Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-21 Leeward Exh B (Amend SMA 05-007) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 21, 2016 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of ROYAL ALII LLC (SMA 05-007) was called to order at 9:42 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Collin Kaholo, Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara Nobriga and Sonny Shimaoka ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Scott Church and Perry Kealoha ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Counsel for the Commission), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately fifteen people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: ROYAL ALII LLC (SMA 05-007) Request to amend Condition No. 2 (additional time to secure Final Subdivision Approval) of Special Management Area Use Permit No. 05-007, originally approved on July 21, 2006, to allow a 19-unit, single-family residential development and related uses. The properties are located on the east (mauka) side of Ali‘i Drive, across from the ʻAlohi Kai Subdivision and Kamoa Point, Kaumalumalu, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK:7-7-004:057 & 058. UNGER: Second agenda item, Item No. 2, Applicant Royal Ali‘i LLC, SMA 05-007, request to amend Condition 2, additional time to secure Final Subdivision Approval, of SMA Use Permit 05-007, originally approved on January \[July\] 21, 2006, to allow a 19-unit single-family residential development and related uses. The properties are located on the east, on the mauka, side of Ali‘i Drive, across from ‘Alohi Kai Subdivision and Kamoa Point, Kaumalumalu, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK 7-7-004:057, Parcels 57 and 58. Before we get into staff presentation, we do have a petition for standing. We’ll go ahead and hear the presentation, and then after that we’ll deal with the petition for standing. So go ahead, Jeff. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to our next presentation. As mentioned, the applicant is Royal Ali‘i LLC, and they are requesting an amendment to Special Management Area Use Permit No. 05-007. The area of the subject application is within the North Kona District of Hawai‘i. More specifically, we are looking along Ali‘i Drive, which runs in a north-south direction. For reference we also have Kuakini Highway that runs parallel with 1 EXHIBIT B Ali‘i Drive – excuse me. The subject property is outlined with a black outline. And again for reference we have the ‘Alohi Kai Subdivision that’s makai of the subject properties, which consist of single-family dwelling units on properties zoned Resort, and we also have the Hoomalu Subdivision in surrounding area in the Agricultural zoning area. This is a closer-up view of the subject properties and surrounding area, which identifies the County zoning of the properties in this general location. The subject properties identified with a black outline are zoned Single-family Residential-7,500 square feet. The light green represents Agricultural-5 acres. The purple represents Resort zoning, 1.25, or 1,250 square feet, and the brown zoning represents Multiple-family Residential zoning. Again for reference, we have Ali‘i Drive, and the subject properties will access off Ali‘i Drive. This is our State Land Use Designation Map; the two colors on the map represent Urban for the pink and Agricultural for the green. This is our General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map; the subject properties are identified as Medium Density Urban, the green represents Open, and the hatched area represents Urban Expansion. And this is an aerial photo. Again for reference, we have Ali‘i Drive, we have the ‘Alohi Kai Subdivision, which also shows a portion of the dwellings that have been built on the property and some of the dwellings that have been built in the surrounding area by the subject property. The applicant is requesting a five-year time extension amendment to comply with Condition No. 2, which is the condition to secure Final Subdivision Approval within a certain amount of time. This is for Special Management Area Use Permit No. 05-007, which was originally approved on July 21, 2006, to allow a 19-unit single-family residential subdivision and related uses. The project will consist of 19 single-family residential lots, which will range from approximately 5,240 square feet to 10,177 square feet in size. The applicant has received approval for a Planned Unit Development, which is identified as PUD05-005, it is identified as Exhibit No. 4 within the background report, as well as has secured tentative subdivision approval for the project, and the tentative approval letter is identified as Exhibit No. 3 within our background report. This is the Planned Unit Development Master Plan, which identifies the access from Ali‘i Drive. It identifies the 19 lots, as well as the roadway system within the subject property, as well as archaeological preservation lots. This is the Master Plan of the PUD showing the areas to be preserved along with the archaeological sites and burial sites on the property. There are two burials that were identified on the subject property that will be preserved in place. The buffer areas are identified with the black outline. And again, they will be outside of the areas that the lots will be located. A major concern in this application is the preservation of the Judd Trail. We’ve received a number of letters requesting that Condition 13 remain within the Special Management Permit conditions, which it will; the Planning Director is recommending that it remain. But for some background information we wanted to give you some insight as to the significance of this particular trail. 2 EXHIBIT B Between 1849 and 1859 the Judd Trail was constructed beginning at the Government Beach Trail, which was Ali‘i Drive, and extending approximately 16 miles mauka terminating approximately two miles above the Ahu-a-Umi between Mt. Hualālai and Mauna Loa. Initially the trail was intended to connect the government center of Kailua-Kona and the port of Hilo, but was interrupted by a lava flow from Mauna Loa in 1859. Construction of the trail was overseen by Garrit P. Judd and Kinimaka and carried out using prison laborers – this was within the Haun & Henry AIS dated 2002. The Judd Trail was used for cattle transport, as well as access to upland farming and littoral resources. Subsequent to the inventory survey, it was discovered that the Judd Trail is partially located on the subject property. The Judd Trail was initially believed to be off the property; however, subsequent detailed mapping found a corner pin, the location of which indicates that approximately 75 percent of the remaining rock walls that border the trail remnant are within the boundaries of the project site. The applicant acknowledges the State of Hawai‘i’s ownership of this trail. Based on the above, Condition 13 was added to the original SMA permit, which states, “Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, a metes and bounds survey of the Judd Trail shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor to locate the Judd Trail in the vicinity of the subject property from Ali‘i Drive to a point near the southeast corner of the applicant’s property. The survey shall be submitted to the Planning Director. Subject to the approval of the State, the applicant shall stabilize the existing remnants of the Judd Trail, which shall consist of stabilizing the stone walls and removing invasive plants. Upon request of the State, the applicant shall quitclaim to the State any portions of the Judd Trail that are within their property boundaries. A 10-foot wide buffer easement shall be established along the southern boundary of the property not in the preservation area as a ‘no build’ buffer zone.” This is a portion of our GIS map, which identifies the Judd Trail general location. And as you can see, it runs through a portion of the subject property and continues mauka. This is a portion of the Tax Map Key for this particular, for the particular properties, as well as the surrounding area. I wanted to show you that there has been portions of the trail set aside within these trail lots, or separate lots, as well as buffers for no-build zones, within previous subdivisions that have happened. There is a portion of this set-aside just mauka of the subject property, as well as in this general area the property to the south, which is owned by the applicant within this case; they have interest in both this property and the subject properties. It’s hard to see, but there is a ten-foot buffer on this portion of the property to the south, and that was set aside specifically for the Judd Trail. These are some site photos. This is looking at the subject property from Ali‘i Drive; as you can see, the subject property is currently vegetated. This is looking north on Ali‘i Drive with the subject property on the right. And this is looking south on Ali‘i Drive with the subject property on the left. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this amendment request, with amended conditions that have been added. Just for your information, as mentioned, we have received several letters from the public since the background and recommendation was distributed to the Planning Commission. A majority of 3 EXHIBIT B these speak directly to the preservation of the Judd Trail and they request to keep Condition 13 within the SMA permit. Additionally, as mentioned, we have a petition for standing from Paula McMichael, which was received on July 13, 2016, with the filing fee. And lastly, we have received a response to the petition from the applicant, dated July 20, 2016. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. The first order of business regarding this agenda item is to determine whether to accept the petition for standing for Paula McMichael, and that was received July 13, 2016. Under Rule 4-6(b), also states in relevant part that if a timely request is filed, standing shall be granted if the following criteria can be met: His or her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; or that even though they do not have an interest different from the public generally, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact. At this time we would like to call the applicant up. I’m sorry, the petition, the application for petition, or the petitioner. I’d like to also call the applicant and the Planning Director up. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? PETITIONER/APPLICANT/PLANNING DIRECTOR: I do. Yes. UNGER: Please state your name and where you reside, starting here. SMITH: Larry Smith. I live at 77-6393 Ali‘i Drive, Kailua-Kona. I’ve been there for approximately 30 years. UNGER: Thank you. MCMICHAEL: My name is Paula McMichael and I reside in Kailua-Kona. BRILHANTE: Good morning, Chair, Commissioners. William Brilhante, Assistant Corporation Counsel on behalf of the Planning Director, Mr. Duane Kanuha who is present. UNGER: Thank you. The petitioner can start. MCMICHAEL: Okay. My name is Paula McMichael and I reside in Kailua-Kona. My interest in this matter is as follows: I have long been engaged in watersports, especially surfing, and have operated a business called Pacific Vibrations Surf Shop in Kailua-Kona for 38 years; I’m a surfer and president of Hawai‘i Surfing Association, and the nature of activities are promoting, saving the surf for Kona and the future generation; I also have an interest as a citizen and resident to ensure that the public natural resources trusts under Article XI, Section 1 of the State Constitution and Section 13-29 of the Hawai‘i County Charter are enforced; these resources include water – keaolanahihi; the State trust provision, which Hawai‘i voters adopted in 1978, is quoted as Article XI, Section 1, “For the benefit of the present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions, counties, shall conserve and protect Hawai‘i’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy resources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation 4 EXHIBIT B and in furtherance of the self-sufficient of the State. All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people”; the County trust provision enacted by the county voters in 2010, is quoted, Section 13-29, Hawai‘i County Charter to include “wahi pana,” “surf spots”; I have an interest as a citizen and resident to a clean and healthy environment, which is guaranteed to me by Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawai‘i State Constitution, which states, “Each person has the right to clean, healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources. Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulations as provided by law. The application to amend Condition 2, additional time to secure Final Subdivision Approval, of five years of SMA Use Permit 05-007, originally approved on July 21, 2006. Approval of the request was subject to: Final Subdivision Approval shall be secured within five years from the effective date of the permit. It’s now ten years, and much has changed. Number one, the delay of constructing of the Kahului-Keauhou Parkway, which was intended when it was approved. The County since has apparently suspended its interest in constructing the parkway due to the presence of historical properties in the road and surrounding area. Assumed Parkway was to be built – Page 29 of Environment Assessment – but is not; the project should not be considered until such time that the parkway is constructed. And also noted that the fastest growing North Kona District is the center of the visitors industry and real estate development that power the economy of the island. With that being said, the County should realize approving more developments with this parkway, infrastructure lacking already. Noted on the SMA Permit, 05-007, regarding granting the time extension, granting the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit, signed by Kimo Alameda, Chairman, Planning Commission. Chapter 343 Revised Statutes, HRS, significance criteria, agencies must consider all phases of the project, its expected consequences both primary and secondary, its cumulative impact on other projects, as its short and long effects. And the State of Hawai‘i Department of Health Rules Section 11-200-12, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, Revised 1996, establish 13 significance criteria to be \[used\] as a basis for identifying whether significant environmental impact will occur. The project has already been bulldozed majority of the property. Destruction of any cultural \[resources\], Cultural Resources Commission and SHPD needs immediate attention to address this loss and destruction. Also, missing are two caves of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bats. Two, substantially affect the economic and social welfare of the community or state: The traffic has already adverse effects, public health is also at risk. It involves secondary impacts such as population changes or effects on public facilities. The project is located near favorite surf sites, Lyman’s, as well as Kahalu‘u Beach. The health issues are already occurring, bacteria, fecal bacteria, high level in Kona due to cesspool, two million gallons per day into the area of Kahalu‘u. Also, the opening of Māmalahoa Bypass Highway has an effect now on Ali‘i Drive without Kahului-Keauhou Parkway. So, much of Ali‘i Drive has become the new highway; cars often speed. And now Māmalahoa has been renamed Ali‘i Drive. Noise and pollution as well. The traffic study of March 1, 2005, in the EA, Page 27, that was done at Mākole‘ā Drive and the entrance to Kahalu‘u Beach. It showed that 2004 and 2000 also traffic along Ali‘i Drive is growing at 4 percent annually. The calculation A.M. in 25 out 75 percent, this is below F Level. When demands, volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will encountered with queuing, which may severely congestion affected other traffic 5 EXHIBIT B movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement of the intersection. Sixty-four percent, this is E Level, very long traffic delays. County of the Police wrote on March 11, 2008, that “any additional development project utilizing Ali‘i Drive as exclusive access will adversely impact traffic conditions throughout Ali‘i Drive, particularly during peak traffic hours or during an emergency condition. Recommends against any further development project in the area until such time as the proposed Kahului-Keauhou Parkway has been completed and is open to traffic.” My interest is different from the other parties in that the only parties to the proceeding now are the applicant and the County officials. If allowed to intervene, I will be able to assist the Leeward Planning Commission to develop a complete record of the relevant facts. UNGER: Thank you. Applicant, do you object to this petition? SMITH: Yes, I do. UNGER: Go ahead and state your reasons. SMITH: Okay. I’ve lived on Ali‘i Drive for approximately 30 years and my family has grown up there. And I know a lot of local people there, and I’ve done a lot of improvements. I’ve donated two lifeguard stands to the Kahalu‘u. I re-roof the bathrooms at Kahalu‘u. Jerome and Junior in the last 30 years, before Junior died, I’ve worked numerous times on at Lyman’s and Banyan’s. My son has grown up at Banyan’s. I tried to donate a twelve-acre park on La‘aloa Street there to the County when I did Ali‘i Subdivision, and Harry Kim wouldn’t accept the twelve-acre park because he said he couldn’t maintain it. I’ve worked at Kahakai School, donating, doing things for them because my kids went to school there. And I’ve worked at Old Airport, putting up lights. I’ve, I ride my bike for approximately, the last 30 years, two hours every night on Ali‘i Drive from Keauhou Shopping Center all the way to Old Airport and back, and if there is any problems, I call the police or I call the County. So I feel that I take care of Ali‘i Drive and that area more than most people do. And as far as the traffic goes, once they closed the Keauhou Beach Hotel, the traffic has gone down considerably. So, you know, I feel that, I own the property on two sides of this property, and I can’t see where it’s going to impact Ali‘i Drive as she stated. UNGER: Thank you. County, do you have any comments. BRILHANTE: Yes, we do. Thank you very much, Chair. At this time the Planning Director is requesting that the Commission deny the request for standing. The primary basis for our request is predicated on the fact that Ms. McMichael has failed to prove that her interests are distinguishable from that of the general public. She has raised issues related to HRS 343 or traffic and congestion, but those concerns aren’t specific to her; those concerns are generally applicable to the public at large. And the Planning Department’s consideration of this application, first originally in 2006, and now subsequently with this condition amendment just increasing the time extension to an additional five years, there has been no increase in the scope of the project, size of the project, or, you know, related impacts that the project will have because 6 EXHIBIT B of those primary, I guess the term would be straightforward, you know, compliance with the original application request. So, again, the County states that Ms. McMichael has failed to prove that her interests are distinguishable from that of the general public. UNGER: Great. Thank you. Petitioner, at this time you are able to respond to any of the comments so far. MCMICHAEL: Well, it says here I’m exercising my right. It says that I am a local surfer. I surf in the area; I surf at the surf spots and on the island. I’m a citizen who lives in the area and opposes this development for the coastline. And it’s in behalf of the other people. It’s not just me; it’s in behalf of the public, and safety of the future generation. You know, I, Mr. Smith doesn’t surf, whenever there is surf, it’s packed bumper to bumper. There is no sidewalks. Cars, you have to go in between, there is little space, you have to walk in between the cars with your surfboard. I have grandkids. I will not walk now; I will drive, they are little, they are keikies. And what’s happening is, Kona, I’m not really objecting to the projects, it’s the infrastructure. It would be fine, if we had the Ali‘i Highway. And that was a four-lane highway. That would have alleviated and made Ali‘i Drive an Ali‘i Drive. It’s become the highway. And because, if you look at the traffic, I mean, they can do the study, and they did one prior to this with the Royal Ali‘i, and they said that the traffic was going down. It wasn’t. I read the traffic report. They considered in that report the Lako Extension and the Keauhou Parkway. And I feel that they had sufficient time to have this project done in ten years, and they had an extension already in – I have so much information it’s – okay, and even the hoary bats, they are just overlooking, 75 percent, I mean it’s like, but they did have the extension, so, here, okay, so they had it in 2021 \[sic\], and they had five years to finally approved and be secured. If they did it at that time, it would have been fine. I would never have objected to that. I mean we need housing but not on the condition. And it’s, I feel that this is unfair that just because they had the zoning ten years you are obligated to that. Things have changed. And it even says that in here; if things change, and it becomes null and void, if you don’t do your to-do list. And now they are asking, in 2013, August, they asked for a five-year extension and they got it. So now it’s July 21, 2016. And then they had to have an excuse on why they couldn’t complete it, and it was money. What says in here that they are not allowed to sell or rent until all the final is done. And there is more things in here, I mean, I just cannot speak for three minutes. This is an important property and it affects everyone on Ali‘i Drive. UNGER: Okay, thank you. And just for clarification, you are a petitioner, you have more than three minutes, so you are not limited in your testimony. MCMICHAEL: Okay. UNGER: Yeah, so this is your opportunity to continue, if you choose to. MCMICHAEL: Okay. On July 21, 2006, SMA 05-0007 was approved subject to secure Final Subdivision Approval in five years, 2011. August 29, 2013, another five years was granted, already extended until July 21, 2016. Now requesting — BRILHANTE: Objection. Chair, excuse me? 7 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Yes. BRILHANTE: Just a point of order. Are we still on the primary topic item regarding her petition for standing? UNGER: Yes, we are. Right. So if you can be specific to, what the Commission has to decide today is your petition for standing, and so what we are looking at is specifically, you know, are your interest distinguishable from the general public, and will these proposed actions cause you actual or threatened injury? So if you could be specific to that, because that’s what we are, that’s what we are considering in this petition. MCMICHAEL: Okay, so, I am different from – who, the petitioner here or the? UNGER: How are your interests different than the public interest? I mean this process is set up for the public interest, this is the public’s opportunity to testify. What you are saying is your interests are distinguishable from the general public for specific reasons because bodily harm or very — MCMICHAEL: Yes, I’ll be bodily harmed from the — UNGER: — or very specifically why your interests are different than the general public. MCMICHAEL: Well, I will be harmed there. PATEL: Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I can, just to clarify. So we are focused right now on why the petition for standing should or should not be granted. So as I read your petition – should or should not, yeah – so as I read your petition, you are basing your petition on that you had an interest clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. But what Chair was alluding to is that even if you do not have an interest clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, can you show that the proposed action that is the extension of time, will cause you actual or threatened injury in fact? And that’s under Commission Rule 4-6(b). So if you can limit your testimony here to those issues. MCMICHAEL: Well, I have West Hawai‘i Surfing Association that is different from the general public, and it’s for surfing and to save the surf spot. This is a surf spot. And I’m registered with the State of Hawai‘i. So I’m different from the rest; I’ve been saving surf spots for, since the 1980’s. This is a major surf spot. So is Kahalu‘u. And I’ve paid the State to be in that position and no one else has. And I’m here for the future generation, to save the surf spots for the future generation of the keikies. That’s all I’ve been doing, from Kohanaiki, Banyan’s and now Kahalu‘u, and now Lyman’s. So I’m different from the public; I’m registered, no one else is. UNGER: Okay, thank you. So, Commissioners, any questions of applicant, petitioner, County? 8 EXHIBIT B SHIMAOKA: I’ve got one. I just have a concern because I’ve lived here for several years and understand the traffic on Ali‘i Drive, and probably this is going to be to our Director here. Has there any study been made as far as just kind of like periodically checking the traffic and just the hazards or the amount of traffic that is going to cause time constrains or safety? Is the County involved in any kind of ongoing, because, I know because of the parkway not being built, I mean, I agree with the, it would be good to have a four-lane so that we can at least have more safe conditions on Ali‘i Drive. Because driving, especially during Ironman, yeah, I remember that, I was a police officer, that was really a nightmare, yeah, Ali‘i Drive, so. BRILHANTE: Thank you, Commissioner Shimaoka. I think I’m going to allow the Director to give information as it relates to there’s been any updated traffic studies, but again, I just want to reiterate this is a 19-unit project, you know, that the project was fully vetted in 2006 when the application first came forward. This is an SMA application. The basis of SMA application is the impacts of the project as it relates to the ocean and the coastline and the shoreline. The items with, related to a TIAR or traffic study would be more analogous to under requirements for Environmental Assessment or Impact Statement, and those items were vetted, you know, upon the submission of the original application as well. But, you know, that being said, I’ll allow the Director to provide any additional information as to whether or not there are any update reports to those traffic analysis. KANUHA: Thank you, Members of the Commission. Duane Kanuha, Planning Director. Over the years there have been projects that have been entitled for zoning changes, and in this area primarily most of the properties that are entitled for future development also happen to be situated within the Special Management Area, okay, this SMA area. The particular focus of the Special Management Area is to take a look at development as it relates to coastal impacts, impacts to the shoreline area, impacts to the coastal area. Special Management Area, it’s a component of the State Coastal Zone Management Act. That being said, every project, most projects that come in, particularly for entitlements for rezonings, are either required to or voluntarily participating doing what they call a Traffic Impact Analysis Report, TIAR. That report assesses the traffic impacts of that particular project on a local basis, okay, how the turning movements into and out of the project affect major roadways in the vicinity, okay. So on a case-by-case basis, the analysis for those traffic impact, analysis reports, is actually done by the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, okay. So we depend on their review of those reports on a case-by-case basis and hopefully an accumulative basis, to give us some gauge of what the impacts are on the surrounding areas. In this particular section of Kona between Kailua and Keauhou much of the planning that has been done in that area and as it relates to traffic impacts, have been contingent upon the completion of the Ali‘i Drive realignment project. That’s been the case for maybe 35, 40, 50 years, all right? However, in the past as various County administrations have moved to implement that particular project, what it’s come down to is that there is enough significant archaeological features, cultural features, within the right-of-way that to my knowledge they have not been able to find a way to mitigate those or to adjust the realignment to account for that. That’s been the reason that the project has been stalled. In anticipation of that being the case, many projects who were entitled to the zoning process, were also required, whose properties bisected the right-of-way, were also required to donate that portion of their property to the 9 EXHIBIT B County for eventual construction of the right-of-way, okay. So what we are facing now is the reality that the highway may not be built. That being the case, the only alternative we have is Ali‘i Drive, and it wasn’t designed to, you know, maybe carry the full load of the entitled projects that could come on line, that are entitled to come on line. So at least our Department we are taking a look at it and we are having various conversations with the Department of Public Works in terms of at some point in time we need to, we have to take an accumulative look at what’s going on with Ali‘i Drive. With the opening of the Māmalahoa Bypass, you know, that’s going to provide some additional load on there. I will say, though, that there was a project along Ali‘i Drive that was just recently being considered by the County Council and the same issue, our roads, yeah, in terms of what the impact of that particular project was. For that project the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, agreed with the analysis of the TIAR that the conditions with the project being implemented, this was a 52-unit project, would not result in a level of service that was more than Condition D, okay. Your level of service goes from A all the way to E; E is basically gridlock. And that was in consideration of other TIAR’s that they had reviewed over time, so that gave us an indication that there’s still a window here. But I can honestly say that we all need to take a real close look again because that alternative for the Ali‘i Bypass will probably not happen. The Kona CDP, mitigation efforts contained in the Kona CDP are also contingent on that roadway, you know, being done. So, you know, that’s kind of where we are in relation to your question. I hope I’ve given you some background on that. SHIMAOKA: Thank you. I’ve got a question for the applicant because, what I’m hearing from you, Ms. McMichael, is, your primary problem with this is the highway, the parkway, as far as a four-lane? Is that what I’m hearing from you? MCMICHAEL: What the impact is already happening on Ali‘i Drive is the safety for everyone, and it’s not going to get better; through the traffic studies it says that it increases 4 percent annually. And as Mr. Duane Kanuha has addressed of their traffic study that on the other project of Ali‘i Palms, I asked to see from the DOT the report. And the report is very much fraud, because there is original, they compared the study on why it was declining, the study was done in 2003 on Lunapule and at that time there wasn’t a three-way stop, there was not a total count of the cars, and in the report they consider the four-lane Ali‘i Highway and the extension of Lako into the report. So this is why it shows that it dropped. And it also showed that the increase, as Mr. Kanuha addressed, is the level, the level is A through F, and they, their prediction, and it says here, this is the copy, that without this project in 2035 the delay will be at 120.4 and that goes by seconds. So both intersections of Royal Poinciana and Lunapule it will be at F. And Kahalu‘u already is D and F; they don’t have a three-way stop there. So I’m saying this, that their study is fraud. And it’s, you know, I even spoke to them, and I said you are not here physically, but I didn’t know until I read the report from DOT that it was fraud. We don’t have the highway, and so it’s going to increase. And we have, it’s not only housing, it’s tourists that come here. So, and the high season, the high season for tourists, the high season will be the surf, and sometimes it takes us like ten minutes to pull out of a driveway, you know, so it’s not just the intersection, it’s the residents there. And it’s dangerous; all the cars go speeding. Maybe you should slow down, put bumpers or lower the speed limit, because it’s at 30 miles per hour, they are going 40, sometimes 45. And there is nowhere to walk. Where is the sidewalk? There is no 10 EXHIBIT B infrastructure. And there is no infrastructure that’s coming in as a sidewalk. If you look at Kahalu‘u and Lyman’s, there is no sidewalks. UNGER: Okay, I’d like to redirect the discussion again and questions from the Commissioners specific to the petitioner and her petition for standing. We are going to have to make that decision first prior to getting into traffic, getting into SMA, getting into the SMA and the Environmental Impact Statement. So I’m encouraging questions from the Commissioners but specific to the petition for standing here. Carr Smith, Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: Chair Unger, may I make a motion? UNGER: Yeah, we were going to continue discussion and then open it up to public testimony — CARR SMITH: All right, very good. UNGER: — prior to a motion. Commissioners, any other questions for petitioner, applicant or County? KAHOLO: Yeah, I’ve got one. We understand your concerns, we do, but that’s the only thing I’m hearing, which is your concern of traffic. But Ms. McMichael discussed earlier, you know, he had his option to decide what he did, you have yours. Okay, this time I’d like to ask the Commission, you know, where are we going from here? We already heard her concerns. Can we move on? UNGER: Yeah, absolutely. Once we close, once we are done here, we’ll ask for public testimony, and I’ll be requesting from members of the public again specifically to testify in regard to the petition for standing on hand. I will be discouraging testimony about traffic, about SMA, about archaeological issues, the Judd Trail; what we are specifically looking at from the public in this testimony is whether we, whether the Commission should grant standing or not. So from here we’ll invite the public up for testimony. We’ll hear testimony. We’ll close that portion of the meeting, and then we’ll be prepared to make a motion and continue our discussion. BRILHANTE: Excuse me, Chair? I have a concern and a question regarding the statement you just made. Are you going to provide public testimony for this petition for standing? Or is the public testimony going to be later on specific to the original application. UNGER: Right, I did speak to Deputy Corporate Counsel and it’s my understanding that we have a list of six members of the public that would like to testify on this petition for standing, and I was going to allow it. PATEL: Yeah, so, to clarify, the public testimony, once we are done with Commissioners’ questions, are going to be as related to the application or the petition for standing, whatever you want to testify about. Once that’s done, the Commission is going to have to decide whether, or what they are going to do with the petition for standing. And depending on what happens there we’ll see what the next steps are. 11 EXHIBIT B BRILHANTE: And again, I’m going to raise an objection to the procedure. Understanding the petition for standing is subject and particular to the original applicant, it’s subject to the applicant, my concern is, why are we going to consider discussion from outside members of the public regarding this particular applicant’s petition for standing? Standing is only granted, if the applicant, or the petitioner, can show that they have a unique, or individual interest in the application, and that the interest is distinguishable from that of the general public. So that seems almost counterintuitive to allowing public testimony regarding the petition for standing. I think the standing is, should be considered individually to the applicant. UNGER: Okay. Very good, I understand what you are saying and I do agree with what you are saying. So what we are going to do is to go ahead and close this portion of the hearing, and then we will open it up for a motion. The public will, and like what Mr. Patel was saying, once a decision is made for the petition for standing, or not, will determine the direction we take; if the petition for standing is granted, depending on what we do, public testimony will be heard; if it’s not, then we will continue with our hearing, and at that time the public will have an opportunity to testify. So we will go ahead at this time, ask the applicant, petitioner and County to step down, and we will go ahead and I will ask for a motion from the Commissioners specific to the petition for standing. So, Commissioners, if there are any more questions, this is your opportunity to ask. If not, the floor is open for a motion. CARR SMITH: Chair Unger, I’d like to make a motion. I move that the petition for standing be denied based upon the record the petitioner has not established that her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public or that the proposed action would cause her actual or threatened injury. KAHOLO: Second. UNGER: We have a second. Commissioners, we have a motion on the table. It is open for discussion. CARR SMITH: I just want to say, Chair Unger, that I respect and appreciate her opinion about things, but I don’t think it’s any different from any other member of the public that has concerns as well, so that’s my opinion. KAHOLO: Yeah, I, my question is to Ms. Michaels \[McMichael\]. Your data, how updated is it? The report you got — can you come up forward so I can talk to you, please? I’ll state my question again. That traffic data that you gave earlier, what were the dates that you received those traffic updates? MCMICHAEL: On the Kahalu‘u or the — KAHOLO: Whatever — MCMICHAEL: Oh, okay — KAHOLO: — whatever data you have there. 12 EXHIBIT B MCMICHAEL: — Two thousand and, March 2005, 2011 and 2013 were the last studies at Kahalu‘u, and then the other one was as of March 2016. KAHOLO: Okay, thank you. If I read the paper right yesterday, I see something different. That’s my concern. What I’ve seen in yesterday’s West Hawai‘i paper, it tells me something different. It was in the front page, headline. So, now, when your data says that, okay, I’m a little concerned from what the Department of Public Works came out with and presented to the Council for them to decide what route they’re going. So with that said, you know, I only read that there, because your data is where you are at, what I read is what I read, and what the Council decided, that’s what they decided, so. Thank you. MCMICHAEL: Okay, but this was from the County, the report I got from Ron Thiel. He emailed it to me, so it’s his report. And they did not mention that Kahului-Keauhou Parkway and the Lako was included in the study. They failed to do that. And that would have alleviated the traffic for sure. And that’s the whole thing, if you, without the project, that was the traffic study. And that was paid for by Stanford Carr, the developer. And DOT use their study as analyzing it because that’s the study that they emailed me, too, so. KAHOLO: Thank you for your opinion. MCMICHAEL: Okay. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioners, reminder, we have a motion on the table open for discussion and comment. I have a comment. I’ll be supporting the motion. I also agree that while the petitioner’s concerns are valid and real and things that we are all taking into consideration, I just don’t see how her interest are separate from the general public. And the process here is to address the concerns from the general public, so these issues and her issues will be heard as part of the process. So I will be supporting the motion. Any other comments? Staff, roll call, please. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to deny standing. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Shimaoka? 13 EXHIBIT B SHIMAOKA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? UNGER: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. UNGER: Thank you. As such, we will continue with the hearing as agendized. We will continue, the next step, we’ve had a staff presentation, at this time I’d like to call the applicants up. And this is your opportunity to continue your discussion and for the Commissioners to talk specific about your application to extend. Thank you. And if you have anything to add, you may at this time. And, Commissioners, now this is our opportunity to talk about these other issues. Mr. Smith, do you have anything to add to your project? 01:08:37 SMITH: Well, I’m related to the Judds; my cousin is a Judd and I had a lot of Judds people at my house for dinner and going over the Judd Trail. And I’m – excuse me – I’m in agreement with the County and with the people that are concerned with the Judd Trail, to do as what they want, and I’m in approval of that, to do exactly what they want done. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? SHIMAOKA: I’ve got a question again, Mr. Smith, regarding the traffic. What I heard you say previously is that, I’m assuming that you are just as concerned as the rest of the citizens regarding the traffic on Ali‘i Drive. SMITH: Yes, I am. I — SHIMAOKA: Do you have any — SMITH: — I also have four grandkids that live on Ali‘i Drive, so I’m also concerned, yes. SHIMAOKA: Okay, so you understand the concerns or, that was brought out, or the issues that were brought out by the Director regarding why we cannot get the parkway completed, what’s been the roadblocks over the years, yeah? You understand. Do you have any alternatives or things that maybe you can provide for us? Because for me it’s a general concern. I think for all of us here it’s a concern. SMITH: Yes, it is. And I really don’t have any solutions right now. I know that when we extended La‘aloa up, a lot of the traffic that comes from Hokuli‘a now, instead of coming through town they take La‘aloa up to the highway, so that – excuse me, I’m losing my voice here – that helps a little bit. SHIMAOKA: Can we get him some water, please? 14 EXHIBIT B SMITH: Thank you. So that alleviates some of the traffic; La‘aloa has helped quite a bit because, Kam III they used to go up there, now they have two ways in going up – thank you, excuse me. Like I said, I ride my bike for the last 30 years, two hours a day, two hours a night, on Ali‘i Drive, and if there is something wrong, I call the police or I call the County. They know me very well here at the County. If a tree comes down or there is people on drugs or anything that’s going to affect the neighborhood, I’m concerned. So, yes, I’m concerned with the traffic. SHIMAOKA: Thank you. UNGER: Mr. Smith, can you update us on the archaeology work? As I read through the documents, I saw that the Recovery Plan had been submitted in 2005, but I didn’t see if it was approved. Do you know if it was approved? SMITH: Yes – excuse me – yes, it has been approved. And one of the stipulations is before any work, any work is done at all, we have to have an archaeologist on the site and monitor anything that’s being done on the site. UNGER: Okay, and I saw there are two burials on the site. I went through the burial treatment plan, and that’s been approved and in place. SMITH: Yes. UNGER: That’s located in the buffer zone from Ali‘i Drive to the first lots. SMITH: Yes. The whole front of Ali‘i Drive is preserved. There is no development on the front side of Ali‘i Drive; everything is on the backside of the property. UNGER: And what is the status of your correspondence with SHPD in regards to the metes and bounds and the location of the Judd Trail? Where are you in that process? SMITH: I’ve had a lot of people concerned with the Judd Trail, along with the Judd Family. And we, they come, usually people come by about every three or four, five years and want to know what’s going on, and I show them where it is. And there really hasn’t been anything done because, you know, the people that come by and my families, the Judd, that we talk about this, nobody really has stepped forward to do anything. I told all the Judd people that have been there and some of the State people that I’m in agreement to do what they want to do. But it’s like it hasn’t been a priority for anybody, and it seems like it’s coming out now because of this hearing. And I’m in agreement to what everybody has recommended and I’ve talked to the Judds, so I don’t see a problem there. It’s, there was a problem with the location; no one knew where it was. And I think they’ve come up with the location now. It’s a, because they have tried to walk it, because it meanders up from Ali‘i Highway, from Ali‘i Drive to the highway, it kind of meanders up, and so really no one has really researched that out. But where it situated on this property, it’s pretty well distinguished where it is from what I understand. UNGER: Okay, because like it was mentioned in the staff report, we did get considerable testimony from the public in regards to the concern about the Judd Trail, about not developing 15 EXHIBIT B through, about the buffers that you have approved and will work with SHPD on, so that really is an important consideration for me. SMITH: Yeah, I own the property next to this property; so I own both sides of the Judd Trail. And I’m in agreement to do whatever needs to be done. There is no development; I haven’t done any construction or any improvements on that, on that portion on either side of my property or this property. UNGER: Thank you. CARR SMITH: Chair Unger? UNGER: Yes. CARR SMITH: I have a couple of questions. I know that one of the conditions speaks to a five-foot road-widening on Ali‘i Drive. I was curious if you know, or maybe the Director knows, is there already a road-widening in place, a future road-widening in place on Ali‘i Drive? Do you know? SMITH: I have to, if part of the condition is for me to improve, I have to, I have to widen the mauka side of my property over, I forget what it is, ten or fifteen feet, and the County has asked the other people that have developed on Ali‘i Drive to extend the asphalt work on their property, that’s part of their condition. And that’s, right across the street from my property, the other subdivision, that’s what they made them do, extend the asphalt for parking or for riding bikes or whatever, yes. CARR SMITH: Okay. I had one more question for you. I was just wondering if you are granted this five-year extension, I was just curious about your timing, what your plan is. SMITH: It’s been really hard in the economy; as you probably know, here in Kona in the last ten years it hasn’t been much going on with subdivisions and lots. So it’s, it’s been really hard doing anything because of the economy. And it’s getting better now. I know Stanford Carr is trying to work something down the street and myself and Schuler and other people, it’s just, in the last ten years nothing has happened, and now it seems like things are starting to happen. So my plans, I’ve already got, I’ve already got the sewer stuff down off Ali‘i Drive and I have the utilities and easements from HELCO and the phone and the cable; I’ve already given them easements into the property and they’ve already run their lines behind me. So a lot of the work has already been done. I have, I’ve got all my water commitments. So it, I plant to have the work done within two years myself. It just depends, I’ve got to meet, as you know, there’s a lot of requirements and restrictions that I have to meet, and so it might take a little longer, but my objective is to have it done in two years. CARR SMITH: Thank you. UNGER: With no more questions from Commissioners, thank you, Mr. Smith. We would like to open this up to public testimony at this time. First, actually, we can call up the first three 16 EXHIBIT B testifiers: Barbara Schaefer, Deborah Chang and Janice Palma Glennie. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. UNGER: Please state your name and where you reside. PALMA GLENNIE: Am I speaking first? UNGER: We’ll go ahead and do name and where you reside first, and then we can — PALMA GLENNIE: I’m Janice Palma Glennie and I reside in Keauhou. UNGER: Thank you. CHANG: I’m Deborah Chang. I reside in Pa‘auilo Mauka. SCHAEFER: I’m Barbara Schaefer and I reside in Kamuela. UNGER: Thank you. We can begin with you. PALMA GLENNIE: Aloha, and mahalo for hearing my testimony — SAUER: Please use the microphone. PALMA GLENNIE: Oh, sorry. Aloha, and mahalo for hearing my testimony regarding this development. I’d like to thank Simmy McMichael for standing up for the residents of the area. She makes some very good points regarding the potential dangers of approving not just this but any other development in this area. It’s disappointing that the County was not more liberal with its recommendation for fulfilling standing requirements, as it’s difficult for concerned residents to afford a lawyer to help them through this process. Yet, her information is important regarding impacts of this specific development upon the shoreline including public access. I was an original member of the Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee, as well as a member of the Action Committee. One of the things that drove me to take part in that process from the, until, until now, is seeing and living with the results of poor planning, and how development approvals without regard to concurrency and other basic tenets of good land use planning were ruining our islands, environment, culture and society. Ali‘i Drive is overloaded with traffic, increasing to almost unrecognizable in the last ten, 20 years. It’s unclear how much existing entitled development in this area exist, and what those impacts will be. The mauka-makai connectors are somehow but do very little for traffic flow or congestion. This says nothing of how impacted the shoreline is and will be, and including minimal access of it and limited beach areas, which are also very congested. I strongly believe in infill development, but this development does not meet concurrency standards as are included in the Kona Community Development Plan. The original development was approved I believe before, oh, was approved based upon creation of now fictional Ali‘i Parkway, and I believe it was approved before the 17 EXHIBIT B legal implementation of the CDP. As we heard from the Planning Director and others that Ali‘i Parkway will likely never be built, why then would our planning representatives be so thoughtless as to approve more development in a place that’s already potentially has emergency situations and frustrating and dangerous on a daily basis. I don’t believe that this or any of the development currently proposed for this area should be given approval until adequate infrastructure is in place, not dreamed of. And if this developer gets a time extension for the development, I believe they should be held to the CDP’s higher standards. A YMCA was one promised community benefit required at the time of permitting for the, for Ali‘i Heights and subdivision below it; it never happened. This is just one example of how residents need their government to insist upon support and follow through with development requirements that are meant to help offset the downsides of rezoning, unsupported subdivision and development. West Hawai‘i residents were promised that having a Leeward Planning Commission would give them more of a voice in what happens in our region, our town, and especially our neighborhoods. Please help us by being that voice. Please take a clear position against more development approval on Ali‘i Drive and that area until an alternate roadway is not only planned but created. Mahalo. UNGER: Thank you. Yes. CHANG: I have already submitted written testimony under the, my business name of Island Transitions LLC. I’ve been advocating for the protection, preservation and use of historic Hawaiian trails for more than 35 years, and became aware of the State’s claim of ownership of Judd Trail in 1990. I want to sincerely thank Larry Smith for agreeing to pay attention to the Condition 13, which is finally calling for a restoration of this very important historic trail in its key location where it meets Ali‘i Drive. And also, I hope that that will alleviate my concern at this point, which only 75 percent of the trail is shown to be on the subject properties, but with Larry Smith saying that he is willing to work on treating the trail as a whole. That was a concern of mine that I wanted to emphasize today, that 75 percent of the trail is like driving a car with three wheels; it doesn’t work. I can say that for many years now volunteers have repeatedly offered to help clear and maintain the Judd Trail, which does continue on 16 miles beyond this point. But this is a good start. I recognize also that the State of Hawai‘i is very much a part of the delays and the neglect that has occurred through the years. And I’m appealing to the landowners, developers and the State of Hawai‘i, to protect and preserve the historic Judd Trail before it’s too late. Mahalo. UNGER: Thank you. SCHAEFER: Good morning. UNGER: Good morning. SHAEFER: I’m Barbara Shaefer here as president and representing E Mau Nā Ala Hele. We are a private non-profit island-wide organization of over 80 members. We were established in 1979 with a mission to preserve and protect the ancient historic trails of Hawai‘i, including their natural and cultural surroundings. We work collaboratively with the State Nā Ala Hele program, 18 EXHIBIT B the National Park Service and other community organizations with similar goals. We are neither in favor nor opposed to the time extension being considered today; however, if the extension should be granted, we would like to emphasize Condition 13 concerning the Judd Trail. And as Debbie, I’m very encouraged by what I hear today. Condition 13 is important, I think especially for the metes and bounds survey that it’s asking for. There has always been some uncertainty about exactly where the trail exists. While the Judd Trail is State land by virtue of the Highways Act of 1892, a quitclaim by the applicant to the State will emphasize the true ownership of the trail; it’s an old government road built with Kingdom of Hawai‘i funding. Additionally, because the present land ownership boundaries did not exist when the trail was constructed, it’s possible and likely, as we heard today, that the trail is on two different parcels, and we would strongly encourage the same quitclaim buffer easements and no-build zones to show, to have the complete trail protected not only the portion on the parcel that’s being considered today. So thank you very much for the opportunity to come and for your concerns and looking toward preserving the trails. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. You may be seated. Max Newberg, Curtis Tyler and Stephen Arnett. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. UNGER: Thank you. Mr. Curtis, can you please state your name and where you reside? TYLER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Leeward Planning Commission. My name is Curtis Tyler. I reside in Kalaoa Mauka. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you – excuse me – this morning. This seat must be catching; Mr. Smith had this, too. UNGER: Do you want water? TYLER: No, thanks, I’m fine. I’ve never met Mr. Smith before. I know of him and I see him for the first time today. I think my son helped drywall his house many years ago, that was in another time. In any case I speak in favor of this time extension for the reasons that have been explained by Mr. Smith. And I also, as the previous speaker, Ms. Schaefer, and Ms. Chang, I want to thank Mr. Smith for agreeing to the metes and bounds description and the quitclaim deed, etc. I came before the Planning Commission in 2005 when this SMA permit first came up, and there was, the previous owner represented that there was no Judd Trail there, and I strenuously objected and I told them that I would take them out there and show them the trail. Mr. Jerome Judd was a classmate of mine and I asked him, you know, you guys are sleeping on the job here, let’s get going. Any case, the Commission at that time and the owner were gracious enough to insert Condition 13 regarding the preservation of the trail and the ten-foot buffer, which I had requested. So I’m very pleased to know that Mr. Smith is going to implement that, and since he does own the property to the south where his residence is, he is going to also implement the portion that is on that, on his property there. So I’m very grateful for that. Regarding the traffic issue, I think most of us in this room know that I have been vehemently opposed to a four-lane Ali‘i Highway because of the burials. I continue to remain that way; 19 EXHIBIT B however, I spoke with Chief Engineer this morning, Warren Lee, in Kona on another matter regarding some burials, and I told him about a possible solution to get this road built as a north-south road but only in two lanes, and therefore, with only having two lanes it would be able to meander through, hopefully through these burials, most of which I’m a descendant from and I’m willing to do that. And also, I have another idea regarding that; one of the biggest problems with the Ali‘i Parkway, the Kahului-to-Keauhou, whatever the name is that we know it by, is the northern section where it goes through Kahului 1 and Kahului 2, hikianui because in there is the floodway and in there is all kinds of bones that, some of which have been damaged, the burials, but, that portion of the road is going to cost millions of dollars just to get through those floodways because it’s going to have to, it’s going to have to meander up the slope, it can’t go straight up, and eight-foot culverts, etc. So if we move the road further to the south and get the developer to pay for it, it will hook up directly with Puapuaanui four-way stop there and it’ll be perfect. So I’m working on that, and I wanted to address my comments to Commissioner Shimaoka who asked the questions. I’m happy to answer any questions, and again, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you. UNGER: Thank you. TYLER: You’re welcome. NEWBERG: Aloha. My name is Max Newberg. I’m the Field Representative for the Hawai‘i Regional Council of Carpenters. Aloha this morning, Director, Chair, Board, Counsel. I want to, if I may, ask a question before I give my testimony to Mr. Smith. Is that possible? UNGER: Yeah, go ahead. NEWBERG: Mr. Smith, I wanted to introduce myself prior to this, but I have information, and I was hoping you can confirm yes or no: To what capacity is Towne Development a part of this project? UNGER: Mr. Smith, you are welcome to come up and speak into microphone. If you could, if you could repeat your question, please. NEWBERG: Yes, again, good morning, Mr. Smith. SMITH: Good morning. Yeah, Towne Development is, we’ve already made the agreement; we had two pieces of property and I’m taking this piece and he is taking the other, Towne Development is taking the other piece, and we are in the process of doing that right now. So this is going to be totally my property. There is no, I don’t have any partners; it’s totally, solely mine, the property. It’s going to be very soon. NEWBERG: Appreciate the clarification. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. 20 EXHIBIT B NEWBERG: There’s several reasons to, again, repeat the statement of why we are where we are in the last ten years. As a carpenter of 25 years, I’m confident there is room for all of us here, development, preservation. As carpenters, we spend our weekends fishing, hunting, surfing, having fun with our families. Development, we need responsible development, so we have work for working families. And I believe we are in, still entrenched in a terrible situation and downturn. Reason being, even though there is an exciting project starting across the street here for affordable rentals, which our community desperately needs, people need a job to pay even below AMI, and what is happening now since the mid-90’s – we all remember the interview with Larry King who asked Mr. Trump, can you give us a bone, us common folk, for investment, and he looked at the camera and said buy in Kona – and we’ve been in a big shift since then. And again, that’s the big reason of why I’m here because the weather is good and you can make a living. I represent over 6,000 members statewide, 700 members on this island and 350 working families on the Kona side, and my concern with projects of this nature, while they are necessary and the landowner should be able to develop in a responsible manner, my concern is livable wages. And it’s not a catchphrase; what it means is that a worker that has decided to make himself a career with the responsibility and training and safety and also the motivation to be profitable, and turn around and offer his services knowing that he has to be efficient and deliver the products that we need here in Hawai‘i and build a better Hawai‘i, that is becoming increasingly tougher in Hawai‘i to do so. We lead the nation in several things but to which are some of the best beaches in nationwide but quite a bit we lead in multi-generational living situations, and that is for survival. And I enjoy what Kona has to offer, and while survival is necessary, we are slowly getting to a point where either our keiki move away or you are forced to look at some undesirable situations. And I just wanted to make a clear statement that although it seems, I appreciate the clarification that we have a developer involved in this that is also trying to do 300-plus homes very near to this and has a very terrible past performance of allowing a worker to go home and feed his family. So that is my main concern; what is happening in Kona. I do believe there is room for all of us that being development and planning, and I appreciate the board being able to always keep that balance and think of all sides. Traffic, definitely a concern. Preservation is always what we are in Hawai‘i; we need place and we need to preserve all those things for all, all people. And I believe there is space for all of that. My concern ultimately is that these people can return to their home safe and have a long career. To Mr. Unger in his family’s testament, it is a full contact, professional sport is carpentry. And we just need to make it on, the lines are a little bit longer, and we appreciate that. But I appreciate your time, and again, my concern is for the working families that are involved in some of these projects, that they are able to take home a wage and possibly not have the second member bearing income, have two part-time jobs, and to be able to raise a family and enjoy a little bit of life, if they are going to build a better Hawai‘i. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. Mr. Arnett? ARNETT: Thank you, Chair Unger. Commission Members, Director Kanuha, aloha, good morning. I want to state that I’ve known Larry Smith for probably 25 years. Larry is a man of his word. I’ve never known Larry to be – I guess this is catching \[referring previous speakers also coughing/clearing throats\] – to be a liar, to do anything other than what he said he was going to do. I do agree with Commissioner Kaholo; I read in yesterday’s paper that Ron Thiel, Director of Traffic for the Department of Public Works, has said, and he’s on record of saying 21 EXHIBIT B that traffic on Ali‘i Drive has reduced significantly in the past few years, so I want to point that out. Secondarily – thank you, Daryn \[for water\] – secondarily, I want everybody to understand that Mr. Smith is in full agreement with preserving the Judd Trail on both sides, the ten-foot buffer not only on the north side but also on the south side, and that, in addition to that, he is also in agreement with preserving the burials that are up there in place and creating the buffer zone. As a result of the foregoing, I would encourage you all to increase, I’m sorry, to approve the five-year extension, as he said. His attempt is to try and get this done in two years. So I strongly encourage you guys to please approve the extension so that the trail can be preserved, the burials can be preserved in place, and the project can move forward. And per yesterday’s newspaper and Ron Thiel, traffic really has gone down. One thing that I might point out that maybe you are not aware of, is that there is hopefully potential that Lako Street will ultimately be extended down to Ali‘i Drive, and if that is the case, we would have one more east-west connector to hopefully alleviate some of the traffic that is already on Ali‘i Drive. So with that, I will conclude my testimony. Thank you very much. UNGER: Thank you. That’s all. You may be seated. Are there any other members of the public that would like to testify at this time? Seeing none, Commissioners, I need a motion to close this portion of the hearing. SHIMAOKA: I make a motion we close. NOBRIGA: I second. UNGER: We have a first by Commissioner Shimaoka, second by Nobriga. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Oppose? \[None.\] Motion passes. Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, I would like to open the hearing now for a motion on this agenda item. SHIMAOKA: I’d like to move, Chair Unger, that the application to amend Condition No. 2 of Special Management Area Use Permit No. SMA 05-007, be approved based on the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings and proposed conditions, which shall be adopted. NOBRIGA: I second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Shimaoka, second by Nobriga. The floor is now open, Commissioners, for discussion. CARR SMITH: Chair Unger, I just wanted to say that I agree with the motion and will be supporting that. I’m happy to see the testimony and the care and consideration taken by the applicant and the consistency from the Planning Department on those conditions. Thank you. SHIMAOKA: Just a comment on Mr. Smith, and I want to be sympathetic to Ms. McMichael. My reason for moving for approval is that this is a five-year extension, so we’ve got time to make the, hopefully the necessary adjustments before final grant of the permit. So, thank you. 22 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Hearing no further comments, staff, roll call. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? UNGER: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. UNGER: Thank you, staff. Applicant, you will be notified by the Planning Commission of the findings in writing. The discussion ended at 11:13 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 23 EXHIBIT B