Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0704.002 1998-2000 ONLY OF q~ Virginia Goldstein moo,.,;;. +c Stephen K. Yamashiro ~ yl~Ck• Director htayur' Russell Kokubun Deputy Director ~i G-wa= 1FF Of ~NF~ ~aixnf~r a~ ?~ttfuttti PLANNING DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Slree[, Room 109 • Hilo. Hawaii 9fi72U-4252 (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 9fi1.8742 L' C March 22, 2000 ~ r r1 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Deaz Chairman Arakaki and Members: Resolution for Time Share Applicant: Bridge Puako, LLC Request: Resolution in Order to Establish Time Share on Subject Properties Tax Man Key: 6-8-1:25 and 36-40 Attached for your information is the Planning Commission's March 3, 2000, hearing transcript on the above matter. Should you have any questions regazding the above, please contact Eleanor Mirikitani of the Planning Department Kona Office at 327-3510 or Alice Kawaha of the Planning Department Hilo Office at 961-8288. ~rel , Virginia Goldstein, Director Planning Commission cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke Mr. John K. Baldwin Comm. No. 7 d ~ • 002 File I''zo. ~GJ P~,. z~~:_PG xef. Date. MAR 2 2 2000 ~N PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT March 3, 2000 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of BRIDGE PUAKO, LLC was called to order at l :11 p.rn. in the Kona Surf Hotel, Kamehameha Ballroom; 78- l28 Ehukai Stree~, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Richard B. Baker, Jr. presiding. PRESENT: Richard Baker, Jr. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Ex-officio Member Earl Fujikawa Milton Pavao Florence Kubota Mildred Mosher Geraldine Giffin Francis Smith James Souza Grant Togashi Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner Susan Gagorik, Staff Planner Fred Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel Glenn Ahuna representing Department of Water Supply And approximately 40 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: BRIDGE PUAKO, LLC -Continued hearing on the following: 1) Application for a Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa), Residential-Agricultural (RA-la), Multiple Family Residential (RM-4, RM-7 and RM-14.5), and Village Commercial (CV-10) to Project District (PD) for approximately 1,060 acres of land; 2) request to amend Conditions D, G, L, O, Q and T, and delete Conditions S and W of Ordinance No. 93-1, as amended by Ordinance No. 96-153; ' ..liar.-.~ to p nrla 1, i; S~ilji,-+n I 1 -i u,l f. ~,,.I . ~ ~i i_ ~ of Use Permit No. 90; and 4) request for a resolution in order to establish Time Share. the project site is located on the mauka side of Queen Ka`ahumanu Hi~hwag between the iv3awia Laui itcsuu auii 'Jv aikulua L uiagr„ app~t~xuuaiely unc-bait uuir, uu uii or tuc l~uern Ka`ahumanu Highway-Waikoloa Road intersection, Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-8-1:Portions of 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40. BAKER: The next agenda item is the applications for BRIDGE PUAKO, LLC. It's a continued hearing on the following applications of change of zoning by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa), Residential-Agricultural (RA-la), Multiple Family Residential (RM-4, RM-7 and RM-14.5), and Village Commercial (CV-10) to Project District (PD) for approximately 1,060 acres of land Staff? MIRIKITANI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, on March 2"d, the Planning Department received a letter from the applicant dated Mazch 2, 2000 to Director Goldstein. Do you have a copy of that letter? GOLDSTEIN: Why don't you go ahead and read it or at least summarize it. BAKER: Can you summarize it? MIRIKITANI: This letter is requesting that the applications for the change of zone for the project district, the amendment to the use permit and the amendments to the Conditions D, G, O. Q & T and delete Conditions S & W of Ordinance No. 93-1 as amended by Ordinance 96-153, be withdrawn. Would you like me to read this letter into the record for you? BAKER: Shall we? GOLDSTEIN: No need to because you have it. BAKER: Okay. Everyone has a copy of this letter, I believe, for the Commissioners? MIRIKITANI: Yes. BAKER: Okay. MIRIKITANI: Then we have one item left on this agenda. This is the request by Bridge Puako LLC, a request for a resolution to allow time share units. The applicant is requesting a resolution to allow time share units within the proposed project area. The project site is located on the mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Mauna Lani Resort and Waikoloa Village, approximately one-half mile north of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway-Waikoloa Road This azea in hatched red is the Puako Hawaii LLC, Bridge Puako change of zone project area. 1'he areas located in the dark brown are the zoned RM, Multiple Family Residential This li~hY ~unx ~a zuK~ed cuuuucr~~iai, the appiicau~ ~s ieyucsuug w iiavr, i.i~r~~ sfierc uuus nil~caieu ~miuuu the multiple family residential areas as well as the village commercial zoned districts. The Planning Department is recommending a favorable recommendation to the County Council to allow time shaze units within this project area. Are there any questions? 2 GOLDSTEIN: The time share units also would carry a cap of 750 units which is less than the zoning density would allow. SOUZA: Mr. Chairman? BAKER: Commissioner Souza, do you have a question for staff? SUULA: Yeah, I have a yuestiai fur staff: What, why is the resolution jiec~~ssaiyY Is that, I've been on the Commission three years. I don't recall ever making a resolution like this. What is this all about? MIRIKITANI: Contained within the Zoning Code under Section 25-5-32(a)(19), if you look page 4 of your background report, it says "Permitted uses within the Multiple-Family Residential District." In order to have time share units within the multiple-family residential districts there are three areas in which you would have to look at. It says, "The following uses shall be permitted in the RM district." And it goes to Section 19, "Time share units situated in any of the following: (A) Areas designated as resort under the general plan land use pattern allocation guide (LUPAG) map; (B) Areas determined by the director to be within resort areas identified by the general plan land use element, except for the retreat resort areas; and (C) Areas determined for such use by the council, by resolution." Therefore, since the Zoning Code says that, states that in order to have time share within the multiple family residential it's in either of the three: as far as (A), under this application the general plan states that it's not a resort but it is urban expansion; and as far as (B) this is not an area also located within the resort; so we're left with (C) where the applicant must seek the approval of the County Council. GIANNINI: Yeah, in general this has not been done. I, you know, this is the first time I've seen it happened. And it was uncertain as to whether a resolution that was going to go the Council needed to be before the Planning Commission. But inasmuch ordinances amending the Zoning Code are required to have hearings before Planning Commission it was felt that to be, in order to be safe, the safest thing was to put the resolution before Planning Commission also for a public hearing. It will eventually, as with any, as with an ordinance, the eventual determination on it will be made by the County Council. So this is, again, it's just a recommendation. BAKER: Planning Director Goldstein? J... U:rli. t: 1. i w, •.dJC111.:wtij, 1111.1', .iCU 11c:1 Rl3LL~ ;AL ~Sc+, ,,;,UUUU U.~ uIlUJI which time sharing can occur, as staff pointed out. And we determined that No. 1 it is on the General Plan, the LUPAG map as a resort area, it's designated Urban expansion. In the General Plan tr~xt itself the Puako mauka area is not identified as a resntt area, although the makai side is. and that instead It calls Tor the Yuako, what they call Yuako mauka area, for urban kinds of uses. And so given those two situations, the only alternative was for the applicant to seek the ability to time share only in the RM and the CV zones. They cannot do time shares in the other zoned areas irrespective of having a resolution or not. And so what the alternative then for them is to 3 seek a resolution from the County Council allowing the time share in the RM and CV zones. This is the first time it has come through the Commission. BAILER Thank you for making that clear for us. Any other questions from staff? If not, I'd like to call the applicant/its representative forward. Please raise your right hand. Do you sweaz or affinn that you will testify truthfully before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE: I do. BAKER: If you' 11 proceed. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as your staff had indicated the BAKER: Please give your name and address. HIKE: Oh, I'm sorry. I understood that this is a continued public hearing so I assumed that it was all for the record. But, nonetheless, for the record, again, my name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant and I'm here assisting the applicant, Bridge Puako, on this particulaz matter. Before going little bit more into the nature of the request, maybe, I just wanted to share with the Commission some of the background behind this project, if I may. The original plan was a master planned residential golf community that would consist of a maximum of six golf courses. They would have a golf academy, club houses associated with those golf courses and their related uses. There would be also like a total of 2,658 single multiple-family residential units or lots, of which about 1795 units would be located within the State Land Use Urban District. That's about a 1,063 acre area. There would also be set aside approximately 30 acres for commercial uses. They would have amenities ranging from active and passive parks, bikeways throughout the project consisting of a total of about 26 acres. They would have associated infrastructure support, like setting aside areas for school facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, road connections, so on and so forth. That is, was the original plan. The basic concept of that plan, that is to say, to create a comprehensive well planned residential _ ,li .;wuuiuuiy Liu:, i~ut ,.hwib;r~i_ it':., ,vLat ~.lic~ .~~}~li~uta i~ te~l~iceti!~d ~'.ir~ ~ei;s_ L _~_.~r_ modification of the ownership of a portion of that project by, through the time share route, which is the, allowing limited amount of time share uses within the multiple family area and the .,;~mmercial village area What the applicant visualizes is in the same wav like how the original plan was vtsuahzed, is to create uke a comprehenstve community, a well ptanned commurury. It'd be something along the line of Waikoloa Village where you do have golf courses, you have commercial facilities, you do have single family/multiple residential facilities and you also time share which provides limited accommodation for visitors. 4 This is really not a new plan, it's not really a new project. It has been in the planning and permitting phases for over 15 yeazs, dating back to 1986. In 1988 the GP was amended to allow a project of this nature. It was amended to, to say it was amended to an urban expansion area, as your staff had indicated. In 1989 the State Land Use boundary was amended fora 1,060-acre area subject to certain conditions; and in 1991 a use permit was issued by this Planning Commission for six golf courses and an academy. This was finally, resulted in a 1993 rezoning for the entire 3,000 acres of land which gave authorization for the constmction of the master planned community, as he mentioned earlier, over this entire 3,000 acres of land. When the property was rezoned back in 1993 the zoning designations ranged from residential/agriculture which probably today would be, just to be correct from the Zoning Code standpoint, would be family-agriculture 1 acre. There were also multiple family zonings and commercial zoning and Agricultural Sa zoning. All of those various permits, the SLU boundary amendment, the Use permit, the Zone change, they all had different types of conditions. They all dealt with the same project but you had different reviewing agencies. You had the State Land Use Commission reviewing a set of, you know, reviewing the project, they made their set of conditions. You had the Planning Commission reviewing the application and they had their own set of conditions relating to the use permit. And then you had the County Council approving the zone change and they had their own set of conditions. What we tried to do was try to mesh all conditions together because, you know, they had different bodies acting on it. And we tried to mesh it up and make it basically consistent so that this developer or any subsequent developer by working at one set of ordinance would have a cleaz understanding what he or she needed to do to comply with conditions of approval. That was one of the major motivating factors behind the requested amendments. There were also conditions that the previous owner of the property had negotiated successfully with the community. There's an outstanding agreement with the Puako Community Association, another agreement with the Hawaii Island Environmental Council, dealing with the biorational development of the golf course. There's a memorandum of understanding between major property owners in this area, the Mauna Kea Properties, Mauna Lani, Waikoloa and at that time was Nansay regarding the planning and development of a regional water p?an. So, you know, they had all of these different types of agreements and you had all of these multiple sets of conditions. So, as I indicated earlier, we tried to come forth with changes that would make it editorially clean. At the same time, the applicant wanted to propose a project district which is a r~ncept thffi' : nllnwed nndnr ?,~ninp ~'rde to ~llnvr fnr ,nn~ ~ w:~rigtii~~i~. nr ,1.., L~~i fl r~= i},~TI within the urban district. The Commissioners know what happened at the last PlanninK Commission meeting on this __!.'ittar I'h ar^.cq~ 1 he h.~ L.t.,t,::'_X11:1dC'".::°.a!:d;l:o'!~~atl.'a~' t:'i:, ri:i: .,,..u.. u~ i". what exactly was the applicant requesting. So we had asked for deferral and, hopefully, within the last month we will try, you know, our goal was to address all the concerns that were raised before, you know, this Commission. The last month there have been a number of meetings with different community groups. There have been a number meetings also with the individuals. And 5 we believe that, for the most part, we did address a lot of the concems, but many other concerns still aze outstanding. At this point in time the applicant is very close in arriving at certain memorandums of understanding with the Mauna Lani Resort, as well as the Waikoloa Community Association but there are certain things that still need to be worked out. And to residents or the interest of the Puako Community Association, there were also a number of other items that still need to be addressed, items that we had huped to have been successful in ad~~ess~ng them by today but were not. And from the applicant's standpoint time is rather important; and so what he, what the applicant has elected to do is to withdraw all of those applications with the exception of only the time share. The withdrawal of the applications, however, in no way would suggest that the applicant does not intend to continue working with these communities and interested groups in coming up with revised memorandum of understandings or agreements with these different communities. As I mentioned eazlier, at the last Planning Commission meeting date, it was applicant's intent to always be a part of the community; and being a part of the community means trying to address all of the reasonable conditions. So all you have right now is that the applicant is deciding to, has decided to withdraw its existing requests and will proceed with the existing entitlements, and they will try to see, if the Commission willing and the County Council willing, trying to see how the time share can better fit within this project area. As a result of discussions with the community, there were some concems about not having a number in terms of the time share azea, you know, whether we would have 1795 or what. The applicant has conceded that it would be no more than 750 time share units and only within the commercial village area and the multi-family zoned areas. I think, having said that, you know, if there aze questions relating to, you know, the specific time shaze, you know, we'd be more than willing to address them. But I'd like to just kind of also back up a little bit and say that, you know, in conjunction with the letter requesting the withdrawal of all of those applications, I did attach a communique that the applicant's representative did pass out to the community groups, particularly to the Waikoloa Community Association when we had a meeting with the community last week, I believe. And in that, that we had, the developer had stated that the school facilities would be incre the area for the school facilities would be increased from 16 to 32 acres. And we also discussed the possibility of changing the roadway condition so that, in fact, the developer would be responsible for constructing a mauka/makai road as the project proceeds. So although these are not necessarily however, that the developer cannot proceed to exceed whatever conditions have been outlined by the various decision makers. So this is why like having separate agreements with the „inr~uniity I th;r~k_ era vcrv imp~~rlant And relative to the schools and relative to the mauka-makai connection, the applicant believes that with the time share it makes the project a little bit more economic. You provide a greater economic cushion to the overall project such that these kinds of additional concessions demanded by the community would be more realistically possible. 6 Having said that, you know, we'd be more than willing to answer your questions. We do have some of the more technical consultants on these different areas available for your, or the community's, or the public's response. BAKER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions at this time for Sidney? TOGt~SFII: Mr. Chairman? BAKER: Commissioner Togashi. TOGASHI: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fuke, I was wondering what kind of a feedback did you get regarding the, specifying the number of time shaze units as 750 from the community as well as the adjoining property owners in Mauna Lani, Mauna Kea, and so forth? FUKE: Well, I think that the, it is always the applicant's intent not to develop the entire allowed 1795 units into time share; it was more just trying to arrive at what the number was. And I think the original number that the developer may have proposed was something like in the neighborhood of about 900. But after discussions with the community and different association members, the decision was finally to go down to 750. Whether in fact that 750 time shaze units will ever be developed, you know, still remains to be seen. It may be too much but on the other hand it may not be, depends on, you know, exactly what the market is all about. I'd like to kind of like just give you a little bit background in terms of the whole, how this time share law came into, well, play as best as I understood. I believe it kind of like happened like in the late, in the 70s or the eazly 80's. It's a State law which requires that the time shaze uses be allowed only in certain areas. And as a result the County, being a creature of the, you know, State government, must abide by this requirement. And there was some concern about the indiscriminate use of time share and existing apartments or condominium buildings, particularly in Honolulu. And so home owners began to testify with the Legislature asking that there be some control because, you know, you had an existing condominium project and not knowing who the neighbor was going to be provided some amount of, I guess, anxieties. And, as a result, they came forth with this language that would say if you are in a resort area your expectation is there that you're going to have someone coming in and out. But, on the other hand, if you're like in a standard residential community then maybe the expectation should be a little bit more on a ihi. 'll.. 1,,1„ -jai; i~~l;: r1. ir;r., i•~t. t~~,~. fry _ ~~n~S („~11 1{~, i'~ 11in7'. the reason why I believe that the conditions, the stipulations came out as such that resort areas would be permitted; and if you're in a non-resort area then it would, it'd have to be designated ~~nly if thc~ t'rnmty ~"nun~•,il autlu,riisd, ynu know, through a resolution. So in this particular situation you have, it's a brand new community. So if you allow time share uses in the beginning then people who move into an area already have that expectation that it is time share permissible, unlike, you know, having time shaze in an existing building. And that's kind of like how I understood like how the time share law came about. You know, and it's 7 basically a form of ownership. It does not change density. What governs density, the number of units over there, is the zoning, is the zoning law. All of the other terms and conditions that were articulated by this body, the County Council and the Land Use Commission, all of these conditions relating to this project still have to be respected. TOGASHI: But even if the density is not changed, doesn't a time share alternative create more impacts on the community than, let's say, single family, single residential housing? FUKE: Okay, I think that, you know, in terms of, there's a lot of misunderstanding in terms of time share. First of all time share is just a form of ownership. It's like having maybe 8 or 10 people, I don't know what the interval is, you know, owning a unit, versus like one individual. The impacts would vary. Time shares generally tend to be for visitors of an area, visitors to an area. So obviously the impacts to schools, the impacts to basic community facilities, governmental facilities would probably be significantly less than afull-time resident. Then there comes the issue of the traffic, you know, whether they would be generating more traffic. I do have the traffic consultant but he passed me, he provided me with information that was taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It was kind of interesting to find that for 750 units the average trip on a week day would be for, you know, time share would be like 3.16; whereas like a single family detached housing would be 9.57; and if you have a traditional residential condo town house the average trip rate is 5.86. So what it's suggesting here is that in terms of the number of vehicle traffic, if this is correct, and I'm not a traffic engineer but I'm just taking that at face value, then obviously the traffic volume is much higher for a single family residential home owner, then secondly a condominium home owner, and then thirdly a time share. It was interesting also that, you know, we do have a study that was commissioned by Peat Marwick, you know, dealing specifically with some of the time share kind of impacts. And it kind of showed that the age profile especially in Hawaii is that, you know, you have people who are like about in the baby boomer age, you know, like in the SOs, so the tendency for their recreational activities would be more like in the golfing area much more than ocean area. Although there's no statistics to show, you know, generally that kind of, in that report there was no statistic that made that kind of direct correlation. They also show that from an economic standpoint there is significantly much more benefit, you know, than just the traditional visitor. "r isA.l 11 lvy t)~.~L u,.i,i ~nAC t~id. ilal.,, i..ba (iG~lid iJ~Yil~.~i ~U, i~l.7ln CU d, fLi, YG, ,::ili Ul, .C: C.iiCl: illl'. 1. 111:_ increased loyalty to an area. I mean, if you bought in the area then generally you're going to tend to be like a repeat visitor. Unlike just staying at a traditional hotel where I visited there but I ,L~r~'t ~~~~»tly fPrl likes an rti~~~rinmi~'. thPre'~e nit an acnnnmic. motivation to en hack in then.. unlike flit were a time share. 5o there's like an increased loyalty; you have a great amount ot, more repeat visitation. The amount of the expenditures is a little higher, overall, you know, although the per person cost, you know, is like about $122 for a time share versus like a hotel which is $148. Generally on the other hand, however, the party size of a time share is like about 3.4 versus like a hotel which would be 2. So if you just do the simple math then there is a potential 8 that the overall expenditure pattern is much higher. But what was really interesting was in terms of the job creation. And when they looked at the job creation, is that For 100-unit time share, that they approximate about 55 full time positions being created by a 100 -unit time shaze project. The direct and indirect job generation was 1.24 jobs per unit. So if you have a 100-unit project then the direct and indirect number of jobs would be 124. There also was, I guess, somewhat related to the traffic too, say, like because the time share residents tended to have a longer stay, the amount of cars is different too. You know, because they come in a group they use less cars. 'you know iF have like 4 or 5 using one, you know, rather than like a, well, they said they use lean cazs and they stay longer. That means the checking in is also less too; you know, you don't have that amount of turn around. TOGASHI: You know this study by Peat Marwick, this was a study commissioned on behalf of the applicant or was this done for some other time share unit? Fi JKE: No. It was a study that was commissioned by the applicant. And I just got it today so I don't have, unfortunately, copies to show the Commission right now. But we do have a representative from, well, the person that made the study. So if you do have any specific questions on that, he'd be more than willing to come up to answer them. BAKER: Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Fuke? MOSHER: Has there been any discussion of putting a light out there at the intersection of FUKE: Queen Kaahumanu Highway? MOSHER: Queen Kaahumanu and going into this area? FUKE: One of the consultants had had some discussions with the State Department of Transportation. And it's kind of my understanding that the State DOT right now is looking seriously at signalizing two areas at that point. One is at the Waikoloa intersection and the other is at the entrance to the Waikoloa Resort azea. Relative to this project site, I guess, it's still under review. However, like in the event that the State, you know, calls for a traffic light, then based on what the existing conditions read, then the applicant is obligated to pay his pro rata share for traffic signal lights in that area. BAKER: So, Sidney, what you're saying is that there is a condition in there already, that if it is determined, that you will be paying a fair share? r Uttc: ina[ ~ cvntameu in me z,onmg vrmuance. BAKER: Yeah. I guess that answers our question. Any other Commissioner Togashi. 9 TOGASHI: I'm just curious about, you know, these resolutions they normally, they do not come attached with conditions because it's permissible within? No conditions? It's just a resolution, general resolution? GOLDSTEIN: I don't think I've ever seen a resolution with conditions and yours would be a recommendation to the County Council. tsAKLK. :~u, Planniug Director, could we as part of our rcconinrendatiou ask then_~ to, about the feasibility of a light in line with the discussion? GOLDSTEIN: That, I believe, the existing zoning conditions would carry; and whether you ask for this in a resolution, the zoning is an ordinance and so the conditions there would cazry. BAKER: Okay. So, in other words, it's, practically speaking, it is taken care of? GOLDSTEIN: That's correct. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just kind of read this, it's contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The Condition, I believe it's Q or 2, but basically what it reads is: "future long-term transportation improvements attributed to the project as identified by the State Department of Transportation, including agrade-separated interchange and frontage road system, shall be constructed as required by the Department of Transportation." This relates to a grade separated, but it does not limit, necessarily limit itself to a grade sepazated interchange. And then it goes on to say, so it can be, if DOT calls for a traffic light, for example, then that would be the requirement. If they call for, you know, a grade separator then that will be a requirement. And it goes on further to say that the applicant's share of the cost of such improvements shall be credited to or deducted from his fair share contribution. So there is that language. BAKER: Okay, thank you. I think that clears that up. Any, Commissioner Souza, you have a question? SOUZA: I don't have a question at this point. But may I suggest, maybe if we listen to public testimony then I may have questions after public testimony. applicant? Then we do have about six people that signed up to testify. Commissioners, any more questions for the applicant? Okay, hearing none, I'd like to call forward John Broadbent, .l:.. Elizabeth Meversen. 'Tam Nance and Rick Rapp. Please come forward, Sachiko Murano anc{ ~rtn tieu. ~,ouiu you stanu so ~ can swear everyone m ar one ume. ~ouia you please raise your right hand. Anybody else who's going to testify also stand and please raise your right hand. Do you sweaz or affirm that you will testify truthfully before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? 10 TESTIFIERS: I do. BAKER: Okay, thank you. Be seated, and we'll go with John Broadbent. BROADBENT: Good afternoon. I'm John Broadbent. I live at 68-1024 Mauna Lani Point Drive on the Kohala Coast. I'm an owner up there at Mauna Lani Resort and the current president of the Association of Homeowners of Mauna Lani Poinl Estates. In addi lion lu ll'~e following remarks, I have submitted written testimony this morning on behalf of this Association of Homeowners of Mauna Lani Resort. My purpose this afternoon is to express the concerns of many Mauna Lani property owners about the development of the 3,000-acre tract referred to by the applicant as the Puako Residential/Hotel Community. As you know well, the Kohala coast is regarded by many as one of the world's finest resort areas. Its development over the last four decades has been done with very high standards and with great sensitivity to the environment. Those who have invested here are naturally concerned that future developers on the Kohala Coast have equally high standards and environmental sensitivity. The owners of the proposed Puako Residential Community have requested changes to the existing zoning conditions applicable to the 3,000-acre property. At the last Planning Commission hearing on February 4'" the owners asked for a deferral of the Planning Commission's decision on their request so that they could meet with various interested parties to discuss their requested changes and respond to many community concerns. As Mr. Fuke indicated to you a few moments ago, as a result of such meetings the applicant has expressed a willingness to modify certain of their requests. For example, in a written document given to the Mauna Lani residents at such a meeting the applicants stated that they would seek approval of time share units and only one of the golf villages within their proposed project with a cap of 750 such units. They indicated in that meeting that the study by KPMG Peat Marwick was underway and that study would be available prior to today's Planning Commission meeting. I am not aware that the study has been made available to the interested parties. We've heard, I think, Mr. Fuke a few minutes ago that he just got the study this morning, so that the interested parties really haven't had the benefit of reviewing the impact study that the applicant had commissioned. And the applicant had indicated, at least to Mauna Lani, at the meeting with the Mauna Lani residents on February 18"', that we would have the opportunity to review that. In addition, at that meeting, the owners stated that they were going to make various other changes in ~ modifications. ~i+/e believe it is incunrhent upon flh? applicant to formally rPVise their requtisi For pnpnsP~l ,;iiaugrs su ao so nr~,uiNut arc liic u~~difi~alivuo dial lLcy aic owitii ig a.ni w aiiaw oulii~.~o ut uui~. for adequate public comment on their revised proposal before the Commission reaches any decision. I1 The request is to create as many as 750 new time share units, which is four times the present number at the nearby Waikoloa Resort project. I mean, it is a change to current approvals that is likely to have a significantly increased impact on existing infrastructure. It is also a change that concerns many existing property owners because a time share owner typically does not have as much investment or time commitment to the Kohala coast. We ask that your decision with regard to this request be deferred until you and the affected community better understand the rationale for probable impacts of the time share units. Within the other document that was given to Mauna Lani Residents the applicant states "We understand that there is a current need for additional time share in Hawaii, particularly if it is associated with the golf course." If there is a basis for that judgement, I think it would be very useful for the affected community as well as yourselves to have an understanding of what that basis is, either in the form of a market analysis or some other infonnation, to better justify that statement. To summarize, our overwhelming concern is that any developer in the Kohala Coast be environmentally sensitive and be held to high standards: Specifically, that a developer's plans be subject to a rigorous review with appropriate and adequate opportunity for public comment; that the developer provide guarantees of sufficient resources to complete each phase of their proposed project; that the proposed improvements to support each phase of the project be completed and approved prior to the closing of any sales of units within that phase in the project; and when that's completed there is adequate provision for the operation and maintenance of any nonpublic facilities within the project. I urge you to defer judgment on the request for changes to the zoning until you have satisfied yourselves that the proposed changes have been adequately justified and subjected to sufficient public comment. We do not believe that either of these conditions have yet been satisfied. Thank you for your attention. BAKER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Mosher. MOSHER: This is probably a question of staff. But I noticed that, was there publication of the time share request made in the newspaper? MIRIKITANI: Yes, it was. MOSHER: I don't, when? , I~ MOSHER: Oh, that little newspaper? rvllr~rr~ i ~ .H ivy, uie; mur uawaya~ni ~.iiak uie ,~~nlr triiwtc~.i, i~ n~Ycnc~ n~ tii~; ~uui~+. newstands. GIANNINI: That's the one required by 12 MOSHER: That's required to be used by the State. GOLDSTEIN: It's not our choice. GIANNINI: And it's also, it was also, I believe it was part of the last, the last, the previous agenda for the last meeting. MUSHEK. i{iglii.. GIANNINL That there was MOSHER: Right. GIANNINI: And, also, for the record, that resolution is the only thing before the Commission now. The requests for the zoning changes, amendments, have been withdrawn, along with the use permit amendments. MOSHER: Okay, thank you. BAKER: So, in other words, we should be discussing only the time share part of it. Any other questions? SOUZA: I have a question. BAKER: Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: The fact that we're only discussing the time sharing of 750 units, and other than maybe the amount of time people vary and using time share compared to the regular residents and the impact that that would have, what, do you have any other objection to the project? I mean, addressing the time share, what would the big objections now be for time sharing if we cannot do anything about not, anything else? BROADBENT: Well, I think that if we look at what has happened at the Bay Club at the Waikoloa Resort, we are authorized to have time share units. Over a period of, oh, several years they have sold perhaps 150 of a 170-odd units. So the statement by the applicant that there is an ~~rg.:;c,u.:~:.d .ucu~ 1., La ~ 1€n~ ti~_c 4,t ~_,1 ~_u; ilr~ ,ctn. ~ ,r-~.~cir_~_ on the Kohala coast. So I question the veracity of the applicant's statement in that regard based on what has actually happened here. I think that it is, in view of the potentially different impacts Tic limo share snits have, relative 9.o condominiums. it would be appropriate for the Planning t:ommisston to really understand the rarionale for creating more of an economic environment that has not demonstrated a lot of attraction of those units. And if you can satisfy yourselves and the community can satisfy itself that there's an economic need for such units and that the impact of such units and the infrastructure can be satisfied, then I think a case can be made that they are desirable. But I don't think that case has been made yet. 13 MOSHER: Is Bay Club time share? BROADBENT: It's my understanding that they aze, yes. MOSHER: I wonder what the cost is to buy a time versus what the cost would be to buy a time at Waikoloa. That might make a difference in the salability of the project. BROADBENT: That very well may be true. I think it would be appropriate for the applicant to present sufficient evidence that their proposal has characteristics that would be different. MOSHER: I'm going to ask him what the cost is going to be, if they have an estimate for sales price. Thank you. BAKER: Okay, Commissioners, any other questions for the testifier? Hearing none, I want to thank you, sir. Next person would be Elizabeth Meyerson. MEYERSON: I'm Elizabeth Meyerson. I live at 74-5196 Kamae Place in Kailua-Kona. To say I was blindsighted by the change in what was going on in the development, involving this development, is a minor statement. But I'm concerned that the only things that speak about the desirability of time share comes from the developer's mouths. I don't think sufficient time has been given to have anyone review the proposal and see the impacts. I'd like to know, is there any rebuttal to, for example, the traffic situation? I was in the tourism business in Hawaii and we dealt with many people from time shares where some of them do definitely come here year after year. Many of them buy the time shares simply to be able to trade to other places in the country or out of the country. Therefore, the loyalty aspect bothers me somewhat, too. Also when we were picking up people for these various tours we tend find to find more couples than noncouples. So I'm questioning the density on that, too. I don't know the answer but I surely would like some time to find out the answers to some of those questions of time share. The traffic safety up there bothers me a great deal; and, of course, I've spoke to this Commission before and I'm concerned with water usage again. And I think time shares tend to encourage more water usage simply because it's not your home and it's not your water bill. I could be wrong but that has been my experience. If at some point in the neaz future other information could be provided other than by the developer, it would be very much appreciated before you take a stand on this particular issue. I was very much pleased when someone brought up the M word, Moratorium, about infrastucturP; ano tear s one or the pruuicuis r u~ c;uncerrieri ai~oi.u with ibis urue suai r, dcvt:u,}~wcur. i uaiiic you for your time. BAKER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Hearing none, I want to thank you. Next speaker, Tom Rapp. 14 RAPP: My name is Rick Rapp BAKER: Oh. RAPP: Thirty seven BAKISR. ,lorry, t thought you were Tom. 1 stand c~~irected. Noxt speaker is Rick, okay. RAPP: Is this one? BAKER: Yes. RAPP: My name is Rick Rapp, I'm at 37-B Puako Beach Drive. You mentioned you wanted to have the testimony in regazds to the time share because the resolution was withdrawn. So that does away with a little bit of my presentation. But let's talk about the time share. First of all, what's before the Planning Commission right now is for timeshare. It's a zoning issue of whether it's a resort. It was mentioned you either had to with A, B, or C. Well, C says the Council, okay. It does not say City Planning, okay. So City Planning as faz as A, B or C goes really isn't involved in that situation. It goes in front of the City Council but the developer would like the City Planning to pass a resolution which they have never ever done in the past. Okay, there's no precedent for it. And you can't add anything on it. They just want you to be done away with everything except with the time share; and we'd like you to come here and pass a resolution to go in front of the City Council to say that it's okay to have time share. Okay, well, I don't think that's going with the rules, okay. I don't think that's fair. When they come in front of you they bought that property at a fire sale, okay. Now this is a developer who buys the property at a fire sale and all he wants now is to put time shazes in there which will increase the value of that property. And he also wants to keep the commercial where the original project had the commercial property in the smack center of that development, okay. For that development, they want to move it down to the highway, okay; and they still want to do that, they still want to do that. So now they're going to have a huge 30-acre shopping center right there next to the highway which they also want to put time shares in; and they want to do away with the other proposals but they want to keep time shares. Because, that developer really asked their representatives can we see from you the annual report on that company because we want to know what they're involved in. Well, the annual report daesn't exist. okay. Okav, well, then keep telling us the developer is going to do this and the ueveloper is going w uo cnat ana They it ati uu i~ in tnc; zuuua sp~u[, okay. Let me say, okay, can we have examples of projects you've done? Okay, we'd like to see some projects you've been involved in, you know. They're out of Las Vegas, Nevada. You know, that city has developed in a wonderful fashion, so we wanted to see what they're involved in. They 15 have no other projects they have been involved in, okay. 'They have nothing to show us, except their aloha spirit that we don't know anything about this project until it shows up in the newspaper. They throw in our face,which Mr. Fuke did today, okay, that there were agreements that went on 15 years ago. Okay, he testified to that fact today. There were agreements, okay, and they were worked out over years, okay. And one of those agreements was when that project is permitted you will not use the name Puako because the Puako residents were very upset about that. The original project went through, it was permitted, it was ready to go, Nansay got into financial trouble and it didn't go. Okay, so what does Mr. McCain and his group do, they name it Puaku, okay. And then they come to us and then they call it, in the revision they call it the Puako Golf Community. They agreed 15 years ago not to do that, okay. So when they go and make a presentation to our community what they do is they spend the first ten minutes explaining to us how they are not using the name Puako. Are you lost on there? So am I. Okay, I missed it. You know, I couldn't figure it out, okay. And in the spirit of aloha in their much improved project which they introduced to you, Mr. Fuke introduced it to you, at your last meeting, this is a much improved project which they, and they have recently withdrawn But what they said, what they didn't say on the much improved project was that they removed the developer's responsibility for the construction of the connecting road; they removed the public golf course, they forgot to mention that; they drastically reduced the affordable housing requirement, like the Big Island of Hawaii doesn't need that; they reduced their taxes and the land set aside for schools; they removed the 1200-foot setback; and then they changed from multi-residential to time share. Now Mr. Fuke said, well, I don't know how many people own a time share. Is it 8, is it 88 to 10? My brother designs time shares. What the time shares are is what is called to a developer a gold mine. Because when you sell an apartment for $120,000, in a condominium you're now selling that for $12,000 a week. Okay, that comes up to over $620,000 per unit. Okay, so when they say they're putting 750 units and not increasing the density, well, no, they aren't increasing the density at all as far as the member of buildings go, okay, but they are increasing their profit margin astronomically. And how anyone can sit there with a straight Face and tell you they aren't increasing the density of people, okay, I need to get an IQ test, too. Because they sell that by the week, okay. The most anyone buys is 2 weeks, okay. But let's just assume then that you have 40 different owners. Okay, when they come each week, I've been to a time share. I just was in Sadona, okay. The other poor people if it was residential, i4~6y ~~ts Ju1Gi, iti~y ~s• buL Lip LAi.J ii1C i:1:1S tiJ LJ ai)U Cl1C; . J ~`.:L rlilt~. Ells `9 ~iCtt you're in a time share you don't have to do that. You know what you're doing? You're on the road all the time. And you know where you're going? You're going down to the infrastructure Mr,~!l~r, T ar,~l 'the. (11'chid, and the Puako which all those, people paid for. They paid premium prices foe that and put the infrastructure in, oKay, and built the tacihries for the public and the public access. Now someone walks in here buys it at a fire sale, okay, and in fact he offered it to us, he'd sell it to us 25 percent more than he bought it for. So here's a man who's 16 really concerned with why and the community, that's what I call a land speculator, not a developer, okay. So what this time share is, is simply that they get the permits through and, get it, get it in there and then turn around and sell it. I'll bet money on it, okay. That's all they're going to do. They're going to develop this over yeazs and years. There's no master plan any more. Let's put a shopping center right there, okay, right there on the highway. There's no, no other thing like that in all of Kohala; it doesn't exist, okay. Time shares that are there now in, in very nice communities aren't even selling. They just want to turn it and make a profit. It will be something like Paradise Pazk, although, on the other side where they go in, and they set it up and they get we're going to put a school here, and we're going to put a community center there. And, cause I live in a, I own a house over there, okay. They don't have water, okay; they don't have fire hydrants, okay; they don't have roads, they don't have schools, okay. But the guy got his money and he ran. And that's how I see this going, you know. Get an example from this developer, have him show you what he has done, he hasn't done anything. He bought it for nothing and he wants an exception to the rule. It's not resort and it has to go through Council, doesn't have to go through planning. And if he wants to change it, then have him change it or resubmit it, you know. And they come to us and tell us that they want to be good neighbors, but we just aren't going to tell you about any of it, okay. And they come to the paper, and then it does, then we'll show up, you know. But this is not, this is not in the aloha spirit, okay; and they're acting like they're doing it to be nice. And jobs, okay, well, let's bring all the construction workers from all the islands, let's bring them all over here, make a mess of it right there, and then when it's all done they all leave. We have to live with the problem. But this is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. There's no plan for it anymore. And all they want to do is build the largest metropolitan area in all of Kohala, that's all they want to do. Thank you. BAKER: Thank you. Planning Director Goldstein. GOLDSTEIN: I do need to clarify for the record some of the statements that you made. It is true Condition 6, or C, that Item C says the only other way a time shaze maybe established is through a resolution by the County Council. And so the action by this Commission is to provide a recommendation to the Council, and they are ultimately the ones that will be acting on it. And nn~,n~ the rra^nn mhv the re¢nhtti~rt is hrrina Pm~e,cFr) thrrn~gh the f`. rn~~mia~i~;» ~rni tbr~. Department is that by Charter, the County of Hawaii Charter, it requires that all planning and related land use matters be processed through the, first, the Department and then the County Planning Commission on to the Council. And so that's the reason why this matter is before the ~-.m n Y^rl - *i~} -•c~~rri I ~~.~+I - nni~l~r lr n,:~+ i n~, _ 1, i iF, overall process. RAPP: Well, then I would recommend that a resolution be passed that the time share be denied. 17 GOLDSTEIN: That's County Council's kuleana and they may, as a matter of fact, do that. GIANNINI: So what you are asking the Commission to do is to give an unfavorable recommendation to the Counci]? KAYY: Yes. BAKER: Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: I take it that in the event that we don't allow, or recommend not to allow time share that then the fact that the developer withdrew all his requests that you'll be very happy and be in approval of the project? RAPP: I think the original project the man purchased is the much improved project. SOUZA: So there's no argument there. Now we're all right for the time sharing? RAPP: Well, there are many things in the original project, okay, I mean, that requires, the original project requires a lot more back then 15 years ago than it does actually now. There's much more required in the original project, like affordable housing. There's a lot more in there, okay. There's a public golf course in there. There's a road in there, okay. There's a lot more. And the design requirements, in the original project there was lot of public testimony saying that, everyone was afraid that that commercial would be near highway. Okay, no one wanted that. In the original project, and if you look at the original, it's in the center. Okay, I personally think the Japanese group, they're more kinder than that in the environment and design, okay, rather than developers out of Las Vegas, okay, and people who just want to make a buck and run. The other project was much better designed and had many more restrictions on it. The 1200-foot setback, I like that much more. Yeah, I'd go for that over what they have any time. SOUZAI: Mr. Chairman? t3 rah r.11. A~V13111IIJJllJ11Yl ~JVILLA. SOUZA: Yeah. But what's before us and what we cannot change is what's, what :'P~1'1 he lrlt~, rtS~.wi tl"'S' ''fl{f tq. r,ll~art Ttl!' nnw 1'Hr~~IHVr Y~INTI W~g1T IBC F(1T t1T1'16 Stta T'I IIQ Ul77tC .~`~O tlid~ project that's here that they withdrew is the project they are legally allowed to go ahead wnh. RApp; Well, let them go ahead with what they are legally entitled to go ahead with, okay. Let them go ahead with that. But I'll bet you money they don't do it. Okay? 18 BAKER: Okay. Fine. Well, let's just address the issue at hand, yeah. Any other questions for the testifier from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I want to thank you. And the next speaker is Tom Nance, Sachiko Murano, and Jim Bell, Evan King. We still have one more seat up here. It looks like Tom Nance is not here. Then Evan King, you can come forward. KING: Okay. RAK.ER• That's you_ Okay, how about Steven Strauss. That way we can fill up all the seats. Sachiko Murano first. MIJRANO: My address is care of Mauna Lani Resort, 68-1310 Mauna Lani Drive, Suite101, Kohala Coast 96743. Since you won't allow me to talk about, we came here prepared with something else. One thing is that, I'd like to say is that we had a meeting. And as far as time share is concerned we are awaiting, waited, waited, waited for their promised report to extend it to the community, and which to date we have not seen it. That was kind of unfortunate. It is kind of hard for us to say Now our position about time share hasn't been changed as of our written testimony done on January 27'~ . Let me talk about little of my small experience about time share, how the time share should be looked at before you make your decisions. Time share is an alternative to the hotel. Because it is sold by the week it is relatively easier. The reason why that all this beach, hotel company is going to time share is to, because it is very expensive to build a hotel. It is almost impossible to build a new hotel from ground up. It's very, very expensive and a return on investment is very difficult for this development to do. So what they are looking at is, the time share is to, instead of the building, building hotel, they did a time share; and they, the hotel company runs as a manager. So it's almost like a hotel. Then every week the different owner comes in and stays. So they needed to change the housekeeping, landscaping, engineering, all those things. Because we have, one unit of the two-bedroom unit, for example, will have 51 owners. So 51 owners meaning that it's usually coming in a family. So they are coming in, say in atwo-bedroom condominium probably be six people stay in any one unit. So it is completely different from that. As far as the impact is concerned, hotel room is very smaller than the time share units. So we usually have like 2 to 3 persons staying in one unit when compared to a time share where you have 6 persons. Even though they are saying unit is, the unit hasn't been changed, but I think it's th° imnru't tr. Yhr infrastnzctura nnssihly Sn thew will do Char?'^, rPall~,~ thinn~ vnn ran -1n differently. That's the reason why we're requesting to study further the impact statement as to, for the time share owners. Therefore, that's what this is for, and we haven't seen it. So it is, it's different. And I, to me it's like, instead of like, that he can go into that zoning, to the resort zone r ,{r. }h rin rh i,a thv h~ir1 ~r hlir fim~ ^-h qrr ~q n. hP rinpP !r.~. rho altnrn ~tw~ r.7 ~h~^ ~n ~iir~}-.. right now. As an alternative to that building the hotel, that they're doing the time share development. 19 So what you're looking at is this, under the law it's still you issue the deed and that kind of stuff. So it's just looking as the realistic but at the same, it's looking at it from the hotel industry as a prepaid vacation. So you're paying for the usage of that room by the way of the ownership, but in reality it's that you are paying in advance for your vacation time. So from yeaz after another that you can come and enjoy your stay. So it is just for you to just watch the time shaze is, I wanted to share with you, since I can answer that. That's my, so I think, I really think really the study is needed before you make your decision. That's what I'm, I will try to say. BAKER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Hearing none, Mr. Bell. BELL: Thank you. Thank you. I'm Jim Bell with Belt Collins and I'm speaking on behalf of Mauna Lani Resort. I think at the last meeting Anne Mapes spoke; and she was unable to be here today so I have been called on to make remarks with reference to the changed request. I think you all know Mauna Lani has been on the coast 30 years now. I think you have to think about Mauna Lani Resort, Mauna Kea Resort, Waikoloa Resort. Huge, huge investments have been made in this County for the last 30 years. So you need to think very carefully about what is taking place. Mauna Lani is not come and run. Mauna Lani has stayed in the area and gone through ups and downs over the years with you. Mauna Lani basically is disappointed that the other requests were withdrawn because Mauna Lani had been led to believe that there would be changes made, some of those better than currently exists. In the area such as the number of, total number of units, reduction in the number of units, access on to Queen Kaahumanu Highway for construction, preserving the access into this resort which you have all participated in over 30 yeazs and do not want to see destroyed, questions of water resources, what is the availability of water, Mauna Lani is very concerned about it. You had numbers at the last meeting on how much water will be that's left, not much, questions regazding, also questions regarding the use of public facilities, particularly makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Obviously, with the withdrawal of all those requests, except for timesharing as the only issue we're looking at, as Ms. Murano has already indicated to you, nobody at Mauna Lani has seen the KPMG Report. We've not had a copy made available to us. It was promised to us, it was promised to us weeks ago. We've never seen it. You have the developer come in and tell you what's in it, but none of the rest of us have seen it. What is the actual impact on the promises that were made to the Mauna Lani residents, not to tVlaUira Laill l~tidV11, !1N~ ~_UShvLd.lh!i ill i. ~.u Lilc 1U37 dc.ilt:; v'v'i lti i'd'.i ~ll~ll .IIlilt<i1.S aUliaa along the Kohala Coast. You've had the Homeowners Association's president talk to you. But they were promised at meetings, at their meeting with the Bridge Puako people, they were p-orris°d " ~nri v~~~is h~~~~l iiY~, it~ry wire prnmirF~l a traffic, tiPht that Bridge Puako would qav fur, and the prurnise of reduction to 1150 units, they were promised water momtonng, and so on. What happens to all those promises? Are they, they're all gone now? We don't know. Mauna Lani and its residents, the people that it has nurtured all these years, are frankly quite concerned about what is going to happen next. And we'd add one further thing, that is that Mauna Lani is not a party to any agreement with Bridge Puako except for the 1994 water 20 agreement which involved Waikoloa, Mauna Lani, and Mauna Kea and Nansay. Mauna Lani residents nor the Corporation itself have reached no agreements with the Bridge Puako people. We did not know until we came today that the requests were withdrawn. Nobody would show us the KPMG report, nobody would tell us what the impact of time share is going to be on the resort areas. We don't really believe that you have the information in front of you or that we have had the information promised to us. Thank you very much. iiAKEk: Commissioners, arty yuestioris for Mr. Bell? hearing none, ucxt speakci. KING: Thank you. Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay? GIFFIN: Yes. KING: Okay, thank you. I'm Evan King. I live at 59 Puako Beach Drive. I'm the president of the Puako Community Association. And I understand today being at the meeting that the developer has removed their requested changes with the exception of the time share designation. And I had a question regarding to the application where we filed a petition for standing in a contested case. And I didn't know what the status of that is at this present time. We filed that on Thursday. GOLDSTEIN: So you're asking what happened? KING: Yeah. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. Since they withdrew the use permit application KING: Okay. GOLDSTEIN: The contested case issue is no longer there. KING: Okay. No, as it relates to time share, that is a resolution-? GOLDSTEIN: Time share is a resolution that goes before the County Council and so that is not ~~sivC , .n.. a }~i-irw.~~,.i .,i~w i~~, Ii A.i GOLDSTEIN: No. It's not something that would trigger the necessity or the opportunity u~r n rnfl Fr'tifP~~ ra~f" KING: Okay, thank you for clazifying that. As it relates to the time shaze designation, I'll keep this short and sweet, but we have had no unbiased information related to the impact that that would have on the community. So our 21 Association cannot properly respond to the current owner's proposal until as it obtains all the relevant information, it has sufficient time to evaluate that information. We are requesting that the Planning Commission defer any action on this matter at this time to obtain this new information so we can make a decision relating to the resolution. In the meantime, the Association has opposed of the cunent owner's proposal for the time share designation. Thank you. ~Aggk: Any questions, Commissioners, for the spead:cr? Okay, lhauk you. Next speaker. STRAUSS: Good afternoon. I'm Seven Strauss. I represent Protect Puako. My residence address is House 110 Kaia'akea Camp, Ninole, Hawaii. A couple of points, essentially, what the Planning Commission is being asked to do is put its stamp of approval on a recommendation from the Planning Department, that it support a time share resolution. In refemng to the background report supplied to you by the Planning Department it states,"Impacts associated with this request such as historical, traffic, drainage and design concerns have been assessed in the environmental report which was filed with the change of zone application and will be mitigated through conditions of approval." And then it refers to these reports, two of which were in process. One was the Peat Marwick study which it states was in process and the other was a study by Pacific Planning Inc. time shaze traffic impacts, specifically time share traffic impacts. Well, I requested a copy of Peat Marwick's study from the developer's representative, Ihaven't received it yet; and nobody discussed the Pacific Planning study which apparently the Planning Depaztment felt that they had enough knowledge of without ever seeing to urge you to make a favorable recommendation. I think it's real dangerous. Not only does it cut off public input because you're being asked to just pass through what the Planning Department is telling you is good but the Planning Department itself is not even ensuring that it has the information available necessary to make that recommendation. So it's just a stamp of approval for the developer. I don't know how much effect if any that will have before the Council but I would imagine it has some. The Council listens to the Planning Commission. I'm not sure they're going to continually listen to you if they realize that you're accepting recommendations that have no factual basis. We'd like an opportunity to review those studies, as I'm sure the Planning Department would now that they would like to recognize that they don't have the information necessary to provide ~~uiar~n ii tLill llr_, ' 1.~. , „i ~,ir 1~~ ,,1, ~ ~~,i '~a~~tl :'i, L~.,rinrr~ ( inrn~...-:i;; but I do fault the Planning Department. You rely on them and they dropped the ball in this case. bL'ith cceard to traflc studies, 1 think that there's a couple of problems that the developer has already presented by [hose studies. m iyyr Dicey uiu a [rairic stiuuy cn ~uiy. iu iyyy ctiey uxi traffic study in October; and these are apples and oranges. In October traffic went down. I live on this side of the island, I drive there occasionally. The traffic is higher than it was in 1991 in general, that's my observation. Maybe the people who did traffic study see something differently. But I think when you do traffic studies at different times of the year you cause 22 problems for yourself and you mislead the fact finders, that's you, the Planning Commission. I don't think it's necessary for you to take any action in this proposed resolution. I think it would be unwise for you to do so. With regard to Mr. Fuke's presentation, I would like to be able to restrict my comments just to the resolution here that Mr. Fuke did not. And there's one point I think I need to bring up because he represented that the conditions that were being considered as modifications to the plans that are being submitted now withdrawn are commitrents. In page 2 of his letter to the Planning Department, March 2nd, Mr. Fuke states, "the commitments contained in the attachment were predicated upon the approvals of the submitted applications. With their withdrawal, there may be some modifications as to these commitments." So what you're left with is moving tazgets. You're left with commitments that aze not commitments. And at the same time the developer is saying we have these fluid commitments and we want you to support us with regard to our time shaze request before the County Council. And, again, I think it would be unwise, would put the Planning Commission in an unnecessarily difficult position as a body that has not considered evidence in front of it and has not required evidence to be submitted, before it puts its stamp of approval on something. And I don't think that's what the citizens of this community would you to do. Thank you. BAKER: Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Hearing none, I want to thank you. STRAUSS: Thank you. BAKER: The applicant's representative, please come forwazd at this time. SOUZA: Mr. Chairman? BAKER: Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: May bequest aten-minute recess before we get to the applicant. BAKER: Okay. GIFFIN: Yeah, I would like one. BAKER: Okay. Motion has been made for aten-minute recess. Any question? [LTiRnT4~ ~ .r.'..r ai BAKER: All in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 23 BAKER: The motion is carved. RF(~FD The meeting recessed at 2:30 p.m. RRC'ONVENED The meeting reconvened at 2:46 p.m. BAKER: The meeting will now come to order. Before we could ask the applicant iur sorue rebut ui surne explanation, I'd like to have Corp. Counsel explain the role of the Commissioners as far as this resolution and what our guidelines are, because as was stated earlier this is something that most of us have never see before. GIANNINI: Okay. As far as this, again, I've stated that there's no specific provision in the law about how a resolution is to be handled. However, under both the Charter and the Zoning Code, if there is an amendment to the Zoning Code such as a change in zoning or a change in the procedure, both the Charter and the Zoning Code require that there be hearings before the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Council in order to assist the Council in its final determination. In view of the fact that this is not really an amendment to the zoning not a true amendment to the Zoning Code in the sense that it's not an ordinance that's changing the Zoning Code, but it is a step, but that the passage of a resolution is a step that's required by the Zoning Code to be done, it was the feeling, and I believe it's correct, that this should be presented by the Planning Commission for a hearing to take public input on the idea of the resolution, behind the resolution. And, therefore, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to listen to public testimony, listen to the applicant, listen to other people, and then have that opportunity to make a recommendation one way or the other to the County Council, again, realizing that the County Council will have the opportunity to look at the entire record of this hearing and would be able to listen to further testimony when it gets before the Council. Therefore, I think that in determining this and, again, unlike with when you grant special permits or make other decisions such as that you have a standard to go by I think on this what you have to do is look at the resolution, read the resolution and determine whether or not the resolution accurately states what you feel, is reflected by, if you think that what's stated in the resolution accurately reflects what you have heazd from all of the sources and everything that you have read, and whether or not you believe that it would be favorable or unfavorable for the ~uu~, _~;u,:~ l,r:~c_ i ~_cl~.~-i~~,. 1'ha.d_ , BAKER: Any questions of Commissioners for Corp. Counsel? Hearing none ~nrnenne in thy; hank. °rou need to come forward. Use the mike. You need to give vaur name and address. STRAUSS: Yeah, Steven Strauss. Again, House 110, Kaia'akea Camp, Ninole, Hawaii. It would seem to me, Mr. Giannini, that in advising the Planning Commission you also 24 have a third alternative in that the Planning Commission can also make no recommendation on the resolution. Don't you agree? GIANNINI: Yeah, they have, they have done that in the past with zoning ordinances, right. BAKER: Okay, any other questions? Hearing none, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Again, Sidney Fuke representing or speaking on behalf of the applicant. Responding to some of the comments raised eazlier, I think that there had been a lot of misunderstandings and there still continues to be. I think that I'd like to, if I may, direct some questions off your staff to help clarify some of the misunderstandings. You know, with the withdrawal of the applicant's original applications dealing with the project district particularly, can the commercial uses be in a location where, I forgot his name, Mr. Rapp suggested that it be, like right at, next to the highway? Where can the commercial area be located? MIRIKITANI: In the original change of zone, the village commercial areas were designated within this entire area here. This area here is designated as village commercial. It's almost like in the center of the project area and a little bit to the right of this is another village commercial area. It is not located on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. FUKE: So with the withdrawal then of the project district amendment the commercial areas cannot be located in any where other than those areas designated on the zoning map? MIRIKITANI: That's con•ect. FUKE: Okay. What about in the area of the public play for the golf course? That is one of the existing conditions of the Use Permit and I believe also the State Land Use Commission. With the withdrawal of the applicant's proposed amendments on the Use Permit, what happens to that? MIRIKITANI: All of the conditions for the original change of zone remain. MIRIKITANI: The applicant is dictated to provide those public plays. t U1Cl:: tJOes that also apply to the attordable housing requnemetit! MIRIKITANI: That's correct. He has to provide affordable housing. FL7KE: What about the obligation to provide an area for school sites? 25 MIRIKITANI: He has to provide an area for school sites. FUKE: Parks? MIRIKITANI: Parks. t' IJl~;. ~Vlauka/uiakai road? MIRIKITANI: Absolutely. None of the conditions are changed. FiJKE: Correct. Thank you very much. I hope that kind of like puts to rest as far as like what, you know, all the conditions. And by the applicant's withdrawal of the proposed amendments, all those things are intact. BAKER: I think that really clears it up because, yes, there was a lot of misconception; and I think that you brought it back to the proper perspective that everything is intact from the original intent. FUKE: Thank you. There were some concerns like about who really is the applicant, the Bridge Puako. The applicant is, the application was signed by this, a guy by the name of John Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin has had property interest on this island for over 25 years. He has had some developments, not of this level but throughout the state; and he's also actively involved in one development project on the Kohala Coast. Understandably this is a 3,000-acre property, but it's a sizable project. It's a project that when Nansay had, Nansay just didn't go through. And so you have John Baldwin and, you know, his group, Bridge Puako that has sort of like picked up where Nansay left off and wants to proceed. Whether or not it's Bridge Puako or you have another company that comes in, I think the most essential thing is whether the conditions associated with the project's impact are all taken care of. And, you know, I don't believe like it should matter who the developer is, as long as that developer maintains what was represented and maintains all the conditions that were approved, you know, associated with the permits. One should not necessarily judge the ability of the developer, or any developer, to do it or not based on the clothes one wears. You know, I think it's just, if he can deliver or if somebody else can deliver whatever was represented then I think are making certain representations that they would pick up the ball where Nansay left off. And if Bridge Puako cannot do it, then you're going to have somebody else that comes in. But the ~s~itical think is that all of those thins are fulfilled. The other thing about like on the agreement, as I had noted in the beginning, Bridge Puako will honor all of the outstanding agreements that it has with the community, with the Puako Community Association, the agreement with the Hawaii Island Environmental Council and, as well as, the water agreement with three other neighboring major landowners. I've also indicated 26 they will continue to work with existing organizations, be it the Puako Community Association and the Mauna Lani people, and hopefully azrive at some sort of an updated agreement, if you may, a memo of understandings, you know, relating to some of the commitments that have been represented. We believe that we aze relatively close at arriving at some sort of an agreement with the Waikoloa Community Association, and perhaps the differences being so narrow may account for their being absent at today's meeting. Then again it could be the location. I'm not really saying what were the factors. But we would hope that at least it's the factor, our ability or the applicant's ability, to dome to very close terms with the Waikoloa Community Association whq as I understand at the last Planning Commission meeting, you know, really had a lot of concerns. Yes, I did mention that all of these kinds of commitments we have made through, written commitments that have been made by the applicant and passed out to the community, they've all been predicated upon a project district, they've been predicated upon a time shaze. You know, the original requests that were submitted before the Commission, they were all predicated on that. Understanding that, you know, if you do a project district it gives you the flexibility to move where your uses are. You know, obviously, the golf course now can be located in an area where you can save the developer considerable amount of excavation work or whatever. Under this kind of scheme the golf course has to go only in that area that's designated for the golf course. Your residential use must only go in an area where it's designated for residential. So, obviously, there's the potential for high amount of infrastructure cost. And so by having the project district it provided that that, the developer with greater flexibility. It provided him a greater margin of profit that perhaps can be used to fulfill many of these obligations, I mean, not obligations, but a lot of these commitments that were made to the community. And, likewise, with the time shaze, I think as was brought up by a number of individuals that the time share represents not only a different form of ownership but also a different method by which you can finance the project and hopefully get a greater amount of economic cushion, and then you can do all these representations. So this is why, you know, like, one is, you know, there are a couple of things that aze really definite that the applicant is prepazed to do over and beyond whatever was listed in the conditions; and one dealt with the school site. And that is, you know, they can make that representation today that the school site would be increased from 16 to 32 acres; and, secondly, that the mauka/makai road would be constructed in accordance with the development schedule of their project; or if it's going to be accelerated it would be accelerated if and when the mauka road touches their property, then it would make sense to complete that roadway. But, you know, i!~,,,'.~.,~r,.r}~~-kir,jq~,frn7nniihn~nfiThatfl~n~,hR~i~~l~rl~' i.'Flfltivr-tnth.,nth.r~ thc-%~m~;lr~ctil! need some time to work on, I'm sorry The other commitments that they also are willing to accept is a commitment to reduce the number of golf courses from six to four. This kind of partially addresses the concerns raised by the Members of the Puako Community Association i..'i.i.l:..~1.,,70 Pb.. ^.~"ai:A ~ p~:,riC. ~~,.,'t;~u'd'i1~E'C ..~~r,', ~'u~ de.i!op_. ...~1~ like to work very closely with all of those individuals and/or entities to arrive at some means to address the concerns that are mutual. They're not necessarily exclusive or proprietary only to the applicant. 27 On the staff s report I noticed that there was a question raised about the reasons for the recommendation and the infrastructural issues would all be addressed. That is true, that is our contention too because this project was thoroughly examined by three different bodies, you know, at three different points in time. True the conditions and situations have changed today, that is true. But there's no question about it, but you have an existing entitlement. The developer will fulfill, intends to fulfill all of the existing entitlements as well as the existing conditions. They're asking for consideration in the time share which is a form of ownership; and I know that therc have hoer. questions raised relativo to what are the impacts of time sharc, so on and so forth. And I would like to apologize, you know, to the Mauna Lani people, particularly that of Mauna Lani, not having the copy available earlier. Well, I just got it this morning so I'm really, I'm a little emban•assed by that; and I apologize for that. But we do have the author of that report today and I think that, his name is Scot Voronaeff; and I'd like to bring him up to kind of shaze with the Commission and those in the audience today what the contents of his report is. I mean I've pazaphrased it eazlier. But, you know, my saying it is almost like heresy, so I think you've really got to heaz what the author of it has to say. So, Scot. BAKER: Could you please your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that you will testify truthfully before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? VORONAEFF: I do. BAKER: Your name and address. VORONAEFF: My name is Scot Voronaeff. My address is 555 Hahaione Street, Apaztment No. 6-F, Honolulu, Hawaii. BAKER: Can you give us a highlight on your report. VORONAEFF: Yeah. I'm going to just give a very brief summary of what the contents BAKER: Louder. VORONAEFF: I'm going to give a brief summary of the contents of my report. Basically, ..,al.,, ~f~, th u-. ;r~rFi."~ ,,,r, „ft~ir ~n~r~ ;I-s.~ Inil.,ct _ ...a..;,-t .~tf •h 't--- definition of what time share is. There are many misconceptions. B~1KER_: Excuse me, sir. Can you give us your qualifications and what company y~ni iapie,em ~~u wee uavr, ~iiar trau ul i.iia iGUViu ru yuin giving ihi~ typr. ui ropui~.i VORONAEFF: Sure. I'm a senior manager in KPMG's Real Estate and Hospitality Consulting Practice in the Honolulu office. I have over 18 years of real estate consulting 28 experience. I hold both the MAI and CCIM real estate designations; and I've done time share work throughout the Asia Pacific area. Soto go back and summarize the report that I prepared on behalf of the applicant. The first part of my report I do an industry overview of the time share industry and start off first by providing a definition of what time share is. There is a lot of misconception. I think that a lot of people may think that there could be the potential for more bodies on a property with that form of ownership ihau otherwise, which is nut the case. Typically, it's one-week ownership. So you're breaking the ownership up into 51 intervals; and many can be purchased in conjunction with each other so you can buy more than one. Basically, time share ownership provides many options. It allows a whole other segment of the mazket to participate in second home ownership. Typically, it might take an investment of $200,000 to a $1,000,000 to buy a second home in a resort area. Under the current process, they can buy an interval from any where from $20,000 to $24,000. So it really brings a whole new group of people to the island who otherwise would not be able to come; and it brings a group of people who typically may have stayed in a hotel their first through third trip but now would like to come back. And so it not only opens up ownership to any group but keeps a group that came here each year even longer. Another interesting thing about the time share industry is the fabulous growth we've just experience in the recent past. When I stazted out doing time shaze a long time ago it was much different than it is today. Many of the big hotel companies have gotten into time share industry. We now have Marriott, Four Seasons, Hyatt, Disney, Hilton and Westin all lending a lot of credibility to the industry. And I think that the newness with which it has developed there is a lot misconception; and I'm hoping that my report will put a lot of those misconceptions to rest. There has also been great increased flexibility and usage and improvement in vacation ownership product in terms of the types of ownership, flex ownership. You can own more than just a single week. Now they have point systems, split weeks, so it does give a lot more flexibility, and that has been another factor in the growth of the industry. I think a lot of people are starting to appreciate the hospitality aspect of time shaze. It is now being more closely associated with hospitality than real estate; and as some people had mentioned there, it is a way to prepay lodging costs. I think there are a lot more exchange opportunities now, that's another recent development. People can switch to a lot more places in the world. I believe there's time share in 80 different countries at this point. There's also a comprehensive industry regulation, which is ARDA (American Resort ~1J(~III,:ill .~~uw.;.;L)7:ii.~l:.J:}.c .cAal..d DU.,j .li nlltl. :a.a~ I; Yi .''1' 7jS; _ __l,fl} joined the American Hotel and Motel Association and embracing the hospitality industry at this point in time. A recent ARDA publication indicated that their opinion the big reasons for growth arc exchange rrpportunities. quality accommodations_ eood value, resort amenities snd credibility of ume share compames. The second part of my report, I went into some demand indicators. I think my mission there was to show that there is actually a demand for time share on the Big Island. The first thing I pointed out is there is an under representation of time share units compared to visitor reliables. The Big 29 Island attracts 18 percent of the State's visitors or actually did attract that many in 1999, and yet possesses only 14 percent of the State's inventory. A second indicator is that high average sale prices and sales volume, while there is only 14 percent of the State's time share inventory, the Big Island does 24.6 percent of the State's time shaze sales volume. This high sales volume in relationship to inventories is indicative of a high demand level. So it does appeaz that there is a need for some time share on this, more time share on this island. The time share owner demographics for time share people, their average household incomes are generally much higher then other visitors. I"hey're all generally well educated. Nearly 63 percent have Borne type of college degree. The average age of the head of the household is 53 years old, the average party size is 3.4. Now this is double the size of an average party for a typical hotel guest, which is why they need a larger condominium-style accommodation. Average length of stay is 11.6 days for a time share visitor versus 9.9 days for a hotel visitor; and typically a time shaze visitor will spend, of that 11.6 days, 1.7 days are spent in some other form of paid accommodations. So they actually do utilize the hotel, visitor plans A little bit on Big Island time share owners in comparison to the rest of the State, Big Island time share owners have most prior visits to this island. They have relatively high incomes, 82,000 versus 76,000 for the rest of the State. They have high owner satisfaction levels, higher than the rest of the State, and they tend to be from the Pacific Northwest or West Coast of the US. I then went on to cover impacts of the time share industry; and one of the number one impacts is increased loyalty to a destination. I think that generally speaking the people might come here for the first few trips on a vacation and stay in a hotel. Thereafter if we can get them to buy a time share they will be back much more often than they would otherwise. Even if they do exchange for some of the years, they're still going to come back a lot more. So you've basically locked in a visitor for perpetuity. Time share consumer expenditures as mentioned by Sidney, because of the party size, are nearly doubled that of other visitors. Time share visitors are very satisfied in Hawaii. On the average 85 percent of the respondents indicated they were very satisfied with their purchase. And some of the reasons they were satisfied had to do with the services and activities in and near the resort, which is a big part of time share. The idea is to provide as many amenities on the property and basically don't give them a reason to leave. The idea is really to give them as much of the recreational and other types of activities as possible on site. The, another reason that the satisfaction is high is because of the cleanliness and upkeep of the units, the construction quality, n.,,p...~Ct~ al..i:.,~.1.. ,.;1 .;,r;;tisi _~.u.m:tt;-aie.~= ~r,~ r~, _ _ -i,• - that time share occupancy rates are generally higher than other type of visitor accommodations by approximately 10 percent. That, I guess, would lead to less variation, and there's less a.:asnnality with time ahare than the hotele, and also would be a greater propensity to consume +n~ith that many more people. The travel and traffic patterns of time shaze owners -time shaze owners stay longer and take better care of their accommodations than hotel guests. According to the Urban Land Instituate time share travelers travel more in family groups, typically have numerous amenities on site 30 which keep them on site, and they spend more time in their units than hotel guests or whole- owned condominium owners, once again indicating that they would be staying on site more than others. The only type of convergence whatsoever is check-in. The check-in is held once or twice a week and typically does not coincide with peak traffic hours; and it is held throughout the day. We looked into the effects on local beach access and there is no data available that would indicate that time share visitors would have arty greater el'fecl uu beach access than regular visitor s or owners of whole unit condominiums. Also, because these people, their age demographics they are less likely to be beach people. Public school usage, that issue was addressed; and because time shaze units were typically only occupied for week intervals, there typically is no use of public schools. There is increased State revenues. We see physical impacts of time share in the State of Hawaii government coming from many sources including general excise, personal income taxes paid by those employed by the industry, transient accommodation taxes, and taxes for, special taxes for fuel, vehicle, public safety and the like. There are very many positive employment impacts, that the time share industry employs many people within the State of Hawaii. And as Sidney had mentioned, for each time share unit, there is 1.24 jobs generated. And I think that pretty much summarizes my summary report that was actually intended for your use. It was not as detailed as it could have been, but we did just want to cover all the points as digestively as possible. BAKER: Go ahead. Anything else? That's it? FLTKE: Well, if there are question, well BAKER: First, I can see, Grant, go ahead. TOGASHI: Anyway, as one ex-Pete Marwick to another, I was wondering, did you come to any conclusion on this report? Is there any conclusion that you offered as a result of your study? VORONAEFF: The conclusions that the study does draw aze that there are very many economic benefits and the impact on the, and less impact than would otherwise occur on the property. TOGASHI: So, basically, you're saying that the benefits outweigh the cost of the time share vURUNAJ;I'1 : Y eah, t tntntc there are srgmncant nenents, srgnrttcaruty muse uenetrts mau under what is currently entitled for, which would either be rental apartment or multi-family condominium, and that the impacts would be less than under either of those scenarios. 31 TOGASHI: So, actually, I know you mentioned as far as the number of owners in a typical unit would be 3.4 because I had earlier heard from Ms. Murano from Mauna Lani that she had, she had indicated a figure of 6 owners as on the average. So that would be an incorrect VORONAEFF: That, that, I'm not sure what the basis of her information is. But in 1996 KPMG did the last time share study in the State. We did that on behalf of ARDA, of the American Resort Development Association; and that is the figure that we came up with at that puint in times We'rc currently updating the report again for ,1RDA at this point in lime. TOGASHI: Okay, thank you very much. GOLDSTEIN: Excuse me, but I thought, my understanding of what Ms. Murano said was that the number six was not with respect to owner but party number in the party, the number of people TOGASHI: It doesn't correlate with the number of owners? No? GOLDSTEIN: No. TOGASHI: I guess not, yeah. I guess maybe, I guess if they have kids, maybe kids GIFFIN: Yeah, definitely. TOGASHI: Okay, sorry. BAKER: Any other questions? Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Hearing none FUKE: Mr. Chairman, we also have, Mr. Benson Chow. He's the traffic engineer with Pacific Planning Engineering; and he provided me with that information on that trip generation, which pretty much corroborates what Mr. Voronaeff had indicated. If you want me to have him say exactly what I stated earlier, I mean, you know, we'd be more than happy to bring that up. BAKER: I don't think, do the Commissioners want to hear that? I think it's pretty -i I, ~ ~ i~l.a .I~N~. FUKE: With that, Mr. Chairman, we don't have any additional comments to make, but we'd be morF than happy to respond to any more questions you may ha~~e. BAKER: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant's representative, Mr. Fuke? Hearing none, Commissioner Giffin. 32 GIFFIN: I'm really glad that there was some clarification in terms of the role of this Commission in regards to this resolution and to the City Council. I'm very comfortable in moving that a favorable recommendation for this resolution to allow time share units for Bridge Puako LLC be forwazded to the County Council. MOSHER: Second. BAKER: A motion was made by Commissioner Giffin and a second was made by Commissioner Mosher to approve the favorable recommendation. Staff? Oh, excuse me, any discussion first? SOUZA: Mr. Chairman? TOGASHI: Mr. Chairman? BAKER: Commissioner Souza. You go ahead first, Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say, too, that I feel comfortable that I'm going to vote for the resolution, recommend the resolution to the County Council because I feel the developer in this case put his best foot forwazd to try to accommodate all of the concerns. And evidently he wanted some changes, he was willing to withdraw all those changes which I felt maybe he should have made the community surrounding the project happy. And I really cannot see that the time sharing will have impact, as was the concerns brought up as like on traffic or other areas. I just cannot see that. I think that something was said about does it make economic good sense to do this now. I think that the question of whether it's economic or feasibly correct now is one of free enterprise. I think it's free enterprise. When Mauna Loa and everybody else built their hotels it was a matter of free enterprise. Mauna Kea was here already. Mauna Loa was built after that. That was free enterprise. MOSHER: Mauna Lani. BAKER: Mauna Lani. SOUZA: Mauna Lani, I' song. So I feel that this is free enterprise. Now if anybody could prove that there would really be an affect on traffic or safety, I would be cvn~cnteu. i3ui 1 icaliq dv~t't Lava; tlic wncUnl. Aild, to ui.,, 1 lc~.l Ua~ii Gii. ,.i,.a~.l-vpCi ~L~I u iii try to meet the concerns of the community. Cannot, I wouldn't say cannot, but obviously with the contested case hearings it would obviously be along-drawn out expensive affair so the 't°l'?lojl°r felt [.j~~ th~~~ rr)I~ty dY{(~ ~ feel CI~Y~IfIIPfA}tlf ~t~~tt1V %1~~nurirl~ ~~1~~Y~ It1Y YlYlir 5~l%ll`7_Cli~ time shares, it won't change anything a bit. BAKER: Thank you. Commissioner Togashi? 33 TOGASHI: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I feel comfortable with the resolution, I'm just somewhat concerned about some of the comments made by many of the people testifying today. And because of that, I'm generally a person who, general believer in expediting a process. But because of the, I guess the, the testimony of the people here I'm going to make a motion to have this deferred so that people who aze not here can have an opportunity to look at the study. I'm not sure based upon what the senior manager from Pete Marwick said was in the study would make any difference. But for purposes of the people who are not here in attendance today, I think to have these, to provide the upportunity fur these people to look at the study for themselves, make their own decision, and perhaps allay some of the fears and concerns of the people testifying today, I'm just going to make a motion to have this deferred. Then I would probably be the odd man out there. BAKER: Excuse me, Commissioner Togashi. I believe that a motion has already been made and a second. So your motion to defer TOGASHI: Is that right? BAKER: Could be, yeah, illegal because TOGASHI: Oh, okay, all right. Then that's fine. BAKER: A motion was made by TOGASHL That's fine. BAKER: Commissioner Giffin and a second that SOUZA: A motion to defer takes precedence. BAKER: No. You can ask Corp. Counsel. Corp. Counsel, can you give us SOUZA: There is, what word I want to use? BAKER: Corp. Counsel can GOL,DSTEIN: I don't have one. lif1KLC) W : lCS m my omen ToiUer. SOUZA: My opinion is a motion to defer takes precedence for a vote, that is. TOGASHI: As far as Robert's Rules of Order? 34 GIFFIN: We cannot have two motions on the floor. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. GIANNINI: We're voting, I think we've had the motion seconded. We have to deal with that motion first. TOGASHI: Yeah, that's fine. GIANNINI: Well, let's check that. TOGASHI: Sorry, Fred. BAKER: You can vote against it but GIANNINI: It states here, there is, order of precedence of motion, adjourn, recess, raise a question of privilege, call for the order of the day, lay on the table, order the previous question, close debate, limit or extend, postpone definitely, commit or refer, amend, well, it would appear that a motion to BAKER: Amend? GIANNINI: Well, not necessarily amend or lay on the table, which means to put off, would take precedence over the main motion. So you could vote on a motion to defer, which is to lay on the table. GOLDSTEIN: If you've got a second. GIANNINI: If, you know, of course, if you don't get enough votes for that, then you go back to voting on the main motion. BAKER: Okay. So as, Commissioner Togashi's motion is that he would like to defer any vote of this BAKER: Correct? 1lJlrADH1: 1 ill the nex~ Mona rneelmg,ngnc. BAKER: Till the next Kona meeting. TOGASHI: Right. 35 BAKER: Is there a second to that motion? Hearing none, then the motion is dead. TOGASHI: Okay. BAKER: So the motion on the floor now is a motion to recommend the resolution to the County Council. There was a motion and a second, and we're in discussion. Any further discussion'? GIFFIN: Question. BAKER: Call for the question. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Mosher? MOSHER: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Souza? MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Togashi? tuc~t~~tit: ~~ye. MIRIKITANI: Chairman Baker? BAKER: Aye. 36 MIRIKITANI: Eight ayes. The motion has been carried. GOLDSTEIN: I think though, I'd like to just say that this matter doesn't rest here. It's going to go to the County Council. There's about a month and a half in between now and then and so if you have further concerns and wish to take a look at the study I'm sure that the applicant would make it available to community members. You will have the opportunity to express your further comments to fhe County Council. BAKER: Okay, I want to thank everyone for giving us their input. The discussion ended at 3:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . ~ ~:F Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 37