Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-15 Leeward Exh A - Riverbend LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 15, 2012 HAWAIIAN RIVERBEND, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of (SLU 12-035/REZ 12-157) was called to order at 9:43 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin, Lani Bowman, Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Richard Nelson, III and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Wayne Iokepa ALSO PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Cottle (Planner), Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 22 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HAWAIIAN RIVERBEND, LLC (SLU 12-035/REZ 12-157) Applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acres (A-5a) to Village Commercial-20,000 square feet (CV-20) for approximately 14.622 acres of land. The property is located on the northeastern intersection of Waikoloa Road and Paniolo Avenue, makai of the Waikoloa Stables and east of the Waikoloa Village Highlands Shopping Center, Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: 6-8-002: por 021. GIFFIN: We are going to move on to Agenda Item No. 1. The applicant is Hawaiian Riverbend, LLC. They are asking for a State Land Use boundary amendment application and also a change of zone application. They have submitted two applications, as I just said, and one is for the State Land Use boundary amendment from Ag to Urban, and a change of zone from Ag-5 acres, A-5a, to Village Commercial-20,000 square feet for approximately 14.622 acres of land. The property is located on the northeastern intersection of Waikoloa Road and Paniolo Avenue, makai of the Waikoloa Stables and east of the Waikoloa Village Highlands Shopping Center. Daryn? ARAI: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning, Commissioners, and happy holidays. If I may direct your attention to the presentation screen. The subject property is located just mauka, or east, of Waikoloa Village, and the subject property here is outlined in red. The subject property is situated on lands designated Agricultural-5 acres by the County Zoning Code, as well as State Land Use Agriculture. The project site is located just makai of the Waikoloa Stables, which is located in this vicinity here, and the Highlands Shopping Center, which is located across Paniolo Avenue in that location. Just for points of reference, this white line running basically left to right of the screen is Waikoloa Road, with Palani Road (sic) in this location here, I’m sorry, Paniolo Avenue, my apologies, extending from the top to the bottom of the site plan. I should back it up, I apologize. Zoning in the surrounding area includes Open designated lands indicated by this dark green color here, Agricultural-5 acres lands designated by the light green. You have Residential Agricultural-1 1 EXHIBIT A acre zoning located across the street, which is also the subject of your next agenda item, and commercially zoned land indicated by the pink color. This is a depiction of the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map, which roughly designates the project area and surrounding lands as for Extensive Agricultural Uses, Open designated lands indicated by green here, Medium Density Urban, which could accommodate commercial and multiple-family residential use indicated by orange, and Low Density indicated by the yellow color. I should note that the General Plan is a broad-brush document that defines the land use policy direction for the County of Hawai‘i. This is a depiction of the South Kohala Community Development Plan. The project site is located right where this little icon is situated. Again, Waikoloa Road is in this vicinity here, with Paniolo Avenue in the proximity. The CDP map does identify the project site as a potential community center and park site, as well as it does identify that the project site and immediately surrounding lands maintain an Agricultural zoning designation. And I can clarify that further on in the presentation. This is an aerial photo of the subject property, with Waikoloa Road running left to right at the bottom of the site plan, I mean, the aerial photo, and Paniolo Avenue extending to the top of the map. The project site is located in this vicinity here. Off to your right is the Waikoloa Stables, and the Highlands Shopping Center is across Paniolo Avenue in this vicinity here. This is a further close-up of the intersection of Waikoloa Avenue running left to right and Paniolo Avenue extending to the north. The project site is located in the upper right hand corner. Again, the applicant’s request before you today is a State Land Use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban for approximately 14.622 acres of land within a larger roughly 31-acre property. Also accompanying the request is a change of zone application from Agricultural-5 acres to Village Commercial-20,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to develop a commercial shopping complex whose concept reflects approximately 170,000 square feet of commercial floor area. This is a concept map of the applicant’s master plan. Again, Waikoloa Road at the bottom here, Paniolo Avenue extending to the north, and the project site itself is shown in this mustard color that comprises approximately 14.6 acres within the larger 31-acre property. Off to the right hand in the area colored green is roughly 10.5-acre site that is currently undergoing subdivision, and the applicant intends to provide the parcel to the County of Hawai‘i for development into the park site consistent with one of the policy recommendations within the South Kohala Community Development Plan. There is a pending subdivision currently before the Planning Department, which would parcel out this 14.6-acre project site, as well as the park site, with the remaining five, almost six-acre remainder parcel located in the upper left corner. This is a photograph from Waikoloa Road, looking makai at the Highlands Shopping Center, with the project site off to your left, or right, sorry – feel free to correct me throughout the presentation, my apologies. This is looking at Waikoloa Road from across the street to the south, looking directly at the project site. The Planning Director is recommending favorable consideration of both the State Land Use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban, as well as the change of zone request to Village Commercial-20,000 square feet zoning designation. I would like at this time to supplement the Director’s recommendation report. We have distributed to you this morning a sheet of paper, which references “Item No. 1 – Hawaiian Riverbend, LLC,” and you have before you two proposed amendments to the Director’s recommendation and the conditions of approval therein. Condition I: We ask that that be amended with the additional language highlighted in yellow. And what that 2 EXHIBIT A amendment is attempting to do is to provide clarity in what type of traffic would be restricted prior to the installation of necessary improvements along Paniolo Avenue to accommodate left-turn movements into the project site. Below that, you’ll see a new Condition J; that condition is to address, or at least ensure, that potable water necessary to support the commercial development will be provided by the applicant prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial use on the property. We apologize, we inadvertently left this condition out, and it’s just to provide reassurance that water will be provided to support the project in adherence to the County concurrency requirements. One last item: We did receive an email from Mary Wills Schulherr, if I pronounced that correctly, dated November 9, 2012, and her comments have been, copies of which have been provided to all of the Commissioners. So with that, I believe I can stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. GIFFIN: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Daryn. Lani. BOWMAN: I do. Could you go back to the site plan, I think? So the park is in the green, and you talked about the extra leftover land, the purple. ARAI: The remainder roughly six-acre parcel is indicated in purple. BOWMAN: And that would be just left in open? ARAI: The applicant can clarify if there is any future intended use of that reminder six-acre parcel, but as of right now I’m personally not familiar. BOWMAN: Okay. And one more question, and I apologize; I did look this over, but I may have missed it. The designated park area, does Parks and Recreation need to accept it as a viable park area? Do you know? ARAI: The applicant, well, the lands are intended to be dedicated to the County, and the County Council must accept the dedication. So this matter will be brought before the County Council. The applicant has been in discussion with representatives of the County, as well as the councilman for this particular district, Councilman Hoffmann, for a number of years already. In your background report – and I don’t, hopefully I can – there is actually letters from both the Councilman Hoffmann and Parks and Recreation Director supporting the park. BOWMAN: Okay, even though it looks like there is that floodway going through the middle of it. ARAI: Right. I should note that it’s designated as a drainage way, but it is not technically a floodway; my information holds that this project is outside of the 500-year floodway. BOWMAN: Okay. And I apologize, I guess I overlooked the Parks and Recreation. Thank you. GIFFIN: Lani, I’m glad you brought that up, because I had some questions, too, Daryn, about the park designation. It looks as if the parcel is landlocked in terms of getting onto Paniolo or getting onto Waikoloa Road. And is it too premature right now to even discuss that kind of thing, because it looks like it would be landlocked. 3 EXHIBIT A ARAI: Well, during the subdivision process, access to all individual properties are being assessed at this point in time, and I believe the applicant is getting close to receiving final subdivision approval. I should mention that the project site, or specifically to your question, there is like an access easement that’s running in this particular location here that will provide access to the park site. GIFFIN: Thank you. ARAI: And then there are other designated access points, and – I’m sorry, I forgot my glasses at home, so I can barely see this – but there are access points on Paniolo Avenue and on Waikoloa Avenue as well that will support the commercial component. GIFFIN: That’s right. Any other questions? Tom. WHITTEMORE: Daryn, could you just spot for me where that roundabout is going to be? I wasn’t real clear on that. ARAI: Sure. My apologies, I should have mentioned it. WHITTEMORE: No. You don’t have your glasses. ARAI: The roundabout will be located here at the intersection of Waikoloa Road and Paniolo Avenue. And I should note that there is a specific condition in an ordinance that is associated with the parcel on the opposite side of the street, which is the subject of your next agenda item. But in the Director’s proposed conditions, there is also an obligation for the applicant to construct the roundabout in coordination with the other landowner, should they wish to develop this commercial site prior to the other development installing the roundabout; so either way there will be obligations for the construction of the roundabout. GIFFIN: Thank you. Brandi. BEAUDET: Daryn, why a roundabout, not signalization? ARAI: The simple answer is because it’s already in the conditions of approval. The more technical response, I’ll probably defer to the Department of Public Works, if he is willing to respond. GIFFIN: Ki. EMLER: Well, I think I’m going to have the same response as Daryn; because it’s already a condition for the Waikoloa Mauka, LLC project, and so we assumed that it was going in as a requirement by the County Council, it’s already a condition by law. And so we just wanted to make sure that this project would not only cooperate with it, but it seems like it would be better if these folks, if they came first, would construct it. BEAUDET: So I guess my question as to the benefit of having a roundabout relative to signalization from a traffic control standpoint cannot be answered. EMLER: I’m going to say that I personally am not qualified to make the determination or make a recommendation one way or another. It’s what has been, I think, requested by the folks in the 4 EXHIBIT A community, and also by resolution Public Works was instructed to consider roundabout for intersections for new developments. So there is some expertise in our Department that could answer your questions better, but they are not, they don’t have to be here, our Traffic Division. So I would defer to them with regard to the question. They have made a determination I’m sure that it is an acceptable design, and it is in use in many areas, so -. We already have one that we’ve approved in another location on this side of the island that hasn’t been constructed yet. So it is considered an acceptable type of intersection design, and we are looking forward to using it in certain conditions. GIFFIN: Ki, did I hear you say that this was also something that the community had requested? EMLER: I believe the South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee was pushing for it, and -. GIFFIN: Okay. EMLER: Okay? GIFFIN: Yeah, thank you. Any other questions of staff? Lani. BOWMAN: I just have a quick comment. Looking at, I know it’s private, but looking at the roundabout at Mauna Lani, it seems to work very efficiently. And I don’t know, it would be interesting to see, you know, the traffic, the volume of traffic there versus Waikoloa. Just a comment. Thank you. GIFFIN: Ki. EMLER: I do have a couple of comments that is it does keep traffic moving; that is well-known that it keeps traffic moving, especially if you have kind of an equal distribution of traffic on all legs. And the other thing is that it does prevent T-bone type accidents because you don’t have the type of conflicting traffic movements that can be a problem for side T-bone type of accidents – I think that’s the right way to describe it. BOWMAN: Can I ask a quick question? I haven’t driven down the road lately. But are there, coming mauka down to Waikoloa, are there like little bumps – I don’t know what you call them – to slow people down? GIFFIN: No. BOWMAN: Well, not speed bumps, but the little – I call them little turtles. EMLER: Rumble strips? BOWMAN: Rumble strips. EMLER: On Waikoloa Road? BOWMAN: Yeah, coming down before the intersection. No? GIFFIN: To the best of my knowledge, no. 5 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: Because, would that be something to consider? Only because people go very fast on that road, and I’m comparing that roundabout to other roundabouts where the, I know, the speed limit is less. EMLER: Well, on the approach to a roundabout, you have a constriction and some curvature in the alignment that requires people to slow down; that’s one of the reasons why it’s also desirable in some cases. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: I’m, Lani, I’m not an expert on this kind of thing like Ki is, but I do recall last month when we were speaking of what is today’s Agenda Item No. 5, and it seemed to me that the Department referred to roundabouts as a calming element. And in comparison to what you were talking about at Mauna Lani, I think the traffic is a whole lot greater in Waikoloa than it is at Mauna Lani. ARAI: Madam -? GIFFIN: Daryn. ARAI: Just a final note on the comment that Commissioner Bowman was indicating: The rumble strips, or the rumble, the bumps, that you see on the roads, there was another project where I did speak to Ron Thiel, who is the Traffic Division chief, and he actually indicated that the County is actually removing those from its roadways, and while there is some benefit to it, it actually generated a lot of complaints. When you go over them, I’m sure you hear how loud they are; it actually generates complaints of neighbors and the immediate vicinity who have to constantly deal with the noise. So my understanding is they are actually removing it. GIFFIN: Any other questions of staff? HICKCOX: Yeah, I have one. GIFFIN: Commissioner. HICKCOX: I’m not sure as to the design of the particular roundabout, but how is it, was any thought given to the handling of truckers? Because that particular area is heavily used by, and eventually will be used by truckers to get in and out of the subject project. LEITHEAD TODD: The -. GIFFIN: Director. LEITHEAD TODD: The input that we’ve had is that truckers would prefer a roundabout to a signalized intersection, and that’s because when a signalized intersection coming up, you’ve got to go hit your brakes and come to a stop and then, you know, you are at a grade. And so, there is a couple things: It creates more noise for the community, but it also requires the truckers to get, to stop as oppose to just slowing. And so the input that we’ve heard is that they would prefer something where they can continue to go slowly through the intersection as oppose to having to come to a complete stop. And it’s the same thing coming down because you are coming down and 6 EXHIBIT A so it’s more wear and tear on the brakes, it’s noisier. And so that’s the input that we’ve had. I don’t know whether how scientific that is, but that’s what we’ve been informed. GIFFIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Hearing none, may I have the applicant or the applicant’s representative? Good morning, Sid. FUKE: Do I need to be sworn in? GIFFIN: You know the drill. Yes. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. GIFFIN: Please state your name. FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant assisting on this project. Regrettably, the principal is not here; he is from Saratoga, California, and was not able to be here. I can answer a lot of the questions, but I think that I might need to kind of preface it a lot by just showing the relationship between this particular project and the project that you are going to hear next, and so like -. GIFFIN: That’s really good. Thank you. FUKE: So you all understand that I think there can be like, the testimony given today can probably apply to the other one. Back in 2005, this group called Waikoloa Mauka purchased almost all of Waikoloa Land’s properties in the Waikoloa area, the ending part of 2005. And since that time what they did was focus on – this is the so-called Highlands project area – and so at that time the former owners, Waikoloa Land, they were going in with the County Council for an extension to complete their subdivision, and, of course, their plans reflected the construction of an 18-hole gold course. So in 2005, the ending part, and finally in 2006, I believe, the County Council approved the time extension and – oops, anyway – they approved the time extension. And there were like several conditions, you know, 2006 or 2007, there were several conditions: One was that they had required the applicant to go to the Land Use Commission to have the property reclassified from the Agricultural to the Rural district. And so they had to do that, you know, pay big bucks to do the environmental impact statement and all that stuff, and they finally got that done in 2008. Relatedly, the other conditions called for, if you are going to do a golf course, then make sure that you let the community know that you are going to do a golf course, because I think at that point in time there were concerns raised by the Waikoloa Village Association who owns and maintains the golf course that, you know, you are going to have another golf course, it’s going to provide competition, what’s going to do to us, so on and so forth. And so it didn’t say that you can’t do the golf course but, you know, just give the Village Association or the community some ideas as far as whether it was going to be built or not. Along the way the developer just said no, they are not going to do a golf course because, you know, obviously it didn’t pencil out and -. They still kept the open space area; they are going to be using that as drainage way and natural walkways, you know, so on and so forth. The last item relates to the question that everybody has been talking about, the roundabout. There was a condition that originally required the intersection to be signalized. Then when we went in to, 7 EXHIBIT A going for the time extension, we had suggested that, to give the Department of Public Works the option and not necessarily mandate a roundabout, but instead to say like, well, traffic signalized and in the alternative, if the Department of Public Works determine that the roundabout is more efficient, then they should do the roundabout. Well, when the matter was heard before the County Council, the Council made it explicit that they wanted to have a roundabout, and it was largely by the area councilmember, Councilman Hoffmann. And his rationale is generally along the lines of what’s been kind of expressed, one of which was that, you know, for traffic moving, especially like the trucks, you know, going mauka, and having to stop at the intersection periodically would create more of a problem rather than just having the assurance of just kind of going through that intersection; it will be not the fastest but, you know, you are going to go through that area. And so that was why the requirement was made to have a roundabout. Since that time the developers, you know, Waikoloa Mauka, they had to provide construction plans, so they did provide, they did prepare the construction plans for a roundabout and it was submitted to the County Public Works Department. I think it’s nearing final approval. So, you know, along the way there were question raised as far as like, you know, when you have a roundabout, and if you looked at like the Mauna Lani situation, you know, how do people cross from one area to another, you know, like, where is the crosswalk? And generally, the design is that the crosswalks are usually outside of the roundabout area. And so the plans do reflect – and I have a copy of a concept plan that shows how people can get access from the north to the south area or from east to west, whatever have you – so there are provisions for crosswalk accommodations. Again, back in 2005 one of the, one of the minority partners is a guy named Michael Miroyan; he had some interest in the land, he had some interest in the, you know, the Waikoloa Mauka property. And so as we were proceeding, you know, working with the community, trying to find out, you know, as good neighbors, trying to work with the community to identify what their needs are, and it became kind of paramount; one of the critical needs was trying to find a community park site, you know, for that area. And if you are familiar with the land ownership like, you know, a lot of this land is, these lands here are owned by the Village Association, you know, all surrounding the Waikoloa Village, and there is very few other privately owned parcels in that area. So there was like a number of committees formed just trying to identify all these potential park sites, and it finally, you know, they kind of like settled on to a property area like this, you know, right below in the area of the Stables, you know – this is the Stables and this is just kind of below this area. So, you know, we were in discussions with the community, and finally back in 2010 we were working with the Department of Public Works and also at the time the area councilman to say like, “Well, we’ll develop a concept plan to see like how we can fit.” And that concept plan is, that concept plan came something like, you know, something along this line. So this whole area that’s kind of shaded, it consists of 31 acres. So the area that’s being proposed for commercial area zoning is like about, it’s about a half of it, like about 14.5 or 6. And this is the area, the proposed park site. The reason why we had to do that was to help underwrite a lot of the improvement cost associated with the park, you know, especially the offsite improvement and the onsite improvement. There was a need to have some use of this area. So Hawaiian Riverbend, which consists of the principal, this guy Michael Miroyan, he then said that, “Well, you can buy out my interest and then just give me this property here, and then I’ll start to work on a commercialized development.” So that was how it was arrived. GIFFIN: So he is no longer principal in the group that is Agenda Item No. 2? FUKE: Correct. So his interest was, you know, his interest in Waikoloa Mauka, the second application, was relinquished by virtue of like his getting this property. But the conveyance of this 8 EXHIBIT A property was subject to this area being conveyed to the County of Hawai‘i. And in so doing, then this area when it gets conveyed to the County of Hawai‘i, the fair share obligation on Waikoloa Mauka’s 380 Highlands subdivision would be credited against that land. So, but because of, like, you know, there is that kind of a depression, you know, over here, we had to kind of work it out with the Parks Department to see like, “Well, what is it that you would want, and then can it fit?” Because in a perfect world they probably would have wanted like this area here, you know, but then they were saying, “Well, you know, we need to get some funds to help develop the rest of the infrastructure.” So when this plan was developed, it showed like, you know, a gymnasium, basketball court over here and a ball field over here. So the discussions that’s currently ongoing with the Parks Department right now is that, okay, this site can work, but what they would want to see is that there be like a bridge connecting from this area to this area, which would have to be built by either this developer or Waikoloa Mauka. GIFFIN: Across the street. FUKE: Yeah. And then this bridge, however, would essentially be only for pedestrian and maintenance vehicles only; it would not be for, you know, just normal, I guess, consumer type of vehicle. The other thing that we had to work with, we were working with, is that to see – it’s not really working, anyway, the laser doesn’t work – but what we were working with the Parks Department also is to see whether we can do some co-sharing of the parking area, because if you are going to have like a lot of activity at the park area and especially if it’s like night, and then the commercial facility is closed, for example, then we would like to kind of make that available. So that’s, all of that stuff still has to be memorialized and then, you know, an agreement has to be struck before the County would actually accept the land. The other thing that the County is asking for is that, and then which is embodied in your condition, is that this roadway, you can see the small little flag that leads to the proposed parkway, has to be fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk before it gets conveyed. So that’s how you get the access. So that access, you know, that access would come from Paniolo Drive leading to the park site. But, you know, this design is kind of relatively preliminary, and what Public Works had recommended, and which is also embodied in as a proposed condition, is that we have to develop, the proposed commercial area has to be developed in a way that provides for connections between all of, you know, this interior properties and Waikoloa Road and Paniolo Drive, you know, so that if you are traveling on, going makai on Waikoloa Road, for example, and you want to go to the park, then you don’t necessarily have to go through the roundabout and go on Paniolo Avenue, but rather you can just kind of find your way through the proposed commercial shopping center area, and likewise if you want to get out. So that’s how the circulation system would be developed. The other thing, too, is like, you know, this is kind of really preliminary; but then although – you see the narrow portion just right fronting the Stables, you know, that width is about like 180, 200 feet wide, but then there is like a break, you know, between that long narrow building and like another building, the break is because there is an existing easement that’s a utility easement – that right now we are working with the Waikoloa Village Association to see possibly, you know, whether that can serve as a common access to not only this proposed complex but to the Village Association’s Stables. And in the back adjacent to the Stables is an area that the Village Association is working with the State right now to have their new library. It’s right around here that they are considering. So you can see very faintly, you know, this thing over here. So the thought is possibly what we are working on now, you know, maybe to convey this portion to the Village Association so they’ll have much more usable area, and in turn, you know, maybe have some 9 EXHIBIT A additional land from the Village Association. But that’s all like work in progress. But in concept that’s how it is right now. Your proposed, the staff’s proposed condition is fine, you know, in relative to how we are going to handle the road access condition; we do have to do like a sight distance study and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along over here, and likewise, over here, maybe make improvements to the existing sidewalk pavement over here. Let’s see, what else -. I think I’ve answered for the most part all of the questions; but if you have more, then I’ll be more than happy to answer. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Sidney? Tom. WHITTEMORE: I think there was some mention, I don’t know if you, Sidney, or Daryn mentioned that the County is currently, Planning Department is looking at subdividing this application, subdivide this property? FUKE: Yeah, actually, there is right now a pending subdivision, three-lot subdivision. WHITTEMORE: Okay, that was my question. Was it a three-lot or a two-lot? FUKE: It’s a three-lot. WHITTEMORE: Okay, so the remaining unimproved property will remain in the ownership of -. FUKE: Okay, the remaining unimproved area is this parcel over here. The reason why it’s like five acres is that the zoning of this area and the park area, you know, if everything is approved, will still remain in the Ag-5 zone. So the park area would meet the minimum area with the requirement of having like ten-plus acres, and then the balance would have five-plus acres. Just for your added information, there had been some interest by, expressed to Hawaiian Riverbend from a church, as well as like a possible like a senior housing kind of project; but then again those are all in the discussion phases. I think a lot will hinge upon what happens to, you know, like their proposed, you know, rezoning this commercial there, because with the commercial zoning then it makes a lot of things possible because of the enhanced value and then – well, you are a former banker, so you understand that – so you can underwrite a lot of the much-needed infrastructure cost. BOWMAN: May I ask -? GIFFIN: Lani. BOWMAN: So the undeveloped area is still, what is the zoning going to be, or what are you asking for the subdivision? FUKE: We are not asking for any zoning; the only zoning that we are asking for is the 15-acre that encompasses the commercial area. The proposed park site and the balance of the five-acre lot, no zoning is being requested; it’s existing zoning. BOWMAN: Which is Open, right? 10 EXHIBIT A FUKE: No, Ag-5. BOWMAN: Ag-5. FUKE: Yes. BOWMAN: Okay. And the three lots that -. Are those the three different lots with your subdivision? Sorry, I’m not familiar with the subdivision. FUKE: Yeah -. BOWMAN: Okay. FUKE: It would be three lots: The first lot would consist of the proposed commercial area, second one would be the ten-acre park, and then you the remnant, which is five acres. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Any other questions of Sidney? Commissioners, just for your information, part of the background information for Agenda Item No. 2 on Page 3 speaks of what Sidney was speaking to; the September 20, 2007, Condition C required for the construction of a roundabout. Any other questions of Sidney? Commissioner Hickcox. HICKCOX: This is kind of off the wall. But for the commercial project site that’s coming up, are there going to be any height limitations on those things? FUKE: There is a maximum height limit within the CV zone; I believe it’s about 30 feet. HICKCOX: Thirty feet. FUKE: Yes. HICKCOX: Thank you. FUKE: But for all intents and purposes they are still looking at like a single-story structure. The other thing I forgot to mention was that there have been considerable discussions with a potential hardware store for this particular area right now. GIFFIN: Yeah, I think that came out in the background report, too. Any other questions? Hearing none, Sid, if you step back for a minute. We have six people who have signed up to testify, and we have accommodations for four at a time, so I’m going to ask the first four to come up: Robert Green, Bette Green, Richard Schulherr, and if I mispronounced your name, I apologize, Mary Wills Schulherr. Would the four of you please come forward. I only see three, oh, there is the fourth, okay. Perfect. There are microphones readily accessible, so when you testify, I would appreciate it if you speak into the mike. Will you please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. 11 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Thank you. Sir, let’s begin with you. Will you please state your name. R. GREEN: Okay. My name is Robert Green. I’m here as a private citizen. I’m a kama‘āina; I was born in Hilo and raised in Puna. I’m pro-growth and pro-development; so don’t get me wrong when I start throwing rocks at you, because I’m pro-growth and pro-development. And I have a, I’m an engineer with advanced degrees in industrial engineering and business administration. Okay. Now, why am I here is, well, I was looking at this item, and there were three concerns that I had. And the first concern was why are we here, because both these projects are basically at Waikoloa. And the citizen of Waikoloa need to be making these presentations, but here at 9:30 in the morning they are working. So I was very concerned that we had this presentation on these projects specific to Waikoloa here. The next thing that I was concerned about is basically the presentations; you know, I don’t think that they were representatives. As an example, the pictures that he showed were really nice pictures, but he never got down to the gully, and took pictures of the terrain and the gully, which where the problems are. Now, what I think the major issue in my opinion is traffic, and this is going to be a problem. And if you look at the diagram, let’s see, we are going to come down from Paniolo Avenue, and then the first road that you find is Lua Kula, okay? Right across the street is a condominium with a road there; so right there we have another road that’s not listed on this, okay? You go further on the bend and you come to the right, and you have the most, the busiest intersection in Waikoloa that goes to the commercial center that we have now; that’s not listed. Now, then you go up to the, take the turn on the bend, and now you have that road that they’re talking about, going to the park. And you go on, then it’s going to be another exit to the commercial zone, and then you come to another intersection on the other side of the street that’s not shown. So, you know, it’s very, very difficult to make decisions with half the information. I think all of those should be shown. And then we have another exit. You know, that’s only, that’s only Paniolo. Now, let’s go up Waikoloa Road. As we see Waikoloa Road, we find that south of that road, or south of the Waikoloa Road, there’s going to be a 400-house lot housing area, okay. And what that housing area is going to have two roads, exits: One is going by the post office, and the other is going on the other side of further east of the Stables road. So now you have those two thousand people living in that area, and those traffic concerns are not listed, as I see it, and I think this is something that should be considered. Now, we go back to the Waikoloa Stables. Well, that area has the library. It’s supposed to have the medical complex. They are talking about having a Marine Corps museum there in that area. So we’ve got all this traffic. And all these things are really not pointed out and considered. So I think what the, I think what we need to do right now is basically have Hawaiian Riverbend go back to the drawing board and come back and provide you with all the potential problems that we’ll be having, so you can make the proper decision; because if you make a decision only with the information you have now, I think it’ll come back and bite you. And I also think that the Planning Department, when they show some of these pictures, you know, they are showing you only the good pictures. I think maybe they ought to go back and show you the bad pictures. And so I guess that’s what I’m talking about. The next thing, area I was concerned with would be with poor planning, and I’ll cover that when we talk about the development to the south. Thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Green? Hearing none, ma’am? 12 EXHIBIT A B. GREEN: My name is Bette Green, and I’m a resident of Waikoloa Village. And my concern is the fact that you were given all this paperwork and none of the existing roads on the other side by the grocery store and the commercial center showed up. And so if you haven’t been out there and you haven’t driven those roads, you don’t know what a mess this is going to make when they start exiting from the Riverbend side when we already have one, two, three roads on the other side by the commercial center and by the golf course. That’s my concern. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Hang on just a minute. Commissioners, any questions of Bette Green? BOWMAN: I have a question. GIFFIN: Lani. BOWMAN: Would you – I’m just going to throw this out – would you think it would be hypothetically better traffic-wise, if the development was located to the south? B. GREEN: I’m sorry, say that again? BOWMAN: Would you hypothetically where the, our next application is, would the traffic be better, less, if it was located across the street? You are talking about all the roads. And I’m not saying that it’s going to be; but just, the traffic would be less, if it was not, that development was not in that area but, say, to the – what is that, south – where the next development, where the next applicant is. B. GREEN: The next applicant is over across from Waikoloa Road. And what you are asking me is if their roads, exits, or whatever, went out on – what is it, Melia or, Melia, yeah – on Melia by the post office side as oppose to going out on Waikoloa Road? It might relieve something, but still the concern is with the commercial center that’s already over there, and Riverbend coming out on that same -. Paniolo is just not that wide. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Any other questions, Commissioners? Hearing none – she has a mike – will you please state your name. M. SCHULHERR: Mary Wills Schulherr. I am the person who wrote the rather passionate request that the application to have the rezoning be denied. There were some lovely pictures provided. However -. Can we please go to the -? That photo. I don’t know. Do you have the pointer? If you look at where that first V is – exactly – just north of that, two buildings up is my property – one over, yeah, thank you – that’s my property. I have a photo. I’m trying to overlay where this commercial development will be, because on the wonderful diagram of the master plan there are a couple of scattered buildings, which do not indicate where my property and my lanai will overlook. Right there. See the purple area is – if you wouldn’t mind walking over to point out where our property is now – I’m right there. So the idea of me buying my property in a residential area and having the property adjacent to it, which is Agricultural, being switched on over to Commercial, so that instead of having greenery to look at, I will hear the traffic of the trucks arriving early in the morning, the trucks getting all of the garbage. Can you go to the master plan? And there is a rather large anchor building; that would be in my line of sight from my bedroom window, from my lanai and all of my windows facing Mauka Kea. 13 EXHIBIT A There are a number of entrances and exits to the commercial site that’s already existing. Right where you have the proposed road below the purple area, you have – stay on the diagram, okay, that will work, too – right where – may I have the, oh, good – right there is the entrance to the Chevron station. Further north, excuse me, further south, near the white building, that’s a major entrance to the Waikoloa Highlands. The biggest building there is a grocery store. There is a number of vacant buildings in the area directly adjacent to Waikoloa Road, and nonetheless there is another entrance right there into that commercial area. When we had the master plan diagram, there is no accommodation at all for any roads, any inch, for there to be a viable roundabout. Where is that land going to be taken from? If it’s going to mean that the building is going to be pushed further north, that would again bring more of my neighbors in Waikoloa Hills directly adjacent to the rear end of commercial area. The Makau (sic) development has this tradeoff, oh, well, there will be a park as part of this commercial area. There will be no way for children to get on a bicycle and go to this park without risking major damage. It’s not quite safe to walk along the, those are four lanes, onto Paniolo Avenue, which is the sole access for at least 4,000 people who live in Waikoloa Village. There is a very undeveloped road, which is our -. It’s not on that map. We had a major fire in 2005; part of the recommendations in this FEMA document say, well, we really need a secondary egress, we need another way to get out of Waikoloa Village. We have a dirt, excuse me, an unimproved road in Waikoloa Village. The very idea of -. Excuse me, if I may, while we are on the General Plan, the building where my home is doesn’t even exist on the, in the triangle, because that told me Phase 1, I live in Phase 2 Waikoloa Hills; it’s not even represented on the General Plan, which is paperwork submitted to you by the developer saying, oh, here we go, here is a nice picture. My home doesn’t exist there; believe me, I know it does, I live there. So I’m very concerned about traffic. I’m very concerned that even during construction the major in and out for the about 4,000 or more people who live in Waikoloa Village, we won’t be able to get in and out during construction. You are concerned about tax revenue; more and more people will be moving out of Waikoloa Village because they just are tired of the hassle getting in and out of their homes. I’m very concerned about the kids not being able to get into this park; the park is a tradeoff to have, well, we need the commercial tax base, therefore we’ll give you a park that children will not be able to get to. You will have overtaxed soccer moms having to get into their cars to drive the kids to this area because it’s not safe to walk there. I walk to the post office, which is across Waikoloa Road. We currently have, it used to be you just walk and cars should have slowed down, now we have orange flags to say, hello, I really need to cross the road. The idea that trucks do not want to slow down at this intersection makes me concerned. I will not be able to safely cross the street. The crosswalk will be moved away from the traffic circle. But if I choose to cross the street to walk to the post office, the trucks are going to have to stop. So the idea that we do not want to upset truckers (there will be so many more trucks coming into the area), I’m sorry to make them have to slow down and stop, but I would like to be able to cross the street to go to the post office. The other concern that I have, no one is mentioning elevation. At that intersection it’s 1,000 feet, and that’s the highest part of the surrounding area; at least that it is on my topographical map. I started long and hard before I purchased where we bought our condo. And there is talk about, oh, don’t worry, we’ll remove that hill and use all of the dirt; well, if you remove the hill, instead of 14 EXHIBIT A looking at the hill, I’m going to be looking directly into the back of a commercial area. I’m a little passionate because this is my home, so forgive me. I’m very concerned about access in and out of Waikoloa Hills. I’m very concerned about access in and out of this proposed commercial area. If we do indeed have existing commercial area, could the people who are planning this development have at least look at the existing commercial areas, rather than build where it is not zoned commercial? I imagine that would ever there was a Planning Commission coming up with a plan as to what should be commercial, there was at least an idea that we don’t want at the top of our hill at the highest elevation to Waikoloa Village, looking at a big gigantic store. GIFFIN: Ma’am -. M. SCHULHERR: Do you have -? GIFFIN: Are you through? M. SCHULHERR: I believe so. GIFFIN: Okay, great. Commissioners, do you have any questions? All right. Hearing none, thank you very much. Sir? R. SCHULHERR: Yes, ma’am. GIFFIN: Your name, please. R. SCHULHERR: Richard Schulherr. I’m a homeowner at Waikoloa Hills in the Village. I’m a resident of New York City. I’m a licensed pyrotechnist; I’ve worked with the Fire Department for 30 years in New York City. I’ve driven through thousands of roundabouts in probably ten countries. I have several concerns about this project. One, I don’t know why somebody wants to build a strip mall; I don’t really understand that. I’ve lived around a lot of strip malls; they are ugly, they are disgusting, they generally do not end up filled up, and they become ugly rusting hulks, a blight on the landscape. This is the entrance to our village. I’d like to stress the term “village.” It’s a village. It’s not a town; it’s not a city; it’s a village. So -. Hello? I don’t need this. So -. SAUER: You need to use the microphone, sir, I’m sorry. GIFFIN: Yes, you do. R. SCHULHERR: I’ll be happy to. So my concern is that for some reason somebody thinks it’s a great idea to put in a strip mall. There is some devil’s deal here that we are going to swap this piece of land and swap this piece of land, we are going to build something over here, and we are going to take care of everything, it’s going to be beautiful, don’t worry about it. This is kind of like the Republican ticket at the last election; we are going to fix everything; it will be beautiful, just trust us, even though we have no record of fixing things well or making them beautiful. Now, all of the information that’s been provided this project, as the gentleman who first testified said, is filled with sins of omission. There is no reason in this day and age to have 30-year old drawings that only show the first phase construction of the Waikoloa Hills, and not show the second phase of 15 EXHIBIT A construction, except that you are trying to spin reality, you know, leaving out inconvenient buildings; you are leaving out inconvenient roads. Now (inaudible) -. ARAI: Sir -. GIFFIN: Sir, excuse me, you do need to speak into the mike because you are being recorded. R. SCHULHERR: Okay, I’m very sorry. So the problem here is that there’s all these roads that are not seen. I take my life in my hands every time I cross from Waikoloa Vill-, Waikoloa Hills – can we go back to the, either the master plan or, that’s fine – to the Highlands Center. You go cross that road, the cars come streaming around Paniolo Avenue and they are on their way. There is no enforcement happening there. There is a sign that tells you how fast you are going; people really don’t care. We are going to start putting flags up like we live in Berkeley for the love of God, or we can just have piles of rocks at each corner so when you want to cross the street, like in Africa or certain European countries, you pick up the rock and waive at the car so they don’t run you down. I don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t think that’s a good way to have our village depicted that it’s a place that’s not walking friendly, which isn’t somewhat right now. We are going to have all sorts of entrances and exits out this thing. The traffic is already really bad. If you turn off Waikoloa Road onto Paniolo Avenue, people are crazy, people start, they want to speed up to 35, 40 miles an hour because they want to get to where they are going. And, you know, then you have exits out of the gas station, and right after that is the entrance on the right side to Waikoloa Hills, and then there is an entrance to the people who live over the golf course area. And it’s a curve. And, by the way, it’s a big hill, which you can’t see from any of these drawings. When you make the turn into Waikoloa Hills, you are on a hill, and you are headed down. As you head down there, people are coming up. It’s already, it’s already difficult to see people exiting from the Highlands Shopping Center, which exists, onto Paniolo Avenue, as you are exiting the village. And there’s continual enforcement problems along the stretch of Waikoloa Road going out of the village; no one goes 35 miles an hour and they drive right up your tail, if you try to. There is going to be a need for increased police presence in this neighborhood, which was addressed in the, I guess, the FEIS on the No. 2 agenda issue. But nobody seems to have really thought this out. They haven’t presented their documents and their drawings in a legitimate and truthful way. There has been continuing omissions and obfuscations in all the materials, which have been presented, and I just don’t see -. I also would like to point out: As far as I know, this is the only place, certainly in the Village and maybe (inaudible) and first we’re going to have the strip mall and we’re going to put urban setting right next to residences. Where else do we do that? Excuse me, commercial, commercial, commercial urban setting right next to residences. Do we do that somewhere else in the area here that I’m unaware of? I mean, yeah, we do it up like in a town like Kamuela. But, again, this is not a town; it’s supposed to be a village. I’d also like to bring, one last thing, and I’m sorry for going for so long, but I’m really concerned about fire. The Village several years ago came very close to burning down. And if not for the heroic efforts of the – sorry I can’t remember their names – but the people, the federal people and the state people who deal with the fire situations, we came real close to losing Waikoloa Hills and maybe large lots of Waikoloa Village. I don’t see any big fire break going on there. People keep telling me there is; oh, I see, it is an electric access road, which is going to apparently become right next to a street. There is an emergency exit supposedly from Waikoloa Village. I have not gone down. It is a very unimproved road, which feeds out onto the highway. So you’ve got 5,000 people in Waikoloa Village, there is a fire, everybody wants to get out. They stop for the roundabout? I’m 16 EXHIBIT A not saying the roundabout is a bad thing but, you know, this fiction that people don’t have to stop for a roundabout is kind of insane, because you have to have rules in a roundabout. And I’ve driven in every one of them; sometimes the people who are driving parallel to the ocean have the right of way, and everyone in the roundabout has to defer to them; sometimes people in the roundabout have the right of way; sometimes people entering the roundabout have the right of way. So to say that a roundabout means nobody has to stop is quite an oversimplification. And I thank you for your time. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. Commissioners? Hearing none, thank you. If you would please step back, I’m going to call on the last two who signed up to testify. Chris Nordby and Jana Collier, will you please come forward. Thank you. Could you please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. GIFFIN: Thank you. Will you please start with you, sir, and state your name. NORDBY: My name is Chris Nordby. I am a condominium owner in Waikoloa Hills. I think you’ve heard a lot about traffic concerns, so I won’t go into detail; I do echo the sentiments of the Greens and the Schulherrs on the matter. But I do think, I do want to say that it’s, I think it’s more of an issue of safety. Those two proposed entry ways to Paniolo are, as everyone has said, are in and of the vicinity that already has many ingresses and exits from an existing shopping center. As you all know, there is only one way in and out of the village, so that’s a very congested corner. And I think that it’s very realistic to say that it could be very much a safety hazard, and I wish reconsider this design at least and get rid of those two access ways. My main concern is the process that’s going on here; this is a fair share park that’s being, it’s part of Waikoloa Mauka, and yet it seems to be tied to a development. It’s like, why are they doing for filling their fair share on their property across the road there, across Waikoloa? I don’t see why it has to be located on another piece of property when it has to be tied to a development. It doesn’t seem to me that be the intent of the law of fair share; I will give you a park, only if you give me a shopping center. So I don’t understand that process. Maybe you could explain it to me. But I don’t see why this developer, Waikoloa Mauka, can’t develop on their, the fair share park on their own property. That’s all I have to say. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions? Hearing none, thank you very much. Ma’am? COLLIER: My name is Jana Collier, and I’ve been a resident of Waikoloa Hills for eight years now, and I’ve seen a lot of changes. And I would like to have a library; I’m a big reader of books. And the Stables, you know, might be a great place to have the library and the community center. But I also am very concerned about the access to a commercial development at the corner of Paniolo and Waikoloa Road being that that is the only access to the community at this time, and that there is extensive commercialization on the north side of the village; so we are getting a lot of other development besides the ones in this area. I just hope that you Commissioners and Members of the Planning Commission will really examine this site and vote it down, because for commercial development I think it is the wrong thing for the Village. GIFFIN: Thank you. Any other questions of this testifier? Hearing none, thank you very much. Thank you, Sid. I’m sure you, like we, have heard all of the concerns that were just voiced, and I would like you to please spend some time addressing those concerns, particularly traffic. 17 EXHIBIT A FUKE: If there are specific technical questions on the traffic, fortunately, we do have the traffic engineer, Bruce Witcher, who prepared the traffic studies for both this project, as well as the next one that’s going to come up before you. I’d like to just kind of preface by saying that first of all in terms of the park site selection, I mean, you know this has been going on for like five or six years, and the community at that time was really like at a loss, you know, trying to find where would be the appropriate location for a park site. And quite frankly, Councilmember Hoffmann had some heartburns about this area because one of the, expressing the same kind of concern that one of the testifiers stated, specifically how can children, you know, riding their bicycles or walking to that area, you know, safely come to that area. But I think that after they looked at all of the available properties in that area, I think the decision was like, it’s really like no choice, you know; if you want a park, that’s probably, and given the landowners and landownership tenure in that area, that’s probably like the only location. So it’s not like the ideal location but, you know, given the situation, that probably might be the only option. Waikoloa Mauka, you know, the owners of the property on the south side of Waikoloa Road, they said that they were willing to also provide land because they own land like above of the Stables, and then the community said, well, it’s a little bit too far because we want it close to the community, etc. etc., and so finally, long story being short, I’m repeating myself, it was kind of like that area. It was kind of too bad that some of the testifiers, you know, did not necessarily participate, you know, like in those discussions; but if you talk to other people, then regrettably they are not here but, you know, some of the participants at that time would probably, you know, kind of attest what I’m sharing with you right now. I do have an article that was published in the North Hawai‘i News, and it appeared in July 2011, and it was a presentation of this plan here, you know, with the community. And so it, you know, and this plan was prepared only after a number of, like, after trying to figure out where the park is going to be and how we are going to fund it and so on and so forth, and so then we came up with this master plan. So prior to submittal, you know, we kind of like had it vetted by whoever was attending, you know, with the community at that time, and overall the community, the sense I got, and I’ll make a copy of this article for you, it showed that they were relatively supportive of the overall concept. The other thing related to traffic, too, is like, you know, in addition to the traffic study being done, this project was also vetted from a traffic standpoint by the South Kohala Traffic Committee, and if you’ll notice, their comment, they said that they conditionally supported the application; the condition being making sure that, you know, there are certain things that are taken care of, and a lot of the things, a lot, I think almost all of the recommendations or the conditions suggested by the South Kohala Traffic Committee are embodies in one form or another as part of your conditions. The last point I’d like to make is, maybe this is really like a question to be directed to Mr. Emler, but there is this condition that states that access to the property from Waikoloa Road and Paniolo Avenue, including the provision of sight distance, channelization, etc., etc. shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works; my question is like when you look at sight distance requirement, do you necessarily look at like where the proposed intersection is going to exit to Paniolo Avenue and Waikoloa Road, or do you also take into consideration existing driveways like existing accesses prior to telling the applicant this is where, you know, this is where it’s acceptable. GIFFIN: Ki, will you come up to the lectern and address that? EMLER: Well, we, too, had quite a concern about this development because of the existing accesses for Waikoloa Highlands Shopping Center across the street; they’ve already got two full movement accesses there on Paniolo Drive. They’ve got two, or they’ve got one full movement on Waikoloa Road as well and then one right-in/right-out on Waikoloa Road; so there is some relief for 18 EXHIBIT A the shopping center on that side. But, yes, this is a very tight situation with this development. And that’s why in my review I -. By the way, I had to draft up my own illustration of where, to scale, of where those entrances are to try to figure out whether I thought there was going to be any feasibility at all of this working out. And that’s why I recommended a traffic circulation plan that showed all of this on one plan where you also considered what the necessary length of turn lanes and so forth and whether they could fit within the area. And this is definitely going to take some in-depth consideration for traffic movements and whether such movements can be made across two lanes of traffic without a signal. And it does require additional sight distance for making those additional in- width movements. So, yes, those things are taken into consideration, but it has to be something that the consultant presents in depth. And that’s why you either do it before this thing gets approved, in which case Department of Public Works has a chance to review that and vet that or -. That’s why we put it in as a condition of approval, and the Planning Director did insert it as a condition. FUKE: That’s your proposed, that’s the Director’s proposed Condition H, which basically reads that the applicant shall submit a multi-modal road and traffic circulation plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer prior to final plan approval. Is that the one? EMLER: Yeah. GIFFIN: Okay. Sid, are you pau, or did you want to say anything else? FUKE: Basically I’m done. I just got -. The reason why -. I think that Ki’s comments are very pertinent and -. GIFFIN: Yeah, I do, too. FUKE: The community’s, too. So I just wanted to, you know, have placed on the record that there is an opportunity that when, you know, what was shown there is all in concept, and so obviously, prior to their finalizing the plans, a lot of these additional technical studies would have to be done and vetted by the Department of Public Works, and Public Works in turn will take into account all of the existing driveways before sanctioning where would be the most appropriate location for a driveway on Paniolo Avenue would be. GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Fuke? Lani. BOWMAN: I do. Just a quick question. You mentioned that the landowners discussed about the park above, they had land above the Stables. FUKE: Yes. BOWMAN: Would be, you know – oops, now where is the picture, yeah – so -. FUKE: Yeah, you can see the Stables. And so above of the, they own properties on the mauka side of that. BOWMAN: Okay, so mauka. And, you probably don’t know, but, is that like a, is that a roadway that runs right next to the place where the people live? What is, yeah, what is that? Is it a roadway? PUBLIC: Utility. Fire break. 19 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: Fire break. Okay, it’s a fire break, utility road. Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners? Sid, in addition to what you said regarding the community support of this project, Commissioners, I turn to Appendix A in your background report, the letter from Pete Hoffmann, saying in the second paragraph, “please be informed that absent any other reasonable alternative sites, I strongly support a park/community center at this location. My sense is that most of the residents of Waikoloa community share my position.” And so, in conjunction with what the representative has just said, the local councilman has also reiterated those same sentiments. Any other questions or comments that, Commissioners, you would like to make? Oh, I know, I had one more question. Daryn, could you go back to the map that shows the applicant’s – no, no, yeah. Sid, correct me, if I’m wrong; there is no stated plan for the lavender area, correct? FUKE: That’s correct. GIFFIN: And that is currently still Ag. FUKE: Correct. And so, if for, you know, although there have been discussions like with the church group and also like a person that may be interested in doing some kind of like senior housing, in the event that that land is sold to one of that type of developer, they would have to come in for the required entitlements, be it a use permit or change of zone. So the development right now is essentially only the shaded area, I mean, the yellow shaded area. GIFFIN: Right, so just the mustard colored area is what is before us for Agenda Item No. 1. FUKE: Correct. GIFFIN: Okay. And now, we had testifiers that reside in the Highlands condo area and – yes – and testified to the fact that the commercial property would abut their condo. FUKE: I think that what was stated, if I remember correctly, is that this master plan, you know, showing adjoining, what’s happening on the adjoining property is not necessarily accurate, because since that time there have been some condo development adjacent to the purple colored area. GIFFIN: Okay, but that is still not our Agenda Item No. 1; Agenda Item No. 1 is only the mustard color -. FUKE: Mustard colored area, correct. GIFFIN: Okay. And the lavender area is still Ag, correct? FUKE: Correct. GIFFIN: Daryn, did you want to add something? ARAI: Well, the aerial photo here does show a more recent depiction of the extent of the build-out of the condominium complex, the Hills project, right adjacent to, well, I wouldn’t say right adjacent, but in proximity to the project site, which is concentrated more at the intersection of Paniolo and Waikoloa Road. I want to make absolutely clear that the request before the 20 EXHIBIT A Commission today is the change – I hope I’m going the right way, one moment – is a change of zone that affects approximately 14.6 acres, which is the mustard colored area. While I did, we did make reference and have been speaking about the proposed park that could be dedicated to the County of Hawai‘i, as well as possible discussions with the church for the use of those properties, that is really distinct and separate from the request that is currently before you. They are not tied in together, meaning that approval of this change of zone is, or dedication of the park site is not subject to getting an approval for the change of zone; it is independent. So I just wanted to make sure that’s clear. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions? Lani. BOWMAN: I do. I’m sorry again, because I seem to be a little confused. I know the testifier testified that their condominium was in the V on that road. So what I’d like to know is, where is the south, about, the south boundary of the whole lot? Is that depression, the floodway that we were talking about, so it actually is more to the north? Where is the northern boundary about? ARAI: The northern boundary I think is somewhere in this vicinity here. BOWMAN: Okay, okay, so somewhere there. So basically, the top of the developed area would kind be by the V. FUKE: Actually, as shown on, you know, that map -. BOWMAN: Right. FUKE: The proposed access would probably be close to where the existing project, or existing condominiums are -. BOWMAN: Okay. FUKE: Maybe if you can go back again to the visual, the photograph rather. They are right there. BOWMAN: Okay. So that would be the existing -. And then the park would be -. FUKE: The park would be like on the right hand quadrant of that map. BOWMAN: Okay, that’s, thank you for the visual. Thanks. GIFFIN: Anyone else have questions of Mr. Fuke? Hearing none, thanks, Sidney. Daryn, did you want to go over the amendment to the Planning Director’s recommendation, I and J? ARAI: Sure. Let me summarize the amendment. The amendment to proposed Condition I, the area, or the language highlighted specifically in yellow and underscored is the new language that we wish to include in the currently constructed proposed condition. And the purpose of that is to make it absolutely clear that the restrictions to movements onto the subject property from Paniolo Avenue is not only limited or restricted to construction vehicles; it shall also apply to regular vehicles, like, for example, once the development is complete and the public can visit the property, it will be restricted to right-in and right-out movements only until such time a specific left-turn lane is 21 EXHIBIT A installed by the applicant in Paniolo Avenue. And only at that point when it’s constructed, will the condition then allow left-turn movements into the subject property. GIFFIN: So if I understand this proposed condition, it is only for right-in/right-out movement. ARAI: For, right, it is only for right-in and right-out movements during the period prior to the installation of a dedicated left-turn lane. GIFFIN: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have that in front of you, and do you have any questions? Hearing none, Daryn, would you go on to the proposed new Condition J? ARAI: Sure. Now water system that services all of Waikoloa Village is a private water system; it is not a system that’s supported or managed by the County Department of Water Supply. That being said, the new Condition J is to make it absolutely clear that the applicant will be obligated to work with this private water company to make sure that the water system and possibly even sources in the area are adequate to support the proposed commercial development. And the condition provides that assurance, as well as identifies three distinct requirements that were identified by the Department of Water Supply in its memorandum in response to this application. And again, those three items include designing and constructing a water system that meets their requirements – and I’m sorry, I’m paraphrasing – No. 2, to submit construction plans for their review and approval, and to pay basically an inspection fee. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Daryn regarding the new proposed Condition J? So, is it, Daryn, is it in lieu of what was presented, or is it in addition to J? ARAI: It is a new Condition J, with all subsequent conditions to be re-alphabetized. GIFFIN: Any other questions of staff? Daryn. ARAI: I just was consulting with the Department of Public Works representative. If you were to refer to your recommendation report Condition, the existing Condition J, which speaks directly to, “A Flood Study shall be submitted, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval”; he is asking that a similar language as contained within the existing Condition H where at the very end of Condition H it says, “as recommended in the Department of Public Works’ memo dated October 4, 2012,” he would like the same passage attached to the current Condition J regarding the flood study. So, again, I’ll read the language as he is recommending: “A Flood Study shall be submitted, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval, as recommended in the Department of Public Works’ memo dated October 4, 2012.” I will at this point ask for the Director if she has any objections or concerns regarding the proposal. With that being said, we would recommend that that revision be included in the current Condition J, which, if you adopt the proposed amendment we proposed earlier, it would be the new Condition K. GIFFIN: Okay, Commissioners, we’ve heard from six testifiers today, generally residents that are from Waikoloa. We’ve heard from Department of Public Works and, of course, our staff. In addition to all of that, we’ve heard from the applicant. Do you have any questions of any of these people? I’m happy to call back any of the public testifiers, if you would like to hear from them again. If there is anyone from the public who didn’t have an opportunity to sign up earlier, I’m happy to accommodate you. If not, Commissioners, any questions? And remember we have two 22 EXHIBIT A issues before us – let me just get my folder, I’ll straighten it out here. Excuse me? Yeah, the first one is a State Land Use boundary amendment and then also there is the change of zone, okay? So there are two issues and, of course, we will take motions on them separately. Lani. BOWMAN: I have a comment. Could you go to the General Plan map? There. Back. Is that, I’m sorry, maybe the Community Development Plan map. Okay. And I’m also looking, well, first of all, I am sorry that residents with children are not here; I know there is an existing park, and I would really, you know, would have liked to hear people – so that’s just my comment. My other one is we have existing CV-10 zoning for, I don’t know my, what is it, south -. GIFFIN: Where are you looking at, Lani? BOWMAN: There. Okay, southwest, that’s existing CV-10 zoning, correct? ARAI: Let me bring, this is the current zone district map for the area. The project site is indicated, or outlined in red, and this pink color here represents the existing Village Commercial zoning district. BOWMAN: And basically, all the south of the road is not developed yet, correct? ARAI: No, there is a shopping center here. Down here, I believe, is the fire station. BOWMAN: Shopping center by the post office? ARAI: Oh, not a shopping center, I’m sorry, the post office. BOWMAN: Post office, okay. But that is existing CV-10 zoned. ARAI: That is correct. BOWMAN: Thank you. GIFFIN: Any other comments or questions? All right. Then I think I would like to entertain a motion for the State Land Use boundary amendment application, SLU 12-035. Do I hear a motion? Brandi? And remember that this would be a recommendation to the State Land Use, County Council, I’m sorry, this would jut be a recommendation, either favorable or unfavorable, to the County Council. So in this regard, this agenda item, the State Land Use boundary amendment is a recommendation. ARAI: And while we are waiting for a motion, I just want to clarify: Are we going to take it in steps, the State Land Use boundary amendment first and rezoning second? GIFFIN: Correct. ARAI: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: I think that’s clearer. Do I hear a motion? Brandi, you have a question? 23 EXHIBIT A BEAUDET: I’m a little confused as to what is indicated on the agenda as rezoning application 12- 157 and SLU 12-35. GIFFIN: SLU 12-035 is what I’m talking about right now; it’s a State Land Use boundary amendment and it would be a recommendation, either favorable or unfavorable, to the County Council. The change of zone, which is not what I’m entertaining at this minute, is something that we would be – hang on. BEAUDET: So we are not combining both applications then. GIFFIN: No, no. It’s been my understanding that we always took these separately, correct? Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Yes, we always vote on these separately, because they are basically two different items: One is a State Land Use classification, and the other is County zoning. And as with all of these types of matters, the Commission makes a recommendation. And whether the recommendation is favorable or unfavorable, the matters advance to the County Council with the recommendation at which point the County Council then determines whether they will approve or not approve both of these applications. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman. And maybe I can clarify. I think the reason Commissioner Beaudet may be confused is because I realized that I failed to put the docket No. for this application on the agenda, and my apologies for that. Because I think he is trying to make a motion and he is trying to make reference to a particular docket. The docket for the SLU is 12-35 just for reference. GIFFIN: Right, right. So -. BEAUDET: So with that -. GIFFIN: Thank you, Brandi. BEAUDET: In regard to State Land Use Boundary amendment, SLU 12-35, I move to forward a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment application to be forwarded to the County Council. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? HICKCOX: Second. GIFFIN: It’s been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that we send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment, SLU 12-35, to the County Council. Discussion? Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Could I get a clarification from corporation counsel as to the agenda as posted? Item No. 1 references REZ 12-157; it does not specifically reference SLU 12-35. However, the description under that of that agenda item does note that these are “applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acres (A-5a) to Village Commercial-20,000 square feet (CV-20) for approximately 24 EXHIBIT A 14.622 acres.” And I guess I just want to make sure and clarify that the description, which describes the two actions, is sufficient for purposes of this agenda item. GIFFIN: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As the Planning Director noted, I think there is an issue, and, you know, I cannot tell you with one hundred percent certainty that this would not be something that a court would consider a defect. I think when you look at what is written here, it clearly does state that there is a State Land Use boundary amendment; so if anyone were to look at this agenda item in the public and notice that – but it does identify the particular property, it does identify that there is a State Land Use boundary amendment here, and it identifies the applicant, etc. – so if someone in the public were to look at this agenda item, they would certainly be on notice that there is at least a rezoning that is an issue, and if they continued reading, then they would notice that there is a State Land Use boundary amendment here. So I think more likely than not it’s okay; but there is an issue. GIFFIN: Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Torigoe, I was also thinking that because this is basically a recommendation that -. If this was a final action like an SMA and we neglected to have the SMA in the title, I would be more concerned because it would be a final action. But since this is essentially a recommendation and there are at least three more opportunities for the public to appear in front of the County Council and testify as to these matters, I’m less concerned about the failure to specifically reference the SLU 12-35, and especially since it is described. But I just wanted to have that discussion on the record and point it out, because it is an issue, the fact that it was not in the title of that agenda item. GIFFIN: Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Right, well, so yeah, that issue is certainly on the record now. I think if there is any more particular concerns or pros and cons or, you know, potential for this to be considered to be defective, then that should be done in executive session. GIFFIN: So, is there any motion by the Commissioners to go into executive session at this point to further discuss this issue? Or do you feel comfortable? BOWMAN: I’m fine. GIFFIN: Fine. Hearing none, let me reiterate: It’s been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that we send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment, the application No. is SLU 12-35, to the County Council. Any discussion further? Hearing none, Daryn? ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: I’m sorry, Madam Chair, I lost track of who made the second. 25 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Hickcox. ARAI: I’m sorry. My apologies. Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. ARAI: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion carries with five aye votes, one nay. GIFFIN: Thank you. So that was in reference to the State Land Use boundary amendment, SLU 12-35. Also, the second matter on this agenda item is a change of zone application, 12-157. I would like to hear a motion regarding this application. And remember this one is a whole a lot more complex in terms of the conditions of approval. Any discussion? Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: For change of zone application, REZ 12-157, I would like, I move for a favorable recommendation for change of zone request be forwarded to the County Council along with the conditions as stated in addition to revised Condition I and new Condition J, along with a new Condition K for changes recommended by Department of Public Works. GIFFIN: Okay, I’ll rephrase that slightly. But do I hear a second? NELSON: Second. GIFFIN: It’s been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Nelson that a favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request, 12-157, a favorable request be forwarded to the County Council, along with the conditions as stated by the Planning Director that include in addition to a new Condition I, a new Condition J, and in J, which would then become Condition K, and then subsequently re-alphabetized from there, to include also, as recommended in the Department of Public Works’ memo dated October 4, 2012. Daryn, I think I got them all, I’m not sure. ARAI: Okay, yeah, just, I believe you did, just to clarify, it is an amendment to the existing Condition I as originally recommended by the Director, and a new Condition J as proposed by the 26 EXHIBIT A Director, and an amendment to the new re-alphabetized Condition K regarding the flood study. So with that, I’m ready for the roll. GIFFIN: Okay. ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion carries with five aye votes, one nay. GIFFIN: Thank you. And thank you, members of the public. The discussion ended at 11:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 27 EXHIBIT A