Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-07 Hearing Transcript - Wailani Development Amend REZ 10-117WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 7, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of the WAILANI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (AMEND REZ 10-000117) was called to order at 9:19 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Donald Ikeda, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 31 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WAILANI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (AMEND REZ 10-000117) Application to amend Condition D (Increase Maximum Residential Units from 518 to 700), Condition E (Reduce Maximum Commercial Area from 480,000 to 420,000 square feet), Condition I (Modify Master Plan Amendment Process), Condition N (Delete Underground Utility Requirement), Conditions L and P (Modify Construction/Completion Requirement of Ponahawai Street Extension), Condition O (Modify Wastewater Requirement), Condition Q (Modify Access Requirements), Condition R (Modify Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Requirement), Condition KK (Waive Fair Share Requirement for Affordable Housing Units), and Condition 00 (Administrative Time Extension) of Ordinance No. 10 64 for the Wailani Project District, which was approved in 2010 to consist of a mixed-use community to include a 180,000 sq. ft. medical office campus, 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, a 100,000 sq. ft. business park, up to 333 senior housing units, up to 90 multiple -family residential units, up to 95 single-family residential lots, approximately 6.9 acres of active recreational open space, approximately 19 acres of passive open space including walking and bicycling paths and the Pu`u Honu cinder cone, and supporting infrastructure on approximately 171.504 acres of land. The subject properties are located on the west (mauka) side of the Komohana Street - Ponahawai Street intersection and northeast (makai) of the Mohouli Street Extension, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-3-044:019, (3) 2-3-049:053 and (3) 2-3-037:001. CLARKSON: The next item on the agenda is from Wailani Development, LLC. It's an amendment to a rezone. Please proceed, Maija. 10V1111.11 1.1 JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Okay, the next item on the agenda is a request from Wailani Development, LLC to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 10-064. The subject property is located in the South Hilo District. It's shown on the slide outlined in red. And, you have Komohana Street running in a north -south direction on the east side of the property. Ponahawai Street running east -west down towards Hilo here. And, then the Mohouli Extension on the west side of the property, as well as Kaumana Drive along the north end of the area. So, the Wailani Project District was approved in 2010 to consist of a mixed use community to include a 180,000 square feet of medical office campus; 200,000 square feet of commercial space; a 100,000 -square foot business park; up to 333 senior housing units; up to 90 multiple family residential units; and up to 95 single-family residential lots as well as approximately 6.9 acres of active open recreational space and 19 acres of a passive open space including walking and bicycle paths and the Pu`u Honu cinder cone, as well as supporting infrastructure. The subject property is about 172 acres in size. So, in 2010, the original concept was to develop the project in three phases over 20 years. The Applicant is now requesting several amendments to their ordinance. The first amendment is to Condition D to allow an increase in the maximum residential units from 518 to 700, and to Condition E to reduce the maximum commercial area from 480[000] to 420,000 square feet. They are also requesting to amend Condition I by modifying the master plan amendment process; Condition N to delete the underground utility requirement; Condition L to request a time extension for construction; Condition P to modify the construction and completion requirement of the Ponahawai Street Extension; Condition Q to modify access requirements; Condition R to modify the curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements; Condition KK to waive the fair share fee requirement for affordable housing units; and finally, Condition 00 to preserve the administrative time extension condition. And, I'll go through each of those individually. So, I'm not going to read through what each condition amendment is, but I'm just going to give you an idea of what the intent of each of the amendments are. You should have all of these in writing in your Background and Recommendation Reports, all of these proposed amended conditions. So, the intent of Condition, the amendment to Condition D, is to increase residential units in the project district from 518 to 700, and that would include any affordable housing units required per the affordable housing code. The next amendment was to Condition E, and that is to reduce the overall amount of commercial development in the project district from 480,000 square feet to 420,000 square feet. So, as I go through these, you'll notice some language is in brackets, and that's the language proposed to be removed from the condition, and any language that is underlined is proposed to be added to the condition. EXHIBIT B 2 Okay, the next amendment is to the master plan condition, that's Condition L And, so the purpose of this amendment is to allow for the master plan to be amended in the future administratively by the Planning Director rather than have it go through a legislative approval through the Planning Commission and County Council. And, if I'm going too fast through these, if you want more time to read, just let me know. The print size is going get smaller and smaller as we go through. Okay, the amendment to Condition N is actually to delete the whole condition which says all project utilities shall be underground, so that condition is proposed to be completely removed. And, then the amendment to Condition L, the intent of that is to provide a time extension of five years to commence construction of the development, and an additional five years from the commencement date to complete construction. Also, proposed is to remove the amount of development that needs to be constructed in that time period. Originally, it was a 100,000 square feet of commercial and 100,000 square feet of medical office park. That's proposed to be replaced with construction of any commercial component. The condition—the amendment to Condition L would also remove any timing requirements for constructing the Ponahawai Street Extension as well as basically restating the traffic impact analysis requirement and improvement requirement that's already in Condition U. The amendment to Condition P, the intent of that, is to allow the County to request from the Applicant that the right-of-way for the Ponahawai Street Extension be dedicated prior to improvements being completed if the County were wanting to construct the road itself. And, then the other purpose is to rather than have the master developer, the Applicant, construct the entire Ponahawai Street Extension, it would be to allow individual developers to come in, in the future to build out the extension in increments for their particular project, if their project requires access from the extension. And, lastly, the purpose of the condition is to clarify that the Applicant is proposing to construct a two-lane County dedicable standard road with pedestrian bypass with the allowance of possibly constructing a four -lane road if it were required in the future. Condition Q, the purpose of Condition Q amendment is to allow commercial and multi -family residential units to have direct driveway access onto the arterial roadways of Komohana Street, Mohouli Street, and Ponahawai Street Extension. Currently, the condition only allows for permitted road lots rather than direct driveway access. So, just as an example of what I'm talking about, the KTA that is located along the highway, they have driveway access that allows a right -in, right -out near the Jack -In -the -Box. That's the purpose of this condition and that's not a road lot. It's an actual driveway access. The Condition R amendment, the purpose of that is to only require curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for commercial developments rather than for residential subdivisions or for private roads within the Wailani Project District. The condition also defers installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements for the commercial developments to when the lot is developed rather than to subdivision, when the lot is created. Am I going too fast? You okay, Joe? Okay. EXHIBIT B 3 And, the amendment to Condition KK, this is the fair share condition, is to add the following language, and I will go ahead and read this, "This provision shall not apply to any housing units constructed within the Wailani Project District and defined as `affordable' by Chapter 11" in the Housing Code. So basically, this would allow for an exemption from a fair share requirement for any affordable housing unit. And, lastly, Condition 00, this is the standard administrative amendment condition, and I'm sorry, administrative time extension condition, and the Applicant is proposing to preserve this condition and allow for an administrative time extension for any of the conditions in the ordinance that have timing requirements Generally, the Applicant's reasons for the request is for the time extension in these amendments in order to make the Wailani Project District development financially feasible by reducing some of the infrastructure requirements allowing options to address infrastructure requirements and allowing the ability to time the infrastructure improvements to be concurrent with the actual development they're designed to serve as well as increasing the residential uses and decreasing the commercial components of the project. Again, back to the property, this is the County zoning map for the area. You can see the Wailani Project District property is shown in gray, and that is the Project District zoning which allows for commercial, residential uses anywhere throughout the Project District, and I'll show you their master plan in the next slide or at the next few slides. You can see that surrounding the property to the north, there are three residential subdivisions. You have Kaumana Gardens, Crescent City Heights, and Piihonua Houselots. These are all zoned Single -Family Residential which is shown in the yellow. To the east is the medical center at the top of Ponahawai. This little road here is called Pu`uhonu, Pu`uhonu Place, and the medical development extends all the way over in this area. These properties have some mixed zoning, Agricultural, Commercial. The properties towards the top are currently vacant. There is a physical therapy office and multi -family development up in this area. And, then to the south, you have the Sunrise Ridge Estates Subdivision. This is shown in the RS -10 zoning in this area. Further south is a State-owned lot which is zoned Agricultural – 1 acre, and to the west across Mohouli Street Extension is a large vacant area that's actually the Alenaio Stream Drainage Way, and then a new subdivision to the north. I believe that's called Lakeview Estates, which consists of Agricultural – 1 acre sized lots. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban which allows for a mix of commercial and Multi -Family, Single -Family Residential units. This is an aerial photo of the property. Again, you can see all the surrounding residential uses to the north and southeast, and this subdivision is becoming fairly developed now. There's more houses than are shown on this image. You can see the Alenaio Stream running through the property in an east -west direction and then the bridge where the stream crosses Komohana is generally in this area right here. So, this is the Applicant's original master plan that was approved in 2011, and Komohana Street would be on the right side of the slide. Ponahawai Street in this area here. And, then Mohouli Street would be on the left side of the slide. So, on each—each end of the property adjacent to EXHIBIT B 4 the existing roadways, they were proposing commercial development, and that's shown in the red blocks, as well as some commercial in the middle of the property. The pink segments are all the roadways, the major roadways. This is the Ponahawai Street Extension, and then this large green area is the Alenaio Stream. To the north and across from the existing medical park uses, they were proposing additional medical uses which is shown in the darker blue. The Pu`u Honu—the pu`u, which is called Pu`u Honu, is located here. That is supposed to be preserved according to the requirements of SHPD in its natural state. And then further west, we have an active recreational area which is shown in the dark green. To the south in the lighter blue is Mixed Use Commercial, and then all of the yellow areas on the image are the proposed residential areas. So, you can see the largest change between this master plan and the current master plan being proposed is that the crossing of the Alenaio Stream was proposed in 2011 but after some evaluation, the developer has determined it's too costly to build a bridge over the stream, and so, we have this new concept, which you can see there's no bridge proposed over the stream. So, this is the Applicant's proposed master plan. Many of the uses are still located in the same areas. You can see the commercial in this area here has been reduced and now it's become residential, which is shown in the mustardy color. The commercial was removed that was shown in the middle of the project previously and now that's all residential. And, then this is still residential south—the area south of Alenaio Stream is still residential, but there is only one road into it rather than having a bridge across the stream to access that area. And, this is just a close- up view of the proposed layout for that area south of the stream. These are some site photos that were recently taken of the property. So, this is on Komohana Street standing near the medical center looking west across Komohana Street to the property. So, these are the houses in those existing subdivisions to the north, and you can see Pu`u Honu here with some trees still located on it. And, then this is looking further to the southwest. The Ponahawai Street intersection is a little bit further off of this picture to the left, but it gives you an idea that this portion of the property near Komohana Street has been graded and grubbed. And, then a few more views. This photo was taken at the Ponahawai-Komohana Street intersection, and so this view is looking in the area where the Ponahawai Street would be extended through this area here. And, then the photo on the bottom is a view of the Mohouli Street Extension looking towards the property, and this photo was taken near the Lakeview Subdivision. So, the Director has a mixed recommendation for the Applicant's request. He is requesting that you forward a favorable recommendation for the Applicant's amendments to Conditions D, E, I, L, N, KK, and 00, as well as for the Planning Director's amendments to Conditions J, K, O, S, FF, GG, and HH, and an unfavorable recommendation for the Applicant's amendments to Conditions P, Q, and R. So, we'll go through those. Okay, so this, c'mon—this, this slide here basically shows the Applicant's requested amendments and the items highlighted in yellow are the conditions that the Director is supporting. So, you can see a lot of these items would provide some relief to the developer so EXHIBIT B 5 that this project can become more financially feasible. This is right, you know, in the middle of Hilo, and Hilo does need housing, affordable housing, so it is really a needed project for this area. Some of the conditions that would provide some relief would be deleting the underground utility requirement as well as waiving the fair share requirement for affordable housing units. And, then there are three conditions that the Director does not support but before we get to those, the Director is recommending some of his own amendments to the conditions. Some of these amendments are just to update the conditions since the Applicant has been working towards doing things like complying with SHPD requirements for the archaeological resources on the property, paying their water commitment fees, so a lot of these conditions are just to bring those up-to-date. So, the first suggested amendment the Director has is to amend Conditions J and K related to water supply to recognize the existing 200 water commitment units and the need for a revised water master plan. These revisions are based on Department of Water Supply memos dated December and January of 2019. Secondly, an amendment to Condition O to clarify that the entire Wailani Project District must connect to the County sewer system. This was based on a recommendation or a requirement from the Department of Health, Wastewater Branch, which they said that the entire project needs to connect to the County sewer, and they would not allow use of individual wastewater systems. Also, deleting Conditions FF, GG, and HH, and adding a new Condition EE. This is to just reflect that the Applicant has completed all of the archaeological inventory and mitigation plans for the property. There were two sites that SHPD recommended be preserved, and the Applicant has submitted a preservation plan for those two sites and has already implemented the interim preservation measures which was placing a buffer around those areas before they graded and grubbed the property. Lastly, the Director is recommending that Condition S be deleted. This is the language that currently exists in the ordinance for Condition S. And, the reason for deleting Condition S is because its counter to the standard planning practice of providing connectivity between subdivisions and communities, particularly since the roads within the subdivisions to the north are County roadways that can be widened to accommodate additional traffic. The Subdivision Code allows for relief from connecting local streets if there's topographical constraints. For example, the roads near Pu`u Honu, since Pu`u Honu is supposed to be preserved, obviously, it wouldn't allow for connection through, but some of the roads to the west such as South Wiliwili Street and Liko Lehua Street should be connected to the Wailani Project District. Connecting these multiple roadways would help disperse traffic through the Wailani Project District as well as the subdivisions to the north rather than having one connection where all the traffic goes through and affects just those owners on that one road. And, then back to the Applicant's amendments, the Director, again, is recommending unfavorable recommendation for Conditions P, Q, and R. And the reasons for the recommendation on Condition P—this had to do with deleting the timing requirement for EXHIBIT B 6 constructing the Ponahawai Street Extension and the reason the Director does not support this is that the whole purpose of project district zoning is the ensure that the whole community is developed cohesively and that the road network that's developed is done to accommodate the entire development rather than, you know, your conventional zoning where you come in and just zone little pieces at a time. And, the Director is also not supportive, excuse me—of deferring constructions of sections of the extension by individual developers. When the original project district zoning was granted in 2010, the basis for supporting that zoning was that it would facilitate the completion of the Ponahawai Street Extension. The Director is concerned that after the initial phase of development is completed, the project may stall for several years until water and wastewater capacity is increased because at this time there are only 200 water units for the first phase of development. After that, extensive improvements would need to be made. This could mean that the Ponahawai Street Extension may not be built for several years or decades. The Director also does not agree that requiring the Applicant to construct the extension to County dedicable standards with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks is in excess of the impacts of the development. This is a very large development area for Hilo. And, the Applicant has not provided any evidence to support the claim that this requirement is not proportional to the impacts of their development. Ponahawai Street Extension is identified in the General Plan as a secondary arterial requiring a minimum 80 -foot wide right-of-way, and this is to provide much needed connectivity between the Kaumana community and Downtown Hilo. So, as a compromise, the Planning Director with the support of Public Works recommends, excuse me—the Applicant construct the entire Ponahawai Street Extension with paved shoulders and swales—this is similar to the Mohouli Street Extension—within ten years from the effective date of the amended project district ordinance. The addition of concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks can be constructed incrementally as adjacent bulls lots are developed by individual developers. According to Public Works, they felt this compromise will provide much needed connectivity in the area and ensure the safe design and cost-effective construction of the extension. So, these are the Director's proposed conditions for Condition O and P to address the provision of an 80 -foot wide right-of-way, as well as the improvements as I just mentioned, and these are also shown in your Recommendation Report if you want to review them more closely. The reasons for the unfavorable recommendation for Condition Q, Condition Q had to do with allowing direct driveway access onto the arterial roadways. One of the main reasons is that Public Works is not supportive of amending that condition. They don't support allowing driveway access onto the arterial roadways. They feel like allowing these accesses would reduce the effectiveness of the road as an arterial roadway, which is meant to move traffic through an area quickly from one section of the community to the next. DPW is supportive of allowing road lots onto these arterial roadways with their approval. This is similar to the future road lot across from Pu`uhonu Place that the Applicant already received preliminary subdivision approval for. The current Condition Q already allows for road lots with EXHIBIT B 7 Public Works approval, so based on their concerns, the Planning Director doesn't support the amendment to Condition Q to allow driveways rather than road lots onto arterial streets. We're almost done. Condition R, the Director's reasons for an unfavorable recommendation for Condition R are shown here. Condition R had to do with requiring curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements for just the streets that serve commercial developments rather than the residential and—residential subdivisions and private roads. So, the reasons the Director is not supporting this amendment is that although the Subdivision Code does not mandate curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements for residential subdivisions, the pedestrian roadway standards in the Subdivision Code have not been updated since 1983, over the past 35 years, you may be aware that Hawaii County has placed greater attention on implementing complete streets. This is the idea of providing vehicular travel lanes as well as sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and, it's been shown that providing complete streets in communities improves the health of the overall community because people are more likely to get out and bicycle and walk and exercise. The Subdivision Code does provide the Planning Director with the discretion of providing sidewalk improvements. It has also been the policy of Public Works to require curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements for all residential subdivisions on lots that are 10,000 square feet in size or smaller. So, if this condition were—if the Applicant's requests were to be approved, it would be counter to Public Works' current policy. Additionally, private streets in Urban areas should be discouraged unless there are topographic constraints because private streets do not allow for connectivity between subdivisions and commercial areas. Okay, I think we're almost done. So, I do want to apologize for providing your Background and Recommendation Reports to you yesterday. I hope you've had time to look them over, and since providing those to you, we have received some additional testimony. This morning, you should have gotten three emails from Claudia Rohr related to EA triggers, you should have received a memo from the Department of Environmental Management providing an exemption for the project from an EA, as well as an email from the Applicant's representative, Sid Fuke, dated today with some suggested amendment language for Conditions P and R, and then a sheet that we just received from the Applicant this morning with the most current version of their recommended amendments. And, that concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. I know it's a lot to take in. IKEDA: I have a question. JACKSON: Yes? IKEDA: Well, I have a couple of questions. JACKSON: Okay. IKEDA: You said Mr. Fuke is going to explain Condition B? 10V1111.11 1.1 JACKSON: Yes. IKEDA: That was one of my concerns, and I didn't quite understand Condition KK. JACKSON: Okay, that's the fair share condition? IKEDA: Yes. JACKSON: So, basically, fair share fee assessment is required for any residential unit or a lot IKEDA: I know, I know what fair share is. JACKSON: Okay. IKEDA: I just want to know why you guys gonna JACKSON: Oh why? Why we're supporting that, yeah? Because it's, we kind of see that as like dinging the developer twice, right? They're required to provide affordable housing according to the Housing Code and then the fair share condition says that in addition to requiring that, you also have to pay the fair share fee which can be anywhere from 8 to 13 thousand dollars, so, it's kind of like double dinging them— IKEDA: —Okay JACKSON: when they're trying to provide affordable housing. IKEDA: I'm good. CLARKSON: Is that now a common practice with larger subdivisions that have affordable housing requirements? JACKSON: We're considering kind of changing that, that practice from here on out. We're discussing it a little bit more internally within the Department, but it kind of makes sense so CLARKSON: So, this would be the first example of that? JACKSON: Yes. IKEDA: Can I ask the Director a question? I would like to know why you're against Condition S because this is what the community wanted. YEE: So, generally, as Maija had mentioned in one of the slides around connectivity, so when we're bringing in projects, not just here but throughout the island, there's been this practice with some where they don't want to connect, where roads have that chance to connect subdivisions, and since I've been here, I've been consistent in wanting to connect roads. I understand there are—some of the concerns are around safety. People are concerned about people walking or the EXHIBIT B 9 children walking to school and stuff, but there are many ways within design now. Complete streets tries to address that in terms of how do you slow down traffic, how do you make it safe for people to walk and ride their bikes on streets. I know there's this fear around, especially in this area, around increased traffic to—to Wailani, but I also feel as if knowing the traffic patterns in that area is not as if people would use that as a shortcut to get from one part of town to another. Folks that are going there would be using these roads to get into, into the development. And, then in the end, I still believe that would be a benefit to the folks that live in the area than a detriment. So, you know, from the higher level, I do really believe in complete streets, in creating a walkable and connected neighborhoods, and so, I'm trying to remain consistent in what I've tried to enforce in other parts of the island. IKEDA: So, you're saying that if I don't agree with you, I can vote against you? YEE: Say that one more time? IKEDA: If I don't agree with you, your Condition S, can I amend it to leave it in? YEE: Yes, as a commissioner, you can always suggest different language to an amendment. Again, I feel very strongly for wanting to create this connectivity to the project. IKEDA: You know, the reason I'm saying that is I was a Council Member at the time of the development, and I kind of pushed the development because of certain things that they agreed to. I'm kind of disappointed their backing off of one of those that I have a major concern about, but Condition S was very important to the neighborhood. CLARKSON: Now, I'd like to ask a question about this. In looking at the master plan, it appears that there's only one road proposed for connection between the Ponahawai Extension and whatever that other subdivision to the north is. Is is that, am I incorrect in that? YEE: Maija, can you show the—use your red highlighter. Show where the three connections could occur. JACKSON: So, currently Condition S says that this is the only connection required and it's for emergency access only. Connections could occur here, here, as well as here. Pu`u Honu is here so these streets here, I think, Spring Street, and I don't recall the other names, this street, this street, and I believe this street here would not be connected through because of Pu`u Honu. But, there are three viable streets that could be connected and, in fact, the original master plan in 2011 did show a connection through Liko Lehua to service this residential area here. The current master plan does not show that for some reason. YEE: I want to note also by providing more than one connection, you then would also disperse the traffic in not to just down to one road. So, this fear that everybody would go use Wiliwili, hopefully by adding more, anybody that does want to use this area to get into the project doesn't just have one choice. So, you disperse. So, that's one theory around kind of traffic and roads. EXHIBIT B 10 Commissioner Ikeda, I totally respect the fact that you were on Council at the time and were addressing residents' concerns. I hear often on a lot of projects that existing subdivisions have open areas and as new projects are coming in, it's fairly consistent that residents just don't want to see that increased density so we've often get—we want to preserve the open space. We don't want more dangerous roads, and at some point, that's the role of government to be able to understand and balance the needs of kind of higher planning principles, you know, hence why we have a lot of codes and zoning and building things. We're trying to guide things into the right place, and so I can respect that. At some point, the residents were really concerned for this connectivity, but that's why I'm trying to also push it. Not just on one road but disperse it amongst a few different roads. And, I also just firmly believe that unless you live right in those subdivisions that are connected, it's not, it's not a shortcut across this project to get to the other parts of Mohouli and Komohana. I don't see folks necessarily using it as a shortcut. Wiliwili, in fact, which is one of, the middle road, when you come off of Komohana heading south onto it, right at the turn, it's a very narrow County road still, and complete streets, you know, talks about having smaller roadways, you know, where you actually don't want to create wide roadways. That allow for speeding cars and stuff And, so, to a certain extent, it's not it's not an alternative route where people are going to like be able to get across, you know, across this area very quickly. Uluwai right now has speed bumps throughout it right now, and so people don't use that section to—to take shortcuts through the neighborhood right now. So, II respect that you were there, and you're still trying to honor what you heard back then. I have, I'm trying to come from a place of, of planning principles. CLARKSON: Any further questions for staff? If not thank you, Maija. Will the Applicant or their representatives please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? FUKE: Yes, I do. MATSUURA, P.: Yes. CLARKSON: If you would please introduce yourself and then proceed. FUKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me—my name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant, and I've been kind of assisting with this project from its inception. Seated to my left is the prime mover, basically the visionary of this project, Dr. Peter Matsuura, and he's here to answer any other questions that I won't be able to kind of answer. But, first of all I'd like to extend our appreciation to the staff because I know the staff was kind of strapped for time in finalizing this report, and so you got it like last night or this morning, and likewise for ourselves, too, so that's why there was a lot of scrambling in trying to have it weighed in with the Applicant. Overall, like in reviewing the staff's report and the Background, the Applicant had reviewed it as well and found them generally acceptable. There are a few exceptions which I'd like to go over EXHIBIT B 11 or share with the, with the Commission in due time, but what I'd like to initially do is to kind of like explain like and for the benefit of the Commissioners, I think that Commission Ikeda is very familiar with who the Applicant is because he was on the Council at that point in time. But, you know, just wanted to let the Commission know who is Wailani, Wailani Development, LLC. And, normally, you would think like, you know, it's a developer, but Wailani LLC is basically like Dr. Peter Matsuura, his wife, and the rest of his family. You know, and it basically was his vision. You know, his office is Ka Waena Lapa`au. Every morning looking across the street and seeing this vacant property and wondering like how can that property be best used for the community. And, so the thought was he'd like to have like some sort of like a medical kind of activity, commercial activity because he knows, his family lives in that quadrant of Hilo, where I live as well. Commercial activities are kind of like underserved. Most of the major commercial areas are situated Downtown and in the Puainako area, but not in the, that quadrant. So, here you have like a physician, his family. They're not developers. But, they have a vision. They want to buy the property. They want to develop this property. So, they had to acquire the property, seek the entitlements, and then to develop the project, it's kind of like a tough assignment even if you're a developer, especially if you're looking at a property that's more than a 170 acres. So, what they did after the hui, the family hui, secured enough financing to acquire the property, then they hired, you know, different consultants to actually try to implement the project based on the entitlements that they received back in 2010. So, they hired engineers, they hired engineers to kind of look at the water situation, they paid the water commitment fee for $200, I mean $200 per unit, they had community meetings, and one of these community meetings kind of like ended up with what Commissioner Ikeda noted earlier that, you know, a lot of the residents didn't want to have this kind of connection. You know, road connection. But, I can understand at the same time, you know, what Director Yee is saying about the wisdom of connectivity. But, notwithstanding that, they started to do the project, they sought out potential tenants, and they had these tenants this close. One was a major local supermarket and the other one was a major pharmaceutical firm. So, they looked at the property. They said it's a great location. Then, but, they looked at the infrastructure cost, what they would have to pay, what the developer had to pay, and basically, they said—they just shook their head. They said we can't do it, it's too expensive, you know, based on all of these things. And, along the way, Dr. Matsuura and his hui finally realized that, you know, we can't do this. We need to have a developer who is very knowledgeable in this whole area. So, they have right now consulted with on a regular basis this major development company based on Maui, and they have been advising them all the way through as far as what needs to be done, and it's really based on the developer's input that all of the suggested amendments that's, that's now before you, have been proposed. I think finally before going on the extension itself, what I'd like to kind of like notice that these are local people. They're born and raised for the most part on this island. They have no intention of flipping the project. He wants to fulfill a vision. The project is large enough, however, that at, different portions of the project may be sold off and, you know, to respect the developer, but at the end of the day, it still has to be consistent with the master plan that was originally envisioned. EXHIBIT B 12 So, getting to the staff's recommendation, the Applicant requested ten basically amendments. Of these, the Director favorably recommended seven, and we thank you very much, unfavorably recommended three and proposed seven amendments of its own. So, from the Applicant's standpoint, of course, you know, they accept the seven favorable recommendation, the Director's seven proposed amendments even, you know like we don't want to, the developer doesn't wanted to be in between that question about should there be connection with the surrounding neighborhood streets or not. I mean, they're proposing it. If they want to stand up and say and stand the jerk, then the developer is saying that's fine. You know, we're not quibbling with that, but it ultimately has to be the Commission and the Council decision on that. And, of the three that is recommending denial, the Applicant is saying, okay, fine, we'll accept, you know, the idea about the Director's recommending denial on the condition to say no additional access aside from whatever you already have. The reason why the Applicant had proposed that was merely more from a planning perspective. It was to give the Public Works or the County the opportunity to allow for additional access points in the event you find, or the government finds, that there is a need to relieve congestion at the Mohouli-Komohana or the Mohouli-Ponahawai Street Extension, and the example that I had used, you know, to the staff was, you know, look at KTA and the Puainako Street. You know, for the longest time, the State Highways had refused to allow another access to the KTA Shopping Complex. At some point in time, I guess somebody saw the light and said like we should allow at least a right -in, right -out to relieve congestion at the Volcano Highway and Puainako Street intersection. So, that was the genesis behind that thought. The staff is saying that based on Public Works recommendation, we don't want it anyway, so the Applicant is saying, that's fine, you know, we can accept that. The other condition that the staff is recommending is that all roads within the project be built with curb, gutters, and sidewalk. Whether it's for the commercial area or the residential area, what the Applicant is saying is that for the commercial area, that's fine, you know, we can understand the need for curb, gutter, sidewalk. However, when you come into the residential component, let the existing Subdivision Code prevail. So, the Subdivision Code right now allows for private streets in situations where you have six or less lots. The right-of-way would be like a maximum of 20 feet. The Subdivision Code also says that, you know, all other streets if you have lots that are more than six, then you have to have like a County dedicable standard roadway. That's a 50 -foot wide right-of-way with a 20 -foot pavement, paved swales. It's the developer's option of whether he wants to dedicate that to the County or not, but those are all outlined in the Subdivision Code. So, we're saying that let the Subdivision Code prevail. Sure, it may be as the staff had indicated at some point in time, we should have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, you know, in all subdivisions, but let that be addressed separately through the Subdivision Code revision process. And, whatever is the Code—if the Code is amended to say whether you're a 6 -lot or 600 -lot subdivision, you shall have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and if that project hasn't been developed, they will have to comply. So, that's all we're saying. Let the Subdivision Code prevail, and that's the request. EXHIBIT B 13 The other one is like—about Ponahawai Street, the Ponahawai Street Extension right now, just for your information is, the call is for an 80 -foot wide right-of-way. Just to give you a sense of perspective of 80 -foot wide right-of-way, 80 -foot wide right-of-way right now is the Mohouli Street Extension. A 60 -foot wide right-of-way, if you're familiar in Hilo, if you just go right up on Kukuau Street, whether it's a Sunrise Ridge or Sunrise Ridge Estate, that's a 60 -foot wide right-of-way. If you look at Kukuau Street, you know, like Sunrise Ridge, Sunrise Ridge Estates, the 60 -foot wide right-of-way has about 24 -foot wide pavement, and the balance is like all paved section. They have paved swales. And, look at that street. That street is—you can see right now, the people walk along those areas, they bike along that area, and it's just like you don't need to have curb, gutter, sidewalk, but it still functions in that same way. The current condition says, no Ponahawai Street has to be developed by the Applicant, 80 -foot wide right-of-way, that means and up to four lanes with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and you know what? It has to be completed whether you develop the project or not. It has to be completed within 20 years. So, they're looking at it, the developer is looking at it, upon advice they're saying, how can we make a commitment to construct an 80 -foot wide roadway with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks whether we do the development or don't do the development for three quarters of a mile. He said it's too expensive. We can't handle that. We can do that, on the other hand, if you allow us to construct at least a two-lane roadway and paved swales similar to what they have like now on Kukuau Street. That way the cars can go, move up and down the street, and if and when somebody wants to have like improvements beyond that area, whether it's the government or other fair share funds that come into being, then so be it. Classic point is like why, why is government requiring this developer, a local developer, consisting of family members, to have an 80 -foot wide right-of-way similar to Mohouli Street with curb, gutters, and sidewalk except that Mohouli Street Extension was constructed with all public funds and no curb, gutters, and sidewalk. Where's the equity? So, what we're suggesting is that fine, the developer would set aside an 80 -foot wide right-of- way. Let them construct a 60 -foot wide roadway within that area, and let them be also time specific. They are willing to accept that. However, as it relates to that portion on the Komohana Street side, because this is the Komohana Street and Ponahawai Street, the lower portion of the project that is where you're going to have a lot of activity, where the proposed supermarket and the proposed pharmaceutical company wanted to relocate. So, we're saying that at least at that point, you can have that four -lane roadway, and you can have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, because that's the way that the engineers had already designed and planned. But, don't make that a requirement necessarily to stretch, you know, three-quarters of a mile all the way up when you don't have anything happening in that area. So, what we've passed out, this morning, I think, what the staff passed out, our language that essentially addresses those two requested amendments. One saying that on the curb, gutter, sideway requirement for residential area, just let the Subdivision Code prevail. And, relative to the Komohana Street, excuse me, Mohouli Street Extension, generally along those lines of what we're saying, getting back to the curb, gutter, sidewalk requirement, if you EXHIBIT B 14 look at page two on, you know, what we're saying as Condition R, what we're also suggesting is that those streets that connect to existing streets shall be constructed to County dedicable standards and dedicated to the County upon their request. And, again, that's—we tucked that in largely because one of the staff's reservation in not wanting to go along with the amendment to Condition R was that they wanted to make sure that if you have like, if there are streets that are going to be connected to existing streets, then they have to be built to dedicable standards. So, we're saying that's fine. We'll build it to dedicable standards if they connect. The problem is if the—it's the situation that Commissioner Ikeda and the Director would have to address relative to connectivity on the street, but if it's wide open and there is the requirement for connection, then those streets will be all connected streets we would build to County dedicable standards. That's the way the language is read. So, if there any questions, I know it's been long, but we'd be more than happy to answer. CLARKSON: Any questions for the Applicant? DELA CRUZ: I get one question, Sidney. The river—how you guys gonna address the river that flows through the property because growing up as a small kid in that area, we used to play all in that thing so I want to know how you guys gonna address that. FUKE: So, the original plan as the staff had point out like there was going to be like a bridge connecting the the Puna side or the South side of the property together with this, the northern area. But, after they went through and, you know, like they did the study, the cost of building a bridge is so exorbitantly high, they said like it doesn't pencil out, so because the, you know, Alenaio Stream forms a natural barrier, you know, between the two properties, the thought was the area on the Puna side can be developed independent on the, then from the front side, I mean, on the north side. So, the short answer to your question, there would be basically two development, and that's why the southern section would be developed exclusively for residential lots consistent with adjoining Sunrise Ridge Estates. DELA CRUZ: Okay, so the stream itself going be left naturally? FUKE: Correct, yeah. DELA CRUZ: So, even the upper side that connects to the Mohouli Extension then? FUKE: The stream will not be touched at all. It will be left as it is. DELA CRUZ: Okay, thank you. IKEDA: Sidney, I've got a question. You know, I have a heartburn. You know, don't get me wrong, I like the Matsuura's. I respect them very much. But, I have a problem about 518 units to 700. You know, it's coming up to be like the University Heights, you know, proposed by Yamashiro, and that really bothered me, and that's the reason I ran for politics because I was against it, and I'm still against it. And, I really like their—when they, they went from 518, which was allowed by the prior Council, and then they came out with about 333 senior housing, EXHIBIT B 15 and I felt real comfortable with it, and I really liked that idea because it would not tax the present infrastructure we had. You know, like the roadways, the schools, and so forth, and so on. I'm a strong, I really, I still like Condition D, I think. That is the right one. I have a hard time accepting the change of Condition D. FUKE: Are you referring to the residential density? IKEDA: That's right. FUKE: Yeah, the reason why the additional residential density was, is being proposed is that it's primarily to accommodate the additional residential uses on the Puna side of Alenaio Stream whereas in the beginning, you know, with the road, if you could build a bridge then the residential density could have been kind of like spread out, you know, among the entire project, but because based on the developer's consultant's recommendation, having that area purely for residential kind of like increased the density, and so that's the reason why the cap was raised. It doesn't mean that they foregone the opportunity for senior housing on the area, you know, the bulk of the property, which is immediate—the thought was immediately mauka of, you know, the commercial area. That is still in their program, part of their program. To compensate for the additional residential density, what they're saying is that we're going to reduce also the commercial area as well. IKEDA: No, I understand. My problem is that the increase to 700 units because, you know, prior to the building of the Mohouli Extension and that Puainako Extension, I think you realize that the traffic used to back up almost to Chong Street, and right now, it's up to Aipuni Street without the development. So, developments—the area is growing, and so traffic is increasing and by putting 700 units and especially if its, you cutting down on the senior housing, it's going to make a, I think it's going to make a big difference. FUKE: It was, there was no talk about like diluting the senior housing portion. The other thing to remember is that with this project over here, true, you might have like movements, you know, from that project to go up Kaumana Drive and maybe try to go to, you know, like over the Daniel K. Highway, you know, but I think that's going to be far and few between in terms of the volume of traffic. What you're referring to is, you know, the makai traffic coming down on Kaumana. You know, and then there's like a bottleneck usually during school time or like the a.m./p.m. peak hours, so, but this property is located makai of that. You know, if this property were, if this project were situated on the mauka side, you know, where like Regency and all that area is, then I think that the concern you're raising would be very, you know, applicable. YEE: You know, a reminder that this is a project district development, and so, you know, especially for the newer commissioners that weren't around for 2010, and I certainly wasn't here then, the project district allows us to take a look at a project, you know, from a much more holistic point of view. Otherwise, because if they didn't want to do a project district, they could do whatever, you know, cut it up, do subdivision, just follow that code. So, by going into a project district, you—you try to strike balances over many different things. So, I think part, part of what I have a rub is to try to isolate and say in this issue I just want to EXHIBIT B 16 follow subdivision or I just want to follow this on something else. You know, part of the project district discussion always with the developer is as a whole, what makes sense. Okay, so you give and take. In this case, I do want to—even from a larger planning point of view, we are trying to create, you know, density, and this is a Medium Density area, and you want to create density in areas near town, right? We're, as Planning, we're trying to avert the flow of—of density into sprawl into other parts of the island. So, here's an opportunity to actually create density in Hilo which there's not a ton of opportunities left to do that. We can create a walkable community here, and so the ability to create, you know, to from 500 to 700 units doesn't cause me a rub because we're providing an ability to create a community for folks to live in. And, a community that's created by people who were born and raised here, and I gotta underline that. That you have folks that are born and raised here trying to do something good for the community. But, it's a balance. So, you know, I've come forward with some things that they prefer not to do, but it is this, you know, give and take, and where we end up is, is all what we're trying to do. Again, like you, I totally respect the family. That we've been at the table ever since I arrived to figure out a way to make this project go. And, what will be left, you know, what's the legacy? Hopefully, we can build for folks that, yes, I like curb, gutter, and sidewalks right away. Love it. But, you know, are we flexible on the timing and stuff. But I want folks that live in this community to feel as if they can get out their doors, can walk to stores, and feel safe about it, too. So, not, not ever an easy answer to finding this balance, but I appreciate the flexibility and the discussions we've had over two years to move this project forward, but I want to remind folks that the project isn't isolated into just following Subdivision Code, right? We're in a project district trying to weigh many different things that would work for the community in the end. CLARKSON: Any further questions from the Commission? If not, thank you. Please be seated. I'm going to call for just a five- or ten-minute recess. We have half a dozen folks who want to testify, but five minutes, recess. Chairman Clarkson called a recess at 10:29 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:36 a.m. CLARKSON: Okay, we're going to try and get going again. If Commissioners and staff could please return to their assigned positions. Thank you. At this time, we have at least six people signed up to testify, and a few more coming. So, at this time, I'd like to call Cheryl Reis, Vianne Reis, James Sutherland, and Dede Sutherland to come up, please. I'm sorry, I mispronounced Reis. Are we missingoh, there we go. Would you all please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS: Yes/I do. CLARKSON: Would we please start on this end? SUTHERLAND, J.: They were signed up before me, I think. EXHIBIT B 17 CLARKSON: All right. We'll start on this end. Please introduce yourself and begin with your testimony. REIS, C.: My name is Cheryl Reis, and I live at [stated address] which is below the Wailani project. First of all, let me clarify. Nobody doesn't like the Matsuura's. We all love them. They've been around for a long time with us. So, good morning, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have opposed this project to the area since it first began as University Terrace in 2004 and have the same repeated concerns for the Wailani project to a much greater degree. Area residents on upper Punahele Street previously signed a petition also opposing the University Terrace project for the same issues and is included in that particular Planning Department project file. The Wailani project wants to build 700 residential units, closer to 750 requested in the original University Terrace proposal. At two vehicles per household, a roughly 1,400 vehicle round -trips a day adding 200 miscellaneous trips for visitors, you could have 1,700 vehicle trips for residential areas only. Commercial will add to that total depending on the business type, and remember, the medical park is a business. There could be another 24 vehicle round trips plus in the medical park alone. So, a conservative estimate of traffic added to both the Komohana Corridor and Mohouli Extension could be in excess of 6,000 vehicles per day. There is no safe, practical plan for vehicular access to the project than entering/exiting via Ponahawai Extension at Komohana and Mohouli Extension. Adding Pu`uhonu Place to exit onto Komohana, given its limited sight distance and volume of daily traffic, and even with a right -turn only restriction, could be a recipe for disaster. The police agreed in this in their first evaluation with this premise. No street, as is, bordering the project is equipped to handle the projected vehicle counts and should not direct increased traffic through the old neighborhoods that weren't designed to handle the volume, and if they are to be improved, who foots the bill for this? University Terrace planned 49 acres next to the Sunrise Ridge Subdivision as Open Space because of wetland areas. The project would build a 138 residential lots in that same area. Water and drainage are huge concerns particularly for downhill residents and businesses. Sewer connection is another basic County—State services, for example, police, fire, EMS, and DOE will be impacted. The fair share requirement should not be waived. No commercial, recreational, or any other non-residential use should be allowed next to existing residences surrounding the project as shown. Daily noise from patrons, cell phone usage, 4:30 a.m. trash pick-up, business deliveries, vehicle alarms, accidents, restaurants, loud music, skateboarders, athletic games, homeless congregating, and criminal activity are realistically a part of the package. The developer should be required to install and regularly maintain a landscape buffer zone between the project's boundary and existing residential areas to minimize negative impacts from the project. Daily construction, noise, dust, diesel exhaust, etc. will affect the older residential areas on upper Punahele, Kaumana Gardens, and along Kaumana Drive, and others bordering the project until the project is completed, and realistically this will take years. With the inclusion of senior housing, the project should also provide a dedicated community center with staff designated and trained by a County, by County emergency responders to serve EXHIBIT B 18 as an alternate, emergency shelter to enhance our communities' capabilities in a disaster. Our neighbors, many of them elderly or with young families, expressed their concerns over noise, peace of mind, quality of life, privacy, and maintenance issues. We were hopeful that our concerns would be seriously considered at three community meetings that the Wailani developers were kind enough to arrange, but ended without resolution. The community meetings stopped, and the residents who signed the petition and attended those community meetings, still question or oppose the project as it now stands. They are afraid, and I am, too. Please consider rejection of the project as presented. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Will the next—please introduce yourself and proceed. REIS, V.: Good morning, everyone. I'm Vianne Reis, and I live at [stated address], and I respectfully ask that you deny the current application. Thank you for your consideration. SUTHERLAND, D.: Good morning. My name is Dede Sutherland. I live on Spring Street. I have—thank you so much for that. That was a concise and eloquent request from the residents and everything that you said we and our community agree with wholeheartedly and a thousand percent above that. So, thank you so much for doing that. MyI have many concerns. This was a huge project, and every time someone spoke, I had yet another question, so I know we don't have the time because I have 14,000 questions now, and you summed much of it up. The increase in the residential density, of course, is a major concern, and having access with walkable street to me says wide, slow for cars, and accessible, and attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists. So, that to me says sidewalks. Underground utilities—it's 2019. We really need to have underground utilities. Let's move forward on that. That, to me, is a no-brainer. It's in the—we're in the 21st century. Let's do it right. You should be—that should be required, and that should not be an exception in my opinion. And, one of my main concerns is that as a project, they have not been a good neighbor. There is an ordinanceHawaii, it's not an ordinance, it's a Hawaii administrative rule. Its 11-46, and that is the noise and working time for construction and that means no work on Sundays which I know you know, because I've complained several times. [Turning to Applicant.] You continue to blatantly and flagrantly work on Sundays and major holidays. The last CLARKSON: Excuse me, please address the Commission. SUTHERLAND, D.: Oh sorry, sorry. The last time was not that long ago. It was Martin Luther King Day which is a major holiday that they were working. That's strictly prohibited, and they've done this time and time and time again. So, my, one of my major complaints is that they do not follow rules—that me as a lay person am well aware of, and do, they as a major developer should be more concerned about the neighbors and our welfare. Thank you. EXHIBIT B 19 SUTHERLAND, J.: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. Good morning. My name is James Sutherland. I live at [stated address] so I got the letter from Mr. Fuke. I'm within the 300 -foot range, and I have several concerns. I am a retired fireman. One of my concerns is access for, emergency access to the project that on paper it says Wiliwili Street is an emergency access only and there will be barriers. Please do not put barriers between the Kaumana Fire Station responders and who should not have to do down Mohouli through a traffic light intersection to get into this project, and especially since we don't know when the, the Puainako Extension will get to Mohouli. Let them go down Wiliwili Street, and bang! They'll be right in the middle of this project, able to serve both the commercial and residential occupants. I think an 80 -foot roadway is a little over the top. I think 60 -foot is adequate, but like lower Ponahawai, but I that gotta come with sidewalks and paved swales, and, you know, they made the small guys on lower Ponahawai, that fourplex and the Nakai [sic] rehab center, and they then put in paved swales and sidewalks. I don't think these guys should get a, get a pass on that. I also agree that about the underground utilities. You know, this—let's, let's do it right. And, as a firefighter, I know if you put up a bunch of poles up along roadways, people will smack them, and if you have underground utilities, it's safer as well as more aesthetically correct. And, less maintenance for Helco for that matter. Oh yes, I'd like there to beI'm happy to hear that they are going to leave Pu`u Honu intact in its natural state. That's pretty much my backyard as a Spring Street resident. Thereat the adjacent recreational area, seven acres mauka of Pu`u Honu, I'd like there to be pedestrian access from Alenaio Street so that people in our neighborhood could enjoy that, that park as well as the future occupants of the subdivision. And, the noise issues, you know, I'd like them to comply with that, and originally, they got Planning Commission, Planning Department gave them three years, and that runs out July 29th, you know, they, they—and they haven't, haven't made much progress. I know financing etc., etc., but let's get on with it, and if this project's going to come to our neighborhood, let's, you know, let's do it, and be good neighbors while you do. Thank you. CLARKSON: Any questions for the testifiers from the Commission? If not, thank you. Will Claudia Rohr, Dwight Vicente, and Steve Hannigan please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? ROHR: Yes. VICENTE: [No response.] HANNIGAN: [Nodded yes.] CLARKSON: Thank you. We'll start with Mr. Hannigan. Please introduce yourself and proceed. EXHIBIT B 20 HANNIGAN: Hi. I'm, my name is Steve Hannigan. I live at [stated address] in Sunrise Ridge. I did get, I did get this from Mr. Fuke, but I feel like it's completely inadequate to all of the information that I could have had for the meeting today had the public and the people who within the 300 -foot zone should have probably had a lot more information to be better prepared. I would likeI know you're going to vote today on it, but I would have liked to have had the same information that was presented and be able to respond better to it. Being that we didn't have that, I can say that some of the testimony I've heard, I like. Underground utilities should be absolute. I can't believe we're not, we're not doing that. I am concerned with the road coming down from, I think it's the bypass, the Mohouli Bypass that would come down the side of Sunrise Ridge. It looks like there is only one exit for that road, potentially a bit of a problem there in the case of an emergency. I feel that the lady who mentioned the zones, the sort of zones to be established that would, where the development abuts already existing residential areas, that was a good idea. I like that. In the meantime, I'd like to say that I would have liked to have more time. Thank you. ROHR: Hello, yes, I swear. Don't start my time till—okay, wait a minute. Just wait—let's agree on when you're starting my time. Can you put your hand up when you're doing it? Thank you. I'm Claudia Rohr. November 21st, 2000, a great wall of water washed over this property, took out all the vegetation, clogged the culvert on Komohana, ripped it out. It went down through the subdivision below through somebody's living room, jumped back on over to the next door roadway, took out all the cars that were parked on that, and it all ended up down on, in the soccer fields Downtown. This is before Michael Yee came. This is before Robyn Matsumoto who exempted this project from an environmental review, before she worked here, and before the fellow who is in charge of the environmental management was, had his job. This is a sensitive area of high concern with floodwater. I called the emergency management that the liaison between that, the County and the FEMA program. If you guys make a mistake and approve development that goes against the principles of the FEMA program, out County can lose its FEMA program. I use that program; therefore, I have standing to insist that you do environmental review. It—you cannot exempt a project when they are based on one portion of it. It can't be segregated out. You have to consider the whole project. Not only that, you have to write to various agencies and get, consult with them. You have to call the OEQC and consult with them. There are steps to be taken. You can't produce a letter the day before this hearing and convince you guys who are going to be sued along with the Planning Director, the emergency management person, and Public Works because you didn't do environmental review, where this is a flood water that comes down to Hilo Town. This is not about a local family doing a great project. It's about the families who already live below this project, protecting them. You have an obligation not to lose our FEMA program. Thank you. VICENTE: Good morning, my name is Dwight Vicente. I'm representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. Full disclosure. I don't see all the information that is required to be in there. First of all, the lands here are either Crown or Government lands, and the jurisdiction of the State of EXHIBIT B 21 Hawaii is limited to the 1.8 million acres. The 2.4 million acres was under lease contract under King Kalakaua for 25 years, so they are not those lands would have been, a contract would have been impaired so the Republic of Hawaii only gave the 1.8 million acres illegally to the United States that became the Territory of Hawaii, 1900, 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1959 compact Hawaiian Homes Commission Act/State of Hawaii. So, the jurisdiction be limited to 1.8 million acres, and it's all questionable. Now, I think these lands here are, was a contract lands under King Kalakaua for 25 years. They're not included. They still belong into the Hawaiian Kingdom, and I think you guys don't have jurisdiction over these, the 2.4 million acres. That's why when you read about the Admission Act, Palmyra Island, Johnston Island is not included. They're not part of the 1.8 million acres. They are part of the 2.4 million acres. So, unless the—the whole history is put out there, and another thing, too, I want to remind people of, the treaties and all countries, they ended in 1897. The only treaty that was no included was the Reciprocity Treaty because that was not a treaty at all. King Kalakaua didn't sign it. The U.S. President didn't sign it. They had three U.S. citizens who did it, who is not authorized. And, they rely on that in Downes vs. Bidwell to take over this kingdom. Sai vs. Clinton and Sai vs. Trump, most recently. But, the argument in Downes vs. Bidwell is based on the kings of Europe what they're doing, not the United States Constitution. So, whatever the European kings was doing, the United States has no amendment to do as the kings were doing in Europe. So, conquest and by treaty didn't happen. Neither happened. So, the jurisdiction is what are you dealing with? Do you have jurisdiction over the 2.4 million acres? And another thing, too, I want to point out. Under the Mahele, you don't own land. There's native tenant rights, the lands are Crown and Government lands, all subject to native tenant rights, and the lands was only leased out. Back then was three to five years until King Kalakaua. That was bumped up to 25 years. So, a lot of the leases ended in 1925, and that's why the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act doesn't include those lands. Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is 1920, and if you read about the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, those, the 2.4 million acres is not included, and I think this lands in question today is not included, so the question of jurisdiction. But, again, it's full disclosure. And, I hear a lot of times people say, oh there was born and raised here, but under what condition? Treaties ended in 1897. Unless you are a naturalized native, national of the Hawaiian Kingdom, you have to be naturalized to the Hawaiian Kingdom or be here on a valid treaty, and treaties all ended. So, I reserve the rights of the Kingdom. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. Is there anybody else that has signed up to testify? Please be seated. ROHR: I forgot to add that there was a family that had to be rescued from their roof in Sunrise Ridge when that wall of water formed. It flooded their house. CLARKSON: I forgot to ask—any questions for these testifiers? I guessoh, you have a question? EXHIBIT B 22 AGUINALDO: Yes, I have a question to all testifiers. I appreciate your guys' comments. And, especially the couples over here, right? You guys and the gentleman. Requesting for underground and overhead, right? That's a suggestion, an opinion you all have that at the end of the day the developers are the ones footing the bill. They have a right to go overhead or underground. Like this lady over here that, you know, spoke first. She's not against it or hate these people, but you made a point and a comment that you wish that there was like a community center, I'm assuming? So, you're partially ain't against that. You only wish that there were something implemented, and as far as this gentleman here that spoke first was you wish you had more time. The consultant provided that, you know, if you want to testify you come here and testify today and be early to even see. No, it was posted here where they spoke about this project. HALL: Point of order. Does he have a question? AGUINALDO: Right. So, what I have for you folks today is that I appreciate your guys' testimony, and you're for or against this project. You know, that's what I have to say. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. If there's no further questions, I'll ask for a motion to close public testimony. DELA CRUZ: So, moved. AGUINALDO: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that public testimony be closed. Allthose in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Any opposed? Motion carried. Public testimony is closed. At this time, we'll have a motion for action. We can amend them, have lots of discussion, but we need a motion to get going. REPLOGLE: I have a, sort of a question. I'm concerned that the gentleman said here in regards to not having had access to all the information that we received this morning as stated by the County with enough time for them to digest it. I'm not choosing sides or anything here. I just want to be sure that the public is well aware— CLARKSON: —I'll ask the REPLOGLE: —of all the—you know what I'm saying? CLARKSON: Let me ask the Director to, or Maija to explain how information is made available to the public after an agenda item is agendized. EXHIBIT B 23 JACKSON: The letter that was sent to the surrounding property owners within 300 feet indicates that they can contact the Planning Department for additional information about the project. All the information that was provided to you today as well as other old information related to the project is kept at the Planning Department, and anybody from the public can come in at any time that we're open and view those files. We have recently been moving towards trying to put more applications and more information on our website and usually we do that for projects that generate a lot of public interest. So, after this hearing, we can put the Wailani information on our website and then the public can review it before this item goes up to the County Council for action. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. It wasn't a criticism. I was just concerned that everybody be aware of what's at play. CLARKSON: How long before this meeting did the people within the 300 -foot radius receive their letters? JACKSON: The first letter is sent out within ten days of acceptance of the application so that probably would have been around I think it was October, and then the notification of the hearing date would have been sent out about two weeks ago. CLARKSON: Thank you. Do we have a motion ROHR (from audience): Don't, don't buy what she said [Ms. Rohr went to the podium/staff table area. Inaudible.] CLARKSON: —for action on this agenda item— ROHR (from audience): —They just sent the recommendation out yesterday. I came in last week to look at the file. That wasn't in the file. Then tell them! That's what he's saying! The recommendations were not available. CLARKSON: Excuse me, Ms. Rohr. ROHR (from audience): She's covering something up. What he's saying is that— HATA-FINLEY: Claudia ROHR (from audience): the recommendations weren't available to you until yesterday looked at the file last week, Thursday or Friday. The recommendations HALL: She's out of order. CLARKSON: Excuse me ROHR (from audience): were not in there. EXHIBIT B 24 HALL: She's out of order. CLARKSON: Public testimony has closed. We'll ROHR (from audience): Don't cover it up. You hadn't even had a chance to review the recommendation. They came out too late. CLARKSON: So, the item that we need to discuss is whether we're going to get any motion for action, either favorable or unfavorable. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, can I move for a continuance to the next meeting in the—March. CLARKSON: Is there a second? REPLOGLE: Second. CLARKSON: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that this agenda item be continued for one month until our next meeting presumably to allow Commissioners more time to study and reflect. REPLOGLE: That and to erase all doubt that people did or did not get information. CLARKSON: Okay. Any discussion on this motion? DARROW: Mr. Chairman, if I could just request. If you could ask the Applicant or their representative if they will be available for the next March hearing? FUKE: Hi—as far as my availability, I have a longstanding commitment to be out of country so I'm not going to be available for the March meeting. That's really like—if it gets agendized, then the Applicant's going to have to make a decision on what to do. MATSUURA, W. (from audience): When is the date? FUKE: Seventh. MATSUURA, W. (from audience): Seventh? DARROW: This would be March 7th IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, if they can't make it on the next meeting, it probably can be in April. CLARKSON: It's up to the Applicant. Or, do we have any time limitations, Jeff, on how long we can delay acting on this before its. DARROW: We have time. EXHIBIT B 25 CLARKSON: Okay. FUKE: In spite of my absence, Dr. Matsuura will be here for the March meeting. CLARKSON: Okay. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Do we need to do a—all those opposed? Motion carries. Okay, this item has been continued. So, for those who want more information, please contact the Planning Department staff It's all available, and as Maija said, they'll try and put as much of it as possible on the Planning Department website. The discussion ended at 11:07 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT B 26