HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-07 Hearing Transcript - Wailani Development, LLC Amend REZ 10-117WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
MARCH 7, 2019
A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application by WAILANI DEVELOPMENT,
LLC (AMEND REZ 10-000117) was called to order at 11:20 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, Thomas Raffipiy (to 12:05 p.m.), John Replogle.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel
for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager) (9:02 a.m.
to 1:50 p.m. & 3:36 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex
Roy (Planner) (9:02 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. & 3:27 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.), Jessica Andrews (Planner) (to
11:56 a.m.), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary).
And 24 members from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: WAILANI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (AMEND REZ 10-000117)
Continued hearing on an 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: At this time, please proceed with the briefing on this application from Wailani
Development, LLC.
EXHIBIT C
JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Okay, the next agenda item is a
request for a Change of Zone, an amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance 10-64, and the
Applicant is Wailani Development, LLC.
The subject property is located in the South Hilo District. It's shown outlined in red in the
middle of the slide. You have Komohana Street running in a north -south direction on the east
side of the property. You have Ponahawai Street running east -west from Downtown Hilo up to
the project site. Mohouli Extension is on the west side of the property, and Waianuenue Avenue
and turning into Kaumana Drive is on the north, north of the property.
The Wailani Project District was approved in 2010 through Ordinance 10-64 to consist of a
mixed use community to include 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,
and up to 90 multiple -family residential units, up to 95 single-family residential lots, and
approximately seven acres of active recreational open space, approximately 19 acres of passive
open space including walking and bicycle paths and the Pu`u Honu Cinder Cone, and as well as
supporting infrastructure on approximately 171 acres of land. The project was to be developed
in three phases over 20 years.
Currently, the Applicant is requesting the following amendments to the project district ordinance.
Condition D, they're requesting to increase the maximum residential units from 518 to 700.
Condition E, request is to reduce maximum commercial area from 480,000 square feet to
420,000 square feet. Condition I is to modify the master plan amendment process. Condition N
is to delete the underground utility requirement. Condition L is a time extension for construction
of the development and the Ponahawai Street Extensionah, that's Condition P, sorry
modifying construction and completion requirements for the Ponahawai Street Extension. And,
then Condition Q is a request to modify the access requirements. Condition R is to modify the
curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements. Condition KK is to waive the fair -share fee requirement
for affordable housing units. And, Condition 00 is a request to amend the administrative time
extension condition. And, I'll get into more detail on each of those here.
So, the amendment to Condition D would just increase the overall housing units from 518 to 700
units. That would be inclusive of any affordable housing units required by the County Housing
Code.
And, then Condition E in order to offset traffic impacts from increasing the housing units, the
Applicant is proposing to decrease the amount of commercial development on the site from
480,000 square feet to 420,000 square feet.
The amendment to Condition I, I won't read the whole condition. You have it in your
Background and Recommendation package, but the purpose of amending Condition I is to allow
for amendments of the master plan to be made administratively, made and approved by the
Planning Director administratively rather than going back through the Planning Commission and
County Council for approval of amendments to their master plan.
EXHIBIT C
2
The Applicant is also requesting to deleteI'm sorry, I think, there we go—to delete
Condition N, which stated that all project utilities shall be underground, as well as a request to
amend Condition L. The change to Condition L essentially is to grant additional time for them to
start and complete construction of the development. The condition originally required that they
start within five years of the effective date of the ordinance, and they are requesting another
extension, another five-year time extension to commence construction.
The other component that's revised in Condition L is to delete the timing for commencing
construction and completing construction of the Ponahawai Street Extension, and then to require
various traffic improvements as the project is developed out by individual developers over time.
The request to amend Condition P is related to how Ponahawai Street Extension is improved.
The Applicant is requesting—actually what I'd like to do rather than go into depth on this
amendment is to discuss the Applicant's current amendment. You should have received a sheet
in your package today that says, "Applicant's Proposed Amendments" and they're now
requesting to further amend Condition P. Their current request is to provide an 80 -foot right-of-
way and to pave the entire length of the Ponahawai Street Extension out to the 80 -foot right-of-
way limit. That would provide travel lanes as well as paved swales and shoulders, except for the
portion closest to Komohana Street, they're proposing to put in curb, gutter, sidewalk along that
area, and I'll show you when I get to the map. And, then the second component of their revision
to Condition P is to dedicate those improvements, the extension to the County, and to complete
those improvements within ten years of the effective date of the ordinance, of the amended
ordinance.
Condition Q, this request was to allow for direct access from the site to Komohana Street and
Mohouli Street. These are considered arterial roadways, and the Applicant wanted to be able to
have a driveway access onto these roadways. Currently, the condition limits direct access from
the project site onto these roadways except for road lots rather than driveways.
Condition R, again on the sheet that we handed out to you today, the Applicant has further
requested to revise Condition R, so I'm going to focus on what was handed out today. The gist
of the proposal is to have them provide, they're willing to provide curb, gutter, sidewalk
improvements near any of the commercial development, but they're proposing not to have curb,
gutter, sidewalk improvements on single-family residential lots that are greater than 10,000 -
square feet in size.
And, Condition KK would be to not apply the fair -share assessment to any housing units
constructed within the project site that are required to meet the affordable housing requirements
of the County Code.
And, then lastly, the amendment to Condition 00 will just be to allow for another administrative
time extension provided by the Planning Director of an additional five to ten years, depending on
the condition for a roadway improvement.
The Applicant's reasons for request, they are being sought because develop—excuse me, they're
being sought to make the Wailani Project District project financially feasible by reducing some
EXHIBIT C
3
of the infrastructure requirements allowing options to address infrastructure requirements and
allowing the ability to time those improvements to be concurrent with the actual development of
the project that they're designed to serve as well as increasing the residential uses while
decreasing the commercial components of the project.
The County zoning for the property is currently Project District as shown in the gray color. The
Project District zoning was granted in 2010. There are residential subdivisions to the north. We
have Crescent City Heights. This would be Kaumana Gardens, and then the Pu`u Honu Tract is
in this area here. These are all zoned Single -Family Residential — 7,500 square feet. To the
south, you have the Sunrise Ridge Subdivision. That's zoned RS -10. There's also a State lot
zoned Agricultural — 1 acre. Further to the south across the Mohouli Extension, this is the new
Lakeview Estates Subdivision on lands zoned Agricultural — 1 acre which is shown in the light
green. And, then across Komohana Street on the east side, there are several commercially zoned
properties. Those are shown in the light pink color, and you're probably familiar with the
medical center here in this area between Ponahawai Street and Punahele Street.
The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban which is shown in the
orange color that allows for residential and multi -family residential up to 35 units per acre. The
current proposal to increase the housing units to 700 units maximum is well below the Medium
Density Urban threshold of 35 residential units per acre.
This is an aerial photo of the property. Again, you have the residential subdivisions to the north.
You have the medical center just located east of the property. Sunrise Ridge Estates Subdivision
here. And, then it's a little difficult to see, but the Alenaio Stream runs in this area here, crosses
under Mohouli Street, and then generally runs along in this area here, and out to Komohana
Street.
This is the Applicant's original master plan that they submitted in 2011. I'll go over some of the
components. You have Mohouli Street on the left side of the slide, and you have Komohana on
the right side. The red areas are designated for commercial development, and so you have some
commercial, the bulk of the commercial would be on the Komohana Street side, as well as a little
bit on the Mohouli Street side, and some in the middle. All of the areas shown in yellow are for
residential. You have the Alenaio Stream running through the bottom portion of the property,
and Pu`u Honu Cinder Cone is located at the top in the dark green. There are conditions in the
current ordinance that require that that be preserved. It has some historic significance. And,
then, the darker purple color was to be a medical park, and then the lighter blue color mixed use
senior housing, commercial.
So, since 2011, the master plan has changed a little bit. This is the Applicant's current proposed
master plan. You can see that that commercial area that was in the middle of the development
has been removed. So, the yellow colors again are the residential areas, and now the pink are
commercial, blue is still mixed use, and the medical park still remains in the same area here.
So, the major changes between the two are the removal of the commercial component in the
middle and some expansion of commercial development in the area that was designated for
mixed use.
EXHIBIT C
4
This is just a blow-up of the area south of the Alenaio Stream. This is the concept of the
proposed subdivision for residential units, and access would be off of Mohouli Street.
These are some site photos. These two photos were taken from Komohana Street. This one is
looking southwest so you have the Pu`u Honu Cinder Cone on the right side of the slide. This is,
this is kind of taken directly across from that medical center, and then again you see the Pu`u
Honu Cinder Cone, the Pu`u Honu Tract residences are located in this area here.
These are site photos taken from the very top of Ponahawai Street at the Komohana intersection,
so the extension of Ponahawai Street would be located in this area here, and then a view of the
property from Mohouli Street extension. This is located standing just near the Lakeview Estates
Subdivision looking towards Hilo Bay kind of in a southeast direction. So, the subject property
is located in the entire picture here.
The Director is recommending a favorable recommendation for the Applicant's request to amend
Condition D, E, I, L, N, KK, and 00, and for, the Planning Director is also recommending a few
additional amendments to Conditions J, K, O, S, FF, GG, HH, and then he's also recommending
that you forward an unfavorable recommendation for the Applicant's request to amend
Conditions P, Q, and R. And, I'll go into a little bit more detail here on that.
So, this slide shows the Applicant's requested amendments, theoh, let's go back—the
amendments highlighted in yellow are the request that the Director agrees with. So, you can see
he agrees with the majority of the requests except for Condition P, which was to modify
construction and completion requirement of the Ponahawai Street Extension; Condition Q
modifying access requirements; and Condition R to modify the curb, gutter, sidewalk
requirements.
In addition, the Director is also recommending a few other kind of housekeeping changes to the
ordinance. Condition J and K related to Water Supply, and these amendments are just being
proposed to recognize that there are 200 existing water commitments for the property and the
need for a revised water master plan. These revisions are based on the Department of Water
Supply's memo that were provided in late 2018, early 2019.
The Director also recommends amending Condition O to clarify that the entire Wailani Project
District must connect to the County sewer system, and in their memo last November 2018, the
Department of Health, Wastewater Branch confirmed that the project needs to connect to the
County sewer system and that they will not approve the use of individual wastewater systems.
The Director is also recommending deleting Conditions FF, GG, and HH, and adding a new
Condition EE. This is related to archaeology on the property. The Applicant has provided
SHPD and the County their archaeological inventory survey, mitigation and preservation plans.
Those have been completed and approved by both the State and the County, and so now they're
just at the stage of implementing any preservation measures. So, those conditions would be
reflected, changed to reflect the current status of their compliance with these archaeological
conditions.
EXHIBIT C
5
Let's see here. The Planning Director is also recommending deleting Condition S which relates
to providing connectivity, vehicular connectivity between the Wailani Project District and the
adjacent subdivisions to the north. The subdivisions are currently served by County roadways.
They're not private roadways. So, in order to enhance connectivity in the area, we would like to
delete that condition. Condition S currently limits access between Wailani and the adjacent
subdivisions to emergency access only. The reason for wanting to remove this condition is
because it is counter to the standard planning practice of providing connectivityI already
mentioned that. Particularly, since the roads within the subdivisions to the north are County
roadways. I'm repeating myself. They can be widened to accommodate additional traffic. The
Subdivision Code allows for relief from connecting local streets if there are topographical
constraints, and there are some topographic constraints around Pu`u Honu. As I mentioned, it
needs to be preserved, so any roadways, existing roadways, near the Pu`u would not be
connected through to Wailani. Connecting multiple roadways would also help disperse traffic
through the subdivisions rather than loading all the traffic onto one roadway.
So, these are the Director's recommendations for, reasons for his unfavorable recommendation
for Condition P, and just as a reminder, Condition P was to modify some of the roadway
improvements for Pohahawai Street Extension. It was to remove the curb, gutter, and sidewalk
requirement on that roadway.
So, the primary purpose of the project district zoning is to provide a comprehensive
transportation network to serve the development and surrounding area. The Director is not
supportive of deferring construction of sections of the street extension by individual developers.
When the project district zoning was originally 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, after the initial phase associated
with the 200 water units, then the project may stall for several years until additional water and
wastewater capacity is increased. This could mean that the street extension may not be built for
several years or decades.
And, then the Director also does not agree that requiring the Applicant to construct the extension
with curb, gutters, and sidewalks is in excess of the impacts of the development. This is a 172 -
acre property where—we're talking about 700 housing units potentially and hundreds of
thousands of square feet of commercial development.
A few more reasons. The extension is identified as a proposed roadway in the General Plan as a
secondary arterial, which requires 80 -foot right-of-way minimum to provide connectivity
between the Kaumana community and Downtown Hilo. So, as a compromise, in the goldenrod
Recommendation that the Director provided to you, Public Works agreed to this compromise as
well. Basically, it would require the developer to construct the Ponahawai Street Extension out
with pavement to 80 -feet to the full extent of the right-of-way that would allow travel lanes,
paved swales and shoulders so people could walk along there, similar to the Mohouli Street
Extension.
EXHIBIT C
6
And then kind of this, the way the proposed condition is structured, that the Director is
recommending, that improvement would need to be done, would need to start within five years
and be completed within ten years of the date of the amended ordinance. And, then there's a
second component to that which says that when future developers come in, individual developers
that do the subdivisions or other commercial components, they would then need to add the curb,
gutter, sidewalk to the roadway before getting Final Subdivision Approval.
So, Condition P, this is the Director's proposed condition, I believe. Let me make sure. No, this
was the Applicant's original Condition P proposal. So, the two that you want to look at today are
the Director's proposals in the goldenrod for Condition P and then the Applicant's most recent
proposal for amendment in the handout that you received today. And, the only difference
between the two is that the, there's no commitment on the part of the Applicant to provide curb,
gutter, and sidewalk improvements at some future date.
Moving onto Condition Q. Condition Q, the Department of Public Works does not support this
condition change. This was to remove the access restrictions onto Mohouli Street or Komohana
Street so that the Applicant could have a driveway directly from the project site onto those
streets. So, the Department of Public Works is okay with having road lots built and connect to
the arterial streets, but they and the Planning Department are not supportive of having driveways
connect directly to the arterial streets. And, one of the main reasons for that is the purpose of an
arterial street is to move people quickly, and the more you add driveways, it kind of defeats the
purpose and function of the roadway.
And, let's see here. So, Condition R, again I want to point out that for Condition R, you want to
look at the Director's recommended condition as well as the Applicant's most recent revision
that they're requesting. So, the reason the Director is not supportive of the amendment to
Condition R is that even though the subdivision does not mandate curb, gutter, sidewalk
improvements for residential subdivisions, the pedestrian roadway standards in this Code have
not been updated since 1983. So, the Subdivision Code is fairly outdated when it comes to
providing complete streets. As I'm sure you are aware, Hawaii County has placed a greater
emphasis on implementing complete streets to provide safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
our public roadways. This is to improve the overall health of the community.
The Subdivision Code does provide the Director with discretion of providing sidewalk
improvements. It's also the policy of Public Works to require these curb, gutter, sidewalk
improvements for all residential subdivisions on lots sized 10,000 square feet or smaller. And,
so that's why you'll see the Applicant's most recent request for amending the condition. They
are acknowledging Public Works' policy, and they are basically saying, okay, well, let us, let's,
we agree to provide curb, gutter, sidewalk on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet in residential
subdivisions, but they are still seeking that relief for lots greater than 10,000 square feet in
residential areas.
And, then—let me go back here. So, that's the presentation I provided last time. Since then,
Chair Clarkson, you contacted staff and asked for some additional information on underground
utilities as well as connectivity, so do you want me to present that now? I've added a couple
more slides to explain that.
EXHIBIT C
7
CLARKSON: I don't know how we're going to proceed with discussing all of these numerous
potential amendments. I have questions about a number of them. Perhaps we should just go
through them one at a time and have questions from the Commission and discussion by the
Commission for each individual amendment, and when we get to the amendments that relate to
underground utilities, relate to connectivity, relate to the Director's discretion to redesign the
entire project according to his whims, we can talk about it then.
JACKSON: Okay. So, the only request that I would have is if you have specific questions about
the Applicant's most recent request for revising Conditions R and P that you ask those of the
Applicant. Okay.
IKEDA: I wanted to ask. I didn't quite understand. My interpretation of what I read and now
the amendments and everything else and the Director's unfavorable recommendation got me
concerned so could you explain the two Condition P, Q, and R. That's the three I have problem
on. Also, I don't support two things, and I can you right off the bat, it's Condition D I don't
support.
JACKSON: Condition B or D?
IKEDA: D.
JACKSON: D.
IKEDA: And, ConditionI don't support the Director's recommendation of deleting Condition
S. But, could you go over the Condition P, Q, and R, because I was going over and over last
night, and I get kind of confused.
JACKSON: Okay. Are you okay if I go over the Applicant's most recent request to
IKEDA: Yes
JACKSON: —Okay, things have evolved, yeah?
IKEDA: I kind of agree with his suggestion but it seems like when I read it, it seems like there's
an overkill on the Planning Director's Recommendation, for unfavorable recommendation.
JACKSON: And, is that related to one of those three conditions or all of them?
IKEDA: All of them.
JACKSON: Okay, all right. Let me start with Condition P. Okay. So, for Condition P, as I
mentioned, the original requirement on Wailani in their 2010 ordinance was to construct the
Ponahawai Street Extension and dedicate it to the County at no cost, and that construction was
supposed to include construction within an 80 -foot right-of-way to County dedicable standards
along with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And, that construction was supposed to start within five
EXHIBIT C
years of adoption of the ordinance and be completed within ten years. So, that was the original
requirement that is still in the ordinance.
The Applicant is requesting to get relief from the curb, gutter, sidewalk requirement. They are
still proposing to construct the, to provide pavement basically for the full 80 -foot right-of-way
from Komohana to Mohouli, and then not, and then dedicate that to the County at no cost. And,
then when they sell off like the bulk lots for other developers to come in and do a subdivision
development, that developerI'm sorry, that's the Director's Recommendation. So, I'm
confusing you. So, that's what they are proposing. Their condition, if you look at Condition P,
says, I want to point out the third paragraph on the back of the second page. It says this does
not this is the back page of the white sheet.
IKEDA: It's this one?
JACKSON: It's dated March 7th on the top. Yeah, it's one that you just received today. So, if
you—if you look at the back side of that, Commissioner Ikeda, do you see where it says on the
second paragraph, "This does not preclude the applicant or its successors or assigns from making
further improvements, such as a 4 -lane road with curbs, gutters, [and] sidewalks within the 80 -
foot [wide] right-of-way." So, the essential difference between what the Applicant is proposing
and what the Director is recommending is that the Applicant's condition is saying we'll build out
with the pavement till 80 feet and that this, this condition is not preventing future developers
from coming in and providing curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements, but it's not actually
requiring that. It's just saying if a future developer choses to, they can put curb, gutter, sidewalk
improvements. The Director is recommending that that's actually a requirement, that as
developers come out—as individual developers develop their properties that they add the curb,
gutter, sidewalk improvements along the street extension. So, that's the primary difference.
Does that make sense, or do you still have questions on that one?
IKEDA: I'm getting confused. Okay, the, the planner suggested that 80 -foot right-of-way?
JACKSON: The General Plan.
IKEDA: Yes. And, so what is the paved section? Is it going to be all 80 feet?
JACKSON: A1180 feet like Mohouli Street. They paved that entire
IKEDA: —What concerns me, okay, and then what is going to be the designated roadway?
Forty feet? Because like Mohouli Extension, only a portion of it is
JACKSON: —Yeah. So, it would likely start out as a two-lane road with probably 12 -foot
travel lanes, two 12 -foot travel lanes. But, I'm not certain. It's really up to Public Works to
decide how large the travel lanes are.
IKEDA: Yes, you know why. Because I'm kind of curious because, you know, the Mohouli
Extension is made with government money, and, there's no curb, gutters, or sidewalks on it, and
it rests on the poor developer. They gotta put in curb, gutters, and sidewalk.
EXHIBIT C
9
JACKSON: Yeah.
IKEDA: And, that's why I'm saying it's kind of an overkill. We are requiring the developer to
do things which we ourselves wouldn't do for ourselves. So, we seem to be punishing the
developer. That was my concern.
JACKSON: Okay. I know staff from Public Works isn't here today, but I did talk to this—talk
to them about this, and they said that the reason that they ask for the entire right-of-way to be
paved is they can't, they can't take on dedication of a portion of a right-of-way if the General
Plan calls for 80 feet. That's the ultimate right-of-way that the County should end up with. And,
Public Works wants
IKEDA: No, I understand that. My concern was curbs, gutters, and sidewalk.
JACKSON: Yeah. So, what they explained to me is that if you don't grade the entire right-of-
way and you only grade the portion, a smaller portion that's going to
IKEDA: No, that's not what I meant. I meant that I can understand where they're going to
grade the whole 80 feet like they promised.
JACKSON: Okay.
IKEDA: But, why are we requiring them, you know, to put in the curbs, gutter, and sidewalk.
You know, the
JACKSON: —Okay, I understand.
YEE: Originally, when—when, with the original ordinance were they required for curb, gutter,
sidewalk on Ponahawai? Were they?
IKEDA: Yeah, but like I said, you know, when you look at it now, because I live in that area,
and Mohouli Extension was made by the government, and we don't have any curbs, gutters, and
sidewalk. Why didn't we as a County put in curbs, gutters, and sidewalk instead of—if we set
the example by doing it, I can understand, but we ourselves didn't do it.
YEE: My quick answer would be I wasn't here at the time, and I certainly would have
advocated for Mohouli to be curb, gutter, sidewalk. II do want to back up, Commissioner,
that, you know, there's been resolutions from the—from the Council around complete streets.
From a planning perspective, we are trying to create communities that are walkable, etc. If if I
allowed development to occur like it has in different places on this island and in Hilo, we would
end up with communities that I don't think I want my kids to necessarily live in. I understand
the rub with the additional costs, so as a whole, we've tried to approach this project, with the
owners around balancing what can we give up and what do we ask for. So, you know, when we
just narrow in on one condition, its absent of the other things that I've tried to provide as a relief
to them within their project to try to make this work.
EXHIBIT C
10
IKEDA: No, no, I understand what you're doing, but, you know, what you're saying isI wish
you would go down to Mohouli Extension and all day long, you'll see people walking or
jogging, and it's a very busy street for pedestrians. The only problem is the street is dirty
because people keep littering, and there's two gentlemen that pick up the rubbish every day, but
it's very well used as a walking area. Eighty feet is very wide. In fact, what concerned me the
most was that people speed because the road is too wide.
HALL: Sorry, just a point of order. This isn't time for discussion. If you guys have questions,
then we can go—let's move with the questions and then you guys can discuss, when there's a
motion, you can discuss your concerns then.
IKEDA: Okay, so I'd like to hear the other conditions. I'm satisfied now.
JACKSON: Okay, so
CLARKSON: Excuse me, its noon. There are, what, fifteen amendments to go over, there are
approximately, I'm just guessing. I didn't actually count. I'd like to take a break for lunch and
then come back and start at the beginning and work our way through the amendments all the way
to the end. I know that people have come a long way and have waited a long time, but I can see
this discussion of each of these amendments at least lasting an hour or two or three, and I don't
think we're going to, we have time to get through them all now. So, I'd like to take a lunch
break until 1 p.m. at which time we will reconvene and start with the Applicant's presentation
and discussion of these amendments.
Chairman Clarkson called a lunch recess at 12:05 p.m., and the meeting was reconvened at
1: 02 p.m.
CLARKSON: Okay, the meeting is back in session. Well, we'll wait for one of the
Commissioners, but we have sufficient staff to answer any questions. Okay, now that all the
Commissionerslisten, I have a question. I don't know the difference between a driveway and
a road lot. Could somebody explain?
AGUINALDO: A road lot is I think like a flag lot—maybe my definition of a road lot is like a
flag lot.
CLARKSON: Is the pole of a flag lot? Okay, then I'll ask the Director to explain
YEE: Oh, trust me, I'm no expert on this one, but my guess and we'll confirm it when the real
staff show up, would be a driveway is like, is kind of a dead end into one like house, like that's a
driveway versus a road lot is an approved road?
CLARKSON: That goes entirely through a lot fronting the arterial. Okay.
YEE: So, that's, that's what they are trying to limit, is driveways, so you're having a bunch of
little entry ways onto a main arterial. So, that's why you don't see a lot on a major road, a bunch
EXHIBIT C
11
of houses with driveways into the main road. They'll have a main road that goes into the
subdivision, and I don't want to say a through road, that there's a major feeder to feed the lots off
that.
CLARKSON: Okay.
[l: 04 p.m. Mr. Darrow, Ms. Jackson, and Mr. Kay arrived.]
JACKSON: Hello. Thank you for waiting.
CLARKSON: Okay, so, we'reI asked a question already, but I'm going to ask one of you the
same question because it's still not crystal clear. Is that okay? What's the difference between a
driveway and a road lot?
JACKSON: A road lot is an actual road right-of-way, and it connects to the street from the
development. Let me—let me show you to give you an example. And, then a driveway would
be similar to the current KTA out on the highway, how they have a driveway, a right -in, right -out
driveway onto the highway, but it's not an actual road lot.
Okay, so you see how this road curves around and then there's an actual road lot that connects to
the Ponahawai Street Extension and then around to Komohana. So, Public Works is supportive
of road lots. What they're not supportive of is if there was say a shopping center here having a
driveway access directly onto Komohana Street. And, with a road lot, you can control the
movements more. You can have traffic lights. You can have turn lanes. You can usually with
a driveway, it's typically limited to right -in, right -out, or you can still have turn lanes, but you
don't typically have traffic light or traffic control at a driveway.
CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. At this time, before we get into the detailed discussions of the
amendments, I'd like to ask the Applicant or their representative to 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?
MATSUURA: Yes.
CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself, speak directly into the microphone, and proceed with
your testimony about these issues.
MATSUURA: Thank you. My name is Peter Matsuura. I'm from Hilo, and I want to thank the
Director, the Chairman, the Members of the Planning Commission, the staff for this opportunity
to speak, and I won't go over these in detail, but of the ten requests or amendments that we
proposed, seven have received a favorable recommendation by the Planning Director, and I
won't speak to those until after.
The three that were given a denial or an unsatisfactory—and so, we'll speak to those very
quickly. Condition R and Condition P really have to do with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and this
is not much different from what Commissioner Ikeda said. And, it's not so much that we don't
EXHIBIT C
12
want to put it in, and but they can and probably will be put in. I mean, if you go back to
Condition I that the Planning Director has the power to approve the subdivision and all the
details from what I gather.
So, what we're requesting in Condition R is that the commercial development have curb, gutter,
and sidewalk, and that, we don't have any problems with that. The high density residential, less
than 10,000 square feet, we agree, there it's beneficial. It's the lower density, residential that we
want some relief on at least initially, and whether it gets put in later, that remains to be seen. The
Ponahawai Extension is similar, and I'm just reiterating Commissioner Ikeda's statement that the
Mohouli Extension is 80 feet with paved swales or paved shoulders and that's essentially what
you're asking for is here, to build this out and then dedicate it to you, the County.
And, going back to Condition Q, and that's exactly what I was asking too, because after the last
meeting, as I drive around Hilo, there are driveways on every road. There's driveway access
everywhere. The only road, I think, that didn't have any driveway access was Komohana from,
probably from by the jail. The jail has a driveway access, but from the jail to Mohouli
Extension, after that, or actually to the ag extension, the rest of its all driveway, is all driveway
access everywhere all around town. Now, is that a terrible thing? I don't know. And, if the road
lots have to be, again, a County dedicable road curb, gutter, sidewalk, 80 feet, whatever, the, it
becomes prohibitive.
And, again, going back to Condition I, if and really what we're asking for, is just some flexibility
so it's not written in stone that we can't do it, but then if the Planning Director in the future says
this makes sense just like the KTA driveway access, then he has the option to do that without
having to repeat this process. So, it's really, and we thank you very much for the consideration,
and really, we're asking for a little bit of relief in a lot of this upfront costs because the upfront
costs are going to be translated into the real estate costs, and so we're trying to mitigate that the
best we can. We're trying to make it affordable for locals, for local people who live there and
for local businesses. Thank you.
CLARKSON: Thank you. Are there any questions for the Applicant? I have one.
MATSUURA: Yes.
CLARKSON: I mean, this was, this project development was originally approved in 2010, and
that was right after the financial crisis, but since then up until about a year ago, interest rates
have been rock bottom. The opportunities for finance have been, will never be as good again,
and now we have interest rates rising. What has been the reason why this project hasn't even
gotten, well I don't want to say hasn't gotten started but, is not further along than it is?
MATSUURA: Well, not to draw a real long story, but it's been—we've had it for ten years, and
we started with a Project District. We had it amended, and we got favorable rezoning or
whatever you want to call it back in 2010, ten years ago. Since then, and it's been a very long
and expensive learning process, believe me, and it's not that we've been sitting around doing
nothing. We've been trying. We have been through a number of developers, both international
and local and national ones, and we've got a lot of interest. We've been through multiple
EXHIBIT C
13
architects, designers, believe me, project district people, whatever these guys are, and it's been
very expensive honestly. We've had to pay everybody along the way, and it's been a big
education. And, so, it's not that we haven't been trying to move ahead. We've been trying.
We've had all these project people. We've been clearing the land. We've been—and we had
project subdivisions. We've gone out to bid. There are some issues, and it's really a financial
thing where we're tryingso, when we found out after we got all the bids, that some of these are
financially onerous, when in the beginning they said oh, put in underground utilities. Oh yeah,
that's a good idea, we'll put in gold -paved streets, well that's a great idea. Put in curb, gutter,
sidewalk, oh yeah, that's fine, put in you know, 80 -foot wide roads, and we said oh sure, that
sounds good. That costs, I don't know, ten thousand, twenty thousand more, we don't have no
idea. When it comes out to multi -millions more, that's when everything stops. That's why we
had to stop, we had to stop and said this is not going to go. And, we've had supermarkets,
drugstores, we had a lot of people come in but when they look at the numbers, and we had these
big developers come in, they look at the numbers, it doesn't pencil out. They leave.
So, we still have a developer who still believes in us, and we're working hard to make this
number one goal. We're trying to get a master planned community for Hilo, right in the middle
of Hilo. It's never been done, and the location is good. The idea is good. The benefits for the
locals, for local people to live, more, is phenomenal, and we can plan this. And, I a hundred
percent agree with the Director on connectivity, walkability, live -ability, all of those things, and
we've been through a lot of that discussion, too. Some of it makes sense. Some of it doesn't
make, you know, it's okay for the mainland, not so good for Hilo, but walkability, walking paths,
that's all a good thing. Density, I know, Councilman Ikeda is a little concerned about that, but to
get walkability and sustainability and everything together and efficient, you've gotta get density.
You can't have people spread out and have walkability. People are not going to walk.
So, it's not that we haven't done, we have been working on a lot of different things, believe me.
And, as you know, we're not developers. You know, we got into this to build a medical campus,
and it is bigger than that obviously. So, that's a long answer to your question.
CLARKSON: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?
IKEDA: Yes, I do. Peter, you know, part of the problem is they not, well maybe this should go
to the Director but, it seems like you don't have access to the Komohana or Mohouli on your
Condition Q, you know, for, isn't that for the lot that's, how shall I say, closer to the Sunrise
Estate?
MATSUURA: No, there is a roadway access. That's on the other side of the Alenaio, the south
side of the Alenaio. There is a roadway access there.
IKEDA: There is a roadway access?
MATSUURA: Yeah, it's the one-way road coming in. And, even with driveway access, I mean,
the driveway access is really more for like the supermarkets to bring their big trucks in so they
don't have to utilize the only access that they've rented, right? So, when your 40 -foot containers
come in, humbug. And, so we're just asking for a little bit of leeway so that, and actually, it
EXHIBIT C
14
would be up to the discretion of the Planning Director, either Michael or his successor, that
someone can make an argument, this, we like this for "x" reasons, just like KTA did. And, that's
all we're asking. We're not saying no, and, you know, we don't necessarily want to build, you
know, big, fat, wide roads again. So, but we do have access to the 38 acres on the south side,
yeah, but it's a single access, though.
IKEDA: Can I ask you another question? You know, I'm looking at Condition P that Mr. Fuke
had sent in, and it says something about a 60 -foot wide right-of-way. Is that something that you
guys was looking at instead of the 80 -foot right-of-way?
MATSUURA: The way that I read it now, and I was confused like you, believe me, but the gist
of it, and I could be wrong and you can defer it to the Planning Director, but, it's an 80 -foot wide
right-of-way that we dedicate to the County so that it's seven or eight acres that you're going to
essentially gift to you built up with 80 -foot wide pavement with just it's going to be like
Mohouli Extension but connecting Ponahawai to Mohouli Extension, and
IKEDA: Actually
MATSUURA: without, and then we're asking for only curb, gutter, sidewalk on the
commercial aspects.
IKEDA: IMaija, I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, but I was assuming that it's an 80 -
foot easement with 60 -foot section being paved. Is that what it is?
MATSUURA: That was what we had agreed on back in 2011, 60 -foot paved and with a 20 -foot
right-of-way, and from what I'm hearing is the Public Works doesn't want that. So, if the
condition is 80 -foot all paved, we accept that.
IKEDA: Okay, because I was thinking that I couldn't see how Mohouli Extension running
through your guys' property. You know, it's kinda dangerous to me. I mean, you know, all of
us that live over there, we understand it, and you should, people—see the people drive there.
They're going about 50-60 miles an hour, and it's a residential which is supposed to be 35, so
that was my concern. I think Donn had the same concern, too, because we live in that area.
MATSUURA: We're happy to make a smaller road and not even pave it.
CLARKSON: Natural speed bumps.
AGUINALDO: Mr. Chair, I have a question.
CLARKSON: Please.
AGUINALDO: Mike, so like the condition was like 80 feet, right? Seems like it's too wide.
Traffic, speed—is there any way we can make provision, start `em yet at whatever width and
leave room for expansion if need to, you know, instead of going the whole enchilada one time.
You know, is that—
EXHIBIT C
15
MATSUURA: I think that came from Public Works. I'm not a hundred percent sure, but, you
know, Mr. Fuke is not here, but that was the original idea, 80 -foot wide, 60 -foot paved, 20 -foot
for gravel or whatevers and then they didn't want to maintain it or whatever.
AGUINALDO: So, what is the width of a State, the State highway? With shoulders, single lane,
like Pahoa?
IKEDA: The one on Mohouli is 80 feet, and it's paved, but no curb, gutters, or sidewalk, but it's
wide enough where it's used every day for jogging and walking and so forth.
AGUINALDO: Right.
IKEDA: But, you gotta, you can imagine now people driving 60 miles an hour.
AGUINALDO: Oh, they drive pretty fast, yeah?
CLARKSON: I have a question for staff on this topic unless somebody can describe it to me.
Does anybody have a profile cross section of what the Ponahawai Extension would look like
when it's completed?
JACKSON: I don't believe we have it in the presentation, no.
CLARKSON: Well, can you describe it? I mean
JACKSON: I believe it was in their application.
MATSUURA: It would be like the Mohouli Extension, it would look just like the—with the
paved shoulders.
CLARKSON: I just want to see what the sectional view of the road, I can imagine one or two
lanes on each side of the centerline which is slightly crowned, but what, what is there from
there? Does it drop down into a swale then go up and then a paved flat, or I mean, what are we
talking about?
JACKSON: It should be in Exhibit B of the application.
AGUINALDO: Oh, Section B -Bis that the Wailani typical road sections?
JACKSON: Yes.
AGUINALDO: On Section B -B.
JACKSON: It's the Ponahawai Street Extension is A -A and B -B.
EXHIBIT C
16
AGUINALDO: A -A and B -B. Gotcha. Because B -B shows 18-18, and there's actually room
for expansion.
CLARKSON: No, but, these are, these are showing cub, gutter, and sidewalk.
JACKSON: Correct.
AGUINALDO: Right.
CLARKSON: Exhibit C-6 or Drawing C-6. So—so, then, I have a question for Commissioner
Ikeda then. On Mohouli which is being talked about as an example for this kind of finished
structure or semi -finished structure, people walk in the swale?
IKEDA: Yes, yes.
CLARKSON: And, so if it's raining, there's water running down the middle of it?
IKEDA: Not very heavy. You know, I'll tell you, Alenaio used to be a flood area, and so they
fixed theI think Komohana as well as Mohouli so it doesn't flood now. But, it's, is very wide.
There's a slight swale, but people are walking there all the time. Everyday. If you go up there,
you'll probably find people walking.
CLARKSON: I see. Twelve -foot travel lane, twelve -foot. Oh, but this is, this text isexcuse
me, it looks like a 60. Is this a 60 or an 80?
AGUINALDO: Which one are we looking for? Is that November 15, 2011? That was
approved?
CLARKSON: That's 80, okay.
HALL: This is a different page.
CLARKSON: Thank you.
HALL: Just for the Commissioners information, there is a representative from DPW here if you
guys have questions about their policies because really, I mean, the 80 -foot is DPW's policy, so
the Commission—it's pretty much outside of the Commission's jurisdiction to change that.
AGUINALDO: I noticed on the Wailani landscape plan, November 15, 2011, there's a short
portion of "A." So, if you go back and look at the Wailani typical road section, Section A -A, is
an 80 -feet right-of-way, then reduces down to Section B -B. I'm assuming like what Peter said, it
was approved back then. Section B -B is the rest of the portion all the way up to Mohouli which
is giving you room, 80 feet of right-of-way, but your roadway from centerline, 18-18, you got a
2 -foot gutter, 10 feet of walking path. If we're, if he is approved for that is what I'm looking at
right now. Am I correct?
EXHIBIT C
17
JACKSON: That's correct except it's a 2 -foot curb, gutter and then 10 -foot sidewalk. It's
actually a raised sidewalk.
AGUINALDO: Right, that's correct, that's correct. So, basically, it's not one 80 -feet all the
way up, yeah? Gotcha.
JACKSON: It's not 80 feet of pavement all the way up, correct.
AGUINALDO: Okay. Okay.
CLARKSON: You know, it seems to me, just if you, if you don't put in the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk at first, and, and your hydrants, you'd have a water main under the edge of the road that
with the curb, gutter, and sidewalk situation, you'll have a hydrant sticking up right next to the
curb. Later on, if you want to do that, you're going to have to go down. Well, the wider road
that doesn't have curb, gutter, and sidewalk is not going to have hydrants along it, and to install
those later, you're going to have to demolish everything on the outer edges of the road and dig
down, dig up basically a large chunk of your water main and then put in risers to the hydrants. I
don't know. I.
HALL: Once dedicated, I believe it would be the Water, DWS would have to install the
hydrants.
CLARKSON: Oh, really? That was going to be another question of mine is once it's dedicated,
who, who has to do any further work on the road. Is it the developer or the County?
HALL: Well, it depends on the maintenance agreement basically. The County would enter into
a maintenance agreement with the Applicant.
AGUINALDO: The developer.
IKEDA: Actually, the way I see it is I can see where you're asking, the County asking for an 80 -
foot easement, a 60 -foot pavement and that's how I think it's done. The fair way. And, if
there's an improvement later on, if the County requests like the letter that Mr. Fuke had, then you
guys would be obligated but not at the very start.
CLARKSON: Okay, I'm just considering how to proceed here. The eventual motion is going to
have to include a description and the text of every amendment or—but, do we have someone that
can keep a record of each amendment as we're going along with, with the final agreed on text?
HALL: Well, point of order, you only have to list the text if you guys are changing a
recommendation. So, you can, you know, if you're going to agree with the Planning Director's
recommendation, you don't have to re -list it because it's already here. If you're going to change
that, then, yeah, you should just say which portion you're going to amend of the proposed
condition and then when it comes to the other three basically with the new suggested language,
whether you're adopting the Applicant's version or the Director's version.
EXHIBIT C
18
CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. So let'sis it okay
JACKSON: Mr. Chair, before you do that, may I suggest you take public testimony?
CLARKSON: Well, but the, the question with doing that is that all of the substantive discussion
would—well, that's fine with me, but I would think people would want to hear the arguments pro
and con for each amendment before they testified, but we canI'm not talking about taking any
action now. I'm just talking about discussing the amendments, but all right. At this time, we'll
take public testimony. And, thank you, sir. We will be asking you to return to that chair later.
At this time, I'd like to call the first four of six testifiers, Dwight Vicente, Cathy Palama, Harold
Wallace, and Bobby Dugar. And, I'm assuming, Mr. Vicente, that your testimony will be
unsworn.
VICENTE: Yes.
CLARKSON: Would the rest of you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today?
PALAMA/WALLACE/DUGAR: Yes.
CLARKSON: Thank you. Please speak directly into the microphone, introduce yourself, and
then proceed with your testimony.
WALLACE: Yes, aloha and not good morning, but good afternoon to you guys and to all the
rest of you guys on the Commission. I'm Harold Wallace. I'm the CEO of Bay Clinic, and I'm
here to speak in favor of the Wailani project, the Wailani Development. Bay Clinic strongly
supports Wailani Development and its application to develop the 171.5 -acre property in central
Hilo; specifically, the master plan for the development of a medical campus which would
provide the needed infrastructure to support the growth of East Hawai`i's health care industry.
As you may or may not be aware that one of the greatest barriers for care for a lot of the
residents here in Hilo is transportation. Transportation is one of the number one social
determinants of all individuals here on the island. The establishment of a medical campus would
give Bay Clinic and also other providers the opportunity to potentially develop one health center
facility in Hilo that would house all, all of our foresights here in Hilo, which would facilitate a
one-stop shop medical home for our patients, directly address the lack of transportation as a
major barrier to care, and also further align Bay Clinic's operation to CMS's patient center
medical home model. And, I think what that means is that currently, Bay Clinic is fragmented,
okay. We have a dental site here, and we have a medical site, we have a women's site, an
administration office inside of Hilo. They're all fragmented in separate locations. Typically, in
most cities, those are in one building. We don't have the land to do that here. So, that's what's
needed. And, the Wailani Development would give us an opportunity to have a large amount of
land to be able to do that. We need approximately an 80,000 -square foot building to be
sufficient for our needs to combine all the, our sites together, and it would be the perfect
development to do that.
EXHIBIT C
19
I think one example here inside of Hilo is that, and I'll be brief and I'll be really quick here, is
that diabetes is plaguing the community, okay? And, we need a diabetes suite inside of the site
here, and within that, you need endocrinology, podiatry, and ophthalmology, and internal med or
family practice doc to that combined to really treat the whole person here. Renal failure is so
severe here is that if you take a look at the dialysis center, it had to increase chairs before it even
opened. So, to be able to combat that, these are types of facilities that we have to have, and we
have to have the space to do so. All medical facilities here are cramped for space, and this
development would help combat that. Thank you.
PALAMA: Hi, I'm Cathy Palama, and I live in Kaumana. In fact, the project is at my backdoor.
I will tie into his, and this is personal, because my family has medical issues, and there is not
anyone here that can treat them, so we have to travel, need to go to Honolulu. If we're lucky,
sometimes there's a specialist in Waimea. With this facility coming in, it will eliminate—like he
says, transportation—it will eliminate the transportation and time and effort and the finances that
we have to take to go to Honolulu. Sometimes it takes me three days staying in Honolulu with
one of my family members to get the care they need.
I really believe that this project will eliminate a lot of it. I'm one of those. I'm a diabetic, and
there are times that my doctor tells me that I need to go to Honolulu for certain things, and
having quite a large family, it's very hard for me. But, I'm here to say that I'm just a resident of
Hilo, from Honolulu, I love it here, but we are so isolated in many ways and many things, and I
feel this whole project, not only the medical part, but the whole project, will benefit Hawaii
Island, and will benefit communities, and benefit the people of Hawaii. Thank you.
VICENTE: Good afternoon, my name is Dwight Vicente. I represent the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Here again, I refer back to the ReciproI mean the treaty between King Kalakaua and the
Emperor of Japan and ended in 1897, and the limits of the, the lands that was ceded illegally to
the United States in 1898 was the 1,750,000 acres that became in 1900 the Territory of Hawaii;
1920, they rebranded the Crown and Government lands to be Hawaiian Home Lands. And, then
1959 by compact, the Territory agreed to implement the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in
the name of the State of Hawaii. Now, the lands in question are Crown lands. There's no
documents showing that these lands became part of the ceded land in 1898. These lands still
remained in the name of the Hawaiian Kingdom. These are Crown lands, and there is no
contract with, that those contracts ended in 1925. King Kalakaua kicked up the lease to 25 years,
the 3 to 5 year leases. So, then, the—for anyone to claim they own the land and they want to
develop the land is in question, and on top of that, you've got the County where they're stating or
the roads will be dedicated to the County. That brings up the question of jurisdiction. Does the
County and the State extend their jurisdiction beyond the lands rebranded as Hawaiian Home
Lands? That's a question I haven't seen a document that shows that yet. So, that question is
still, that's going to come up in the Real Property Tax appeal. That's one of my Real Property
Tax appeal argument is that the County of Hawaii is not the 4,000+ square miles of island. It's
only the lands rebranded as Hawaiian Home Lands. You got the case, State vs. Harold Jim
where you're required to have a driver's license on lands designated Hawaiian Home Lands.
Another thing I want to point out, I've seen removal of Crown dirt on that property and being
sold. There's no authority. That's theft right there, and the County has no jurisdiction over that,
EXHIBIT C
20
and the people taking the dirt has no authority to take the dirt. Those dirt belong to the Crown.
So, there's a lot of criminal involvement going on, and you don't want to be part of the crime
now. So, even this Commission, being that you're a County commission, you're limited to lands
rebranded as Hawaiian Home Lands only until such time there is a document between the
Hawaiian Kingdom and stating that the, they gave up the two million plus acres that was not
ceded illegally in 1898. So, the question of jurisdiction is always going to be—you got a, you
got Corporation Counsel here that can tell you, tell you the limits of their jurisdiction.
Remember, now, your taking and accepting a dedicated road so you can have jurisdiction over
that road. So, if you don't have jurisdiction over that land, piece of land there, you cannot have
jurisdiction over the rest. Thank you.
DUGAR: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Bobby Dugar. I work with Day-Lum, Inc. Nancy
Cabral is visiting her 91 -year old father before surgery and unable to make it, so I'm speaking on
her behalf from her words that she has given to me.
Let's see here. Dear Planning Director and Members of the Windward Planning Commission. I,
Nancy Cabral, am a long-time resident of Hilo and deeply involved in our community and in
housing for residents. I have worked in property management in Hilo for the past 39 years. I am
the owner of Day-Lum Rentals & Management and Coldwell Banker Day-Lum Properties. I
have also served as volunteer with a planning commission in Hawaii.
I have prepared the statement in support of wise and proper growth of our wonderful City of Hilo
and Hawaii Island home. I have reviewed the requests from Wailani Development and feel that
these modifications are reasonable in light of the difficulty and cost of providing new land for
housing and commercial office spaces. Please provide continued approval of the Wailani
Development that is before you regarding the development of their land located above
Komohana Street at the top of Ponahawai Street. I ask you, I ask that you consider the
following: (1) The property has long been envisioned as a community center to service our Hilo
and East Hawaii neighborhoods with additional homes, commercial businesses, retail options,
and a greater selection of medical services; (2) This excellent location will provide more
housing and services to support our hospital, medical center, university, public schools, telescope
community, and Downtown center; (3) Its superior location near our hospital and numerous
medical offices will provide for an excellent location for our kupuna to live with assurance that
they are close to medical support when needed; (4) It will help provide our community with
desperately needed homes, including affordable housing, that will have adjacent services to help
provide for the needs of these new residents to our community; (5) It is serviced by numerous
public roadways—Komohana, Ponahawai, and Mohouli Streetsso that no one street will be
overly burdened by traffic; (6) It is in line with forward thinking, community living concepts that
plans for the population to live near stores, services, schools, and work; and lastly (7) It will
provide for homes and businesses in Hilo. The development of this land will help save our
community trees and our planet with less consumption of land for roadways, less surburban
sprawl, less need for cars and highways.
I appreciate your position as members of the Planning Commission, and our community is
growing, and last thing here. Please help plan Hilo growth wisely. Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Cabral.
EXHIBIT C
21
CLARKSON: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commission? I have one for
Mr. Wallace. So, is the Bay Clinic willing to be or do you propose to be the developer for the
medical area that's listed, shown in the development plan?
WALLACE: We propose to be a partner.
CLARKSON: A partner.
WALLACE: To be a partner, absolutely. Not for the entire project, but definitely to be a
significant partner.
CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. Thank you, all. Please be seated. The next two testifiers are
Eva Kim and Claudia Rohr. I think Ms. Rohr is gone.
KIM: Eva Kim.
CLARKSON: Yes, did you testify previously today?
KIM: No.
CLARKSON: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tellthe truth on this
matter before the Commission today?
KIM: Yes.
CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself and then proceed.
KIM: My name is Eva Kim. I'm a licensed insurance adjuster and investigate accidents so most
of my comment is regarding the roadway. I do want to tell Wailani Development thank you for
taking all those Albizias. I have an ocean view now, so I really appreciate that.
The roadway. Our streets in Hilo are horrible. Eighty -foot roadways with swales, walking area
is the way to go, and the plan that is set forth I think will bring in a lot of older people and young
families. We talk about walkability. They have to have a place to walls. If you look on our
streets, you talk about—what do we have here? Yeah, we have streets, and we have lots of
driveways. We have lots of utility poles on our sidewalks. We have lots of fire hydrants on our
sidewalks. We're not ADA compatible. We're not even near it. So, when you have new
developments, you have to address these things, and this is the way to go. It's not about what
happened before. It's above moving forward.
It's also about accidents. If you have medical offices, you have a lot of people who are ill. You
have a lot of people who are distracted because their family members are ill. You have
inattention to driving. So, is it a place to have wider streets? It sure is. Because you want
people to have opportunities to miss someone else. Our children. You laugh at me, but you
know what? I've done this for 30 years. I watch it all the time. We have an area where we want
EXHIBIT C
22
our kupunaI think I'm going to be one now. We want our children to walls to parks. There are
supposed to be trails there. What do you want? You want them to drive from their house to the
park? No, you want them to walls. You want them to be safe walking. So, my feeling is
Ponahawai and MohouliI don't know if this is your kuleana, but I see a problem if there's no
dedicated left -turn lanes. No dedicated right -turn lanes into there. You've got all this traffic
coming down Mohouli. That has to be addressed. So, I see a problem you need to have
dedicated merge lanes, right -turn lanes. Same thing on Komohana side. You gotta have ways
for people to turn in and out without them being smacked from behind.
And, the other thing I noticed on the informational letter I got, is that there's supposed to be a
commercial project somewhere between the new Ponahawai Extension and Uluwai. Is that
correct? I thought I saw
AGUINALDO: —For this project?
IKEDA: It was taken away.
YEE: There was at one point. I think you're probably looking at an original drawing.
KIM: Okay, so there's no commercial, because I have a problem with that commercial project
being there again because of ingress and egress. So, those are my considerations, you know, so
it's yes, I'm all for an 80 -foot roadway easement whatever you want to call it. I'm concerned
about ingress and egress from the Ponahawai onto Mohouli and Komohana. Not having
sidewalks to keep people safe because our population is growing faster than our roads can handle
`em. Thank you.
CLARKSON: Thank you, are there any questions for this testifier? If not, thank you for your
testimony. Are there any other persons who wish to testify on this application? If not, I'll ask
for a motion to close public testimony.
IKEDA: Move to close public testimony.
DELA CRUZ: Second.
CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that public testimony be closed. All those in
favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. Public testimony is closed.
IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, before we make a motion, I'd like to call the developer up again.
CLARKSON: Now, we're just going to be discussing these proposed amendments.
IKEDA: Okay.
EXHIBIT C
23
CLARKSON: If we're allowed to. So, this is a large, complicated project. My preference
would be to just take these amendments, go quickly through the ones that we can all agree on as
being reasonable either—and then try and get into the ones that cause disagreement.
Okay, does any Commissioner wish to discuss Condition D which is the change, change in the
number of residential units from 518 to 700?
IKEDA: Can I speak on that? You know, that's one of the conditions that I don't support. What
happened is this was kind of aI know it started before the Matsuura's bought the property. It
belonged to Steve Yamashiro, and he was going to build a University Heights with 710 or 750
units and the community opposed that, and so the, the Council at the time lowered it to 518. So,
that's the reason you got the number 518. It wasn't pulled out of a hat. And, so I thought it was
pretty high at that time, but since it was passed and they are allowed 518, I would like to see that
it doesn't change. I still say that at 518 because that's what the community really supported. So,
I don't support that Condition D.
CLARKSON: Any further discussion on Condition D?
REPLOGLE: I have something. Somebody spoke earlier on this, and they said that even with
the 700, it's under the permissible lots per area math or whatever you call it.
CLARKSON: Density?
REPLOGLE: And density, okay, yes, thank you. Would 700 be that much greater than five
[hundred] in terms of density? I mean, I know it's bigger.
CLARKSON: Forty percent.
REPLOGLE: Okay, but they are sacrificing commercial area for that so
CLARKSON: That's correct.
REPLOGLE: It's somewhat of a tradeoff I just want to understand it good.
IKEDA: Can, can I chime in? Okay, I think they were saying something like 35 per acre, so you
can imagine you're going to put 35 acres on, 35 units on one acre. So, you're talking stories
now. You're not talking about individual homes. You're talking about three stories or
something like that. To go up because you need parking for all the apartments. And, that's what
their talking about. It's not individual homes because I don't think you could put 35 homes on a
one -acre parcel.
YEE: I'll also chime in in that. You know, part of the difficulties in creating, increasing the
housing supply on Hawaii Island is, you know, it's a supply issue that we have, and they're not
just talking about low-income affordable homes, but, you know, they're talking market, too, but,
you know, clearly their intention is to build more affordable homes for families, and in the bigger
EXHIBIT C
24
picture of planning of our housing need, having more units in an urban area is exactly what
Planning is trying to push for. Because if not here, then where? So, I cannot underline enough
that I can understand years ago there was a certain feeling from the Council for a certain plan.
Well, the thing is that when you're coming in for, to want to change the conditions, it's time to
relook at what makes sense today, and understanding our needs, you know, from housing, I'm
just going to reiterate that the need for 700 units exists in an area that if they can get all the other
water issues and stuff figured out, it's what the city, the County really wants to have from a
planning standpoint.
CLARKSON: Okay
IKEDA: I want to counter that, okay?
CLARKSON: Oh, go ahead.
IKEDA: You know, I think the Director doesn't realize, is that this, even with 500 units, this is,
I think it's probably the biggest subdivision in Hilo. I think if you put up a map or you know
where they had that map, it's bigger than any of the subdivisions in that area. I don't know any
other subdivision in my district or in the Kaumana District that has 500 units. Nowhere. I think
if they, the Director was really serious about looking at density, we should look at Downtown
Hilo and have the people move back to Downtown Hilo, and the thing that's holding the people
back is there's no parking, because I tried to help the Downtown Association.
CLARKSON: Is there any further discussion on this proposed amendment D? I think we're
going to have to vote on every amendment as we go through this. I don't think we can keep
track. So, at this time, I'd like a motion for action on amendment D.
IKEDA: Okay, I move that we delete Condition D from thisI'd like to maintain the current
Condition D, the 518 units.
CLARKSON: Okay, is there a second? There being no second, that motion dies. Is there any
other motion on amendment D that any Commissioner would like to offer at this time? Hmm?
HALL: No, I was going to say I think that just means it's a favorable for now and then just
move to the next one and then we can bunch them all together, unless there's an unfavorable,
then we can go and amend it. How about that?
CLARKSON: So you're saying
HALL: So, if you guys, and if you guys with E as well, then, you know, you guys can say,
make a motion to agree with the Director on D, E, and, you know, whichever one that—
CLARKSON: —Well, what if there's no, if there's no majority for D, we leave it aside, when
are we going to find out what—there might, if we try to combine these amendments, there might
be a majority for D, a minority for E, a majority, I mean, somebody will want to vote. We can't
combine them all. We have to go through these, in my view, one at a time, and either approve
EXHIBIT C
25
them or disapprove them or modify them because there might be three or four that one
Commissioner will be in favor of and not of others.
HALL: That's fine, go ahead, move on.
CLARKSON: Okay. So, the motion to keep the existing density at 518 units failed for lack of a
second. Is there someone that wants to propose a different number of units or agree with the 700
units proposed? In other words agree with the changes that have been proposed here.
REPLOGLE: I'd like to make a motion that agrees with what the Planning Director has
suggested.
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Now, do we have to poll
on each amendment or can we do it by voice vote?
JACKSON: Mafia?
HALL: I don't know, this is new territory for me. I guess just poll.
JACKSON: Poll? Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: No.
JACKSON: Commissioner Raffipiy?
HALL: He's not here.
JACKSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries four to one.
EXHIBIT C
26
CLARKSON: The next proposed amendment is amendment E changing the maximum square
footage of the medical office campus, commercial center, and business park from 480,000 square
feet to 420,000 feet. No single commercial business may contain more than 45,000 square feet
in gross floor area. Is there a motion for action on this amendment?
REPLOGLE: I move we accept it as it is written.
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Is there any discussion? If not,
please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle
REPLOGLE: Aye
JACKSON: was it as written by the Planning Director?
REPLOGLE: Yes.
JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: I'm sorry, Chair Clarkson, who was the second?
CLARKSON: Aguinaldo.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, motion carries five, zero.
EXHIBIT C
27
CLARKSON: Amendment F?
HALL: I is next.
CLARKSON: Hmm?
HALL: I.
CLARKSON: Okay, now we're talking about amendment L F wasn't amended. Okay, is there
a motion for action on amendment I?
IKEDA: Move to approve Condition I as written.
DELA CRUZ: Second.
CLARKSON: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? II'm concerned
about this. I think the changes that the Planning Director may approve is too vague. I think
there should be some limitation as to the number of lots, the square footage of commercial area,
the general location of streets, or something that ties down the changes to those that have been
approved by the Commission and the Council and relegates the approval power of the Director in
concert with the Applicant to items that don't substantially change the nature of the project,
because the way this is written to me, the Planning Director may approve changes made by the
Applicant to accommodate evolving land use concepts, cost, I'm just going to skip through,
okay, and do not change permitted land uses, overall densities, open space requirements, and
infrastructure requirements. Okay, I take that back. They do not change permitted land uses,
overall densities. Open space requirements, infrastructure requirements, and are not contrary to
the amended project district ordinance. Okay. I withdraw any objection I had, and I won't go
for an amendment.
JACKSON: All right then
CLARKSON: Any further discussion? Thank you.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
EXHIBIT C
28
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero.
CLARKSON: Amendment J?
JACKSON: Can I just clarify something? You see some amendments on here, but those were
suggested by the Planning Director. So, it sounds like you're going through right now just the
Applicant's requested amendments, and then maybe we could go back to some of the
housekeeping amendments that the Director had recommended.
CLARKSON: Okay. So, then we'll go to amendment L.
HALL: So, not J? We're skipping J?
CLARKSON: We're going to back to do the Director's amendments after the Applicant's
amendments.
HALL: Okay.
CLARKSON: Any motion for action with regard to amendment L?
IKEDA: I move to approve Condition L as written.
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: Any discussion? If not, please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: I'm sorry, who was the second? Thank you. Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
EXHIBIT C
29
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero for Condition L.
CLARKSON: Okay, the next one to be considered then is amendment N. This is the deletion of
all project utilities shall be underground, and before we take up, well, before we take up this
condition, I have a favor to ask of staff, is to describe the utilities in the adjacent subdivisions for
me, please. I believe Sunrise Ridge is underground, but I'm not positive.
JACKSON: I actually created a slide of the surrounding area to show this, and let's see here.
We'll get there. Okay. So, this slide shows the subject property, the proposed Ponahawai Street
Extension. You have various subdivisions surrounding—Sunrise Ridge was approved in 1990 to
1994, zoned RS -10. There are sidewalks in the subdivision including along Kukuau Street,
which is the main street running through, and then there are underground utilities. You have two
subdivisions east of there, makai. Komohana Heights was approved in '71 and Pacific Heights
in '75. Those are also zoned Single -Family Residential. They have sidewalks and underground
utility. When you get to the Agricultural zoning, you have the Sunrise Estates Subdivision.
There are no sidewalks there, and no underground utilities. Those are overhead electric lines.
And, then on the north side of Wailani, there are three subdivisions. The oldest one is the Pu`u
Honu Tract, which is this area here, built prior to 1960. No sidewalks, and the utilities are
overhead. Kaumana Gardens built between '62 and '65, again, no sidewalks, and overhead
electric. And, then Crescent City is one of the newer subdivisions in this area. It was built in
'76. There are sidewalks here, but there are no underground, so the electric is overhead.
So, you primarily see the underground utilities in this location here, and we think it's because
there is a policy in the General Plan that identifies kind of this entire area here at the top of the
hill, at the top of Ponahawai as an area of natural beauty. The views are supposed to be open and
preserved from this hill towards Hilo Bay. So, that could be some of the reasoning why when
these subdivisions went in, they were required to do underground utility.
CLARKSON: So, it looks like about half the subdivisions have, most of the subdivisions have
sidewalks, and four out of the eight or nine have underground utilities. Two, well.
JACKSON: Three—
CLARKSON: Three—
JACKSON: of the one -two -three -four -five -six -seven, three of the seven have underground.
EXHIBIT C
30
CLARKSON: Okay. Is there a motion for action on amendment, Condition N? Well, on the
Applicant's request to delete Condition N, is there a motion for action on this request?
IKEDA: I move that we approve Condition N to delete underground utilities.
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: Is there any further discussion? Okay
REPLOGLE: Yes, I don't think we should delete it. I think it should be underground. A lady
just testified today how wonderful it is, the Albizias are gone. So we're going to put up electric
poles? And, I understand about the cost and all that, but anyway, my opinion.
CLARKSON: Do we have a representative from Hawaiian Electric or has Hawaiian Electric
made any comments on this condition?
JACKSON: No, they have not.
CLARKSON: Were they asked?
JACKSON: Let me check. Hold on just a minute.
YEE: I'll add since Maija is looking that at looking at, again, as a Project District, you have to
weigh all the things that are being asked in trying to create something that is viable for the
County as well as for the developer. In this case, this is one of those things that, you know, of
course, I wish we had underground utilities. Also, if we put in underground, or if they have to
put in underground utilities, most likely every home would just be that much more expensive, so,
it's not unusual in dealing with affordable housing, you know, and 201H exemptions and stuff
where we get requested a lot for driving low-income housing by providing certain exemptions
that allow projects to be more affordable. Again, not their entire project is low income, but it
was one of those things in negotiating what made sense for the district. Again, I'd prefer that it
was underground, but this is one case where the County was remaining flexible in our position in
this.
JACKSON: Would you like me to take the roll?
CLARKSON: I thought you were going to tell us whether Hawaiian Electric had commented or
not.
JACKSON: Oh, I'm sorry, no they were not consulted.
CLARKSON: They were not consulted.
YEE: Would it be helpful to hear from the Applicant on the impact of that?
CLARKSON: Well, if it's an entire project killer, that would be worth knowing.
EXHIBIT C
31
MATSUURA: Thank you. Again, I'm Peter Matsuura. I'm not an expert on this, believe me,
but the additional cost for underground is about seven hundred plus dollars a linear foot on
commercial, and in the residential it's a little smaller. It's about $500 a linear foot of which it's
all upfront costs obviously, and that in a one mile roadway is several million. And, will that a
project killer? Possibly, probably.
CLARKSON: And, the reason why these subdivisions done in the 70's and then as late as the
90's, Sunrise Ridge for example, could afford underground utilities, is there any affordable
housing or is that a veryI'm not familiar with that part of Hilo. Is it a real high-end
subdivision?
MATSUURA: It is a high-end subdivision, and Pacific Heights is high. Kukuau Heights is
high. The SunriseI'm not really sure, but they're not low-income housing certainly.
YEE: So, I'm still looking for our home, and so I looked in this area specifically, and I could tell
you, Sunrise Ridge, Sunrise Estates, there's nothing that's less that probably even six hundred
fifty thousand there, and most of them probably average higher than that. Everything kind of
of, you know, Crescent City, Kaumana Gardens, you know an average home there is probably
going to be somewhere between three to four hundred thousand, right? So, that's, that's really
the big difference. You were able to pass on that cost in those other newer subdivisions with
underground utilities.
CLARKSON: So, Sunrise Ridge has no affordable—they had no affordable housing mandate
when that was developed? And, what is the protection against all of a sudden Wailani becoming
another Sunrise Ridge after it gets less expensive power dispensation?
YEE: You know, the fall back would be we make our decisions based on the representation that
they make to us, and in that representation over the years has been consistently affordable
homes. You know, is there an absolute guarantee except for their affordable home set aside that
they have to do? You know, nothing hard and fast, but you have to know the family in terms of
their endeavors so far to be in this project, to be local developers who aren't developers, right?
They don't have no experience in this. At a certain point, you have to take in the folks that are in
front of you and their character, and their investment into this community, their history in this
community, and so from that standpoint, there's nothing in their representation to me so far to
tell me that they're doing a bait and switch on us. Again, I'm not going to say no they won't sell
of the land and we won't have to deal with other developers. You know, that could potentially
certainly happen, but again, we have a record. You know, there's institutional knowledge over
what the expectations should be for this neighborhood.
CLARKSON: And, what is the proportion of these now 700 residential units that is required to
be affordable?
YEE: Twenty percent?
JACKSON: Twenty percent, 140 units.
EXHIBIT C
32
CLARKSON: Okay. Any further discussion? Please repeat the motion for us if you would
before you poll the Commission.
JACKSON: The motion is to approve as recommended by the Planning Director which is to
delete Condition N.
CLARKSON: Okay, thank you.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero.
CLARKSON: The next amendment to be considered is amendment KK.
HALL: Point of order, are we on the old KK or the new KK? I'm just, or
CLARKSON: Well, will staff please put the amendment KK that's listed in Applicant's
amendments on the board so that we can at least recognize its shape and?
JACKSON: Sure, Commissioner, I mean Chair Clarkson, are you skipping Conditions P, Q, and
R? Or are we coming back to them?
CLARKSON: We were going to—well, I don't see. Oh, the unfavorable recommendations.
IKEDA: We're going to go back to that when we go to the Planning Director's
recommendation.
EXHIBIT C
33
CLARKSON: Yes.
JACKSON: Actually, the amendment to Conditions P, Q, and R were proposed by the
Applicant.
YEE: Let's stick to theI think they're going in order right now on the front page, favorable
recommendations for Applicant's amendments. So, we're on K
JACKSON: There we go. I see, you're taking them alphabetically.
CLARKSON: We're taking them—
JACKSON: Skipping ahead to KK
CLARKSON: as they are listed on the front page of the Planning Department
Recommendation. Next would be 00, then next would be J, K, O, S, FF, GG, and HH, and then
after that P and Q.
HALL: Great, let's do it.
CLARKSON: Yes, ma'am. Well, on KK which is please brief us on KK. What was the
original?
JACKSON: So, KK, the Applicant is requesting to waive the fair -share requirement for the
affordable housing units, so the fair -share would be calculated based on all the residential units
in Wailani except for the affordable housing.
CLARKSON: Okay. Can somebody tell me what the fair share money goes towards?
JACKSON: Fair share goes towards roads, police, fire, solid waste, and parks.
CLARKSON: Is it actually dedicated to that—
JACKSON: Yes
CLARKSON: or does it just go into the general fund and
JACKSON: No, it's dedicated. It's a separate fund, and it has to be used within that district.
CLARKSON: Okay. Is there a motion for action on KK?
IKEDA: I move to approve Condition KK as written.
DELA CRUZ: Second.
CLARKSON: Any further discussion? Please poll the Commission.
EXHIBIT C
34
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda
CLARKSON: Commissioner Replogle, if you
REPLOGLE: Yes, I don't understand what's going on.
CLARKSON: Well, I'll tell you
REPLOGLE: —They want to exchange fair share for affordable housing or what?
CLARKSON: They normally, every subdivision would have a fair share fee applied to each
residential unit, and in this case, they were asking that the fair share be only applied to the
market units, not the affordable units presumably to make—
REPLOGLE: Roger—
CLARKSON: —the units more affordable.
JACKSON: That's correct.
CLARKSON: I believe somebody made a move, motion and second.
JACKSON: Yes.
CLARKSON: If there's no further discussion, please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: And, Chair Clarkson?
CLARKSON: Aye.
EXHIBIT C
35
JACKSON: Motion carries five, zero.
CLARKSON: Condition 00. This is the request for an amendment to allow administrative time
extensions for time conditions within the amended ordinance.
IKEDA: Move to approve Condition 00 as written.
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that this amendment be approved. Is there any
discussion? I
REPLOGLE: Aye.
CLARKSON: Huh? I don't know, I'm new to this. I've only been on the Planning Commission
for a couple of years, but it just seems like a lot of projects start way back in the distant past and
just keep getting extended and extended and extended. Are there any limits to administrative
extensions or what is the guidance that we're getting from the Council about how long we let
projects go before they're just, they run out of time, if they ever do?
YEE: I'm not going to answer your questions probably directly on, but let me take a stab. So,
time extensions both in front of you folks in Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions
have had, you know, some rub against time extensions lately. Okay, in terms of some things, a
development projects coming back in, in some cases, they were earnest about trying to pursue
something, and in some cases not. In some cases, I think the Commission had felt like the
Applicant is just looking to get an entitlement through, and so they, the project is still market
worthy and, you know, they can make the most money off of it with an entitlement. So, both
Commissions have pushed back on time extensions and not trying to make them so automatic
and questioning a little bit more which I clearly think that's within your authority to do so, so
I'm not discouraging you from doing that.
I will say within, internally within staff, we have certainly talked about the criteria which we
want to have, and it's a still on-going conversation. I will add that we definitely have seen that it
wasn't always thought about in terms of length of time, the complexity of a project. So, if a
project is only on a let's say a one -acre lot or something like that or even smaller than that, a
project, you know, doesn't need ten, twenty years to really be viable to proceed with that.
In these larger projects, developments, clearly they should be given more time is kind of the
feeling, so not hitting your question right on, but we definitely have felt a need to provide a little
more flexibility for more complex projects.
CLARKSON: So, does this amendment 00 have any limits on the time extensions that can be
administratively granted by the Director?
EXHIBIT C
36
JACKSON: It only allows for one. So, as an example, if you take one of the main conditions in
here, to commence construction of the Ponahawai Street Extension and complete it, currently it
has a five-year commencement date, ten years to complete. If you grant another time extension
today, and the administrative time extension, that gives them ten years to commence and twenty
years to complete the road, and that would be similar to the timeline for building out the
development as well. I think the current condition says that they have to commence within five
years so that would give them another five years and then the administrative time extension. So,
ten years to commence construction of the development.
CLARKSON: So, it's an administrative extension that's equal, originally granted to the time
originally granted for performance?
JACKSON: Yes.
CLARKSON: And, they give an example of if it's been given one year, it may be extended for
one additional year?
JACKSON: Correct.
CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. Is—I've forgotten. Was there a motion for action on this?
REPLOGLE: Yes.
AGUINALDO: Mm-hmm.
DELA CRUZ: And second.
CLARKSON: Okay. Any further discussion? Please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Okay, Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
EXHIBIT C
37
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: All right, the motion carries five, zero.
CLARKSON: Condition J. So, these Conditions J and K are related to Water Supply.
HALL: These are just the housekeeping ones, right?
JACKSON: Yes.
HALL: So, maybe we can take these all together.
YEE: Well, no, I want to acknowledge that Commissioner Ikeda had a problem with S, but
maybe the rest of them.
JACKSON: Yes, so the J and K are kind of housekeeping measures related to Water Supply. O
is just some clarifying language about connecting to the sewer system. FF, GG, HH, and EE are
related to the Applicant having complied with their archaeological plans and preservation plans,
and so we're just doing housekeeping to clean up those conditions and adding a new condition
that they implement the preservation measures. So, those those conditions up on the screen
now are all essentially housekeeping, updating conditions based on new information from the
Applicant and regulatory agencies.
CLARKSON: Okay, so I have a concern about this. There are 200 existing water commitment
units. Are there 500 more available?
JACKSON: Not at this time. The Applicant would have to develop more water source
transmission and storage before those become available.
CLARKSON: Okay, and the same is true, what's the story on the sewer connection?
HALL: Just saying that they have to connect to sewer, that's all.
CLARKSON: Yeah, but I mean
JACKSON: —Yeah, so there is
CLARKSON: is a sewer, is a main available that can take this entire project or?
JACKSON: Yes, there is some sewer capacity available now near Punahele Street, but they
would have to develop more sewer capacity, sewer lines, to develop out the entire project.
CLARKSON: And, I'm just curious, how much—do they have to put a main all the way down,
where, how far does it have to be developed? Punahele is
EXHIBIT C
38
JACKSON: —The Applicant may be able to provide more info about where they plan to extend
or connect the sewer lines.
CLARKSON: Okay.
MATSUURA: Yeah, so we had a, we did commission a sewer study. There is a sewer line, and
I'm not sure how big it is, but it's a big one by Punahele Street, and it's got quite a bit of excess
capacity. In fact, it's got a lot of excess capacity because a lot of the households upstream didn't
connect, but even fully connected, our studies show that there is enough capacity for that. On the
south side of Alenaio Stream, we'd have to hook in to the Sunrise sewer system and pump it up,
and there is enough capacity for that.
CLARKSON: And, can you answer whether the existing two—so I can easily imagine 200 units
being built with the existing 200 commitments. Are those supposed to be in the same proportion
of affordable and market as the entire project or could those all be market?
MATSUURA: I'm not sure I understand the question.
CLARKSON: Okay, so I'm just looking at 200 water commitments which might mean a long
delay that's been mentioned previously in the completion of the other 500 units of which out of
the whole 700, 20 percent need to be affordable housing. Does that ratio apply as the project is
ongoing or just could these 200 be all used up on market units with no affordable and then the
affordable might have to wait for decades before water becomes available.
MATSUURA: I don't have a definitive answer. The development is going to proceed obviously
the best we can. We're going to start with the commercial and my personal desire is for the
medical to go in. Now, supermarkets and medical actually consume very little water, and as far
as how, what ratio of market versus affordable comes in later, then that's a little beyond my
ability to predict, but certainly we're going to have to develop more water availability in the
future and that's I know we're kicking the ball down the, down the road a little I admit.
CLARKSON: Thank you.
DELA CRUZ: Chair, I'd like to make a motion to accept all Conditions J, K, O, FF, GG, and
H[H], and EE according to the Planning Director.
REPLOGLE: Second.
CLARKSON: Any further discussion? If not, please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
EXHIBIT C
39
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: All right, motion carries five, zero.
CLARKSON: The next amendment would be Condition P. Thank you, sir.
HALL: Just for clarification, did yours include S or not include S?
DELA CRUZ: No, it did not.
HALL: Okay, so then S.
DELA CRUZ: Because S, Donald had an issue.
HALL: Okay.
CLARKSON: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, there's still S. Can you put Condition S or amendment S.
IKEDA: I would like to leave Condition S as it is and not according to the Planning Director's
recommendation to delete because this S, this condition was made with a lot of community
meetings when this development was coming up and the community did not support having the,
this development go into their neighborhood. And, if you look into the neighborhood, they have
a lot of substandard roads. You'll have a one -lane road in that area, and I think the fire truck
would have a hard time turning in that area. If you have a fire truck, you probably would, he
would block traffic and probably Donn could clarify more because he lives close to that area.
DELA CRUZ: I mean we all live pretty much up there, we all run around, and that area is really
small that road. It's like a one -lane narrow road by Liko Lehua, yeah? So, honestly, if a fire
truck would go through, there would be no way anybody else could pass, so, I mean that's the
honest truth about that.
YEE: With that said, at the last meeting we had, I think a former fireman talked about wanting
to have easy access for the Fire Department into the development site, I—yes, it's not a standard
County road. I wish it was built out more, but it's not, but it is a County road, and I think that's
EXHIBIT C
40
really important that, I feel strongly that County roads need to connect, and I'm hearing it all
throughout the island whenever I'm facing development with neighborhoods where certain
subdivisions want to really restrict that traffic through the neighborhood.
And, then in an urban center, it—from planning principles, it's not what we support. The idea of
connectivity disperses all the traffic out to all the roads that are connecting, so it's just not in one
area. You know, in this case where there was a County road, and right now it dead ends at the
end of Wiliwili going into the project, you know, there's a dead-end there, and I'm sure some
folks would love not to have a street go through there, but when you drive through there, it is
quite evident that it was, there was an intention that that road would go on. And, I also would
say part of having the road not being so wide, well, I commented the last time that I kinda know
the traffic patterns in this area very well, and by having that be the case that it's not going to be
the thoroughfare people think it's going to be. It's not going to be a short-cut for everyone, and
so actually, the people who will really benefit the most are going to be the ones that actually live
really adjacent to it. And, so, I know that's a hard sell, but this is when Planning Department and
the County have to step forward within planning principles to say this is kind of the ideal way we
want our development to go. I understand the community was, you know, had some opposition
to it. I wasn't around so I, you know, I don't know it first-hand.
IKEDA: Can I answer to the Director?
CLARKSON: Well, let's—there was a motion?
DELA CRUZ: Mm -mm.
CLARKSON: No?
IKEDA: No, but you—you made the Director speak so I want to answer the Director's question.
HALL: Let's get a motion first.
CLARKSON: Let's, yeah, I'm following counsel's advice to get a motion on the floor, and then
we can discuss it all you want.
IKEDA: Okay.
CLARKSON: So, is there a motion for action on Director's Condition S, as amended by the
Director?
IKEDA: Yes, I thought I already made the motion to delete the Planning Director's
recommendation.
CLARKSON: Okay.
IKEDA: To delete that condition.
EXHIBIT C
41
CLARKSON: Is there a second? If there is not, the motion to delete the Planning Director's
recommendation—is there a motion in favor of the Planning Director's amendment?
REPLOGLE: I make a motion in favor of the Planning Director's amendment.
DELA CRUZ: Second.
CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that Condition S be approved as amended by the
Planning Director. Please proceed to argue against the
IKEDA: —Yes, I don't think the Director really read out what the, that section stated. He stated
that it was going to be used for an emergency, just for emergency, but it also stated that when the
community desires, the barrier could be lifted out because this is a short-cut version. It's not the
whole section that you're reading, because I wrote that so I ought to know. So, you just gave just
a kind of like a highlight, but you never listed the whole condition, and that's the reason I still, I
don't agree with the Director's recommendation. Thank you.
CLARKSON: I don't know, I'd just like to comment about the emergency access only. I—I've
seen those before and, you know, bollards or some other kind of barricade that blocks off a road
that connects, and usually as time goes on, they deteriorate and they become non-functional. So,
and then you get the worst of all worlds. You don't have any connectivity, and the emergency
vehicles can't get through there in an emergency anyway because the bollards are bent or gravel
is jammed down inside the sockets or nobody has the key. So, anyway
IKEDA: I'd like to respond.
CLARKSON: Okay.
IKEDA: Okay, on this barrier, it's a pull-out pole. If it was written in there, it's going to be a
pull—that's the reason I, they don't have the whole thing listed as the way it was written, and
this is the reason I wanted to speak before, you know, after the Director because I don't think
you guys are getting the full information because it's an emergencyI, too, believe one day that
they're going to ask to remove the barrier, that the public will use it, but I think the neighborhood
needs confidence that the road really works and then they won't go through their neighborhood,
and I'm sure they would lift the barrier because even some of the people said can we lift the
barrier later on and we said yeah, that's the way it was written.
CLARKSON: Thank you.
IKEDA: But like I said, if you pass it, either way, you know, II feel sorry for the
neighborhood because I don't live in that particular neighborhood, but I'm still protecting their
interests. Thank you.
CLARKSON: Well, I will reassure the people that, you know, our work here is advisory to the
Council, so they can certainly testify before the Council if there's strong feelings on this matter.
Any further discussion? If not, please poll the Commission.
EXHIBIT C
42
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: CommissionerI'm sorry, that was Commissioner, Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: No.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson?
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries four to one.
CLARKSON: Condition P? Can we do P, Q, and R at the same time? Oh, wait, no.
JACKSON: Commissioner, Chair, we also do—Chair Clarkson, we also have a representative of
Public Works here again if you have any questions on these conditions. Okay.
HALL: Maija, so is this the one from, or was there one that was submitted today?
CLARKSON: Yes.
HALL: Sorry, okay, so it should have today's date on it?
CLARKSON: Can you—yeah, review the difference between the Director's recommendation to
Condition P and the Applicant's? There were slight changes.
JACKSON: Okay, so the Director's recommendation is on page 6 of your goldenrod
Recommendation form. It says essentially that the Ponahawai Street Extension and intersection
improvements are to be constructed in two stages by the Applicant. The first stage would start
within five years of the effective date of the amended ordinance and be completed within ten
years of the effective date of the amended ordinance. The completion of the construction may be
assured by a sufficient surety bond meeting with the approval of the County. So, construction of
the first stage would include constructing the entire length of Ponahawai Street Extension with
paved shoulders and paved swales for the entire width of 80 feet meeting with the approval of
Public Works. Construction of the second stage shall include constructing the entire length of
EXHIBIT C
43
Ponahawai Street Extension with concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage improvements as
required by Public Works.
The second stage improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any adjacent commercial or multi -family development or prior to subdivision
approval for an adjacent residential subdivision. So, it's a two-stage construction. And, then, the
Applicant's most recent proposal, which is on this white sheet. It has a date of March 7 t and a
number three at the top. So, that proposal is to provide and dedicate to the County an 80 -foot
wide right-of-way for the extension of Ponahawai Street. This would be on an alignment
meeting with the approval of Public Works and Planning. The right-of-way or portions of the
right-of-way shall be dedicated no later than completion of improvements within the portion of
the right-of-way or earlier without improvements upon request by the County. Improvements
beginning 500 feet from Komohana or up to the proposed commercial fronting Ponahawai Street
Extension shall consist of a County dedicable standard road with curb, gutter, sidewalk within
80 -foot right-of-way. So, let me show you on the map where that would be.
Okay, so the Applicant is proposing to construct from here up to I believe here as an 80 -foot
right-of-way with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And, then their proposal is from here up to
Mohouli to drop the curb, gutter, sidewalk requirement.
YEE: And, thereby hoping in the further others will choose to do it, correct?
JACKSON: Will choose to do it, correct. And, they're also proposing the same construction
timeline. Construction to commence within five years and be completed within ten years of the
effective date of the ordinance.
CLARKSON: So, let meso, you've got an 80 -foot right-of-way all the way. You've got an
80 -foot construction with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks just for the first 500 feet fronting the
commercial areas and then a two-lane County road with fully paved shoulders within the 80 -foot
right-of-way, but this is not 80 -feet wide now. We're talking about a much smaller road from
the commercial up to Mohouli Street. It's 80 all the way.
JACKSON: It's an 80 -foot right-of-way. They're proposing
CLARKSON: No, I'm talking about the actual pavement.
JACKSON: It says fully paved shoulders so I'm assuming that that means paving all the way to
the edge of the 80 -foot right-of-way, but we can have the Applicant clarify it to make sure that
we're on the same page.
CLARKSON: There must be a conflict here because if it's fully paved out 80 feet all the way,
and the first 500 feet have gutters, curbs, and sidewalks, that's more extensive construction than
the Planning Director is asking for.
DELA CRUZ: Hey, Maija, I get one question. If you look on that example that you guys gave
us on that plan, the landscaping plan, on that road, it has two different areas, right? So, you on
EXHIBIT C
44
the back side of this, you got A -A, which is an 80 -foot road, right? And, it's 30-30 on each side,
right? Then, as you progress past the commercial area when you're going to the residential, it
will drop down to B -B, right, which is actually an 80 -foot road, but it's only 18 feet paved on
each side.
JACKSON: That's correct.
DELA CRUZ: That's how it's going to be, right?
JACKSON: This was proposed after the ordinance was adopted, so the current condition in the
ordinance left it general and just said a County dedicable road with curb, gutter, sidewalk within
an 80 -foot right-of-way. It didn't specify an actual cross-section.
DELA CRUZ: Okay.
CLARKSON: I'm sorry, the Director's one has curbs, gutters, and sidewalks the entire length.
But, let me just clarify. Your proposal includes 80 feet of pavement with swales beyond the
curb, gutter, sidewalk section. Not a smaller two-lane County road. Which road section are you
proposing past the commercial area?
MATSUURA: I agree with you. The way that I read it, it's an 80 -foot wide right-of-way, and a
County dedicable road, 60 -feet, 50, whatever the County says, and that's how it reads. Now,
what I'm hearing, the interpretation of the Commission and maybe Public Works as well is 80
feet all paved the entire way, and we're okay with that.
AGUINALDO: So, are we following November 15, 2011 on the typical road section?
JACKSON: That was a proposed road section. It was never embedded in the ordinance.
AGUINALDO: Okay.
CLARKSON: Well, it seems to me in reading the Director's version, you start out with 80 feet
of pavement with swales, no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and then second stage, improvements add
in the curbs, gutters, sidewalks only as the certificate of—prior to the certificate of occupancy for
adjacent commercial or multi -family development or prior to final subdivision approval for
adjacent subdivisions. So, I don't—it now looks to me if you're willing to go with 80 feet of
improved surface all the way to the top that there's no disagreement whatsoever with
Condition P as written by the Director, as amended by the Director. But—because he's only
asking for the, he's got
MATSUURA: I think the, it might be a semantic difference, and I'm, but it, what the Director is
saying is we must put in the curb, gutter, sidewalk at some time, and our proposal says we have
an option of putting in the curb, gutter, and sidewalk at some time.
CLARKSON: No, he please correct me if I'm wrong. It looks to me like the curbs, gutters,
and sidewalks go in with second stage improvements, and those shall be completed prior to the
EXHIBIT C
45
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any adjacent commercial or multi -family development.
So, it's like, the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks have to march up with the development itself, but I
defer to the Director who is sitting next to me as to what he intended.
JACKSON: Chair Clarkson, the Applicant's representation was correct. The Director's
condition is a two-stage construction. We're in agreement on the first stage, paving out the 80
feet of right-of-way.
CLARKSON: Right.
JACKSON: The second stage it's a requirement in the Director's condition is the curb, gutter,
sidewalk when individual developers come in and develop out the road segment. Whereas, the
Applicant has it as an option. The language is an option, and that's—
CLARKSON: Option for who? The developer or who?
JACKSON: The Applicant's language is, "This does not preclude the applicant or its successors
or assigns from making further improvements, such as a 4 -lane road with curbs, gutters, [and]
sidewalks within the 80 -foot right-of-way." So, it doesn't require. It just says this is an option
for a future, it's a future possibility either by the Applicant or their successors.
YEE: And, the reality of what I'm thinking about is if—if it's turned over to other developers,
basically I'm having them required to pass that cost on to the developer to do the curb, gutter,
sidewalk versus it being an option for them to require the buyer to do it.
CLARKSON: Okay, I understand now. Is there a motion for action on this Condition P?
REPLOGLE: I make a motion that we go with the Director's suggestion, not suggestion, but his
amendment to, motion.
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion or clarification needed on
this matter? If not, please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
EXHIBIT C
46
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: No.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Motion carries four, one.
CLARKSON: The next
KERN: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I was here to help Peter here. We just had one idea on that to
save costs and get the—you guys are moving forward with that. What if you were to have it so
thesorry, Zendo Kern, here helping the Applicant. So, you're, right now you're going to have
them pave the entire width, the 80 -feet width, right? And, then as it moves forward, he has to do
the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and then if—it's almost as having to do it twice in a certain area.
What if you had him pave the width up to the point where it would have the sidewalk? You'll
still have very wide shoulders. It would save the Applicant money, and then when they come
and do the sidewalk, you're not putting a sidewalk and gutters over an existing pavement. You
know what I mean? Otherwise, you're having to rip out that pavement and kind of have a re -do.
So, it's kind of the best of both worlds.
CLARKSON: Yeah, I brought that up earlier, but who is here from Public Works? I'd likeI
mean, we've already passed a motion.
KERN: We could move to reconsider.
CLARKSON: But, I would like to hear Public Works' view on this whole sequence whether
they prefer undeveloped swales and shoulders to be developed later with sidewalks and curbs
and gutters or whether they like the paved swales to be torn out and later have curbs and gutters.
Please.
MATSUMOTO: My name is Robyn Matsumoto. I'm a civil engineer with the Department of
Public Works, Engineering Division, and I actually wrote the recommendation. So, regarding
phasing, doing the shoulders later, or the sidewalks later, it will actually cost you more money,
because when you just do the pavement with the, up to 60 feet, you're going to have to put the
drywells. And, then later on when you have to put in the sidewalk, you're going to have to rip
out those drywells because it's going to have to move underneath the sidewalk. And, then our
other issue, too, was when you change from 60 to 80, there's going to be potential some changes
at the property line that may have to extend into private property, so depending on who owns the
property now, it may cost more money to get those transitions like a retaining wall or more slope
into the property.
EXHIBIT C
47
So, I mean, on our behalf, we think it's more cost to the developer, you know, to have to put in
the sidewalks later. Sorry.
CLARKSON: Well
MATSUMOTO: If you look at the cost of a drywell, we're talking twenty-five thousand per
drywell, so you put it in one time and now that the pavement is moving wider, the drywell has to
be under the sidewalk. You're going to have to move that drywell. You're going to have to fill
it out and re -permit it for underneath the sidewalk area now.
CLARKSON: Isn't the drywell going to be in the, in the swale area?
MATSUMOTO: Initially, when you do it at 60 feet, the drywell has to be in the center of the
swale line because that's where the water is going to fall.
CLARKSON: They're doing it at 80 feet.
MATSUMOTO: When you do it at 80 feet, you're going to have to try to plan for it closer to,
where the potential sidewalk is going to be, so it's going to be in alignment.
CLARKSON: But if they do the full width in the beginning, the drywells could stay where they
were.
MATSUMOTO: Yeah, correct.
CLARKSON: And, then the sidewalks be reconstructed over.
MATSUMOTO: If you look at the cross-section, the sidewalk is eight feet, curb, gutters at two
feet when you have the full 80 -foot wide build -out, but if you do sixty, you know, it's going to
be well short of that.
CLARKSON: They're talking about 80 now.
MATSUMOTO: Yeah.
AGUINALDO: Section A -A.
CLARKSON: Thank you.
KERN: I tried to [inaudible] engineer, but that makes sense.
CLARKSON: Condition Q.
JACKSON: Chair Clarkson, can I just make a correction here? So, part of the Director's
recommendation was actually to replace current Condition P with O. It was actually to amend
current Condition P so you'll see a new Condition O, and then add Condition P. So, there's
EXHIBIT C
48
actually two conditions that relate to the Ponahawai Street Extension that the Director is
recommending. So, on page 5 of your Recommendation, at the bottom, the new Condition O
relates to just the right-of-way that the Applicant will provide a right-of-way meeting with the
approval of Public Works and Planning. That's an 80 -foot right-of-way, and it shall be dedicated
at the County at no cost, and that's similar to the language that they were in agreement to
already. So, that's the new Condition O, and then we were adding Condition P, which is what I
think you all voted on.
CLARKSON: So, now you want us to go out of order and jump into Condition O?
JACKSON: O, yes, please. The two go hand-in-hand.
CLARKSON: Is there a motion for action on Condition O?
YEE: Did we do O already?
CLARKSON: We did not.
HALL: Oh wait.
DELA CRUZ: No, I did, I think, didn't I?
CLARKSON: We did. Yes, we did.
HALL: There was an—there is an O, it's a different O?
JACKSON: It was a different O. It was the old O that you voted on related to sewer.
DELA CRUZ: That was the old one, oh -oh. That's the old O.
HALL: Oh no.
CLARKSON: Okay, so the Condition O that you're talking about is the one that strikes the
extension of Ponahawai Street from Komohana Street and adds based on the alignment meeting
with the approval
JACKSON: Yes
CLARKSON: Okay, that Condition O. And, according to the Background Report, the Applicant
withdrew their request to amend Conditionoh, that was wastewater requirements, never mind,
the old O. Is there a motion for action on Condition O? This is basically just confirming the
right-of-way width of 80 feet which shall be dedicated no later than the completion of
improvements. Just making sure I'm right, on the right—so we need a motion for action on this
condition.
EXHIBIT C
49
DELA CRUZ: I move that Condition O be accepted as according to the Planning Director's
recommendation.
REPLOGLE: Second.
CLARKSON: Any further discussion? Please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, motion carries five, zero.
CLARKSON: Condition Q. Do Q & R go together? Condition Q, wait a minute, what page?
Can you please put the next condition on the board for us, please? On the screen?
JACKSON: Do you want the Applicant's proposed language? Let me get to that here. I'm
sorry, I have to go back.
CLARKSON: I just want to be able to find it on the Background Report.
JACKSON: So, the Applicant's proposal is on page 12 of your Recommendation Report, and
the proposed conditions are also on the screen.
HALL: So, Maija, just for clarification, the Director is recommending no change to the original
Q?
JACKSON: Correct.
HALL: Okay, thank you.
EXHIBIT C
50
CLARKSON: So, rather than prohibiting direct access, the Applicant wishes to have the
potential for direct access but only subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works
and the Director.
REPLOGLE: That would be for things like the Safeway trucks or whatever. Not personal use.
CLARKSON: I'd like to ask the Director why that's not enough of a protection for public safety
to basically give you and the, and the Public Works Department final say on everything.
YEE: I defer to Robyn to give further comment at this point.
AGUINALDO: Robyn is very important today.
MATSUMOTO: My name is Robyn Matsumoto with Public Works, Engineering Division. So,
Ponahawai Extension, just like Komohana and Mohouli, are considered collector roads, so they
are wider, you know, 80 -foot right-of-way, so the idea is the you shouldn't have direct access to
a lot from there. The idea is you want to move the traffic down to minor roads where, you know,
roads are more narrow, and then it's [inaudible] for people taking it out into their own private
lots.
AGUINALDO: Break `em down
CLARKSON: —Well, I can
MATSUMOTO: Sorry, I know, I need a diagram, I got pictures today
CLARKSON: I can see a situation—the road lots are approvable from the Department of Public
Works. I can see a situation where a driveway would be effectively the same as a road lot, I
mean a—you could even have a signalized driveway if you wanted to, and if the Public Works
Department specified that. Why would that be impossible? Or should it be impossible?
MATSUMOTO: Well, I mean, we try to prohibit that because then you're just getting access off
to one lot versus a road lot where you're getting multiple lots being accessed off of it. Now, if
you put in a signalized intersection in there, you know, the section of the block is too short, so
you're going to get cars backing up into the, you know, the Komohana/Ponahawai Extension.
CLARKSON: No, but I'm imagining a commercial complex with a parking lot in front and one
basically driveway access that's two lanes feeding in from the arterial to that parking lot like you
have at Puainako Shopping Center or other places all along Kilauea Avenue. There's—
MATSUMOTO: —Yeah, there's, you know, they brought up the example of the KTA area.
You know, this one isn't as wide as that area. There's no proposal for a median so until we
know what type of design, it's kind of difficult. Just in general, collector roads we always
recommend no additional access, direct access to the lots.
EXHIBIT C
51
YEE: Robyn, is there a situation where DPW would be, you know, apprehensive about wanting
to approve something `cause then it sets a precedence for other projects?
MATSUMOTO: That's always the possibility.
YEE: Right, so if you let this one go, then the next applicant will say, hey, you let so and so do
it and then it becomes problematic.
MATSUMOTO: Yeah, and I feel that's, you know, that's a good justification for any future
applicants. If we approve something now, it should be fair game for any additional developers
coming up.
CLARKSON: But, based on the amended condition, you could just say no all the time to
whatever they propose.
MATSUMOTO: But, I guess because the reasoning would be still the same. It's a collector
designed road, so it's not supposed to have direct access. So, I mean, we can say yeah, we'll
decide later, but then, it's kind of giving you the false hope that we're going to change our mind.
CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion for action on Condition Q? Applicant's
requested amendment of Condition Q?
REPLOGLE: I move that we approve the Applicant's proposal as long as they understand they
shouldn't hope for it.
CLARKSON: Is there a second?
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: Any further discussion? Please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
EXHIBIT C
52
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Motion passes five, zero.
CLARKSON: And, I think we're down to our last condition, Condition R. Okay, can you
please put whichever condition are we voting on here?
HALL: Page 13.
CLARKSON: Page 13?
HALL: Yes.
JACKSON: So, what's on the screen now is the Applicant's original proposal, but Condition R
on the white sheet is what you should be looking at. This is their most current proposal, and the
Director is recommending unfavorable on Condition R.
CLARKSON: And, the Director's recommendation is on Page 6? Well, this—this is already,
can't be left as the Director, Condition R has already been modified by the Ponahawai Extension,
so, it can't say this, because we've already accepted streets that didn't have gutters, curbs, and
sidewalks. So, we're going to have to
MATSUURA: —Yeah, can I ask the Director's opinion on the amended one? And, essentially,
the amended one says all commercial shall have curb, gutter, sidewalk, and any high density
development less than 10,000 square feet with over seven units per road, and the rest are not, on
the residential. It's different. Essentially saying in the residential area, yes, we agree. We'll do
curb, gutter, sidewalk on the high density. In the lower density, no.
YEE: This gets back to the curb, gutter, sidewalk philosophy of walkable neighborhoods and
stuff This is a tough one, so we're going to have to spend a little time on it to make sure people
understand the nuances. Subdivision Code, as Maija had said earlier, was written—the last
update was 1983, and so it's 35 years. It's outdated, and it's clearly something we want to
update soon, but without it, I'm left with having to deal with outdated requirements. So, two
things going on. If they wanted to just follow Subdivision Code, they would come in for just
subdivision and not a Project District. Once you step into the Project District, I feel as if there is
a lot of leeway to adjust for things.
So, hence, I come in and ask for more than what subdivision provides right now. So, I think it's
this balance again of over how much cost are we asking the developer to incur and them asking
to have some relief from it. This is a difficult one. Again, I think it'sI'm being consistent here
in saying I like it as throughout as much as possible, and I certainly kind of leave it to the
discretion and questions from the Commissioners to gnaw on this some more.
EXHIBIT C
53
CLARKSON: Does the Subdivision Code require full width paving of the right-of-way, you
know, the pavement out to the full width with the swales and drywells? It does not? Where'd
Robyn go?
JACKSON: I'm not sure what the requirement would be for the Subdivision Code. The
Subdivision Code gives the Director discretion to require sidewalks. It's Public Works that sets
the paving standards, and they usually use their standard details.
YEE: And, since the 1970's probably, it's been inconsistent when subdivisions have been
required to put in sidewalks and when they haven't, and there's not a cut-off date. It's not as if a
date came, a year came, and it changed over one way and it flipped back or whatever. It's just
inconsistent and, hence, the reason why we need to rewrite Subdivision Code around this.
CLARKSON: Can we go back to the—yes, that one. Oh, she read my mind. So, sidewalks,
sidewalks, Sunrise Estates, no sidewalks; Crescent City Heights, sidewalks; Kaumana Gardens,
no sidewalks; Pu`u Honu Tract, no sidewalks.
JACKSON: So, the pattern I kind of saw was that sometime in the late 60's, early 70's, we
started requiring sidewalks except for agricultural subdivisions.
REPLOGLE: I'd like to make a motion that we go with the Planning Director's proposal for the
sidewalks, gutters.
CLARKSON: Which is—where is the
HALL: It's not changing basically.
CLARKSON: Except for Ponahawai Street. Well, we can't say they shall all be constructed
with gutters, curbs, and sidewalks because we've already allowed the upper end of Ponahawai to
have swales. But, apparently that would be the only place where they wouldn't is what you're—
REPLOGLE: Basically, I'm saying that.
CLARKSON: Okay. Is there a second?
AGUINALDO: I second.
CLARKSON: Any further discussion? Please poll the Commission.
JACKSON: Commissioner Replogle?
REPLOGLE: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo?
AGUINALDO: Aye.
EXHIBIT C
54
JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
JACKSON: And Chair Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Aye.
JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero.
CLARKSON: If we—do we have any more actions need, require to be taken? You'll be
notified in writing of the Commission's action today.
The discussion ended at 3:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
EXHIBIT C
55