. I think the affordable housing portion of this is of really great importance and I, I, while I do feel you know, given a perfect world I would really like, like to have seen the you know the Parkway put in before. But I think Im willing to you know, to vote in favor of this project as you know, as is and just simply because of the affordable housing things I think will outweigh the, the potential problems with traffic. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner McCall. Again motion was made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner McCall (sic). End of discussion. Staff? DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? EXHIBIT B 46 MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Themotiondoesnotpass3,4to1. ALAMEDA:Weregoingto-.IdontknowifthisAandBgottabesequentialsolet me just turn it over to our Corp Counsel for further clarification on this matter. TORIGOE:Well at this point. As far as the State Land Use Boundary Amendment your Rule 13, B5 does not specify any specific timeframe for decision. It says after the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission shall recommend either the approval or denial of the amendment to the County Council stating its reasons. As far as the zoning amendment as you know there is a 90 day timeframe in which action to be taken. And basically, Im not sure. Maybe you should ask the Planning Department whether without the State Land Use Boundary Amendment having passed at this point whether it would be appropriate to go forward with the zoning amendment or whether that would not fit? ALAMEDA:All right can we have Director Yuen to respond? LIM:From the applicants point of view you know we, because of the line up today, we anticipated we may have difficulty getting the majority vote. And as I understand theres a option to pass up the matter to the County Council with a no recommendation, I mean a, what is it called? TORIGOE:Default negative. LIM:Pardon me? TORIGOE:Youre referring to a default negative type of recommendation. LIM:Yeah, that type of recommendation. This type of project because of the rising interest rates if thats what we can get then Id rather do that and move forward. ¡ ALAMEDA:Corp Counsel? EXHIBIT B 47 TORIGOE:Well lets see. The position that the Planning Department has taken I understand is that because the rules talk about a 90 day timeframe in which the Commission should make its decision I think the Departments position has been that we should not be just passing it up with, before the 90 days has elapsed. And you know as always if theres a reasonable dispute or question about that then I would tend to defer to the Planning Departments interpretation of the rules. But the question that I asked earlier was whether its even appropriate at this point to go forward. ALAMEDA:Okay. TORIGOE:With considering the, the rezoning boundary amendment. ALAMEDA:Can I ask the Director to respond to that question? YUEN:Yestheordinancerequiresthatthematternotjustbesentupafteran inconclusive vote but that it stay at the Depart-, at the Commission while, for 90 days until and then if the Commission is unable to act then it goes up. On the question of voting on the rezoning. You see weve had a vote on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agriculture to Urban in which 1 Commissioner has voted no. I do not, I dont see how the, the Commissioner, I can understand, the Commissioner cant vote, could not vote yes on the rezoning after voting no on taking it from Agriculture to Urban. Commissioner could vote, could make a decision that they supported it going from Agriculture to Urban and vote against the rezoning that would be consistent but not the other way around. The, however we could I suppose have a vote on the, I suppose we could have a vote on the rezoning and if it were 5 to nothing against the rezoning that would be a negative recommendation and that would be. I suppose. TORIGOE:I suppose that would be a mechanism for sending it up but then it would be a voted negative. YUEN:Right it would be a voted no but I and Im just saying is there, is there. Im just trying to decide if theres any point in having a vote on the-. Well, I dont know, I suppose we can have a discussion on a vote on the rezoning. ALAMEDA:Okay discussion? WATANABE:Can I ask the applicant a question? Is that appropriate? ALAMEDA:As long as they answer the question and not provide further case. WATANABE:Well I, I guess already you said you would prefer at this point to just move this thing forward even if it went with a no recommendation? Yeah? And-. LIM:Well I dont know I think wed prefer that it have a, not a no recommendation but a non-recommendation. A default recommendation. I gotta talk to my EXHIBIT B 48 partners and see what theyre willing to do. When would the next meeting come up that we would act on this? WATANABE:I dont think the schedule is completed yet yeah for 2006? ALAMEDA:Let me ask Commissioner Graham. I think he has some comments with regard to the protocol matter. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I certainly understand Planning Director Yuens comments about whats appropriate with State Land Use Commission versus Zoning and also whether theres a possibility of a 5-0 vote on the zoning going contra but-. My general sense is and from my contacts with the Council is, the Councils going to act on this and that one way or the other on both ends of this and what we should do is make our comments and take our votes and move it through the best we can with our consciences and let the Council act on all that information whichweprovide.So,IthinkweshouldjustgoaheadandiftheCorporationCounselwantedto look after this meeting if theres any chance for the next meeting for the applicant to try to move it to the Council without further votes here you know thats something he could bring up the next time if theres nothing conclusive taken here today but. It seems reasonable to me that we would continue on and deal with the zoning ordinance at this point. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe your thoughts? WATANABE:I, if I understand you properly I think I kind of disagree because I really dont wish to pass the buck onto the Council even though our position would only be a recommendation and not a final approval. I would prefer if the applicant is willing to continue it so that you know we have more of the body present. And we can arrive at a conclusion rather than just say well we cant arrive at a conclusion so were going to just give it to you. And that way we can state for the record what our position really is. That, at least thats whether its yes or no is not the issue for me with regard to passing it on to the Council. The issue is that were not, you know we shouldnt be passing the buck. Were here for a purpose and we should be willing to make a stand whether its yes or no. ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall? LIM:The applicant is willing to continue the hearing to the next Planning Commission Meeting so you can hopefully get a, a large enough quorum to vote. ALAMEDA:Right. I think our thoughts right now, our discussion is whether or not we will allow you to continue it? So lets have more discussion. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, if I understand right you know, if we vote on the change of zone and we dont get a, it will be continued to the next meeting if we dont, if we dont get a majority vote. Now, if I understand our Counsel right though, if we do not, that there is no time frame on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. If we dont vote on the Change of Zone Application, theres no 90 days we could sit on this thing for a year. So I think and I would ask the applicants but it seemed to me that what I, what I think we should do is we should take a vote, start the 90 EXHIBIT B 49 day clock working so that one way or the other this thing will be. You know, if this has to go to the Council with a, you know it will go to the Council with our, with the entire record, if the record is you know 4 to 1 vote, 3 to 2 vote. Whatever it is it will go to the Council with that record and the Council will see that for what it is. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I didnt think about the 90 days clock not starting but I agree. ALAMEDA: Thank you Commissioner Watanabe. Okay lets take it back then now that we had some discussion. Corp Counsel? Or Director? YUEN:Can I make a suggestion? ALAMEDA:Sure. YUEN:Wehaveamemberwhoisgoingtoreturnandgiventhatthis,giventhat both of these are recommendation I believe Corp Counsel is of the opinion that the returning member could vote on this matter. I suggest, we are scheduled to do something after lunch still right? I suggest we break for lunch, if our member returns we can continue the discussion then after lunch. If not, given the way the vote seems to be going with the Commission we defer. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Thats fine but can I, can I get clarification on what Mr. McCall said is that true? If we dont take a vote on the, on the Change of Zoning does that mean that the clock, the 90 day clock does not start. TORIGOE:No I think that the clock has started. It started by I think our current interpretation it starts today. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well is it, is it fair to the returning member to ask that person to make a decision when that person has not had the benefit of hearing any of the testimony that has gone on today both pro and con? ALAMEDA:Corp Counsel? TORIGOE:Well I guess well have to see how that Commissioner feels when she gets here and we can give her the opportunity to take a look at the extensive revisions that have been proposed. And certainly if the, if the applicant does not object to that procedure and theres no other parties and no other members of the public who seem to have remained to see what the decision would be I dont see any prejudice that would result. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT B 50 GRAHAM:Let me just be as open as I can be about my position in this. I fully understand and Im convinced by the applicants sincerity in developing affordable housing project and that thats the thrust of it but because of my concurrent, my concerns about concurrency, about the requirements that the Department of Public Works would like to see done before this development proceeds and because of just our policy of always making the decisions rather than having some traffic impact analysis or some water supply negotiations going on after our discussions. You know to me its way incomplete and premature for us to approve the change of zone even though I dont doubt the good intentions and good outcomes possibly for affordable housing so-. I dont intend to vote in favor of the Change of Zone so it feels like if were doing some kind of delaying action so that some, maybe we could get 5 votes for the State Land Use but were not going to get them for the Change of Zone anyway I think were kind of chasing down the wrong path. So, if, if, what do we need to do to avoid chasing down the wrong path? Do I need to ask for reconsideration so Id vote against the State Land Use too, which Im not particularlyinclinedtodobecauseImhappytohavethisissuedecidedlocally.Anyway,Ijust want to make all that clear to everybody so we dont go you know extending the situation here for no good reason. ALAMEDA:So Commissioner Graham then just to clarify it sounds like then you wouldnt be in favor if you will of waiting for our returning member rather than again going back to your earlier comment just voting correct? GRAHAM:No I think thats not correct. Cause all Im saying is if we wait for our returning member when we get to the zoning vote Im likely to be voting against it anyway so we wont have a majority in the zoning vote so Id feel like were not, not being productive. ALAMEDA:Yeah. Yeah, thank you so. In other words theres no sense in waiting. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Just to make it clear where Im coming from. I feel this whole project is really premature that we should be waiting for a TIAR cause were asking. I mean weve got Suffolk and that other one, what was the name Puaa? And they havent even been built yet and weve got all of that traffic thats going to come off of those. And its right in the same area and, and we dont even know what the results of thats going to be. I feel sort of irresponsible to go you know approving something else at this point although I want to recommend them for you know looking at the whole affordable housing issue and what they want to do. And I feel like if we could get the TIAR done first then I would be glad to approve the project. But I feel that its, were going about it bass ackwards and so I would not vote for the rezoning either. So even if we waited for someone else to come back we probably would not have, it looks like we would not have the votes. ALAMEDA:All right well thank you for the, your candidness and appreciate the open discussion. So seeing that, that ends that particular option. I think maybe we should talk about whether or not we should vote or defer. Commissioners? EXHIBIT B 51 WATANABE:Well, seeing that the timeclock has already started because I guess we did hear the case, thats the trigger for that then theres, theres no real need to vote since we already know that its not going to pass. Again I still would like to see the body arrive at a decision whether its no or yes on anything rather than just passing it on so, I would hope that we could continue this to the next meeting. ALAMEDA:Question? First, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Thank you again. I have a little bit of a procedural concern and I think Mr. Torigoe and Mr. Yuen could both pay attention to this. Procedures not quite the word but the whole process of ours going to discussion on a matter and then if it looks like the votes going to turn out a certain way coming from the candor of the people who are speaking we change direction in what we do, like we continue the hearing or do something else. To me thats kind of chilling the candor of the commission. That when the commission makes a motion and goes to a voteandall,youknowweshouldactonithoweveritcomesandnotlikewellifyouindicate youre going to vote against it then were going to go this way and if you indicate youre going to vote for it were going to do this. I dont think the procedure of what we do should be contingent on what we come out with as far as our candor, candid explanation of how we feel about things. So Im concerned that we keep seeming to drift in this direction. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Graham. I want to ask our Corp Counsel the, I guess the intent of Commissioner Grahams comment there. You know this whole idea of maybe deferring it as a way to, I mean or just voting, to me it seems like its going to, its going to come up anyway again so whats the pros and cons of deferring versus voting? TORIGOE:Well at this point for practical purposes according to the way were reading the zoning amendment rules you basically are compelled to postpone it or continue it for-, you know within the 90 day period to see if you can come up with a decision of some kind. I think Commissioner Graham is more concerned about the particular you know, issue of whether its right or fair to say okay were closing the hearing and basically going to voting and then once thats done then informally retaining flexibility to do anything other than just vote and come to a decision or possibly even reopening a hearing without a formal reopening. And, theres a, there, that certainly is a valid point you need to be careful about becoming too loose about procedures. So, you know at this point what you could do is simply maybe what you could say is that well at this point were closing the hearing on this matter. We will have to postpone it in order to try and see if you can come up with a 5 vote decision either way within the 90 day period, along with coming up with a decision on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. But you know I think Mr. Grahams point is well taken. And we probably ought to as a matter of standard procedure take a little more care about closing the hearing before going on to make decisions and then if necessary formally reopening it later on. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Well put. Commissioner Graham you had your hand up earlier. I mean, Commissioner McCall sorry. MCCALL:Yeah I just airing, Im just taking procedurally I mean you know we, we stop taking public testimony. We are in discussion, I mean I think that its, it seems to me that EXHIBIT B 52 its appropriate to either go if someone comes to make a motion the motion can be for a vote or the motion can be to defer. I dont-. It just seems to me, I mean during the discussion I, it seemed to me that in general we make our opinions known I think it would be, the maker of the motion whatever it is, you know I would think its appropriate to do whatever, whatever feels proper. ALAMEDA:Very good. Thank you Commissioner McCall. That reminded me too we didnt really-. I think what Commissioner Graham is saying is that make a motion to vote and then you know then theres the motion and then we pull back and we say oh no lets defer. So yeah, so then, so it is within our power now to make a motion to defer or to vote. Pleasure of the Commissioners? TORIGOE:Or if theres nobody, nobody whos interested in making a motion either way too. You know it seems that we do have to continue the matter. So, you know that could be donebasicallyjustbyconsensus.Youknowifyouwanttosuggestthatandseeifanybody-. ALAMEDA:Okay. TORIGOE:-hasanyobjectionifnotthenwelljustcontinueitontothenextavailable meeting. ALAMEDA:Okay. Is there any objection to continuing this matter to our next Kona meeting? No objection? LIM:Does it have to be the Kona meeting? Could it be the Hilo meeting, the next meeting? ALAMEDA:Staff? HAYASHI:That has been the normal practice. When you continue a hearing that it be in the district or in the West side in this particular case. ALAMEDA:Mr. Blalog it looked like you have a question? You have a question or more? BLALOG:No, just only on what youre discussing. ALAMEDA:Okay go ahead. BLALOG:If the hearings closed and were discussing only the record then itd be all right to continue it to the next available Planning Commission Meeting which I believe is in Hilo which is what wed prefer. Because were discussing the hearing part of what you discussing is the record being closed and having commissioners who arent here to read the record and take a vote. So, its more than appropriate since weve taken all the public testimony to continue it to the next available commission hearing. EXHIBIT B 53 ALAMEDA:Point well taken. Ivan? TORIGOE:Although there may be. You know basically were obligated to allow public testimony on anything thats on the agenda. So you know, I think thats the reason why you normally do it within district right is well, partially because the parties, but partially also to allow for public testimony usually. HAYASHI:Thats correct. I think the Commission can reopen the hearing and take public testimony and thats the intent. ALAMEDA:Excuse me you mean, just clarification Norman, you mean reopen the hearing now? HAYASHI:That could be done at the next meeting. ALAMEDA:Okay and whether its in Kona or Hilo? Correct? HAYASHI:In Kona. ALAMEDA:Okay so youre still talking about keeping it in the district then? Okay soundsliketherecommendationistokeepitinthedistrict.Correct? HAYASHI:But, Ill leave it up to the commission because you know thats the normal practice that weve gone through over the years. ALAMEDA:All right, lets check then fellow commissioners you have any objections to putting this agenda item on the Hilo meeting? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I understand the applicant wants to get this approved and moving as quickly as possible but you know we already have one objection to the procedures and I didnt anything wrong by you know suggesting that we continue it. But I think we should follow the normal protocol so that we dont ruffle anymore feathers I mean you know unintentionally. That would be the best thing to do I think. ALAMEDA:Okay, other thoughts? I see some nodding. Sounds like the pleasure of the Commissioners is keeping to the protocol as usual practice. So, looks like the, were gonna, motion is or we just make consensus that were going to put it on the next Kona meeting correct? th HAYASHI:Thats-. The tentative date for the Kona meeting is January 20 and that would be at the Outrigger Keauhou Beach hotel. ALAMEDA:Okay. HAYASHI:And, we do have a very heavy, heavy agenda that day. ALAMEDA:Okay. Corp Counsel? EXHIBIT B 54 TORIGOE:Yeah, just for your information. Your rule 1-4 says the commission may meetand exercise its powers in any part of the County of Hawaii. So thats just for your information. ALAMEDA:Any Commissioners have a response to that? So in the future we can exercise our powers to hold agenda items in any part of the Hawaii County? MCCALL:Maybe we could just ask, you know, do any of the other commissioners have a problem since the applicants have asked to have it held as soon as possible, do any of the other commissioners have a problem, you know commissioners here have a problem with seeing it at the Hilo meeting? ALAMEDA:Yeah, it sounded like Commissioner Watanabe would like to respond to that. WATANABE:Imfineeitherway.YouknowIjustwantustorecon-,youknowwitha full body or if not full you know certainly more people. So everyone can vote their conscience. And the only reason I suggested following the protocol is cause I dont want to make someone feel like were you know bending the rules of the procedures thats all. For me any side is fine. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well it sounds like from our rule book that we have the authority to meet in Hilo if thats our pleasure. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I think we need to have it in Kona for the reasons that Mr. Hayashi put forward. I think Mr. Blalog was correct in his sense that theres no more public testimony coming in and once we close the hearing. But we need to be answerable to our constituents and so if were taking actions in Kona I think we need to be answerable to the Kona audience whoever may come. And I also agree with both Mr. Torigoe and Mr. Hayashi that if there is interest and people do come then its up to our discretion at that time to decide to reopen the hearing as well as for anything that may come from the applicant at that time. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Graham? I mean Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah I would say you know if theres any, we should keep it in the Kona meeting. I was just saying if there wasnt any, if there was, if no one had a problem with moving it to Hilo but-. ALAMEDA:Sure, sure. MCCALL:But if, I, certainly we should stay with the next Kona meeting. ALAMEDA:Got you. TORIGOE:(inaudible). EXHIBIT B 55 ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah I agree that we should do it in Kona because even though public testimony is closed we have to allow the option for people who might want to sit in to hear what, whats happening and to hear our determinations. And, the people who are going to be effected are people in Kona. ALAMEDA:Okay with that being said then I move to defer this particular agenda item to the next Kona meeting. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS:Aye. ALAMEDA:Anybody in objection? So noted. Thank you very much for your time. Thisdiscussionendedat2:40p.m. Respectfullysubmitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 56