Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-21 Leeward Exh A (AMEND SMA 05-005) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 21, 2018 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of SUNSTONE KONA, LLC (AMEND SMA 05-005) was called to order at 9:33 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, Nancy Carr Smith, Scott Church, Perry Kealoha, Barbara Nobriga and Sonny Shimaoka ALSO PRESENT: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 16 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SUNSTONE KONA, LLC (AMEND SMA 05-005) Application for a 10-year time extension to comply with Condition No. 9 (Completion of First Phase of Block D) of SMA Permit No. 05-005, which was issued in 2007 to allow the development of approximately 289 multiple-family residential units, commercial improvements and related parking and landscaping improvements on about 46.3 acres of land, and road improvements on about 1.089 acres of land. The subject property is located east of Ali‘i Drive and west of Kuakini Highway, about 1,100 feet south of the Ali‘i Drive – Lunapule Road st intersection, Kahului 1 and 2nd, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMKs: (3) 7-5-019:049, 050, 054 and por. 7-5-020:001. UNGER: Second agenda item, Applicant Sunstone Kona, LLC, AMEND SMA 05-005, application for a ten-year time extension to comply with Condition 9, Completion of First Phase of Block D, of SMA Permit No. 05-005, which was issued in 2007 to allow the development of approximately 289 multiple-family residential units, commercial improvements and related parking and landscaping improvements on about 46.3 acres of land, and road improvements on about 1.089 acres of land. The subject property is located east of Ali‘i Drive and west of Kuakini Highway, about 1,100 feet south of the Ali‘i Drive-Lunapule Road intersection, Kahului stnd 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMKs (3) 7-5-019: parcels 049, 050, 054 and portion of 7-5-020:parcel 001. We’ll start with the County of Hawai‘i presentation. We’ll follow that up with, the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and provide any comments they may have at that time. There will be a question-and-answer period between the Commissioners and the applicant. Then we’ll open it up for public testimony. And after public testimony the Commissioners will make and vote on a motion. You can start. 1 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: Thank you, Chair Unger. Good morning, everyone. So the first application is a request to amend Special Management Area Permit No. 05-005. The applicant is Sunstone Kona, LLC. The subject property is located in the North Kona District. You can see the property outlined in black on the slide, and it extends from Ali‘i Drive, which runs in a north-south direction on the left side of the slide up to Kuakini Highway, which is located on the mauka side of the property. The current zoning for the property is RM-7 for the mauka portion, that’s the portion between the future Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way, which runs through the middle of the property, and Kuakini Highway. The RM-7, which is Multi-Family Residential-7,000 square feet, is shown in kind of the light brown color. You can also see a commercially zoned area in the pink that is Neighborhood Commercial zoning that’s also located on the subject property closer to the future Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way. And then between the Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way and Ali‘i drive, the section of the property in this location, is zoned Multi-Family Residential-4,000 square feet that’s shown in the darker brown. So Special Management Area Permit No. 05-005 was approved in 2007 to allow the development of 289 multi-family residential units and about 45,000 square feet of commercial development, as well as related parking and landscaping on 46 acres in addition to road improvements on about one acre of land adjacent to the subject property. Condition 9 of the Permit required construction of the first phase be completed by May 15, 2018. The project is going to be developed in six phases: The first two phases are located in Block D – and I have a map that I’ll show you in just a minute, to show you Block D and the other development phases – Block D is going to include 147 residential units; the third and fourth phase will be in Block B and that will include 142 residential units; and then the final two phases will consist of development of the commercial property in Block C. Development of Phases 2 through 6 will occur based on market demands with no specific timeline for completion. And Condition No. 6 of the Permit currently requires construction of a mauka-makai road between Ali‘i Drive and Kuakini Highway through the property prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for Block D, which is the first and second phase. So this map here shows the subject property. You have Ali‘i Drive on the bottom, Kuakini Highway on the top. The future Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way bisects the property in the middle. Here you have Block B, this is multi-family residential. Block C, this is the commercial development. And then Block D, which is the Phase 1 and 2 development. So here we have Phase 1 and 2, Block B is 3 and 4, Block C is 5 and 6. The mauka-makai road that I mentioned is located, it’s highlighted in the green and yellow, so it extends from Ali‘i Drive in this location here and then heads mauka along the Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way and then through the applicant’s property up to Kuakini Highway. And just for a frame of reference, this development up towards Kuakini Highway is the Kona Sea Villas development; next to Block D, just south of Block D, you have the Kona Sea Ridge development. The applicant is requesting an amendment to Condition 9 in order to allow a ten-year time extension to complete construction of the first phase of development, which will consist of at least 24 residential units within Block D. The applicant has always intended to complete Phase 1 2 EXHIBIT A of Block D within the time allotted in the Permit, but was prevented from doing so by significant delays resulting from the preparation of the County’s North Kona Flood Study. The process of creating the study and having it approved by FEMA took almost ten years to complete. Upon approval of this amendment that the applicant is requesting now, they will work with DPW, Department of Public Works, and FEMA to alter the flood plain in order to accommodate their development. So this is, these are the FEMA maps that have occurred over the last decade or so, and you can see the top map shows the 1994/1995 FEMA map. This, just to orient you, Ali‘i Drive is on the left side of the image, and then the proposed Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way is on the right side; so north is where the floodway is located, and then south up here would be the Kona Sea Ridge development. So this is Block D, and you can see that between 1995 and the recent approved FIRM map there have been some changes; mostly in this area here the flood plain has expanded, and then in this location closer to Ali‘i Drive it’s reduced. So, should the Commission approve this time extension amendment, the applicant will apply to FEMA to further alter the flood plain, and this next image will show what they are proposing to do in order to accommodate their development. So you can see the flood plain is reduced along the north edge of the property, and then expands closer to the Ali‘i Bridge, the Ali‘i Drive Bridge, which is going to be replaced in the near future here. The concept map here shows a driveway entrance off of Ali‘i Drive in this location here where the red dot is, and then you have a recreational building, and then all of these structures here are various size townhouse duplexes, I think eightplexes and 14-plexes, and then you have some pool features, recreation features in this location here. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban, which is shown in the orange color. Medium Density Urban allows commercial development and residential development up to 35 units per acre. So the approved development is consistent with the General Plan designation. The property is also located near the Kahului-Puapuaa Village Transit Orient Development center, which is shown in the purple color, and the 289-unit development is also consistent with this concept of providing higher density residential uses and commercial uses close to a village center, within walking distance of the village center. This is an aerial view of the property. It’s a little dark but you can see that the entire property is vacant of any uses; it’s mainly just vegetation at this time. And here you have Kona Sea Villas, Kona Sea Ridge, Ali‘i Park Place. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the applicant’s request for a ten-year time extension to complete construction of the first phase of development. The Director is also recommending amending Condition 9 to add a deadline of 20 years to complete construction of the entire six-phase development. The current permit only has a construction timeline on the first phase; there is no, there is no end construction timeline, which is unusual for Commission-issued permits. Typically, the Planning Commission puts an end date for the final construction. So we are not quite sure how this happened at that time when the permit was 3 EXHIBIT A originally issued, but the Director is recommending that the construction completion for the final phase be added to the permit, and so we are recommending 20 years to complete construction of the entire development. And this is important to add to identify the deadline rather than leaving the timelines open-ended and completely market driven so that the County and the surrounding community, the surrounding neighbors have some assurance of when the development will occur and it will occur in a timely manner. Since we passed out your background and recommendation reports to the Commission, we’ve received two more pieces of testimony: This morning we received an email from Shannon Rudolph and we also received a letter from the Hawai‘i Regional Council of Carpenters. So you should have those two items in your package. And that concludes my presentation. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. UNGER: Great, thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners to Ms. Jackson? CARR SMITH: Yes, I have a question. UNGER: Go ahead. CARR SMITH: Can you go back to the site map, please? I’m a little bit confused about — JACKSON: Do you want the one that shows all phases? CARR SMITH: Yes. JACKSON: Okay. CARR SMITH: Yes, if you can review what the phases are. It’s not clear to me. And I originally thought that the Kona Sea Villas was a part of this SMA, but are you saying it’s not? Because I believe it was built by the same developer, yeah? JACKSON: Yeah, so, on this map the entire area that you see except for right here, this bottom right property, was all covered under one rezone that changed the zoning for the area, and that rezone was back in 1987, I believe. And so Sunstone or its assigns have developed all of these areas. They’ve all been developed under separate SMA permits. So I believe the background explains that two of them were developed around the same time, I can’t recall which two, but this unit here is called Block A, and what that means is Block A of the rezone map but it’s not affiliated in any way with this SMA permit. So the only Blocks that are covered under SMA 05-005 is Block B, C and D. CARR SMITH: And none of that has been improved? JACKSON: No. CARR SMITH: Okay. Thank you. 4 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: You’re welcome. UNGER: I’m trying to sync the conditions with the background report. For example, can you clarify – under Condition 2 it shows “The Applicant shall pay $483,800 toward the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway,” and then in the background report Page 8, Item 24, Traffic/Roadways, it states that “The applicant has also provided a per acre fee totaling $483,800 for the Parkway improvements per Condition No. 2” – can you, and certainly I can, we can talk to the applicants when they come up, but has this been paid or has this not been paid? JACKSON: Yeah, so the fee for the, the per acre fee for the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway improvements, as well as the Waiaha drainage way improvements, those fees have both been paid by the applicant. UNGER: Okay. JACKSON: We, the Director decided to leave this condition in here as is, even though they’ve paid, because there is also in the rezone ordinance this condition that says if the County does not use or encumber those fees within 15 years, that the County has to return the fee back to Sunstone, so we wanted to leave this condition as is so that there would be some history, if that were to occur, of where that fee was required and why we would have to give it back. UNGER: Okay, thank you. What is the status? I thought I read somewhere that they, the money was spent already on some Waiaha drainage improvements. JACKSON: Yeah, so the Waiaha fee has been at least partially expended. We are checking with Public Works to see how much is left, if any, but it was used to acquire some land in order to do those drainage improvements near the bridge. UNGER: Okay. JACKSON: And as far as I know, the Ali‘i Parkway funds have not been used or encumbered. UNGER: Okay. Well, if this is going to be part of our motion, I would, I would recommend, when we get to that, just to be current; the applicant has paid. JACKSON: Okay. We can, we can strike out that sentence. UNGER: Uh, not, we don’t need to strike out the sentence — JACKSON: Okay. UNGER: — we can just say, “has paid,” to reflect the fact. JACKSON: Yeah. 5 EXHIBIT A UNGER: Okay. Also, under water permits, No. 7 on the Planning Department recommendation, it shows that “Water Supply within 90 days from the effective date of the SMA Use Permit for the initial commitment of 77 units of water”; on the background report No. 26 on Page 8 states that additional, “75 additional units of water have been allocated to the permit \[area\].” JACKSON: Yes. UNGER: Okay. So, if that’s the case, again, when the applicants come up, we can talk more about that, but that probably should be reflected in these conditions as well, just acknowledging that there is another 75 permits. JACKSON: Yeah. So there’s actually 77 units, 75 plus the original two — UNGER: Correct — JACKSON: — assigned to the lots. UNGER: — for a total of 152. JACKSON: No. UNGER: No? JACKSON: No. So the way it works is each lot is assigned one unit, and then they have 75 additional units for a total of 77. So they, the applicant has secured water commitments for 77 units. UNGER: Total? JACKSON: Total. UNGER: Oh, okay. JACKSON: And if we were to amend the condition, we would recommend going ahead and striking out the first sentence, but putting something in there stating that it’s the applicant’s responsibility to maintain those water commitments and not let them lapse. UNGER: Okay. JACKSON: And then the second line would stand that they need to obtain additional water commitments to develop future units beyond the 77. UNGER: Okay. And then just a general discussion, I think it’s important for this project, can you just, I mean a brief update on the Keāhole \[sic\] Kahului Parkway? I mean, is that still on the book? Is that something that, because there’s, there’s some consequences to whether going in or 6 EXHIBIT A not going in that are very specific to this project, and I’m just wondering if that’s even still out there. JACKSON: Yeah, so Public Works has said to us that the project is still necessary for this area obviously, but that it’s on hold. And that’s the extent of what they have shared with us. UNGER: Okay. And so to clarify, again, when the applicants come up, we can talk more about that, but one of their options is to complete the mauka to makai, Ali‘i Drive to Kuakini Highway, bypass in lieu of improving that Parkway section. JACKSON: Yes, so that’s actually a requirement. UNGER: A condition. JACKSON: Yeah. UNGER: Okay, okay. JACKSON: Yeah, and I believe the condition states that, obviously, they don’t have to construct the section to full standard within the Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way, but they have to construct it, I believe, as a two-lane still County dedicable but at a lower standard the entire way, and then when the County comes in and does the Ali‘i Parkway project, it would be brought up to the higher standard, yeah. UNGER: Right. No, I understand that. JACKSON: Okay. UNGER: And then it looks like on the map Kahului Parkway on the north side dead-ends there, but in the material it says connecting to Kuakini Highway. Would that be connecting to Kuakini Highway or that section would just dead-end right there? JACKSON: That’s a good question. I’m not certain if the rezone ordinance next to that has also a requirement for some type of connection to Kuakini. But I would, I would think, and I’m not sure how the condition reads, I have to look that again, but that Sunstone would only be responsible for the portion up to their property. UNGER: Okay, well, that might, the wording may need to be changed in the condition there, but the applicant probably can speak to that as well. Okay. Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: Thank you. I just have a question about the, some of the dates. The Planning Commission approved the SMA permit in 2007, but because of Condition 2 it didn’t become effective till 2008, and then there was an administrative time extension. What exactly is that that took it to 2018, May 15, 2018? 7 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: Yeah, so Condition 2 basically says that the permit doesn’t become effective until those per-acre payments were made for the Waiaha drainage way and Ali‘i Parkway improvements. So that payment was made, let’s see, May 15, 2008, and so when they came in and requested, they requested a time extension, and I don’t recall exactly when but we granted it before seeing that condition effective date, so there was some confusion about when the actual effective date was. So we granted one administrative time extension, then Sunstone pointed out, no, the permit is not actually effective yet, and then we granted another administrative time extension to bring it up to May 15, 2018. CARR SMITH: So what’s the status of the permit between May 15, 2018, and today? th JACKSON: The applicant, the applicant applied for the time extension on February 27, which was a few months before the condition lapsed. So our practice in the Department has been if an applicant applies prior to expiration and it just takes time to get the application to the Commission, that we still honor that until the Commission makes their decision. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. UNGER: Any other questions for the County? Thank you. Would the applicant please come forward? Good morning. Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? REPRESENTATIVES: I do. UNGER: Thank you. Please state your name and residence. LIM: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Steven Lim, and I’m with Carlsmith Ball out of Hilo and Honolulu. With me today is Mr. Curtis DeWeese from Sunstone Kona LLC. UNGER: Thank you. Have you read the Planning Commission’s \[sic\] recommendations and conditions, and do you agree with them? LIM: Yes, we have, and we agree with the conditions. I think the condition relating to the 20-year deadline for completion of the entire project is aspirational; we hope we get it done before then, but I’d like to reserve the right to come back to the Commission for approval, if there is need for further time extension. UNGER: This, very good, this is your opportunity to further extrapolate on any questions you heard or to explain where you are at on the project. LIM: Thank you very much. The current Commission, well, I don’t think any of you were, many of you were around during the first go-round when the original permit got acted upon by the Commission in 2007. As you can see from the filing date, it was filed in 2005, and we probably spent something like a year and half from the actual applications, contested case hearing with numerous parties, you know, various issues were raised and resolved, we had a 8 EXHIBIT A hearings officer, we went to court in the meantime, came back to the hearings officer – I think Jeff was around, maybe his, one of his first big petitions at the time when he and I both were younger. And, so, it was a very long and involved process. We did work out all of the issues with the community, and so we were able to get the SMA Permit 05-005 issued and there was no appeal. Since that time the petitioner has been actively working to try to get the Block D portion of the project, which is the left corner, the makai north corner of the project area, developed. The big hang-up, as Maija was indicating, was the County’s flood study. In this area they’ve got the Waiaha flow coming down mauka-makai, they’ve got the Waiaha split flow on the south side of the project, so what will be required is both on the north side and on the south side the developer will have to process with FEMA their Letter of Map Revision reflecting drainage improvements to handle the flow. That process was not finalized by the County and FEMA until 2017. But, I think a couple years before that, we had been working with the County Department of Public Works to try to get our drainage report approved. We spent the last probably year or so prior to this, trying to get Final Plan Approval for the first phase of Block D and construct it within the timeframe, but we were unable to do that because part of the, one of the requirements for the Plan Approval application is to submit a drainage report, and we couldn’t get the Public Works Department to allow us to move forward on the drainage report because of the FEMA issues. So long story short, we then decided to hold off on the FEMA processing until such time as we could come back to solidify the project entitlements, get the time extension, and then we could move forward with the FEMA permitting. We are anticipating that both the north side and the south side of the project will be covered by one drainage report. There are, maybe tactically we might split it up into two, but at the present time that’s something that we are still considering. The graphics that you saw earlier that show the flood plains onto the project, those are all preliminary maps to the best of our ability at this time. There may be some slight changes but not significantly from what you’ve seen before. We’ve received the copy of the Hawai‘i Regional Council of Carpenters letter today, which raises, which recommends that the Commission deny the request for the ten-year time extension, raising issues that the project doesn’t provide measures to address potential impacts on endangered species. The, and this, this comment from the Carpenters came up because of their review of the Fish and Wildlife Service letters that came out of the Final Environmental Assessment for the County’s Ali‘i Drive culvert replacement, which is located just at the north makai corner off-site of the property that would go underneath the Ali‘i Drive, and so, you know, in response basically we’ve conducted for this project a Final Environmental Assessment also, and I’ll read to you portions from the March 2009 Final Environmental Assessment Section 3.1.4 on Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems. Basically, in summary it says that a botanical and fauna study was conducted by Patrick Hart, Dr. Patrick Hart, and Dr. Ron Terry in March of 2005, and they concluded that there’s no threatened or endangered plant species present or are expected to be present on the project site. They also concluded that with respect to the fauna that although the endangered Hawaiian Hawk and Hawaiian Hoary Bat could be, and certain native seabirds, could fly over the site, they didn’t see any during their observation, and according to a recent, then-recent, habitat assessment of a similar area in Kailua-Kona by Reggie David in 2005, site clearing was unlikely to impact this species. The study and the Final EA for this project concluded that, “In order to frame impacts to flora and fauna, it is important to remember that the project site is land historically used for ranching now zoned for multi-family and commercial use, which is dominated by introduced plant species. From this perspective, the development 9 EXHIBIT A will produce almost no impacts to any species of flora and fauna other than the alien species already present.” The applicant also received the submittal today by Shannon Rudolph objecting to the time extension request, indicating that traffic is already maxed out in this area and the visitors are complaining that Kona has lost its charm with so much traffic, and requesting that you deny the development. As we exhaustively covered in the initial proceedings on this, the traffic report was accepted by the Planning Commission, and, I’m sure that you’ve heard it before, but the cases, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court case law says that traffic shouldn’t be a criteria in SMA permits other than whether it has ecological or environmental impacts, and that was not found in the original permitting. Curt, do you want to say anything? DEWEESE: Thank you, Steve. I’d just like to say that I thank you for your time this morning, and this, this project is, is quite more than the 289 units; we’ve been developing in this area for the last 20, 25 years. And one of the significant issues that we are dealing with on this property, of course, is the delays that FEMA has given us and the County to do any processing effectively for a number of years to get this moving forward. I’m not sure if it was very clear, but someone had asked about the mauka-makai roadway; we have a requirement to develop the mauka-makai roadway from Ali‘i Drive where the yellow starts, all the way up through the green connecting to Kuakini Highway. That road needs to be developed before we can get a certificate of occupancy on Block D. That was in our contested case hearing. That was a significant issue that the Planning Department and the other parties wanted to see to alleviate any potential impacts that might occur. Along with the roadway, there’s also a FEMA drainage way right adjacent to it on the right side of the green predominant way, and that is also part of that roadway improvement. We and the County Department of Public Works have fully designed the mauka-makai roadway for the County. We have just, in fact, several weeks ago, got our last sliver of land needed to make that work, and, a ten-foot sliver on the north side of the yellow piece there that Public Works felt was needed for a turning radius. So we have that in place. The several drawings have been amended to show that. And we are pleased that finally FEMA has finished their work, and that Public Works can process our plans to move forward. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Church. CHURCH: I notice that you are going to be developing Block D. I wonder about the overall timing of this project at this point. I know that Block D is going to dump the traffic onto Ali‘i Drive and, but, what’s your, you are going to build and sell or you are going to sell and build? Have you submitted already for permit your permit drawings? I know you probably haven’t registered with the Real Estate Commission the project. So what do you see is your overall timing on this project at this point? DEWEESE: We attempted to work through the morass of the FEMA approvals about two years ago to submit for a Final Plan Approval on Block D. We were caught up in questions that the FEMA mapping wasn’t as accurate as the County would like to see, there might need to be some changes, and therefore we had to pull back our Final Plan request on Block D at that time. Now 10 EXHIBIT A that the FEMA mapping is completed, Public Works has indicated that we shouldn’t have that issue. But this will be traditional, you know, like most of our other projects, in fact, I think all of our projects, it’s, you know, it’s not a build-it-and-they-will-come; it’s built based upon market demand and what the presales are. And, you know, and that’s, that’s a big question. We’re, to be fair, and I think the County got it in the write-up pretty accurately, we still have at least a year’s worth of back and forth with FEMA; if anyone here understands LOMR, CLOMR, it’s significant. And then we’ll have the standard County processing on top of that. So we are probably two years to three years before we can actually start to go vertical, and then we are, you know, we are hopeful that the economy and the volcano and everyone is cooperating. UNGER: Thank you. LIM: One for the matter on the, I think, you, Mr. Chairman, had asked about the language for amendment of Condition 7 relating to the Department of Water Supply, as the applicant has paid the, for the water commitments. So I’ll try to read you some suggested language for Condition No. 7, if you look at that paragraph. So we just strike from the word “Prior” all the way through “Water Supply,” and start the sentence with “The applicant shall submit,” cross out “the estimated,” I mean “anticipated,” and add in “estimated,” then keep “maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer,” and cross out “and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the ‘Water Commitment Guidelines Policy’,” then keep “to the Department of Water Supply,” and then cross out “within ninety days from the effective date of the SMA Use permit,” then keep “for the initial,” and cross out “commitment of 77,” and add “75 additional ‘units of water’ allocated to the subject property.” “The applicant shall obtain water commitments to develop the requested number of units prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval for any portion of the project.” UNGER: Right, okay. That will bring us current to where we are at. LIM: Exactly, exactly. UNGER: Okay. LIM: And, so I’ll read that one more time for clarity. The amended Condition would read, “The applicant shall submit estimated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer to the Department of Water Supply for the initial 75 additional units of water allocated to the subject property. The applicant shall obtain water commitments to develop the requested number of units prior to submitting plans for Final Plan Approval for any portion of the project.” UNGER: Okay. We’ll work our way through that when we get to that part, but, very good, thank you. Go ahead. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Steven, Curt. I just, the Chairman had asked the question regarding the connection of the proposed Keauhou to Kahului Parkway to Kuakini on the portion to the north. My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the Condition (K) in the ordinance required that until that is all developed and able to be open, you 11 EXHIBIT A folks were still required to put in that connector road, correct? So it wasn’t as if you were responsible to do the construction from your north boundary to Kuakini. LIM: That’s correct. Condition (K) of Ordinance 87 47 required “that the petitioner shall construct and complete a connecting road between the Ali‘i Highway and Ali‘i Drive, meeting with the approval of the Chief Engineer, prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for those portions of the subject property makai of the Ali‘i Highway.” How that got implemented in the SMA permit with Director Yuen at the time was that the green and yellow mauka-makai roadway that you see there, so that will be the connecting road. The other question that was related to that was whether or not the Ali‘i Highway was, I mean the K to K Parkway, excuse me, was going to continue in a northerly direction past this property up into Kuakini Highway, and I don’t know if you have a zoning map to show, but on my zoning map it shows the subject property here and it shows a right-of-way in the adjoining property going all way up to Kuakini Highway. And I do know that there is another further connection mauka of Kuakini Highway. So the alignment is still preserved, and we’ll be donating per the requirements of the ordinance the right-of-way for the K to K Parkway within our property to the County free of charge. DARROW: Just to clarify, so I think what the questions is is that the applicant would not be responsible for constructing the K to K Parkway through your property and up to Kuakini, correct? LIM: That’s correct. DARROW: Okay. UNGER: Okay. JACKSON: Can I add to that? UNGER: Go ahead. JACKSON: Condition (J)(1) of the ordinance says that the petitioner alone or in cooperation with other property owners, subject to review of the Chief Engineer, shall either construct and dedicate the portion of Ali‘i Highway from Kuakini Highway to the southern end of the subject property, or dedicate the right-of-way and pay the pro rata fee share. So it was supposed to be done with the property owner to the north in conjunction with them. UNGER: Okay. JACKSON: Yeah, so the entire burden is not on Sunstone to do that. UNGER: Right, to connect all the way to, okay. Commissioner Church. CHURCH: Okay, just a little confusion on my part here. I thought I heard Mr. DeWeese say that before occupancy permit was to be granted for Block D, that this Ali‘i to Kuakini roadway had to be completed. That’s what I thought I heard — 12 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: Yes, so — CHURCH: — must be wrong. JACKSON: — that would be the mauka-makai road, which is shown in the yellow and green. CHURCH: Right. JACKSON: So that road has to be constructed by Sunstone and completed prior to occupancy of Block D. The road that I think Chair Unger was asking about was this segment right here off of the applicant’s property that connects the proposed Ali‘i Highway further mauka up to Kuakini Highway. CHURCH: All right, comprendo. But in Condition No. 6 it states, “prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for any portion of the subject property makai of Kahului to Keauhou Parkway”; well, makai, that’s Block B, not Block D, right? JACKSON: No, so makai of the Ali‘i Parkway — CHURCH: Oh, I’m sorry, right, right, right — JACKSON: — would be Block D, yeah. CHURCH: — okay, my mistake. Thank you. JACKSON: Okay. UNGER: Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: So you are planning to go ahead and build the mauka-makai roadway, the yellow and the green, before you complete and are ready for occupancy on any, you’re doing B first or D first? LIM: D, Delta. CARR SMITH: D like Delta, okay. LIM: The makai north corner. CARR SMITH: And the answer is yes, you are going to do that. LIM: Yes. That’s a requirement. 13 EXHIBIT A CARR SMITH: I’m just curious, I guess, how without that the proposed Parkway you absolutely know that that’s where the path of the Parkway is going to go. I mean, is it far enough along that we know that? JACKSON: Sunstone has already dedicated the right-of-way for the Parkway. CARR SMITH: So the Parkway has to work around where Sunstone puts the area aside. JACKSON: I believe Public Works had already identified the right-of-way for the Parkway and that’s why Sunstone dedicated it in that area. LIM: We reserved it, but not yet dedicated. JACKSON: I’m sorry. LIM: So we are holding it until such time as the Department of Public Works requests it. CARR SMITH: I see. LIM: The K to K Parkway project, and some of you might remember, was a very big, big project many, many years ago, and we had a lot of work done on archaeological issues primarily, and that was what was causing the right-of-way to wiggle. And I think they got very close, if not finished, the process, so they know, especially in this area, they know where the right-of-way is. CARR SMITH: Is that unimproved land in the yellow corner? To the left of the yellow — DEWEESE: I’m sorry, what was the question? CARR SMITH: To the left of the yellow road, is that unimproved? DEWEESE: Yes, that’s unimproved land. CARR SMITH: Unimproved. To the north? UNGER: To the north, yeah. DEWEESE: Correct. UNGER: To clarify, once that mauka to makai road is constructed from Ali‘i Drive to Kuakini, does the applicant have any further responsibility, say, the Parkway is approved and finally gets on line, do you have any further obligation to do any work on that Parkway section? LIM: No, other than the portion that you see in that green area, green and yellow area — UNGER: Okay, so it’s in lieu of. You had the choice basically. 14 EXHIBIT A LIM: Right, they paid the fee basically — UNGER: Right. LIM: — the applicant has committed to, to the extent possible when they are constructing the portion of the Parkway, to have the base course and all the other things — UNGER: Okay, right. LIM: — such that the County doesn’t have to redo the whole road when they do it. UNGER: Right, so essentially you dedicated the land to that, but by the time you build mauka-makai, you are not further obligated to pay a fair share of constructing that section on your property. LIM: Yeah, we’ve already paid the fees for that portion. UNGER: Right, they paid the fees — DEWEESE: We paid the fees, as well as donate — UNGER: Oh, okay, in addition to the — DEWEESE: Yes. UNGER: Got it, got it, okay. DEWEESE: So it’s about a total of two million that we have paid to accommodate all the flood issues and the roadway issues on this property so far. UNGER: Got it, got it, okay. CARR SMITH: And your timing for building the mauka-makai road? DEWEESE: It would be one of the first things we would have to get started because, as you may recall, before we can get a certificate of occupancy on the lower left D portion, that road has to be completed. So that’s always been our critical path. And FEMA, the delayed FEMA study has, you know, just stopped it until September of last year. UNGER: There is — CHURCH: Were you able to do archaeological studies on the roadway? Get that done? I know that’s a humbug. DEWEESE: Yes, those were all required. 15 EXHIBIT A UNGER: In regard to the K to K Parkway, I notice the State Department Historic Preservation, or your archaeologist, identified two burial sites on the actual right-of-way. The State Historic Preservation Department recommended that, before any construction started, that buffers be delineated and your construction crew be educated. The fact that these are burials here, kind of slip through the cracks, there might be another condition here. I didn’t, I saw it in the background report, I didn’t see any conditions with the County, but that would be an important thing before any construction to start to at least, unless it is, unless it already is delineated where those burials are on the K to K Parkway. DEWEESE: We have conditions from the State Historic Preservation Division in their approval letters that require all of the buffers and construction, you know, preventative techniques that are required, and they’ve had extensive archaeology reports — UNGER: Yeah, I saw that. DEWEESE: — all throughout this area. UNGER: Got it. Okay. CARR SMITH: I have a question on the topic. On Item 20 in the, your request under Historic and Archaeological Resources, it says that there were 13 sites examined and that four had previously, “four previously recorded sites that have subsequently been destroyed.” Do you know, can you explain that, please? I don’t know whether that was during your ownership or prior. LIM: I don’t know right off the top of my head. We have SHPD approval for the archaeological inventory survey, preservation plan and burial treatment plan, so it’s covered in one of those, but I don’t have the specific reference. UNGER: Any other questions? Very good, thank you. You may be seated. We’d like to go ahead and open this up to public testimony now. I think Mr. Lim made an important comment; we are here to focus on an SMA permit. The SMA permit is, our kuleana is to, is oversight for all SMA permits with developments within the SMA zone from shoreline back anywhere from three to four to 500 feet, and our focus technically is, and our responsibility is, any development in these SMA areas, what is the effect on the coastline, is there encroachment, is there flooding, is there, that really is the specific. Often times when these applications come forward, members of the public absolutely focus on traffic, as we should be, and in addition to our kuleana as SMA, we also are the community sounding board, we also have our traffic concerns, but I think it’s important to keep in mind specific to this project and this SMA permit; we are looking at what this development will do specifically to the shoreline, certainly if traffic in addition to other things affect the shoreline, that’s where, that’s where our concern is. So I think it’s important clarification. We could have two people come up at a time. Rod Rieger and – or we can do four – Rod Rieger, Kihaena – I think I pronounced that wrong – Morgan, Abel Lui and Simmy McMichael, if you 16 EXHIBIT A could all please come up. Yeah, please come up and have a seat. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: \[Inaudible acknowledgment.\] UNGER: Please state your name and area of residence. We have two mics there. Please do share them and speak directly into the mic. Thank you. MORGAN: Is it on? UNGER: Yeah. MORGAN: Aloha. My name is Kittrena Morgan. I’m a resident of Kona. LUI: My name is Abel Simeona Lui and I — HALL: Sorry, just one at a time. LUI: — live in the Hawaiian Kingdom. HALL: Sorry, one at a time, so you can introduce yourself and provide testimony, and then pass it to next — UNGER: Okay, sorry, thank you. Okay — MORGAN: Okay, thank you. UNGER: — so you may proceed then with your testimony. MORGAN: Yeah, I just heard about this meeting a couple days ago, but I’m just coming to request that you guys either put like a long pause on approval of this SMA or completely abolish the plan of more speculative development in that area. Like you said, don’t mention the traffic, that’s a number one concern. Number two concern is the pollution of the effluent going into the ocean. This is in a flood plain, which is well documented; that’s why they were held up by FEMA. And in the past five years there have been bigger floods in Kona than I’d ever seen in the 33 years as a resident here. Number – what am I at – number four now is it’s well documented we are having rising of the sea level, along with right now we have a giant threat of possible tsunami with the Hilina Slump, you know. Kapoho dropped into the water, boom. So do you want to put all these people in danger on your decision to allow thousands of extra tourists to be in this area? And we just know by where it is and what kind of development this is; it’s not going to be housing for anybody that already lives here that’s homeless. Another situation is we do know there’s archaeological sites there, many walls, and the developers like to just claim that it’s historically used as ranching. Historical ranching was just in the past 100, 120 years; before that this was all fishing villages, you know, religious sites and burial grounds, which is well documented. And it’s just really saddens me when the developments are allowed to go under what they call data preservation that means take a picture and write a picture of the 17 EXHIBIT A rock formations and bulldoze it and pave it. Yeah, as far as the roadway, I’ve listened to this whole thing in the past hour and it still seems vague to me who’s in charge of building this roadway. And like, how much money did they give? Did they just give 483,000 dollars towards it, or are they actually going to build the road? I happen to own the house now on what’s called the Keauhou Bypass, and now I have like 5,000 cars a day driving past my house, and it’s unimproved, full of cracks, and that the way that they are mitigating the situation where it says, you know, such a steep grade and big trucks can’t go on it; they are anyway busting up the road, so and they bring in spray-poison trucks into the cracks where the grass is growing and -. I imagine everything else I’d like to bring up someone else will, so thank you for your time. UNGER: Great. Thank you. LUI: Aloha kahiaka. Good morning. UNGER: Aloha. Please — LUI: You folks get big — UNGER: — state, please state your name and area of residence. LUI: My name is Abel Simeona. I’m homeless, houseless. UNGER: Thank you. LUI: Okay? You guys have been taken me out of where I used to live, Kawa. Pele built things, and look what’s happening with Tūtū Pele. We’ve got the one right up here in you guys’ backyard. Everything is haywire now with this volcano. Look at the air. Look at all of these things that people doing now. They all get limitation. You guys gonna put things over here. You’ve got the school. You’ve got all these schools. Graduations just went past through. It’s already a hazard. The airport road, you guys not even deal with that yet, not you guys wanna deal with something else. We just had big rains the other year. We got flooded over here. We had the earthquake that you guys never fix up all the hotels, all the buildings, all the wells, all the waterlines is all gotta changed. Get so many projects that for due, and you guys wanna make developments. I mean, I mean it’s insane, I mean for do something now that already get all of these problems over here. And, and the worst thing about all of these things now, we get the th military get war games coming up at the end of this month on the 26, I believe. You’re getting 50,000 people coming here from Korea, China, Britain, America, Canada. This, us problems are already here. Now you’re gonna cause all like these. We got, I ain’t done, we got the surfing, we got all of these things, canoe racing, and all of this kine. You guys creating something that it’s, don’t even belong, that’s not our culture. Okay, you guys, you guys get some of the decision that you guys have to look out for where you live, in your backyard. You look all the coffee and all of these things, nobody can eat the coffee, all of these things is all gone already, pōkahana. Okay, the bringing over here now is disaster. And the tourists, and the boat, they like to come here; the State of Hawai‘i is not telling the people about what’s going on. I call, I talk to the Mayor about the lady that died in the gardens over there, from that, it was the Mother’s Day she died, and she’s not even in the papers, okay? She was buried one week later. We did the 18 EXHIBIT A funeral. Now, I mean, you know, I want you guys to look at the, I’m just one guy out here. Okay, now, I’m 75 years old, and I’m homeless, houseless, okay. You guys get all of these homeless, houseless people, and you guys picking on something else. When are you guys gonna put all the people down in Puna? They got a big problem. You guys, I mean, you know, that’s the kind of things that should be taken care of now. It’s not about building one place over here for make tourist. Tourist is not the thing that going survive over here. Tourist no like come over here now because Hawai‘i get plenty pilikia, brother, and it ain’t over. And it’s you guys’ responsibility because we put you guys in the office, okay? Look, I get one daughter, she just went back, no no, these people need to know about the facts about how we live here. It’s totally different from any other place in the world. Over here still get aloha, one of the very few places in the world that is bind by all of us, we are all one ‘ohana, okay? I get, I get family construction, they own construction, okay. That’s another contractor, they’re my family. My grandfather was the one that went build all the roads in Hawai‘i, Ikiole, okay, in the 1800’s, okay. My family is here, okay? And you are looking at them. I, we are the evidence, not the crime here that is still going on. You guys better look at old ladies and I hope one day that I might get grandchildren. I’m not yet. But look what’s facing here now. You guys no more, even not for the buses. You know all of these things that they going over the pali, it’s unsafe, the gas, the propane, the oil, all of these things going over the mountain. You guys gonna get, one day pretty soon you guys gonna get one big accident up there. UNGER: Mahalo for your mana‘o — LUI: No, but they need to know what they causing over here. I’m just a little guy in this place in this picture — UNGER: Maopopo, maopopo. Mahalo. LUI: Uiho mālama pono kou kino aloha. Have a great day. UNGER: Mahalo for your mana. LUI: It’s Aloha Fr- no, it’s not Aloha Friday, but it’s Aloha Thursday. UNGER: Mahalo. LUI: Okay. Thank you guys for giving me a chance to speak. UNGER: Sir? RIEGER: My name is Rod Rieger. I live at 75-103 Kamilo Street. My question I don’t think is going to fit after what you said; I don’t have an environmental question. My question is the impact on my gated community where I live, it’s Kahakai Estates. UNGER: This really isn’t a question-and-answer period. Certainly, a commissioner can answer that. I’m not qualified to answer that — 19 EXHIBIT A RIEGER: Okay. UNGER: — but, but this is your opportunity, again, to talk about possible impacts to you and to your community. RIEGER: Okay, that’s fine. I want to call your attention to the map here. I actually have another map that you didn’t show; it’s this one here. It’s a little bit different. Like I say, I live in a gated community, and that means we have a gate, I pay dues. The reason for the gate is to keep people out that we don’t want in there. And this is going to be a threat to us because there is going to be an open passageway into our community. This yellow road here actually does exist right now. It’s not paved but it’s dirt, and people do use it. There’s cars that go down and they try to get onto Ali‘i Drive but there is a gate there. Well, this development will take that gate off, and once do, the people can travel up that yellow road. And that road actually continues on up, and you’ve left out the Kahakai Estate area, which is where the applicant’s site plan is. And that would be an open road right into our development. It shows a bin there, but it actually keeps going. And if you put a curb, people are going to drive over it, which they do now. So with thousands of people coming into here, it’s going to be a threat to our community unless something is done there to block that road so that people can’t continue on and get right into our community. A better map is this one here. It hasn’t been up on the slides, but it actually shows that road continuing right into Kahakai Estates. So the answer would be a block wall across there that would keep all that traffic out of our development. Right now, it’s, it’s a problem, with mopeds, bicycles, motorcycles, people on foot, they can use that passageway and get through down on Ali‘i through that gate. But once that gate comes off, it’s an open, open road right into our, our development. And, like I say, the road is there now, it’ll be improved obviously with pavement, but it can be used. So that is my concern. UNGER: Great. Thank you. RIEGER: Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. MCMICHAEL: Aloha. UNGER: Aloha. MCMICHAEL: My name is Simmy McMichael and I’m a resident of Kailua-Kona. UNGER: Thank you. MCMICHAEL: I’m here today to ask you not to extend this. The reason is because all the information is pretty much dead here. I read the EA of 2008, and it all related to the proposed Kahului to Keauhou Parkway, and I’m pretty sure this is why it was approved back then. So, based on Zone 4, it’s Hualālai, and that’s a risk of a major earthquake damage; this is stated on Page 11 of the EA. And the water quality important goal, Page 13, coastal water, was, “Preservation of water quality is an important goal, even in this urban area …. However, the 20 EXHIBIT A Natural Resources Defense Council has reported exceedances … of bacteria in water quality.” We already have exceeded water quality as of today; it’s 303(d) Impaired. We still have cesspools and sewers that are going into the ocean direct. It says, “… questions in \[about whether\] the County’s practice of pouring partially treated effluent into an unlined hole about three-quarters of a mile from the shoreline in Honokōhau may be inducing water \[quality\] impacts. Furthermore, despite the significant amount of treated wastewater, many older and scattered parts of Kona continue to rely on cesspools ….” Page 34, the water quality and the scenic resources and trails were all brought up here and expressed. Page 36, it said that, they noted that “Debbie Hecht of the Sierra Club noted the issue of increasing salinity in Kona potable wells due to overpumping of … wells at Waiaha and Palani ….” And wastewater sewer line along Ali‘i Drive to the County’s wastewater plant in Kealakehe. This all still continues; this is since 2008, ten years later. I also read into this that none of this is affordable. And on Page 38 it says, “assessing traffic conditions using the year 2020 …which consisted of \[was consistent with\] … Kahului to Keauhou Parkway ….” They keep referring to this. This is, to me, is a dead subject, and you are putting a cart before a horse. And my main concern here is the public safety. And when all this Kapoho and Leilani Estates is brought up, it brought fear to me personally. And for the developers back then to even allow a development in this east rift zone, knowing it was dangerous, you know, they did not disclose to the people, and that is, that is just so wrong, that what they were going to experience. If they knew what was going to happen in this east rift zone, do you think that they put their lifesavings there? I don’t think so. They’ve lost everything. And it’s very, very sad. And what that, what that volcano does, it creates an earthquake. And why I’m here is because I experienced the earthquake in the ocean in 2006. I was at Kohanaiki, and it was 7:00-ish in the morning and we were surfing. And here it was. It was just a loud “boom.” And the water, the ocean water just shattered and shook, and I thought whoa, who’s doing construction 7:00-ish in the morning on a Sunday. I was like whoa, this is unacceptable. But lo and behold the security guard was waiving us in, “Get out of the water, get out of the water!” And I, so we paddled in, and he said that was an earthquake and there could be a possible tsunami. I was terrified — UNGER: Can you summarize, please? MCMICHAEL: I’m saying that the police say that you should not build anything on Ali‘i Drive unless you have the Keauhou Parkway. We’ve already experienced a tsunami back when, a warning. We could not get out of Ali‘i Drive. Residents went up to Kam III Road. There was an accident there. It took them 45 minutes to get back to Kahalu‘u Beach. Royal Poinciana, the traffic dead stop, my friends that lived on Poinciana Road couldn’t get out of their driveway. I went to the traffic meeting to ask them about that; why did the traffic stop? They said because it was a three-way traffic up on the top. No, here is what happened: The police said, “Get out of your car and start running.” My warning was if a bigger earthquake tsunami happened, the best thing was for me to do, was paddle out to sea. UNGER: Thank you. Can you make some closing statements and then finish, please? 21 EXHIBIT A MCMICHAEL: Please think about the safety of the people. UNGER: Thank you. Sharon Willeford and Max Newberg? Is there anybody, oh, here we go. Why don’t you go ahead and start with your name and area – oh, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. UNGER: Thank you. You may start. Please state your name and area of residence. WILLEFORD: Aloha. UNGER: Aloha. WILLEFORD: Good morning. My name is Sharon Willeford. I’ve lived in Kona for the last 40 years as a public school teacher. I was at Kahakai Elementary School where at that point we had no evacuation plan for the children. Once a year we would march them down to the stone church. I don’t, I’m not sure what that would, in case of perhaps a fire or, I don’t know, but it never made any sense to me, nor did we ever practice or plan anything to get up out of the area. So I’m definitely concerned about the children and the numbers of children that may be coming in, and the school is not equipped to handle, it’s a small school. Having lived on Ali‘i Drive all of this time, to this day I’m often sitting in traffic for as much as a half an hour right in front of this development area before Lunapule Street. The traffic is backed up in both directions often but mostly to town. I’m very concerned about the allocation of the water to these units. I believe at the current time at least three of our wells are still down. Water is life. We don’t have unlimited source of water in our aquifers here. And as Simmy mentioned, we have salinization happening. We also know about sea rise. I’m concerned about pesticides and sewage from the development going into the ocean and into the ground water. We, if you paid attention to the recent floods in Kaua‘i, many of my friends are still suffering. I do not understand the designation by FEMA, excuse me, what, I don’t, anyway, let’s not go there. We cannot redesign or whatever the terminology was a flood zone; a flood zone is a flood zone. Did you see what happened in Kaua‘i? The houses were wiped out that were built in a flood zone. Wiped out into the ocean with all of the animals and, and it still hasn’t recovered. The coral reefs are covered in debris. The roads are still blocked. And we know what’s happening on the other side of our precious island. This is sacred land; we need to respect this land. I’ve often said to you, let’s have a moratorium on building and development. There is no need. We need to take care of what we have and fix it. We need to take care of the local people. There are so many homeless kānaka. It’s a horrible injustice that nothing is being afforded to the local people by you folks. How much is enough? How much greed? UNGER: Ma’am, if you could direct your comments to the Commission — WILLEFORD: I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Thank you. UNGER: — and please review and summarize. 22 EXHIBIT A WILLEFORD: Well, I just hope that you go into your heart and really consider this time on this planet. The whole ring of fire is exploding with earthquakes. The whole planet is in a crisis because of the oil drilling and the fracking and the building and the desecration and the raping of our Mother Earth. Let’s stop, and show reverence for this place and for the people here, and take care of what’s here, please. I plead with you, please, take care of our people. Much aloha to you all. UNGER: Thank you. NEWBERG: Good morning. My name is Max Newberg. I’m the Kona Field Representative for the Hawai‘i Carpenters Union. I thank Chair Unger and Commissioners for the opportunity to speak today. Normally, when I come before you folks, I for better or worse always talk about feelings, feelings about how we want trades people that perform these projects that are skilled to make livable wage, or the feelings how we want development to be built with quality for its clientele. Feelings are important and significant, yet they don’t sway long. This morning I’d like to submit this testimony on behalf of the Hawai‘i Regional Council of Carpenters. We recommend that the Planning Commission deny applicant Sunstone Kona, LLC’s request for a ten-year time extension to comply with Condition No. 9 in their SMA Permit 05-005 for the following reasons: Number one, SMA No. 05-005 does not provide measures to address potential impacts that this project may have on endangered species that may be present in the area. In my testimony I submitted a letter from the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and also an aerial photo. That letter dated March 24, 2014 from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service to the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation indicates the presence of threatened or endangered species on properties in Kailua-Kona, which are adjacent to the Sunstone Kona, LLC project. This FWS letter was a part of a Final Environmental Assessment on the Ali‘i Drive Culvert Replacement project concerning these properties on Ali‘i Drive, and it was filed with the Office of Environmental Quality Control on August 8, 2017. The attached aerial image of the Culvert Replacement project location provides a very good visual proximity, which is adjacent to the Sunstone Kona, LLC project site. The FWS letter identifies a list of threatened and endangered species, which may be present in the vicinity of the Sunstone Kona project, and recommends conservation measures to ensure that they are protected from the impact of development. The following species may be present in the vicinity of the Sunstone Kona project: 1) the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, 2) the Hawaiian stilt, and 3) the threatened Hawaiian hawk. In addition, the Final Environmental Assessment for the Ali‘i Drive Culvert Replacement project identifies four other threatened or endangered animals. SMA No. 05-005 does not identify nor provide measures to address the potential impacts of the Sunstone Kona project and what it may have on threatened and endangered species in this vicinity. The 2009 Final Environmental Statement for the Kona Sea Crest Development does acknowledge the possible presence of some of these threatened or endangered species in the Sunstone Kona project area. However, FEA findings were not considered by the Planning Commission nor the public during the 05-005 SMA permit, which was issued in 2007 prior to the completion of the Assessment in 2009. Pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 205A through 26(2), developments cannot be approved within an SMA unless findings are made that the proposed development “will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect ….” In light of the 23 EXHIBIT A March 24, 2014, FWS letter providing updated information regarding threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the Ali‘i Drive Culvert Replacement project, which is adjacent to the Sunstone Kona project, the Planning Commission should deny applicant Sunstone Kona, LLC’s request for a ten-year time extension to comply with Condition No. 9 until the Commission and public have an opportunity to: 1) evaluate any environmental or ecological effects the project may have on threatened or endangered species in this vicinity, and 2) identify potential conservation measures, which the Planning Commission could incorporate into the SMA to minimize the impacts that this project may have on these species. My final point, number two, is SMA 05-005 does not provide measures to address the potential impacts that enhanced public access to the shoreline provided by the mauka-makai connection may have on the area’s coastal resources and environment. The United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service letter dated December 15, 2016, provides updated information regarding threatened or endangered marine animals off the Kailua-Kona coastline adjacent to the Ali‘i Drive Culvert project, which is in proximity to the Sunstone Kona project site. Some of the threatened or endangered marine animals that the FWS letter identifies along the coastline are the hawksbill turtle, as well as the green sea turtle. As such, it is important that the Planning Commission and public discuss and determine whether or not the proposed mauka-makai access road will provide public access to the shoreline consistent with sound conservation principles, which will protect the threatened or endangered marine animals found in this area. This should be done before the Planning Commission considers any time extensions to the SMA 05-005. I appreciate this opportunity to speak before you today. Mahalo. UNGER: Thank you. \[At this time Commissioner Nobriga exited the room.\] We just lost a commissioner. Let’s take a five-minute recess. We’ll be back in five minutes. Thank you. RECESSED Chairman Unger called a recess at 10:57 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:05 a.m. UNGER: Commissioners, I need, hearing no other comments from the public, I need a motion to close public hearing. SHIMAOKA: I motion to close. CHURCH: Second. UNGER: We have a motion from Commissioner Shimaoka, second by Church. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Oppose? \[None.\] Public hearing is closed. At this time I’d like the applicant to come back up and address some of the discussion that just occurred from members of the public. Commissioner Carr Smith. 24 EXHIBIT A CARR SMITH: Yes, I just wondered if you could please address the last testimony point one regarding the potential impacts that the project has on endangered species and how that might -. Is there a conflict from the information you guys have and the information they have, or? Please explain. LIM: I touched on this earlier in the presentation. As the Carpenters letter indicates, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s letter is related to the project that’s, County project, that’s just to the north makai of the subject property. It’s in the notched area. And, as the letter indicates, as I think you see, a lot of Environmental Assessments indicate on the Island of Hawai‘i, is that there may be endangered species both plant and animal, and I think that the important thing is the word “may” because both Environmental Assessments found no significant animal or plant life, endangered plant life, and so I think that because both studies found no evidence of endangered species on either property, I think that’s dispositive of the issue. Environmental studies will always say it may be, for any large development area, they’ll always say there may be Hawaiian hawks, you know, hoary bats, endangered birds flying over, because nobody can stand there for the next 30 days and watch what’s happening. But I think that the important part is that when they did do the studies for both the County project and for this project, there were no endangered species both plants or animals. UNGER: Okay, thanks for the clarification. A lot of the discussion was on drainage and flow mauka to makai and possible issues that this project could raise. I think we are all aware of the Waiaha flood plains. We know that whether this project is going in or not, the floodways will continue mauka to makai. I think it would be beneficial for Commissioners and members of the public to just talk about some of that mitigation measure; you spent two million dollars on mitigation, you spent 438,000 dollars on K to K Parkway work. Can you just talk about some of the reports that you had, and give us an idea of the scope of acknowledging this issue and addressing it? I think we all read that whatever happens on the site will stay on the site. I know the Planning Commission required that all effluent generated on site goes into the sewer system. So I think that was an adjustment on their part. But I think it would be helpful to discuss some of the flooding mitigations and any runoff that might continue down to the ocean. DEWEESE: Certainly. You are correct; the all of the effluent is, from the property, is connected to County sewer system – and I’m flipping through here, I will find it, but there is a condition that — UNGER: No, yeah, I saw that, yeah, it’s there. DEWEESE: — does require that. With respect to development on properties that are near or adjacent to flood plains, there’s very, very technical requirements by the federal government, and the county government as to the process that one needs to undertake to determine whether you can develop in it and what portions you can develop. And after improvements are made, as you can see, Public Works has clearly identified in Condition, I believe it’s 14, that talks about no construction of dwellings, buildings, roads within the “AE” designated flood zones identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Now, up until September last year, we weren’t able to clearly identify where the Flood Insurance Rate Maps were saying those delineations were, and so now that we are able to go in with our flood consultants who specialize in doing this work with 25 EXHIBIT A FEMA, and they consult with the County and identify where that edge is that either needs to be honored or is controlled by either improvements or not. And so that process, the LOMR, excuse me, the CLOMR, Conditional Letter of Map and Revision, and the LOMR, Letter of Map Revision, process through the federal government starts in the county government through the Public Works division, they bless it, and then it goes to the feds, using all of their digitized models and series of reviews. That process takes approximately one to two years depending on a lot of things. And once that comes out, then Public Works has comfort that the site plan that they are approving is acceptable under all the county and federal guidelines. The on-site drainage is typically designed in these projects to all be contained on site; that’s a standard county practice. The other county practices is that you have water coming through your property, you can’t design something to increase or to make the condition worse on one of your neighbors, and that’s also something that is requirement we design it around. And — UNGER: So for runoff generated on your property, there’s a series of drywells, there’s a series of catchment basins or things of that nature. DEWEESE: Exactly. UNGER: Okay, okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: We live on the side of a mountain. When it rains, water doesn’t flow up hill. Nineteen sixty-eight, we had a big flood here. Kona was totally dissected. Ho‘omalu on Ali‘i, the gulch that was created on Kuakini Highway all way down to Ali‘i Drive. The gulch on Kuakini Highway was 55 feet wide and 20 feet deep, impassable. Kamāmalu, came down through Kamāmalu, Kamāmalu never had a bridge on the mauka road until after that flood; there is a bridge over there now. Waiaha, right down through Kailua Village. The road was impassable on the mauka road going through Hōlualoa, Kuakini and Ali‘i Drive. That will happen again, no matter what you say, no matter how you try to mitigate the water flow. Once you change the course of the natural water flow, she may respect that for a while, but when a big flood comes, she’s going back to her old watercourse. Do you have any answer to that? DEWEESE: Well, the engineering profession typically designs to different flows, 100-year, 500-year flows, and the FEMA mapping that we are required to honor complies with those conditions. We are, you know, we are sensitive to those major events, they do occur, but we just design to what the standards are that have been implemented throughout the United States and in Hawai‘i. And beyond that, it’s, you know, it’s hard to, hard to predict when the next, you know, major eruption will occur or we have another, you know, major force majeure event. And, I guess that’s where we have to stand on those issues. NOBRIGA: Yeah, the water is like Madam Pele; it goes where it wants to go. UNGER: To clarify, you are not altering anything coming on round; you are working with the identified floodways that are on the ground right now, is that, is that correct? DEWEESE: That’s correct. 26 EXHIBIT A UNGER: Okay. DEWEESE: We have to, we don’t just leave them natural to overflow a small little, you know, a small little berm or something; we try and put into place, you know, standard engineering rules and regulations that, you know, might have the housing up higher and the maybe parking down below, but, you know, you need to protect, protect the housing and you can’t build inside a, you know, flood zone affected area. UNGER: Thank you. If there’s no other questions of the – oh, Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you. There was a testifier that had a concern once the mauka-makai connector has gone in at the curve where the yellow is, apparently there is a continuation of a dirt road that goes up that there is a gate there now, do you have any information regarding what will become of that as far as stopping people from proceeding east mauka after that curve? DEWEESE: It’s my understanding that currently the yellow, well, under the other screen there was a yellow roadway coming up from Ali‘i Drive just to the bottom of Kahakai before it turned left, right in that location, that has always been identified as a tsunami evacuation road, and also the County is for a number of years maintaining it as a mauka-makai pedestrian-bikeway usage before we do the improvements on it. But when it reaches the boundary of Kahakai, there is a vacant lot in Kahakai, the last time I was jogging out there, and I’m not aware of any improvements going in that direction. The Kahakai lot owner might have some plans, but I don’t know. DARROW: Thank you. UNGER: Great, thank you. If there is no more questions to the applicant, you may be seated. Oh — LIM: One more final answer for — UNGER: Yes. LIM: — Commissioner Carr Smith’s question regarding the four sites that were destroyed. That road from a 1976 Lloyd Soehren study, and when the studies later on were done in the 1990’s, they found that those four sites were missing from the inventory that he had done in ’76. The present applicant didn’t take title till 2002 or so. So it wasn’t, you know, to their, their doing. But those sites did get bulldozed probably as a result of the ranching activities in the area. CARR SMITH: Thank you. NOBRIGA: Ranchers wouldn’t do that. The ranchers have more mana‘o for what we have in our history than to go bulldozing \[inaudible\]. UNGER: Mr. Darrow. 27 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman. Just want to confirm that the questions regarding drainage have been accurately answered in regards to, and clearly answered, in regards to what’s existing and what will be proposed in the future. In the background report Exhibit A and B submitted within the applicant’s – and C, I believe, let’s see – no, I’m sorry, Exhibit B of the applicant’s submittal, it really identifies what’s currently identified as the drainage way on the north side and then what the proposed channelization would be. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. CARR SMITH: Excuse me, on the north side, right? That was a little confusing to me because you cannot tell by these maps with the pretty colors exactly what we are looking at; there’s no name on what subdivision that is. DARROW: Yes, if I could defer, I mean, refer to that. So, unfortunately, the first map on Exhibit B is different than the second map on Exhibit B and it’s just that they’re turned around; so there is a reference to Ali‘i Drive on one map it’s on the top and on the second map it’s on the bottom. But basically it’s relating to the left, to the north side of the property, and then again what is currently the identified floodway under the new FEMA mapping and then what the proposed channelization would be, that’s map number three, and again with Ali‘i Drive identified on the bottom. DEWEESE: Perhaps, I can clarify, if I could, Commissioner? UNGER: Yes, please. DEWEESE: The final map is the preliminary map that FEMA looked at right before the 2017 iteration was completed, so that will need to be modified, and that’s why it says preliminary on it. So that will be slightly changed. And I will also add that there are, on the mauka-makai road that we are required to build, there is also drainage requirement adjacent to that. So there’s — CARR SMITH: The one that’s on the map here, right? And then that’s been — DEWEESE: That’s correct. CARR SMITH: — clearly explained to us, but I don’t even see anything on any of the maps. LIM: Exhibit B is the bottom left hand corner, which is Block D. That’s a picture of Block D basically. DEWEESE: There’s far, the situation in Block D doesn’t require the amount of drainage improvements that will be required next to the County roadway; the County roadway has very specific requirements related to it. That’s why it’s delineated in that nature. CARR SMITH: Okay, so, forgive me if this has already been discussed, so what are the requirements of you for the north side regarding drainage? 28 EXHIBIT A DEWEESE: The north side, that’s identifying a drainage channel with natural bottom with some edges that will hold the water coming through, and then we have a series of drywells at the bottom because, as mentioned earlier, the water coming through the property can’t be, or exiting the property, can’t be greater than what’s on the property. So there will be a series of drywells in that channel to control the water before it goes off. CARR SMITH: So based upon the maps with the pretty colors, your plan needs to be altered, right? DEWEESE: Which plan are you referring to? CARR SMITH: The plan of this part of your subdivision in Block D needs to be altered to accommodate this flooding, is that right? DEWEESE: Okay, the plan you are looking at there, there were two series there — CARR SMITH: Yes. DEWEESE: — first where the, was the 2008 FEMA mapping and then the one I believe you just looked at was the updated 2017 mapping, the brown one is the 2017. So if you looked at the purple one that the one you just put your hand on — CARR SMITH: This one. DEWEESE: — that one, that is fairly close to what the final design will end up being with the, with the CLOMR and LOMR. CARR SMITH: And is this something similar to what the County is requiring you to do on the south side? DEWEESE: It won’t be as, as significant because there is less water in that area. CARR SMITH: And this is still on your property, off to the north of that subdivision is still your property? DEWEESE: That map shows part of it on the neighbor’s property, but we are, we are planning on moving it more into our property. CARR SMITH: So your plan will change. DEWEESE: Yes. CARR SMITH: Yeah, okay, that was my original question. Thank you. 29 EXHIBIT A KEALOHA: So, will all of your channeling be done with the first phase under D? Because if you are altering D and you are not doing anything above, how does that channel get maintained all way through? DEWEESE: Right, significantly all of the, those flood improvements have to be done with the development of Block D. UNGER: If there’s no further questions, you may be seated. Thank you. Commissioners, the floor is now open for a motion. SHIMAOKA: I’ve got one more question for the Planning Department. UNGER: Okay, go ahead. SHIMAOKA: Does the County ever take into consideration just when we talk about – because I know one of the letters that I read was the concern of so many people in one little area, and I know over the years we’ve talked a lot about gridlock and just, you know, Ali‘i Drive just, you know, emergency, and I know that one of the testifiers, the concern was getting out there as soon as possible – do we have any kind of ordinance on how many people, you know, like in a building, you have a capacity, right? Is there a capacity for this area that we are talking about? Does the County have any kind of regulation, ordinance that would specify or address that? JACKSON: Are you talking about from like a Civil Defense evacuation perspective? SHIMAOKA: Correct. JACKSON: Civil Defense may have something like that, but I’m not aware of it — SHIMAOKA: The County doesn’t, yeah — JACKSON: The Planning — SHIMAOKA: — because I’m looking at that, and it seems like how many people, if the project was completed, how many people would be occupying that, if, say, everybody was there, how many people in that area there? JACKSON: In the development area? SHIMAOKA: Correct. JACKSON: It’s for 289 units, so maybe double that. But I think that is why there was a requirement placed on the developer to build a mauka-makai road — SHIMAOKA: Correct. 30 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: — because it serves as another way to get people more mauka in case there is an earthquake or tsunami. SHIMAOKA: Thank you. JACKSON: Mm-hmm. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioner Church. CHURCH: I just wondered, Keith, are you going to go over, or is the County going to go over – there were some changes to the conditions that were, you know, that was suggested – and are we going to go over those prior to a motion be made or after a motion be made? UNGER: Yeah, that’s probably a good idea at this point or after, say, a clarification on a motion. I know that we had talked about several changes specific to the conditions as proposed by the County. So, Ms. Jackson, would you like to take a – and I think they were pretty, pretty straightforward, one was water and it just basically specified, or you could, if you wrote that sentence down — JACKSON: Yeah, I believe, I didn’t get it word for word, but I believe that the Department is agreeable to that change, so — UNGER: Okay. JACKSON: — we can go ahead and add that language — UNGER: Okay. JACKSON: — or amend the language. UNGER: And I, and to, I have it down relatively well; it was No. 7 on the recommendation, and it started with “Prior to the issuance of,” so we are going to strike that, “the Department of Water Supply,” oh, strike that, “The applicant shall submit the estimated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer to the Department of Water Supply for the commitment of 75 additional units of water,” then it continues, “The applicant shall obtain water commitments to develop the requested number of units prior to submitting plans,” etc. I think that’s, I think that’s how that was worded. So, again, relatively minor adjustment just showing the fact that additional water units have been, have been secured. CHURCH: That’s it? UNGER: Uh, I believe so, I believe that was it, unless anybody else -. Okay, then we have a has-paid in regards to the 483,800, if you go to Page 7, No. 2 of the Planning Department recommendation, just a minor word change to reflect that the applicant has paid 438,800 \[sic\] dollars towards the Kahului-Keauhou Parkway, so that was one, instead of the “shall.” 31 EXHIBIT A SHIMAOKA: Four hundred eighty-three thousand — UNGER: Four hundred eighty-three, that number doesn’t change, other than we are reflecting the fact that it has already been paid. DARROW: There’s two areas there. UNGER: Okay, so it would have to be adjusted in two areas. Okay. So, essentially, I mean you can make a motion and work through that verbiage. But essentially that’s it, I mean, no major changes to the recommendation, to the Planning Director’s initial recommendation. So, that being said, the floor is open for a motion. We’ll take a motion, we’ll second it, and then we’ll have an opportunity for discussion. JACKSON: Chair Unger? UNGER: Yes. JACKSON: May I make one more suggestion? The Department would like to add to the condition related to water – let’s see – Condition 7, just a statement saying the applicant shall maintain the water commi- the 75 water commitments, meaning that they will continue to pay the water commitment fee until the project is constructed. UNGER: Great, okay, we can add that as part of the motion. So, again, we are looking for a motion, and what we want to do is get a motion on the table so we can have a discussion, so. And I would mention the State Historic Preservation Department addition to the comments, but the applicant talked about their letter from SHPD stating that they are already required to delineate the two burials on the K to K Parkway, so in my opinion that’s no longer an issue; they are, they are required to do that, the SHPD letter. JACKSON: That’s, we also have that as Condition 29 of the permit. We did modify it a little bit; initially, it asked that the applicant provide the studies to the Department, they have done that, and so now we are just changing the condition to say that “The Applicant shall implement the approved Archaeological Preservation Plan, Date Recovery Plan, and Burial Treatment Plan.” UNGER: Correct. And to clarify, the Burial Treatment Plan was for the project, not for the K to K Parkway right-of-way. JACKSON: That’s correct. UNGER: Right, okay. CARR SMITH: Maija, can I get clarification about the conditions in which numbers for the north drainage and the south drainage? 32 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: As far as altering the drainage ways? CARR SMITH: Uh, yes. JACKSON: Okay, so — CARR SMITH: Or just addressing either one of those, which conditions — JACKSON: All righty. CARR SMITH: — it’s not clear to me. JACKSON: So Condition 2 relates to the per-acre fee that the applicant paid for the Waiaha flood plain improvements, which is the north drainage way, and they’ve made that payment. The – let’s see here – Condition 5 talks about the applicant having the option to construct drainage improvements to the Waiaha drainage way, or to pay the per-acre payment, which they did. Conditions 11 and 12 relate to water quality – that’s kind of related to your question – those are water quality standards from the State and the County that the applicant has to comply with. Condition 14 talks about how there shall be no construction of dwellings, buildings or subdivision roads within the flood zone. And then Condition 15 talks about the applicant doing a flood study. And Condition 16 says that prior to any alteration of the two flood plains, the north and south flood plain, the applicant will need to comply with County and FEMA regulations in order to construct any floodway improvements or alterations, as well as amend the FIRM map. And I think that’s all of them. Condition 10, yeah, Condition 10 says that prior to getting Plan Approval, the applicant needs to submit a drainage study, and that’s to handle any on-site drainage, this isn’t flood plain alteration, this is any on-site drainage to ensure that they design the correct number of drywells or on-site drainage facilities so that drainage does not affect or run onto adjacent properties or roadways. CARR SMITH: Thank you. SHIMAOKA: Because of — UNGER: Commissioner Shimaoka. SHIMAOKA: — because of all the changes, I’m going to move that the Commission enter into executive session with our attorney so we can discuss this further pursuant to HRS 92-5. UNGER: Second? \[Commissioner Nobriga indicated to second the motion.\] We’ll take a five-minute break to go into executive session, and we’ll meet back here in five to seven minutes. RECESSED Chairman Unger called a recess at 11:36 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:41 a.m. 33 EXHIBIT A EXECUTIVE SESSION – A voice vote was taken on the motion made by Commissioner Shimaoka, seconded by Commissioner Nobriga, to enter into executive session for the purpose of consulting with the Commission’s counsel pursuant to HRS 92-5, and motion passed unanimously. The Commission went into executive session at 11:42 a.m. The Commission came out of executive session at 11:48 a.m. by a motion made by Commissioner Shimaoka, seconded by Commissioner Nobriga and passed by a unanimous voice vote. UNGER: Our hearing is back in session. At this time, to the Commissioners, we’d like to entertain a motion, if someone has a motion on the agenda item. SHIMAOKA: Mr. Chairman, I move that the application to amend SMA Permit No. 05-005 be approved based on the Planning Director’s recommendation and proposed conditions, which to include the changes that we discussed in this hearing, namely Items 2 and No. 7, which shall be adopted. UNGER: Do I have a second? CHURCH: Second. UNGER: The floor is open for discussion. Hearing no discussion? Roll call. JACKSON: Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: \[After a long pause\] Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Unger? UNGER: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries, six-zero. 34 EXHIBIT A UNGER: Thank you. Applicant, you will be notified in writing by the Planning Commission of the decision. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:52 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 35 EXHIBIT A