HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-18 Leeward Exh B - Hualalai Partners
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JULY 18, 2013
HUALALAI PARTNERS OF KONA, LLC
A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of
(SLU-13-038/REZ-13-164)
was called to order at 10:20 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center,
Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with
Vice Chair Brandi Beaudet presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Richard Nelson, III and
Thomas Whittemore
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Geraldine Giffin
ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy
Corporation Counsel), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner),
Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division) and Noriko Sauer (Commission
Secretary)
And approximately 50 people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: HUALALAI PARTNERS OF KONA, LLC (SLU-13-038/REZ-13-164)
State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from
Agricultural 5-acres (A-5a) to Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet (RS-15) for
approximately 14.968 acres of land. The property is located southwest of the intersection of
nd
Kahului-Hienaloli Road and Hualalai Road, north of the Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, Kahului 2,
North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-5-017:043.
BEAUDET: Today’s third applicant is Hualālai Partners of Kona, LLC, requesting for State Land
Use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a change of zone from Agricultural 5-
acres to Single-Family 15,000 square feet, or RS-15, for approximately 14.968 acres. The property
is located southwest of the intersection of Kahului-Hienaloli Road and Hualālai Road, north of the
Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, and located in North Kona, TMK: 7-5-017-043. Staff?
ARAI: Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners.
The applications you have before you today are a State Land Use boundary amendment application
and a change of zone application. Like the other two applications that you just heard, you will be
considering this application and offering your recommendation to the Hawai‘i County Council who
will make the final determination regarding these requests.
That being said, if I may direct your attention to the presentation screen. This is the location map
showing the location of the subject property, which is outlined here in black. You may, as a point
of reference, this white line running basically top to the bottom of the map is the Queen
Ka‘ahumanu Highway, Kuakini Highway alignment. Hualālai Road comes off of Kuakini, and
basically runs to the right of the map, as you can follow with my pointer. The subdivisions in the
vicinity include Pualani Estates indicated here with the yellow color, you have Hualālai Heights in
this particular location just south of the subject property, and Kona Orchards here just off to the
1
EXHIBIT B
right on the opposite side of Hienaloli. Zooming in, you can see greater detail. Again, the subject
property here is outlined in black, and is situated itself on land designated Agricultural 5-acres by
the Zoning Code. Off to your left, which is makai, is another property, which recently received
Residential zoning designation back in 2010. The property is commonly referred to as the Hu Ko
Pa project.
This is the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. As you can see, the map itself
shows the location of the Urban Expansion Area as indicated by this crosshatch designation. This
green color off to the right is Intensive Agricultural, and the yellow colors represent Residential, or
Low-density Urban I should say, which is consistent with the single-family residential type of uses.
Back in 2010 the planning director did interpret the subject property as being situated entirely
within the General Plan Urban Expansion Area. This is a map depicting the State Land Use District
Boundaries within the area. The pink color represents those lands designated Urban, or for Urban
uses. The green represents those lands designated for Agricultural uses. The yellow color here off
to the right, which encompasses the Kona Orchard Subdivision, among others, is designated for
Rural type of uses. Again, one of the applications you have before you today is to change the State
Land Use District classification of the property from Agriculture to Urban.
This is a map that is showing the Kona Community Development Plan. As you can see by this red
line here, it basically outlines the Kona Urban Area. The subject property is situated right here
where my pointer is showing, and as depicted on this map, it does straddle the boundary of the
Kona Urban Area. However, as you may have noticed, the boundary of the Kona Urban Area
aligns itself with the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map for Urban Expansion
type of uses, and since the planning director interpreted that the entire property falls within the
General Plan Urban Expansion Area, likewise, the property would therefore fall within the Urban
Area as depicted by the Kona Community Development Plan. And if there are any perceived
conflicts between those two plans, the General Plan will prevail.
This is an aerial photo showing some detail of the project site, which is again outlined in black, as
indicated by my pointer. You may notice some additional references, for example, Pualani Estates
in this particular location just to the southwest, Hualālai Heights off in this particular location here.
The applicant is requesting, as I mentioned, a State Land Use boundary amendment from
Agriculture to Urban, a change of zone from Agricultural 5-acres minimum lot size to
Single-Family Residential 15,000 square feet minimum lot size for approximately 14.968 acres of
land. The reason for the request is to propose a 43-lot subdivision. The project itself will provide
for future road connectivity with the adjoining Parcel 42, which is located makai, or west of the
project site, and commonly referred to as the Hu Ko Pa project. Improvements will include a
stub-out for a future extension for Pualena Street through Parcel 22, which is located to the south, to
eventually connect with Puapuaanui Road, which then extends west all the way to Kuakini
Highway. Should the rezoning be approved, the applicant intends to submit the application for a
planned unit development for flexibility in design and selection of smaller lot sizes with the
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet to be accessed by non-dedicable roadways.
This is a concept map provided by the applicant. As you can see, Hualālai Road is located at the
top of the map, running in this location here with makai being off to the left of this concept site
plan. You can see the interior proposed roadway sections with the stub-out to the south that will
eventually connect with Pualena Street once development of the southern property is pursued, and it
2
EXHIBIT B
will provide interconnection with the proposed Hu Ko Pa project, which is located adjacent and
makai of this particular project site. What the colors you see here represent is a distribution of lots
that, should the planned unit development permit be approved, that will provide the applicant
flexibility of siting lots about roughly 10,000 square feet on the makai portion of the project site and
larger 15,000-square foot lots here along the mauka side bordering Hualālai Road.
This is just a closer aerial photo of the project site, and sorry that it’s not outlined, but the project
site is located in this particular area here. And again, this is a closer view of the property, which is
basically in this section. This is a view looking northbound along Hualālai, Hualālai Road, I should
say, and as you can see, this is Hienaloli Road off in the distance. And Hualālai would basically
dive down toward the left, with the project site located in this particular location here. This is once
you get onto Hualālai Road, basically looking westbound, or makai, and Hienaloli Road is just
behind me. This is again a few steps father down, looking, continuing to look makai along Hualālai
Road; the subject property once again located off to your left. And this is basically looking
mauka-bound along Hualālai Road; the project site is located off to your right this time, and we are
trying to situate ourselves where the proposed access onto Hualālai would be. The applicant’s site
plan, and I failed to mention it earlier, is indicating a proposed access point onto Hualālai Road, and
we believe it’s in this particular location here; however, the applicant’s proposal is for primary
access to the subdivision to basically be provided by the extension of Pualena Street, which then
connects to Hu Ko Pa development to the makai side of the project site, which then connect with
through roadways within Pualani Estates and onto Puapuaanui Street, which then makes its way to
the signalized and channelized intersection with Kuakini.
The Planning Director is recommending favorable consideration of the State Land Use boundary
amendment and a County change of zone request for the reasons and with the conditions as he has
provided to you. I would like to make, bring your attention to one error that we, I would like to
correct on the record. If you were to look at your background report, Page 5, basically in the middle
of Page 5 just above Item No. 24 regarding Water, there is a sentence that speaks to the Department
of, “The DPW indicated that additional comments will be provided at the time a separate PUC
application is filed with the Planning Department.” That’s a wrong acronym; it should actually say
“PUD,” which is the acronym of Planned Unit Development application. So I would like to make
the correction on the record. We have also received a number of written testimonies just, that was
submitted earlier along with the recommendation report by the Planning Director, as well as we
received this morning by the general public. Copies of the written testimony has been provided to
all of you. And I have noted that all of those providing written testimony have also signed up to
testify before you today. So with that, I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Okay. With that, I would like to invite the
applicant and its representatives to please come forward. Thank you. Would you please raise your
right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County
Leeward Planning Commission?
REPRESENTATIVES: I do.
BEAUDET: Thank you.
LIM: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Steven Lim from Carlsmith
representing the applicant, Hualālai Partners of Kona, LLC. Our manager, Frederick “Ted” Barrett,
3
EXHIBIT B
had to be out of the country at this meeting, but today with me are his sons, the Barrett brothers,
Lee, Al and Rick, as you go down the table. Thank you for hearing our application. We have been
here before, and I think at least two of you were there the last time that we came in 2010.
The applicant’s proposal is for 43 lots. And we’ve met with the community and been through the
process since really 2006. The proposal has changed from smaller lots to bigger lots, and
effectively, what we are at, and the market has changed at the same time, so effectively, what you
see proposes 43 lots, and if you can shoot – can you change the graphic to the project plan?
Thanks, Daryn. So you can, the darker green is at the mauka side of the property with Hualālai
Road running down on the north side, and to the bottom of the picture is the south side of the
property, and that’s the extension into the next door property, which is vacant, what they call
Pualena Street Extension. We are proposing to do a 50-foot wide minor street standard, and
dedicate that to the County at no cost. The street would connect up through the vacant property at
some point in time to the Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, which is also a 50-foot wide dedicated,
dedicable minor street. That leads into some of our comments on the background and the proposed
conditions. I think I’ll get to that towards the end of our presentation. But I think what you will
probably hear after we are done at the table here is that you will hear a lot of testimony from the
adjoining residents, and I think most of them are related to density, traffic, and those are things that
we see as major points now. We’ve had our traffic study conducted for both the Puapuaanui Street
side and also the Hualālai Road side, and the proposed access will come through this project; the
primary access will be down through the project into the Hu Ko Pa project, which is below it, and
onto Hualālai and also in the southerly direction down Paulehia Street to Puapuaanui Street and into
the signalized intersection at Queen K Highway. We expect most of the traffic will go in the
direction just as a matter of ease of traffic flow. What you see on this project plan is evolution
based upon some of the discussions with the Council and the community. And I think the pink
entry of the project way onto Hualālai Road is the result of one of the suggestions from the Council
the last time we went through there in terms of expressing some concern on it being a big
cul-de-sac, and so you should have another entry out onto Hualālai Road. Now, whether that’s
going to work out in the end engineering-wise or traffic-wise is another question; we checked with
our engineer, and the particular location out onto Hualālai Road that you can see with the pink trees,
I think they are, that is possible with a design speed of approximately 30 miles per hour, which I
think is the current speed limit on Hualālai Road. Twenty-five? Twenty-five, excuse me. So that’s
possible, not optimum. What we may end up doing is to combine the access from the Hu Ko Pa
project, which is makai, and the access from this project in one location just about at the boundary
of the two projects, because that is the best location for the project access in terms of sight distance
and safety.
The advantages of the project that the County will get is that you will get a north-south connectivity
both from the Pualena Street Extension, excuse me, the Pualena Street Extension when that gets
extended, and you will also have it from the Paulehia Street Extension through the makai property,
Hu Ko Pa, because we’ll connect that up to the project. You’ll also get I think well-needed
improvements to Hualālai Road; everybody recognizes that’s a substandard road both in terms of
construction and right-of-way. So this project will be contributing the additional right-of-way and
constructing the improvements of Hualālai Road on its side of the property, so it will increase the
traffic safety in that area.
One of our proposed revisions to the conditions of approval relates to the issue, and that would be
proposed condition of approval I, like in India, the condition relates to the improvements of
4
EXHIBIT B
Hualālai Road, and it says, “The applicant shall provide improvements to Hualālai Road along the
entire frontage of parcels 30 and 43 and transitions consisting of, but not limited to, grading,
pavement widening, resurfacing, drainage improvements, and any relocation of utilities, meeting
with the approval of the Department of Public Works.” We are going to request that the
Commission delete the reference to Parcel 30. Parcel 30 is the notch-out that’s right next to the
pink portion on the project. That’s an approximately one-acre lot or so that’s owned by Waiaha
System, and that’s going to be a County water tank. We don’t control the frontage of that lot along
Hualālai Road. So we would request deletion of the reference to Parcel 30. This will be consistent
with what was recommended and approved by the Planning Commission in the 2010 rezoning
effort.
As part of the dedication of the improvements along Hualālai Road, we are also recommending that
the Planning Commission substitute the existing Condition G, which states, “All connecting
roadways shall be constructed to dedicable standards and dedicated to the County or open to public
traffic. Concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be required in areas of pedestrian traffic.” In
the last rezoning effort, the Planning Commission approved a Condition G, which was essentially
the same subject matter, and it was a little bit more detailed and it reflects our negotiations with the
Department of Public Works. Understand that, you know, when we first started, there was no Kona
CDP, and as we went through the process, the Kona CDP came into effect. And at the first instance
no one really knew what that meant. Then as we got further on through, we found out, you know,
what we had to do with respect to compliance. And this Condition G that we had in the 2010 effort,
which the Planning Commission approved, I think correctly expresses our agreement with Public
Works at the time. And I’ll read that to you: Condition G that we would recommend is from the
2010 recommendation and it says, “The applicant shall construct within the proposed subdivision a
connected road system that includes its primary subdivision access road and the future extension of
Pualena Street to ‘Minor Street’ dedicable standards and dedicate at no cost to the County.
Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be provided in areas of pedestrian traffic in conformance
with adjoining development and the Department of Public Works’ policy. No security gate shall be
installed on any roadway or entrance to this project. The developer, homeowner and/or the
homeowner’s association shall be responsible for any landscaping within the right-of-way(s),
meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, and shall repair any public facility
damaged by the landscaping.” So that’s a little bit more detailed than your current Condition G, and
subject to Public Works’ concurrence, we think it accurately reflects our negotiations with them to
this point.
Other benefits to the County are, at the present time on drainage, the issue of drainage, mauka is on
the right side of the picture, at the present time while we are not within any FEMA floodway, we
are informed early on by the Department of Public Works that there is some existing drainage
coming from the Kona Orchard Subdivision and properties above us, coming across Hualālai Road
and going through the project. So we engaged an engineer, and I think we are probably on the
fourth revision of the report with Public Works’ assistance, so we are pretty close. But effectively,
what we are doing is to try to handle as much of the downstream flow as possible, you know. You
may know from your work from other projects that the landowners typically don’t have a duty to
take care of the mauka flows; all they do is they have a duty not to cause more flows or to
channelize into one point. The developers in this case recognize it will be in everybody’s best
interest to cooperate with the other landowners and to create a drainage system that works for the
surrounding area, and so we are going to be doing, proposing a drainage system that creates an open
area at the mauka portion of the park with drywells along the top, then some drywells that are
5
EXHIBIT B
coming down the street. And we think that will handle a lot of the existing drainage that is going
down, which is really not our problem but we recognize it, we have to do something about it, if we
are going to develop the project. So that will help the existing drainage condition even without the
project.
Other benefits to the County are the provision of four affordable units whether that’s in terms of
affordable credits or constructing units, we don’t know at this time; it’s still too early to tell. But it
will be another benefit to the County.
And one of the other side benefits to the County is actually a big benefit to the Department of Water
Supply. This particular project and the Hu Ko Pa project below it are members in the Waiaha
Water System that is being developed through Dan Bolton’s efforts, and he’s underway now,
grading the water tank sites. We heard he’s got the pipe ordered on site already, so he’s projecting
for completion of the water system by first quarter to second quarter of next year. What that will do
is that will, this Waiaha Water System will enable the Department of Water Supply to take
advantage of its very good Waiaha well that’s been up there for over ten years, I think, and they
didn’t ever have the means and the easements to bring the water down to Queen K. So what this
Waiaha Water System will do is it will allow them to bring the water down, put it into Queen K
Highway, service these and many other projects. What it will also do is it will allow the
Department of Water Supply now to uncap the valve that’s at the Honokōhau Harbor, and allow the
water to go north to the airport; right now the water doesn’t, from Keauhou, from the Kahalu‘u
shaft, doesn’t go past Honokōhau Harbor because of lack of supply. This new supply will allow
them to then push the water all the way to the airport, and will help all those projects out there, too.
So there are many benefits of the project that we believe is, warrants the approval of the project.
We know that there is community opposition. We believe that Hualālai Road is a clear demarcation
between the agricultural, rural type uses and the urban uses. And we believe that it is in compliance
with the General Plan and the Kona Community Development Plan.
L. BARRETT: Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. We have met with the
community on six different occasions and talked about some of the different issues that they had
and, traffic was brought up, drainage, some trees issues were brought up, density was the biggest
issue and it’s always been the biggest issue. So we did revise our plan to include 15,000-square
foot lots along the border of Hualālai Road, and then the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet
now. And as Mr. Lim suggested, we also put a connector road onto Hualālai Road, working with
the DPW. And as of right now, we believe that the density is still the only issue that may be coming
forward, but with the advantages of what we are providing to the County, we feel that the 43 lots
will not burden the County on any of the agencies. That’s all. Thank you.
LIM: The last thing that I had in terms of the conditions of approval is at Condition S, which is a
fair share contribution condition; at the end of S on Page 4 of your conditions of approval is credits
given for, against the fair share contribution for road and traffic improvements. Those are for the
improvements to Hualālai Road. We’d also like to add, in addition to Conditions H and I, which
relate to Hualālai Road, a credit for the cost of the north-south connector road in Condition G as
mentioned in either the existing Condition G or our proposed new Condition G. That is something
that is required more by the County than by the developer, and typically the Planning Commission
have given credits for that. We recognize that this north-south connector may have been required as
a private road anyway, so I think in terms of the credits we would ask that we be given credits for
6
EXHIBIT B
the difference between a private road and the County dedicable road. That will be the fairest way to
do that. That’s all for the applicant. Thank you very much. We’ve reviewed the background report
and recommendations, and have no other comments.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any comments or questions of the applicant? I’d like to just clarify
your last request one more time, just for me so that I’m clear on what you are asking as far as the
additional credit.
LIM: Okay. Whether it’s the old condition, or I guess your Condition G or our proposed Condition
G, they both talk about the Pualena Street extension through the project that’s, by the Kona CDP,
being required to be a County dedicable road. So we are proposing that the applicant, because it’s
not their project, it’s really the County’s requirement, that we get credit for the difference between
what we would have built ordinarily at the private road standard and the County dedicable minor
street standard.
BEAUDET: Okay. And if we could return back to the conversation on the proposed water
improvements, how much gallons per day would this development add to the County system?
Because you have spoken of a limitation on a daily volume available as such water couldn’t be
pumped beyond Honokōhau Harbor to the airport.
LIM: Right. That’s a DWS system-wide issue. Like I said, today water is not coming from the
Kahalu‘u shaft, which is one of their main sources of water pumping north. It’s not going past
Honokōhau Harbor. What will happen when the Waiaha System gets fully built out is they are
going to release the valve and water is now going to flow all the way up to the airport, which is
going to serve the airport, NELHA, the Department of Agriculture lots mauka of the airport, that
whole area, which is having a hard time getting service right now, they have very poor water
pressure. So the present applicant in contributing to the development of the project as one of its
members is going to be assisting with the overall health of the water system in Kona.
BEAUDET: Thank you.
WHITTEMORE: Brandi?
BEAUDET: Go ahead.
WHITTEMORE: Steve, if we can go back to your request on I, Condition I, I’m trying to
understand the rationale of exempting the roadway frontage improvements on Lot 30, given that
Hualālai Road is a known traffic issue, and I would assume that in your request then that becomes
the obligation of the County for that section fronting Lot 30?
LIM: We don’t know. Right now, like I said, Lot 30 is going to be developed as a water tank by
Dan Bolton as part of the Waiaha System project. We don’t control the land, so if you tell us to go
improve that roadway frontage, we don’t have any ability to do that.
WHITTEMORE: But your property skirts both sides, I mean on the makai side you probably have
a section of, what would be a point of improving 20 feet of roadway, or whatever it is a small
section, and then leaving an existing road, and then continuing on with improvement? I’m just
7
EXHIBIT B
trying to understand the rationale. I understand the monetary thing, but just from the community
perspective -.
LIM: No, it’s more, it’s more legal ability to do it; we don’t have the ability to improve someone
else’s property.
WHITTEMORE: Okay, but wasn’t this discussion occurred with the Planning Department prior to,
because it was incorporated into the conditions here? This was not -.
LIM: No. No, and in fact, the last time around, as I pointed out to the staff, the Parcel 30 was not
included because legally we cannot improve that parcel. The last time around it was exactly what
I’ve proposed, which is we will improve the whole frontage of this property on Hualālai Road, but
we can’t improve somebody else’s property.
WHITTEMORE: Okay.
LIM: One thing to, that the County could consider is to talk to the Department of Water Supply and
see if that can happen while the improvements are going on right now on Hualālai Road.
WHITTEMORE: But that would become a County burden financially.
LIM: That’s correct. That’s correct. We would be paying for some of that through our impact
fees, or fair share assessments, but it’s something that even if you told us to do it, we couldn’t.
BEAUDET: So, Steve, can you identify the lot in question, or, staff, if you could point that out.
LIM: It’s right where the notch is there on the top of the page. It’s the water tank site over there.
DARROW: We have Hualālai Road in this area, and then it’s in between.
BEAUDET: So just to clarify from a legal standpoint you are asking to remove the identification of
Parcel 30, since you guys don’t have legal authority over the parcel, but retain Parcel 43 in the
condition.
LIM: That’s correct. You can see the Parcel 30, which is right outside where Jeff is pointing, on
the north side of the notch of the property.
BEAUDET: So by removing Parcel 30 would remove the obligation of how many feet of frontage
of road improvement approximately?
LIM: I don’t know, just based upon the pictures, my client is saying six or 700 feet. And this is a
property that’s going to be, if it hasn’t already been done, it’s going to be dedicated to the County
Department of Water Supply, so they will have control of that.
BEAUDET: Okay, and I think your response to Commissioner Whittemore was that the County
could accommodate those improvements via the fees that would be, the entitlement fees that would
be paid by the project, right?
8
EXHIBIT B
LIM: That’s typically how it’s done, yes.
WHITTEMORE: Brandi, just to clarify. In the conditions here, it doesn’t make any reference to
the roadway, that I’m reading, makai, that fronts makai parcel; it just says Lot 43, which I was
referring to as that short section. It obviously extends down, but the condition here as is presented
does not make any reference to the makai lot. I don’t know, I’m sorry, I don’t know what the
number of that -.
LIM: The makai Hu Ko Pa project is required to improve Hualālai Road along its frontage also.
WHITTEMORE: They are.
LIM: Yes, that’s correct.
WHITTEMORE: Well, then why was the representation made that you would be covering that? Or
did I misinterpret some there?
LIM: No, no, we were just talking about this project frontage here.
WHITTEMORE: So you have no obligation with the makai lot on Hualālai Road in improving that.
LIM: Not Hualālai Partners of Kona. It’s the Hu Ko Pa LLC people who are obligated to do that.
WHITTEMORE: Okay, okay, I misunderstood that, sorry.
HICKCOX: Mr. Chair?
BEAUDET: Yes.
HICKCOX: Just for clarification, is there any connection between this particular proposal and the
Hu Ko Pa proposal?
LIM: Yes. What happened, we did this in 2010 before, but essentially what happened was they are
related by not legally but by family. The Hu Ko Pa project was initially owned by the Barrett
brothers who you see sitting here with me, and the Hualālai Partners project was owned by their
dad, Frederick “Ted” Barrett. And they both had a common partner, and they were going to
develop separate projects essentially. What happened was in about 2006-ish or so the partner
decided he no longer wanted to participate in the development, and so they searched around for
others to buy and they couldn’t find anybody, so the family essentially bought it. So the brothers
have bought into both subsequently. They are separate LLCs, separate legal entities, separate
money and all that stuff. So, yes, they are related by family but not legally.
HICKCOX: I see. And another question, please, if I may. Any idea on when these proposed
build-outs to Pualena and the makai street that are going to be completed?
LIM: No. I think a lot of it depends upon the market, and I think we see hopefully that, you know,
some of the market is coming back. What, some of the challenges that this project has had is that
they’ve gone on and the markets have come and gone, and so they had to rethink what size lot, you
9
EXHIBIT B
know, how many lots that they need. Effectively, the infrastructure that you see on the map, the
roads, the sewer, the drainage that will stage pretty constant with this project, is difficult to develop
because it’s kind of a sloping terrain going down. So that’s why we wanted to use a PUD to give us
more flexibility. And originally on this project plan, they had smaller lots, I think, down to 8,000 or
9,000 square feet just to take advantage and minimize the grading. But in response to the
community’s concerns, they are now at a minimum of 10,000 square feet, trying to arrange all of
the larger 15,000-square foot lot along the Hualālai Road that abuts the neighbors. So the timing of
the build-out, because they are related in terms of the access out to Hualālai Road, my expectation is
that they are going to try to develop them both at about the same time. They don’t have to do that,
but the likelihood is if they are going to mobilize for one project, it’s going to be a lot less
expansive to mobilize for both projects. The access down to the Paulehia Street, which is the makai
road going out to Pualani and down to the Queen K Highway, that one will be the important road to
go through, and I think that for purposes of that project there at a planned unit development
approval, we’ve got that already, and we are waiting for the subdivision pending the outcome of this
project, because as we discussed, the drainage and all the other things kind of tie in to the makai
property. And the water, too, is we finally got the water revised in early 2013, because they had an
agreement but what happened was because of the poor real estate market, all the people who had
signed up to do the Waiaha System agreement just fell out, and so we redid that, and so the water
was one of the big impediments.
HICKCOX: Yeah, one of the concerns I have, I mean I know we are dealing with this specific
application itself, but if you look at the big picture, you are looking at actually incorporating these
two proposals together as one, and the impact of what’s going to happen with this increase in
density in the area, though it’s applicable by law, I understand that, the infrastructure itself, as far as
the roads are concerned, the existing roads, that are being proposed to tie in to, you know, I mean, I
don’t know, I’m not really a traffic expert in any way, shape or form, but from a commonsense
point of view, if there is a tie-in with these subdivisions and there is no improvement to the
surrounding existing infrastructure other than the proposal on Hualālai, etc., it’s going to be a
cluster in there some place, I mean there’s a lot of lots.
LIM: What’s happening is, you know, the Kona Community Development Plan requires the
north-south connector roads. And that was the whole problem with Kona, because you’re
developing from Queen K up or down effectively in kind of big cul-de-sacs; you don’t have north-
south roads going. So that’s what the development of this project and the Hu Ko Pa project will do
is it’s going to bring these north-south roads, so not everybody has to go down to Queen K to go
north. Hopefully, at some point in time it will go all the way north, then you will have a multiple
set of roads doing that. But I think that, you know, both because of the Kona Community
Development Plan and the original subdivision of these lots, there was a declaration of agreement
for the subdivision that created these, all these lots, and effectively that was recorded in the Bureau
of Conveyances against all the lots. And it says that the future owners of all the lots, A, B, C, D and
E, shall agree to coordinate development of access, water system, sewer system, drainage
improvements and all utilities to service the lots. And so that’s effectively what we are doing is
trying to coordinate the drainage, the traffic, the water, and, you know, in accordance with this
agreement. The Kona Community Development Plan counsels to do that anyway. But I think that
this will assist in developing of the urban core of Kona. The Kona Community Development Plan
says to allocate development first to the Kona Urban Area, and we are within the Kona Urban Area.
10
EXHIBIT B
HICKCOX: And one last question I have. Is there any consideration being given to open space
issue, such as parks, etc., within this, these two proposals actually?
L. BARRETT: Yes, we have addressed the concern with the frontage along Hualālai Road to take
people off of Hualālai Road. There will be an easement along, also Lot 30, a 10-foot easement all
along that. Mauka of the property to the right of the page there, there is also a walkway to get
people off of Hualālai Road. And when we met with the community, there were several concerns
about either a park or some open space, and it was pretty divided when we met with them, and we
feel that we did address the green space by the frontage along Hualālai Road.
HICKCOX: Thank you.
BEAUDET: Steve, question on the connector road connecting to Hualālai, what’s that, Colony or -.
MASUNAGA: Pualena?
BEAUDET: Pualena Street.
LIM: Pualena. Okay, if you look at your application Exhibit 10, that will show you kind of a
streetscape of the surrounding areas.
BEAUDET: So my question is Parcel 22, which lies just south of the project area. What is the
projected timing of the development of that additional access road? Because the project doesn’t
have control over Parcel 22?
LIM: That’s correct.
BEAUDET: So when, what triggers the development of that additional road, that extension?
LIM: There is no requirement for the property to be developed in any particular time frame other
than what the property owner wants to do. All we can do on our end is to plan in and construct our
portion of the roads so that when he comes in, I’m sure he’ll be required. You can see to the south
of that Parcel 22 is what they call the Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, and that has a 50-foot wide
right-of-way that’s to be dedicated to the County, and it continues on through the Hualālai Heights
Subdivision to Puapuaanui Drive, and that was the intended north-south roadway. So we are trying
to recognize the north-south roadway connection while still managing and dealing with the poor
conditions on Hualālai Road. That’s why we are coming down the project and out on Hualālai
Road at the area where there is most sight distance and the safest exit.
BEAUDET: And where on Hualālai Road does that intersect? I don’t know if there is a, there was
a map that showed it going through.
LIM: Yeah, if you have Exhibit 10 in our application, it’s presently planned for just off the map to
the left hand side, just makai of the project area; you can see it coming from Paulehia Street in
Pualani Estates north and it curves up. Basically, we had to redesign that roadway so that it met the
County’s dedicable standards. So right now we haven’t done the detailed engineering, so we don’t
know if exactly that’s where it’s going to be; it might come onto this property in part. But that’s the
area of Hualālai Road where it’s safest to get out.
11
EXHIBIT B
BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioners, any more questions or comments for the applicant?
Okay, applicants, thank you for your time and your comments. We are going to follow with just a
short five-minute break, and we will follow that with testimony. Right now in front of me I have 21
testifiers that have requested to speak, and I will be calling up six of you at a time in accordance
with your sign-in. I would just like to remind everybody that in respect of time and everyone’s day,
we will adhere to the three-minute time frame. Some of you that have signed up have already
provided written testimony, and we have gone through, I just want to assure you that we have gone
through your written testimony, and we have, we understand where you are at, but so please if you
had intended to read your testimony, if you could summarize that and be as succinct as you can be,
we would appreciate that. So with that, we will adjourn for five minutes and then reconvene after
that. Thank you.
RECESSED The Vice Chair called a recess at 11:10 a.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:25 a.m.
BEAUDET: Mahalo for allowing us this break. I think we are all ready to go, so I would like to
recall to order today’s Hawai‘i County Leeward Planning Commission on our third agenda item,
Hualālai Partners. And we will commence with public testimony, and I would like to call to the
front, and please forgive me if I pronounce your names incorrectly, I will try my best: Joel Gimpel,
Harold Murata, Joel Cooperson, Andy Archibald, Ed Schulman and Erick Tucker. I would like to
ask all of you to please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter
now before the Hawai‘i County Leeward Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Starting from the right, I would like to ask each testifier to speak directly
into the mike, and we will just go through a quick introduction of each of you, and then we’ll start
from your right. And Margaret will be holding the time cards, so please be respectful of all of us
who want to testify today. Mahalo.
MURATA: Do I start?
BEAUDET: Start with, I would like for each of you just to introduce yourself, and then you would
speak first after their introduction.
MURATA: My name is Harold Murata, and I live in Keauhou Mauka.
SCHULMAN: Good morning. Ed Schulman. I’m a resident of Hualālai Colony.
TUCKER: Good morning. I’m Eric Tucker, and I live at 75-659 Makapono.
GIMPEL: Aloha. I’m Joel Gimpel. I’m Public Relations Chair for the Kona Traffic Safety
Committee, and I reside in Pualani Estates.
COOPERSON: Aloha. My name is Joel Cooperson, and I live at Heights at Hualālai.
12
EXHIBIT B
ARCHIBALD: Aloha. Andy Archibald. I’m a resident of Hualālai Colony.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Mr. Murata?
MURATA: Thank you. Commissioners and staff, good morning. I have submitted my written
testimony, and I assume that you have read it, so I’ll just expand or augment on that. And I also
would like to in my summary adlib on some of the drawings that were presented on the slides.
I express my perspective not as a resident in the vicinity of the project but as a member of the
troubling public on Hualālai Road, and that’s my focus. Hualālai Road has been a country farm
road with farm residences, and here and there the, what I call the donkey-engineered road is narrow
and winding. And many things have happened; more houses have been built and there are more
intersections, which make the road, which raises some traffic safety issues to me. So with that,
that’s becoming problematic because of the creeping urbanization. One of the drawings showed the
green, the Land Use Pattern, and pink also; what I see is lots of pink and less green, which means
more concrete and more asphalt and more urbanization. So if it continued to do that and that kind
of buildup occurs and if the infrastructure is not addressed property, that’s going to be bigger
problems of traffic movement and traffic safety. I would like to say that, to the deciders, that, of
this application, please, please give a balanced consideration between urban growth and the public
infrastructure needs. Thank you.
SCHULMAN: Good morning and aloha. In keeping with the Chair’s request we limit our
comments to three minutes or less, I’ve submitted written testimony. My summary is as follows:
I’ve been a 23-year resident of Hualālai Colony and I’ve traversed Hualālai Road numerous times,
more numerous to mention. And in the 23-year experience, I’ve experienced various traffic
conditions, flooding, debris crossing the road. I think we should all be clear on matters, which are
not in dispute: 1) It is a substandard road, no question, two lanes. There are no shoulders
whatsoever to accommodate accidents or breakdowns of vehicles or emergency vehicles if traffic
gets congested. The roadway in my 23 years of experience has been resurfaced once, and currently
has numerous dips and potholes. Yesterday I counted the number of blind curves as I drove up
from the Queen K to Hienaloli Road, which is the crossroad from my subdivision; there were eight
blind curves. The concern I have is totally on public safety. The existing proposed connection from
the subdivision of Hualālai Partners is unclear as to how it intends to merge ingress and egress
traffic from Hualālai Road into the new subdivision. What are these improvements specifically
going to be? Are they going to dedicate land along Hualālai Road as a shoulder, as an emergency
merging lane? How are these issues going to be addressed? It’s unclear. And given the number of
accidents, which have occurred over Hualālai Colony Road, excuse me, Hualālai Road over the last
20 years in my experience, and the number of vehicles that careened over the embankment and
lodged themselves in the gulch makai of Hualālai Road, this is a serious traffic hazard. And if you
doubt in future that the addition of 800 units of traffic per day, emanating from not only the Barrett
project but the three other contiguous lots, which are fully together, let’s make no mistake about it,
they are all going to feed into Hualālai Road because currently there is no other access. You are
going to face a wrongful death action, I guarantee it; I guarantee there will be an accident, there will
be a design issue brought up, and the County and the developers will be sued. So I implore the
County to consider the specifics of what safety improvements can be made to Hualālai Road so as
to accommodate merging ingress and egress traffic from the subdivisions, all four subdivisions.
Thank you.
13
EXHIBIT B
TUCKER: Eric Tucker, and I live off of Makapono Road, and as such fall within the 1,000-foot
boundary of affected area of the development. I have to echo everyone else’s talk so far. Hualālai
is not a safe road as it is now. I drive it on a daily basis. We’ve all experienced the problems of it.
To put not one but four neighborhoods, the ingress and egress onto it without major reconstruction
of the road seems to be a liability that the County is simply opening themselves up to. I don’t, I
think that also during the build-out, the grub, the grade, and the build-out portion of this, I think
Dan Bolton has done a very good job in terms of his construction project for the water tank, but it’s
a very small project compared to what we are contemplating here; I think that just the portion of it is
going to create enormous hazards on the road itself. Thanks.
GIMPEL: Good morning. The Kona Traffic Safety Committee has once again reviewed these
applications for boundary amendment and change of zone, first filed in 2010, and we find that
several serious concerns and questions that we, along with members of the Kona community, the
Leeward Planning Commission and the Council’s Planning Committee raised in the past haven’t yet
been satisfactorily addressed. We still have the following concerns: 1) Primary access would be
located on Hualālai Road, which you know is a narrow winding two-lane roadway that isn’t
designed to accommodate safely either large commercial vehicles necessary for housing
construction or a significant volume of automobile traffic. This planned project access is a blind
intersection. The project driveway edge simply matches the existing roadway edge, and that
driveway ingress and egress is unsafe. Safety consideration should also include details showing the
correct and safe intersection geometry. It also should include elimination of visual obstructions,
proper striping and signing are essential for comfortable and safe driving. We note particularly that
the Hualālai Road-Highway 11 intersection, which would have to accommodate southbound left
turns from Highway 19 isn’t signalized, and that there is no right-turn access lane from Hualālai
Road to Highway 11. Furthermore, although the lands along Hualālai Road between the proposed
project and Highway 11 aren’t yet developed, the potential for similar projects is likely to occur.
Roadway access and safe circulation would be critical issues in future permit applications, so it’s
important we believe that this project set the appropriate minimum intersection standards. 2)
Secondary access to the project would be through a residential street in Parcel 42, which is Hu Ko
Pa, and Paulehia Street, a residential street in Pualani Estates. In addition to the more than 80
homes that are projected for Parcels 43 and 42, there are more than 40 homes in Pualani Estates that
are likely to use Paulehia Street to access Puapuaanui Street and its intersection with Highway 11.
Because that intersection is signalized and Hualālai Road is narrow and winding, we expect that
most of the traffic from Parcels 43, 42 and Pualani Estates intending to hit northbound on Highway
11 will use the Paulehia-Puapuaanui route rather than Hualālai Road. Indeed, the applicant’s own
traffic report forecasted 80 percent of the traffic from those two parcels will use the secondary
access through Paulehia Street. And this, of course, raises serious safety concerns because of the
many, many driveways on Paulehia Street; it’s a residential street.
I have two more points, very quickly. The applicant is, of course as you know, related to Hu Ko Pa,
and because the -.
BEAUDET: Excuse me, sir.
GIMPEL: Yeah.
BEAUDET: If you could wrap that up.
14
EXHIBIT B
GIMPEL: I’m wrapping it up.
BEAUDET: If I give everyone the privilege of a couple of more comments, then -.
GIMPEL: Okay, I’m wrapping it up.
BEAUDET: Yeah.
GIMPEL: The subterfuge of not applying to the state Land Use Commission for this approval
shouldn’t be rewarded because of their relationship. Finally, we know that the applicant’s assertion
that there aren’t any water conveyance systems like culverts present in or near the project is in error;
there is a drainage culvert at the southeast corner of the property, and the culvert borders the south
side of Parcel 42, which is owned by Hu Ko Pa. Thank you, and I’ll be happy to answer any
questions, if you have any.
COOPERSON: Could I use that microphone and address the map over there?
BEAUDET: Do you want to, would you prefer using the laser?
COOPERSON: No, that’s okay. I wouldn’t know how to use that anyway. My name is Joel
Cooperson. I’m a 44-year resident here in Kona. Of those 44 years I taught seventh and eighth
graders for 31 at Hōlualoa, and then when they switched over at Kealakehe, Kealakehe
Intermediate. Point I want to make is, and you’ve got my testimony over there and I’m not going to
review very much of it, but I do want to address a few things that maybe you are not aware of.
First, this whole section is 60 acres, and it was divided down into 14.95, 96, just under 15 acres,
which falls below the Land Use Commission scrutiny. It’s not a coincidence that that happened,
that some of it, which is at a pretty strategic spot, was sheared off and that’s where a water tank is
going to be located. Secondly, this is Sugar Cane, that’s Sugar Cane Lane, there is a road here that
they are talking about going through, and in talking to Barry Parker who is the developer of Sugar
Cane, which by the way are 20,000 square feet, that easement hasn’t been given; that road is not
approved for this particular subdivision, which reduces their ability to come onto Puapuaanui Street.
So, and all the lots in this area are 15,000-square foot, this is going to be 20,000 square feet,
minimum size here is 15,000 square feet, and they want to come in with the 15,000 PUD when
many of them are going to be 10,000 square feet. So basically, what they are doing is trying to ram
a subdivision that is a little bit not appropriate for that area. Down below, maybe, because of
Pualani; up there, all the lots are 15,000 square feet or more. Thank you.
ARCHIBALD: Good morning again. Andy Archibald. I’m a resident of Hualālai Colony. I would
like to share two nightmares with you. As an employee of the Department of Education of the State
of Hawai‘i, I’ve worked in the two school districts in West Hawai‘i for four years. I’ve watched a
school system ranked in the bottom ten percent of the country, and the school area ranked in the
bottom ten percent of the state. And every student you add to this district it’s going to burden an
already failing school system. If you would like my assessment, please ask me on your own time;
the nightmare takes more than three minutes.
Hualālai Road is unsafe at any speed currently. Every car you add to the road is going to increase
the burden of safety. Every time a utility pole goes down on the road, we are without phone, cable
or electricity for two to thirty hours. Every time a car accident occurs on the road, the people there
15
EXHIBIT B
have very few options. If we are trapped on Hienaloli Road by a car accident, our only egress is a
rather questionable looking pile of rocks with asphalt on it euphemistically referred to as a trestle.
Every time we cross the trestle, we are on lookout for Stephen King and a camera. Thank you.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments for the
testifiers? Thank you all. Next, I’d like to call up Mark Van Pernis, Tomoe Nimori, Tom Madson,
Mary Kay McInnis, Mac McInnis and Normita Error? E-R-R-O-R? May I ask each of you to
please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the
Hawai‘i County Leeward Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Like the first group, if you all could just introduce yourselves first, and
then we’ll start at the far right with the testimony.
MADSON: Tom Madson.
VAN PERNIS: Mark Van Pernis.
NIMORI: Tomoe Nimori.
M. K. McINNIS: Mary Kay McInnis.
M. McINNIS: Mac McInnis.
ERROR: Normita Error. I live in Kona Orchards.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Sir?
MADSON: Yes. I’d like to start my testimony by affirming that this is not a 15-acre subdivision,
other testifiers have done that; this is a 60-acre subdivision that is done 15 acres at a time to avoid
going through the extra scrutiny that’s required by the Land Use Commission and a very confident
survey of all conditions. There is proposed approximately 200 homes in all 60 acres that’s Lots 43,
42, 41 and 40. That equates to about 1,000 trips per day in additional use, and I can guarantee you
most of them are going to go up and down Hualālai Road, which is an unsafe substandard road.
Before my time runs out, I want to talk about Parcel 30, which Mr. Whittemore very wisely brought
up; I’m sure arrangements can be made for them to make the improvements along Parcel 30,
because the owner is one of the participants in this 60-acre development. And that’s very
important, Mr. Whittemore brought up that what is the point of improving Hualālai Road, if you do
a section here and a section there, and I’ve got the map, at the upper side and the lower side where
touches and leave the section in between on the most dangerous curve on that street. I have pictures
of, numerous pictures of accidents. Here is the latest, a telephone pole was knocked down recently,
and, you can look at them, if you would like. And not more than two months ago a car went off
Hualālai Road and into a tree and lodged, completely off the ground in a tree off the road. All the
guardrails on Hualālai Road are, thank God they are there, because they are all caved in by cars.
And there’s at least a dozen cars between Queen K and the intersection of Hienaloli, which is the
upper extent of this subdivision, that have just been abandoned; when they go off the road, they are
totaled, so they figure it might as well just leave them. One other thing that’s a little bit off the
16
EXHIBIT B
subject is, I’ll try to get up here, the applicant, right here is his property, their weeds grow ten,
fifteen feet tall. If you are coming up Hualālai Road here and want to make a left turn onto
Hienaloli, you stop, say a prayer, and pull out your gun and shoot yourself in the head and hope it’s
not loaded, because there is no way to see. I’ve tried with the County, the owner of the property,
about who is supposed to maintain visibility there, and the County says I don’t know, everybody
else, I even got out there with a hedge clipper one day it was so dangerous to make a left turn there.
That’s just one thing. I’m sorry my time is up, but I can say more. I’ll pass the microphone.
VAN PERNIS: What’s important is what the Planning Department didn’t tell you nor Mr. Lim has
not told you. In fact, there is a big question whether (inaudible) favorable recommendation, the
Planning Department did an independent investigation of all these things. Some developers play by
the rules, and it’s your job to make sure they all play by the rules. This property is part of a 60-acre
RS-10 development, consisting of four 15-acre lots, B, C, E, D, those are, there is a map attached to
Planning Director Yuen’s conditional approval of the consolidation-resubdivision. The
consolidation-resubdivision that’s by a Bolton entity, which was carried out to avoid the state Land
Use Commission process for a 60-acre development, by creating the false appearance of separate
lots of less than 15 acres, which is separately processed by you. Two of these lots are controlled by
Mr. James K. Schuler, the man who brought you condo vision a few years ago. The other two are
controlled by Mr. Barrett, Sr. through family entities, which is Hu Ko Pa.
There are major infrastructure problems for this 60-acre development, particularly on its makai end,
which is in the (inaudible). Thus the division of the property into slightly less than 15-acre parcels
to avoid the responsibilities of their 60-acre development, have the County and the tax payers pay
for that. Are you going to aid them in this scheme?
There are actually six lots. The additional two lots are mauka of the one along the highway,
controlled by Bolton. The border lot I think 30 that Mr. Whittemore and others referred to was
created as a result of this consolidation-resubdivision, and is under Bolton and the other owners’
control; so it’s logical that they also improve that particular part of the road.
Planning Director Chris Yuen saw this ploy when this scheme was brought before him for the
division of the 60 acres into 15-acre lots. And he in his tentative approval letter, having seen that,
imposed conditions. You can see that in my Exhibit A. And there was a development agreement
that controls all six lots, not just four, that binds Mr. Barrett, and which required that there be joint
development. It’s six lots, but four are going to be 60 acres. There is a 60-acre lot subdivision plan
blueprint. I’ve seen it, Mr. Barrett has it, Mr. Schuler has it, Mr. Schuler’s straw man, Mr. Cook,
has it, I’ve seen it. Why haven’t they produced it here? Why hasn’t the Planning Department
required that it be produced? You have a duty to comply with Mr. Yuen’s requirement, the
development agreement. Don’t excuse them from joint development.
Lastly, I note that under the Kona Community Development Plan and the LUPAG, they all say
ignore that. Half of this property is not supposed to be developed in this way, and they say ignore
because Planning Director Leithead Todd said ignore it. Well, she has been proven wrong in the
Missler case decided by Judge Ibarra. You have to consider it and comply. If they wanted to
comply with the LUPAG -.
BEAUDET: Sir, if you could wrap it up, please.
17
EXHIBIT B
VAN PERNIS: All right. Just basically the same project was rejected, failed before the Planning
Commission the last time; there is no substantial change. If you read all the written testimony, you
will see that. And all the adjoining properties are 20,000, half acre, or above. And you are here to
protect the community, not to service the individual developer. Thank you.
NIMORI: My concern regarding this rezo-.
BEAUDET: Excuse me, ma’am, one minute. The planning director would like to speak.
COMMAND: I’m sorry. This is a, I’m not asking you, Mark, Mr. Tucker, when you were talking
about driving up, I’m sorry, one of my feet is, I used to work in the Mayor’s Office, one of my feet
is still stuck in there, and so you brought up something, and I just want to clear up what you were
saying about coming up Hualālai and making a left turn to Hienaloli. Yeah, yeah, and you were
saying that as you stop there and you are looking right, you can’t see -.
MADSON: Cannot see any visibility right here. It’s totally blind, as you try to make a right turn.
And my other concern is that if you start building houses here, it will be permanently blind. So like
playing a Russian roulette, when you try to make a right turn here. And nobody knows who is
supposed to maintain this.
COMMAND: Okay, yeah, and I’m just talking about the existing conditions right now. You are
saying that the bushes are in the way when you look right.
MADSON: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMAND: Okay, thank you.
MADSON: You cannot see any cars for maybe 20 feet.
COMMAND: All right, thank you.
NIMORI: My concern regarding this rezoning request is density, which impacts and overburdens
school system. I beg to differ with the Planning Director’s statement that proximity to schools
would foster educational opportunities for students and the nearby community; please know that
this request is in the district of the Hōlualoa Elementary School. For the upcoming school year
there are 498 students enrolled with 24 students in each classroom. They cannot refuse anyone who
lives in the district. A nearby charter school can refuse students but has a waiting list. As a former
classroom teacher, I know that it is not possible to meet the individual needs of 24 children, each
with a learning style of their own. Academic achievement is affected. Children who succeed in
school are on their way to become responsible citizens in our community. In terms of cost to tax
payers, Hawai‘i is a state where property taxes are not used to fund school expenditures. Therefore,
all of us tax payers assume the responsibility of providing funding for schools, not property owners.
In 2009, the latest figures available, expenditure per student by the State was $12,399 and by the
federal government $2,189. Each additional student will cost $4,588 to the tax payer each year. In
addition, Hōlualoa School is a Title 1 school with 46.48 percent of students on the free lunch
program, which is funded by the federal government. Members of the Leeward Planning
Commission, I ask you to consider, No. 1, proximity to schools is not the only factor in fostering
18
EXHIBIT B
educational opportunities; 2, density affects academic achievement and cost to tax payers. Thank
you.
M. K. McINNIS: Good morning. If approved, the rezoning and PUD process will allow a total of
43 homes on this particular parcel. The land adjacent to the subject parcel has an approval of 53
lots and is owned by a family member of the applicant. If approved, this parcel combined with the
other three parcels makai will have a total of 200 homes, unless, of course, the approved rezoning is
amended again at a later date to provide for even smaller lots and greater density. The Hualālai
Partners proposal shows traffic from their proposed subdivision being dumped directly onto
Hualālai Road. To even consider using Hualālai Road as a point of egress and ingress is dangerous
and shows a lack of consideration for the public safety and wellbeing. Hualālai Road is a
substandard road by all accounts, a road with no shoulders, limited guardrails and poor sight
visibility. Now we are to expect additional cars and school bus to sue this road as well. Speaking
of the school bus, this increased density puts more pressure on our overburdened, under-funded and
understaffed schools. So who is going to pay for the road improvements to Hualālai when it
becomes even more dangerous because of the increased traffic or possible loss of life? Hualālai
Partners is already negotiating on what they are not going to do or improve. Who is going to pay to
expand and upgrade our school and hire more staff and teachers? Who is going to pay? Not the
developer. They have made their profit and have gone back to the mainland. The burden will fall
on the tax paying citizens. The same citizens who will have to deal with the traffic, the noise, the
congestion and, of course, the higher taxes. Thank you.
M. McINNIS: Good morning or afternoon whichever one it is. I’ve revised my testimony that you
all received, and want to make sure that you did get this survey. The parcel in question that
Hualālai Partners owns did not exist as a separate Tax Map parcel prior to December 2004; it was
part of an 84-acre tract of land owned by the Gomes Family Limited Partnership. It was created
along with five additional parcels by a Declaration of Agreement for Kahului 96-acre Consolidation
and Resubdivision Sub No. 2004-0120. This document was recorded on December 9, 2004. This
document was a condition of the Planning Department granting approval for the requested
consolidation and resubdivision of the 96 acres. This process started on April 8, 2004, per a letter
from Stanley A. Gomes to Chris Yuen, then planning director. The Declaration of Agreement
addresses the 96 acres in its entirety. It was a condition for future development, and rezoning is the
first step in the development process. It was created to prevent a fragmented development. That is
what is currently happening. The Planning Commission, the County Council and the County
Planning staff should look at the potential impact the entire 96-acre development will have on the
surrounding community. Commissioner Whittemore, you’ve addressed the question on Parcel 30
and the widening of Hualālai Road – very good question. The applicant does not control Parcel 30
– very good answer. The resolution of that is to treat the entire 96 acres as one development. I
respectfully request any rezoning or development action on Hualālai Partners’ parcel and other
parcels consisting of 96 acres be deferred until the property owners of these five parcels have
complied with the conditions as stipulated in the Declaration of Agreement. Thank you.
ERROR: Okay. I actually enjoy driving Hualālai Road. That’s kind of the reason we’ve lived here
for 19 years, and we love driving the curvy scenic road and all the kukui trees that are on our
property. And we were willing to pay more to live at the cooler 800-foot elevation with our
wonderful views of the ocean. Now, when Pualani Estates was developed, we were devastated by
the way the land was scraped away to look like a moonscape and developed to look like something
in the California suburbs – certainly not fitting for the charming rural entry to Hōlualoa. Surely, our
19
EXHIBIT B
Planning Department could envision something more fitting for this proposal before you, especially
since it is surrounded on three sides by properties consisting of at least half an acre or more. We
have met several times with Mr. Barrett and his family, and they are very nice people. But they tell
us that they have to squeeze in smaller lots on their land in order to make a profit on their
investment. Why should that be a factor when the result will be to lower our property values? Are
you going to be dictated by someone who does not even live in Hawai‘i, or are you going to listen
to the people who are already your constituents paying taxes and depending on you to do the right
thing to keep Hawai‘i a desirable place to live? Thank you.
BEAUDET: Mahalo, all of you. Commissioners, any questions or comments you want to share?
Thank you again. I will now call the next set of six individuals: Kit Kurtz, Linda Horgan, Carol
Fuller, Marie Aguilar, Virginia Tormey and Adegboyega OSun. I’d like to ask each of you to
please raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to this matter now before
the Hawai‘i County Leeward Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
BEAUDET: Thank you. If you could introduce yourselves from your right to the end, and then
begin testimony at the far right.
KURTZ: I’m Kit Kurtz. I live in Kona Orchards.
HORGAN: Linda Horgan. I live in Hualālai Colony.
FULLER: Carol Fuller, Kona Orchards.
AGUILAR: Marie Aguilar, Hualālai Colony.
OSUN: Adegboyega OSun, Kona Orchards.
TORMEY: Virginia Tormey, Kona Orchards.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Please begin your testimony.
KURTZ: My family moved to Hawai‘i Island in 1919, and I have lived adjacent to this proposed
development for about ten years. I’m a teacher in Hawai‘i schools, and definitely agree with the
former testimony about the school impact. Every year we just have less money, it’s amazing. But
I’m here today because I know that the Commission will uphold this mandate to protect the public
interest. Exception should not be easily made. For example, in the testimony supporting the
development, they said that the Planning Director interpretation that the parcel falls into the Urban
Expansion portion of the General Plan, when clearly half of it does not. I know that that might have
been an interpretation of awhile ago, but I think that we perhaps should reconsider that. These
issues should not be left to the court to decide. As Judge Ibarra said in a recent decision against the
Planning Department, he had some very good things to say; the director, and that was the former
director, may not defer decision making with regard to public natural resource trust to another
agency or to a future date. So every step along the way we need to consider everything. And he
said the director as officer of the County has a constitutional duty to consider and protect Hawai‘i’s
natural beauty and all its natural resources. And I think that applies to the Commission, too.
20
EXHIBIT B
Specifically, I’ve observed ‘io, the Hawaiian hawk, many times in the vicinity of this proposed
development. ‘Io has been on the endangered species list since 1967. Study state that there is only
about 1,100 individuals left in the wild, and they are at the maximum density for habitat; that means
that if you destroy habitat, ‘ios are dying. Anyway, the major threat to ‘io is subdivisions. And I
know the committee under the endangered species act and the court with Judge Ibarra’s ruling,
needs to consider this. Also I’ve seen pueo in the area, and they are territorial; if their territory is
destroyed, they starve.
On the subject of the substandard road, I’ll just be brief. A family member a couple of years ago
had an accident, the car was totaled. We were told that we should sue the County because of the
substandard road. We decided not to. But I believe increased usage really brings up a liability risk
for the County. Also, oh, well, then I’ll just back up. You’ve been told that this is four sections, not
one, and this has been presented as one section and attempt to confuse you. But it is your duty to
consider and protect Hawai‘i’s natural beauty and all the resources, as Judge Ibarra says. I support
preserving the County’s General Plan and its wisdom in designating this as agricultural land. The
court has stated it is your duty to preserve and protect.
HORGAN: Aloha. You have already heard from almost everyone about how this portion of
Hualālai Road is narrow and winding and hazardous for drivers and the brave or foolhardy few
walkers and cyclists who attempt to use it. I’d like to just add my experience in February 2012; the
inadequacy of the road and the number of cars that were already using it then was pointed out when
there was a large brushfire down below causing traffic to back up Hualālai Road all the way to
Hōlualoa, and many drivers, myself included, were caught in the traffic jam with no way to even
turn around, some sat immobile for hours, and had the wind changed and pushed the flames mauka,
I don’t really want to contemplate what might have happened. And unless and until Hualālai Road
is brought to a reasonable standard of safety, approving this proposal seems to me to be reckless and
irresponsible, and I would hope that you would deny this application as it now stands. Thank you.
FULLER: Aloha, and thank you for hearing us this morning. And I have my visual aids because I
didn’t have time to type anything up. And I apologize in advance for, I’m not really a techie, so it’s
kind of like cut and paste, so bear with me. Anyway – can we turn that off for a minute, or does it
have to be on?
ARAI: It’s off.
FULLER: Oh, okay, cool. Anyway, a lot of you may or may not have seen the sign at the bottom
of Hualālai Road, says “Hualālai Village 3 Miles,” and that’s the stretch of road that we are
discussing today. I know it’s crazy out there on the main highway, but when I turn up the road –
and I agree with you, Normita, I love driving up the old road, it gives me peace, serenity, I’m home
again – you turn off the crazy main road, and you are back in old Hawai‘i. Anybody that comes
here to visit, tourists are beckoned up to Hōlualoa Village. This is the gateway to the village up
there. Anybody that comes, I really recommend they go up and take a walk about up in the village.
People who live in this area, we take great community pride in the beauty. It started out as a little
donkey trail, I think you all know about that, it’s historic, the donkeys were padded on the rear and
off they went down with their coffee sacks. It evolved into a little jeep trail as mobility became
more prevalent. And now it’s a historic gateway to historic Hōlualoa Village.
21
EXHIBIT B
Here are some pictures. Some of you have been fortunate enough to go up the road. Yeah, it’s a
dangerous winding road, but it sure is beautiful, and decompresses me on my way home. Again,
there’s many, many mature monkey pod trees, royal poincianas, lots of old paniolo dry stack walls
up there, lots and lots of wild life and bird life up there. It’s beautiful, absolutely gorgeous, and I’m
proud to call it the way home for me. In fact, one of our local artists did this beautiful painting of
the road home, and it depicts so well, just getting off the main craziness and driving up through the
horses, the cows, and enjoying that. But with the lot of houses there, it’s not going to have the vibe.
So, anyway, you are welcome to look through those pictures.
Well, what happens when the mainland developers take a beautiful land? This is what’s happening
right now. I took my car yesterday on a little, little trip with my camera, and I took some pictures of
our area, how it’s developing. Basically, what they do is they take a bunch of rocks, lava rocks, put
them in a rock grinder for about a month, and all comes out to this ugly gray gravel. You’ve seen
the big pile there. Then they take the gravel and they grind it out into these big squares of land. Is
that pretty? Is that something people we want, is that what we want people to see? And then, they
put in row upon row of army-barrack looking houses. These are pictures I took yesterday. And
another thing, you know, talking about parks, what’s the developer going to do for – ah, the time’s
up. But I do have to show you one more thing. Talking about water conservation, all of you can
take a little drive this afternoon up there to this little, I guess they call it the corner lot, where they
are putting in a water tank, and you are going to see a water faucet that’s been running since July
th
4. So there is your water conservation and how people, how the developers, you know, take good
care of the land that they’ve been instructed to develop properly.
AGUILAR: Aloha. My testimony is similar somewhat to some other people here today, but I
would like to relay a conversation I had with the, I spoke with the Water Department engineer,
Ryan Quitoriano, and excuse me if I mispronounced it, but it’s written in my testimony, who
indicates that the two parcels will connect their roads together. They already are making plans to
use the water and road services for these parcels. According to the Department of Water Engineer
Department, they are planning on use of the water from Waiaha Supply and Storage. To date the
water supply is okay, but there is no indication that the next two 15-acre parcels will have the same
acceptance. If the water supply is not adequate, who will pay for the next water, parcel’s water?
Other tax payers? It’s, County of Hawai‘i is responsible all of the owners of each of the 15-acre
subdivisions coordinate all services, which include adjoining interior roads, road access, water
supply, sewer service cesspools and electrical service. When this project is complete, we’ll have
200 homes, which will be overtaxing Hualālai Road. I know everybody has talked about Hualālai
Road, and I would just like to say I agree that it is a very, it’s a very demanding road for your
attention. There is no way you can look off and look at something else, because if you do, you will
be off the road. And there are eight-inch shoulders, and there are some places there’s no shoulders
at all. And there’s, and it’s really strange; you can see part of the embankments that have no
guardrails and they have little posts. So the guardrails are somewhat even in our protected area, and
some of the areas don’t even have a guardrail. So in all estimation, this road is very substandard.
And we take this road because there are no other options. I don’t want to go through the other
planned development everyday, I like to go on Hualālai Road, and I find the beauty of it on each
day as I leave my work in Kama Palm (phonetic). Anyway, I wanted to say something about what
the engineer said. He said realistically there are 53 acres (sic) plus 43 acres (sic) being planned.
This is, this hearing is not about that, it’s not about 96 homes, but they are already talking to the
Water Department about 96 homes; so they already think that you guys are going to vote for it.
And I think that’s terrible. We have a right to give you our opinion and we are here today to let you
22
EXHIBIT B
know. It’s my opinion that these lots should stay in Agriculture. This is a very treacherous corner.
And as one of our testimony person said, if you put roofs in that area, you know, you are going to
have no sight at all at the Y, the Hienaloli Road; you won’t, you won’t even be able to see it. So I
think it should stay in Agriculture. Let the other guy develop his lots. And I’d like to say
something else here. I have been on Hualālai Road when there were floods, and the Hawai‘i
Highway Department comes out, and it may be at 11 o’clock at night, it might be at 6 o’clock, but
they come out and they close the road. That water, it flies over those gulches and it just completely
floods the road, you know. And we’ve gone airborne, I mean, water, I mean you can’t control your
car. It’s very dangerous. So there are times, and we don’t know when the flash flood will occur.
One day in November, I think, about seven or eight years ago, we had more than four inches of rain,
so it can happen. Also, I’d like to say and remember that Judge Ronald Ibarra has ruled against the
County of Hawai‘i because a PUD did violate the Kona Community Development Plan, it did not
allow the protection of natural resources and granted the application, he ordered that it had to go
back to the Planning Department, all developments had to comply with the Kona Community Plan.
BEAUDET: Ms. Aguilar, thank you. Thank you for your comments.
OSUN: I would like to just echo the statements of my other testifiers, concerning Hualālai Road.
I, too, consider it a very beautiful road, but the speed limit should be about five miles an hour as
opposed to higher. I have yet to see most of the cars on these blind, sharp, and radius curves stay
within their lines, and that includes me; you go a little bit faster than walking, and you are in the
other side of the road. And often there is another car there that is also about going in the other side
of the line. That’s said, dumping more traffic onto the road, would that really be a wise decision,
especially a lot more traffic, when those of us already using it have a problem at the current level of
volume? My other comment is on the proposal for the open space area being proposed on the side
of Hualālai Road that development requested, and it was said to be a ten-foot set aside. It’s so
difficult already to stay within your lane. Would you really want to have pedestrians, children, you
know, old people like me, walking on the side of the road where cars frequently go off the road
down in embankments and have accidents? It’s not really a wise idea, I think. Also, when you are,
Hualālai Road is an incline, very steep incline, so any physical activity you are doing on Hualālai
Road involve quite a bit of deep breathing, and with traffic going by you are deep breathing quite a
bit of nitro-, or, you know, not air, so you can get headaches and sicknesses from that. So that’s not
a good place really for that kind of open area. Thank you.
TORMEY: Aloha. Today I listen to the presentation of the developers, and they acknowledge that
there was community opposition, and then make comments that would lead you to believe they
really listened to the communities; they had meetings, six meetings, and responded to our concerns.
Well, I was at those meetings, and first off, I would like to say I don’t think it shows much respect
for our community at all to come up with a plan, rather elaborate plan involving setting up separate
LLCs and splitting the money and everything in order to circumvent a process the Land Use
Commission has in place that is part of what we expect in our community; these are rules and
regulations and procedures that are part of our community development. Well, they went elaborate
efforts to circumvent that. That’s not a show of respect. Secondly, yeah, we have meetings, I was
at several of those meetings, but nothing really happened based on our input. Slight changes. We
said we were concerned about open space, and we were concerned about a park; I don’t think ten
feet on the side of the road is a good place for kids to play, that’s not a park. I think that, you know,
we actually had all the ideas about how they could accomplish a development that would achieve
the goals of aesthetics and safety and convenience. We really at the meetings I was at, you know,
23
EXHIBIT B
people expected that there would be development, but we just wanted it to be done in a manner that
is consistent with the other neighborhoods. What we got as a response was, well, we can’t do that
because we can’t make a profit. You know what? I don’t buy it. There are mainland communities,
I’m very familiar with one near the Portland, Oregon area where the concerns of the community are
respected and where the rules of the community, that the community has in place are respected. I
believe that it is possible. I find it hard to believe that scores of developers and hundreds of
communities that have been done in a way that really respects the ‘āina, you know, cannot reap a
profit. So I implore you to take a step back. I mean, can’t this really be done in a way that provides
safety, that respects the concerns of the community, that honors the families who are to come here,
not only those of us who are already here but the families that will be here and will want to raise
their children in a place that’s safe and in a place that is beautiful? Mahalo.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any comments or questions of the testifiers? I thank all of you for
your comments. I have three more testifiers signed up here on the list: Cyrus Sabri, Cindy Coats
and Roya Sabri. May I ask for you to please raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Leeward Planning Commission? Thank
you. If you could introduce yourself from your right.
C. SABRI: My name is Cyrus Sabri, and I’m a resident and urban design professor. This morning -
.
BEAUDET: Sir, sir, I would like for all of you to introduce yourself first. Thank you.
R. SABRI: I’m Roya Sabri. I’m also a resident of Kona Orchards.
COATS: And I’m Cindy Coats. I’m a resident of Kona Orchards as well.
C. SABRI: Thank you. This morning we heard three cases, and two of them were dealing with
small parcels, and this third one is a large parcel. And the Planning Department has recommended
all three. In a large parcel like this, we have to respect the master plan, in this case the General
Plan, set by the planners. In the Plan the area in question is Agriculture, the zoning of it is
Agriculture. And we need, if we want to change that, we need a detailed plan. EIA, Environmental
Impact Study, what the concern of this community is ecological, scenic, will be addressed there, and
we lack that. I don’t know why the Planning Department, you know, deals with this as the same.
Okay, I understand there are two small parcels, but I do not understand when you have a slide in
there that you just draw some lines and says this is A-5 and that one is something else, and when
you go to the area, there is no difference, you don’t see a line; there is a large parcel. Okay, then
what happens if you change, what happen if you agree to change. One side of it is, a land that is
$25,000 an acre turns out to become $400,000 an acre, okay? Where does the money go? A part of
it should go to the infrastructure, okay, roads and water and so on, and some other parts of it should
go to school system, libraries and so on, which we are lacking completely in this case and it’s not
happening. The other day my wife was talking to me about when we drive up here, this is actually a
scenic road, and I agree with that. Scenic view and scenic qualities are intangible quality that this
community has. What should the Planning Department do about it based on these qualities they
should have a vision for the future of this community. When things like this come, if you have a
vision you would see this is against the vision that you are having, the quality of life, ensures the
quality of life for everybody, all the residents and everybody who lives here. And I’m so sorry to
see you are lacking the process. Thank you.
24
EXHIBIT B
R. SABRI: Hello. I’m a nine-year resident of Kona Orchards, a mile up Hualālai Road. I
graduated from Kealakehe High School two years ago and I’m now in college. I watched Pualani
Estates with Residential-7.5 zoning grow below my road. I was too young then to know that I had a
voice in the planning of my community, but now I’m grateful for this right and I’m happy to speak
today. I’m a neighbor to the subdivision in question, and I’m opposed to this rezoning from Ag-5 to
Residential-15. My two major concerns are safety and sense of place. The subdivision schematic
anticipating Residential-15 rezoning holds little insight into its context and little foresight into the
environmental and social implications. Considering safety, as others have said, adding traffic from
43 families from this almost 15-acre subdivision will place excessive pressure on Hualālai. This is
a narrow winding road with potholes and pits, and some of my friends choose not to drive on it even
now. The only direct outlet for the subdivision is onto Hualālai, and there will be another outlet
onto Hualālai from the adjacent subdivision just around the bend, adding traffic from another 62
families. At its top Hualālai Road touches the Māmalahoa Scenic Byway, but Hualālai hasn’t been
officially recognized as so, is also a scenic treasure. And this is a major reason why I prefer driving
up Hualālai despite its risks. Views through overhanging monkey pod trees, frequent rainbows
above the rodeo, and an occasional pig running in front of our car enrich my quality of life. But
these dreams can turn to nightmares with increased traffic. Pigs that run under fences and cross the
road can cause accidents, and more cars would distract and collide. And though I love the
rainbows, the road becomes even more dangerous with rain. Further, as County officers with the
constitutional duty to conserve and protect Hawai‘i’s natural beauty and natural resources, the
Commission is to consider the value of this land. Adding to the sprawl of a few thousand acre lots
below would increase the divide in character on the two sides of the road; above, half-acre
residential and acre Ag zone lots reinforce Hawai‘i’s sense of place; below, the proposed
development could have been cut and pasted from the no place of any American suburb. I hope that
the Commission will unfavorably recommend this rezoning in light of the safety and quality of life
of any resident or tourist that drives Hualālai. Thank you.
COATS: Again, my name is Cindy Coats and I have been a homeowner in the Kona Orchards
subdivision for 17 years, and I have my objections to the proposed rezoning of the property in
question. This will all sound a little redundant, because I think most of my neighbors and fellow
community members feel the same way I do, but I’ll still go over my little written testimony.
Living on Hualālai Road, as my property backs right up to it, I can tell you first hand the condition
of this narrow, winding road. Try as the County may to maintain it, the ground below it is
crumbling. So the talk about improving it or making it safer, making it wider, I don’t see how that
could possibly happen. Every curve and turn is a blind corner just waiting for an accident to
happen. These are the very reasons that the Lako extension was supported and finally completed to
ease congestion on Hualālai Road. This is also the very reason that the Puapuaanui Road was
required and supported and completed to ease congestion on Hualālai Road. To even entertain the
prospect of adding more traffic to this overburdened two-lane path is ludicrous at best. In August of
2007 my husband Barry ended up in the hospital after a gravel truck dumped a part of its load on
the road. Coming around the corner on his motorcycle, even at 25 miles an hour, he had no time to
react. There is no shoulder, very few places for guardrails, and all you have to do is look over the
side of the road to see the wreckage of all the cars that just couldn’t get out of the way in time.
Density is another issue. With that sort of density – and now it’s been revealed that we are talking
three times, four times, five times as many houses as we were initially talking about – with that sort
25
EXHIBIT B
of density, there is no hope whatsoever of saving any of the existing native vegetation and old trees,
and you expect this urban development to coexist with the rodeo grounds, tutus nursery, all of the
area residents who have chickens, people moving livestock from one pen to another, and the horses
on the road, again, crazy. It’s as if the developer is trying to sell the country life and selling out the
country life at the same time, because it’s not going to exist anymore. We haven’t begun to address
the upheaval of trying to level the rocky terrain. We could be talking years. But my biggest
concern about the proposed rezoning is that it will set a precedent. There are more than a few
developers out there, which we’ve just discovered are all related, that are waiting with baited breath
to turn the Hualālai Road corridor into an urban cityscape. They are waiting to see what you, the
Planning Commission, decides, and in turn what the County decides, because that will in turn open
the door for every single one of them to apply for rezoning. So then we would be talking about
hundreds of matchbook size lots.
It all comes down to what serves the community. As the former chairwoman of the Kailua Village
Design Commission, we were regularly asked to review zoning requests and to forward our
recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Ag zoning was put in place for a reason. It
serves the community well. The question has to be asked: How would this rezoning serve our
community? To add more traffic to an already overburdened road? To strip the native vegetation
so that the pueo that nests in that very spot will have to relocate? To add students to an already
overcrowded school? Or so that a mainland developer can cram as many small home lots as he can
get away with, as to maximize return on his money he will have to spend on infrastructure whether
it is rezoned or not. You know he’s counting on the County caving. But I can assure you that we
the members of the community will not. Thank you very much.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any questions or comments? Thank you very much for your
thoughtful comments. Before we close this public hearing segment, are there anyone, I’m at the end
of my list that was provided to me, so if there is anyone left in the audience who wishes to
comment, please sign your name and come up to the front. Can you help her? Okay, please raise
your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County
Leeward Planning Commission?
HUSSEY: I do.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Please state your name.
HUSSEY: My name is Barbara Hussey. I actually live in Pualani Estates. I live in Pualani Estates,
and I do live one street over from Puapuaanui. And in the capacity I’ve lived in Pualani Estates
now for about four years. And Puapuaanui, the punch-out is just, I don’t know, it just makes me
kind of crazy thinking about it, because we have so many issues already on Puapuaanui. I don’t
know if any of you have been up there, but, you know, like Lako Street, it’s almost like a 45-degree
angle. We also have a lot of blind spots on the road, so as a community person that lives in our
community, we’ve had quite a few occasions when we’ve been out, you know, trying to get people
just holding up signs, “Slow Down,” “25 Miles an Hour.” And because the punch-out just seems
like such an additional amount of traffic that would come down, we’ve had accidents on our road
also, and I just wanted to reiterate that the punch-out isn’t such a great idea for those of us who live
in our community, too. I mean I appreciate the beauty of the countryside, but those of us that do
live in the community that has a lot of traffic already, because it is a community, to have additional
26
EXHIBIT B
traffic and not any kind of additional regulation of speed or blind spots or anything to be addressed,
I just wanted to say that that’s an issue for me, too. Mahalo.
BEAUDET: This now concludes the public hearing portion of this meeting. I would now like to
call the applicant forward to respond and comment. Thank you. Before the applicant continues
with any commentary, I have asked Daryn to just share a couple of bits of information for our
community members just to bring awareness to some of the process. Daryn?
VAN PERNIS (in the audience): Will we be able to testify again on this new information?
BEAUDET: The public hearing portion of, segment of the hearing is closed.
VAN PERNIS: Should that have been part of the original presentation? We have new information.
The original presentation (inaudible).
BEAUDET: I’m not understanding your question, but we are going to move forward with this
segment of the meeting now. Thank you, Daryn, if you can proceed.
ARAI: Okay. First of all, the Chairman wanted me to bring to everyone’s attention that as part of
the Director’s recommendation, that includes a condition S as in Sam, which is located on Page 3 of
the Director’s recommendation report regarding the change of zone, it speaks to the applicant
making its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts caused by the proposed
project with respect to park and recreation, fire services, police services, solid waste disposal
facilities, as well as roadways. Basically, an amount is assigned to each proposed lot or
single-family residential unit; that value is $13,081.99 per single-family residential unit proposed by
the applicant. As you may recall, the applicant is proposing a 43-lot or basically 43-unit residential
subdivision. So when the subdivision is being processed by the Planning Department, should this
change of zone be approved, that amount will have to be paid prior to the issuance of final
subdivision approval. And those monies will be utilized on the various facilities regionally that I
mentioned, and again that was park and recreational improvements and facilities, police, fire, solid
waste and wastewater and, I’m sorry, and roads.
As far as the Kona Community Development Plan, the particular program was developed under the
prior administration, Harry Kim’s administration, if I remember correctly, and I believe close to a
million dollars was spent to develop the program. And the program was not developed in a
vacuum; it was actually developed with a significant amount of community input. Numerous
meetings were conducted by the Department, as well as by the consultants hired by the County, to
prepare the documents. They went through a series of public meetings, as well as meetings before
the Leeward Planning Commission, and ultimately it was adopted by ordinance by the County
Council. And that plan is what basically drives a lot of the recommendations that have come before
you. As you may recall, there were two projects; this is the subject property here outlined in black,
this is the Hu Ko Pa project, which did receive its rezoning to Residential zoning designation back
in 2010. And as you may note, there are two additional lots here, both of them just under 15 acres
in size. I believe, if I remember correctly, the lot on just makai of Hu Ko Pa was, the applicant’s
name I think was Brian Cook, and the one adjacent to the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway was JKS.
They came in for similar type of Residential zoning, and when the Planning Department assessed
that request, while we did support and recommend approval of the State Land Use boundary
amendment from Ag to Urban, the Department could not support its change of zone to a Residential
27
EXHIBIT B
zoning district, and the reason being is because of its location. It actually falls within an area
designated as a Transit Oriented Development. It also is located within the concurrency zone that is
defined by the Kona Community Development Plan, which requires a regional roadway
improvement before any rezoning can be approved. So those things were weighed, and the
adherence to the Kona CDP, we offered an unfavorable recommendation to the Commission, and
the Commission therefore issued an unfavorable recommendation as well on those two particular
projects. So it’s clear that our actions and our recommendations to the Commission is driven by the
interpretation of the requirements of the Kona CDP.
VAN PERNIS: Can we testify on this new information? When is the subdivision (inaudible) going
to be made?
BEAUDET: Excuse me, sir. We are not here to discuss a subdivision application; we are here to
discuss a rezoning application. The information that I asked Daryn to explain was just to reiterate
some of the information that was provided earlier today. I felt it was important for our members of
the public to understand part of the decision making format that we actually have to go through. So
this is not new information; this information was just given with a little bit more detail, and it’s not
information to be testified on.
VAN PERNIS: He indicated how much of the assessment was -.
BEAUDET: It’s all part of the public documents, sir, so thank you, if we can be respectful of the
applicant as well. I’d like -.
VAN PERNIS: Is the subdivision that’s going to be approved -.
BEAUDET: For them to move forward with their comments. So, if the applicant can please, the
floor is open for you.
LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to allow my client to testify to some of the factual
issues that were raised in the public testimony, then I’ll go into my final presentation.
L. BARRETT: I would just like to comment about some of the 21 members that did come up here
and protest against us, that I believe the ownership issue was also a big one, and would like to note
that Ted Barrett has no relation to the Hu Ko Pa project. At the time it was himself and another
developer getting into the upper parcel, Hualālai Partners, and my brothers and I with the other
developer into the lower one. And we had to buy him out because of the recession coming in and
he wanted out, so we ended up doing that, so there is the relation with that. My mom and dad have
had a home here on the island down in Kealakekua for over 20 years, so, to say that we are just
coming in and trying to get as many lots as we can, we don’t feel that that’s warranted, either; that’s
kind of a personal attack that we don’t think is very fair to either us or to my dad. I believe
someone spoke about the adjacent, all adjacent properties are 20,000-square foot lots, and that is not
true, because Hu Ko Pa below is zoned RS-10. And the 20,000-square foot lots, I believe, is zoned
with a CPD, so I don’t think it allows for smaller subdivision lots, and that’s for the Hualālai
Heights. Also, and I think Mr. Arai spoke about the 30 acres owned by Mr. Schuler and the 30
acres owned by Ted Barrett, and I think that’s a non-issue now. And in keeping with the
three-minute rule, I will give up my spot and I will let my brothers talk about this.
28
EXHIBIT B
A. BARRETT: I would like to address some of the concerns about just dealing with the
homeowners and trying to work with them. As you’ve seen in the meeting today, we’ve gotten
several conflicting stories on what they would like to see; some people like the natural road of
Hualālai going up and others say it’s a complete death trap. We’ve tried to work with concerns on
the homeowners. As far as Hualālai Road is concerned, we feel that we are going to improve the
road. There is a portion of the roadway that abuts to the property that we are asking for rezoning,
and we are going to develop that, we are going to improve the portion of the road. As developments
go further down, I believe that’s the County’s responsibility to make the future developers do their
portion as well. As far as the schools are concerned, my wife was also a teacher, so I understand the
concern with the schools and the school districts. The way that the lots are going now, though, is
there will be very few families in this area; it will be mom and dad and their kid would be on
somewhere else. I don’t think, I don’t know how many families can afford an $800,000 house to
buy into. So I think that, you know, is going to be limited as well. And also with those families,
those are going to be the families that are going to be helping up the schools. I know I personally
spend hundreds of dollars a year on my kids’ schools in the mainland. So I think that also is going
to be to help with the matter. I’d like to go back to say that, you had mentioned that we are coming
in for a rezoning application. We have not done engineering drawings yet; we don’t know exactly
where the shoulders are going to go, how far they are going to go in, we will take care of that on the
engineering process. The engineering drawings cost a lot of money to do. The first step to get this
done is to go in for the rezoning application, which is why we are here now. If we can get the
rezoning application, then the next step would be to go in and have the drawings engineered for
proper shoulders and turn lanes and all that, so.
R. BARRETT: I really don’t have anything to add. Everybody said, all the comments and concerns
were talked about.
BEAUDET: Any comments or questions from the Commission?
WHITTEMORE: Brandi?
BEAUDET: Go ahead, Tom.
WHITTEMORE: It was brought up, I think one of the testifiers earlier had mentioned that, or made
reference to there not being any agreement on the parcel, I think it’s Lot 22, adjacent, immediately
south of your project. Do you have an agreement, an easement agreement or whatever, with that,
those landowners at this point?
LIM: No agreement with the Parcel 22 to the south. That’s part of the Kona CDP connectivity
roadways, and when that developer comes in, I am sure that Public Works is going to make him put
the roadway in.
WHITTEMORE: So your project doesn’t move ahead until that’s done.
LIM: No, we have access out onto Hualālai Road.
WHITTEMORE: Okay, okay, that clarifies one of my questions there.
A. BARRETT: Excuse me, can I address that as far as roadway is concerned?
29
EXHIBIT B
WHITTEMORE: Yeah, please.
A. BARRETT: As far as the access coming onto Hualālai Road, with the open space that the
homeowners have requested, several of the homeowners have requested the open space, that is
going to alleviate a lot of the, probably all of the sight distance issues. People can maintain the
25-mile an hour speed limit. And that will address all the concern.
WHITTEMORE: I think on the portion perhaps maybe where your property is, but Hualālai goes
much further south, or makai, so -. I hear what you are saying.
BARRETT: Is that -. Okay.
WHITTEMORE: Yeah. You know, I actually, with the sight distance question, one of the things
that, I think the comment was made in your representation that the dedication towards open space
was going to be a greenbelt on the highway. Already we’ve heard some concerns about the height
of some of the weeds or whatever on the roadway there that aren’t going to be as high as even trees
or any planting there. So I don’t know whether, you don’t want to be planting obviously anything
in that space that’s going to obstruct any kind of view, because obviously that’s a concern. So, one
last question, the project, there was representation, the values that you anticipate, the sale price or
the value is around $800,000?
A. BARRETT: On the high-end probably.
WHITTEMORE: On the high-end? This is with the PUD?
A. BARRETT: Yes.
L. BARRETT: This is for a house-lot package, right?
A. BARRETT: Yes.
WHITTEMORE: Yeah, okay.
A. BARRETT: Pualani is selling now in the mid-4’s. And those are for 7,500 -.
ARAI: Microphone.
A. BARRETT: Excuse me. I’m sorry.
BEAUDET: Thank you. So I have a question. I don’t know if this is for Public Works or for
Planning, but with the multitude of concerns centered around traffic safety on Hualālai Road, you
know, this applicant only accommodates a certain portion of the entire road, yeah, from Queen
Ka‘ahumanu up to Hōlualoa. So does the County, you know, with the increase of urbanization and
population and, I mean we don’t see any decreases coming in the future, is there any plan from the
County standpoint on increasing the width of Hualālai Road to accommodate our population
growth? Or are we just relying on future development or landowners that directly impact the road
30
EXHIBIT B
to accommodate that? Because most of the road is already developed already, so we cannot go back
to previous development. I just wanted to open the dialogue up.
COMMAND: I’ll try and attempt to answer your question. Yes, there are plans to improve
Hualālai Road. Now, where that ends up on our priority list is depending on a number of factors,
including priorities of the administration, priorities of the County Council, all the way down to how
much money we have and how much we are able to borrow. It also has to do with the Plan, the
Kona Community Development Plan. Obviously, people who develop along the roads have to pay
their, or have to contribute their share to improvements of Hualālai. Anyone else want to add
anything to that?
ARAI: Hualālai is I think at minimum a collector or that type of roadway, and the collector
roadway standards are about 60 feet wide. Granted that’s an existing substandard roadway, but then
the County in managing growth through rezoning, such as this, always strives to improve existing
facilities to at least meet those standards. You see these type of situations where there is a
piecemeal approach to enhancement of existing facilities. If the County had all the money in the
world, great, we could build it and I guess they will come; but in the absence of that type of
available funding, we do look for opportunities where, as applicants’ proposed developments along
a particular alignment, that at very least their frontage gets improved to a higher standard. You see
it in numerous rezonings that have come before you where we’ve asked curb, gutter, sidewalks be
provided where none exist now. And granted, you know, it’s difficult to place the burden of
improving, I’m not sure the entire alignment of, or the entire length of Hualālai Road would be too
much of a burden to place it on any single developer. But we do ask that they provide their basic
like fair share, which is typically to improve the frontage of their property, as well as to offer their
fair share contributions that I mentioned earlier, that can go into these types of regional
improvements when the monies get all pooled together to hopefully improve a greater alignment.
BEAUDET: Any more comments from the Commissioners?
WHITTEMORE: Can I ask just one more question?
BEAUDET: Sure.
WHITTEMORE: I just, I think it was Mr. Van Pernis -.
ARAI: Microphone, please.
WHITTEMORE: Excuse me. See even I need to be trained. I think Mr. Van Pernis made
reference to there being, or having seen a master plan for all the property there, being the four
contiguous lots going mauka-makai. Are you aware of, have you ever seen this map that’s alleged
to have been done, a master planning? Any of you folks as developers?
L. BARRETT: A master plan, by all of us collectively, no. We’ve had Mike Riehm draw a map for
the top lot, and he’s also drawn a map for the bottom lot. And we’ve seen what they applied for,
but we don’t have a map of all of them together, and we certainly never collaborated that.
WHITTEMORE: Oh, okay.
31
EXHIBIT B
A. BARRETT: Can I make comment on that?
WHITTEMORE: Yeah.
A. BARRETT: We’ve also, we haven’t seen a collective map for all the parcels, but we have
coordinated to figure out, along with Ki Emler, to figure out where the roadways are going to go,
where the utilities are going to go, just to make sure that we do have connectivity. So we’ve
worked together with them to make sure that, you know, roads are not stubbed out in the middle of
somebody’s backyard and the sewer isn’t dumped out in somebody’s front yard. So as far as that’s
concerned, we’ve worked with the surrounding property owners to make sure that there is
connectivity.
LIM: Should I finish up my presentation, and then, or do you have any more questions?
BEAUDET: Any more questions? Okay, so if you can summarize.
LIM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. As you can see, the
project is controversial. We’ve got impact concerns by the neighbors. I think that unless we see
federal funding come down to improve Hualālai Road, that you are going to probably see the only
time it gets improved is through the efforts of the adjoining property owners. So we are one of
those adjoining property owners, and we will improve, we have agreed to improve the Hualālai
Road frontage, to increase the right-of-way, and to narrow out some of those blind corners,
hopefully. We’re are going to, you know, we haven’t our detailed engineering, but if you are
familiar with Hualālai Road, the area kind of drops off into the property, so widening out the
right-of-way is going to be, you know, a challenge for us, but we are up to that task. And I think
that for purposes of this proceeding, you know, we’ve heard what the Commission’s concern is is
that the portion of the Hualālai Road improvements that we are agreeing to do do not include the
portion of Hualālai going around Parcel 30, the water tank site. I’ve talked to my clients to see if
there is something we can do about that, because we understand that that’s an issue that you
wouldn’t want to see where there is a gap in the improvements. We also have problems with the
fact that we would undertake all of these improvements, as Mr. Arai said, and, you know, we have
concerns that we cannot promise you that we can do the work; what we can promise is that we can
pay one-sixth of the cost of construction for the improvements to Hualālai Road that would have
normally occurred around Parcel 30, because we can control a payment issue, we cannot control
construction because we don’t own the land. And we are saying one-sixth because of the six lots
that you see from Hualālai going makai, those are the six lots everybody has been talking about. If
you can impose that on all the other six lot owners as they come in, then that would be a fair
resolution, I think, in terms of how to get that done. So we are willing to propose that to the
Commission as a means of addressing the work and continue that road improvement around Parcel
30.
So, in any event, let me finish up. The Planning Commission, as you hear often from your
corporation counsel, is required to consider the General Plan and the Kona Community
Development Plan. In this particular case we’ve got impact concerns raised by neighbors; however,
the Kona Community Development Plan and the General Plan both mandate that the Kona Urban
Area, Urban Expansion Area and the General Plan’s Urban Expansion Area are directing growth to
this particular area, and we fall within the redline, the Kona Urban Area. The Kona CDP was set up
so that you would encourage growth, you would encourage infrastructure development, the County
32
EXHIBIT B
is supposed to pay for 100 percent of all the roadway improvements for the TOD and TND projects
under the Kona CDP. And this is the place that development is supposed to go. The Kona CDP
was discouraging development outside, or rezonings outside of the Kona Urban Area. My
particular read on the Kona Urban Area, how it notched down into the property, is, I think if you
look at it in big picture-wise, is my guess is that that red line is supposed to be up where Hualālai
Road is and, Hienaloli Road is, excuse me, because that makes sense, I mean, if you look at all the
development around there. The scale of the mapping at that time, which they took this base map off
of was so broad that I think that the red line is actually supposed to be up on Hienaloli and Hualālai
Road. So the Kona Urban Area is slated for development, and that’s what the people voted for and
that’s what the Council approved. This is within the Kona Urban Area. If you are not going to
allow this one, I don’t know what else project you should allow. We are trying to address the
drainage; we are going to be doing more than our fair share and taking care of the drainage coming
down. It’s coming down today. You heard one of the residents say they almost got washed off the
road. That’s the drainage that we are going to try to catch in our drainage basins and our drywells.
So these are the types of improvements and benefits to the County that I think make it important for
the Planning Commission to approve this project. We are going to have traffic impact just like
everybody else, but I think that we come with the benefit of getting an improvement to what we’ve
been hearing is a very dangerous road today even without the project. If the project doesn’t go, you
know, I don’t know when Hualālai Road is going to get improved by the County.
So I guess the other issue that was raised was the 15-acre LUC issue, fragmented development, and
that is the big complaint when you hear the issue. But when you look at what has been done here
where we are coordinating roadways, water, drainage, you know, all the other things that would be
coordinated normally whether we went to the LUC or not, I think that that’s the answer to the issue.
Had we come in and not connected to the other roads or not connected up our water, sewer and
drainage to the other projects, then different story, but this is all happening. And we’ve worked for
several years. Like I said, they’ve spent a large amount of money on a drainage study that’s in its
fourth version and I think pretty much ready to go; we just have to finish the rezoning process in
order to get Public Works to get us the final approval on the report. So I think that the Planning
Commission has a hard decision. You’ve got next door neighbors objecting to the development
with impact concerns. We think we will satisfy those concerns by doing the project; we think those
concerns are going to remain the same, if you don’t do the project essentially. So on balance we
think it’s better that the project gets approved and gets built and Hualālai Road gets improved to a
safer condition. Thank you very much. We appreciate your consideration. We’d like you to
consider the offer to pay for one-sixth of the cost of improving Hualālai Road fronting Parcel 30 as
a means for us to pay our fair share on something that, you know, we understand is an issue. We
don’t have the power to construct anything there, but we can help to pay for that. And maybe
Public Works with the help of the other developers in the area can get enough money to do that.
BEAUDET: Thank you.
COMMAND: Mr. Chairman?
BEAUDET: Yeah.
COMMAND: I just wanted to add one more bit of information regarding Hualālai Road. In the
Kona Community Development Plan, Chapter 5, Action Plan, on the funding list for transportation
projects, Hualālai does not appear anywhere on the top 16, all 16 projects listed on here. However,
33
EXHIBIT B
Hienaloli Street, which is the road, the T part of the road, is listed on here as is an extension of Nani
Kailua to Hienaloli. If you go back to the map there – the one before that will work, so anywhere
where you see Hualālai, yeah – exactly right there at the intersection, Hienaloli goes over up north
to Nani Kailua, that is on the list as our priority project in the Kona Community Development Plan,
as is improvements to Nani Kailua coming up from Queen K.
BEAUDET: Any discussion?
NELSON: I just wanted to ask you if this, if I’m hearing it right, there is nothing on the plans for
the immediate future for improving Hualālai from Queen K up to the junction.
COMMAND: It’s not in the Action Plan of the Kona Community Development Plan, yes.
BEAUDET: Daryn, the suggested additional condition with regard to Parcel 30, is that up for
consideration or, I mean, can we impose that obligation on future development or this is not the
right forum for that?
ARAI: I believe it is always a consideration. Whether, I’m trying to count the number of lots, but,
does the one-sixth include the Hu Ko Pa project?
LIM: That’s correct.
ARAI: Well, that has pretty much left the gate, I mean the zoning is in place, so I don’t know how
retroactively we can impose something upon them. But be that as it may, it is a consideration. Just
be aware that a one-sixth contribution when you don’t know when the others will come on line, I
mean, I’m just thinking about the cost, you know, how you assess the cost, how you determine
one-sixth, and how do you apply it in a fair share way. And then it all goes, you have to assess what
you are trying to mitigate; if you see a need for something that needs to be mitigated, then does the
one-sixth payment take care of that? You know, it’s a sensitive area, so that’s why I’m trying not to
lead too much, but I just want to put that thought in your head. But I do believe it requires a lot
more discussion.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, more discussion?
NELSON: Mr. Chairman, call for the question.
EMLER: It’s been represented here that Public Works is ready to approve a drainage study by the
applicant’s representative, and I do agree that we have gone through several iterations of a drainage
report; however, we have not approved it. It’s been represented that we are ready to do so upon
approval of the rezoning. What was outstanding upon our completed review on the last iteration
was that we were still concerned about coordination with adjoining property owners, because the
proposal is to change the drainage pattern of the drainage that comes from offsite through the
property, which they are proposing to address, but because there is a change in the drainage pattern,
that has to be worked out with the adjoining property owners. So I haven’t seen any firm proposal
for that. That was the outstanding issue that I had. So I wanted the Commission to know that since
it was represented here.
34
EXHIBIT B
LIM: I’m sorry for misrepresenting that, Ki. Perhaps what I should do is to make at least for
statement for the record our proposed amendments to the conditions that you have in front of you,
so that at least is in the record. So the two conditions that we talked about today were Condition I,
that’s the one about Hualālai Road and this is how it would read: “The applicant shall provide
improvements to Hualālai Road along the entire frontage of Parcel 43 and transitions consisting of,
but not limited to, grading, pavement widening, resurfacing, drainage improvements, and any
relocation of utilities, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.” – new
sentence – “The applicant shall also pay one-sixth of the cost of the above Hualālai Road
improvements fronting Parcel 30.” The revision to Condition S, which is the fair share
contribution, is all the way at the end of the condition, and it starts out with the portion of the
paragraph that says, “The applicant may receive a credit against the fair share contribution required
for the road and traffic improvements in the amount of the costs of land and construction of the
improvements to Hualālai Road described in Conditions H and I respectively herein.” – new
sentence – “The applicant shall also receive a credit against the fair share contribution required for
the road and traffic improvements in the amount of the costs of land and construction of the
improvements to Hualālai Road for the difference in cost between a private road and the ‘minor
street’ dedicable standards for the extension of Pualena Street within the project to Hualālai Road.”
Thank you.
BEAUDET: Question for Daryn. Would that type of language be acceptable? This is not a vote,
I’m just, just a formality, the format of the language that has been offered.
ARAI: You are talking about all three proposals, right?
BEAUDET: Yeah.
ARAI: I think the proposed amendment to Condition I regarding improvements to Hualālai Road,
specifically along the frontage of Parcel 30, which is the proposed water tank site, I understand the
concern, maybe the best way I can phrase this is by accepting the applicant’s proposed amendment
to this particular condition, it’s going to exclude Parcel 30, the improvement of Hualālai Road along
the entire frontage of Parcel 30. So what you end up with basically is improvements to – I wonder
if I have a better map, maybe not – what you basically have is maybe, I mean, improvements along
this portion of Hualālai Road closest to Hienaloli Street intersection and maybe just a touch over
there, but this section here that kind of runs away from the project boundaries will not be improved.
So that’s where some of the testifiers have expressed concern about a disjointed approach. But I
also recognize the applicant’s concerns about not being able to, it’s not their property, you know, I
mean how do you make a demand to improve someone else’s property, especially the frontage. But
with all that being said, it’s not like it has not been done before, I mean that’s all I can say, you
know, there have been situations where the Commission, and ultimately the County Council who
has approved rezonings in the past as said if you want this project, you have to find a way to widen
it and do certain improvements, even if it extended beyond the project site boundaries. It doesn’t
happen a lot, but it has happened. So if you are going to make it a requirement or keep the
condition the way it is, it has to be in realization that the applicant will have to negotiate with
another landowner, and their ability to be successful in their negotiations will have a direct bearing
on their ability to proceed with their own development.
35
EXHIBIT B
LIM: My comment on that is that I’ve never been in favor of that, because then you just hand the
property owner of, you know, to just say how much do you want, and the price all of the sudden just
went up because it’s required of us.
ARAI: Something, I hope this doesn’t complicate the discussion, but I really, really hope it helps, is
that I did a real quick calculation on the fair share component, and the fair share, as I mentioned, is
typically to provide their contribution toward regional impacts, and what I see as far as the Parcel
30 improvement, it’s regional, because it doesn’t front their property. That being said, a per-unit
assignment for roadway improvements, road and traffic improvements is $5,605.09 per
single-family residential unit; that means if 43 units or lots are proposed, you’ll end up with a total
of $241,018.87, I believe, that can be assigned towards regional traffic improvements. So I guess
where I’m going with this is that that fair share obligation on the applicant can actually be credited,
saying, look, you’re supposed to pay $241,000-somewhat dollars for regional improvements;
instead of making the payment to the County, why don’t you put it towards the improvements
fronting Parcel 30. That’s just something I want you to be aware of, when you deliberate.
BEAUDET: The option is available to be considered, right?
ARAI: Correct.
WHITTEMORE: Brandi, can I ask a question?
BEAUDET: Go ahead.
WHITTEMORE: Daryn, while you are up there. Not being familiar with the approval that
occurred on Lot 42 below, that subdivision, what were the roadway requirements there? And was
there a credit given for -?
ARAI: My apologies, I should have mentioned it earlier. Even I don’t have a copy in front of me, I
think, but I passed out earlier an ordinance, and I think it’s 10-2, and it’s actually the change of zone
ordinance for the makai Hu Ko Pa lot. That is – oh, here it is – the reason that was passed out at the
beginning of the meeting was in anticipation that there may be discussions on the, regarding what
happened at Hu Ko Pa. So if you were to locate the particular ordinance, again, it’s 10-2, and the
applicant, that one also has a fair share contribution, and it also has Condition E, wait, have you all
found it? Okay, if you are all with me, Applicants, do you have Ordinance 10-2? There is a
Condition E, which does speak to, which does speak to the realignment of portions of the property
line along the entire Hualālai Road frontage meeting with the approval of the Department of Public
Works and dedication of that additional right-of-way to the County upon its, let’s see, dedication to
the County, let’s see, so that condition talks about basically realigning to improve segments of
Hualālai Road. The following Condition F as in Frank also speaks to the improvement of the entire
frontage along Hualālai Road, including grading, pavement widening, drainage improvements, and
relocation of utilities, meeting with the approval of Public Works. A very similar condition to that
is also included in your recommendation regarding the Hualālai Partners rezoning. And looking at
the location map -.
WHITTEMORE: Excuse me, so there was no credit given as being, as being looked at?
36
EXHIBIT B
ARAI: No, because, and maybe the applicant’s representative can correct me, if I’m wrong, but Hu
Ko Pa is kind of just going through some of their entitlement process now; they have their zoning,
but they haven’t actually done the subdivision itself yet. So there is nothing to credit now, because
they haven’t actually done the work to improve Hualālai. But I should note that in the fair share
condition for Hu Ko Pa, which is Ordinance 10-2, and that will be Condition T as in Tom, if you
look on Page 7 of that ordinance at the last paragraph, one of the last sentences says, it says, “The
applicant may receive a credit against the fair share contribution required for the road and traffic
improvements in the amount of the costs of land and construction of the improvements to Hualālai
Road and the north-south connector road described in Conditions D, E and H …,” and D, E and H
are basically additional, if I remember correctly, roadway improvements required of Hu Ko Pa.
BEAUDET: You’ve got the answers you needed?
WHITTEMORE: No.
BEAUDET: So your question is if Hu Ko Pa actually received the credit for any work that they had
done.
WHITTEMORE: Right.
BEAUDET: The answer is no, because they haven’t done anything.
WHITTEMORE: Not yet, right.
BEAUDET: Not yet.
WHITTEMORE: Right.
BEAUDET: But their commitment in accordance with the conditions of the ordinance is that they
improve Hualālai Road to the extent that their property boundary touches Hualālai Road.
WHITTEMORE: It’s a much smaller section.
BEAUDET: Yeah.
WHITTEMORE: Yes, I understand.
BEAUDET: Okay. Thank you. That’ll be all. Okay, so, I would like to call on the Commissioners
if there is further discussion that is desired between us. The public hearing of, the portion of this
meeting is now closed, so we can have open discussion here at the table. If there are concerns you
guys want to discuss, if there are issues that you want clarity on, this is now the time to have the
discussion, yeah?
HICKCOX: Mr. Chair, if I may. After going through all of this process, you know, just to kind of
put things in perspective, into perspective I guess is the way to say it, is that our role as the
Commission at this juncture is acting as a recommending body to the County Council in reference
to this particular application, correct?
37
EXHIBIT B
BEAUDET: Correct.
HICKCOX: Then along those lines, there were recommendations in reference to the conditions as
set forth in the Planning Director’s recommendations, made by the applicant addressing the
conditions that were made by the Planning Director. Is that correct?
BEAUDET: Correct.
HICKCOX: And as a result of that, we have not received any commitment and/or further input in
reference to the actual resolution of those recommendations made by the applicant from either
Public Works or anybody for that matter at this juncture.
BEAUDET: Yes.
HICKCOX: So, and the fact that there has been numerous testimony from the county in reference
to safety concerns along Hualālai Road, I understand also the fact that within the purviews of the
statutes that apply to this, that the applicant has all of the right to apply for what he is applying for
now, a special use permit, etc., not a special use permit, but the, yeah, the boundary amendment and
the rezoning; so I think before we can even start to make a decision on this, we need to find out
further clarification from Public Works in reference to which way they are going to go with this, as
far as the recommendations are concerned. There is representation made by both sides in reference
to the sewage issues and stuff, so I’m, at this juncture, I am thoroughly concerned and confused, and
I personally would like to have, you know, more clarification presented to the Commission prior to
making any decision. Thank you.
BEAUDET: Okay. So as far as the sewer system, I think there was confirmation from the
Department on what they would require the developer to develop, right?
HICKCOX: But nothing committed on the part of the developer.
BEAUDET: That’s part of the conditions, right?
HICKCOX: Yeah, that they comply with.
BEAUDET: That they comply with. So if they don’t comply with, then they don’t build.
HICKCOX: Right.
BEAUDET: Right, so, I mean, so the conditions are set for that.
HICKCOX: Right.
BEAUDET: The conditions as presented in the Planning Director’s recommendation commit the
developer to Hualālai Road improvement, for a certain portion of that. So the applicant has
requested a modification of that condition, right? So our recommendation to County Council would
either, if we were to have a favorable decision, we are making a recommendation to the County
Council that they have to do that. The applicant can ask for the same changes again at the Council
level, because all we are doing here today is making a recommendation. So there is more
38
EXHIBIT B
opportunity for both the applicant to make their argument and also for the community to make their
arguments as well. We reinforce either side with today’s decision whether we support the Planning
Director’s recommendation or not. Or we continue this discussion at a later date, which I think you
might be trying to imply.
HICKCOX: Yes, I think from my personal perspective, and, you know, it’s up to the other
Commissioners as far as the voting process is concerned, but as I see it right now, at this juncture I
would like to see more response from Public Works in reference to the recommendations that were
made by both the applicant and the community.
ARAI: Maybe I, I know you want to hear from Public Works and maybe not from me, but I’ll try to
see if I can help this whole process along. Now, the applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions
of approve for the change of zone, and again they have articulated what specific amendments they
would like to see. One of them was Condition G where it talks about the interior roadways
improved to, the certain connecting roadways be improved to County dedicable standards, which
includes curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. And that’s to facilitate the north-south
connecting roadway that’s emphasized by the Kona CDP. The applicant offered a Condition G that
is similar to the Condition G that was embodied in the previous recommendation that went to
Council, and that provided more clarity, because it talked about how the connector road would be
built as an extension to Pualena Street to minor street dedicable standards at no cost to the County,
curb, gutter and sidewalks provided in areas of pedestrian traffic in conformance with the adjoining
development and the Department of Public Works policy, no secured gate shall be installed on any
roadway or entrance to this project, and so forth and so on, and it talked about the developer,
homeowner and homeowner association shall be responsible for landscaping within the
right-of-way. We are basically amenable to the condition, maybe just tweaking it a little bit to make
sure that this connector roadway is the roadway that’s going to connect Pualena to Hu Ko Pa,
because, as you mentioned, as the applicant mentioned, if Hu Ko Pa does not proceed, then they
have a means of access, which is the connection to Hualālai Road; what we want to see is Pualena
extension in the future, the road stubbing out to the south and connecting with Hu Ko Pa, because
that has been the representation, that that would be the project’s primary access. So we are
amenable to the change to Condition G. And we can work the language to match as long as the
Commissioners agree to that.
BEAUDET: Well, I think the primary route of, traffic route was implied to be going through
Pualani, right?
ARAI: Correct.
BEAUDET: But there is really, it’s not a very strong argument because it is, the road’s completion
only gets done when Parcel 22 is developed. There is really no control over that.
ARAI: Correct.
BEAUDET: Okay, so the actual primary traffic route is Hualālai, right?
ARAI: That is the failsafe.
BEAUDET: Because the condition does not direct the developer to push through Parcel 22.
39
EXHIBIT B
ARAI: Right. That is correct.
BEAUDET: So regardless of how we change the language, it doesn’t make the road happen.
ARAI: Right. Correct.
BEAUDET: Yeah, so I just needed to state that.
ARAI: Sure. And that’s accurate. Thank you. There is also Condition I where the applicant asked
that the, this is the improvements to Hualālai Road frontage of the project site, and he wanted to
exclude, or they wanted to exclude Parcel 30 from the mix, which is the water tank site. Public
Works can maybe clarify, but I did speak to him, to Mr. Emler, and he is not supportive of
excluding Parcel 30, especially, you know, given your current statement that in case Hu Ko Pa does
not proceed, then for the time being, Hualālai Road will be the primary project access, so as the
primary project access, you want to mitigate certain impacts along the particular roadway. So I
think as it stands now Public Works would probably want to see Parcel 30 be included, and left as is
within your current Condition I.
Regarding the fair share, the applicant’s recommendation was, if Condition G, which talks about the
interior dedicable roadway to be constructed and dedicated to the County, if that could also be
included as an option to be credited against their fair share obligations. I’m not certain about that
one yet, simply because normally fair share is for regional improvements, regional meaning offsite.
Even thought it’s built to County dedicable standard, which is I guess maybe they could argue it’s a
higher standard than what we would normally look for, if it was a privately maintained subdivision
road; the fact of the matter is that whether County dedicable or not, it services their subdivision, it’s
an internal subdivision road, and if, you can imagine, if other subdivision roads are built to County
dedicable standard, you know, can they ask to be credited against their fair share obligations?
That’s one I’m not too comfortable with. So I guess maybe Mr. Acting Director, but that’s my
thoughts. So hopefully, that provides some clarity, and I don’t know if Mr. Emler wants to try -.
EMLER: May I say something?
ARAI: Sure.
EMLER: I’d like to address that issue about they are going to do a lesser, they would otherwise do
a lesser standard, but they are going to do a dedicable standard; the Subdivision Code requires them
to do a dedicable road. The only way to get around that is to go through the PUD process and the
Planning Director allows them to go to a lesser road standard. So right now, as it stands before the
PUD is approved, they have to do a dedicable road.
WHITTEMORE: Brandi, can I -? This may, I’ve lost my train of thought, I apologize. I’m sorry.
It will come back to me. Oh, I know what it was. You know, I still have a lot of questions about
what’s going on, and I share my fellow Commissioners’ concerns. I would love to have an
opportunity to have Mr. Yuen appear before us and explain to us the full picture of what occurred at
the time he made the decision to grant all of these less than 15-acre parcels. I would like to, I would
like to hear that just to understand more of the historic point of view. And also, I apologize because
a lot of this stuff was delivered late and I do not feel like I’m really properly prepared to ask the
40
EXHIBIT B
kind of questions I probably would have liked to. So I have a lot of questions still remaining,
lingering.
BEAUDET: You could make a motion for a continuance, yeah?
WHITTEMORE: Well, I, okay, I’d like to make a motion maybe that, I move that the public
hearing for application State Land Use boundary amendment, SLU 13-38, and change of zone
application, REZ 13-164, be continued until at least the next meeting, so we can better review this
and maybe perhaps get our questions answered prior to.
COMMAND: Do they have to act on the motion first? I have a -.
ARAI: Yeah.
COMMAND: Okay.
ARAI: Yeah, so there is a motion on the floor.
BEAUDET: Is there a second?
HICKCOX: Second.
COMMAND: Discussion?
BEAUDET: Yeah.
COMMAND: I have a question of staff. Are there any statutory limitations on the amount of time
that the Commission can take on making a decision regarding this application?
ARAI: Code specifies 90 days to render a decision once the recommendation of the Planning
Director is delivered to you. That basically would be roughly 90 days from today. So your August
meeting I believe was going to be cancelled just because of the way all the other applications fell
around it. So we could look at your September hearing to hear these two particular applications,
and it will fall within the 90-day time frame. If the applicant, well, anyway, it will be okay is
basically what I’m saying, but anything beyond that we will need the concurrence of the applicant.
UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: Will the public be able to testify?
ARAI: Right now, the public hearing part of this has been closed, so even if this meeting were to
be continued, the public hearing portion is closed. However, the Commission at that time could
elect to reopen the public hearing, so -.
COMMAND: Regardless, you’ll be able to attend.
VAN PERNIS (in the audience): But Mr. Yuen (inaudible) as a member of the public?
ARAI: Anyway, you know, the Commission, It’s awkward that I’m actually -.
41
EXHIBIT B
BEAUDET: I’m not sure if the Commission can require someone to testify for historical reference.
Maybe the community could encourage their other community member, but -.
ARAI: The only thing, maybe what I can suggest or recommend is that, I don’t know, I don’t know
about having Mr. Yuen up here, I mean that is almost like a subpoena, I would gather. However,
what the Department could do is try to maybe prepare something to you in writing that articulates
and tries to memorialize for you what drove the condition. And to give you some reassurance, I
was part of the review when it occurred under Chris Yuen.
WHITTEMORE: Yeah, I would be satisfied with that.
ARAI: So we can put something in writing. That way, you know, it can be shared with everyone,
forming the basis of what led to the particular decision. And then what I could do, too, is I can
make contact with Mr. Yuen to try to make sure the story gets straight. So that’s an option. So I’m
just throwing it out there.
BEAUDET: Any further discussion from the Commission.
GIMPEL (in the audience): I have a question.
BEAUDET: It has been moved by Commissioner Whittemore for a continuance and seconded by
Commissioner Hickcox for a continuance of this application for -.
GIMPEL: No, no, no -.
MASUNAGA: Excuse me, you are out of order.
GIMPEL: Motion for a continuance of the public hearing, that was the wording of the motion.
BEAUDET: Sir. All those in favor, say aye.
ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
BEAUDET: Okay. All those not. It has been voted for a continuance of this application to a date
that would be determined at a later point in time.
The discussion ended at 1:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
42
EXHIBIT B