HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0505.000 1998-2000 tt w
Wi1Ham G. Davis
Managing Director
Stephen K. Yamashiro •i
,yaya, Henry Cho
p Deputy Managing Director
~IIlllt~~ II~ ~2i~tiit
75 Aupuni Staet Room 215 Hilo, Hawau %720-4252 (808) 961-8211 Fax (608) 9616553
KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 Kailua-Kona, Hawau 96740
October 18, 1999 (808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663
(9
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council ~
Counry of Hawaii CG
~ ~ ;
25 Aupuni Street %
Hilo, HI 96720 ~ -
3
y cD
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
O
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 99-010) ~
Request: Agriculmral to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-023)
Request: A-Sa to RS-10, RS-20 and CN-10
Applicants: Hawaii Island Community Development Corp. and Richard White
Tax Map Key: 6-4-1:Portion of 41
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 99-008)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-016)
Request: A-Sa to CV-7.5 and FA-3a
Applicant: HPM Building Supply
Tax Map Key: 6-4-6:85
.i State Land Use $oundary Amendment Application (SLU 99-009)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-019)
Request: A-Sa to CN-20
Applicant: Roger A. Quinn
Tax Man Key 7-5-3~Portion of 24
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 5-4.3(C), Hawaii Counry Charter, transmitted herewith for the Counry
Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the
above-referenced requests.
Sincerely,
Stephen K. Yamashiro Comm. No. SAS
Mayor File No. zNG~K/V
L100199.MAY PL
Enclosures Ref. Tot
cc: Planning Department A!f• Dete._~T 2 2 19~L~
(3i ll5 /55 + lS(o 7
?v,or•
Stephen K Yamashiro , ,
~ 21 F,~1 B 59
f~~ixn#g ~ u
PLANNING COMMISSION
25 Aupuni Stree4 Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii %720-9252
(808) %1-8288 • Pax (808) %1A618
OCT 1 G 1999
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 99-009)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-019)
Request: A-Sa to CN-20
Applicant: Roger A. Quinn
Tax Map Key: 7-5-3:Portion of 24
The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on October 1, 1999, voted to
recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bills for a State Land Use Boundary
Amendment from an Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of Zone by changing the
district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) for
approximately 7.794 acres of land. The property is located on the west (makai) side of the
extension of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, adjacent and south of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints and east of the Lono Kona Subdivision, Honuaula, North Kona, Hawaii.
The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending
favorable consideration of the requests:
State Land Use Boundarv Amendment
The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the
Urban District will not be violative of Section 205-2, Chaplet 205, Hawaii Revised
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
Statutes, nor will the reclassification actions be inconsistent with the Hawaii Land Use
Commission Rules, the Hawaii State Plan and the County General Plan.
The applicant is requesting a redesignation of the subject property from
Agricultural to Urban, to enable the development of a neighborhood commercial
complex. According to the Hawaii Land Use Commission Rules, one of the standards
for considering an area for urban reclassification is that "In determining urban growth
for the next ten years, or in amending the boundary, land contiguous with existing
urban areas shall be given more consideration than non-contiguous land, and
particularly when indicated for future urban use on state or county general plans." The
subject property conforms to this standard as it is directly contiguous with existing
urban areas to the west, which are zoned for double-family and multiple-family
residential uses. The property is also situated within the vicinity of existing urban
designated lands surrounding Kailua Village. These urban lands include the Malulani
Gardens Subdivision, the proposed Mohala Commercial Village, Lanihau Shopping
Center and Crossroads Shopping Center to the north, and the Aloha Kona, Kealoha,
Kona Heights, Pines and Kailua View Estates Subdivisions to the south. Within the
Pines Subdivision, a similar neighborhood commercial center exists. It should be noted
that the subject property is in the vicinity of a portion of the area that was reclassified
from the Agricultural to the Urban District by the County of Hawaii Planning
Department in June 1998 to accommodate future urban development as designated on
the County General Plan. The applicant recognizes the growing development needs for
the region and seeks to provide the community with further neighborhood commercial
facilities which take advantage of the site's positive physical and locational attributes.
By targeting the project area for commercial development, the applicant is seeking to
meet urban expansion needs in a manner that is in concert with the long-range
community plans as expressed in the County General Plan.
The reclassification action would also achieve the following goals, objectives
and/or policies articulated in the Hawaii State Plan:
* A strong, viable economy, characterized by stability, diversity and
growth that enables the fulfillment of the needs and expectations of
Hawaii's present and future generations.
* Increased and diversified employment opportunities to achieve full
employment, increased income and job choice, and improved living
standards for Hawaii's people.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
* Expand existing markets and penetrate new markets for Hawaii's
products and services.
* Stimulate the development and expansion of economic activities which
will benefit areas with substantial or expected employment problems.
The Urban classification would be consistent with the Economic and Land Use
goals and policies of the Hawaii County General Plan by creating commercial uses.
The goals, policies, standards and courses of action state the following:
Economic Element
* Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life.
* Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical
and social environments of the island of Hawaii.
* The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic
system.
* The County shall provide an economic enviromnent which allows new,
expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the
County's natural and social environment.
* The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its
residents an opportunity for choice of occupation.
Land Use Element
* Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County.
* Zone urban- and rural-types of uses in areas with ease of access to community
services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and
facilities.
* Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or
projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
* The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities
meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social
environment.
* Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation,
district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with
adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and
public need.
In addition, the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component
of the General Plan represents the document's goals, policies, standards and courses of
action to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. This map
reflects a graphic depiction of the spatial relationships among various land uses and the
expressed policy statements of the document itself. It also establishes the basic land
use pattern for areas within the County and is, therefore, an important consideration.
This reclassification action also conforms to the LUPAG Map which designates the
area for Medium Density Urban Development. This designation allows for uses such
as village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3-story
commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre). The proposed neighborhood
commercial center would service the retail and office needs of the immediate
surrounding areas. Proposed uses include a gas station, food mart, eateries, a bank and
retail and office spaces. Under the Commercial Development Standards component of
the General Plan, a Neighborhood Center is identified as one of three basic types of
shopping centers. Neighborhood Centers are developed on properties 5 to 10 acres in
size, are comprised of 5 to 15 shops and offer convenience goods and personal services
to a market of approximately 3,000 people. Therefore, it is determined that the request
is consistent with the Medium Density Urban Development form depicted on [he
LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona.
The applicant has also submitted a Change of Zone application to reclassify the
project site from an Agricultural (A-Sa) to Neighborhood Commercial(CN-20) zoned
district in order to develop the proposed neighborhood commercial complex.
The subject property is located approximately 2,500 feet east of the Kailua
Village core, 1,500 feet south of Henry Street and within close proximity to several
residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the lands could be characterized by "city-like"
concentrations of people, structures, streets, urban level of services and other related
land uses. Surrounding properties consist of vacant lands, commercial centers and a
variety of residential neighborhoods. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
is located immediately north of the subject property. The west (makai) boundary of the
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 5
subject property is adjacent to the Lono Kona Subdivision, which is zoned for
double-family residential use, and a vacant parcel of land zoned for multiple-family
residential use. Parcels immediately south and east (mauka of Queen Kaahumanu
Highway) are vacant and zoned for agricultural use. Adjacent to the southwest corner
of the subject property is a detention basin that comprises part of the County's
Keopu-Hienaloli Drainage System. Properties farther to the west are utilized for
commercial and multiple-family residential purposes. The Malulani Gardens
Subdivision, the proposed Mohala Commercial Village, Lanihau Shopping Center and
Crossroads Shopping Center are located farther to the north and northeast while the
Aloha Kona, Kealoha, Kona Heights, Pines and Kailua View Estates Subdivisions are
located farther to the south. An Urban classification would complement the existing
and future residential land activities of the surrounding properties. Therefore, the
urbanization of the subject property will not contribute toward scattered spot urban
development.
The urban classification also conforms to the standard that the development is
within reasonable proximity to centers of trading and employment and to basic services
such as schools, police and fire protection, transportation systems and water. The
project site is located approximately one-half mile from the Kailua Village core and
approximately 1,500 feet from commercial centers along Henry Street, all of which
offer a concentration of retail and employment opportunities. The Police, Fire and
emergency medical services are also located in Kailua Village, less than one mile from
the subject property. The principal access to the proposed development would be
provided from the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, a major thoroughfaze
bordering Kailua Village. County water and sewer lines aze available and will be
extended to the subject property by the applicant. All other utilities and services are
available to the subject property. Based on the foregoing, the request conforms with
the Land Use Commission Rules which encourages urban developments in close
proximity to centers of trading and employment, existing developments and to existing
services and facilities.
The project area includes lands with no severe geological or topographical
problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable.
The subject property ranges in elevation from 125 feet to 230 feet above sea level.
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), a portion of the property lies
within the AE Flood Way Zone. Any improvements within the flood way zone area
will require a detailed flood study by a licensed civil engineer and compliance with
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. Other portions of the
property lie within Zone AE, area inundated by 100-year flood, and Zone X"Lt", area
inundated by 500-year flood. The remainder of the property is within Zone X, area
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 6
considered to be outside the 500-year flood plain. The project area is located outside
of any tsunami inundation area. Any new construction or improvements to the project
area must comply with Chapter 27 of the County Code relating to Flood Hazard
Control. An archeological reconnaissance survey on the subject property identified
four sites plus the Great Wall of Kuakini. Although none of the identified sites lie
within the area of the proposed boundary amendment and development, a condition will
be included to require the notification of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources-State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) should archaeological
sites be encountered during the course of development. The subject property has been
used extensively for grazing. A flora survey conducted on the subject property did not
identify any endangered or threatened species. Although no professional faunal survey
was conducted, the applicant does not anticipate to find any endangered or threatened
species on the subject property. The subject property is unclassified on the State of
Hawaii ALISH Map. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity
Rating for the soils in the area is "E" or Poor. Thus, the reclassification does meet
with the standard which states that the lands included within the urban district shall
be those with satisfactory topography and drainage and reasonably free from the danger
of floods, tsunami and unstable soil conditions and other adverse environmental
effects. "
Based on the above findings, the approval of the State Land Use Boundary
Amendment from Agricultural to Urban District complements the State Land Use
District Regulations and is supportive of the State of Hawaii Plan and the County
General Plan.
Change of Zone
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is
only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and
decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth
determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of
these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on
similar areas in the County, but ultimately, on the future development of the whole
island.
The proposed change of zone request would further the County's goals of
providing an economic environment which allows new or existing businesses to expand
and diversify the County's economic base, and thereby also increase the choice of
occupations.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 7
The proposed request would be consistent with the following goals and policies
of the General Plan Economic Element.
Economic Element
* Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life.
* Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical
and social environments of the island of Hawaii.
* The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic
system.
* The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new,
expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the
County's natural and social environment.
* The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its
residents an opportunity for choice of occupation.
The applicant's objective recognizes the growing development needs for the
region. The applicant seeks to provide the community with further neighborhood
commercial facilities which take advantage of the sites's positive physical and
locational attributes. By tazgeting the project area for commercial development, the
applicant is seeking to meet residential needs in the context of the medium density
designation in a manner that is in concert with the long-range community plans as
expressed in the County General Plan.
The proposed change of zone request would be consistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. Land use is one of the principal focal points of public
concern and policy. The Land Use Element provides the primazy basis for direct
control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended to
be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of
the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to
accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed
for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open
space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems.
The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the
lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. These state the
following:
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 8
Land Use Element
* Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County.
* Zone urban- and rural-types of uses in areas with ease of access to community
services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and
facilities.
* Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or
projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County.
* The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities
meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social
environment.
* Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation,
district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with
adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and
public need.
The proposed request would also complement the following goals and policies
of the Commercial Element.
Commercial Development
* Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users.
* Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of
transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities and
neighborhoods.
* Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by
necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers and transportation systems.
* Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of
neighborhood, community and regional needs.
* The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the
locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 9
infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such
developments.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the
General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the
coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of
the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes
the basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the County. The project azea is
designated Medium Density Urban Development which allows village and
neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3-story commercial;
residential - up to 35 units per acre). The proposed development may be permitted
provided that applicable goals, polices and standards of the General Plan are met. This
proposed neighborhood commercial center would service the retail and office needs of
the immediate surrounding areas. Proposed uses include a gas station, food mart,
eateries, a bank and retail and office spaces. Under the Commercial Development
Standards component of the General Plan, a Neighborhood Center is identified as one
of three basic types of shopping centers. Neighborhood Centers are developed on
properties 5 to 10 acres in size, are comprised of 5 to IS shops and offer convenience
goods and personal services to a market of approximately 3,000 people. Therefore, it
is determined that the request is consistent with the Medium Density Urban
Development form depicted on the LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona.
The General Plan further states that areas to be considered for rezoning "shall
have basic improvements and amenities necessary for immediate use." The applicant
will submit a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) to the State Depaztment of
Transportation for review and approval prior to making any improvements. The State
Department of Transportation will also require roadway and/or intersection
improvements to safely accommodate the proposed development. All roadways within
the proposed development, including those connecting to adjoining parcels, will be
required to meet with the requirements of the Depaztment of Public Works, which may
include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. Water and sewer
lines will be extended to the subject property from the Malulani Gardens Subdivision
located approximately 1,600 feet to the north, along the extension of the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway. The extension of the sewer line will connect the proposed
development to the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. All other essential utilities
and services can and will be made available to the development.
The applicant has also submitted a State Land Use Boundary Amendment
application to reclassify the project site from an Agricultural to Urban district in order
to allow the development of the proposed commercial uses.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 10
The Kona Regional Plan Land Use Concept Map designates this area for
Residential uses (Res-10). This designation indicates residential uses, up to 10 units
per acre. Although the requested change of zone and proposed development are not
consistent with this designation, it should be noted that the General Plan allows
consideration of commercial zoning to facilitate and/or accommodate the commercial
needs of residential areas. As numerous residential subdivisions have been developed
in the area of the subject property since the publication of the Kona Regional Plan in
1982, there is a greater demand for the types of services offered by neighborhood
commercial centers.
The subject area is within the boundaries of the Kailua Village Special District.
The Kailua-Kona Master Plan is intended to assist and guide the Kailua Village Design
Commission and the County of Hawaii in regulating development in the Kailua Village
Special District. The land use master plan map component of the Plan designates the
area for Low Density Residential use. While the requested change of zone and
proposed development would not be consistent with this designation, there is limited
need for additional retail in Kailua Village and most retail operations want to be
adjacent to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, where greater traffic volumes provide
increased visibility. Furthermore, provisions for small lot office and neighborhood
convenience commercial uses in residential areas enhance convenience and livability of
these residential areas which have grown considerably in recent years. In recognition
of these factors, the Kailua Village Design Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the rezoning of the project site at its meeting held on
September 14, 1999. The proposed rezoning and development is consistent with this
recommendation and will complement the land usage within the community and
neighborhood it is proposed to be located in.
The project site is located within an area adequately served with essential
services and facilities such as water and other utilities. Water is available to the project
site through an existing 12-inch waterline along the extension of the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway. The applicant would be required to extend the 12-inch waterline to the
subject property. The applicant proposes to tie into the County's Kealakehe
Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway, which has a 160-feet right-of--way. The applicant is exploring
the possibility of providing pedestrian and vehicular access from the proposed
development through the lower portion of the property to the Lono Kona Subdivision.
As indicated previously, all roadways within the proposed development, including
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 11
those connecting to adjoining parcels, should meet with the approval of the County
Department of Public Works.
The applicant's Environmental Report includes a Flora Survey conducted in
September, 1997, by AECOS, Inc. This study states in summary that the vegetation of
the project site area is dominated by Guinea grass, kiawe and koa-haole heavily
overgrown with the ivy gourd vine, an introduced pest species. Of the tota131 plant
species inventoried during the botanical survey, most are naturalized weedy species or
escaped ornamentals. Only a single indigenous species, Ponulaca lutea, was observed
and it was not in common abundance. This plant is found on leeward coasts of all the
islands. No species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service were seen or are likely to occur on the property. The property has been used
extensively for grazing.
The applicant's Environmental Report does not include any professional surveys
of the faunal resources on the subject property. Due to the property's proximity to
developed urban azeas and based on a recent study of a property approximately 1,500
feet north and mauka of the subject property, the applicant does not believe that rare or
endangered faunal resources are likely to be found within or proximate to the subject
property. In the study conducted on TMK: 7-5-3:6 & 7, introduced species such as
dove, Japanese white eye, house finch and mynah were observed. Cats, pigs and
mongooses were also observed.
The applicant's Environmental Report includes an archeological reconnaissance
survey conducted in September 1997 by Cultural Surveys Hawaii. This survey
recorded four sites plus the Great Wall of Kuakini. The sites included a platform
possibly used as a burial or small habitation structure, two modified bluffs indicating
possible habitation uses, and a wall section with stone modifications indicating probable
agricultural use. All four of these sites were found on the southern portion of the
property, makai of the azea proposed for rezoning and development. The Great Wall
of Kuakini extends along the makai boundary of the property, except where the wall is
cut by the Keopu-Hienaloli Drainage System improvements. This wall is on the
Hawaii State Register of Historic Places. Although none of the identified sites lie
within the area of the proposed rezoning and development, a condition will be included
to require the notification of the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State
Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) should archaeological sites be
encountered during the course of development. Mitigative measures as recommended
by the consulting archaeologist and the DLNR-SHPD will be required prior to any land
alteration activities.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 12
The AE Flood Way Zone affects a portion of the subject pazcel as designated by
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The flood way crosses onto the subject
property neaz the northeast corner of the property and runs southwest across the
property to the west (makai) boundary. Any improvements within the flood zone area
will require a detailed flood study by a licensed civil engineer and compliance with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. Other portions of the
property fall within Zone AE, area inundated by 100-year flood, and Zone X"Lt," area
inundated by 500-year flood. The remainder of the property is located within Zone X,
area determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. A drainage study should be
prepazed and a drainage system should be installed meeting with the approval of the
Department of Public Works. All site improvements will be designed and implemented
pursuant to Chapter 27- Flood Control of the Hawaii County Code (HCC). All plans
should clearly show the limits of the flood zone.
Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from
Agricultural (A-Sa) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) zoned district would result
in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public.
For your favorable consideration, an amendment to SLU Boundazies Map H-7 for the County
of Hawaii and Section 25-8-3, North Kona Zone Map, of the County Zoning Code is
transmitted.
We are enclosing a copy of the applications, a copy of the staff background and a transcript of
the heazing for your information.
Sincerely,
~ 0~~
eonard S. Tanaka, Chairman
Planning Commission
LQuinn02.PC
Enclosures \/g,"= ' '
cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke
Mr. Roger Quinn
Depaztment of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
West Hawaii Office
Kazu Hayashida, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu
Land Use Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
October 1, 1999
A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of ROGER A. QUINN was called to order
at 9:54 a.m. in the Kona Surf Hotel, Kamehameha Ballroom, 78-128 Ehukai Street, Keauhou,
North Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Leonard Tanaka presiding.
PRESENT: Leonard Tanaka ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lin McIntosh
Richard Baker, Jr. Mildred Mosher
Geraldine Giffin James Souza
Florence Kubota
Grant Togashi
Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director
Eleanor Gagorik, Staff Planner
Pam Harlow, Staff Planner
Fred Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Tom Pack representing the Department of Public Works
Glenn Ahuna representing Department of Water Supply
And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance.
TANAKA: Okay, we'll move on to the next agenda item, No. 3. And this is an
application by Roger A. Quinn, applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from
an Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of Zone by changing the district classification
from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) for approximately 7.794 acres
of land. The property is located on the west or makai side of the extension of Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway, adjacent and south of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
and east of the Lono Kona Subdivision, Honuaula, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-3:Portion
of 24. Okay, Ms. Harlow.
HARLOW: Good morning, Commissioners. I'd like to draw your attention to the
location map here. This is the site of the proposed rezoning. This is Queen Ka`ahumanu
Highway; this is heading north, south. This is Henry Street here. The area is located in
Ag-5 zoned area here. Nearby developments include the Malulani Gardens Subdivision, which
is zoned RS-7.5, the Hawaii Development Corporation project for the proposed Mohala
Commercial Center, which is zoned General Commercial-2Q and then further to the north you
ATTACH: C-505
(B-155 & 156)
have Lanihau Center and the Crossroads Complex. To the west is the Lono Kona Subdivision,
Multiple Family Residential. Further west along Hualalai and Kuakini, you have commercial
uses. To the south, Kealoha Subdivision, RS-15, Kona Heights, Kailua View Estates, and The
Pines, which also has a small Neighborhood Commercial-20 zoning in the center of that.
This is the site plan, showing in greater detail the portion of the parcel which is proposed for
rezoning. It's approximately 7.8 acres of an 18.69 parcel.
At this time, we'd like to make a change in the conditions. Prior to Condition, excuse me, let
me find it here. Inserted before Condition L, a new Condition L stating, "An archaeological
inventory survey shall be completed by the Applicant and submitted to [he Department of Land
and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, for review and acceptance prior
to any land alteration activity." The subsequent
GIFFIN: Could you please read that again?
HARLOW: "An archaeological inventory survey shall be completed by the Applicant
and submitted to DLNR, State Historic Preservation Division, for review and acceptance prior
to any land alteration activity."
TANAKA: Okay. Was that it?
HARLOW: Yes, that's all for now.
TANAKA: Okay.
BAKER: So the question is that replaces the existing L?
TANAKA: No.
GOLDSTEIN: No.
BAKER: No.
HARLOW: No, it does not replace it. It simply is inserted before the current
Condition L; and then subsequent conditions will be re-lettered.
BAKER: Re-lettered, okay.
GIFFIN: Oh.
G[ANNINI: So it's a new condition.
-2-
GIFFIN: I see. I see.
HARLOW: It is a new condition.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions for Staft? Okay, if not,
will the Applicant or its representatives come forward. And is there anyone else in the public
that would like to testify on this agenda item? I have two people. Okay, if, all right. If we
could, if I could swear you all in at once, please. Will you all raise your right hand, and do
you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning
Commission?
FUKE: I do.
TESTIFIERS: I do.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Okay, if you'd start off with your name and
address, for the record, please.
FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission,
my name is Sidney Fuke; I'm a planning consultant. I'm here assisting the Applicant,
Mr. Roger Quinn. My address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720.
QUINN: Good morning, my name is Roger Quinn, and my address is Post Office
Box 10486, Lahaina, 96761.
TANAKA: Okay. Did you receive the Background and Recommendation Report?
FUKE: Yes. The Applicant and I reviewed the Staff's proposed Background
Report and the conditions, as well as we've had a chance to discuss the Staffs proposed
amended condition, and we found the conditions to be acceptable.
TANAKA: Okay.
FUKE: If I can
TANAKA: Go ahead.
FUKE: Kind of just generally give you some, give the Commissioner, shaze
with the Commissioners some of the background behind this project. Mr. Quinn is a small
developer of commercial and commercial-related type of activities on Maui. And this is his
first an attempt to do something, you know, for the Island, on the Island of Hawaii. So he
-3-
has leased the entire 18-acre property from the Komo Brothers. And what he's proposing is to
do a commercial development for about seven and a half acres on the top portion.
Prior to his actually, I guess, "plunging into the water," he had approached me and, you know,
tried to get some idea as far as whether a commercial use of some sort would be possible in
that area, I guess this is what you call like a due diligence, in the early part of the year. And
so I'd just like to kind of share some of the thought process that went into that because then
it'll indirectly, I guess, answer a lot of the questions that relate to, you know, the
infrastructure or the archaeological, so on and so forth. If you can kind of bear with me so
And, at the same time, probably sharing some of the trade secrets about like how we go about
like, you know, preparing applications and, preparing and submitting applications.
But one of the first things that we had done, or at least Mr. Quinn had done, was to, you
know, do some informal touching bases with County and State officials just to get some
informal feedback relative to their thoughts about the proposed use. And then he came to me
and basically saying that, you know, like said it's like almost like a tabular roster, like a blank
slate, you know, on this property. What do you think? What can be done? Although his
initial inclination was for some sort of commercial uses. And so then I had to kind of like
look at the whole situation. You know, you do have the I had this map kind of like
prepared, although it's basically the same map of this, but it's a little bit blown up section of
just the subject area. So some of the things we had to consider was, you know, like the
existing conditions, one of which, of course, is like the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which is
a major thoroughfare, and then there are some, you know, commercial uses, as the Staff had
pointed out, in this general area, also within this particular subdivision. Within the Lono
Kona Subdivision, you have like a mixture of uses. You do have like commercial uses on the
lower side and a mixture of multiple and single family residences. You do have a major
temple that's under construction right now. We have the Salvation Army. You have some
Residential uses. So it's kind of like a mixture of uses in that area.
And then we looked at, you know, particularly from the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway,
generally like, when you have like residential developments, they tend to be a less desirable of
an area as opposed to being off of a major, major highway of sorts. Then when we looked at
the specific site itself, as kind of pointed out in the Background Report, there is like on the
north side, a portion of this area on the north end falls within the, what is, what the Corps of
Engineers calls on the firm map as an AE designation. So there are some limitations on the
north portion of the property, particularly on the lower end. And on the south end, there's
this major Keopu Drainage Channel, which is kind of identified in [his particular area. So
the these are some of the drainage kind of constraints on the property. But relative to where
the proposed activity is occurring or is proposed to be is basically clear of any drainage kind
of considerations.
-4-
They also did have a preliminary archaeological report, and we understand the State's concern
for wanting a little bit more detail, detailed report; and we received that, their comments, I
guess, just earlier part of this week, so we were not in a position to respond. But the
preliminary investigation of the site showed that there are like four features on the property
and, basically, the four features are located in that area that's not being proposed, you know,
that's not under consideration right now. But we do understand that there is also a possibility
that something may be unearthed, you know, on the mauka section.
And then from there, then, you know, after you look at what your existing conditions were,
then we looked at the, what are the regulatory considerations. And as the Staff pointed out,
like one of the things, the General Plan is, of course, the overall guiding principle, you know,
for developments on the Island. And the General Plan called for this area to be medium
density; and medium density you would, you could allow for consideration for a variety of
residential uses in addition to commercial uses.
We also had to pay heed to the Kailua Village Design Plan; and in the Kailua Village Design
Plan it did talk about a number of different issues. One, you know, from a land use
perspective, they are suggesting that it should be for residential uses; but at the same time,
they are talking about a need for somehow being able to provide some measure of integration
in this general area through a system of vehicular as well as pedestrian access so that you can
kind of like link neighborhoods together. They are also talking about providing like additional
landscaping along the main highway because basically the Village Design Plan addresses
activities makai of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, although the core area is, of course,
within the village area. But nonetheless, this still falls under the broad parameter of the Kailua
Village Design Plan. So we looked at that. We had to look at the design aspects and what the
plan was trying to achieve.
Then we had to look at the infrastructural kind of considerations. And, of course, like this
being the main highway, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, we knew that any development
proposal on the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway would, at a minimum, require like afull-on
channelized intersection, complete with a left turn storage lane, acceleration, deceleration
lanes, so on and so forth, and the possibility of also traffic lights, which the Applicant is fully
aware of.
We also had to look at where your water and your sewer system is; and, at this point in time,
the water and the sewer line is, they are both on the main highway. There's a 12-inch water
line on the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway that has to be extended to the property.
So all things considered then, you know, to do any development on the property would require
like substantial investment because of the, the need to, whether it's a residential, commercial,
or whatever development you have on the property would require substantial investments.
-5-
And so given all of those considerations, what I shared with Mr. Quimm was possibly to
investigate the possibility of some kind of a mixed use on the entire 18-acre area, and with
commercial developments at the top side and some possibility for a mixture of residential
activity on the lower area which is, at this point in time, not the subject of the review, but just
to give you the overall thought. It would And from that standpoint, we, I had asked
Mr. Quinn that if he is going to be looking for some commercial uses then, of course, they
have to have demand for it. And I would like to just share with the Commissioners letters
which were already possibly filed with the Commission. If they were not filed with the
Commission, there, I'd like to file them. But these are basically correspondences from
different potential users, you know, within the project area. One is from an oil company,
another one is from a restaurant, a bank, so on and so forth, just to give you an idea that from
his perspective that he has the preliminary financing lined up and the preliminary tenants, you
know, for this particular project.
As I mentioned earlier, like one of the things that we were looking at was, you know, we had
to be mindful of the design considerations. And I know that because this is part of the core,
not core but part of the Kailua Village District area, and it's an area that has to be traversed by
thousands, literally thousands of people back and forth each day, it has to be tastefully
designed. And what we had submitted in conjunction with the application was something very
generic, and it's basically a land use issue. But I'd like to provide, for the record, additional
sketches, you know, that were done, you know, of, renderings of what the project would look
like. But And these, these Just to give you some general, just to give you some general
orientation, you know, this would be the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, and the proposed
temple would generally be in this particular area. This is mauka and this is makai. And what
is tentatively proposed, as you can see, you know, is the extensive landscaping surrounding
the property and also within the, within the project site itself, and this is your main spine that
would go down, you know, through the property. And, as recommended by the Public Works
Department, it would be, you know, complete with curb, gutters, and sidewalks, which
would, hopefully, as I will discuss later, you know, end up with properties on the lower end
so that they can provide some overall circulation. But pretty much like from a design
perspective, we tried to, the architects and the designer tried to develop a site plan that
reflects, you know, what are the existing uses in that area, looking at the Kailua Village
District Design Guidelines relative to landscaping and do a significant amount of landscaping
within the project site.
This is a photo of the project, basically taken from the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and
looking at a shot in this way. And this larger building here is intended to be a supermarket,
and which would be this building over here. This building over here is, generally corresponds
to this structure over here, which would be a mixture of different type of retail and service-
oriented type of shops. The rendering on the left side, this particular rendering over here is a
shot as you come down the main spine; and, basically, you're over here, kind of then looking
back towards this way. This is where the proposed bank is supposed to be situated. So it's
-6-
this kind of shot looking towards the bank and the balance of this area. Okay. So specifically
like from a design standpoint, as you can see, you know, Mr. Quinn had instructed his, given
his architects and the landscape architects specific instructions to design a project that meets
the so-called, the design taste of the Kailua Village area, keep it low key, have a lot of
landscaping within the project site.
I've also had some discussions with representatives of the adjoining property owner on the
north side, the church, who had expressed a concern about making sure that there is sufficient
landscaping on, I guess, the south side of their property so that they would provide some
buffer, some visual buffer. And then that, as you can see by the, by the rendering, can easily
be accommodated.
Related to that, however, as I mentioned earlier, because this is like what this project basically
abuts, the entire property basically abuts the Lono Kona Subdivision; and right now, Lono
Kona Subdivision has only one entry in and out, and it's a very congested area. As I
mentioned earlier, it's a mixture of commercial, residential, multiple-family, church use,
Salvation Army, so on and so forth. And so what we were trying to look at is possibly having
this development, and also consistent with the objectives of the Kailua Village Design Plan, is
trying to see how we can provide a road network system within the specific area so that it can
achieve that integration objective sought by the Kailua Village Design Plan. And so what we
had proposed is basically this main spine coming down which would eventually go down to the
bottom of the property. And there is a vacant property over here; and we've had some
discussions with the owner of that property, the property owner, and the property owner has
indicated to Mr. Quinn that, you know, he's interested in either having the property sold to
Mr. Quinn, do some joint venture, so on and so forth. This is an exist, you know, because
this is like a major link that would connect an existing County road with this particular
property. So we would assume [hat at some point in time, if and when this property is
developed, that the County would require like the road to be extended.
But over and beyond that, we have been discussion, we have had discussions with the property
owner at the end of Alahou Street, the closest to Henry Street, and a copy of that letter is
enclosed in that packet that I just passed out, from this fellow by the name of Mr. Len Triano,
who represents the property owner adjacent to the Wham property, which is at this point in
time scheduled for a subdivision and they, too, have expressed an interest not only in this
project but recognized the possibility that if such a road goes through, then it can help, you
know, like provide the good pedestrian and vehicular circulation, you know, aspects sought by
the Kailua Village Design Plan.
So I guess the long and short of it is that, you know, we believe that the project is not only
consistent with the regulatory documents, it'll help achieve some of the objectives sought by
the Kailua Village Design Plan, it provides a beginning for alternative access for the Lono
Kona area, and infrastructure will be made available to the site all at the expense of the
-7-
Applicant and not at taxpayers' expense. So with that, I'm prepared to answer any questions
you may have.
TANAKA: Commissioner Togashi.
TOGASHI: I always look forward to reading your report; it's always very
comprehensive. I do have a question on Page 17, with regard to Page 17, in which you speak
about this, what was it now, this principle of the glomeration of economies. I've heard about
economies of scale, but I wasn't sure about what you meant by that. And I was wondering if
maybe this, I guess it's a theoretical type of principle which apparently enhances
TANAKA: Page 17 of the Background Report?
TOGASHI: Of the Background Report, right. And you speak of this principle. And
I was wondering if, it seems as if Mr. Van Pernis is, has a different opinion with regard to I
guess the impact of this principle, in which he is saying that apparently it could hurt other
businesses within the area rather than enhance the whole business throughout the area. So
could you, I guess, perhaps respond to that?
FUKE: Sure. What this project is intended to do is, you know, although it will
provide some measure of competition with other, you know, commercially zoned azea, it's not
intended to be like the same market. You know, if you look at where Border's, Safeway, you
know, that whole area is, and it's part of like that four major corners, you know, right at the
Palani and the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. And so you have like the beginnings, not only
spatially but from a land use perspective, of major commercial activities occurring right at that
major, you know, in that four corners. And this project is not intended, in any way, to be like
a Liberty House or anything of that nature. It's designed more to be a smaller scale that
enhance, you know, the requested area is less than what, seven acres? Less than eight acres in
size. It'll capture some of the going home traffic, undoubtedly. But because of the road
network system as we see, you know, and by trying to encourage, you know, what we're
trying to do is encourage a lot of foot traffic to this area. This area is already developed.
This property is a church. But this pazticular area below the project, as I indicated earlier,
Mr. Quinn has tentative plans for some residential uses. The properties to the south are also
vacant, and they also represent opportunities for residential activity. And so you try to
create
I just got this last month's issue of this APA thing. It's called like "Real Towns for Real
People." You know, just talking about this so-called urban village type of atmosphere, where
you can have activities that would be a mixture of uses, commercial uses, residential uses, and
not purely segregated uses where all commercial uses would be one area, all residential uses
would be another area, where that has been the traditional way of planning And what
you're trying to do is trying to create cormnunities. And this particular area, through the
-8-
infrastructural improvements, the developer is trying to create this kind of community within
this area.
TOGASHI: This is what you mean by a glomeration of economies, I guess? Is that
what it is? I've heard of
FUKE: I guess in a sense, yeah.
TOGASHI: Yeah.
TANAKA: Commissioners, any other questions? I have a few personal comments
and one concern. Mr. Fuke, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, so I have been in communication with some of the members here in Kona and some of
the leadership here; and being involved with the construction of the Kona Hawaii Temple, I've
been involved with the architect for the church, as well. This temple that is being built will
serve not only the Kona members but also the Hilo Stake members, as well as the Kahului
Stake from Maui. Being intimately involved with the church, I have been meeting with them
about the dedication that we are planning for the temple coming up in January, members from
Hilo, Kona and Maui. And the church, as you know, has one concern, but they basically are
in support of this, this project. And some of the comments that have come back from them is
because we are having people from the Hilo side and the Maui side coming over, they like the
idea of having this, this project adjacent to [he church. It offers the convenience that they
need, especially when we are coming from Hilo or from Maui. Especially if and when the
connector roads do go through, that would make it a lot easier for them to connect up to your
project.
You mentioned the one concern that, the only concern [hat they have was the landscaping
buffer; and the sketches and drawings look good. Would you have any problem if we inserted
in Condition J, we talk about landscaping along the interior subdivision roadway, but to also
include a landscaping buffer along the, your northern boundary?
FUKE: Yes, as a matter of fact, after receipt of the Staff's recommendation, as
well as the proposed conditions and, you know, based on our earlier discussions, my earlier
discussions with Mr. Quinn, I have prepared a, not knowing that the Staff was not going to
have a condition along that line, I have prepared a proposed condition that would address that
particular issue. And if you may, I mean if you wish, I would like to share that with you right
now.
TANAKA: Okay. Go ahead.
FUKE: And basically it would read as follows: "A landscaping plan shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director in conjunction with the plan
-9-
approval process. Said plan shall be developed using the guidelines of the Kailua Village
Master Plan and with the input of adjoining and affected property owners to the north and
south of the subject area. There shall be a minimum six-foot wide landscaping buffer along
the makai or southwestern portion of the rezoned area, as well as in the area adjoining the
northwest and southeast private property lines, and a minimum 15-foot wide landscaping
buffer directly fronting the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway." So what this does is kind of
mandate, you know, a certain requirement for buffers completely around the property.
Secondly, it requires the participation or input of the surround or the affected property
owners prior to submittal to the Planning Director.
TANAKA: Okay. Good. That was the only concern that the membership had.
Other than that, they are in support of the project. Commissioners, any other questions?
GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, would that be in addition to J or take its place?
TANAKA: It sounds like it would take its place. Mr. Fuke, do you have a copy of
that that we could review?
FUKE: Yes.
GIFFIN: So were you proposing that it replace the existing J?
FUKE: Correct. Yes.
TANAKA: Okay. Any further questions, Commissioners? If not, we'll ask you to
step back please. And we have, I think, four people have raised their hands to testify. The
two that have signed up first that we have are Paulette Nims, Mark Van Pernis. And let's see,
we have four chairs up here, so we'll take, I know Councilman Tyler stood up, and Mr.
Oyama. We'll take the four of you first. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to
testify on this agenda item?
NIMS: Can you turn that so I can look at them a little bit. I'm one of your
neighbors in Lono Kona Subdivision, and we are absolutely horrified that there's going to be
more traffic if you put that connector from the highway. I mean
TANAKA: Ma'am? Will you sit down and please address the Cornmission and not
the Applicant or the public. Okay, we'll start off with Ms. Paulette Nims, followed by Mark
Van Pernis, and we'll go to Councilman Tyler, and then Mr. Oyama. You've all been sworn
in. And before you begin your testimony, we are recording all the testimony, so if you would
introduce yourself with your name and address, for the record. Okay. Ms. Nims.
NIMS: Yeah, Ihave
-10-
TANAKA: You need a microphone, sorry.
VAN PERNIS: Sorry.
TANAKA: Speak directly into the microphone since you're being recorded.
NIMS: Okay. My name is Paulette Nims. I live at 75-0192 Alakai Street,
Kailua-Kona 96740. I live in Lono Kona Subdivision.
We are very concerned that there'll be more vehicles in the subdivision if they actually do put
a connector road from the bottom of this development into the subdivision. That means we'll
be a race course for people coming off Mamalahoa Highway, zipping down, taking all those
fascinating turns through the subdivision, to come out by McDonald's. It's, please don't do
this to us. It's so noisy already, just with the vehicular traffic on the highway, and the traffic
in and out of McDonald's. But if we also become a race course, because they can come
through the shopping center next to the church and then zoom, you know, we've had it.
Please don't do that to us.
However, bicycle path, walking path so that a mom could push her stroller through, that
would be great, but not vehicular access. It's just, it would, it would be nightmarishly noisy
and probably dangerous. We have school age kids, no sidewalks, no curbs and gutters, the
streets are narrow. There are constant little fender-benders at all the corners because the
streets are narrow. Please, no more vehicular access. It's a revolting thought.
TANAKA: Ms. Nims, I have a question. So speaking of the project itself, are you
in support of the project and not the traffic that would be caused by the proposed connector
road?
NIMS: If there were foot access like a, you know, big enough to walk through
there so you don't have to walk across the rocks in the vacant lot, it would be great. It would
be very handy. But not vehicular access. We got And also, in the Kailua Town thing
we're talking about more foot traffic areas and less vehicles anyway. Could we start here so
that below the highway we have less cars and more walking? We can't even walk to Lanihau.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: That was, in essence, what I was going to ask. So if I understand you
correctly, you have no opposition to the proposed subdivision, I mean to the proposed project.
It's just that you are opposed to the connection with your subdivision?
NIMS: Please
-11-
GIFFIN: Okay. I got it.
NIMS: Please, no more vehicles.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Van Pernis.
VAN PERNIS: Yes, I'm Mark Van Pernis. My address is P. O. Box 2156, Kailua-
Kona, Hawaii. I have been a resident of Kona for 25 years. I am a practicing attorney.
I have personally developed commercial property and residential property in Kona and have
represented many people who have developed commercial and residential property in Kona.
I'm strongly opposed to this project; it's not well thought out. I don't think you folks have
done your job until you have spent some time walking this site. It's been anice I do
business with Mr. Fuke, so nothing personal said; but this has been a nice attempt to put a
veneer on a project that really is hopeless.
There is, in my opinion, no reasonable prospect for any financial success for this project.
There's no need for it. For instance, KTA is leaving. You have huge amounts of residential
or of commercial property here, commercial property all over here, and south of here, that's
not even on the map, which is unused plus many vacancies in Kona. When we developed our
Hualalai Center commercial project, we presented you with about 15 letters of intent; none of
them ended up as tenants. When we developed, just more recently, our Kealohikai residential
subdivision, we presented you with reservations; none of those folks ended up buying. We
had other buyers and other tenants, but it took longer and at different prices. So I don't think
you should be snowed by the fact that they have some non-binding letters of interest or letters
of intent. I don't think any bank would reasonably pick this particular site out on the fringe
beyond the realm of the commercial core of Kona. It would be like some bank saying they're
going to pick a spot next to Lyman Museum in Hilo; you're out on the fringe.
But here's why I am most strongly opposed. By the way, let me also point out here that the
commercial property, some of which I own and have my office in, that was pointed out by
Staff, at makai of the project, where are we here, is, for instance, over here, is totally
oriented, oriented this way. There is no commercial activity oriented on this highway. The
only commercial activity on this highway is south of this. They refer to the Pines Plaza,
which is a small commercial square within a large residential subdivision intended to service
that subdivision only. I would also point out that that subdivision, or that commercial project
is half empty and a financial failure, at this time anyway it is half empty.
The problem we have, as pointed out, is these roads are all very old, 30-40 years old,
substandard, no, no sidewalks, no, no shoulders, substandard in width, and a densely
populated, very densely populated area we call Hamburger Hill. The concept of running
traffic down through here, down to Kuakini where there's a light, or over to Henry Street, I
-12-
personally find not only offensive but dangerous and potentially creating liability for the
County if it's going to channel commercial traffic through this street, which was never
intended to be a through street. There needs to be substantial improvements to making this a
County standard road before that's the case.
I also point out that water and sewer for this project is on the mauka side of Queen K, not
close. They'll have to cut the highway, there'll be a huge expense in that regard.
Also of great concern, no[ shown on this map, not shown on this map, is the reality of Henry
Street. Henry Street comes up here and there is then a, a accelerator lane I guess you would
call, an accelerator lane. Already the amount of traffic on that road has people going onto the
shoulder, and in addition to this accelerator lane, because Queen K basically comes down to
two lanes right at this project. So what you're doing is you are taking this accelerator lane,
accelerating people and then suddenly putting another, some other kind of traffic in here. This
is deceptive. This is, basically, this is all slated to be four lanes. What you're going to be
doing is shooting people from the accelerator lane into Henry Street, and then at the same
time, trying to get people on a deceleration lane into this project. What you need to do is have
the developer four-lane, which is what is intended here, four-lane this road, and then build a
stacking and acceleration and deceleration lanes. This is not, I don't think you've adequately
considered that, gone up to the site and seen how literally, just as people are merging, they're
going to have to come off here.
As I pointed out, I think the project does not have any reasonable prospect for financial
success, and that's based on my 25 years in the local economy, with all due respect to
Mr. Quinn from Maui. The, thus we have to assume that for this project to succeed, if it's
going to be a loss leader with few or no tenants, and so he's basically going to be looking at
the residential development and the infrastructure that goes with that. So I think this project
now should be looked at as an entirety, not as an increment. Basically, you're going to be
creating this road for the purpose of serving this residential area; and I think if you're going to
run it down through here, you have to address the fact that you have all this substandard
infrastructure.
I don't think this, the increase in traffic here is going to be from the people who live in this
residential area eventually or shop at this area. This is going to become a through street like
Henry Street for [he public generally. So as soon as it's there, it's going to be intensely used.
It's not going to be burdened by the people adjoining it. It's going to be people like me and
everybody else who lives elsewhere who are looking to get up and go south some way more
convenient than Henry Street and for people coming down Henry Street looking to get into the
commercial areas down here. With all due respect to Mr. Fuke, this orientates towazds the
highway. All of the commercial activity he has referred to orientates to Kailua Village area
down here. We have huge amounts of unused, undeveloped, already Commercial zoned
property. If there was a need for City Bank or some of these other folks you may have letters
-13-
from to find a place, they, there, they have places in the core all over the place. And I would
venture to say that any developer can get letters of intent from these kinds of folks at this time.
If the developer is going to have to four-lane this area, build acceleration and deceleration
lanes, bring the sewer and water over and cut the highway to do so, plus build this road and
put all the infrastructure needed in these substandard roads to make them safe, there's just no
way this small project can support that. All of the Henry Street area, developed by
Mr. DeLuz and Mr. Richards and Maryl Development, was necessary to support the Henry
Street infrastructure, and you need similar infrastructure in this respect.
I would certainly ask you to defer this matter until you go walk the area and drive the area,
not only come off the highway here but check the acceleration and deceleration lanes, come up
through here. This is some of the worst, my commercial building is right over here. This is
some of the worst roads in Kona in terms of their being outdated and lack of infrastructure.
There's no place to walk on these roads, no place at all, not even a paved shoulder. And, as I
said, they're substandard in terms of width.
This is a fringe area. The commercial area is from here, the new commercial area is here and
south of here. Every This is basically an attempt, I think, to extend the commercial area,
which makes no sense when there is no need and vast amounts of other areas, and areas in
Kailua town, Henry Street, south, south, or north of Henry Street, huge amounts of
commercial area that are available, and your Staff can confirm that, and we're talking about
vacant space. Lanihau has shrunk up. There's two or three increments that Lanihau hasn't
built. I just don't see the need here, and I think Mr. Quinn would be wise not to waste his
money on this project. I think he should convert it all to residential by extending things, by
improving and extending these roads not coming off of Queen K, which leaves a huge and
unrealistic infrastructure expense for him, and just basically develop the entire area with
residential. He could make money doing that; he can only lose money if this, this other way.
I think I've covered most of what I want to say here, but particularly I want to emphasize two
things, go to the project, go to the area, go to the area from here to here, not just up here. Go
down here. Look at the other commercial area. You are not doing your job serving the public
if you don't do that. I know some of you are from Kona, but most are not. This is not
something you can figure out by looking at paper. This is somewhat deceptive, not
intentionally. But without actually being on the site
Lastly, with all due respect to you, Mr. Tanaka, it appears that you are representing the
church, or speaking the church's point of view on this project, and I think that under the
circumstances that the public needs to be represented rather than the church, and I would just
suggest you review that and the guides for a possible conflict of interest.
-14-
TANAKA: Thank you. I did mention when I started my comments that I have a
personal comment, so it is a personal comment that I offered. Thank you. Councilman Tyler.
TYLER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go after everyone else, members of the public
have spoken. Thank you.
TANAKA: Okay. Mr. Oyama, name and address for the record, please.
OYAMA: Hi, good morning, my name is Brad Oyama. My address is
74-4987 Mamalahoa Highway.
I'm an employee of E. M. Rivera & Sons, and I have a letter from Mr. Hiram Rivera that I'd
like to read to you.
TANAKA: Go ahead.
OYAMA: Okay.
Dear Mr. Tanaka:
I am a small contractor who has operated in the Kona area for over 21 years. Although I do
not live in the project, I have some friends and employees who do and are in strong support of
this project.
In talking with them, they have told me that the planned road connecting the project and the
Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway with their subdivision will help with the overall traffic
circulation in the area. Right now, there is a bottleneck at Kalani Street, which is the only
road in and out of the subdivision. This becomes a problem, especially in an emergency.
The location of the project is within walking distance of the Subdivision. Therefore, it will be
very convenient for many of the residents of the area. This is why they are supportive of this
project.
As a contractor, I, too, would like to lend my support for the projects of this nature.
Although we see signs of economic activity, we are still far out of the woods. This project
will help with the overall construction industry. There will be extensive sitework needed for
the road, drainage, sewer and water system. Other contractors will also be needed such as
those in the building, electrical, and other trades.
As one who has live in Kona all my life, I welcome this project and ask for your support.
Thank you, Hiram Rivera.
-15-
TANAKA: Mr. Oyama, did you mention that he has some employees that live in the
subdivision? Is that what you mentioned in the letter?
OYAMA: Yes, that's what it says.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. If not,
Councilman Tyler.
TYLER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My
name is Curtis Tyler, Council Member for District 8, in which this project is located. My
address is Hawaii County Council. Just, I'm also a resident of Kalaoa and lifelong resident of
Kona, as you know.
I've had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Fuke on two occasions, at his request, regarding this
proposal, and I have discussed with him on both of those occasions the concerns that have
been mentioned by some of the residents who've come forward and also by Mr. Van Pernis. I
have been working with the Plarming Department and with Mr. Fuke, who is also the
consultant for Wham to facilitate a roadway connection with Alahou Street so the people in
Lono Kona will have a secondary way of getting in and out.
TANAKA: Explain to us, what is Wham?
TYLER: That's the property that Mr. Fuke referred to. It is a rectangular piece
of property directly south of and adjacent to Henry Street.
TANAKA: Okay.
TYLER: And it is between Henry Street and Lono Kona Subdivision.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you.
TYLER: And if you go up and down Henry Street, you will notice two possible
roadway connectors into Lono Kona, one lining up with Lamaokeola Street, which would
necessitate the taking of at least two homes. And, unfortunately, the lights were put there
instead of down at the second one, which has a much more appropriate connection inasmuch
as it's not straight across, it's a slight curve around an archaeological area which would make
it much safer and slower speed for [he kinds of concerns the residents have expressed.
Nevertheless, I wanted, I wanted to make a few comments regarding the conditions of
approval. I think the key issue here, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, and one
that I stated to Mr. Fuke on both occasions is that which Mr. Van Pernis has expressed with
respect to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. And I realize that the ability of the project to
-16-
connect to that, to that highway and any improvements thereto are really not your, under your
jurisdiction because they are under the Department of Transportation Highways Division.
However, I think that you should go down there and take a look at it so you can understand
exactly what Mr. Van Pernis is saying. And I think it is a major concern that we should all
consider because we all use that roadway at some point.
And my own thoughts are that the, and I've spoken to the Highways people about this, it has
nothing to do with this project, is that the four lanes are ending in very close proximity to this
project. And what it will mean is here we have people accelerating and you have a funnel,
into a funnel. It's inherently flawed, and this is not a reflection whatsoever on this project.
It's just that if there's a further signalization here, which would seem to be required, that this
would, this very, this needs to be examined very carefully. I don't know whether that would
necessitate some kind of heads up from the Highways Division first saying yeah, we'll permit
this, no, it's impossible. I don't know but I Since this is obviously going to come to
Hawaii County Council, this is something that is of great concern to me since I'll, of course,
be making a decision as well, as being the representative for the district. So it wasn't my
intent here to come and say yea or nay, but merely to point out some things which I think are
extremely important and need to be considered.
I think it's also very important the Applicant has, excuse me, the Applicant's representative
has indicated that all infrastructure connections will be paid for, whether they be water, sewer,
highway, etcetera, will be paid for by the Applicant. I believe that there should be some,
some kind of condition in here should you move this forwazd that specifically addresses that,
because it doesn't say that. It just says it will meet with it or whatever. I think it's very, it's
very important that if this project is given the green light, in whatever form it might be given
the green light, that the, that the taxpayers do not have a burden to make these improvements
themselves. And so I would urge you, and I would urge the Planning Department to assist in
putting some kind of condition there before, should you send it forward with a favorable
reconunendation.
Mr. Fuke has represented to me and others that there is a legal access here from DOT, and I
don't know, I have not been able to ascertain that. And I'm not saying there isn't, I just think
it's very important that you have this information up front from DOT so you know.
The question of internal roadway connections present and future, present being in this
proposed cotrunercial area and, subsequently, future down through a possible residential azea
in the remainder of the property, and through another property either to connect with
Lamaokeola or Alahou Street is, is something that Mr. Fuke and I have discussed on a number
of occasions to afford improvement of the infrastructure in that area. However, I think that
this is, this must be very carefully considered by this body and, of course, the Hawaii County
Council because of the concerns that some of the residents have expressed here today
-17-
regarding the possibility of further negative impact as opposed to, as opposed to opportunities
for them to have a second way out. So I would ask you to please, very carefully consider this.
Mr. Van Pernis brought up the subject of, he didn't specifically refer to it as such, but I
believe he was alluding to possible segmentation of this project. And it's a question I had for
Mr. Fuke. I think what we see here is that there's a proposed commercial and then possibly,
possibly a single family or multi-family residential. And I'm not an attorney so I can't
comment on whether this is segmentation or not, but I would urge you to be very careful about
this because of previous decisions by the Supreme Court. And I think we all, we have too
many conflicts going on today; and if we can take some action to avoid a future conflict, we
should, we should do so.
With respect to Condition J and the proposed language that Mr. Fuke has brought forward this
morning, I think it's important, and I made these notes prior to hearing his proposal, but I
think it's very important that there be buffers, if this project moves forward, that there be
planting buffers on all four sides of this project. There's arepresent you have architectural,
call it representations, here regarding what this project might look like. I told Mr. Fuke when
he showed it to me a couple weeks ago that I wanted copies for my office so I could put them
up there and be sure that if this project comes to fruition that it's going to look like this,
because I think we've seen these kind of things before. I just want to be sure that if it goes
forward that it is sensitive to the nature of the Kailua Village area which the residents feel
very, very strongly about. Whether it's by resolution or ordinance, many, many people spent
many thousands of person hours on this.
So I would ask you that the planting buffers be, Mr. Fuke suggested six feet. I would submit
to you that six feet is too small and should be at least a minimum of 10 feet; and certainly in
the area of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway should this, should the DOT approve channelized
intersections, etcetera, being a minimum of 20 feet, and possibly quite a bit more. I would
ask you to go around and look at some of the other ones, because I think 15 feet, just from
trees, it's way too small. It won't work.
I also spoke with Mr. Fuke, as well as the Planning Director, as well as some of my
legislative staff, regarding the protection of the ahupua`a boundary walls on this, in this
County. They are not only very historic, but they're very important markers for the present
and future generations. If you look at, as I know you have, our tax maps and other maps,
these are very, very important walls. The one to the north happens to be the ahupua`a, on the
northern boundary of this property south of the, and the southern boundary of the Mormon
Church where the temple is is the boundary between Keopu and Honuaula; that's a very, very
important wall. So I would ask that there be something in here that would ensure that the
wall's integrity is protected and, if possible, further enhanced. I think, I have asked the
legislative staff, after speaking with the Planning Director, to put together some possible
amendments to our Hawaii County Code to ensure that these kinds of things would be part of
-18-
our law for the future. So I wanted to mention that. And I believe, Mr. Chairman, that
covers the key points I wanted to make here this morning. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioner Giffin.
GIFFIN: Councilman Tyler, your comments were really well taken, and your,
you know, concerns are really well taken.
TYLER: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Having stated all that and if these conditions were all included in this
proposal when this proposal comes, and if it should pass here, when it should come to the City
Council, how would you vote on this?
TYLER: Well, I'm not going to answer that question, and the reason I'm not is
because I understand that a Planning Commissioner on Maui got into a lot of problems when
he came before the Hawaii, before the Maui County Council and stated his opposition to a
project and subsequently, or in a public hearing, I guess i[ was, not the Council, and
subsequently voted on it. I am going to reserve my final decision, obviously, until the second
reading. But as the Vice Chair of Planning, I certainly will bring these forward should they
not be incorporated here.
I'd like to hear from the residents of Lono Kona. Also, my sister and I also happen to own
property on Ala Onaona Street, which is directly perpendicular to and adjacent to Alahou
Street. And I have heard, we've certainly heard from a resident, we've heard for a
representative of some residents they have different points of view. I've spoken with another
resident who initially was quite, who lives further up in the subdivision, who was quite
concerned about this. And I think the issue here that's biggest on my mind is one of public
health and safety. I spoke with Mr. Fuke, to be quite candid, I spoke with Mr. Fuke about a
possible roadway connection because I'm very concerned about a possibility of a fire in that
area and the fact that the residents really live in a giant cul-de-sac that doesn't even look like a
cul-de-sac. And there's further and further pressure on Kalani Street and no relief whatsoever,
even though this body and the Hawaii County Council has, in the past, indicated that they
want adjacent property owners to give land for possible roadway connections. I think what's
really important here is that we reflect on what the Kailua Village Master Plan says for this
area, what the possible roadway connections are, and should there be further roadway
connections, whether they be with Hualalai Road, Henry Street, which I hope will happen
soon, at least in a very, not a freeway type road but consistent with the existing road so the
residents can
GIFFIN: Yeah.
-19-
TYLER: Can access Henry Street. You know, if you go over there and check it,
you'll see all these well-worn trails. And soon the property owner is going to have to put up a
fence
GIFFIN: Right.
TYLER: Around these burials and this large archaeological preserve. And it
seems a natural situation in conjunction with a proposal that's, I understand, before the
Planning Department, to coordinate these efforts so that they will have a second access, not
one that is going to be a speedway but one that is going to enhance public health and safety.
Depending on what kind of connection will be required by the Department of Public Works
should this property move forward, what kind of connection would be required if one is
ultimately approved with Alahou or Lama Lamaokeola, both of which are stub-outs, if you
look at the map, I think is very important. And the residents must be involved in this kind of
decision making because we wouldn't want a 60-foot roadway coming into one that's only
eight feet, as Mr. Van Pernis pointed out.
So I'm really not certain how I'm going to vote on this, but I think it's very clear that the
property between Henry Street and Hualalai Road is going to be developed. The question is,
will it be a coordinated effort? Will it be, or will it be segmented, and will we, you know,
will we be looking at a very narrow viewpoint? And I'm sorry for the long answer but it's,
this is a big, big consideration, and I hope that you will go out there, whether you go as a
group to make a site visit or go individually just to drive through there, get a flavor for it,
because it is a real problem. Thank you so much.
TANAKA: Thank you, Councilman. Any further questions? Thank you for being
here. We also would like to recognize Councilwoman Pissichio who is out here in the
audience, too. Okay, if you would step back, we have another person who has signed up to
testify. Kaliko Chun, you may come forward. Is there anyone else in the public that would
like to testify? Okay, you may come forward. Okay, is there anyone else? Okay, if I could
swear you both in, please, if you would raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: Yes.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Please give us your name and address for the
record, and you may begin your testimony, starting with Ms. Chun.
CHUN: I am Kaliko Chun. I'm a resident of Kona. I am representing my aunt,
Amelia Burgess, who is a resident of Lono Kona Subdivision. She resides on Lamaokeola
Street, just off Kalani, so she's involved in the center of the discussion.
-20-
Let me preface by saying I got here late so I did not hear the presentation; it was concluding
just as I arrived, and the displays here and, that and the discussion on the board I did not hear.
So my remarks, which are reflected from her remarks, are just on our preliminary information
which is quite some time ago.
First of all, she would not be at all in favor of a connector street to Ka`ahumanu or leading up
to that area. My aunt was the first resident of the subdivision, and has sat there and watched
as it went from a residential area to practically a nightmare. By necessity, I guess, because of
the needs of Kailua or what people wanted to do, and everything has been like achuck-a-block
change as they moved up from the first section, which was commercial, where McDonald's is,
and then the second section, which is duplex, and then the third, which was just single family
residence, and then now it is quite changed.
And she, herself, she had a large lot, let me just give you this background, and had to sell part
of it in order to provide some financial means for family members, and they are doing
duplexes. So she understands what's happening and what's had to go on and what one has to
do. At the same time, being a family that has a kuleana and other concerns in Kailua, which is
why we're in Kailua, and wishing and knowing of the need and necessity to be responsible
about i[, and also, you know, taking, I mean, we've been forced into stake-your-time sort of
mode; and we know how everyone is concerned that it needs to be done in concert with the
plan for Kailua-Kona. And this doesn't sound, from what I heard today, as if that has been
taken into consideration. A lot more would need to be thought out; and several thoughtful
members of the prior group mentioned all of those concerns, not the least of which is to walk
the area.
She would not be in favor of a breach of any wall, especially the Kuakini Wall and, of course,
in favor of the conservation and preservation of the walls of Kona, which Mr., which Curt
Tyler mentioned. In the Kailua Village Plan, in the very first plan, I was a member of the
original group of the Kailua Village District Commission, and worked very hard in the
ordinance that set up that Commission, I and my family, because of our concern about the
village. So we are very much involved in the planning and what happens in the village. It is
noted that the walls are a signature of Kona. So to just think that a wall is a wall is a wall, we
can break it, we can fix it, is not acceptable because that wall was built by someone else. It
may have, you know, be in disrepair and you can repair certain areas, bu[ it's not something
you just think, eh, I can break it, I can fix it. That's not what Kona is about, and we're
certainly concerned about all of the walls.
Basically, she would not be in favor of this right now. I mean, she'd learn to live with it like
everyone else does, but she'd rather know that something else better thought out with the
village was going to happen. And since we all, as Mr. Tyler said, know that this area is
eventually going to get developed, we'd just like to see a lot more thought and planning go
-21-
with it. So I cannot say she's in favor of it today. I cannot say that she's not in favor, and
she's very reluctant. That's her feeling. Thank you.
TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
VOSSEN: My name is Rolf Vossen. I'm owner/broker of the Commercial Group.
My address is 78-6803 Kuhinanui Place in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.
Mr. Quinn asked me to give some information, some background on what's happening in the
commercial real estate area in Kona, and I actually wrote two letters to him last month to give
him some background information. And maybe it's helpful to the Commissioners, too, to
know what's going on at this moment. If you don't mind, I'm just reading it to you.
The first letter dated September 13 says:
Roger, a lot has happened since we met in the middle of last year and you told me about the
property you want to develop in Kona. Since then we are experiencing a much appreciated
increase in economic activities in West Hawaii, but especially in the Kona area. What
everybody expected Kona has become the /f 1 growth area in the State of Hawaii.
Now we are a year later and Kona has changed. Not only do we have more people, more
cars, more homes being built, vacancies in commercial buildings have dropped to the lowest
level since the Gulf War. Having been involved exclusively and full time in commercial real
estate for 20 years, of which 9 years in Kona, I am very familiar with the Kona commercial
market.
Since the beginning of this year we have seen a steady increase in occupancy in all of the
commercial properties we manage. Currently our average occupancy is 95.2%. After several
years of very little activity we suddenly have more prospective tenants looking for space than
there are vacancies. These are existing tenants looking to expand, new businesses interested in
opening a Kona location or people looking to start a business here. Currently we have
requests for the following: computer class facility, showroom with small yard, laboratory,
automotive showroom, furniture showroom, pet grooming, legal office, securities office etc.
The key to making your development successful, since you already have the right location, is
having the right mix of tenants. Affordable rents, sufficient parking, and complying with
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) are the next more important issues. Having easy
access off Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and located just far enough outside town will
definitely attract tenants and their customers.
_22_
After the Design Cotmittee meeting, he asked me to give an update on the situation and on
some of the comments he got from some of the opponents. So I wrote another little letter and
it says:
When you showed me the renderings of the commercial development you are planning in Kona
I was presently surprised. Finally a neighborhood shopping center with all the Hawaiian
flavors with which Big Island residents find on other islands but not on their own.
I can envision parents and children walking from store to store, having fun and not needing a
car to drive from one store to the next as in most Kona centers. Room for bikes with bike
racks in front of the stores and bike paths connected to the paths in the surrounding residential
areas. Kona residents will be an excited as the Design Committee, who unanimously voted in
favor. It shows that the style of the development is in line with how Kailua-Kona's future look
is envisioned.
During the last 12 months so much residential construction has started to the North as well as
to the South of Kona that there is a need for smaller centers. Your development will attract a
different kind of tenants and the many customers tired of big box stores. Also tourists,
looking for something else than they can find at home, will love your Hawaiian style center.
After waiting for 6 or 7 years Kona is suddenly waking up. What everybody expected for a
long time: Kona has become the #1 growth area in the State of Hawaii. Contractors are busy,
plumbers and electricians are booked for months, "employee wanted" ads are filling West
Hawaii today. Having been involved exclusively in commercial real estate for 20 years, I
have a good feel for what is currently happening here. Average occupancy in the commercial
properties, etc., repeat, is 95%. I have written more than 50 leases and lease extensions since
the beginning of this year and do not have enough space to fill all requests.
Undoubtedly you will get opposition of the few who want to turn the clock back and make
Kona a fishing village again. Are they suggesting to control Kona's growth by refusing people
to move here? Are they trying to limit the number of cars here, so no new roads have to be
built and stop lights erected? They are most probably also the people who complained in the
past that for shopping you had to go to Honolulu. I would like to inform them that there are
still areas on the Big Island where they can live this life style.
That was it.
TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
CHUN: If I just
TANAKA: Ms. Chun.
-23-
CHUN: May, I am concerned also about what might appear to be segmentation
of this property and if there is any indication as to whether or not the developer has a lease
or I imagine it's a lease, on the entire property. Does he himself, or just on this section?
TANAKA: Director.
GOLDSTEIN: I believe the Background Report said that he has a lease on the entire
property.
TANAKA: Okay. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to testify? If
not, we'll ask the Applicant to come forward or its representative.
FUKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TANAKA: Mr. Fuke, go ahead.
FUKE: To respond to some of the comments made, I think a lot of these
comments were very well thought out and we appreciate their comments. And I think, to a
large extent, you know, these are the kind of, kinds of comments that led to the preparation of
the appli you know, like preparation of the application as well as the design of it.
Very quickly, and in terms of the financing aspect, it's not my money. I mean, you know, it's
really Mr. Quinn's money; and it's between, it's a decision that he and his lender, the banks,
would have to make a decision on. So its success or non-success, it's something that I cannot
really address.
There are a lot of other comments or concerns raised, you know, relative to the use of the
property, the infrastructure, the design, so on and so forth, and I'd like to kind of note that
one of the things that we did was pay particular attention to the Kailua Village Design Plan,
you know, which Kaliko had mentioned earlier. And we did make the similar presentation to
the Kailua Village District Design Commission, who basically is responsible to look at the
plan and make a recommendation, you know, to the Commission. And I would like to note
that the Commissioners unanimously voted for the project, you know, afrer our presentation, I
guess with the belief that the project, as proposed, would fulfill the general principles and
objectives outlined in the Design Plan.
Relative to the issue of the traffic, I do have a map that shows clearly that this property has a
legal access from the main highway and that this is needed; and I can leave that with the
Commission Staff as part of evidence. I'd like to have it back; it's my only copy.
(SEE ATTACHMENT I)
-24-
Secondly, I think, you know, I understand also what Councilman Tyler and Mr. Van Pernis
expressed in terms of, you know, the four lanes converging into two or three, you know,
abruptly, so on and so forth, you know, given the proximity. What it is is like as your Staff's
condition notes on Condition No. D, it requires the Applicant to prepare like a traffic impact
study and a specific design study that has to be worked out and approved by the State
Department of Transportation before anything can proceed. We know that there's a lot of
things that has to be done. The State may come back and require that the acceleration lane be
extended, or the deceleration lane, rather, be extended all the way down to where the existing
merging, merge occurs right now. And if that's the case, then that is something that Mr.
Quinn would have to comply with; and if he cannot, [hen the project would probably have to
be aborted. But this is something that he's willing to live with.
Likewise, on the issue of street lights, traffic lights rather, Mr. Quinn is prepared to install the
traffic light. And he would hope that the State, after reviewing the, a more detailed traffic
study, would conclude that a traffic, a traffic signal lights in that area would probably, you
know, would be appropriate.
On the issue of the landscaping, Mr. Quinn has no objection to amending the condition that I
had suggested earlier, and that is like from the main highway to change it from a minimum of
15 feet[o a 20-foot wide landscaping buffer.
Relative to the side of the six-foot wide buffer, on that, we would like to kind of reserve
judgment on that and probably would request that the Commission, if they favorably consider
that condition, to just leave i[ as such, largely because we want to still be in a position to work
with the respective property owners in coming forth with a mitigation, landscaping mitigation
plan, because bearing in mind that the plan still has to be approved by the Planning Director.
One of the things that we were looking at is that along the north side, if you can see like, you
know, the property kind of like jogs in this way. Actually, the State Highway's right-of--way
is not a straight line and it's actually, there's like a jog over here. So what Mr. Quinn would
like to do is kind of work together with the State Highway and probably landscape this
particular area, you know, further and so that may further kind of provide the added mitigation
[hat may be needed without further mandating a minimum six-foot wide landscape buffer along
the perimeter. But relative to the front portion along the main highway, inasmuch as that is,
you know, the heavy traveled point, you know, by the immediate and broader community, Mr.
Quinn would have no objection to making that amendment.
There was also the question about the walls on the property. As the Staff had indicated, the,
excuse me, or maybe The Kuakini Wall is located at the end of the property, not at the end
of the proposed rezoned area. If the roadway, as we were kind of like suggesting, go through,
then it will necessitate a breach. But I think the overall roadway question is something that
it's not for us to answer but it's something probably ultimately that the County Council would
have to decide if and when they want to have a roadway or don't want to have the roadway.
-25-
We were suggesting that the roadway be there, and we've had extensive discussions with
affected property owners, you know, who could make this a reality, largely because we
thought from our perspective that it would be fulfilling the objectives of the Kailua Plan and
provide for better circulation in that area. If, in the wisdom of the County Council that they
decide that the roadway, you know, for their own reasons, is not necessary, then from
Mr. Quinn's project standpoint, it's not a necessity. But that's something that the County
Council would have to decide upon.
I notice that there is a condition that the Staff has proposed, which is Condition No. E, which
required that the roadway be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks, you know; and so it
will be built to County dedicabee standard. So at some point in time in the future, if the
County Council, in its wisdom, chooses to require that that portion be dedicated or not
dedicated, or if they wan[ to have it dedicated so that it can make a connection a reality, well,
that could be done. But if they don't want to have the road dedicated, it will be kept in
private.
So we can understand what some of the concerns that have been raised about a possible road
connection and, as I mentioned earlier, it's a concept that we've tossed out. We think it would
be a good idea for providing overall circulation within that Lono Kona and the general area;
but, again, if, it's a decision that has to be made by the County Council.
I would like to also note that Mr. Quinn, finally on the issue of the access question, is more
than willing to provide full pedestrian access, you know, not only from within his property to
adjoining properties, but also to the area that's not being proposed for development right now.
But you have to understand that even if that happens that, you know, it'll go down to other
private properties and not to public roadway, because there are intervening parcels. As I
mentioned earlier, like there's this Lamaokeola Street, there is this intervening parcel so he
can put it down to over here. But if the respective property owner doesn't consent to allowing
the broader community to get access, then it'll be like an illegal access basically. But, you
know, he's willing to do that. And so to make the pedestrian access, as well as the vehicular
access concept work, it requires the participation of all of the affected property owners, and
this is only one component of it. So with that, I'll be more than happy to answer other
questions.
TANAKA: Commissioner Togashi.
TOGASHI: This question is not so much at the Applicant but maybe Director
Goldstein can help me. You know, the Councilman Tyler mentioned about these ahupua`a
borders or walls, yeah. What kind of position has the Historic Preservation Division taken
with respect to maybe destruction of these walls or breaching of these walls?
-26-
GOLDSTEIN: I don't believe that they've taken any position on the walls, those
ahupua`a walls in general. They may have, they may have made some recommendations on
specific ones, but in general no.
TOGASHI: I see.
GOLDSTEIN: The walls are, in a sense, a marker that has been there from previous to
contact, of course, and have some historical merit.
TOGASHI: So, you know, this modified condition where we would, with respect to
the historical preservation of these archaeologic I guess you wanted an inventory study be
done.
GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
TOGA5HI: This would not pertain to the ahupua`a walls then?
GOLD5TEIN: Well, no, I was going to suggest that maybe an amendment to that in
that the archaeological survey that would be done and submitted to the Historic Preservation
Office for review should include some consideration or some description at least of the
ahupua`a walls so that the Historic Preservation Office can evaluate its merit.
TOGASHI: Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much.
TANAKA: Mr. Fuke?
FUKE: Yeah.
TANAKA: Do you have a comment?
FUKE: On that particular issue, Commissioner, excuse me, Councilman Tyler
did raise that issue with me earlier, and I did discuss it with Mr. Quinn. And Mr. Quinn is
fully prepared to retain those walls on the perimeter, you know, the north and south perimeter
boundaries of the property and actually integrate that feature as part of its landscaping because
he thinks that that's a really great feature to have.
TANAKA: Okay.
FUKE: But the Director's points are well taken and, you know, it will be
considered as part of the archaeological report.
-27-
TANAKA: Mr. Fuke, I had a question. Councilman Tyler brought up the concern
about making sure that the taxpayers are not burdened with the cost of these improvements,
and I know I saw a letter somewhere in the Background Report. But for the record, will you
confirm that, that the improvements will be paid for by the Applicant?
FUKE: I would imagine that it's almost like standard that, you know, if the
water line would have to be extended to the subject development prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit, the water line would have to be constructed by the Applicant and at no cost
to the Water Department; and Mr. Ahuna is here, he probably could confirm that. At the
same time, the sewer line, you know, is generally in the same area. So Mr. Quinn's plan right
now calls for the extension, the concurrent extension of both the water and the sewer line.
Relative to the, any intersectional improvements along the main highway, the Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway, that really would be the responsibility, the sole responsibility of
Mr. Quinn and any other participating private entity.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Is there
anyone else in the public that would like to testify? If not, Commissioner Baker.
BAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a favorable recommendation
for the SLU 99-9 be forwarded to the County Council.
GIFFIN: I second.
TANAKA: Okay. We have amotion Director Goldstein.
GOLDSTEIN: May I ask if it's, if we can maybe amend that one condition, the new
condition that we introduced, the new L.
HARLOW: The new L.
GOLDSTEIN: Could you read that to me so at least we can
TANAKA: Okay. Why don't we, can we take care of the
HARLOW: Can we do that
TANAKA: SLU first?
GIANNINI: SLU.
GOLDSTEIN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
-28-
HARLOW: Under the Change of Zone?
TANAKA: Okay.
GOLDSTEIN: I am sorry.
BAKER: Yeah, we
TANAKA: Okay. We'll get this one out of the way first
BAKER: Yeah.
TANAKA: And then the
BAKER: That's what Iwas
TANAKA: Chair would probably entertain a recess to go over the changes for the
change of zone conditions. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Baker, a second by
Commissioner Giffin, to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for Roger A.
Quinn, State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application SLU 99-9, for the reasons as stated.
Any discussions? Roll call.
HARLOW: Commissioner Baker?
BAKER: Aye.
HARLOW: Commissioner Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
HARLOW: Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Aye.
HARLOW: Commissioner Tanaka?
TANAKA: Aye.
HARLOW: I mean, excuse me, Togashi, I'm sorry.
TOGASHI: Aye.
-29-
HARLOW: And Chairman Tanaka?
TANAKA: Aye.
HARLOW: Thank you. Excuse me.
TANAKA: Okay.
HARLOW: Chairman
TANAKA: Commissioner
HARLOW: There are five ayes.
TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioner Baker.
BAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a favorable recommendation
for Change of Zone REZ 99-19 that would be forwarded to the County Council with the
changes that have been made to the conditions, that we need to restate. I believe L and also
TOGASHI: J.
BAKER: Change the lettering that has taken place with L, and also some change
in J which would allow to the 20-foot wide and also the height.
TANAKA: Okay.
GIFFIN: I second.
TANAKA: We have a motion by Commissioner Baker and a second by
Commissioner Giffin that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, Roger
A. Quinn, Change of Zone Application REZ 99-19, for the reasons and with the conditions as
stated and with the amendments to Conditions, new Condition J as proposed by the Applicant,
and a new Condition L regarding the archaeological inventory survey as proposed by the
Director. There are a lot of, these are substantial revisions. Would you need a recess to go
over them?
GIFFIN: I think so.
TANAKA: Commissioner Baker?
GIFFIN: To get the right wording, yeah.
-30-
TANAKA: Okay.
BAKER: I would like to have a recess so that we have time to put those things in
the proper perspective.
GIFFIN: I second.
TANAKA: Okay. Moved and seconded that we take afive-minute recess to review
the wording of these new conditions. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
TANAKA: Any opposed? Okay. We'll recess for five minutes.
RECESSED The Chairman called a short recess at 11:15 a.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:31 a.m.
TANAKA: We have a motion and a second to send a favorable recommendation,
and we have some amendments to the conditions. And rather than have the maker of the
motion and myself repeat those, we'll have Staff read it into the record.
HARLOW: Thank you, Chairman Tanaka. The new Condition J shall read, "A
landscaping plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Director in
conjunction with the plan approval process. Said plan shall be developed using the guidelines
of the Kailua Village Master Plan and with the input of adjoining and affected owners to the
north and south of the subject area. There shall be a minimum six-feet wide landscaping
buffer along the makai or southwestern portion of the rezoned area, as well as in the area
adjoining the northwest and southeast private property lines, and a minimum 20-foot wide
landscaping buffer directly fronting the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway."
A new Condition L shall be inserted and remaining conditions will be re-lettered to reflect
that. Condition L shall read, "An archaeological inventory survey, which shall include
considerations for the ahupua`a walls, shall be completed by the Applicant and submitted to
the Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division for review
and acceptance prior to any land alteration activities."
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Giffin, is that your motion,
and second to include those conditions, as stated?
GIFFIN: Yes, I just have a question.
-31-
TANAKA: Sure.
GIFFIN: I know that ahupua`a walls run along the perimeter, right. Are we going
to have any recognition in terms of the Kuakini Wall, in terms of where they would break it
and that kind of thing or
GOLDSTEIN: At this point, the Kuakini Wall is outside the project area, so
GIFFIN: Not our kuleana.
GOLDSTEIN: Yeah.
GIFFIN: Okay. Thank you.
GOLDSTEIN: In general, the State Historic Preservation Office has allowed some
breaches but
GIFFIN: Right.
GOLDSTEIN: They also require more detailed descriptions.
GIFFIN: Thank you.
TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners, any discussions first? Commissioner Baker.
BAKER: No, I agree with the new changes and amendments.
TANAKA: Okay. Just one comment before we take the vote. I know that this was
a little controversial, there were some concerns by some members of the community, but I
think we also need to remember, as Commissioners, that we are guided by the General Plan,
and as have said to other members of the community, the concerns that they have, whether or
not a particular area allows for these commercial developments, as a reminder to the public,
the Planning Department and the Planning Commission are going through amendments to the
General Plan, so if there are comments that the public has concerns about certain areas that are
allowable or allowing low, medium, high density Urban or whatever, there certainly is
opportunities for you to come before the Department and the Commission to express those
concerns while these amendments are being considered.
Also, on this particular application, they were required to go before the Kailua Village Design
Commission, and as we as Commissioners know, they are pretty particular about what they
recommend, and to see that on the Background Repott that they had a unanimous vote in favor
-32-
of this, to me was showing that they agree to the concept of this particular development.
Commissioners, any further discussions? Roll call.
HARLOW: Commissioner Baker?
BAKER: Aye.
HARLOW: Commissioner Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
HARLOW: Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Aye.
HARLOW: Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI: Aye.
HARLOW: Chairman Tanaka?
TANAKA: Aye.
HARLOW: Chairman, you have five ayes; the motion carries.
TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. And we'll notify you in writing about today's
results.
FUKE: Thank you very much.
QUINN: Thank you.
The discussion ended at 11:39 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
f t
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
-33-
yN t 1 1
oSs t, v. o . , ' \ V� 04r o ,
- 's ' ` ,• 0 G1 0 . \ � . -.
, ' 1 00 'yI s
ii. -Q t� \n - co \ / \ �. o
,Q� o a ‘9\x-% �> \/ \\ 0 9 0
�, t oi0 o • N 61 p � I � 1i1 / \ \ p 0 J
D O ti
(' ® t I 1 / \\ > \ 4 1 1 N l9 )( ov o - 7 C In 1 , \ ,'\9\ l9 \_ N 0
,A z 0 j - -- - 1, 000 \ � ` t/ .�
D 4 / /1 \ \ \ ‘ steef.i to/
In ., t / / u1 t o o �, F c?/• ?j
O
v
11S•4I ,
$S / / 0 t 1 \ \ ..-1
I \ TT') 0-0 a
/9O • 033 ■ \ \ ;� 1 \ \
\ u
-- w W P--. - W ' 0 "90- o P -
m�fA I _o N! CV`9 N0]`�
, s: I. 0 ` O � ~ � s \ , -\
'.. tr. _. -- — -.. - - --- --- -- t 0 61 / —
� �i m 3 I LCJ a) - c..)
" -,I - 430 M •9 % f 'e.N 4 C o g
1 'ua t 59, 0 Cf c S6• --4
g o o v rn m 1 N \ 0 . .0 oc..-p �� dp,, -c? ~ c� ��o
/�6� '] c. \ � � 5, ys m � l i
= ...a z f 1 v \ o � s �n O W�
9: I " \ ,.. v VN • �.bI t w -6 0 to
..,., 9 i .4 k e 191 � 1 N''; b \\ p ^p' 4> . ,-,-, >1 6144
� :/ ��� t cut� d iv \
9 -,1 03. ' _I1 �.P.
9 os t , to 0 tra n) \
X0 0, ao\ i _ 1> (s) y \
to 1 \
fD 6 1 1 r . z r 1 \ 3 \\ .
^a, G. P _ ! d \ /
W o u A �z mo \\ v
SG cis r � a_ > 0 • (Ivy o • 1 e� 1\ \
D —
c - t :X t J ."; -4 , \ al t \ N
�` 04 �` '` 1 o 1 � - :. t�W X a�9 \ E , /3 U 0 * to oi
- - - -- to A' 'i o . kit � Qi . Lo.zz B 'J�p
� �'' F � • v ° S o! off+ a df ea� R m19 � oG W S , , O
r 0 117 ---.94 go'8 A S`
,-75 ^0 e 7 . S 0
- - - - -/ - 4 - t N .1
(. . / /G6.LL 3F , ` xn
- - -- )�9 _� /�.�— , �0 pp ! i •= c) o T oro \ %
-;.s..."'/)(1*"..)-', a c / _ — A' v l - - -. to ti�3 s s o " tw-- to
\ /,‘ 'o
_ a l n I @ .- /I .. ,•• h; is \ w , Z4 W 's p 1 \ e ^ ' 'e
`\ `✓0or 4 I .o, U PI J * N,_- • % / C@
v
c , — /
K - - - - - -- — fit i d s 1v r _ t U sa 1 0 - �? ° i \ '
r- -----1-1.-13- o 6. 0 - I p 41 to 10c Ip- Qo \
(U S D lg 9 I G i -
\ N --' R fb r �l I t O� � Q�ex X 90
t-- I � eoo � + W e 9 SS/
I ? e'0 9°, I - A �\ . � 9 6 m N a w 4 1'ww IN �° • e ^ �' d I l l
• ° _ . r ? - -- - -ZcT - s-=s . ,.$�n, I °m�, --' _ =T — `�?c °•u .4 AJr.2 D.9 G` t � 4 9 ��
_ o
524 • -c-4.c 3i ..O _ LO o2
' I LG b =a I' _ roW ^ mP- -n1� - 41
f n-__ � _ •! ` r t ' e , j j' � ` O
I ._ LO'1�0 °?J .80.a2a �63N - Jnaln N l .• g `` G as. _ / Q S.� a n Nlift: . m ss. s t. > P N- N t °es40 05(5,,,
\�sz o T S I A 1 l9 ; o 1 I, 0 A j p •C \\ f; C4,>-, '.d .J
;g./ .
•
4
fin e
of 4
tY "i=
BQuinn0l. plh-09/ 17/99
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND FpORT
• ROGER A. QUINN
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 99-9)
CHAN . OF .O APP I ATION fRF.7, 99_19)
ROGER A. QUINN has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary
Amendment from an Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of Zone by changing the
district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) for
approximately 7.794 acres of land. The property is located on the west (makai) side of the
extension of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, adjacent to and south of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints and east of the Lono Kona Subdivision, Honuaula, North Kona, Hawaii,
TMK: 7-5-3: Portion of 24.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Land Ownership: Komo Brothers Partners, a Hawaii General Partnership, is the
owner of the subject property. Komo Brothers Partners has authorized Roger Quinn to
' apply for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone for the subject
property for the purpose of developing a commercial complex on a portion of the
property.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2. Request: The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an
Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of Zone by changing the district
classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) for
approximately 7.794 acres of an 18.69 acre parcel.
3. Objectives: "If successful, the applicant plans to develop a village commercial
complex that would tentatively consist of a gas station, food mart, restaurants, a
neighborhood bank, and commercial and office spaces. The intent is to service the
needs of the immediate neighborhood, and as the uses will allow, possibly a wider
clientele. "
4. Supportive Information: The applicant has submitted the following in support of the
request. (See Exhibit A -State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of
Zone Applications)
STATE AND COUNTY P ANC
5. SLUC: Agricultural.
6. Hawaii State Plan Consistency: Economic and Commercial objectives and policies.
7. General Plan Consistency: Economic, Land Use and Commercial elements goals,
policies and courses of action for North Kona.
8. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map: Medium Density
Urban Development. The General Plan document indicates that this designation allows
consideration for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related
functions (3-story commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre). " As such, the
requested Neighborhood Commercial zoning would be consistent with this designation.
9. Kona Regional Plan: The Kona Regional Plan land use concept map identifies a
Res-10 designation for the area encompassing this property. This designation indicates
residential uses, up to 10 units per acre. While the requested Neighborhood
Commercial zoning would not be consistent with this designation, the General Plan
allows consideration for commercial zoning to facilitate and/or accommodate the
commercial needs of residential areas.
10. Keahole to Kailua Plan: The property is outside the study area of the Keahole to
Kailua Development Plan.
11. Kailua-Kona Master Plan: Also known as the Kailua Village Master Plan, this plan
was completed in 1994 and was intended to supersede the 1976 Kailua Village Design
' Plan. The Master Plan is intended to assist and guide the Kailua Village Design
Commission and the County of Hawaii in regulating development in the Kailua Village
Special District. The Master Plan also is intended to guide private sector investment
and development in the Kailua-Kona area, as well as revitalization efforts in Kailua
town. The land use master plan map component of the plan designates the area
containing the subject property as Low Density Residential. According to the Master
-2-
Plan document, this category includes single family detached, duplex, and single family
attached (town homes) housing. The Master Plan also notes that this designation is
primarily intended for those areas mauka of the Great Wall of Kuakini. In addition,
the Master Plan recommends an additiona120 feet landscape setback for properties
adjoining both sides of Queen Kaahumanu Highway as well as a possible street through
the lower portion of the subject property for the purpose of connecting the Lono Kona
Subdivision with the Aloha Kona Subdivision. Although the proposed project would
not be consistent with the low density residential designation for this area, it would be
able to achieve other objectives of the Master Plan. These include the landscaping
setback and the potential for a roadway at the lower end of the subject property to
connect the existing subdivisions.
12. Kailua Village Special District: As the subject property lies within the boundaries of
the Kailua Village Special District, the request was reviewed by the Kailua Village
Design Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on September 14, 1999. The
five Commissioners present at the meeting voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the applications as presented.
' 13. County Zoning: The property is currently zoned Agricultural-5 acres (A-Sa).
14. SMA: The property is not situated within the Special Management Area.
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND 4 TR O T11T1)ilV(' ARFA
15. Property: The subject parcel has a total area of approximately 18.69 acres of which
7.794 acres aze proposed for rezoning. The property is roughly rectangular shaped.
The property is located on the west (makai) side of the extension of Queen Kaahumanu
Highway, adjacent to and south of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and
east of the Lono Kona Subdivision, approximately 1,500 feet south of Henry Street and
1,300 north of the Pines Subdivision. Immediately adjacent to the southwest corner of
the property is a detention basin which is pazt of the Keopu-Hienaloli Drainage System.
The subject property is vacant of any structures. The Great Wall of Kuakini extends
along the western (makai) boundary of the subject, except where the wall is cut by the
Keopu-Hienaloli Drainage System improvements.
-3-
16. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: Lands in the vicinity of the project area are zoned
A-Sa, RS-7.5, RS-15, RD3.75, RM-1, RM-2.5, CV-7.5 and CG-20. The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is located immediately north of the subject property.
The west (makai) boundary of the subject property is adjacent to the Lono Kona
Subdivision and vacant land while pazcels to the south and east (mauka of Queen
Kaahumanu Highway) are also vacant. The Malulani Gardens Subdivision, the
proposed Mohala Commercial Village, Lanihau Shopping Center and Crossroads
Shopping Center aze located farther to the north while the Aloha Kona, Kealoha, Kona
Heights, Pines, and Kailua View Estates Subdivisions are located farther to the south.
Properties farther to the west and southwest aze utilized for commercial purposes and
multiple-family residential housing. It should be noted that the subject property is in
the vicinity of a portion of the azea that was reclassified from the Agricultural to the
Urban District by the County of Hawaii Planning Department in June 1998 to
accommodate future urban development as designated on the County General Plan.
17. FIRM: Portions of the property lie within the AE Flood Way Zone. Any
improvements within the flood way zone azea will require a detailed flood study by a
licensed civil engineer and compliance with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) regulations. Other portions of the property lie within Zone AE, area
inundated by 100-year flood, and Zone X"Lt", area inundated by 500-yeaz flood. The
remainder of the property is within Zone X, area considered to be outside the 500-year
flood plain.
18. ALISH System: Unclassified.
19. USDA Soil Survey Report: There are two types of soils on the subject property:
1) Waiaha extremely stony silt loam (WHC). This consists of shallow, well-drained
silt loamy that formed in volcanic ash. The surface layer is very dark brown extremely
stony silt loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is dark brown very stony silt loamy
about 14 inches thick. The substratum is pahoehoe lava bedrock. Permeability is
moderately rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight.
2) Punaluu extremely rocky peat (rPYD): This consists of well-drained thin organic
-4-
soils over pahoehoe lava bedrock. The surface layer is black peat about 4 inches thick.
It is underlain by pahoehoe lava bedrock. This soil is medium acid. The peat is
rapidly permeable, although water moves rapidly through the cracks. Runoff is slow,
and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is used for pasture.
20. Land Study Bureau: The Land Study Bureau's overall master productivity rating for
agricultural use is Class "E" or Poor.
21. Flora Resources: The applicant's Environmental Report includes a Flora Survey
conducted in September, 1997, by AECOS, Inc. This study states in summary that the
vegetation of the project site area is dominated by Guinea grass, kiawe and koa-haole
heavily overgrown with the ivy gourd vine, an introduced pest species. Of the tota131
plant species inventoried during the botanical survey, most are naturalized weedy
species or escaped ornamentals. Only a single indigenous species, Portulaca lutea,
was observed and it was not in common abundance. This plant is found on leeward
coasts of all the islands. No species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service were seen or are likely to occur on the property. The
property has been used extensively for grazing.
22. Fauna Resources: The applicant's Environmental Report does not include any
professional surveys of the faunal resources on the subject property. Due to the
property's proximity to developed urban areas and based on a recent study of a
property approximately 1,500 feet north and mauka of the subject property, the
applicant does not believe that rare or endangered faunal resources are likely to be
found within or proximate to the subject property. In the study conducted on
TMK: 7-5-3: 6 & 7, introduced species such as dove, Japanese white eye, house finch
and myna were observed. Cats, pigs and mongoose were also observed.
23. Archaeological Resources: The applicant's Environmental Report includes an
archaeological reconnaissance survey conducted in September 1997 by Cultural
Surveys Hawaii. This survey recorded four sites plus the Great Wall of Kuakini. The
sites included a platform possibly used as a burial or small habitation structure, two
modified bluffs indicating possible habitation uses, and a wall section with stone
-5-
modifications indicating probable agricultural use. All four of these sites were found
on the southern portion of the property, makai of the area proposed for rezoning and
development. The Great Wall of Kuakini extends along the makai boundary of the
property, except where the wall is cut by the Keopu-Hienaloli Drainage System
improvements. This wall is on the Hawaii State Register of Historic Places. Although
none of the identified sites lie within the area of the proposed rezoning and
development, a condition will be included to require the notification of the Department
of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD)
should archaeological sites be encountered during the course of development.
Mitigative measures as recommended by the consulting archaeologist and the
DLNR-SHPD will be required prior to any land alteration activities.
P I 1TI ITI AND RVI
24. Access: Access to the proposed development would be from the extension of the
Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which has a 160-feet right-of--way. The applicant is
exploring the possibility of providing pedestrian and vehicular access from the
proposed development through the lower portion of the property to the Lono Kona
Subdivision. The applicant will submit a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) to the
State Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to making any
improvements. The Department of Transportation will also require roadway and/or
intersection improvements to safely accommodate the proposed development. All
roadways within the proposed development, including those connecting to adjoining
parcels, should meet with the approval of the County Department of Public Works.
25. Water: Water can be made available by an existing 12- inch waterline along the
extension of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which is approximately 1,600 feet from
the center of the frontage of the subject property. According to the Department of
Water Supply, the applicant will be required to extend the 12-inch waterline to the
property at their expense.
26. Wastewater: There is no County wastewater system servicing this site. The applicant
can extend a 12-inch County sewer line that ends approximately 1,600 feet from the
-6-
property at the Malulani Gardens Subdivision, extend the sewer line to the Lono Kona
Subdivision, or construct a private wastewater system on the lower portion of the site.
If the applicant decides to use drywells on the subject property for wastewater or storm
runoff, an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit must be applied for from the
Department of Health.
27. Solid Waste: The applicant intends to utilize commercial solid waste haulers to
dispose of refuse generated by the proposed development.
28. Utilities: Electrical and telephone services will be made available to the property.
AGENCIES' COMMENTS
29. Police Department (August 12, 1999 Memo):
"Staff has no comments or objections to offer on the Change of Zone application. We
will reserve our comments on the proposed roadway, signalization, and ingress and
egress."
30. Department of Land and Natural Resources -Land Division (August 30, 1999
Letter):
"Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to review and comment on the subject
matter. The Department of Land and Natural Resources has no comment to offer on
the subject matter. "
31. Kona Soil and Water Conservation District (September 17, 1999 Letter):
"This parcel is shown on the North Kona Flood Plain Management Study as in portions
of the Hienaloli and Keopu drainageways. Care should be taken to protect the site
from flood damage in this known flood area. Stream channels should not be
obstructed, modified, or rerouted without approval of the County of Hawaii
Department of Public Works. Many of the streams in North Kona are geologically
young and subject to out of bank flow during torrential storms. Additional care should
be taken to address local drainage that may be affected by the construction of
impervious surfaces (roads, roofs, and parking areas)."
32. Department of Public Works: (See Exhibit B -September 14, 1999 Memo and
Applicant's Response -September 22, 1999 Letter)
33. Department of Water Supply: (See Exhibit C -August 31, 1999 Memo)
34. Department of Health: (See Exhibit D -August 11, 1999 Memo)
-7-
35. Department of Transportation: (See Exhibit E -August 31, 1999 Letter and
Applicant's Response -September 16, 1999 Letter)
36. State Land Use Commission: (See Exhibit F -August 9, 1999 Letter)
37. Applicant's Response to Departments of Water Supply, and Health: (See
Exhibit G -September 16, 1999 Letter)
AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE
38. Fire Department, Real Property Tax Office, Department of Land and Natural
Resources -State Historic Preservation Division and Land Management Division,
and Department of Agriculture
PUBLIC COMMENTS
39. Mr. Mark Van Pernis: (See Exhibit H -August 16, 1999 and September 2, 1999
Letters; and Applicant's Response -August 31, 1999)
40. Mr. Gregory Peterson, a property owner in the Lono Kona Subdivision, made a
verbal inquiry on September 9, 1999, regarding the distance of the proposed
development and roadway extension from his property, as well as real property tax
implications for his property. (See Exhibit I -Applicant's Response September 10,
1999 Letter)
-8-
APPLICATIONS
and
COUNTY ENVIltONMENTAL REPORT
FOR
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (A to U)
and
COUNTY REZONING REQUEST (A-Sa to CN-20)
HONUALA, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-03: 23 Por
Prepared For:
Roger A. Quinn
Prepared By:
Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant
June 1999 ~~yy~~
'§AR~B~~
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DE1~~,RTMENT
APPLICATION FOR STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
(15 ACRES OR LESS)
APPLICANT: Ro er A. Quinn /
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: \
MAILING ADDRESS- P•0. Box 10486
Lahaina, Maui, HI 96761
TELEPHONE: (BUS) 667-6933 (HOME)
LANDOWNER: Ko~no Arothers Partners a Hawaii General Partnersh;n
LANDOWNER'S SIGNATURE: See Attached Letter
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-3: 24 (portion)
Area to b? reclassified i.s7.8 acres
LAND AREA: iR ~a s
CURRENT STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Agricultural
REQUESTED STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Urban
THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
A. Non-refundable filing and processing fee of two hundred dollars.
B. Original and fifteen copies of:
1. Application form.
2. Location map.
3. Preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, with all existing
and proposed structures and improvements shown thereon.
4. Reasons for the requested change and written description of
the property and proposed development, including but not
limited to:
a. The extent to which the proposed reclassification
conforms to the applicable goals, policies, standards,
and courses of action of the General Plan and
implementing ordinances, plans and documents; and
b. The extent to which the proposed reclassification
conforms to the applicable district standards.
C. A minimum 2-foot by 3-foot presentation map requested under B.3,
above.
0400q
PD 2/26/87
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
COIINTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICANT: Roger`.A. Quinn '
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: _ ~ DATE:S/3/99
ADDRESS: P_n_ u„Y int,tt~
Lahaina, Maui., HI 96161
LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER Lessee
LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLIIDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS
hone
TELEPHONE-BUSINESS: 667-6933 RESIDENCE:
REQUEST' TO r _
(Existing zoning lProposeo zoning
TAX MAP REY: (3) 7-5-3: 24 (portion)
AREA OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO HE REZ0NED:7.8 acres
LANDOWNER(S) : Komo BrotherG Par nerG, a Has,a;; r_o.,o,-~i PartnPr.Ghin
OWNER'S SZGNATIIRE DATE:
(May e y etter)
AGENT: Sidney, M. Fnke
ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212
Hilo, HI' 96720
TELEPHONE-BUSINESS: 969-1522 RESIDENCE: g61-6909
Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be
sent. ORIGINAL Sidney Fuke COPIES Rngar A_ nninn
(See Instructions in Bz
KOMO BROTHERS PARTNERS
75-5324 Mamalahoa Hwy
Holualoa, Hawaii 96725
March 9, 1999
Mr. Roger Quinn
P.O. Box 10486
Lahaina, Hawaii 96726
Dear Mr. Quinn:
Please be advised that Komo Brothers, the owner of the
property TMK (3rd) 7-5-3-24, leased to you by Lease Agreement
dated January 13, 1997, and recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances
of the State of Hawaii as Document No. 97-011861, do hereby
authorize you to proceed to apply to the County of Hawaii to
rezone the property from A-5a to CG-20 or CV-20 and to the State
Land Use Commission to a boundary amendment from Agricultural to
Urban because you intend to develop a commercial complex on a
portion of the property.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
KOMO BROTHERS PARTNERS,
a Hawaii General Partnership
HIDED KOMO, rustee f Se
Trusteed Trust dated December
26, 1978, as a General Partner
of HK Investments, a Hawaii
General Partnership, a General
Partner
By y~~ Gam`- y \~yr~`'d
KE TH KOMO, Tru tee of the
Kenneth Komo Declaration of
Trust dated November 7, 1985,
a General Partner
MUTSUMI KOMO, Trustee of the
Mutsumi Komo Declaration of
Trust dated November 7, 1985
KOMO BROTHERS PARTNERS
75-5324 Mamalahoa Hwy
Holualoa, Hawaii 96725
March 9, 1999
Mr. Roger Quinn
P.O. Box 10486
Lahaina, Hawaii 96726
Dear Mr. Quinn:
Please be advised that Romo Brothers, the owner of the
property TMK (3rd) 7-5-3-24, leased to you by Lease Agreement
dated January 13, 1997, and recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances
of the State of Hawaii as Document No. 97-011861, do hereby
authorize you to proceed to apply to the County of Hawaii to
rezone the property from A-5a to CG-20 or CV-20 and to the State
Land Use Commission to a boundary amendment from Agricultural to
Urban because you intend to develop a commercial complex on a
portion of the property.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
KOMO BROTHERS PARTNERS,
a Hawaii General Partnership
By l
HIDED KOMO, Trustee of Se f
Trusteed ust dated Dec er
26, 1978, as a General Partner
of HK Investments, a Hawaii
General Partnership, a General
Partner
By
KENNETH KOMO, Trustee of the
Kenneth Komo Declaration of
Trust dated November 7, 1985,
a General Partner
By
MUTSTTMI KOMO, Trustee of the
Mutsumi Komo Declaration of
Trust dated November 7, 1985
By CK FAMILY STYLE, a Hawaii
Limited Partnership
BRIAN T. KOMO
E GELINE ~T. OMO
ATTACHMENT
Commercial, RM, Resort, & Industrial
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PPPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
1. If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide
the subject land in accordance with the approved change
of zone? Yes
If yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to
que~on 3.
a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to ,All
subdivide?
7.8 acres and
b. Into what lot sizes?
10.9~crc
c. If your request is approved, approximately how long
after the date of approval do you expect to submit
your subdivision plans to the Planning Department
for preliminary approval? Immediately
If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary
schematic subdivision plan together with your change of
zone application form.
2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area,
do you intend to:
a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm
plans?
b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative
plans?
c. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans?
d. Keep it?
e. Other (please state)
f. If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate
on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also,
irclude in your answer approximately how soon after
approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the
subject land to another party.
3. What specific building plans do you have for the subject land?
Include in your answer the following: type of building
(apartment, office, launderette, etc.); financing arrangement;
timetable for construction; and any other information which you
feel might help us in evaluating your request.
The plan is to develop a neighborhood commercial complex.
Construction would begin immediately upon securing all of
the required entitlements. Hopefully,this will be within
the next year.
Please refer to Planning & Environmental Report for more
detailed information.
4. Have you performed any study which would demonstrate a need for
your proposed building and/or development? No
If so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided
below.
Tizare were no commissioned studies per se to justify the
market demand for this project. However, informal
evaluation w s done by the applicant.
-2-
5. Have you performed any study which discusses the
environmental impacts your request would have on the
surrounding area and/or the County? Yes
If so, please elaborate on your findings in the space
provided below.
Please refer to Planning & Enviornmental Report.
6. Are there any buildings on the subject area? No
If so, what kind?
What do you intend to do with those buildings if your
request is approved?
7. Is the subject land currently being used for any
agricultural activitity? N,,
If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on
how many square feet or acres of land per product.
-3-
8. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or
drainage problem on the subject area? Yes
If so, please describe the problem.
Portions of the subject parcel (but not the area proposed
for this zone change) are subject to flooding,
9. Oo you think that the roads leading to the subject area
needs improvement? Y°es
If so, what kind?
To su•~ort the additional t;affic the apnli^a;zrf in'c~n~is
to co~i.~t.ruc~ a cnanne!_ized intersection, and i need be,
will construct traffic lights. Please refer to Planning
and Environmental Report.
Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume
or load?
10. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements
do you feel will be needed in the subject area when
developed?
Yes No
a. Schools x
b. Roads x
c. Sewer x
d. Drainage Y
e. Police Protection Y
f. Fire Protection x
g. Recreational Facilities x
h. Public Utilities x
i. Other x
-4-
For those checked ~~yes,~~ please elaborate what type or kinds of
improvements and/or assistance are needed.
Please refer to Planning and Environmental Report.
11. Have you performed any historic sites study and/or survey of the
subject area? If so, what were the results? Please, also,
submit a copy of the study togeuher with tnis change of zone
supplement.
Yes, Please refer to survey contained in the Planning and
Environmental Report.
l
Signature :
Address: P.O. ox 10486 Lahaina, HI 967
Telephone: (808) 667-6933
Date: May 3, 1999
-5-
6338A/SOA
o n S/RA
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
STATE LAND USE and COUNTY REZONING REQUESTS
ROGER A. QUINN
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-5-03: 24 POR
HONUALA, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Roger A. Quinn, is requesting a 7.8 acre portion of an 18.69 acre
property to be reclassified into the State Land Use Urban district and subsequently
rezoned into the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) district in Kailua, Kona,
Hawaii. The property is located on the makai side of the extension of the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway (Highway 11), approximately midway between Henry Street
and Nani Kailua Drive. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is located
to its immediate north. (See Figure 1)
If successful, the applicant plans to develop a village commercial complex that
would tentatively consist of a gas station, food mart, restaurants, a neighborhood
bank, and commercial and office spaces. The intent is to service the needs of the
immediate neighborhood, and as the uses will allow, possibly a wider clientele.
II. PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property consists of 18.69 acres. Only a 7.8 acre portion of this site is
planned to be rezoned and developed. The site is located makai of the extension of
the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, approximately 1,500 feet south of Henry Street
and 1,300 feet north of the Pines Subdivision.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is accessed through the
Lono Kona Subdivision, is located immediately to its north There aze major _
commercial uses along the mauka side of Henry Street. The land adjacent and
south of the site is vacant, as well as the County-owned Keopu-Heinaloli Drainage
system settling basin. The Kuakini Wall forms the makai boundary of the subject
property.
There is a permitted access from the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension.
Access to the project will thus be via this Highway, and if needed or required, the
applicant will construct traffic signal lights and related improvements at this
intersection.
Although the pazcel consists of 18.69 acres, the requested applications only cover
7.8 acres.
it I N
w
N°Rry I ~Q
/ooo, I
ICONA ;
L1
NEIGHT~ j
SL B' /
J
Y /
PoRTlori ro C
~?CZONEp
,q-5a To GN-2 KcAUl~ou ~
M f1LU LAN I P~ '
GARDENS ~\~`^~V'~ N T Zoe
SUB'v. /
I P I Es /
~CG-2a~' ~ J I
J rJ EgROPER /
(G G_2p> V IH.667
~ ACRc
V
\ ~
n
l.~
o-J~iG (CG'~o) U S let WAY
~ UB1 ft
HENRY r+P ~ KUA lNl
STREET
~
~,EO~ ~C (CG -2o~ OR~~E
~j
~L1t
~O
~Q
KA1l.UA
pAY
PROPOSED REZONING i
AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-20)
TMK ~ 3RD DIV. 7-5-03 POR. 24 (6.9'-' ACRES)
HONUAULA, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
APPLICANT ~ ROGER A. QUINN Figure 1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Concept and Components
The applicant plans to develop a neighborhood commercial center that
would service the retail and office needs of the immediate surrounding
azeas. Tentative uses would include a gas station, food mart, eateries, a
neighborhood bank, and retail and office spaces. For the most part, the
structures would be "free-standmg" and not a massive structure like a
shopping mall. They would be within the thirty five (35) foot height limit
of the Zoning Code. (Figures 2 & 3)
It should be noted that the size and location of the structures aze
preliminary and will probably vary to accommodate the spatial needs of the
users, as well as the County design review and related requirements.
As the site is adjacent to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension and
also reasonably proximate to single- and multiple-family residential uses,
extensive landscaping consistent with the Kailua Village Design Plan, is
planned adjacent to the Highway and within and around the site to mitigate
potential visual impacts generated by this project.
A new roadway bisecting the site is being planned. This would allow for a
possible connection to existing neighborhoods, particulazly the Lono Kona
Subdivision. The proposed roadway is being designed to be away from the
adjoining properties to help minimize noise impacts to the adjoining
properties.
At this point in time, there aze no plans for the balance of this property
(10.89 acres).
As the project is in its conceptual stages at this time, it is recognized that
further design reviews will occur at the subsequent stages of the permitting
process. At this phase, the applicant is requesting land use consideration of
this site.
B. Project Timetable and Cost
The applicant has received favorable responses from potential tenants.
These potential tenants would be committed should the requested
applications be approved. At that time, the applicant intends to proceed
immediately in the preparation of fiuther plans for the potential tenants'
and the County's review. Hopefully, this would occur during the latter
part of this yeaz.
2
N
d
L
7
00
~I
a
N
Q
J
R Q
w ; ^
Z w s o ~
Q ~ d €
d o ~
~ y
w ~ 3>`,~
r Z ~ t oo;
N J Y
Z
U
\ ~
\ ~ H i
\ P
\ x~ ~ ~ ~ _ _
s ~ ~ \
u_ ~ 'pp
~ \
06 ~ ~ ~Q
~ - n
Y
zW
~O ~
o, ~ ~1 ~
~ °`o
~ o
~ O i
~ - _
~ ~
rs ~
Ky , \
r,
N Q
s~ g
a ~ O~a~~sYS ~ ~l~i ~aaaaaaa ~I~a 4 ~ ~
f
M
L
ODD
W
P
oR
ppp~pp
ipupupi
IWI
~ ~ ~
99 ~
3
~ ~
~ i ~
Construction of this $7+ million project could thus begin in eazly 2000, and
the anticipated opening could be later that year.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. State Land Use
The subject property is designated Agricultural. To effectuate this project,
a 7.8 acre portion of this 18-~ acre site is being requested to be reclassified
into the Urban district.
Based on the size of the requested action, no State Land Use Commission
action is required. The County of Hawaii can process both the boundary
reclassification and rezoning requests.
B. County General Plan
The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Unit (LUPAG)
map designates the site Medium Density. The General Plan document
notes that this designation allows consideration for "Village and
neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3-story
commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre)." As such, the requested
CN zoning would be consistent with this designation.
C. Draft Kona Regional Plan
This plan attempts to further define the General Plan and serves as a guide
for decision-makers. It was adopted by the Planning Commssion in 1984.
It has not, however, been adopted by the County Council.
The Land Use Concept map of this plan identifies ages-10 designation for
this area. This designation suggests residential uses, up to ten (10) units
per acre. Although the requested CN zoning would not be consistent with
this designation, the General Plan allows consideration for commercial
zoning to facilitate and/or accommodate the commercial needs of the
residential azeas.
In that regazd and given the projected residential density outlined in the
draft Plan, commercial uses would not be incongruous with the developing
pattern of the azea.
3
D. Keahole to Kailua (K to K) Development Plan
The K to K Plan was adopted by the County Council by resolution on April
3, 1991. This Plan was intended to serve as a guide to help with the
planning and implementation of infrastructural and land use activities. The
Plan does not affect the subject property, as it terminates at the Palani
Road junction.
E. Kailua-Kona Master Plan
This plan was completed in April 1994. Pages 1 and 2 of this Plan states
that the Plan should be used to "assist and guide the Kailua Village Design
Commission and the County of Hawaii in regulating development in the
Kailua Village Special District." It is also intended to "guide private sector
investment and development in the Kailua-Kona azea, as well as
revitalization efforts in Kailua town."
The Plan suggests the property be used for low density residential uses. It
also suggests a 15-20 foot wide landscaping buffer along the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway, as well as a possible street through the lower portion
of this site connecting the Lono Kona Subdivision with the Aloha Kona
Subdivision.
While the project would not be consistent with the objective of residential
uses, it would still be able to achieve other objectives ofthe Plan. These
include the landscaping buffer, as well as the potential for a roadway at the
lower end of the site to integrate the existing neighborhoods.
' F. County Zonin¢
The County zoning of the subject azea is Agriculture, A-Sa. A 7.8 acre
portion of the site would be rezoned into the commercial zone, while the
balance would be kept in its A-Sa zoning.
If the requests aze approved, the site would be developed into a
neighborhood commercial center. All land use and development codes
such as setback, height, landscaping, and the like would be complied with.
G. Other Permitting Considerations
The site is not located within the County Special Management Area
(SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required.
4
However, as noted eazlier, other permits would still be required. These
would be ofthe "ctrinisterial" variety, such as Kailua Village Design
Commission review, subdivision, Plan Approval, and Building Permit.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. General Description
The elevation of the site ranges from approximately two hundred thirty
(230) feet adjacent to the Highway and one hundred twenty (120) feet
above mean sea level at the makai end. It has and continues to be used
intermittently for cattle or horse grazing.
The site is vacant of any structures. There is a settling basin abutting the
southwestern comer of the property. The Kuakini Wall runs the length of
the makai boundary of this property.
The site has about a 10% gradual slope with no significant on-site
undulations. The site is somewhat trapezoidal in shape. It varies from
1,000 to 1,600 feet in a mauka/makai direction, while the east/west
dimension varies from 600 to 800 feet.
The mean annual rainfall in this azea ranges between 35 to 40 inches. The
wetter months tend to occur between the October through April. The
average daily temperature ranges from a minimum of 61 degrees to a
maximum of 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind patterns aze generally
tradewinds (easterly) during the day, and westerly or mountain winds
during the evenings.
B. Soil and Topography
The topography ofthe site slopes slightly in a westerly or makai direction.
The average grade, however, is less than 10 percent.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survev
Report classifies the soil WHC (Waiaha) and RPYD (Punaluu) series.
These soils aze rated "poor" as there is limited topsoil due to the rocky
chazacter and thin soil depths. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the
erosion hazazd is slight. These types of soil were typically used for cattle
grazing.
The Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating for the subject
azea is Class "E" (E285) or poor. This designation suggests that the site
does not have a high potential for agricuhnral productivity. The Bureau
notes that not this soil series (Pakini and Waiaha) has frequent outcrops of
5
pahoehoe and is poorly suited for machine tillability. The soil texture is
medium, the pazent material is volcanic ash and pahoehoe. It is well-
drained.
Under the Agriculture Lands of Importance to the State of Hawau
(ALISH) classification system, the land is not classified as either one of
three available categories -Prime, Unique, or Other Important_Agriculture
Lands. Thus, the State's classification system does not recognize this site
as being agriculturally important.
C. Natural Hazards
1. Draina¢e
The US Corps of Engineers' Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
designates the azea of the proposed development to be in Zone X,
azeas outside the 500-year flood plain. A portion of the northern
end of the site (which is not pazt of the requested azea) is, however,
designated "AE".
The southern makai comer of the property abuts the basin of the
County's Keopu-Heinaloli Drainage system.
Appropriate drainage improvements (such as drywells) will be made
by the developer in conjunction with the development of this
project. These improvements will take into consideration the
existing floodway to the north and the on-site water to be generated
by this project.
2. Tsunami Hazard
As the site is located over 2,000 feet from the ocean, it is located
outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunanu Evacuation Zone.
3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the azea as
Lava Flow Hazard Zone 4, on a scale of ascending risk 9 to 1.
Kailua-Kona and its immediate surrounding azeas fall in this
category. There is very little that can be done to mitigate this
situation and reflects an ongoing threat to all residents and
businesses in these areas.
The 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC) is the adopted Building
Code for the County of Hawaii. The 1991 UBC designates the
6
entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake or Seismic Zone 3.
As such, certain structural requirements will be needed and taken
during the building permit process to address this seismic hazard. It
should be noted that in the 1997 edition of the UBC, the
International Conference of Building Officials has upgraded its
seismic zonation of Hawaii County from Zone 3 to Zone 4. The
County is contemplating adoption of this edition. .
D. Fauna Resources
Although there were no professional surveys conducted of the faunal
resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that raze or endangered
faunal resources are hlcely to be found within or proximate to the subject
site. The site is within an urban and developed area, and as such, the
likelihood of finding endangered animal life appeazs less likely.
A study was conducted recently by Phillip L. Bruner for the rezoning and
- reclassification of portions of a property (T.M.K 7-5-3: 6 & 7) located
approximately 1,500 feet south and mauka ofthe subject site. )n that
study, introduced bird species (such as dove, Japanese White eye, house
finch, myna) were observed. Cats, pigs and mongoose were also observed.
The report concluded that development of that site would have little, if any,
impacts on endangered faunal resources.
Thus, given that property's proximity and comparable elevation with the
subject site, as well as the surrounding developments, development of the
subject property should not generate any adverse faunal impacts.
E. Flora Resources
A flora survey was conducted of the site on July 30, 1997 by David
Miranda of AECOS, Inc. The survey revealed that the site had extensive
agricultural use over a period of time, largely pasturage. (see Eabibit A)
The largest trees found were the kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and koa-haole
(Leucaena leucocephala). These trees, however, were overgrown with the
ivy gourd vine (Coccinia grandis) an introduced pest species.
The dominant understory was the Guinea grass(Panicum maximum).
There were other plants found on the property, and these were mostly
weedy species or escaped ornamentals. A list ofthese species are
contained in the report.
7
There was a single indigenous species, Portulaca lutes. This plant
resembles the introduced species known as the pig weed. (P. Oleracea).
The survey concluded that "No species listed as threatened or endangered
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were seen or likely to occur in the
property."
F. Historic/ArchaeoloHical Resources
An azchaeological recomuussance survey was conducted of the subject area
by Cultural Surveys Hawaii on July 30, 1997. (See Exhibit 2) The survey
recorded four (4) sites, plus the Great Wall of Kuakini which forms the
makai boundary of the subject site. All of these sites aze located outside of
the requested azea. (See Figure 2)
One of the sites could be a burial or a small habitation structure. There
were two (2) modified bluffs and could suggest habitation sites. The fourth
site was a wall section indicating probably agricultural use.
None of these sites will be affected by the proposed development, as all
sites lie outside of the area proposed for development/rezoning. These
sites will not be disturbed.
Nonetheless, during the course of developing this project, should any
anticipated azchaeological features or sites be uncovered, work in the
affected azea will immediately cease and the applicant will notify the
Planning Department.
G. Water and Coastal Resources
The subject site is located over2,000 feet from the coastline. As such,
coastal impacts resulting from dischazge of wastewater systems from the
site should not be significant. Further, being anon-coastal property, no
coastal access will be affected.
Wastewater from the proposed development would be disposed with an
on-site system meeting with the requirements and approval of the State
Department of Health or through the County's system. The latter
alternative would require the extension ofthe line along the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway.
Additionally, prior to the construction or use of any drywells on the site to
address on-site drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC permit from the
State will be taken. At that time, impacts to water and coastal resources
will be cazefully examined.
8
A. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust
The existing background ambient noise levels is associated with the winds,
water, foliage, birds, and the like. "this is relatively low, averaging less
than 45 Ldn.
Manmade noise in this azea, however, is heavily influenced by the traffic
along the Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension. The project will
introduce additional vehiculaz traffic to this area and will thus add to the
noise levels. However, the addition should still be less than 55 Ldn, which
is within acceptable levels within an urban environment.
There will also be some short-term noise impacts relating to the
construction ofthis project. During this period, the standards and
guidelines of the State Department of Health relating to time of operation,
emission controls (muffiers), and the like will be adhered to m;nimi~e this
short-term noise impacts:
The proposed development should not generate any direct air uali
impacts. The only discenuble air quality impact would be associated with
vehicular traffic to and from the site. While there will be an impact to the
ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. With higher EPA
standards for automobile air emissions, the air quality impact should thus
hopefully not be significant.
All of the required pazking area within the project site must be paved with
an all-weather, dust free surface. Landscaping will also be required as part
of the Plan Approval requirement. As such, with the exception of
construction dust in the beginning, long term dust generated by the project
should be minimal.
I. Scenic and Visual Considerations
In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or areas
listed as being scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as a scenic
site. However, there were a few examples cited in the Kona azea. The
most notable one is the backdrop of the Hualalai Mountain.
The proposed development would not have any visual impacts on this
mountain and other listed scenic resources in the area. The site is located
more on the lower slopes of Hualalai, and being makai of the Highway, the
mountain view does not become a factor.
However, being makai of the Highway, views of the ocean could be a
factor. In this case, however, the topography and existing vegetation
9
obstruct any direct views of the near and offshore waters. The coastal
view comes more at an angle, looking north.
As the buildings will be recessed or setback from the Highway and not
exceed the maximum height limit of forty five (45) feet, the coastal
panoramic view should not be impaired. With the planned landscaping and
the removal of the existing vegetation near the Highway, the views could
be actually be enhanced while creating an opportunity for a mauka-makai
view.
VI. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS
A. 5urroundioe Land Uses
The mixture of land uses within a mile of this area suggests an area in
transition. The transition is from a rural village to a more vibrant urban
core. There are major department stores and shops at the Crossroads
Shopping Center, located less than 2,000 feet to the north. A property less
than 1,500 feet and adjacent to the Center was also rezoned into the
commercial district.
There aze properties generally makai, north, and south ofthe subject
property that are used for single- and multiple-family residential uses.
There is a commercial complex within the Pines Subdivision, and a church
which will shortly be expanded is located immediately adjacent and north of
this site. None of the residential uses, however, abut the subject site. It
should be noted that most of these residential uses do not directly front the
Highway in this azea.
There aze vacant properties adjacent and south of the site, as well as across
or mauka of the Highway. Although there aze residential uses makai of the
property, that portion of the property wi71 still be retained in its A-Sa
zoning. Future residential uses on this portion of the site aze still possible.
The proposed development would thus not be incompatible with existing
and approved uses for this azea. It would be located away from existing
residences, as the lower portion (which abuts existing residences) would
not be developed. There would, however, be pedestrian access to the site
and possibly a new roadway to the Lono.Kona Subdivision which would
make it convenient for residents of that subdivision.
Given the above, the mixture of uses suggests an area in transition, and the
proposed development would not be incongruous with that pattern.
t0
B. Economic Impacts
The requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact, as it
would provide short-term employment opportunities for those in the
construction and related industries.
With the completion of the commercial project, there will belong-term
employment opportunities in the retail and service industries. New
businesses could be started in an azea that is reasonably accessed by foot,
as well as vehicles. In so doing, it could strengthen the concept of a Kailua
town, while allowing the village to assume its own identity.
There could be some real property tax consequences for surrounding
properties. As the assessed valuation of the subject property rises due to
the higher commercial use, there could be some fallout to neighboring
properties. Nonetheless, for homeowners intent on keeping their property
for residential uses, there aze tax provisions that aIIow the homeowner to
"freeze" the valuation of one's property for a certain period of time.
C. A¢riculturalImpacts
The site is and has not been used for intensive agricultural activities. The
site for the most part has been used for grazing. While this use could
continue, it may not be a productive use of the land, given the emerging
residential and commercial patterns in the area.
More importantly, the land has not been classified as being important from
an agricultural resource perspective under the various soil classification
systems. It is classified as "E" or very poor by the Land Study Bureau and
not even classified under the State's ALISH system
VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
A. Road
Access to the project would be from a permitted access fronting this site at
the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Extension. A pedestrian as well as a
vehicular access at the lower end of the site is also begin explored for the
convenience of residents within the Lono Kona Subdivision.
This project is intended to capture traffic (foot and vehiculaz) from the
immediately surrounding areas, as well as existing regional vehiculaz traffic.
As such, the level of service (LOS) along the FIighway should not diminish.
For example, in conjunction with the proposed Mohala Village Commercial
complex north of the subject site, a 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Il
concluded that the LOS upon build out of that project would still remain at
B for both the AM and PM peak hours. This is not anticipated to change
with this project.
Nonetheless, because of the existing and projected volume of traffic along
the Highway, a traffic light may be needed to facilitate safe and easy ingress
and egress from the site. As such, the applicant would construct the
required traffic lights and related improvements prior to issuance of
occupancy permit for the project. This should facilitate movements in a
safe and efficient manner in this area.
As noted eazlier, a pedestrian and vehicular access through the lower end
of the site may be implemented to provide alternative access to the project
and the Highway from the Lono Kona Subdivision.
B. Water
There is a 12-inch County water line along the mauka side of the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway extension which ends at the Malulani Gazdens
Subdivision. The applicant intends to extend this 12-inch line would be
sufficient to accormnodate domestic and fire flow requirements.
C. Wastewater
There is no County wastewater system serving this site. However, there is
a 12-inch County sewer line that ends the Malulani Gazdens Subdivision.
This line could be extended to service the project site. This line could be
extended by the applicant in conjunction with the water line.
Another altemative would be to extend the line to the Lono Kona
Subdivision. However, that approach may be less cost effective, as the
lines witIvn the Subdivision would have to be upgraded, creating
inconvenience for residents in the azea.
A third alternative would be to construct a private wastewater system on
the lower portion of the site that would meet with the standards and
requirements ofthe State Department ofHealth. Because ofthe size ofthe
site, a septic system would be feasible.
D. Solid Waste
Solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers who will dispose of the
refuse at the county landfill at Puuanahulu, North Kona. Typically, a
project of this nature should generate less than a truck load a day. Ways to
12
reduce waste will be explored with the County under its Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan.
Like other rezoning applications, it is anticipated that a Solid Waste
Management Plan will be required. This Plan will help address project
ways to accommodate and reduce the project's waste.
E. Other Government Services
As this area is already part of the North Kona urban azea, it is already being
serviced. No extension of government services would be required, and
existing facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the limited demand
expected from this project
The County Fire Station and Emergency Medical Services are located
about one (1) mile away. The Police Siation is located at Kealakehe, less
than three (3) miles away from the site.
As this project is a commercial one, it should have little or no direct
impacts to schools, pazks, and other related facilities.
The Kona Hospital is located at Kealakekua, approximately seven (7) miles
from the site. This hospital is one of five licensed hospitals on the island.
F. Other Utilities
All other ut>7ities such as telephone and electrical services, are available to
the site.
VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
A. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and
Maintenance and Enhancement of Lone-Term Productivity
The short term use ofthe site would probably be an undeveloped tract of
]and which is used intermittently for grazing. As such, development of this
project will alter the open space character of the site as well as eliminate
the intermittent grazing activity.
However, based on the findings of this report, this project should not result
in any significantly adverse short or long term impacts that cannot be
properly mitigated. There will be direct and indirect economic benefits
resulting from the construction and implementation of this project.
Relatedly, the project will generate increased tax revenues that can
supplement the State and County's fiscal resources.
13
Because of its location, this project will provide goods and services that
can be made reasonably accessible to the immediate neighborhoods. The
required infrastructure will be implemented by the applicant to mitigate
potential impacts of this project.
B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The subject site is already disturbed. As such, the commitment of natural
or other resources (such as azchaeological) would not appeaz to be an
issue. The identified azchaeological features aze not located within the azea
of the proposed development. Further, any unanticipated finds will be
properly mitigated upon consultation with appropriate government
agencies.
C. Mitigative Measure
The applicant intends to provide the required off and on-site infrastructure
in conjunction with the development of this project. These include the
extension of the water line and possibly sewer line to the subject property
from the Highway.
Further, a traffic light with related improvements at the Highway will be
installed, if required by the State and/or County. This should help to
address the potential ingress and egress problems from the site. And if
access can be achieved through another pazcel at is part of the Lono Kona
Subdivision, it could improve overall traffic circulation in this part of
Kailua.
Although there aze azchaeological features on the site, none were
discovered during the construction phase of this project ,work in that azea
will immediately cease and the Planning Department will be notified.
Additional landscaping will also be incorporated within the project site, as
well as along the Highway. These landscaping would be consistent with
the guidelines of the Kailua Village Design Plan.
As the pazking azea will be paved with anall-weather, dust free surface,
there may be some drainage considerations. If there aze drainage issues,
this will be done in conjunction with the permitting and permit
implementation phases of this project.
As the site is presently vacant, no individual or businesses would have to be
dislocated and/or relocated.
14
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect
1. No Proiect
Under this status quo alternative, the site would remain in its
present condition. The land would continue to be used
intermittently for cattle grazing. During dry condition, it could also
be a five hazazd to surrounding neighbors.
Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its fullest
potential, given the mixture of land uses in this area.
2. Development Based on Ezistin¢ A-Sa Zonin¢
Under this alternative, the property would be subdivided into three
(3) 5+ acre lots. A resident could be constructed on each of the
lots. However, the cost to construct the water and sewer line may
not economically justify the intended agricultural use of the
property.
Thus, it may be unlikely that the site would be developed or
subdivided according to the A-Sa zoning.
3. Alternative Residential Densities
The site could be developed into a variety of residential densities
that would also be consistent with the General Plan. These include
both single and multiple-family zonings.
Having residential uses adjacent to a major Highway could be
problematic, particularly from a noise and dust perspective.
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
Leaving the property in its current undeveloped state would not
maximize the use of the land. There would be diminished tax
revenues, less services to the public, and a potential fire hazazd.
While alternative residential densities aze possible, the proximity of
the Highway may necessitate a wider buffer, thus creating an
underutilized azea.
IS
The project's impacts to the azea's social and physical infrastructure
would not appeaz to be pronounced. Certain mitigative measures
such as landscaping, traffic improvements, setbacks, and so forth
will be taken to address any possible impacts associated by the
development of this project. The balance or lower portion of the
property could still be developed residentially, and that would be in
an area removed from the visual and noise impacts of a major
Highway. In that regazd, the project in totality would be consistent
with the land use objectives sought to be accomplished by the
County General Plan LUPAG map.
In view of the aforementioned, it would appear that none of the
alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the
requested CN alten~ative.
IX. REGULATORY ANALYSIS
A. General Plan LUPAG Map
The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive development
of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the
County.
The LUPAG map designates the site Medium Densrry, a designation that
allows the requested CN-20 zoning. Accordingly, this request would not
be inconsistent with the LUPAG map.
B. General Plan Policies
The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and
standards ofthe Economic and Land Use Elements ofthe General Plan.
Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow:
1. Economic Element
Goals
• Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of
life.
• Economic development and improvement shall be in balance
with the physical and social environments of the island of
Hawaii.
• The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in
its economic system
16
• The County shall provide an economic environment which
allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities
that aze compatible with the County's natural and social
environment.
Palicres
• The County shall provide an economic environment which
allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities
that aze compatible with the County's natural and social
environment.
• The County shall strive for an economic climate which provides
its residents an opportunity For choice of occupation.
• The County shall strive for diversification of its economy by
strengthening existing industries and attracting new endeavors.
• The County shall encourage the development of a visitor
industry which is consistent with the social, physical, and
economic goals of the residents of the County.
Discussion
The request would provide opportunities for existing and new
businesses to establish themselves in an azea that is and, with the
planned improvements, will be shortly served by a good
transportation system. Belatedly, all of the required infrastructure
will be provided by the applicant without taxing government's
servicing ability.
Further, the azea is located proximate to the residential and business
azeas, making the site accessible also by foot traffic. Through the
principle of agglomeration economies, development of this azea
could also help out existing commercial area.
Yet, the site is located in an azea where impacts to surrounding
azeas would not be adversely affected. As the lower end of the site
would be left in an undeveloped state -and possibly used for
residences -residences within the Lono Kona Subdivision would
not be adversely impacted. Anew road and pedestrian access
system -with the cooperation of adjoining property owners -could
be developed. In that event, it would help provide an alternative
road circulation system for the Lono Kona Subdivision.
17
2. Land Use Element (Commercial)
Goals
• Provide for commercial developments that maximi~?
convenience to its users.
• Provide commercial developments that complement the overall
pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's
regions, communities, and neighborhoods (emphasis added).
Policies
• Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately
served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers,
and transportation systems. Should such services not be
available, the development of more intensive uses should be in
concert with a localized program of public and private capital
improvements to meet the expected increased needs.
• Distribution of commercial azeas shall be such as to best meet
the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs.
• The development of commercial facilities should be designed to
fit into the locale with minimum intrusion while providing the
desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design controls
shall be incorporated into the review of such developments.
Standards
• Neighborhood Center
• Provide: Convenience goods, e.g., foods, drugs, and
personal services.
• Major Shops: Supermarket and/or drug store
• Number of Shops: 5 to 15
• Acreage: 5 to 10 acres
• Appropriate Mazket: 3,000 people
• Commercial developments shall be located in azeas adequately
served by transportation, utilities, and amenities. Commercial
developments shall provide for adequate internal circulation
amongst commercial facilities in the area.
• Off-street pazking and loading facilities shall be provided.
• Commercial development shall maintain or improve the quality
of the present environment through the consideration of visual,
access, landscaping, and other design elements in their
development.
• Preference shall be given to commercial lands with a reasonably
level topography.
18
Discussion
As Kailua and its surrounding area continue to grow, there will be a
need for more regional and neighborhood commercially-zoned
lands. There have been major commercial developments within the
past 10 years, creating a new "core." However, pockets of
commercial zones to service the immediate residential communities
aze also needed. This request is intended to reflect that demand.
The subject site, in addition to attempting to meet this need, also
fulfills other policies and standazds articulated in the General Plan.
The site is akeady serviced by adequate infrastructure and where
there aze not, will be extended and/or provided by the applicant.
The County water line will be extended to the subject site. The
sewer line will possibly be expanded. In doing so, these
improvements will facilitate their access by other abutting property
owners.
Police and fire protective services aze available within two and one
mile, respectively, of the site. As such, this development should not
require addition public services to be provided.
The site does not have any on-site developmental constraints. The
land is relatively level, and there aze no flood other hazazdous
condition that would render the site a developmental problem or
pose a burden to public agencies. Further, given the non-noxious
type of uses anticipated to be situated here, pollution concerns
would be minimal, if at all.
Being previously used especially for cattle grazing, the prospects of
the site serving as a habitat for raze or endangered plant or animal
life appeaz remote. This is evidence by the studies accompanying
this report. Likewise, while there aze azchaeoloeical feature on the
site, none would be impacted by this development.
The use is also compatible with the surrounding azea. Although
there aze residences in the azea, there aze existing and potential
buffers. For one thing, the lower 11 acres will still be undeveloped,
making it possible for future residential uses. The southwestern end
of the site is bisected by the Keopu-Heinaloli Drainage basin.
Further, the applicant is willing to set aside land on its property to
provide for a pedestrian and vehicular access from the Lono Kona
19
Subdivision Should this be implemented, residents of that
subdivision
Finally, the standards for a neighborhood shopping center will be
fulfilled. These include the acreage, setbacks, uses, pazking, and
the like. Additional landscaping will be provided along the
Highway and within the project, consistent with the objectives of
the Kailua Village Design Plan.
C. Kona Plans
The draft Kona Regional Plan suggests ages-10 or 10 units per acre
residential density of this azea. It should be noted that this Plan was
prepazed prior to the completion of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway
Extension
The Kailua-Kona Master Plan suggests the azea be used for low residential
density uses. It also suggests a access through this site to help connect the
existing neighborhoods and thereby create a more cohesive community.
While requested CN zoning would not be literally consistent with he
residential suggestions, it would not be inherently violative of the overall
objectives. For one, the location of the CN zoning is away from existing
residences and along the Highway. Its location is where residential uses
may fmd less desirable, given the noise and dust associated with a major
highway.
The lower portion ofthe site would still be possible for a residential
development, thus helping to fulfill the residential objectives. The applicant
is also willing to set aside land and improve access to these adjoining
properties to facilitate implementation of the overall access objective.
D. Zoning
If the requests aze approved, the site would be developed into a small
neighborhood shopping center. All of the requirements re]ative to height,
setback, landscaping, and pazking, and the hlce would be complied with.
The balance of the site would be left in its current A-Sa zoning. Alternative
uses compatible with the surrounding azea may be entertained in the future.
20
E. State Land Use Urban Standards
1. Conformity to the General Plan
The project's relationship and conformity to the General Plan aze
discussed in full in Sections IX-A and B above. The discussion
concludes that the request is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Relationshia to State Land Use Urban District Standard
The State Land Use Commission's Rules provide the standards for
determining the Urban district boundaries (Section 15-15-18).
Their relationship to this request are noted as follows:
a. "City-Like" Characteristics
This azea is chazacterized by a concentration of people,
structures, streets, and urban level of services. Within a
500-foot radius of the subject property, there aze asingle-
family residences and a church, as well as vacant lots.
There aze major commercial facilities within a 1/2 mile from
the site.
b. Factors of Urban Characteristics
The site is proximate to centers of trading and
employment. Within a mile radius of the site, there are
resort activities within the parks; and single- and multiple-
. family residences.
All of the related urban amenities and services such as
schools, pazks, and protective services aze also located less
than two (2) miles from the subject property. As such, basic
governmental and utility services aze readily available to this
site.
This reclassification will not necessarily result in providing a
sufficient urban reserve area for growth, as the applicant
intends to develop the property immediately. However, the
balance of the site would be undeveloped for a while, and
that could be considered a "reserve growth area."
In spite of this 11+ acre of potential "reserve growth azea,"
the site represents more of an "in-filling." Accordingly, it
may not really be suitable for a growth reserve azea.
2t
c. Natural Hazards
Topographically, the site is suitable for development. It
does not have the slopes in excess of 20 percent. The site
has no known unstable soil condition, and a soil study will
be needed prior to initiation of construction plans for the
project. ,
Although portion of the site falls within the AE zone, the
azea of the proposed development is designated X, azeas of
minnnalhazards.
The site is outside of the tsunami evacuation zone and not
located within a high volcanic hazazd azea. Although within
Zone 3 of the eazthquake hazards, this is a category that
applies island wide; as such, the structures will have to be
designed and constructed to meet with the County's
building code governing such conditions.
d. Contiguous to Urban Areas
Although the area of the proposed rezoning is not physically
contiguous to Urban classified properties, the lower portion
of the property abuts the Lono Kona Subdivision, an azea
within the Urban District. Urban type of uses ate found to
the north (church).
Less than 2,000 feet from the property aze Urban designated
properties that aze zoned commercial and single-family
residential. L$cewise, there aze properties less than 1,000
feet to the south that aze zoned multiple-family.
Accordingly, as noted eazlier, this reclassification would
result in an "in-filling."
e. Relationship to County Growth Plans
This azea is slated for urbanization by the various County
documents. Specifically, the County General Plan
designates the site for Medium Density Uses. The
requested zoning would thus be consistent with this
designation. Please refer to Section IX A & B, above for
further discussion on this matter.
22
f. "Scatterization" Impact
As the site does conform to the standards described eazlier,
this standazd is not really applicable. This standazd relates
to the potential creation of a "spot zoning" and there by
increasing the need to extend public services at considerable
taxpayers' expense. In this situation, the azea is developed,
and whatever infrastructure needs to be extended will be
done by the applicant.
g: Slope of Property
The slope of the property is less than 20%. In the area of
the proposed development, however, the slope is less than
10%. There is thus little topographic impediment to the r
development of this site.
23
Flora Survey, Honua' ula Site (7-5-03: 24)
Kailua-Kona, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii
September 4, 1997
David Miranda
Consulting Biologist
AECOS, Inc. 970 N. Kalaheo Ave., Suite C311
Kailua, Hawaii %734
Phone: (808) 254-5884 Fax: (808) 254-3029 Email: aecos@pixi.com
]NTRODUCTION
A field survey was conducted by David Miranda for AECOS, Inc. on July 30, 1997 to
assess the flora on an 18.69-acre site (TMK: 7-5-03: 24) above Kailua-Kona on the Island
of Hawai' i.
DESCRII'TION
The site is an old pasture at elevations ranging from 120 ft to 230 ft. above sea level.
Stacked stone walls run downslope along the north (adjacent to the Church of Latter
Day Saints) and south (adjacent to a vacant lot) sides of the property. The Great Wall of
Kuakini connects these mauka to makai walls on the west side of the property. The east
boundary fronts on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. A lazge, circular detention basin is
located on an adjoining parcel to the southwest. The detention basin is part of the
Keopu-Hienaloli Drainage System. From the drainage basin, runoff is directed into a
concrete lined channel towazds the coastline. The site is rocky with soil. There are a few
basalt outcrops and a number of rock piles present.
Two or more horses are pastured on the property at the present time, and the site
reflects substantial agricultural use over a long period of time. The lazgest trees present
on the property are kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and koa-haole (Leucaena leucocephala).
These canopy trees are heavily overgrown with the ivy gourd vine (Coccinia grandis), an
introduced pest species. In some cases, the larger trees aze dead or in poor health,
having been shaded by this climber.
The dominant understory/ground cover growth is Guinea grass (Panicum maximum),
which forms tall, dense clumps. In some areas this grass has been grazed down, making
Exhibit A
Flora Survey 1TMK: 7- ` ~3: 24J K.vt,un-Kohn, H.awntt
it easy to move azound the property. In other places, the grass forms an impenetrable
barrier.
A listing of the plants and approximate abundances on the property are given in Table
1. In general, these species were more or less evenly distributed across the parcel (i.e.,
no zonation. of the vegetation was evident). Most species present aze weedy species or
escaped ornamentals. No remnant agricultural species aze present. A number of typical
ruderal weeds, such as vervain, Flora's paintbrush, mimosa, etc. were not seen. However,
the site is impacted by grazing. Further, these results must be considered in light of the
season (dry) in which the survey was made.
Only a single indigenous (i.e., native to Hawaii and elsewhere in the Pacific) species was
observed: PoKUlaca lutea. This plant resembles the introduced species known as pig
weed (P. oleracea) and is found on leewazd coasts of all the islands. It is not a common
species. No species listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service were seen or aze likely to occur on the property.
AECOS, Inc. Ia9l.doq page
Flora Survey (!'INK: 7-S-o... ?d) ICAILUA-KONA, HAWAII
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 1. Checklist of.flowering plants found at
.Honua :ula.Site (7-5-03: 24), Kailua-Kona, Hawai' i, August.1997.
Species Common name Slatus CODE Abundance
FLOWERING PLANTS
DICOTYLEDONESAPOCYNACEAE
Yinca sp. om. 10 R
CLUSIACEAE
Clusia rosea Jacq. autograph tree,copey nat. 10 R
CONVOLVULACEAE
Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker-Gavel. morning glory nat. 10 C
CRASSULACEAE
Kalanch6e pinnata (Lam.) Pers. air plant nat. 10 O
CUCURBITACEAE
Coccinia grandis (I,.) Voigt scarlet-Enured gourd nat. 10 C
Momordica charantia L. balsam apple nat. 10 O
EUPHORBIACEAE
Aleurites moluccana (L.) Wild. kukui nat. 10 U
?Jatropha sp. nat. 10 O
Ricinus communis L. castor bean, pa'aila nat. 10 U
FABACEAE
Acacia farnesiana (L.) Wild. k!u nat. 10 U
Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth) Alston wait-a-bit nat. 10 U
Delonix regia (Bojer ex Hook) Raf: royal poinciana nat. 10 R
Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC Florida beggarweed nat. 10 C
Indigofera spicata Forssk. creeping indigo nat. 10 R
Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. indigo nat. 10 R
Leueaena leucocephala (I.am.) dewit koa haote nat. 10 A
Prosopis pallida (Numb. ~ Bonpl.) Korth kiawe nat. 10 A
Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr. monkeypod nat. 10 U
Senna occidentalis (L..) Link coffee senna nat. 10 O
MALVACEAE
Malva parv~ora L. cheeseweed nat. 10 U
Malvastrum coromandelianum (I,.) Garck false mallow nat. 10 O
MYRTACEAE
Psidium guajava L. common guava nat. 10 U
PORTULACACEAE
Portulaca lutea Sal. ex G. Forster 'ihi ind. 10 U
Portulaca pilosa L. 'ihi nat. 10 U
STERCULIACEAE
Wallheria indica L. 'uhoioo nat. 10 O
AECOS, Inc ls9tdoc~ Page 3
Flora Survey (!'N/K: 7-` '13: 2d) KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII
Table 1 (continues)
Species Common name Status ~ Abundance
CODE
MONOCOTYLEDONES
COMMELINACEAE
Commelirra benghalensis L. hairy honohono nat. 10 U
POACEAE (GRAMINEAE)
Echirrochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv. barnyazd grass nat. 10 O
Panicum maximum Jacq. Guinea grass nat. 10 A
Paspalum conjugatum Bergius Hito grass nat. 10 U
Setaria palrnifolia (J. KtSnig) Stapf palmgrass nat. 10 U
Sorghum halpense (L.) Pers. Johnson grass nat. 10 O
NOTES:
STATUS
end. -endemic; native plant or animal found only is the Hawaiian Islands.
ind. native plant or animal found in Hawai' i and elsewhere (not unique to
these islands).
nat. - an introduced species which has escaped and become naturalized.
SPECIES IDENTIFICATION Qp CODE
10 -Observed and identified in the field.
20 -Collected and identified in the laboratory; specimen(s) not saved.
ABUNDANCE
Abundance estimated for survey area, based on a five-point scale.
A =Abundant - a dominant species in the survey azea; numerous individuals
seen.
C =Common - a species considered an important part of the assemblage
and observed numerous times.
O =Occasional - a species observed no more than ten times during survey.
U =Uncommon -Generally fewer than five specimens seen during survey.
_ _ .R~ Rare -Only one specimen observed on the.pazcel: _
AECO$ Inc. fast.docl Page 4
C tJLTURAL SURVEYS HAWAII
Archaeological Studies
Hallett H. Hamma«, Ph.D.
773 N. Kalaheo Avenue, Kailua, Hawaii 96734
Bus: (808) 262-9972/ Fax: 262-5950
September 2, 1997
' Mr. Gerald Pazk, Urban Planner -
1400 Rycroft St. #876
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814-3021 '
FAX 942-7484
Subject: Letter Report on Archaeological Reconnaissance of an 18.69-acre Pazcel
in Honuaula, Kona, Lsland of Hawaii (TMK 7-5-3:24 )
Deaz Gerald:
This letter is to report the results of a field inspection of the above property on July 30, 1997.
This inspection was accomplished by myself, accompanied by you and Mr. David Miranda of
AECOS, Inc. This field inspection was not intended to fulfill any State or County requirements
for azchaeological study, but rather to provide essential information to the land owner to address
future azchaeological issues.
Description of the Project Area
The property consists of 18.69-acres within the ahupua'a of Honuaula in North Kona (see
attached portion of TMK map), which is bounded on the east (mauka) by Kuakini Highway, on
the north side by a developed lot of the Mormon Church, on the west (maka:) by the Great Wall
of Kdakini, and on the south by the Hienaloli Drainageway. Maukalmakai, the property varies
from 1000 to 1600 feet long and east/west from 600-800 feet wide. A very prominent berm and
settling basin of the Hienaloli Drainage is at the southwestern corner of the property. The
property ranges from elevation from 125 feet to 230 feet amsl.
Fortunately, horses have been recently grazing, which controlled the vegetation to allow fair to
good visibility over most of the property, although some low points had restricted visibility and
difficult access. Vegetation consists of introduced trees, such as kiawe with an undetstory of
various grasses.
Methods
The property was inspected with two mauka/makai [ransects, one proceeding makai at the
northern end of the pazcel, and the second proceeding mauka from the southwest portion of the
pazcel through the south portion of the property.
Exhibit B
Findings
During the sweep of the northern end of the property we observed land modifications, probably
associated with long-tetra pasture improvement. No archaeological sites were observed on this
sweep, although some possible remnants of the agricultural sites, generally associated with the
dry land Kona Field System, were observed in high points and steep portions of the topography.
During the sweep from makai to mauka across the southern portion of the project area four
archaeological sites were observed and marked with white/ pink flagging tape. These are located
mauka of the north arm of the Hienaloli channel improvement settling basin between 200-220
feet elevation (See enclosed map). These sites are briefly described as follows:
Site 1 is a rectangular platform with a level paved top surface with bedrock incorporated in the
north and west sides. Astone-lined cupboazd is built into the south central portion of the
platform. This site is a possible burial or small habitation structure with a prominent view of the
Kona coast. Its location is estimated to be 250 feet at 25° True from the northeastern extent of the
flood control berm.
Site 2 is a modified outcrop containing a collapsed lava bubble. The outcrop shows modifications
such as rock facing, terracing and semi-circular alignments. Soil deposits could contain retnains
of ancient Hawaiian habitation. This site is located approximately 100 feet mauka of Site 1.
Site 3 is another modified bluff with sitnilaz modifications and occurs at approximately 100 feet
mauka of Site 2 at 70° Ttve North.
Site 4 is a wall section, approximately 50 feet mauka of Site 3, with adjacent stone modifications
indicating probable agricultural use.
In addition, to these four sites, a previously identified site, The Great Wall of Kuakini, exists on
the property and, as mentioned, forms the makai boundary except in the southwestern portion,
where the wall is cut by the Hienaloli Drainageway improvements. This wall has been described
in various archaeological reports and has been assigned various State site numbers. It is a
prominent feature in the mid elevation of Kona and stretches from above Kailua Town neazly to
Kealakekua Bay. This wall which was constructed in eazly historic times has been preserved over
much of its extent, except for necessary breathings for development access, which is a generally
accepted practice by State and County agencies.
Summary and Recommendations
Although a significant portion of the project azea has been modified during the historic era,
probably for pasture improvement, this brief reconnaissance has located four (4) archaeological
sites and there is a definite potential for the occuaence of more sites, particulazly in the less-
modified southern portion of the study azea. For this reason further azchaeological investigation
is appropriate and would be required by State and County agencies as part of any permitting
process. I do not believe that there are extensive azchaeological remains on this property.
However, as indicated by the finding of the four sites described above, there is potential for
finding remains of former Hawaiian habitation and also the possibility of human burials
occurring in these sites. For further information, please contact me at 262-9972 and I want to
express my appreciation to you for your interest and assistance during the recent field work.
Thank you.
~Sinncenrely,
~ ~5 •
Hallett H. Hammatt, Ph.D.
z ® `o
0
v
`o
0
O~ N
Q }
Q
Q 6
J~~ w Z
~J~Q~ ~ m o
pJ~~
i~~'
C ~
i
i
i
i ~
~ N ~
~ ~
~ i
~ ~
/ ` I ;
~.y w Z
~ Z W
F' Q ~
~ = W
~ ¢ V Q
LL V d d
W ~ . Y ~
~ O /
Ov
¢Q
a wQ
s~ ¢
aQ
V Z
W ~
~ 0
Q m
a
~ Z
~ Q
r~
Q Y
W lL
~ O
C7
Memo to Planning Director
September 14, 1999
Page 1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HILO, HAWAII
DATE September 14, 1999
1VIemorandum
TO :Planning Director
FROM Depa ment of Public Works
Engineering Division
Sue~ECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-19)
State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 99-09)
Applicant: Roger Quinn
Location: Honualua, North Kona HI
TMK: 7-5-03:24
We have reviewed the subject apFl;cation and offer the following comments:
Buildina
1. Building shall conform to all requirements of code and statutes pertaining to building
construction.
Drainaoe
2. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be
directed toward any adjacent properties.
3. Applicant shall be infarmed that if drywel(:: are included in the subject improvements,
an Underground Injection Control (iJ!C) permit musi be applied for from the Department
of Health, State of Hawaii.
4. All grading and grubbing activities shall comply with Chapter 10 of the Hawaii County
Code.
~7CHlBIT
Memo to Planning Director
September 14, 1999
Page 2
5. A drainage study should be prepared and a drainage system should be installed
meeting with the approval of DPW. Portions of the parcel lie within Flood Zone "AE"
(see attached map). Any improvements within the flood zone area will require a
detailed flood study by a licensed civil engineer and compliance with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. All plans should clearly show
the limits of the flood zone.
Solid Waste
6. The developer shall prepare a solid waste management plan, subject to the approval
of DPW's Solid Waste Division, for the development which is to be administered by the
Association of Homeowners or by the devele;~er if no association is established.
Wastewater
7. Sewer lines should be installed to connect with the Kealakehe Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Roadways
8. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report should be performed to enable proper design of
roadways. We defer to DOT concerning improvements within the Queen Kaahumanu
right-of-way
9. Roadway connections to the adjoining parcels should be provided meeting with the
approval of DPW These roads sho;ii~! be open to public traffic. It is DPW policy on
large subdivisions to recommend that functioning interconnections be made to adjoining
parcels.
10. All roadways within the proposed development should follow the guidelines
incorporated in the Hawaii Statewide Uniform Design Manual for Streets and Highways
and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. These roadways should
also meet the requirements of DPW Curb, gutter, and sidewalks should be required in
areas of pedestrian traffic.
If you have any questions please contact Thomas Pack in our Kona office at 327-3530.
T1NP:sls
cc: Engineering -Hilo
Engineering -Kona
Planning -Kona
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant _~.~_~.~__~__w._.___~~__..._~_a____._..__
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning • Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Land Use Permits
• Environmental Repods
September 22, 1999
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director '
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII ,
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Deaz Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: SLU (SLU 99-009) and Rezoning Requests (REZ 99-019)
Roder A. Quinn, Tax Map Key: 7-5-03: Portion of 24
Thank you for sending me a copy ofthe Department of Public Works' comments
regazding the subject applications.
In response to said comments, please note the following:
a. All structures will be designed by licensed professionals and constructed
according to appropriate County buIlding and related codes. No variances are
anticipated.
b. The applicant is aware that portions of the subject site fall within the AE zone.
Accordingly, appropriate drainage plans for this and the balance of the
improved azea will be prepared for the review and approval of the DPW.
Should drywells be needed to address drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC
permits will be applied for and secured before their construction. Further, if
required, grading and/or grubbing permit(s) will be applied for prior to any
such activity.
c. The applicant will have a solid waste management plan prepared for the
review and approval of the DPW. The applicant understands that this is a
standard zone change condition.
d. The applicant plans to extend both the water and sewer lines along the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway to the subject site. These will be done at the applicant's
expense and in a manner consistent with County and/or State requirement.
e. Relative to roadways, the applicant intends to work with the State DOT in
detenninhgg the improvements desired or required by the State at the Queen
ICaahumanu Highway. This will be done concurrent with the preparation of
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
September 22, 1999
Page 2
on and off-site infrastructural plans for this project. The applicant recognizes
the need to construct a fully channelized intersection, possibly with traffic
lights, and is prepazed to make those improvements prior to occupancy of the
project.
We appreciate and shaze DPW's comments for future road connectors. The
applicant intends to have the road servicing this neighborhood commercial
project also serve as access to the remaining 10+ acres of the subject pazcel
(which is not part of the current SLU/Rezoning requests). It is the intent of
this roadway to eventually serve the Lono Kona Subdivision, when the lower
portion of this and the adjoining vacant parcel are developed.
Finally, the main access road is intended to have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
We trust that the aforementioned adequately respond to the comment. If not or if
there further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much.
cerely~~
U>
SIDNEY M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
cc Mr. Tom Pack, Department of Public Works
Mr. Roger A. Quinn via FAX
vur~
rO~~
ii n
`4 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAII
'i orx 25 AUPU NI STREET HILO, HAWAII 96720
IM1
TELEPHONE (808) 961-8660 FAX (808) 961-8657
August 31. 1999
, .
T0: Planning Department
FROM: Milton D. Pavao. Manager
r,.
SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 99-009)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 99-019)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN-2D)
APPLICANT - ROGER A. QUINN
TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-003:POR. 024
We have reviewed the subject application for the proposed State Land Use Boundary
Amendment and Change of Zone and have the following comments.
Based on the prevailing water situation in the area, water can be made available
from an existing 12-inch waterline along the Queen Kaahumanu Extension, Route 11,
which is approximately 1.600 feet from the center of the frontage of property
along the Queen Kaahumanu Extension, Route 11. The applicant will be required to
extend the 12-inch waterline to the subject parcel at their expense. The
connection size to this 12-inch waterline is subject to review and approval during
the construction design phase of the proposed development.
Prior to issuing a water commitment to the proposed development, the following are
requested:
1. The anticipated maximum daily water usage as recommended by a registered
engineer must be submitted. The Department reserves the right to make a
final determination.
2. In accordance with the Department's "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy," a
copy of which is being forwarded to the applicant, a water commitment
deposit must be remitted. The applicant will be informed of the deposit
amount upon final determination of the submittal required in Item 1.
~)(HIBIY
Planning Department
Page 2
August 31, 1999
Upon completion of the above requirements, an official water commitment will be
effected in accordance with the attached policy. The commitment will be in
writing with specific conditions and effective dates stated.
Please keep in mind that this letter shall not be construed as a water commitment.
In other words, unless a water commitment is officially effected, water
availability is subject to change depending on the water situation.
Should there be any questions, please call our Water Resources and Planning Branch
at 961-8665.
Milton D. Pavao, P.E.
Manager
BCM:gms
copy - (w/att.) Mr. Roger A. Quinn
(w/o att.) Mr. Sidney Fuke
1F o,
~
j.>a, ~ ~
9ENJAMOVEgHOgETANO c, ~ ~ Bruce S. Anderson, Ph.D., M.P
R • ~ OIgECTOq OF HEALTH
@.,~y~ r'~' , n
STATE OF HAWAII I~ ~ ~ ~ '
1. J
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P.O. BO%916
HILO, HAWAII 967210918
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 11, 1999
TO: Virginia Goldstein
Planning Director, County of Hawaii
FROM: Aaron Ueno
District Environmental Health Program Chief
SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 99-009)
Request: Agricultural to urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-019)
Request: A-Sato CN-20
Applicant: Roger A. Quinn
Tax Mao Key 7-5-003portion of 024
The Department of Health would support any sewer requirements made by the County of Hawaii
for the proposed project.
Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive wastewater or storm run-offs from
the proposed development need to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State
Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground Injection Control."
Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter
11-46, "Community Noise Control."
a. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction
activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules.
b. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air
must be equipped with mufllers.
~Xa11~l~' 007 ~.r><2
Virginia Goldstein
August 11, 1999
Page 2
c. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction
activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit.
Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at
933-0917.
W P7.O:SLU99-9RFZ99-19.mi
BENJAMIN J. CAVETANO 4s h~ K~DIRECTORHIDA
GOVERNOR Q ~~aaa,~ i
Y ° ° DEPUTY DIRECTORS
' BRIAN K. MINAAI
~ ~ - GLENN M. OKIMOTO
~poy.~.a®.~.o'
STATE OF HAWAII IN REPLY REFER TO:
i. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HWY-PS
- - ~ HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 2.51$7
ql,)G 3 11999
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
Director
Planning Department
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
Deaz Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 99-009), AG to Urban;
Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-019), A-Sato CN-20;
Roger A. Quinn Commercial Development, North Kona
TMK: 7-5-3: por. 24
Thank you for requesting our review of the land use amendment and change of zone application-
We have the following comments:
1. A traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) will be required to evaluate the traffic impacts of
this potential development and it must be submitted for our review and approval.
2. Roadway and/or intersection improvements will be required to safely accommodate this
development. A fully channelized intersection with left-tum storage lanes, right-tum
deceleration and acceleration lanes should be given priority consideration over
signalization--which would have to meet applicable traffic v: R*rants. Even if
signalization warrants are met, we will still require alert-turn storage lane, and traffic
signals may only be installed with our approval.
3. The applicant should be required to provide all required improvements at no cost to the
State of Hawaii.
~~~g~~
, ~nq
.4
Ms. Virginia Goldstein HWY-PS 2.5157
Page 2
ALJG 3 ~ 1999
4. If there are any questions regazding these comments, please contact Ronald Tsuzuki,
Head Planning Engineer, at (808) 587-1830 or Robert Taira of the Highways Hawaii
District Office at (808) 933-4640.
Very truly yours,
D U HAYASHIDA
Director of Transportation
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 _ ~ ~ ~ J • Planning • Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Faz: (808) 969-7996 • Subtlrvisan • land Use Permits
• Environmental Reports
September 16, 1999
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director '
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street -
Hilo, HI 96720 '
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: SLU (99-009) and County Rezoning (REZ 99-19) Requests
Roger Quinn, TMK: 7-5-3: Portion of 24
Thank you for sending me a copy of the State Department of Transportation's
cornments regarding the subject matter.
As noted in the application, the applicant is prepared to make improvements at the
Queen ICaahumanu Highway that would include a fully channelizsd intersection consisting of
left-turn storage lanes and right turn deceleration and acceleration lanes. The applicant is
also prepaeed to install signalized traffic lights at this new intersection.
To assist with the State's determination of the exact level of required traffic
improvements at the Highway, the applicant is prepared to submit a traffic impact analysis
report (TIAR) to the State DOT prior to or in conjunction with the submittal ofplans for
Plan Approval review by your office. All of the required improvements will be done prior to
issuance of occupancy permit for the project.
We trust that the foregoing adequately responds to the comment. If not or if there
aze more, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much.
cerely,
I
SIDNEY . FUKE
Planning Consultant
cc State DOT, Highways
Mr. Roger Quinn
~ O I y, '
~ •!5y
BENJAMIN J. CATEGNO E$TNER VEDA
GOVERNOP
i ~ O~QIi1VF OFFILFA
a t=
by+m. f~.
err. r••-
STATE OF HAWAII ~ ~ 7 . , ~
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM
LAND USE COMMISSION
P.O. Box 2359 ~
Honolulu, HI 96804-2359
Telephone: • 80&587-3822
Fax: 808-587-3827
August 9, 1999
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
Planning Director
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street, Room 109
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
Deaz Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: Applications fur State Land Use Boundazy Amendment (SLU 99-009) and
Change of Zone (REZ 99-019), Roger A. Quinn, Honuala, North Kona•
Hawaii. TMK 7-5-03: ror. 24
We have reviewed the subject applications fixwazdecl by your memorandum dated August 6,
1999, and have the following comments:
1) We confirm that the subject site, as represented on the Proposed Retuning Map
(Figure I), is designate[! within the State Land Use Agricultural District.
2) We note that the subject site is in the vicinity of a portion of the azea that was
reclassified from the Agricultural District to the Urban District under LUC Docket
No. A94-705/ County of Hawaii Planning Department, pursuant to Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order dated June 22, 1998, to accommodate
future urban development as designated on the County of Hawaii General Plan.
We have no further comments to offer at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the subject applications.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Bert Saruwatazi of our office at
587-3822.
Sincerely,
. - ~~~~J
ESTHER USDA
Executive Ofticer
EU:aa ~~'s~
` r.
1
~C17~3~
. 1
SidneyFuke, . .~inmg Consultant
100 Pauahi Sheet, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 . p~~y. y„p„ fig. ~nry
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdirisim • lmd Use Pennds
' EmidvreRY BeGCns
September 3, 1999 ' 04 S _a ~ ppi ti 11
C~
Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director ~ . r ;,i I
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
Subject: SLU (SLU 99-009)and County Rezoning Requests (REZ 99-019)
Ro¢er A. Quinn - TMK: 7-5-3: Portion of 24
Thank you for sending me agency com~ats regarding the subject applications. In
response to those comments, please note the following:
a. Relative to the State Department of Health's comments, the applicant
intends to extend the County sewer trnrn„anr+;asion line to the subject site. This
will probable be either through the Lono Kona Subdivision or the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway. More than likely, the extension would come from the
Queen Kaahumanu Highway, as it would be 1) less disruptive to residences;
and 2) done concurrent with the extension of the water line. No public funds
would be used for this extension.' '
As some drywells will probably be used for the site, the appropriate
Underground Injection Control ([JIC) permits will be secured prior to their
construction.
Finally, the applicant is aware of dust and noise controls that must be adhered
to during the construction phases of this project. Accordingly, the applicant
will require their compliance by the respective contractors.
b. The requirements of the Department of Water Supply will be complied
with Should the applications be approved, the applicant intends to submit the
required water demand calculations to the Department and pay the required
amount of water commitment fee. The applicant will also extend the 12-inch
water line along the Queen Kaahumanu to the site at its expense.
c. Finally, we note that both the State Land Use Commission and the County
Police Department did not have any substantive comments or objections to
the requests.
EXHIBIT
a~ QO7 716
Ms. Virginia Goldstein
September 3, 1999
Page 2
We trust that the foregoing adequately responded to the comments. If not or if there
are further questions, please feel free to direct them to me. Thank you very much.
cerely/~~ V " v"~.~
S Y M. FIJIGr
Planning Consultant
cc Mr. Aaron Ueno, State DOH
Department of Water Supply
Mr. Roger A. Quinn
V a n P E R N I S S M f T H & V A. N"C I L
August 16, 1999
Virginia Goldstein
Planning Director
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
RE: Submittal of State Land Use (Agricultural to Urban) and
County Rezoning Applications (A-5a to CN-20)
Applicant -Roger A. Quinn
TMK (3) 7-5-03:23 portion
Dear Ms. Goldstein:
As a nearby landowner who received notice of the above referred to
application, I am commenting on the subject requests. I am opposed to the
subject requests and application for the reasons stated below.
1. This would constitute "spot zoning". The contiguous and nearby
areas are primarily residential and/or intended or likely to be used for
residential purposes only. Any commercial zoned areas are distant. The
proposed development is incompatible with the Henry Street commercial
corridor and traffic flow. It is also contrary to the desirable objective of
promoting commercial development on Queen Kaahumanu Highway Kohala
of Palani Road (K-Mart/Liberty House/Makalapua), where there is adequate
infrastructure and access intended for commercial use.
2. The property is not accessible except by way of the very busy
limited access Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which has no provisions for an
access road to serve this property. Serious traffic congestion, danger, and
access problems would be created by this proposed development,
necessitating huge public expense for -turn lanes and stacking lanes, access
roads, signage and traffic lights.
3. Commercial development is unwanted at that location. It should
be residential, as intended and compatible with the area, with access from
makai as an extension of Lono Kono subdivision. Commercial development
there is incompatible with and would compete with and depress the Henry
Street and Liliuokalani Trust commercial areas, which are well planned and
accessible, though not yet fully utilized.
EXHIBIT
.
~PTTORNEYS RT IAW
IA W COpPOMT10N
MARKVanPERNIS - DAVID E. SMITH - GARY W. VANCIL WILLWM L ZIMMERMAN
SUITE B. HUALALAi CEMER.]5-Ib]F HUALALAI ROAD ~ P.O BOX 183], KAn.UA~KONA. HAWAI'196]45- PHONE (808)329-3551. FAX (BOB)329-6185-E-MAR. VSV@KONACOAST.NET
Virginia Goldstein
August 16, 1999
Page 'Iwo
4. There is definitely no need for more commercial zoned land in
the azea. There is a great deal of undeveloped and unused commercial land
in the Henry Street and Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Kohala of Palani Road)
Makalapua area, and a lar e number of vacant retail and office spaces in
existing developments throughout Kailua-Kona. This project thus probably
will end up a financial failure (after the County may have to pay a lot for
infrastructure) and would contribute to the failure of other existing
commercial projects.
5. The proposed structure is unattractive, and without Hawaiian
characteristics that would make it compatible with the preferences of
Kailua-Kona. It is an unimaginative, aluminum, stucco, the and
concrete/asphalt strip mall without character, interest, invitation or
Hawaiian soul. It is not supportive of preservation and enhancement of the
sense of place here, which is already under assault. It would also block
coastal views.
Please feel free to contact me further in this matter.
Sincerely,
V E ,SMITH VANCIL
- _ 'r
Y
MARK VAN RN
MVP/az-g
cc: Richard Baker
Geraldin Giffin
Florence Kubota
Lin McIntosh
Mildred Mosher
James Souza
Leonard Tanaka
Grant S. Togashi
Curtis Tyler
Nancy Pisicchio
Sidney Fuke
V a n P E R N 1 S S M I T H & V g N C I L
September 2, 1999
Planning Director Virginia Goldstein
Planning Department
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252
Re: Rezoning and SLU Requests -Roger A. Quinn
TMK: (31 7-5-03:23 portion
Dear Ms. Goldstein,
I have received a letter from the developer's representative Mr. Sidney Fuke
dated August 31st. It does not blunt my opposition to the proposed project.
The letter also misstates my position as having a "personal preference to
have all commercial developments `Kohala of Palani Road"'. My letter did not state
that and emphasized the extensive developed and underdeveloped commercial
property along and near Henry Street (which is Ka'u of Palani Road) as well as the
massive Makalapua developed and undeveloped commercial areas Kohala of Palani
Road.
The area of the proposed development is in a residential area far removed
from the commercial areas of Kailua-Kona, and thus this would be "spot zoning",
unwanted and unneeded by our community, out of scale with the surrounding
residential areas, and its is not at al] in an area that is "emerging" as anything other
than residential. It's depressing effect on other already zoned properties, both
developed and undeveloped, and its lack of any positive contribution to our
community should result in a denial of the rezoning request.
Sincerely,
VAN
P~ SMITH & VANCIL
r~
K API P IS
MVP/skc `
cc. Councilmember Curt Tyler
Councilmember Nancy Pisicchio
Roger A. Quinn
Sidney Fuke
Richard Baker
Geraldine Giffin
Florence Kubota
Lyn McIntosh
Mildred Mosher
James Souza
Leonard Tanaka
Grant Togashi
ATTUIUJLYS AI LAW
A LAW Q)RWRATIUN
~1ARKVan PERMS DAVID E. SMITH GARY W. VANCIL Wm. L ZIMMERMAN
75-I(.7 F Hnalalai Rond, Suile B, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 • Telephone: 329-?551 • Fax: ?29-61 R5 • E-Mail vsv@konacoasLnet
A
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning • Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (806) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Land Use Pennils
• Environmental Reports
August 31, 1999
Mr. Mazk Van Pernis
VAN PERNIS SMITH & VANCIL
P.O. Box 1837
Kailua-Kona, HI 96745
Dear Mr. Van Pernis:
Subject: Rezoning and SLU Requests - Roger A. Quinn
TMK: (3) 7-5-03: 23.portion
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter of August 16 to the Planning Director
regazdmg the subject matter. Relative to your comments, I would like to make the following
points:
a. The General Plan serves as the guiding principle for all land use decisions in
this County. In that regard, the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide map designates this azea Medium Density. Under this designation, the
Plan allows "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related
functions (3-story commercial; residential - up to 35 units per acre).
Accordingly, the requested use is consistent with the land use element of the
General Plan.
While it may be your personal preference to have all commercial
developments "Kohala of Palani Road," that is not the position articulated in
the General Plan. The Plan also encourages commercial developments south
of Palani Road.
b. Relative to infrastructure, the applicant is alvaze of the potential impacts of
this project, particularly from a traffic perspective. As such, the applicant is
prepazed to construct - at its own and NOT taxpayers' expense -the required
improvements at the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This would include
storage lanes and, if deemed appropriate by the State Department of
Transportation, traffic lights.
c. The proposed buildings will be designed in a manner that would be consistent
with the design and landscaping guidelines outlined in the Kailua Village
Design Plan. Extensive landscaping around and within the site are also being
planned. The structures for the most part will be single-story and not go the
maximum allowable height of 45 feet. It will be in proper scale of the
surrounding areas.
a,f _
Mr. Mark Van Perms
August 31, 1999
Page 2
Understandably, the plans at this level of the permitting process are quite
conceptual. However, should the requests be approved, fiuther definitions to
the structures will be presented to the Kailua Village Design Commission for
its review and recommendations before they are finalized.
The intent of my client is to develop a commercial project that is tastefully designed;
is visually and functionally compatible with the emerging land use patterns of this azea; helps
and not deteriorates the existing infrastructure; and provides a service to the community. As
such, through this office, he would welcome your continued input to help achieve those
objectives.
Again, thank you for taking the time to review this matter. And as always, please feel
free to contact me if you have questions or wish to discuss this matter personally.
S' c~rely
S .PUKE
Planning Consultant
cc Planning Director
Planning Commission
Councilmember Curtis Tyler
Councilmember Nancy Pisicchio
Mr. Roger A. Quinn
Sldn@yFU{(@, ~ fining Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • ~ • Planning • Variances Zonig
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-799fi • Subarv"sion • Lana use Pennds
• Environmental Reports
September 10, 1999 -
Mr. Gregory Peterson
' 73-1147 Ala Kapua Street
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Dear Mr. Peterson: ,
Subject: Proposed Commercial Development -Roger Quinn
As you may be awaze, I am the planner for Mr. Quinn's project. In:talking with the
staffof the Planning Depaztment in Kona, I learned that you had some questions on this
matter. I would like to use this means as an opportunity to address your questions; and if
you have more, questions, please feel free to contact me.
1. Distance ofProiect
It is my understanding that your property is located at the south end of
Lamaokeola Street and identified by TMK: 7-5-22: 95.
Mr. Quinn's property is over 18 acres in size. He is proposing to develop the
mauka 7.8 acres of this property. The approximate distance of the lowest or
makai portion of the proposed 7.8 acre project azea to your property is over
900 feet. I am attaching a map showing the approximate location of your
property and the new temple in relation to Mr. Quinn's proposed project.
There aze no plans for the lower 10+ acres at this time, although residential
uses would appeaz likely. Should there be any development of this 10 acre
azea other than agricultural uses, the area would have to be rezoned. There
would again have to be hearings before the Planning Commission and County
Council.
2. Proposed Roadwav Extension
The roadway shown on the attached map is only preliminary. The County still
has to approve the specific location. There is a good possibility that the
roadway would be pushed further south and closer to the existing
drainageway. This is to avoid creating an unusable sliver of lot between the
road and drainageway.
EXHIBIT "4
,
Mr. Gregory Patterson
September 10, 1999
Page 2
In either case, the specific planning of this roadway would require the
involvement of the surroundingproperty owners (such as yours and the
property immediately makai). And your comments will be important.
3. Real Pronertv Tax Implications
The tax rate of your property should not change by this project. It will still be
residential.
The amount of property taxes paid is governed by the tax rate plus the
assessed valuation of the property. Your property has certain value today.
With the completion of the new road, there will be improved access to not
only your but other properties in this area. At that time, the valuation of your
property may be higher or even lower. In any event, the actual taxes paid
would be higher or lower, depending on how your property is being valued at
by the County tax assessors.
I trust that the foregoing helped to answer your questions. If not or if you have more,
please feel free to contact me. I will do my best to answer them for you.
ceQrely,
1
SIDNEY M. FUKE
Planning Consultant
Enclosure
cc Planning Department w/ enclosure
Mr. Roger A. Quinn w/ enclosure via FAX
~ P~U H1GN~P/ / /
s~ F ~Qp~ QUEEN /t~/ i ~ / / ~ .
~
a,
/ I
/
/ ~j~
~ / ~ '/j%~C/ ' ;
/ i ~
~ ~ i
i
~ /
i o
i
i i ~
~ x
i ~
`0p
0,
D.
/ / t
~ ~ 7
7 S
~W tk _
f
C,
ff' ~ O
4~
- `
r ~
1
~ ~
t \ 1
1
~ I \
E
J
'F
/ ~ r
/