Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-26 Leeward Exh B - Hualalai Partners LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 26, 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 10:15 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: Geraldine Giffin, Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Richard Nelson, III, Barbara Nobriga and Thomas Whittemore 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 30 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HUALALAI PARTNERS OF KONA, LLC (SLU-13-038/REZ-13-164) Applications for a 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 Hualālai Road, north of the Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, Kahului 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-5-017:043. GIFFIN: We are on Agenda Item No. 2. Hualalai Partners of Kona, LLC is requesting both a state land use boundary amendment, in its application, SLU 13-038, and also a change of zone application, REZ 13-164. Daryn? ARAI: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning, Commissioners. Before we get into this particular agenda item, it occurred to us that you have before you the minutes of the July 18 hearing, which also considered this particular, these applications. So we think maybe procedurally it’s best if you act on your minutes to adopt them, and once adopted, then those minutes become official, and then we can incorporate -. GIFFIN: Part of the record. ARAI: Right, right, right. So we think, if you don’t mind -. GIFFIN: I don’t. That’s a very good point. Commissioners, did you just hear what Daryn said? Do I hear a motion then? HICKCOX: So move, Madam Chair. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? 1 EXHIBIT B NELSON: Second. GIFFIN: It’s been moved and second that we approve the minutes of – Daryn, tell me the date again. ARAI: I believe it’s July 18, 2013. GIFFIN: Okay. All those in favor, say aye. ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. GIFFIN: All those opposed, say no. Thank you. All right. Daryn? ARAI: Thank you very much for accommodating us. If I may direct everyone’s attention to the presentation screen. For the benefit of, as I mentioned earlier, these particular applications were heard by the Leeward Planning Commission back on July 18, 2013. For those, as a reminder for all the Commissioners who were in attendance that day, and for those who were not in attendance, if you could allow me to go over and do a brief recap of the presentation that we offered that day. GIFFIN: Thank you. ARAI: Again, you have before you at this moment two applications: One is a state land use boundary amendment, the other a change of zone application, requested by Hualalai Partners of Kona, LLC. We are looking at a portion of North Kona. The project site here is located on the mauka side of the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway in close proximity to Pualani Estates Subdivision, which is indicated here in the mustard color. The project site is located on agriculturally designated lands as indicated by the green color, located immediately south of Hualālai Road, which is this white line going left to right, and Hienaloli Road, which is this white line going north to south. This is a close-up of the project site again outlined in black. As you may note, its location along the south side of Hualālai Road, and with Pualani Estates being in this proximity here shown by the mustard color, which represents a Single-Family Residential 7,500-square foot minimum lot size. We do have other subdivisions in the area, including this lighter color here – I’m not sure, it’s a light tan, I believe – RS-20 zoning, 20,000-square foot minimum lot size, that’s Hualālai Heights, and Sugar Cane Lane, which is this area here in the darker mustard zone, RS-15, or 15,000-square foot minimum lot size. This is a depiction of the County’s General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map, which is the County’s long-range policy planning document. As you can see, the project site of just under 15 acres in size is bisected by a crosshatched area, which represents Urban Expansion, on the makai portion of the property, and on the mauka half within the Intensive Agricultural designations. The Planning Director has made a determination, given the broad-brush nature of the General Plan LUPAG Map, that the project site sits entirely within the Urban Expansion area. This is a depiction of the State Land Use District Boundaries. The green color represents agriculturally designated lands, which also includes the subject property here outlined in black. The pink represents those lands that currently maintain an Urban district classification. Yellow off to the right where Kona Orchards is situated, is designated for Rural uses, which is roughly half-acre size lots and orchards. 2 EXHIBIT B This is a depiction of the Kona Community Development Plan. If you look very carefully where my pointer is showing, even though it’s shaking a lot, that’s where the subject property is, again, outlined in black, and you may note the Urban boundary, the Kona Urban Area also bisects the property. But because the Urban Area was defined by the Urban Expansion Area designated by the General Plan, and because the Director declared the entire property as situated within the Urban Expansion Area, we would then determine the subject property to be entirely situated within the Kona Urban Area as depicted by the Kona Community Development Plan. This is an aerial photo of the property. As you can see, Pualani Estates, Hualālai Heights, Sugar Cane Lane, you can barely make it out in this area here. The applicant is requesting a state land use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban district, a change of zone from Agricultural 5-acre to Single-Family Residential 15,000 square feet minimum lot size for approximately 14.968 acres of land. The applicant’s reason for the request is to allow for the subdivision of the property into 43 lots. The project will provide for future road connectivity within the subject property located makai, which is Parcel 42, of the project site, and the project site is commonly referred to as the Hu Ko Pa project. Improvements will include a stub-out for the future extension of Pualena Street through Parcel 22 to the south and an alternate access to Hualālai Road. Should the rezoning be approved, and the state land use boundary amendment, I should mention, the applicant will then intend to submit an application for a planned unit development permit, which allow for flexibility in the design and the selection of smaller lot sizes, a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size, to be accessed by non-dedicable roadways. This is a depiction of the applicant’s development concept. Hualālai Road is located here at the top of the site plan, Hienaloli Road off to your right, and the Hu Ko Pa project is off to your left. As you can see, the interior road layout with a stub-out to the southern boundary of the property that would eventually connect to Pualena Street, which will then connect to Puapuaanui Street located to the south of the property, and which goes through the Pualani Estates development and then accessing onto the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway. You may also note an access connection here onto Hualālai Road, as well as a stub-out to the makai, or west, that will connect to the Hu Ko Pa project, which will then provide a consolidated access point, a single consolidated access point onto Hualālai Road. I should note that the reason for the two different colors on this site plan is through the P.U.D. process the zoning, if eventually approved, would be, would require a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet; by applying for a planned unit development permit, and if successful in securing the permit, the applicant cannot exceed their permitted density required by zoning, but could allow for adjustment of minimum lot sizes where the applicant is envisioning 15,000 square feet or larger lots along the mauka portions of the project site, and the smaller 10,000-square foot lots on the makai half of the project site. And those are depicted by those two different colors. This is just a closer aerial photo, and our apologies that the project site is barely outlined by this, somewhere in this vicinity here, just to give you a representation of the state of development on surrounding properties. And this is a much closer view of the property. This is looking north along Hienaloli Road. The project site is off to your left here, and the intersection with Hualālai Road is off in the distance in the location. This is on Hualālai Road looking makai, or west, with the property off to your left once again. And this gives you a sense of the width of the existing Hualālai Road, at least the pavement width, I should mention. This is 3 EXHIBIT B looking further down, continue to look makai along Hualālai Road. This is now looking back up with the subject property off to your right this time. Once again, the Director is recommending favorable consideration of the State Land Use Boundary amendment and the change of zone request. I know Commissioner Giffin made mention, and I fail to do that earlier, she wanted me to kind of identify some of the commonly-referred-to roads within the background report. This is where Hualālai Heights is, and Sugar Cane Lane, this is Pualena Street in this proximity here, which would then connect to the stub-out on the south side of the Hualālai development concept. And as you can see, this is Hu Ko Pa, which already has its zoning approvals, which would allow for I think it was a 53-lot subdivision, and for which this project will interconnect with the Hu Ko Pa interior roadways. Part of their interior roadways will also provide for a southerly connection with Pualena Street, which is also located in this proximity here; as you can see, it connects to Puapuaanui, which then connects to Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway. So hopefully, that, is that sufficient, Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Yeah, so just for clarity, the road that actually connects the proposed subdivision to the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway is, which one, Daryn? ARAI: It would eventually be Pualena. Now, in the future, should this property here, which is referred to as Parcel 22, should the landowner in the future apply for entitlements like rezoning, state land use boundary to develop their properties, then through the review process we would require connection to Pualena Street here, as well as the stub-out to the Hualalai Partners development. So eventually, there will be like two connection points to Puapuaanui. GIFFIN: Good. And then, again, over and over I read some sort of north-south connector roads, okay. Are they different from these two roads that I asked you to clarify? ARAI: The north-south connector road that we are looking at within the Hualalai Partners project is an extension of Pualena Street, which is located on the mauka side of the Hualālai Heights, Pualani Estates development area, and – sorry, I wish I kept the slides together, I guess, there. I should note that since your last July meeting we’ve received a number of correspondences, all of which we were able to make copies, some of them were delivered just today, and all of them have been distributed to you for your review. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of Daryn? Director. COMMAND: Madam Chair, may I ask a question of the staff? GIFFIN: Yes. COMMAND: Daryn, I don’t know if you will be able to do it, but if, maybe the applicant when they come up, tell us what the line at the far right there is, the darker, I guess it looks like a walking path or something, to the far right, yeah. ARAI: This right here? 4 EXHIBIT B COMMAND: Yeah. When they approach. It doesn’t have to be right now. ARAI: I would rather defer to the applicant. GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioners, any questions of Daryn? Okay, hearing none, I think what I’m going to do is ask the applicant to come forward first, and just give us a brief review. So at this time could we please have the lights on, and the applicant and their representative please come forward and sit down. Thanks, Jeff, for the lights. ARAI: Chair? GIFFIN: Daryn. ARAI: And while we are, thank you, while we are waiting for the applicant representatives to be seated, I need to remind the Commission that the public hearing part of the proceedings have been closed; so in order to accommodate additional public testimony, the Commission would have to consider reopening it to public testimony. GIFFIN: Right. Bobby. COMMAND: Yeah, Madam Chair, I’d just like to publicly acknowledge the property owners for being responsive to concerns on the blind curve; someone came up talking about the bushes being a little bit too big there. Thank you for doing your part and cutting them down. GIFFIN: Commissioners, I don’t know if you heard what Daryn just said regarding opening up public testimony, but I think we can discuss that after we hear from the applicant. So procedurally, if that’s okay with you, that’s what I would like to do. So, all of you have microphones in front of you, will you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? REPRESENTATIVES: I do. GIFFIN: Thank you. Starting with you, Steve, why don’t you go ahead and introduce yourself. LIM: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. I’m Steve Lim from Carlsmith, representing the applicant, Hualalai Partners of Kona, LLC. Seated to my right are members of the LLC, the, what we call the Barrett Brothers: Lee, Rick and Al. GIFFIN: Thank you. And the third man down there? A. BARRETT: Al Barrett. GIFFIN: Al, okay. Thank you and welcome. I don’t know if you would like to begin, Steve, or did you want them to address just a slight overview? LIM: Yes, what we will do is we’ll give the Commission through Lee some, a little bit of an update from the last time we met, and then I’ll wrap up things. Thank you. 5 EXHIBIT B L. BARRETT: Good morning, Chair Giffin. GIFFIN: Good morning. L. BARRETT: Commissioners. Just a brief recap on some of the items that, we ended up getting the transcript from the last one and we’ve heard all the testimony, and throughout our H.O.A. meetings with the homeowners, the six different meetings that we’ve had, we had a response that we had written to you. And some of the major issues were water, and we feel that we have addressed that by being members of the Waiaha Water System, and that will be actually benefiting the County through adding over two million gallons of water per day to the system. The traffic – most of these items, we feel that we’ve had licensed architects, we’ve had engineers, we’ve had our archaeological, and they’ve taken care of everything with the County all the facts and all the legal aspects of this – so the traffic, we have done traffic studies for this numerous times, and even during peak hours they have all been addressed and been satisfactory. Looking at the map there, on the mauka side there, you do see a walking pathway, and that was addressed because of the community concerns; we have an area that they can get off of Hualālai Road and walk somewhere different than actually on the road there. All the stub-outs have been taken care of with DPW and Ki Emler; we have met with our traffic expert there. All the project access, as of this time it’s a standalone project with the entrance onto Hualālai Road, and that was also addressed by the County Council the last time we were up here, so we wanted to make sure that this was not considered a cul-de-sac issue; so we did provide the stub-out there to Hualālai Road. And actually at the time, when we need to get this engineered, we’ll figure out the best way. But the sight is enough distance, and I forget if it’s 300 feet either way, but it does have adequate sight distance on either side of that. Drainage, and what you see also on the mauka side of the property, you see the trees, and there is actually a right-of-way there, which we are going to address some of the offsite drainage issues coming onto the property, as well as drywells throughout the property, and make sure that no water is generated coming off of our property. But we will be taking care of a portion of the offsite property coming down as well. We feel that the benefits to the County will really address some of the community concerns that have been brought up as far as roadways part of the conditions; we will have to improve the roadways. Drainage was another one, and we are gong to address drainage to take care of some of these things. And generating income to the County, over 500,000, $560,000 will be generated to the County through the fair share and parks and the Police and Fire and the roadways. I believe that’s it that I had on the benefits of our project. Thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. Sir, did you, are you prepared to speak to the project this morning? R. BARRETT: I am prepared, but I have nothing further to say. GIFFIN: Fine. And you as well? A. BARRETT: Yeah, as well, I have nothing new to add to it, so, we had the, with the last testimony, I think, so nothing new at this point. GIFFIN: Thank you. A. BARRETT: Mr. Command, though, did we answer your question on the access point? 6 EXHIBIT B COMMAND: Yes, you did. Thank you. A. BARRETT: Okay. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Tom. WHITTEMORE: I’d like to ask a question on your letter of September 12. On Page 5, just a clarification, if you would, on the bottom of the page, “Project Benefits,” and I want to make a reference to the last three lines there that, it’s saying, “The improvements will include, but not be limited to, grading, roughly 20 feet of pavement widening.” And this is Hualālai Road, right? And an earlier letter of July 15 to Ben Ishii, the letter makes a reference to five-foot wide future road widening. Can you just clarify what you are talking about when you say 20 feet? Is this 20 additional feet? When I think widening, you are widening the road 20 feet. Is that it? LIM: I think it’s two different things. WHITTEMORE: Well, that’s why I want some clarification, yeah. LIM: Right. So I think that the roughly 20 feet of pavement widening they are talking about is the widening of the existing right-of-way and pavement on Hualālai Road. The five feet that you are talking about that’s in the condition is a future road widening setback, so it will still be part of the subject property, but they can’t do anything with it; if the County wants the five feet later, they’ll ask us for it and we have to give it. WHITTEMORE: So where does the 20 feet begin, center line? LIM: It will depend on where Mr. Emler decides where the middle of the new Hualālai Road will be. WHITTEMORE: Okay. And I don’t hear any mention of any guardrails or anything, and the improvements I hear are road widening and then there is some drop-off that has been mentioned by several of the public. Is that in part of the improvements that are intended to be done by the developer? LIM: We haven’t gotten to the design stage. That will be pretty much up to Public Works when they review the construction drawings. WHITTEMORE: Okay. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Beaudet. BEAUDET: Steve was going to follow up, right? GIFFIN: Yeah, but I thought that maybe what we should do is go ahead and question or ask right now, especially in light of the fact that you follow through your comments or, according to this letter, if I’m not mistaken, right? Okay. So, anyone have any questions of the applicant? Hang on. I do. Steve -. 7 EXHIBIT B LIM: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. GIFFIN: I’m sorry, I have a question or two. There was some discussion about what the applicant was going to do regarding improvements on Hualālai Road, correct? What is the distance of the frontage of the property in question? Approximately. We don’t have to go into inches but. A. BARRETT: The stub-out -. GIFFIN: Will you identify yourself for the record. A. BARRETT: My name is Al Barrett. I’m a member of Hualalai Partners. GIFFIN: Thank you. A. BARRETT: The portion that is not colored in, kind of on the curve, the property, I think that’s Lot 30, that is about 800 feet right there. So I think the remainder of our portion is maybe 1,500 feet. So it’s probably 2,000, 2,300 feet total frontage, and 800 of it is on a different property. GIFFIN: So then your frontage represents what percentage of the road, the whole road of Hualālai? I just want a physical approximation of how much improvement you are going to do. I’m not familiar with this road at all. So maybe, I don’t know, Steve, can you help us? LIM: I’m looking at the Exhibit 2 in our application, which is a Tax Map, which probably is close in terms of scale. And when you take it from the Hu Ko Pa parcel entry, which is where the main entry for this project would be, within Parcel 42, and you take it up to mauka past Hienaloli to the mauka most portion of Parcel 43, which is on the lower right hand corner there, and you take it from the point all the way back down to Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway is which you are asking, it’s a very crooked line, but just ballparking it I would say probably 40 percent, something like that. GIFFIN: That’s what I thought as well. Thank you. COMMAND: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Director. COMMAND: Just for clarification, Hualālai Road does extend beyond that up to Hōlualoa, and I believe that all of Hualālai is approximately three miles, so we are talking 15,000 feet, right, give or take. GIFFIN: Yeah, yeah. Hang on, I have to find my letter. I appreciated this letter, Steve, dated September 12, that you referenced in your comment this morning. Reading over the testimony from the last meeting there was some concern, in fact a lot of concern, regarding the traffic on Hualālai Road. Also there was a lot of concern about the sight distance on Hualālai Road. And I wondered if more specifically you could elaborate on those two issues in particular. LIM: Thank you. With respect to the traffic along Hualālai Road, I think we heard from the neighbors, and I think it’s pretty common knowledge, and they say substandard road that’s fairly well traveled, maybe less so now that Puapuaanui has opened up. But still, you know, it’s not the 8 EXHIBIT B best road. And I think at the last meeting we also heard I think from the Deputy Director that the County has no plans to fix and no money to even start fixing Hualālai Road anytime soon. So I think what you are looking at, you know, even if our traffic report says that the proposed project will not significantly impact traffic along Hualālai Road, that there is a perception that it is not good today. Our position is that unless the County is going to do it, then the County has to recognize that the developers will do it. And I think you people have been on the Commission quite a long time; I think you see that happening through Kona. I think the Mayor just gave a speech last week at the H.C.P.O. conference where he said that probably Ane Keohokālole Highway was the first road the County built in 40, 50 years or something like that. So I think that as, you know, as responsible developers, and you as responsible Planning Commissioners, we have to recognize between ourselves that regardless of the issues on traffic, unless you are totally going to say there is no further development in Kona, you have to rely on a development to come in and put in their fair share roadway improvements. And so that’s why we, you know, and I think that you received a copy of our September 26 proposed changes to the County’s, to the Planning Department’s conditions of approval, and the red additions are our proposed changes. Part of the changes are to, they are related to this traffic issue, are at Condition I, and effectively what we are saying is that we would improve Hualālai Road along the frontage of this Parcel 43, which is the standard, and the red addition is that in addition we are going to pay our fair share of the cost of improvements to the south half of Hualālai Road fronting Parcels 30 and 11, which are the notch right there in the middle of the project on the top side. And those are, I think one is owned by Dan Bolton or one of his companies, and the other parcel, 11, is a County water pump site I think it is. But what we proposed in this is that we would pay our fair share, provided however that this fair share of those improvements, which we don’t control, shall not exceed $75,000. The reason why we’ve got the $75,000 is that we had, the Barretts went in, did the estimate of the 6 or 700 lineal feet of that area that they don’t own, recognizing that we can’t construct a road on somebody else’s property, we are proposing to do our fair share, which is one-seventh of the approximately $500,000 cost of the road improvement. The one-seventh comes from looking at the four parcels that are lined up mauka to makai, two parcels to the north, and the Dan Bolton Parcel 30 there; so that’s the seven parcels that we are looking at in terms of the, you know, the denominator I guess that is. So in terms of addressing the traffic impact, that’s what we are proposing. And I think you are seeing in this particular application a unique situation. I think we are coming to a point in permitting entitlements in Kona where the Planning Commission and the County Council have to make a decision, a policy decision, you know; are we going to go forward and approve good projects for good people, and try to improve the roads and address the water – they are going to be catching the drainage coming from the mauka subdivisions, and we don’t have to do that, but that’s, they recognize that’s the right thing to do, so they are going to do that – or are we just going to say nothing happens in Kona? I think, you know, most of you have been on the Planning Commission for at least three, four years, some of you coming back for your second term, third term, so I think you will find the statistic enlightening, it was for me anyway; since the adoption of the Kona C.D.P. in September of 2008, in Kailua-Kona proper, you know, downtown Kailua-Kona, there has only been one rezoning for more than, there has been a couple that were for two lots or three lots, maybe two of them, other than those there has only been one rezoning approved in Kailua-Kona since September 2008. The rezoning was the Hu Ko Pa project right below this. If you don’t approve this one, I think what you are going to see, because this is being watched by many people in the business community, I think what you are going to see is a resignation that you cannot do anything under the Kona C.D.P. in Kona. The only reason why we are sitting here today is because we do not fall within one of the T.O.D. blue bubbles, we do not fall within one of the concurrency zones; 9 EXHIBIT B we are kind of in this little sweet spot, so we are very fortunate to be there. What you don’t see is you don’t see all the applications that have either been withdrawn, and more you don’t even see the people that don’t even bother to apply. To me, you know, that’s the elephant in the room. Something is not right. When you have Kailua-Kona propose for goals, we’ve got the Kona Urban Area, the whole idea was we want to support development in the Kona Urban Area because we want to reduce the pressure to rezone outside. So now we are coming in on a Kona Urban Area project, and we are having a very difficult time, as you can see. I mean I understand the concerns by the residents, you know, they live there, we don’t, but we have to go with what we have in terms of the planning documents, and as far as we can tell, we’ve complied with all of the General Plan, Community Development Plan, the concurrency requirements, and the mitigation factors with respect to the drainage, the water and, you know, hopefully the traffic. So to us it’s an important project. And I think the benefits of the project greatly outweigh the negatives. And I worry for the future of Kona, if this project doesn’t go. I mean, you don’t see probably 80 percent of the project people who want to go for it now; I mean they go to talk to the Planning Department, they don’t fall, you know, they fall within a T.O.D. circle or the, you know, concurrency zone, which the County is not going to build roads on in a foreseeable future. So they are dead in the water. So this is one of the few that can come through, this one and the Hu Ko Pa project. So what we are trying to do is to at least give some meaning to the Kona C.D.P., which we want to comply as best as we can. And the proposed conditions that you see in red on our September 26 submittal are effectively matching up these conditions of approval with what was approved on the Hu Ko Pa project. We, in terms of the Hualālai Road traffic, the main proposal the applicant would like to do is to go makai, and connect that with the Hu Ko Pa street to go into Hualālai Road at that one section near the boundary of the properties. That’s the best place to do it, that’s the best sight distance, that’s the easiest to construct. If we have to, we will put in the one that’s shown I think in pink, which was added during the run through the Council the last time, the one there at the top of the picture. If we have to, we will put another access point to Hualālai Road. It meets the minimum sight distance requirements, but that’s probably not the best idea. We would think it would be better to coordinate and consolidate the access for both projects in the area that’s best suited for the connection. I think what we are seeing is, at least we are seeing, and I just talked to the Building people, the Building department, excuse me, the planners from Kona, this side, who do all the building permit reviews, and they said that they are getting, you know, a lot more building permits in the house. The market is coming back. And what I fear is that if we cannot get the project through the entitlement process because of the Kona C.D.P., then Kona’s going to miss out on the next economic boom; I mean, if you look at what’s happening on all the other counties with respect to the market forces there, they are moving forward and going. And, you know, when you look at the history of the Kona C.D.P. and what has happened with respect to rezonings in Kona proper and you only see one other project, that’s a concern to us. That’s a bigger problem than, you know, than this particular project. But it gives some story, back story to the reasons why we are here. And the Barretts are smart guys; they know that this is going to be a difficult project to do, but they feel strongly that this is the right thing to do for both them and for Kona. GIFFIN: Thank you. Once again, Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Brandi. BEAUDET: Steve, you just mentioned that the optimal access point to Hualālai would be through Hu Ko Pa on the mauka access point into the subdivision, or Parcel 42. Now, in accordance with a subdivision clause that was signed at the time of the subdivision of the four lots within this area, 10 EXHIBIT B there was a warranty deed that was agreed to by all of the partners at that time, committing them to work together in establishment of one proper access throughout the development area. Now, looking at the development plans, preliminary development plans for Hu Ko Pa, we have three access points: one going into Paulehia, and then two onto Hualālai Road. Would the applicant be amenable to an additional condition that access to your parcel is, to Hualālai Road, is contingent on the road infrastructure completion of Parcel 42? LIM: So you would require, potentially require that the access to the subject property be through the I guess through the extension of the Paulehia Street to Hualālai Road, as provided in the Hu Ko Pa zoning ordinance. BEAUDET: Yes. LIM: I think if it was up to us, we would probably agree to that. The reason for the pink addition to Hualālai Road was from Councilman Ford who said you are creating a cul-de-sac; so we said, okay, we’ll see if we can punch out another road. We prefer not to do that, but we would be willing to do that. To some degree we, the only reason why we can agree to do that for something that technically this applicant doesn’t own is because they are a family relation, they are not legally related but family related; so so long as that stays the same, I think we can commit to do that. BEAUDET: But with the additional widening of the right-of-way by 20 feet within the boundary of the applicant’s parcel, wouldn’t that improve your line of sight for an additional access to Hualālai? LIM: Possibly. We -. BEAUDET: With the exception of the water tank parcel, right, Parcel 30. LIM: Right, right, right. So we’ve done the study for the pink access to Hualālai, and I think it would just minimally be making it. And the question was whether that should be, you know, whether that was a smart idea or not. We think probably not. We think probably we would rather go through Hu Ko Pa, and make the connection at one place for both projects where it’s best suited. BEAUDET: So the analysis was done on the current situation or the improved situation? LIM: Current sight distance, I think, in that area. So we are not expecting too much change right at the one point, I think it’s mostly road widening; once you get up to this other area where the water tank is, you get more slope I guess off the road, so we don’t know whether the road widening is going to be more on the mauka side, which is less expensive than it is to fill on the makai side. BEAUDET: Thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? HICKCOX: I have one, and it’s just curiosity I guess. If this is approved, construction for both of these developments, are they going to take place simultaneously? LIM: I believe so. It’s – you guys can chime in – but one of the big things that is holding up the makai property is the mauka drainage improvements that would happen on this property. Now, if 11 EXHIBIT B they don’t get this property approved, it may not be financially feasible to do all those improvements for the makai property. HICKCOX: Yeah, so I guess what I’m asking also is that the stub-out proposals and the tie-in proposals to the existing roadways, right, are all going to happen at just about the same time. L. BARRETT: To try and answer the question, I think that would be tough, it would be very difficult to do both of them simultaneously, but I think rather in phases it would have to be done. And Paulehia Street extension I believe on Hu Ko Pa, the phasing along that street would be Phase No. 1, just to connect Paulehia Street to Hualālai Road and to Puapuaanui. HICKCOX: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant. Tom. WHITTEMORE: And this might be something maybe to staff also, and you could provide some clarification of your intent but, staff, the applicant has already indicated that they are going to go into P.U.D., which is going to be more density in those lots, if they go through that. There would be I assume one remainder lot in there, right? Is that how the P.U.D. would work? ARAI: A planned unit development permit is to provide basically a series of variances in order to facilitate master planning of a proposed development. What that basically means is they cannot use a planned unit development to increase density; density is established by zoning, a P.U.D. cannot change that. What the P.U.D. is basically for is the zoning, if approved, would allow for a minimum 15,000-square foot residential lots. A P.U.D. would, if approved, could allow the applicant to reduce the minimum lot sizes, and the applicant is proposing down to 10,000 square feet. So it provides more of design flexibility as long as the overall density is not exceeded. WHITTEMORE: Okay, that’s my understanding, but my question then to you is, can the applicant come back in at a subsequent date after this is all done and request similar zoning on the remainder large parcel? That would increase density tremendously. ARAI: Yes, they can. Yes, they may. WHITTEMORE: Okay. So has the developer, this is my question then to the developer, have you put together a plan for your proposed P.U.D. that shows how the traffic circulation would be under the plan, because we are looking at something under really different assumptions now, and we know where you are going to go? So, you are waiving your head like no, does that mean that the same traffic, internal roadway will remain regardless? A. BARRETT: This is just a conceptual plan and an idea, but this represents our P.U.D. subdivision. We’ve come out with all our cards on the table. Here it is right here; we are asking for a rezoning, RS-15, and this is the P.U.D. concept. WHITTEMORE: So this design reflects the 10,000-square foot lots. A. BARRETT: Yes. And just to I guess add to your comment, this as a P.U.D. or cluster planned development, C.P.D., I’m not sure what the difference is between the two, but all the other, or most 12 EXHIBIT B of the other neighborhoods are cluster planned as well. I think Sugar Cane Lane is the only one that is not a cluster planned. But all the other ones have variances as far as the lot sizes and what they are required to comply. WHITTEMORE: And one last question. This came up in the last July meeting. Just for clarification, you know, your map is showing that Pualena is integral part of the design there, and yet it’s still my understanding, or maybe you can clarify, you have no agreement. Do you have any intent to build, or to pursue that? And it may be something that we want to conserve being it a condition of anything here just because of the access onto Hualālai Road being limiting. LIM: The extension to the south through the, they call it Pualena Street Extension, will go into a property owned by the Tincher family. As far as they know, they are not going to come in for rezoning anytime soon, and so you’ll just have to wait for that unless the County decides to condemn the right-of-way and build the road. Right past the Tincher property is the Sugar Cane Lane property, and then the Hualālai Heights property, both of which have requirements to dedicate their roadways to the County. WHITTEMORE: So the developer has no intent to try and secure an easement over the property right now and build the road. LIM: No. If we had our druthers, we wouldn’t put the stub-way in. But the Department of Public Works is requiring it as part of the north-south connectivity issue. GIFFIN: Director. COMMAND: Just for clarification, you asked about clustered developments and P.U.D.s, I believe clustered developments are outside the Kona Urban Area, and you are inside so. A. BARRETT: Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Any other questions? Brandi. BEAUDET: One more question for me. If the request for a P.U.D. was not granted, would you still proceed with development under the requested zoning? A. BARRETT: I think we would have to address that at that point, but I would think, yes, we would continue. BEAUDET: Okay. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Hearing none, thank you. Could you please step back, and we do have a list of people who have signed up to testify. Commissioners, before we hear from members of the public, we have a decision to make whether or not you feel you would like to open up the meeting to public testimony. And if I may interject at this time, not because just because I was one of those not here last month, and even though I did read all of the testimony, my personal feeling is that the more community input we get the better off our decisions will be. So hearing that I would like to know how you feel about this question before us to open it up even though last month we did close public testimony. Tom. 13 EXHIBIT B WHITTEMORE: I’m in agreement as long as it’s not repetitive. And this is new information being provided that’s relative to this request, then I would support that. GIFFIN: Thank you. I agree. Anybody else? BEAUDET: I follow that. GIFFIN: Brandi, thank you. Daryn, should I take a vote? ARAI: Motion. GIFFIN: Okay. May I hear a motion then in that regard to reopen public testimony on this agenda item? WHITTEMORE: So move. GIFFIN: Second? NELSON: Second. GIFFIN: All right. It’s been moved and seconded that we reopen public testimony on this agenda item. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. GIFFIN: All those opposed? Thank you. So, Daryn, we will go ahead and reopen public testimony. According to the sign-in sheet, I have one, two, three, four, five chairs up there, so what I would like to do is invite the first five people who signed up to please come forward. And I would like to reiterate what Tom Whittemore just said. According to my information, four of the five of you that I will be calling up to come up in a few minutes have already testified last month, and I recognize the names from my testimony that I read. If you have new information this morning, we would be more than happy to accommodate you; however, please in your discussions and your testimony this morning, do not spend the time repeating what you’ve already presented, please. So without any further ado, I’d like to call up the first five: Mac McInnis, Ed Schulman, Mark Van Pernis, Tom Madson and Michelle Tucker, please come forward. I would like to remind the five of you that our corporation counsel will be timing you; I’m limiting you to three minutes. Oh, there are six chairs. Well, then, in that regard, Joel Gimpel, will you please come forward wherever you are. Thank you. I’m sorry, I thought I counted five chairs. Okay, so, once again, new testimony, you will be timed for three minutes by Margaret. And if you will please raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. GIFFIN: Thank you. Beginning with you, ma’am, your name? TUCKER: Michelle Tucker. 14 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Into the mike. TUCKER: Michelle Tucker. GIFFIN: All right. And according to my information, you did not testify last month. Is that correct? TUCKER: No. My husband was here. I happened to be off on business. So he -. I’m here now. GIFFIN: Great, great. Okay, Margaret, are you ready? MASUNAGA: Yes. GIFFIN: Please begin. TUCKER: Well, I wanted to, I had this whole thing planned out, and then after hearing the developers, everything changed. The first thing I wanted to address was it is a mile from the bottom of Hualālai up to the peak of their, the end of their property where it aligns. And I think the elephant in the room is this road. No one cares if this road is fixed. Well, I shouldn’t say that. It seems to be that it’s skipped, it’s kind of overlooked, in the respect that the County doesn’t have the money and doesn’t want to do it. And the developers only want to do what they have to do and what they’re, what they need to do, as a 15-acre lot, not, you know, as total lot. This was 60 acres; it would have had to jump through a lot more hoops to do this big development, to address the traffic on Hualālai. And they’re not having to do this anymore. I travel this every day. Everybody knows the prob-, you’ve been well aware of all the problems. Everybody, you’ve had experts come up here and tell you that it’s a battleground. It needs to be improved. And basically it’s not going to be, and we’re going to add more and more traffic onto it. And the part about the, Mr. Whittemore has brought up, about the other road, basically it may or it may not. It’s all going to go on Hualālai. And we as the residents have to deal with that every day. And we are going to see a fatality on that road. I promise you it will happen, unless something is addressed on it. And I can’t say anything but this: I hold the developer and you responsible because you have, can make the difference to change it. We have, we look to you to do this. We look to you to be responsible on this. And I’ve got to say I’ll be the first to testify on behalf of the plaintiff. Because we’ve asked you to protect our rights on this road. I don’t want to see anyone die on it, let alone anybody that I know or cherish. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Michelle Tucker? Thank you. Sir, your name? GIMPEL: Thank you. I’m Joel Gimpel. I’m Public Affairs Chair for the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. GIFFIN: Mr. Gimpel, my records indicate that you did testify last month. Is that correct? GIMPEL: That is correct. 15 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: And you have new testimony for us, this morning? GIMPEL: I submitted written testimony which I believe is in your packages. I would like to, just to emphasize a couple of new points and some of the things that I said. First of all, where is the report from the Planning Department on Director Yuen’s comments on this, which was the reason for delaying the decision last time in July to this meeting? I haven’t seen it. I don’t know if you have seen it. I’ve looked through your packet and I, it is not there. All right. I haven’t seen, heard anything about it. th No. 2, I was discouraged and disheartened at the applicant’s assertion at the July 18 meeting in response to a question regarding the availability of school rooms in the area, that families with school-aged children won’t be able to afford $800,000 homes. My suggestion is that if the applicant doesn’t anticipate selling homes to people with children, why not build smaller one- or two-bedroom homes. Finally, nobody has really commented upon the problem of using Paulehia Street as the secondary access. Because that is what the applicant suggests in his application. Paulehia Street goes from the property adjoining the applicant’s out to Puapuaanui Street. That is going to be, in effect, the primary access because the intersection with Puapuaanui and Highway 11 is signalized, whereas Hualālai Road intersection is not signalized. And, also, Hualālai Road doesn’t have a right-turn access lane to go north onto Highway 11. It’s a very dangerous right turn to go onto there. And as I said it’s not signalized. So everybody is going, from this subdivision, or from the applicant’s subdivision, and also the makai subdivision to it, is going to use Paulehia Street. The problem with that is that accounts for 90 cars right there, plus, or 90 homes right there, plus there’s about 40 homes in Pualani Estates that will also use Paulehia Street to get to Puapuaanui. That’s 130, at least 130 homes that will use a residential street with driveways every 25 feet and a lot of school-aged children playing in the street in that subdivision. Thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Gimpel? Hearing none, thank you, sir. Your name, please. McINNIS: Mac McInnis, I testified last -. GIFFIN: Yes. McINNIS: Month before last. GIFFIN: My, my records indicate that. And you will be timed. And you have new information for us, correct? McINNIS: I have a new speech. GIFFIN: Thank you. Please begin. McINNIS: I’m speaking on behalf of members of our neighborhood and the community. And I’d like for all those to stand that I’m speaking for, please. (Approximately twelve people in the audience stood up.) 16 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Thank you. Thank you for standing. McINNIS: Thank you. We’re not opposed to real estate development. The applicant’s parcel and five other parcels are part of a larger development scheme encompassing 96 acres. We’re not opposed to the development of the applicant’s parcel as long as it is done in conjunction with a master plan of the 96 acres. We are opposed to the applicant’s rezoning request as submitted. We had told the applicant we’d like to see all lot sizes of 15 to 20,000 square feet, which is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Our concerns of traffic safety, Hualālai Road, drainage and environmental issues are not being addressed on the 96 acres. None of these parcels existed as separate tax parcels prior to December 2004. That’s when recordation occurred for a document titled “Declaration of Agreement for Kahului 96-Acre Consolidation and Resubdivision.” This document was recorded as a condition by the County for the approval of the consolidation and resubdivision. It addresses access, drainage and utilities. All of the owners of the 96 acres are aware of these conditions in this document because the language is in their respective deeds. Residential rezoning applications have been submitted on four of these parcels showing 195 lots. The County is addressing these four parcels individually, not as a whole. With all due respect that’s not proper or prudent planning. The County needs to simultaneously address these whole parcels, 58 acres, along with the other parcel, 36 acres, in its entirety regarding the impact on traffic, drainage, and environmental. The Kona Community Development Plan states we must plan better to deal with traffic, congestion, affordable housing and open space. There is no meaningful open space within 58 acres for 195 proposed homes. Jobs can still be created and the real estate tax base can increase. Just please see that this 96 acres is developed in a responsible manner. As a reason there has been only one rezoning case since 2008, the economy went off the cliff in 2008 and development has slowed down for the rest of the United States. And Mr. Tincher does not have to get his property rezoned to build his retirement home there; I spoke with him last week and that’s his intention. Thank you very much. GIFFIN: You’re very welcome. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Hearing none, thank you. Sir, you’re name please. SCHULMAN: Yes. Ed Schulman. GIFFIN: Thank you. SCHULMAN: Hualālai Colony resident. I spoke to the Commission -. GIFFIN: Last July. SCHULMAN: Last July. GIFFIN: Uh, uh, thank you. SCHULMAN: And I will not repeat the essence of my comments. 17 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Thank you. SCHULMAN: I was taken by Mr. Lim’s closing argument on behalf of his clients. I tend to agree in the main with all of his concerns about responsible development in the Hualālai, in the Kailua-Kona area. And I think this development has some merit, all four parcels, if they’re developed responsibly. However, my concerns have been, and continue to be, matters of public safety, and that’s all. If you look at the photographs depicting Hualālai Road presented to the Commission earlier today, you’ll see, and we can all agree, this is a substandard road, incredibly dangerous to traffic as it, in its current condition. What I heard from Lee Barrett was, I was hopeful of hearing more specific current intentions of improvement, rather than speculate on what might happen in the future. Most importantly, and my major concern, is to have a licensed State Engineer do a traffic safety study, not a traffic impact study, a traffic safety study to show just how ingress to these projects and egress from those projects onto Hualālai Road will not endanger public safety. That’s what I’d like to see. If you can present, if the developer can present a licensed engineer’s report showing how the safety of traffic and pedestrians along Hualālai Road is protected and not diminished, and that engineering report can be verified by County, independent licensed engineers, my concerns would be assuaged, I would not be here testifying. But I haven’t seen that. And Mr. Barrett has suggested we’ll figure out the best way to deal with it in the future, once we get the approval. My suggestion is you condition the approval on the obtaining of a licensed engineer’s traffic safety report. It’s not a big deal. It can be done. He can get engineer traffic impact studies, but I haven’t seen the engineering study, the safety. And if we can satisfy the safety standards, I think all the community would be put at rest, put at ease. Thank you GIFFIN: You’re welcome. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Thank you. Sir, your name. MADSON: My name is Tom Madson. I’m the president of the Hualālai Colony Homeowners Association, representing our association and the surrounding communities. I testified last time and I will not repeat what I said last time. GIFFIN: Thank you. MADSON: The issue -. And I appreciate Bobby Command dealing with one of the major safety issues, and it’s dealt with for the time being. I appreciate that, Bobby. COMMAND: Thank you. MADSON: And it was done rapidly too, very good. GIFFIN: Thank you. You may begin. MADSON: Thank you. I’d like to make some observations on the Planning Department’s favorable recommendation to the change of zoning request and for state land use boundary amendment application. Page 1 has some misleading terminology; the applicant’s parcel is not surrounded by Urban designated lands. The applicant’s parcel is abutted on one side only, the west side, by RS-10 zoning, to the north is A-1, to the south is A-5a, and to the East is A-1. 18 EXHIBIT B Page 2 has incorrect information. The project site is not adequately served by transportation or utilities. Hualālai Road is a substandard road. And utilities include storm water runoff, as demonstrated yesterday by our river that ran down Hualālai Road, along with rocks and debris. And if anyone hasn’t driven on it, I would request that you do drive on Hualālai Road and evaluate it for yourself first hand, and make any approval you make a condition of the 50-foot wide recommendation that you did address in your request. The project site is part of a larger development, and no drainage study has been done on the 96 acres. The Planning Department is requiring a north-south connector road across private property adjacent and contiguous to the south of the project site. The owner of this parcel has not been contacted by anyone as of September 18, 2013, regarding granting, selling, or getting access across his property, as is verified by the developer who just testified. Page 2 has incorrect information. The south, north-south connector road has to cross privately owned property, as mentioned above. And page 3, the project site’s proximity to schools would foster educational opportunities. The school system is already overburdened. Page 3 states that Hualālai Road is substandard based on width alignment, roadside and hazard clearance. No plan has been submitted to rectify this situation. The T.I.A.R. impact analysis report is at best incomplete, which only addresses the project site, not the 96 acres that this development is part of, and concludes that the level of service at the intersections of Puapuaanui Street and Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Hualālai Road and Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway are, and the entrance to the project, are either A or B classifications. We the citizens are not concerned with the level of service during peak hours at these intersections. The intersections are not the concern – and that’s what the T.I.A.R. addresses – it’s Hualālai Road. Thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Hearing none, thank you. Sir, your name. VAN PERNIS: Mark Van Pernis. I testified earlier. I’ll try not to repeat. GIFFIN: Thank you. VAN PERNIS: First, let me digress by saying, I did, I, as a Kona attorney and one who’s involved with land development, was offended by Mr. Lim’s threats to you that if you don’t approve this development, everything is going to shut down in Kona. I would point out that there’s over 130,000 units already approved for development in Kona. And the K to K area where this property is situated is all open for development. Now, let me point out on this map a few things. Those six lots -. GIFFIN: You need to speak into the mike. VAN PERNIS: Those six lots did not exist prior to 2004, that’s what Mr. McInnis was referring to. Mr. Bolton owns two, Barrett owns two, Schuler owns two. They’re all being, the Land Use Commission rules for over 15 acres are being abused here. You’re being exploited by the 15-acre per lot development here, right under 15 acres. Mr. Barrett owns the top two through various entities that he controls. And he has admitted that he is developing both, in the last proceeding, both parcels, 30 acres, develop them together. That requires land use involvement; there are streets, roads, drainage and many other issues that need to be addressed before the Land Use Commission. 19 EXHIBIT B You should not allow yourselves under the guise of home rule to have 96 acres. You’ll notice that it all, it covers all of the road from, all of Hualālai Road from Kuakini up to this area. Now, Mr. Barrett’s application stated his development would have access from south, from the Sugar Cane road. At the last hearing and again today Mr. Lim admitted Mr. Barrett’s development has no rights over the Sugar Cane road. And our information is that he can’t get any right. That makes his traffic study invalid, which assumes access to the south of the Sugar Cane road. That puts more pressure on the access that goes onto Hualālai Road. There will be no access to the south. Mr. Arai tries to cover this by saying, well, eventually, eventually. But there is no guarantee it’ll ever exist. GIFFIN: Excuse me. I take great umbrage in your attitude in terms of your verbiage. Please do not continue in that vein. VAN PERNIS: When Mr. Arai used the word “eventually,” there is no guarantee that that eventually will ever come true. All of the surrounding properties are greater than 10,000 and 15,000 square feet. And I believe it’s the job of the Planning Department and this Commission to protect the public. And they represent the public and neighbors, not, not the private developer. Finally, that’s the area designated under the Kona C.D.P. for agricultural use. All of the area around it is agricultural use. Mr. Lim has said, well, it’s a mistake, that should really be considered Urban. Mr. Arai referred to Planning Commissioner (sic) calling that, well, paint it as broadbrushed, ignore it. I point out that that’s Planning Commissioner (sic), Bobby Leithead Todd, not the present Planning Director, who made that decision. And Ms. Todd has been shown to be wrong in litigation, not, in her interpretation of when the C.D.P. applies or when does not. Please restore the integrity of the C.D.P.. If they want to develop, let them develop in a non-C.D.P. area, 20,000 or greater ag lots above. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Hearing none, thank you very much for coming forward this morning. Is there anyone else who would like to testify who did not take the time to sign up? Seeing none, hang on just a minute. Knowing that everyone who has, who wanted to testify this morning has come forward, and you were part of the six that testified, if there is no one else who would like to testify this morning, I would like to close this section of our hearing. So as of right now public testimony is closed. COMMAND: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Mr. Director. COMMAND: I’d just like to make one quick comment about improvements, or, I guess, impacts to the schools. GIFFIN: Yes. COMMAND: Department of Education has proposed an impact fee ordinance or has the ability to propose to impose impact fees upon new development on significantly, development that has not gone through the Land Use process. Normally, those impacts are, those impacts are normally addressed at the Land Use level, right, the State Land Use level in terms of education? 20 EXHIBIT B ARAI: The State Land Use Commission has included that as a condition of their decision and order. COMMAND: Right. And so the Department of Education is looking at impact fees that would be imposed prior to a building permit being issued. GIFFIN: Thank you, Bobby. COMMAND: Thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions? BEAUDET: I have a question for staff. GIFFIN: So do I, but go ahead, Brandi. BEAUDET: Testifier number four mentioned certified licensed engineers doing a traffic safety analysis instead of a T.I.A.R. Now, within the T.I.A.R., isn’t pedestrian safety part of the criteria of the assessment? And those performing those T.I.A.R.s, aren’t they licensed? Aren’t they required to be licensed engineers in the State of Hawai‘i? ARAI: When the Planning Department requires T.I.A.R.s, we do look at those reports prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Hawai‘i. My understanding is that T.I.A.R.s look more at turning movements, rather than just pure capacity. Maybe Mr. Emler of the Department of Public Works can sort of clarify, if he’s able to. EMLER: One of the public testifiers was correct. The traffic study in this case and in most cases pretty much just looks at the intersections. In this case, they didn’t, they could have but they did not look at pedestrian issues at the intersections. I’ve seen that done in some cases where there’s going to be a signal because they want to check what the signal efficiency is going to be with pedestrian crossing. In this case I don’t think the Planning Department necessarily required the T.I.A.R. to be submitted; the applicant did it voluntarily knowing this was going to be an issue and that’s typically done. Let me see, did I answer, what was the specific question again? BEAUDET: I think the biggest concern was not, not relative to intersection but to road safety, both vehicular and pedestrian. I think that’s where the testifier’s emphasis was at, because the case analysis did not involve any, or that type of observation and comment. EMLER: Yeah. Typically I don’t see a private engineering consultant doing that as part of the application process. That’s usually something that’s brought up by, say, Department of Public Works as part of our comments to an application. And we did say that the road is substandard and needs improvement; we admitted that in our comments. I think that’s pretty obvious if you drove, if you’ve driven the road. And we don’t typically do something like an accident analysis or something like that when an application comes through. That’s not something that we’ve done. If we know of particular history, then that’s something we could bring up in our comments. COMMAND: Real quickly. 21 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Sure. COMMAND: Ki, the level of service, I don’t know what you call them, I guess, grades that are in the T.I.A.R. in their package here, those are related to the intersections then? EMLER: That’s correct. The level of service that is referred to in the traffic impact analysis is based on delay at each traffic movement for making the movement. GIFFIN: By the volume. EMLER: And the more, as the delay increases the level of service decreases from A to F. GIFFIN: Thank you. Brandi, you feel your question was answered? BEAUDET: Yes. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. And thank you, Ki. Daryn, one of the testifiers brought up the fact that at the end of last month’s meeting there was a question regarding input from Chris Yuen. I wondered if, since we as Commissioners got Chris’s response, it would be appropriate for you to just kind of go over what he said in his memo to us. PUBLIC: Could that copy be available -? GIFFIN: Excuse me. Daryn, please proceed. ARAI: Given the questions, if the Commission would accommodate me, I would rather read it verbatim rather than attempting to paraphrase. GIFFIN: Sure, sure. And then it will be on the record. ARAI: Yes. “Dear Chair Giffin and Members of the Leeward Planning Commission: “The Planning Department asked me to write a letter to the Leeward Planning Commission about the subdivision that created T.M.K. No 7-5-017:043. You are currently considering an application for a state land use boundary amendment from agricultural to urban, and a proposed rezoning from A-5a to RS-15, for this property. “The main question seems to be the clause in the Nov. 18, 2004 tentative approval letter which reads: “Coordination to Promote Optimal Development. A Declaration of Agreement shall be recorded for all lots within the subdivision that will require the coordinated development of access, water system, sewer system, and drainage improvements servicing all lots in order to promote and accommodate its optimal development. 22 EXHIBIT B The applicant shall execute this agreement for submittal to the Planning Director for approval and recordation. “The required agreement was later recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances, so all subsequent lot owners have notice of, and are bound by, the agreement. “I’ll try to explain the purpose of this clause without getting into all the details about the processes leading to this subdivision. “The basic purpose was to make sure that this subdivision didn’t shut off opportunities for road connections, and make the future development of the area more difficult in other ways. But we didn’t have a specific future development proposal at the time, so it was premature to try to specify exact requirements. “The 2004 subdivision application proposed to divide an area of about 96 acres into six lots: one for a water tank, one lot of approximately 36 acres, and four lots of slightly under 15 acres each, which were zoned A-5a and were in the state land use agricultural district. Because of the General Plan LUPAG map designation of at least the bulk of the area as “low density urban,” general market trends in Kona, and nearby residential development, it was likely that the subdivision would eventually be followed by various applications for land use changes to allow residential lots. “The 2004 subdivision was allowed by the zoning at the time, but created potential problems. If this area were eventually developed into residential lots, there should be street connections from Puapuaanui Street to Hualālai Road, and a mauka-makai road so that the lot owners could get out in either direction. This would allow better traffic circulation and help implement a road system for local traffic parallel to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. At the same time, there shouldn’t be too many intersections on Hualālai Road, because it is so curvy, so future developments should share the Hualālai Road intersections. “The land use approvals for Pualani Estates had required road stub-outs at Paulehia Street and Ho’omana Street, which could potentially provide the cross-connections from Puapuaanui to Hualālai, if extended across this property. “Whenever property is subdivided, the lots may be sold to different owners who might not want to cooperate in the overall development of the area. They might be competitors. So the subdivision might make it difficult to implement the public interest in having better road circulation. There are other possible issues like drainage and water supply that may be easier to handle when the owners cooperate. “It has been fairly common to see a rezoning application where it would be good to have a cross-connection through adjacent property to join two road systems. Typically, the landowner will say that it is not fair to require him to build the connection through the adjacent property because he doesn’t control it. This argument has been accepted in the past, and the result is a residential subdivision that connects to a road on one side, but has a stub-out on the other side. Too often, the desired connection never happens. “Similarly, the 2004 subdivision created the possibility that the property could eventually be developed as a series of cul-de-sac residential subdivisions without the desired road 23 EXHIBIT B cross-connections, with some residential subdivisions connecting only to Hualālai Road, others only to Puapuaanui, and that the various owners would argue that they didn’t have the right to build connecting roads across the adjacent lots. The subdivision clause requiring cooperation makes it clear to the owners that they do have to work together in implementing road connections and other infrastructure. If they don’t, they shouldn’t plead that it is unfair to deny them their desired rezoning. “The prior rezoning in this area, of T.M.K. No. 7-5-17:042, (Ord. 2010-002), did require the construction of a road connecting Paulehia Street to Hualālai Road, and that the owner allow connections to the properties mauka and makai. Thus it is still possible, and reasonable, for the county to ensure that all development in the area implement the road connections described above. “I hope that this letter answers the questions the Planning Commission may have about this clause in the subdivision approval. Thank you for all that you do to make the island a better place. Yours truly, Chris Yuen” GIFFIN: Thank you, Daryn. Having that clarification from Chris – and it is part of our public record now, I think there was a person in the audience who yelled out whether or not you could have a copy of the letter, and that letter, of course, would be available to the public – I think what I want to do is go ahead and ask if there are more comments or questions. And then I’m going to ask the applicant to come forward to address some of the concerns, new concerns, that were raised this morning in public testimony. So -. Brandi. BEAUDET: Daryn, in recognition of what was just read, how would, and in part to the question that I had asked Steve and the applicant earlier, how would you draw up a condition that would, that would require the development of those roads within Parcel 42 and connecting Hualālai to Paulehia? I mean saying here that this should have been done first? The road infrastructure within Parcel 42? ARAI: I don’t think what former Director -. BEAUDET: Could we, could we, sorry for interrupting, but could we base the approval of this application subsequent to the infrastructure development of the adjoining properties? ARAI: It is definitely a consideration at the discretion of the Commission. If that is the direction the Commission would like to head, then I could offer some proposed language and you’ll see if it addresses your concerns and your needs, so -. BEAUDET: Yeah, I mean my thought is that there, that the subdivision of the 96 acres was set on an interrelationship between the subsequent properties, right, the approved subdivision. So as a Commissioner I would like to see that interrelationship maintained and adhered to, yeah, because that was the original concept, so we should stick to that. GIFFIN: Daryn, if we do go down that road that Brandi is suggesting, I think it would be fair to you to give you some time to process that. But I don’t know yet how the other Commissioners feel about that concept. So I would appreciate hearing from the other Commissioners and from you, Bobby. 24 EXHIBIT B COMMAND: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Daryn, as a point of clarification, can we impose that upon the developer as a condition, or would we, for lack of a better term, agree to agree? ARAI: I don’t think we can impose a condition that would require the developer to provide improvements on someone else’s property that the owner, the applicant does not own, in order to accomplish the interconnectivity that everyone desires. However, it, I believe there are other types of opportunities. I mean, when you look at what Mr. Yuen is saying, he’s basically saying coordinated development. That’s what he’s asking. It doesn’t mean one project goes first and then the next project goes second. It doesn’t have to be sequential; it simply has to be coordinated. So there are ways to possibly accomplish that. I’ve been thinking about it, listening to the discussion. You could make the subdivision of the applicant’s property dependent upon subdivision approval on the Hu Ko Pa property, because there are so many nuances when you go through a subdivision. A subdivision is normally, final subdivision approval is normally granted upon completion of all infrastructural improvements that supports the development. But I’m sure many Commissioners have seen over the years where subdivisions are bonded. And what that does is it allows the developer to secure final subdivision approval, proceed with lot sales, with the revenue and proceeds from the lot sales utilized to develop the supporting infrastructure. It’s reasonable. But it’s ensuring that all of that is coordinated so that basically at the very least the two projects come on line at basically the same time. And I think we could craft a condition that hopefully will accomplish that. So, and I could offer you some language, if you’re desirous of seeing it. GIFFIN: Daryn, thank you for your willingness. I would like to hear from the other Commissioners before, like I said, we go down this road, because this is huge and it’s a lot of work and a lot of, it’s a process. So what is your desire? Tom? WHITTEMORE: You know, as I read Mr. Yuen’s letter, my interpretation of the coordinated optimal for optimal development really involves not one, not two, but four parcels of property. And I guess one of the questions that comes, not having been on the Commission at the time when the first project was approved, did any of this surface as an issue? Because, or was it just dealing with that particular parcel because it wasn’t, there wasn’t, there’s only one that we’re dealing with? And then I want to ask you another question. But go ahead. ARAI: I’m earning my pay. It was, the subdivision action was originally 96 acres, six lots, six large lots, I should say. That action alone, while it was in full conformance with existing land use laws, it did raise the concern of former Director Yuen, which then precipitated into his requirement that a development agreement be recorded against all of the subdivided properties. So it wasn’t one lot, it wasn’t two lots, it was all six lots that were part of this subdivision action. But the Director can only do so much based on the action that’s currently before him. All he had before him was a six-lot subdivision, and that’s all he could do to record, to impose some sort of requirement against those six lots. Now, true the Director, it would be preferable to see a coordinated development amongst all six lots. But also keep in mind that the Director clearly knew that each lot could be developed independently of each other. So he’s basically saying if that is the case at least demonstrate that coordination. And I think Hualalai Partners has demonstrated that. And keep in mind that we are at the change of zone/state land use boundary amendment level; it’s basically approving the land use entitlements. Once those entitlements are secured, the applicant will then have to work with the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department to go through all the regulatory review 25 EXHIBIT B processes that will then implement the interconnection of roads, the design of the drainage system, the connections to Hualālai, the stub-outs to the south. All of that comes into play at the downstream processes, like subdivision review, construction plan, design and development, and then approval. I hope I addressed your concerns. WHITTEMORE: Not my concerns but -. ARAI: Oh, I’m sorry. Right, right. WHITTEMORE: But the answer to my question, yeah. GIFFIN: You have another question? WHITTEMORE: Yeah, I wanted to ask -. It was raised, Mr. Van Pernis raised the issue, no, no, excuse me, I think it was Mr. Schulman, I think, with the traffic safety study. GIFFIN: Yes. WHITTEMORE: You know, along that line the traffic study that was done, was that done with the assumption that there were two ingresses and egresses onto this site? In other words, was the Pualena – I think it was, is that the street, Pualena – was that a factor in the study – this is the one that goes through Sugar Cane – in the Department making their recommendation, and it met all of the conditions? ARAI: You may, I think I may want to defer that specific question to the applicant’s representative. I would hate to mischaracterize or -. WHITTEMORE: Okay. ARAI: Misinform the Commission. WHITTEMORE: But you have, the Department has seen the study and reviewed it? ARAI: We do have the study, and we provided the information to the Department of Public Works as well where they, you know, they have the proper engineers. But let me, I’ll be taking a look at the study again. I do have it before me, as well as you have a copy as well. But, again, the applicant’s representative could clarify -. WHITTEMORE: Okay. GIFFIN: I am going to call Steve up -. WHITTEMORE: Okay. GIFFIN: Very soon. But I wanted to get some feedback from the Commissioners first. Brandi, any more issues you’d like to raise or thoughts? Tommy. 26 EXHIBIT B HICKCOX: I have a question, Daryn. Would it be feasible, and I’m not trying to hold this particular developer responsible for this, but would it be feasible to consider some sort of master plan for this stretch of Hualālai Road that runs mauka, from the mauka parcel all the way down to Queen Ka‘ahumanu? Because it seems that because of its location, and because of what Mr. Yuen’s, in light of Mr. Yuen’s statement that because of its prime location, we will be faced with more requests for subdivisions of this nature in the future. So if we look at, and the major concern that we have coming from the community at this juncture is Hualālai Road. So I don’t know if we would be able to put something in there to say that, okay, if we’re going to subdivide this area and we’re going to subject Hualālai Road to this kind of growth or residential growth, that perhaps some consideration should be given to a master plan improvement of Hualālai Road to accommodate all of this. Because it’s quite obvious that it will happen in the future, you know, so trying to stay ahead of the curve a little bit and at the same time address the community concerns. ARAI: Okay. Before I respond to your question, Commissioner Hickcox, let me quickly, I found what I was looking for. To Commissioner Whittemore’s question, and again the applicant can verify this when you bring him back up, but the T.I.A.R. did analyze the following existing and proposed intersections: Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Puapuaanui Street, Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Hualālai Road, Puapuaanui Street and Hualālai Road, Hualālai Road and Hienaloli Road, Hualālai Road and the new intersection developed by this subdivision, proposed subdivision, Puapuaanui Street and Paulehia Street, and Puapuaanui Street and Pualena Street. So it did factor in all those intersections and made assumptions on interconnection and the turning movements at those intersections. Sorry, Commissioner Hickcox, getting back to you. You may recall two proposed rezoning actions and boundary amendment applications. And it was these two lots makai, and I think the applicant’s name was JKS and the other was Brian Cook. Those projects, while located in the same area, located and subjected to the same development agreement, their applications were subsequently withdrawn because they were located in a concurrency area as defined by the Kona Community Development Plan, as well as they were in the T.N.D. as well, and the Kona C.D.P. also requires that they undergo a master planning. And I think, I’m doing this off the top of my head, I think it had to include a minimum of 80 acres of land. So one of the difficulties is master planning lands that you don’t even own. So how do you master plan something when you have no idea how that landowner is going to, wants their property to be developed. And I’m sure the current landowner is probably now facing the same level of difficulties because, again, Mr. Yuen’s development agreement encourages coordination between the landowners. Master planning is one thing. I think the bigger issue is how do you implement. As you are aware, those two developments on the makai side, they attempted to go through the entitlement process. But basically due to the requirements of the Kona C.D.P., they’ve, Ī guess ultimately, I hate to put words in their mouths but, I think it became a hurdle that were too insurmountable. And I’m just guessing, but that’s what I assume. And their applications were then subsequently withdrawn. So if they’re withdrawn and there are no entitlements that they’re currently pursuing, I don’t know how that all plays out in the master plan. Because then you have no vision on when eventually those roadways, water systems, drainage systems, will be, will be implemented. HICKCOX: And maybe not necessarily calling it a master plan but some kind of foreseeable plan that dedicates concerns raised in reference to the road itself. I mean I know we’re dealing with laws, I know we’re dealing with regulations. But is there something maybe perhaps our 27 EXHIBIT B Commission can look at or understand or refer to as, okay, we’re going to develop this area, we know the road is substandard, do we have anything in place that will make it standard and whose kuleana will it be? You see, because I, listening to Mr. Yuen’s (sic) presentation he says that one-seventh of the property that they’re dealing with borders Hualālai Road. So they’re willing to interject “x” number of dollars as a fair share kind of thing into taking care of that stretch. But we have no idea what the plans or layouts will be. So, you know, prior, it may be for future reference anyway. We should have something in place that can address this because we’re going to be faced with this again. ARAI: Right. You know, currently for the entire alignment of Hualālai Road between Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Hienaloli Road I’m not aware of any master plan for any improvement or widening because it’s not on the priority list. It doesn’t mean it’s not needed, it’s just not on the priority list. Now regarding the master plan, I understand what you’re saying and I hope you appreciate what I’ve just told you as well regarding, you know -. But, anyway, I think the best I can offer you at this time is a communication that was submitted recently by Mac McInnis, and you have it before you. It’s, it was submitted on September 23 and it was attached to, there was a whole series of maps. And at the very end was this kind of a larger map. And what he did was basically superimposed some of the original project concepts from the various projects, including the JKS and the Cook applications which were subsequently withdrawn. So even though that may not be an accurate representation of what is a master plan, or an adopted master plan for their, because there is none, that’s about the closest you can get as far as being able to envision what some of the landowners in the area were contemplating. That’s the best I can offer you right now. HICKCOX: Thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of the staff? Bobby. COMMAND: Tom, Tom, just to give you a little more perspective, and I think I mentioned it at the last meeting, is that while Hualālai Road is not on the priority list, Hienaloli is. Where it falls on the priority list, I don’t know. But the plan is to, eventually to extend Hienaloli all the way out to Palani Road, yeah. So in a way there is some plan for relief in that area. GIFFIN: Thank you. COMMAND: And that’s in the Kona Community Development Plan. GIFFIN: Thank you, thank you. Commissioners, any other thoughts, any other concerns or questions? All right, right now – and, you know, we can come back to this – I’d like to call the applicant and the applicant’s representative forward again. I saw you taking copious notes, so I know that you know what was said, and I think that you would like to address some of those concerns that were raised. LIM: Let me first address Mr. Whittemore’s question on the T.I.A.R. on the coverage as to whether they included the Pualena Street extension on the mauka side of the project. Yes, the T.I.A.R. that was updated for purposes of this application dated March 2013 included the parcel 22 which we’ve been calling the Tincher parcel; he allocated development size of 30 units for that parcel as part of 28 EXHIBIT B the other parcels that are, that were studied. He also included parcels 41, 42 and 43 which are the makai parcels in that chain of four parcels. It looks like, based upon his traffic count analysis that he was including, you know, he treated the Pualena Street extension as having been, excuse me, the Tincher property as having been developed already. So these are all included in his traffic report. This is a pretty conservative traffic report. With regard to Commissioner Hickcox’s question about who is responsible for fixing Hualālai Road, it’s the County of Hawai‘i. However, you know, we’ve, it’s, it’s, you know, we recognize that the likelihood of the County coming in with money any time soon for Hualālai Road is, is pretty small. And that’s why we’re recommending the fair share method that we’re doing. I think what was apparent by Mr. Yuen’s letter was, you know, as Daryn said, it’s just, what that effectively did legally, you know, he saw that he couldn’t control what the parties did between themselves, so he tried to do that by recording the memorandum, requiring recordation of the memorandum that says you guys got to cooperate when you do your project. So if we talk to, say, JKS and we said we needed to work with you to pass our drainage down the hill and we need to get an easement from you, they would have to show a pretty compelling reason why they wouldn’t cooperate to do that, because that’s on their title. I think the requirement, you know, actually what gets built, Chris wasn’t worried about that because that’s what Ki is going to make us do. And so, you know, what actually gets built, I think he knew they could control that when the projects came in to be developed. But he couldn’t control the legal relationships between the various developers, and that’s why he did the memo. So, you know, it is a good idea, it is why we’re cooperating with the other developers. That’s why we’re, you know, we’re on the fourth iteration of a drainage plan that’s going to take away at least 50 percent of the on-going drainage that you see today coming down the hill. As far as how to tie this particular project into a connection to Hualālai Road, you know, we were talking about it, and the thing that is dangerous for any developer is to tie your fortunes to somebody else. Even if today they might be, you know, family related, tomorrow that may not be the case. But I think what we’re willing to do, because we could control that, if you had to sell the makai piece, is I think we could say that the final subdivision approval for this project, for Hualalai Partners of Kona, will be subject to the completion or the bonding for completion of the dedicable minor street connecting Paulehia Street in Pualani Estate to Hualālai Road as required in Condition I of Ordinance No. 10-02, which is the Hu Ko Pa zoning ordinance. That way we can still keep the mauka project going, even if we lose the makai piece. We can, because we’ll have to convey that piece to a third party, if we do have to do that, we can make that a condition of the conveyance so we can still retain an easement. That way, you know, whether the makai project goes or not you guys know that we will be taking it down through the area now to where everybody thinks is the best place to access Hualālai Road. A. BARRETT: Could I add to that, too? Part of the engineering process is when we get the plans approved, if we’re trying to get this lot developed and permits approved for construction, if there’s no access in or out of the property, there’s no way we would get permits for that. So if we have the stub-out where it shows now on Hualālai Road, then that could be the stub-out. Ideally the lot below would be the proper place to go. If that one is already built and then we connect to that, then that would solve the problem. And I think, I think for Mr. Beaudet’s concern, I think that would be addressed at the permit level at that point. There‘s no way we can get this project developed without a way to get in or out of the project. 29 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Yes. L. BARRETT: And I was taking notes while everyone, the six testifiers were up here. And, you know, we, too, want to keep Hualālai Road safe. You know, my parents have had a house down in Kealakekua for some time, over 20 years, and as developers we do want to keep that safe. And that’s why we’ve added some of the features that we have added, to make sure to keep people off of Hualālai Road, and to keep them safe, and to make sure that this development -. You know, we’re going to be here for a long time so we want to make sure that this development is a good development for everyone involved. And as Mr. Arai mentioned that these are conditions that once approved we do have to meet. And my brother, Al, said, too, we do have to meet all the traffic, all the road connectivity, all the drainage. And we have been doing that; we’ve been doing that for several, several years, making sure that the roads connect, making sure that there’s drainage issues that will be solved. You know, these are issues that are coming on to us, but we do want to connect, correct some of those. And we want to make sure that this development is not stopped just because of some of the misinformation that’s out there. Because up until a certain point, you know, we’re just a small developer, and we didn’t know some of the things that we had to go through with the Planning, or with DPW, or with DWS; but these are items that we do know that now, and we are addressing. And some of the items that were mentioned are just, they don’t have that information, they have not developed, so they don’t know that we need to do all this prior to subdivision approval. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any more questions of the applicant? Tom. WHITTEMORE: Steve, could you clarify what your proposal was. You were talking about Paulehia potentially being bonded? LIM: I’ll try to -. WHITTEMORE: Okay. LIM: I’ll try to approach the map, that might be easier. From the applicant’s point of view, what we don’t want to do is to get tied into the whole project on the makai side. But, so, you know, the connection that the Hu Ko Pa project has, which is the pink one here, is to Paulehia Street and it comes in in an S-shape fashion and comes out right about near the boundary between the Hu Ko Pa and the Hualalai Partners property. So this is the north-south connector that the Kona C.D.P. talks about that Public Works wants as a dedicable roadway. So that’s part of that 10-02 rezoning ordinance. So what I was suggesting is that if your concern is that you want to make sure that this particular project on the mauka side comes out onto Hualālai Road in that good location, is that we would agree that final subdivision approval for the mauka project be subject to either construction or bonding for construction of this north-south, what they call a minor street that’s required in the Hu Ko Pa rezoning ordinance. WHITTEMORE: Okay. LIM: And, one more, sorry, and what that does for them is it allows them to go forward with the mauka project first if they had to, but still maintain the County’s interest in the north-south road and 30 EXHIBIT B the connection at Hualālai Road where it’s best done. It doesn’t require them to do both projects at one time, which would be really, really tough, I think. GIFFIN: Yeah. WHITTEMORE: Are we going to have another Hōkūli‘a here or are we going to have a -? You know, I just, I’m trying to understand what is their incentive in doing that, other than to say I hope that someday we’ll be able to have a road there. If that lot 42 never does get developed -. LIM: Well, that’s what I’m suggesting is the, lot 43, the present parcel -. WHITTEMORE: Right. LIM: Would, their subdivision approval would be contingent upon putting in that north-south road, even if Parcel 42 never went forward. WHITTEMORE: At what point? Is that something we have to work out with them to end up -? LIM: Before they get final subdivision approval. WHITTEMORE: Before they get final, okay. So that’s more economical in your eyes rather than following the Kona traffic, I mean the traffic study that would have taken the connector relieve some of the, your subdivision’s traffic onto Pualena. LIM: Pualena Street on the mauka side. WHITTEMORE: Yeah. LIM: Yeah, that was never our proposal because we don’t control that road. All we can do is to put in the stub so that if and when he comes in they can connect that up. WHITTEMORE: Yeah. Well, you know, as I read through some of the stuff going back, though, I mean, it’s clearly represented. Even in the July presentation that road was represented as being a main ingress and egress into the project, and then subsequently it was withdrawn because there was no agreement. So I’m trying to understand -. LIM: If we said that, that was wrong. That was not what we meant. We have never represented that we were going to go through Pualena Street. WHITTEMORE: Yeah, well, a lot of the written stuff in here represents that. It doesn’t appear, though, in the County’s recommendation I know, but -. LIM: So if that was your understanding that that was, that was incorrect. We are, the only reason why we’re putting in the Pualena stub is because Public Works is requiring that as part of the north-south connectivity. They do that on all projects. WHITTEMORE: Okay. 31 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? I need a consensus from the Commissioners regarding any other new verbiage or the inclusion of proposed verbiage for conditions. So let’s begin with you, Brandi. Is there anything you would like to suggest regarding your concerns earlier that should be, in your opinion, reflected in the conditions? BEAUDET: Yeah, because I had asked Daryn earlier for additional language relative to my concern. I would be comfortable with the suggestion that Steve came up with, tying in the two projects together. I think we can, we can have confidence in that commitment because the applicant has control over both parcels, whereas nobody has control over Lot 43. GIFFIN: Right. BEAUDET: Yeah, so I would give, I have greater confidence in tying Parcels 42 and forty-, I might be going wrong now. LIM: Hu Ko Pa. BEAUDET: Hu Ko Pa. GIFFIN: Yeah. BEAUDET: And, and Hualalai together, rather than tying Hualalai to Parcel 22, because 22 is not part of the earlier agreement anyway. GIFFIN: Right. BEAUDET: Yeah, so for me I don’t have confidence in that partnership. GIFFIN: Okay. Any other concerns? Daryn, I need your guidance here. If we are referring to a proposed condition that the applicant is proposing, where do we put that in the scheme of things and what about the verbiage? Or do we rely on the applicant’s verbiage? That we should hear, you know. I think in the scheme of things regarding the stage that we’re at, it may be prudent for us to go into recess again. And I don’t even know what time it is. MASUNAGA: Twelve twenty. GIFFIN: Twelve-twenty, okay. Daryn, what is realistic for you in terms of a time limit? ARAI: We can try for five minutes, and if we need more time we can -. GIFFIN: How about if we say 12:30? ARAI: That will work. GIFFIN: All right. We are in recess then until 12:30. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 12:20 p.m. 32 EXHIBIT B RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 12:37 p.m. GIFFIN: I’d like to call the meeting back of our Hawai‘i County Leeward Planning Commission. I think that in regards to our concern with the new proposed condition that there should be some discussion right now about it. And, Daryn, I don’t know if you want to present or, you have some verbiage for us to consider, right? ARAI: Sure. GIFFIN: Thank you. ARAI: This, excuse me, in response to Commissioner Beaudet’s concerns, the applicant did offer suggested language. I have taken a look at the language and I believe we can incorporate it as an addition to Condition C within your background report, which is the goldenrod colored, right, report. So if you look at Page No., after Page No. 6, which should be Page No. 7, which would be your conditions of approval. And, again, you have two applications before you: One is state land use boundary amendment; the other is change of zone. Eventually, we’ll need to take, address the state land use amendment first. But the conditions are all embedded within the change of zone, so just to make that clear. The language offered by the applicant, and I’ll read it again, and this will be an addition to the language that’s currently within Condition C regarding final subdivision approval. The additional language shall read “Final subdivision approval for the project shall be subject to the completion or bonding for completion of the dedicable Minor Street connecting Paulehia Street to Hualālai Road as required in Condition I of Ordinance No. 10-02.” And, again, as represented by Mr. Lim, that condition would tie construction of that minor street connecting Paulehia Street to Hualālai Road, which you would then consolidate the access point to a single access point between the two projects. GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioners, any questions, discussion, regarding this proposed condition? Brandi? BEAUDET: No questions or comment. GIFFIN: Okay. Tommy? HICKCOX: No, no questions or comments. GIFFIN: Great. Tom? WHITTEMORE: No. GIFFIN: Barbara? NOBRIGA: No. GIFFIN: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. I think it’s important for us right now to take a look at where we’re at and where we have to move towards. As Daryn just said, we have before us 33 EXHIBIT B actually two different actions. One that is germane to the state land use boundary amendment, and also to the change of zone. And so I think that in terms of where we’re going to go and what we want to do with that, that is, should be the focus of our discussion from now, from this point on. So, Commissioners, if you have any questions regarding, first of all, the state land use boundary amendment application, SLU 13-38, that should be where we’re headed right now. And that should be the subject of our discussion. If you have any comments regarding this application, I would like to hear them now. And if need be I will direct the question to whoever is best to answer that. So, once again, I turn to the Commission and ask you, any comments, questions, or opinions about this application before us, the state land use boundary amendment application, SLU 13-38? WHITTEMORE: Yes. GIFFIN: Tom. WHITTEMORE: I’m assuming we went through the same process with the Lot 42, right? And we set a precedent with that? ARAI: Yes. The Lot 42 went through the same process. WHITTEMORE: Okay. GIFFIN: Any more comments? ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, maybe I can also clarify, sorry, for, especially for our new Commissioner. GIFFIN: Yes, what a day. ARAI: Yes. GIFFIN: Poor Barbara. ARAI: Sorry, Commissioner Nobriga. The state land use boundary amendment from Agricultural to the Urban District typically does not contain conditions of approval. And Madam Chairwoman did emphasize that earlier. So while you’ll be taking an action, you’ll be just making a determination of whether to allow the re-designation to happen. Should that be successful, then you’ll deal with the change of zone application, which then contains all of the conditions that we’ve been talking about. So I just wanted to make that clear. NOBRIGA: Thank you. GIFFIN: Also, I think the Director wanted to speak to the fact that our actions today are really recommendations. COMMAND: Right. You just said it so I don’t have to say it again. GIFFIN: Oh, come on -. 34 EXHIBIT B COMMAND: No, no. Well, I just wanted to remind the Commission, as well as the public, that what happens today is only a recommendation. The ultimate decision to reclassify or rezone can only be done by law; and the only people who can change law is our, the County Council. So it’s just a little bit of, little bit of reference as to what our actions are today. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you, Bobby. COMMAND: And one more thing. You will be able to provide more public testimony during the County Council proceedings. GIFFIN: Okay. Tom. WHITTEMORE: Just one more question. In the state land boundary amendment, on Page 1, we’re talking about, it says the applicant requests a concurrent change of zone from Agricultural Ag-5 to Single-Family Residential 15,000 square feet to develop 43 lots. Just for clarification, that’s the maximum with 15,000-square foot lots, that would be 43? And if so, if they go through a P.U.D. and put 10,000 square foot lots in there, you’ve got the opportunity for more than 43 lots to be built out, I would assume. ARAI: It’s been a while since I did the calculations. I think it is 43 lots. That’s based on the maximum calculation, dividing 15,000 square feet into 14.9 something acres. Now, even if they, through the P.U.D., they make the lots smaller, they cannot exceed 43 lots. WHITTEMORE: They cannot exceed 43 lots. ARAI: No matter how -. WHITTEMORE: Amen, right? GIFFIN: Right. ARAI: Yes. WHITTEMORE: Okay. GIFFIN: Period. Any more questions regarding the state land use boundary amendment? Steve, is there anything else you wanted to say regarding the state land use boundary amendment? LIM: No. We agree with Daryn’s answer on the maximum density and the ability that you won’t get additional density under a P.U.D.. GIFFIN: Commissioners? All right. Because, well, let me just say, since conditions only ride with the change of zone, I wanted to spend some time going over the proposed conditions of the applicant. But, and I know they go hand in hand. Do you think, Daryn, that we should discuss this now before I call for question? ARAI: I’m not aware of anything that would preclude you from doing so. So if you feel that helps you in your overall deliberations, by all means. 35 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Okay. I just think that it’s more orderly, you know, in that it would be easier anyway, for me to handle. All right, one more time, any more comments, conditions, questions? Hearing none, do I hear a motion? And we are dealing with the state land use boundary amendment, SLU 13-38. Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: I would like to move for a favorable recommendation for State Land Use Boundary Amendment 13-38. GIFFIN: To be forwarded? BEAUDET: To be forwarded to the State Land Use -. GIFFIN: No. BEAUDET: No, to the County, Hawai‘i County Council, sorry. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? HICKCOX: Second. GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that we send a favorable recommendation of this state land use boundary amendment, SLU 13-38, to the County Council of Hawai‘i. Questions? Discussion? Hearing none, Daryn. ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Aye. 36 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, a favorable motion carries with six aye votes. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Okay, then in the scheme of things I think that we should take a look at the conditions that were forwarded to us in this recommendation. And, as you know, we just crafted, or our staff crafted some changes to these conditions. In addition to that, there were some changes in terms of conditions that were proposed by the applicant. I don’t know if all of you have had a chance to go through each one. But if you would like some time to do that, I’m happy to allow for that just so that we can go ahead and discuss them. And I think that maybe what might be helpful, and correct me if I’m wrong, Daryn, is that perhaps the applicant can go ahead and go through the proposed changes to the conditions that you are proposing. LIM: What I’ll do is then discuss the red-lined changes that you see on your copies. GIFFIN: Yes, exactly what I was thinking. LIM: Daryn has, I think, other agency changes that he wants to make. So, okay, starting with the September 26, 2013, red-lined version that you were handed out today. Condition B -. GIFFIN: Yes. LIM: Those changes reflect the fact that the Waiaha Water System Agreement with the Water Board is constantly evolving as new members come on and those types of things. In fact, if we’re successful in this project, then we will be transferring some of the excess water units from the Hu Ko Pa project up to this project. So that’s why we’ve kind of made it a little bit more generic so it doesn’t mention specific parties and things like that. It’s pretty much a technical and nonsubstantive change. On Condition G, you’ll note that we crossed out the original Planning Department recommendation for Condition G, and inserted the portion that starts out with “The applicant shall construct a north-south connector road” and ends all the way down with “shall provide repair to any public facility damaged by the landscaping.” That is a direct quote out of the Hu Ko Pa rezoning ordinance, and it’s consistent. It has a couple of more things in there that were not in the original conditions such as no gates, you know, and that the developer will take care of any landscaping in the right-of-way. So we felt that that was a little bit more complete description of the roadway conditions. So that’s why we inserted the exact copy. And the only thing we changed was the, including the reference to the proposed Pualena Street extension. That, in the Hu Ko Pa Street, in the Hu Ko Pa rezoning ordinance that reference was to the Paulehia Street north-south connection. So what we’re doing is substituting that street name. Condition H, we added the provision that the applicant shall realign the boundary along Hualālai Road with its property and would dedicate any additional right-of-way to the County equal to one-half the difference between the existing right-of-way and the realigned right-of-way. We’ve added the “one-half the difference” because that’s language that was out of the Hu Ko Pa rezoning also, and it makes it clearer that the present applicant should be responsible for his side of Hualālai Road and not the north side of Hualālai Road. I think Mr. Arai has some clarifications to that to add. Just below that in the middle of Paragraph H, deletion of Parcel 30 was the, was replaced; we 37 EXHIBIT B deleted that there, but we replaced the fair share improvements for the Hualālai frontage for Parcels 30 and 11 with the fair share cost capped at $75,000. And the last change that we had proposed was all the way at the top of page 5, which is part of that very long fair share contribution Paragraph S. This was a section, we start on Page 4 at the bottom, “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 G, H, I and J”; we added the G and J because when you look back at the Conditions G, H, I and J all deal with improvements to Hualālai Road. That’s consistent with the theory that was adopted in the Hu Ko Pa ordinance also. GIFFIN: Commissioners? Tom. WHITTEMORE: Yeah. Maybe this is a question more to Public Works, but, you know, looking at the proposed improvements under I, there are certain sections of that road that really are of concern to me that drops off drastically, and that may be part of the improvements that go in there, protective guard railings or something along that road. I mean there’s some serious drop-off spots. And if you’re going to have increased traffic on that road, it’s going to be, it’s going to be much more dangerous. Is that something that you folks would consider in some of the improvements? EMLER: I think you brought up a good point, because it says “pavement widening”; it doesn’t say “shoulder widening.” WHITTEMORE: Right. EMLER: So you could say “pavement and roadside widening,” just to add the word “roadside.” And so, that would address, we would be looking for safety issues with regard to a clear zone from, from a drop-off or embankment. So it would be either adding additional shoulder width to meet the clear zone requirements or guard rails. But I think we would just require that they do the normal, say 15 feet of shoulder, swale area from the pavement over to the proposed property line. EMLER: So you can say “pavement and roadside widening,” just add the word “roadside,” and so that would address, we would be looking for safety issues with regard to a clear zone from a drop-off or embankment. So it would be either adding additional shoulder width to meet the clear zone requirements or guardrails; but I think we would just require that they do the normal, say, 15 feet of shoulder swale area from the pavement over to the proposed property line. WHITTEMORE: Okay. GIFFIN: So then, Daryn, are we talking about more verbiage in here? So -. ARAI: I’ll take care of it. GIFFIN: Thank you, thank you. Brandi. BEAUDET: Steve, a couple of questions. When we talk about fair share improvement costs for road improvements alongside Parcel 30 -. 38 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Forty-three? BEAUDET: No, Parcel 30. The number, how did we derive at the number 75,000? LIM: We had our, the Barretts said they estimated out the approximately 600 to 700 lineal feet of improvements to Hualālai Road at about $500,000. So we divided that by seven, which would have been the six lots that are, were part of the original big property, plus the Bolton Lot 30, which is a separate parcel that’s going to be improved. So that’s why they divided seven into, $500,000 by seven comes out something like $71,000 roughly. BEAUDET: Okay. I would be more comfortable with dividing by six, because Parcel 30 is connected to the other Bolton property and there is no required improvements for the lot because of the encumbrance of the water tank, yeah? LIM: The applicant agrees with dividing by six and -. GIFFIN: So what does that come out to? LIM: I’m going to let the math majors do that right. COMMAND: About 83. BEAUDET: Okay. And then the second point that I had was in your response letter dated September 12, 2013, Project Benefits, Paragraph Project Benefits, we spoke earlier to it with regard to the 20 feet of widening along the boundary of Parcel 43. Should we indicate that in the conditions? Because we speak to the five-foot setback but we don’t speak to the road improvement agreement. LIM: I think it’s probably difficult to do that because, you know, we have to leave it up to the engineers of Public Works to determine where this Hualālai Road, the new Hualālai Road right-of-way is going to be. BEAUDET: So, Daryn, we cannot, can’t we add that language into the condition based upon the opinion or the direction of Public Works? ARAI: In, let me see, in many ways that provision I believe, and maybe Ki can correct me, is, since it is kind of, it’s not explicitly stated, but it’s built into the condition, because we are looking at pavement widening and now roadside improvements, grading, resurfacing, drainage improvements. So I don’t know if you need to go to that level of being that specific because -. BEAUDET: So that would be covered in H then. ARAI: That will be covered, well, I, as well. BEAUDET: Okay. ARAI: I mean that’s the way I see it. 39 EXHIBIT B BEAUDET: Okay. If it’s implied, then that’s fine, but as long as everyone understands that. ARAI: Yeah, because in the end Public Works needs to determine what they, it’s the County road, Hualālai Road, so Public Works who controls the County roads will determine the scope of the improvements necessary to ride the proper widening and transitions for the improvements, so -. Are you comfortable with that, Ki? EMLER: Yeah, I think it’s built into Condition I already. But I just had a thought, and that is the issue of giving the additional five feet of barrier for future widening, and I would like to have that graded for the future widening now before, at the same time they are developing the lots so that we are not having to do it later. So that would be built into the roadside improvements. And if I can get that on the record, that’s something that I would prefer is that that additional five feet also be graded in the roadside. ARAI: The way the condition is languaged right now is it’s a future road widening. If Public Works wants it improved, whether it’s just simple grading or not, there is going to be a point where one has to consider whether the County should just ask for it, and don’t make it a future five-foot widening, ask for it now. I mean the whole point of the condition as constructed is that should Hualālai Road be widened to a full 60 feet -. Right now Public Works did mention that in the interim 50-foot wide right-of-way realign would be acceptable to support the project, but in the future eventually we may want to see a full 60 feet, which is collector standard. So to improve beyond the 50 that was represented as being satisfactory for now, I don’t know, I do have some concerns about that; because they can grade it, the additional five feet, but like who is going to maintain it, who is going to, I mean, it does raise some issues in my head. It all comes down to if we want it for whatever purpose, we should take it. GIFFIN: Brandi, you are okay with that kind of, you know, thinking? BEAUDET: Yeah, yes, I am. GIFFIN: Thank you. WHITTEMORE: Daryn, just one question, too. GIFFIN: Tom. WHITTEMORE: I don’t know, I’m not familiar with what conditions were put in place when you, the Commission approved 42, and when we talk about the divisible and everything by one-sixth or whatever, I’m assuming 42 is totally out of place. What we approved under that is what we’ve got to live with. The difference has got to be made up by the County when we look at the allocation of these expenses, is that correct? Make up for 42? I mean the future lots we can apply the same accountable as we are doing now, but the one already approved, the County has got to carry that cost to be consistent, right? ARAI: I think I mentioned this at the last meeting back in July is that you can ask for a distribution, but it’s a distribution based on assumed cost for the improvement in today’s dollars; we have no clue what is going to be in the future. So to simply say that we are going to have to make up the difference only for the Hu Ko Pa project, which already has its entitlements, I don’t know if it’s just 40 EXHIBIT B simply limited to that, because the improvements to Hualālai Road, and given that it’s not even programmed, it could be ten, fifteen years from now, and nobody knows what the cost will be in the future. WHITTEMORE: But it will be the County’s kuleana. ARAI: Yeah, it will. WHITTEMORE: Okay, yeah, okay. GIFFIN: Okay. Any other questions of comments? So then, Daryn, how would we mesh the proposed conditions with the Director’s conditions? ARAI: Well, basically, I’m going based on the assumption, not hearing anything different, that the red-lined proposal offered by the applicant will form the basis for the amendments to the Planning Director’s recommendation that is before you on the goldenrod paper. So my comments will be based on the red-lined amendment submitted by the applicant. GIFFIN: Okay. ARAI: We have been in discussion with Public Works, and they did recommend a few additional changes, and if I can kind of go step by step through each one real quick. GIFFIN: Thank you, thank you. ARAI: So again, we are all operating off of the red-lined version offered by the applicant. Looking at Condition C, I mean, Condition B was offered by the applicant. From a Department standpoint we have no objections to that. Condition C, as I mentioned earlier in addressing Commissioner Beaudet’s comments, the applicant offered the proposed language regarding final subdivision approval based upon completion of the minor street connection, which is the extension of Paulehia. That will go at the very end of Condition C, which currently reads, “Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed development shall be secured from the Planning Director within five years from the effective date of this ordinance.” At the very bottom, Condition G, and continuing onto Page 2, we have no changes or recommended changes to that language. We are in general concurrence with those proposed changes. Condition H, as in Harry, the proposed “equal to one-half the difference” language is somewhat concerning to Public Works simply because we don’t know if it’s truly going to be half the distance. Hualālai Road kind of meanders, so in order to sort of straighten out the alignment there may be situations where more than half is necessary to take care of the geometric. So that being said, we would like to wipe out the red-lined, and if I could just read the whole thing as proposed, I think that will be easier: “The applicant shall realign the right-of-way boundary along the subject property frontage of Hualālai Road to an alignment meeting with the approval of the Department of Public 41 EXHIBIT B Works and dedicate any additional right-of-way to the County, between the existing subject property right-of-way boundary and the subject property-side of the realigned 50-foot wide right-of-way.” And the rest of the condition will read the same. That’s basically clarifying that it will give Public Works ability to adjust the right-of-way, and sometimes it may be more than half the difference between the existing right-of-way and the new realignment. Condition I, let’s see, the Department of Public Works earlier recommended that on the third line down after the word, “pavement,” to also insert the words, “and roadside widening,” so it will be “pavement and roadside widening.” And that was in response to Commissioner Whittemore’s concern about shoulder improvements and guardrails and everything else. The rest of the condition that is red-lined, which talks about their fair share improvements, at that point whether you accept it or not, I’ll leave it to the discretion of the Commission, because there was discussion of whether it’s 75,000 or whether we go with one-sixth, which would be in the vicinity of 83,000, based on Commissioner Beaudet’s comments. Condition L, one minor adjustment at the very end, it says that “a drainage study shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works”; Public Works would like it to read “and submitted for approval by the Department of Public Works.” I think I covered everything. Oh, one more condition, sorry. If I can back you up to Condition H again, as in Harry, at the very end of the condition we would like to include additional language, and this is to address, if you look at the site plan again where Hualālai intersects with Hienaloli at the very top, right there, people heading mauka wanting to do a left turn and head north apparently have a very difficult time seeing south along Hienaloli; I guess there is, you know, trees and brush. And so there is a concern that if this project were to be developed, that something could get in the way, like a rock wall or something, that would further block the ability to look south to see if traffic is coming up in order to make a left-turn movement onto Hienaloli Road. So with that being said, we just want to include additional language at the end of Condition H that will read “a sight distance easement shall be provided and maintained to address the sight distance limitation at the intersection of Hualālai Road with Hienaloli-Kahului Road. I think I got everything. Okay. Thank you. GIFFIN: Okay. I’m just making sure that I have -. WHITTEMORE: I think you’ve got, under I, also a correction in that the cap on the dollar, the 75 -. GIFFIN: Oh yeah, well, 83, Daryn wanted, I mean, Daryn wanted to have us discuss that? Is that why you left it out? ARAI: I’m sorry? GIFFIN: I mean you didn’t leave it out, you said the discretion of the -. ARAI: I mentioned whether to go one-seventh or one-sixth is really the Commission’s discretion at this point. GIFFIN: Yeah, that’s why he didn’t say that that was included. 42 EXHIBIT B WHITTEMORE: Okay. ARAI: And just to let you know that Mr. Emler of Public Works asked if he could speak to some of the proposed amendments. So it’s at your discretion if you want to call him up. GIFFIN: Absolutely. Come on up, Ki. EMLER: Well, I think this was addressed at length at the previous meeting, or discussed, but the issue of not improving the frontage of Parcel 43 (sic) is a concern especially for me because I have to review the construction plans for this, and you see the 42, the frontage of 42 is going to be improved and 43 is going to be improved, but the gap between the two is not going to be improved; how am I going to deal with that when it comes to dealing with the construction plans? That’s going to be difficult. So it’s going to make it -. I don’t think the owner of Parcel 30 is going to object to them improving the frontage of their property. And so that’s why I’m concerned about leaving the gap there. Perhaps we shouldn’t even have any improvements on Hualālai Road at all, if we are not going to fill the gap. And I’m a little concerned about Condition G being understandable: “The applicant shall construct a north-south connector road between the proposed Pualena Street extension and Hualālai Road” and dedicate it to the County. I’m wondering if it’s clear enough exactly how that’s supposed to happen. Their site plan is very indirect, you know, as far as the connection is being made. I hope, perhaps they can point out exactly what they mean by that for the record. I think when we had the previous condition, the way it was written -. And I appreciate that they are wanting to include stuff about the gates, not having gates and so forth, that’s certainly admirable, we accept that. I’m a little concerned about making sure I understand what street alignment this condition is talking about at least in the context of the existing site plan, what they’ve done. LIM: I’ll take a shot at it. EMLER: Okay. LIM: Starting the bottom of the picture, the mid point in the project on the south boundary, that’s the Pualena Street extension – and, you know, as I look at the condition, it should say that “The applicant shall construct a north-south connector road within the project” – so starting from there and heading in north direction you take a left to go makai and go straight down, and that is the what we would call the minor street, the Pualena Street extension out to Hualālai Road, because that will then connect to the Hu Ko Pa extension. EMLER: So because we have the new amended condition that requires that they obtain an easement form the adjacent property owner, that is the north-south connection. It’s indirect north-south that goes makai, and then it takes a right, so it’s a little confusing -. LIM: Yeah, it’s -. EMLER: As far as trying to read it, and say, oh yeah, I know what that means. 43 EXHIBIT B LIM: It’s, you know, for us if you would prefer to go back to the original language, so long as we all understand that the connecting roadway is constructed with dedicable standards means exactly what I said; we don’t want to make all the roads in the project, you know, dedicable standards. EMLER: I like the original condition, but you could leave in the part about the gates, and put in a requirement that there be a connector to Pualena future extension to Pualena. LIM: If we are going to change, let’s just go back to the original condition. ARAI: Maybe we’ll just delete the word “north-south,” and I think that will take care of everything. And it seems like Public Works is receptive to that. LIM: Okay. Daryn, could we add also, so it will be, “The applicant shall construct a connector road -.” ARAI: “Connector road between -.” LIM: To say “within the project.” I don’t want to have to build an offsite road. ARAI: “Construct a connector road within the project,” right? LIM: Yeah, and then everything else seems to be good. ARAI: Okay. GIFFIN: So, Daryn, we were still on G? Yes? ARAI: Yeah, but I think we resolved it with the amendment we just made on. So it looks like Public Works is now more comfortable, because I think he is right, “north-south” was kind of forcing a direction so. GIFFIN: Yeah. BEAUDET: I have one question, please. GIFFIN: Brandi. BEAUDET: And this is for Ki. On the first item that you discussed about Parcel 30, you wanted to comment your concerns or you are going to follow up with a recommendation or a suggestion? EMLER: Our original recommendation on our memo to the Planning Director was that that frontage also be improved as part of the project improvements. So it didn’t have this deletion of Parcel 30. BEAUDET: So we either agree to agree with the condition in its original state or in its suggested state, is what, right? Okay. 44 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Correct. And if, and I’m not leading the Commission, if the Commission decides to require the applicant to provide that, improve that portion of Hualālai Road that runs away from the project site’s boundaries fronting Parcel 30, you need to include Parcel 11, too, if I remember correctly, because Parcel 11 is the water tank site. And I should note for the Commission’s information that when we went back to the office, we did note that Parcel 30 and the water tank site there was a recent subdivision – I don’t have the date right off the top of my head – that actually carved out an additional right-of-way; so during the subdivision for the water tank site, I’m not sure if it was based on comments from Public Works or not, but the subdivision included I think it was a five-foot wide strip for the widening of Hualālai Road. It is still owned I believe by Bolton, and it has not yet been dedicated to the County, but just to let you know that road widening was factored in into the subdivision, and it has since been approved. And again, that is only to the lot that, Parcel 30 that resides in this area here, the Hualālai Road frontage. LIM: On the applicant’s part, you know, we repeat that we don’t think it’s appropriate to require the applicant to try to construct a roadway on somebody else’s property. All he has to do is tell us no, and then we are dead in the water. That’s why we proposed the fair share. GIFFIN: So, Daryn, could you please repeat what it is regarding Condition G, right, is what we are talking about? ARAI: Well, we are actually gravitating now into Condition I. GIFFIN: And, so the two choices are? ARAI: Well, there are actually three choices the way I see it. It’s either go with the applicant’s proposal to not require them to improve Parcel 30 frontage and just to provide their fair share – actually, yeah, four choices – provide their fair share at $75,000, which is the one-seventh distribution; or go with Commissioner Beaudet’s thought about going one-sixth, which would be about $83,000 distribution, that’s 2; then you have whether to require the improvement, ignore his offer of a fair share and require them to improve the entire frontage of fronting Parcel 30 and including the water tank site, Parcel 11, with the widening improvements and drainage improvements necessary. So, I’m sorry, maybe that’s just three changes. GIFFIN: Okay. Everything else, though, is in sync, right? ARAI: I believe the rest of it we are okay with. I mean there is that fair share condition that spills over onto Page 5 where they include Conditions G, H, I and J, as being able to secure credits from their fair share obligation for outside road improvements. GIFFIN: Not J, though. ARAI: No, J, too, is in there, I mean as being offered by the applicant’s representatives. Yeah, J is in there. And J is for street lights, signs and markings on Hualālai Road, meeting with the approval of Public Works. And just to let you know, the credit I believe was also provided for Hu Ko Pa. GIFFIN: So the conditions as proposed by the applicant that had additional wordings were the following: Condition C, Condition G, B, yeah, sorry, H, I, J as you just pointed out. 45 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Well, J, there is no amendments. GIFFIN: It was as is. ARAI: It was as is, but it was included in Condition S, which is the fair share. GIFFIN: Okay, so then no additional wording for Condition J, ARAI: No. GIFFIN: How about L? ARAI: Condition L at the very, “A drainage study shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and submitted for approval by the Department of Public Works,” that was the change we are offering. GIFFIN: Okay. And then S? ARAI: And then S, and that would conclude the amendments. GIFFIN: Okay. So, Commissioners, those are the conditions as proposed by the applicant that we are considering that -. ARAI: And further amended by the Department and Public Works. GIFFIN: Yeah. So, do we have any discussions on these proposed conditions? WHITTEMORE: Daryn, can I -. GIFFIN: Tom. WHITTEMORE: Yeah. Going back to your three or four options there on I, just so that I understand clearly; it’s either $75,000, $83,000 or $500,000. ARAI: That’s a good way of putting it, yes. WHITTEMORE: Isn’t that the way basically? ARAI: Basically, yeah. WHITTEMORE: Okay. ARAI: Public Works said “or nothing,” which is true, too. WHITTEMORE: Yeah, so, any difference to keep the consistency going with improvements, the County is going to bear. If it’s 500,000 around that area estimated and value that you’ve placed on the construction cost, and 83 is going into it, but the difference is that the County will bear it to keep those improvements going, right? 46 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Correct, especially based on Mr. Emler’s comments about if he is having to approve construction drawings for improvements on the other side, you know, I guess how do you transition improvements if you are not going to carry it all the way through. BEAUDET: We’ve got to be honest with ourselves as a commission, yeah, I mean, it’s a County road, we had a first opportunity and we missed it. And now as we move forward, we need to be conscientious of the conditions that we put on, or that we apply to these application request; you know, the County needs to make up for lost opportunity, not the next developer. GIFFIN: Bobby. COMMAND: And I will say that the balance of whatever we are talking about, 425,000 or, is not necessarily going to be put up by the County at anytime soon. Just because we decide that we are going to allow them to do one-sixth doesn’t mean that we are going to do the rest. It doesn’t mean we are not, but -. BEAUDET: But we are not going to do, we are not going to do it, I mean they are not going to do one-sixth; they are going to contribute -. COMMAND: Exactly, yeah. BEAUDET: One-sixth of an estimated cost. GIFFIN: At today’s prices. BEAUDET: At today’s dollar. COMMAND: And I would say that we are also setting up a precedent that when the other applicants, when the other owners of the other lots come in, that we would apply the same condition to them. ARAI: And I know it’s getting late in hour, but I just want to make it clear, too, that don’t use this as an opportunity to resolve things that may have been not looked at in the past. I mean it’s all about if you do require something of the applicant that is proportionately reasonable -. GIFFIN: Fair. ARAI: Fair, you know, based on the impacts that they generated, you know, all that has to be weighed into the decision-making. So I just want to make sure that that was on the record. GIFFIN: Thank you. And, Daryn, should we then next consider the 75,000 and/or the 83, or when we talk about the conditions that that figure can be interjected then? Or should we be of one mind? ARAI: I think it’s really, it’s just going to come down to someone just making a motion, and it could, yeah, just someone just making a motion and identifying what parts of the applicant’s proposal they like, what parts of our recommended changes they like, and go for it. 47 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: So bearing that in mind, Commissioners, what I suggest is that we go ahead and take a look at the various conditions as proposed by the applicant that we’ve been discussing – I’ve tried to mark in my margins those conditions that had additional verbiage – and then when it comes to the proposed Condition I, that we think about what is the figure that is amenable to us, and go from there. Am I correct, Daryn? ARAI: That’s fine. You can do it that way. GIFFIN: Okay. So is there any more -. Tom. WHITTEMORE: If I can just clarify, because my earlier statement -. GIFFIN: Which one? WHITTEMORE: With regard to the three choices. GIFFIN: Yes. WHITTEMORE: That was, the last choice of the 500,000 was really the original recommendation of the Department. That’s the only reason I brought it up, whether it’s equitable or not, and whether it applies or not. So it’s a significant change from what the Department really recommended initially versus where we stand today with the proposal. So that’s just for the record; I just wanted to make sure that’s the reason why I had brought it up. GIFFIN: Thank you. Any other comments? Because we should be looking at these conditions in terms of a motion. Daryn, would you like to go over again the conditions as proposed by the applicant that have additional wording or changes, because that should be reflected in a motion as well, without necessarily having to go through the actual verbiage in a motion for each condition. ARAI: Sure. Condition B, we have no objections to that language. Condition C, we are just asking that additional language be placed that would tie in the project with the connector road to makai, the Hu Ko Pa development. Condition G, we had no objections to the applicant’s proposal with a minor change to eliminate the word “north-south” to avoid confusion and to ensure that they construct the connector road within the project. Condition H, as in Harry, not supportive of the equal to one-half difference red-lined language that they were offering; in its place we did offer a suggested change that will provide the clarification. I think it still provides the reassurance that the County is not going to take more than it absolutely needs. Condition I, all we ask is that we include the words, “and roadside,” after the word, “pavement,” on the third line to make sure that the shoulders get improved, the shoulders on their side of the project. We are still waiting on – sorry. BEAUDET: Condition H, we wanted to add language to incorporate a sight distance requirement, yeah? ARAI: You are absolutely correct. Thank you so much for reminding me about that. Thank you. Condition L, as in Larry, just making sure that the drainage study is approved by the Department of Public Works. And there is also the change to Condition S, as in Sam, at the very end, starting on Page 5, we don’t have any significant objections to the applicant’s proposed amendments. 48 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Would you say that again? ARAI: We don’t have any objections to the applicant’s proposed amendments. GIFFIN: Great. So, does that help with the proposal of, I mean, for a motion? BEAUDET: We don’t need specific language for Condition C? GIFFIN: No. BEAUDET: We can motion on the understanding? GIFFIN: No, we can move on that our staff has the exact wording that was read to us. BEAUDET: Okay. GIFFIN: Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: Yes, ma’am. I would like to make a motion for a favorable recommendation for the change of zone request be forwarded to the Hawai‘i County Council relating to REZ 13-164, along with the conditions as proposed by the applicant on a document dated September 26, 2013, also reflecting the changes agreed upon today, specifically to Conditions C -. GIFFIN: Start with B, please. BEAUDET: As recommended, as proposed by the applicant in Condition B, additional language as staff recommended for Condition C, proposed changes by the applicant on G, as for Condition H, with the additional language as recommended by staff, as for Condition H, the language proposed by the applicant and staff -. ARAI: It may be better to say as further amended by staff. BEAUDET: As further amended by staff, along with a change to the not to exceed the dollar amount of 75,000 to 83,000, recommended changes on Condition L, and proposed changes to Condition S. ARAI: You did a wonderful job, Commissioner Beaudet. I have just one minor follow-up is on Condition G on Page 2 at the very top, you may recall there was initial confusion about the words “construct a north-south connector”; and we recommended that the word “north-south” be eliminated to simply “construct a connector road within the project between the proposed Pualena Street,” with the remainder of the condition to read as follows. GIFFIN: Correct. HICKCOX: Second. GIFFIN: Hang on. Daryn, I have a question. Did we speak of Condition J also? 49 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Condition J, there were no amendments proposed by either the applicant or the Department. Condition J reference was actually within Condition S, which they wanted to include that as an opportunity to secure credits against their fair share -. GIFFIN: Correct, correct, okay. WHITTEMORE: Chair? Just -. GIFFIN: Tom. WHITTEMORE: Just so, Brandi, I think you wanted, maybe I didn’t hear you say, about the sight distance issue on H, that you also wanted to include that -. BEAUDET: Yeah, we confirmed that prior to the motion. WHITTEMORE: We did, okay, okay. GIFFIN: Okay, hang on. It’s been moved and seconded, it’s been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that the change of zone application, REZ 13-164, receive a favorable recommendation to the Hawai‘i County Council, along with the conditions. Daryn, do you want me to repeat them? ARAI: Yeah, I don’t think it’s necessary. COMMAND: As stated. GIFFIN: Okay, as stated, the Director suggested, by the maker of the motion, and seconded by Mr. Hickcox. I think we covered the basis, correct, Daryn? ARAI: Yes, ma’am. GIFFIN: Okay. Okay, I think we are ready. ARAI: Okay, calling the roll. Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. 50 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, a favorable recommendation carries with six aye votes. GIFFIN: Congratulations. LIM: Thank you very much for your hard work. And wish us luck at the next level. The discussion ended at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 51 EXHIBIT B