Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0722.002 2002-2004 +rr w Maki i+~. Leningrad Elarionoff na~~rcr ixos~vei-azes (~uunciGruur . e~. fne (ROR) Ob I-%912 0~'M~~ CO UNTY CO UNCIL Cnunh~ of Hawaii Homai'i (~o+ugr Bui[An;q ~ c 23 dupuni Slreel n z llilu, llon~ai'i 96720 r-- _ C:'; r. August 24, ?004 -3 +J TO: Mr. James Arakaki, Chairman and Members Hawai{_i CCounty C1Younc' ~ '~y ,wry/~ FROM: Le~imgrad r;laric ~ f, Ch rma Planning Committee RE: I Tearing Transcript for the Planning Commission's July 16, 2004 Meeting Regarding West Hawaii Business Park. LLC Attached is the above-mentioned transcript which Planning Commission Chair h7ed Galdones stated in Comm. 722 would be forthcoming to the Council. Bill 309, which is a rezoning request by West Hawaii Business Park LLC was considered at the Planning Committee meeting on August 17, 2004. An amended version of the bill is being forwarded to the Council for consideration. Att. Huirai'i Coun/r i.c o~~ F.gaal !)pporluni[p Prorider and Emplgver Comm. No. 7~~• Z' Dl.4TRK'T 9 Raf. to: ~ Kohala, Waimea. Waiko[oa, Karnaihae Ref. Date PLANNING COMMISSION ~ c~ ;,rq i ~,...:,.~1. ~.~:.,1~~ COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT ~i JULY 16, 2004 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of WEST HAWAII BUSINESS PARK, LLC (REZ 04-003) was called to order at 11:00 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT: Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall C. Kimo Alameda Earl Fujikawa Bill Graham Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill P. Thibadeau Patricia O'Toole, Deputy Corporation Counsel Roy Takemoto, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: WEST HAWAII BUSINESS PARK, LLC (REZ 04-003) Change of Zone for approximately 196.634 acres from an Open (O) to an Industrial- Commercial Mixed 20,000 square foot (MCX-20) district and for approximately 85.733 acres from an Open (O) to a General Industrial 1-acre (MG-la) district. The property is located along the east (mauka) side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Highway 19), adjacent to and south of the Kaloko Industrial Subdivision, Honokohau 15` and 2"d, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-4-8:portion of 13 and 30. GALDONES: Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 7. The Applicant is West Hawaii Business Park, LLC (REZ 04-003). This is a Change of Zone for approximately 196.634 acres from an Open (O) to an Industrial-Commercial Mixed 20,000 square foot (MCX-20) district and for approximately 85.733 acres from an Open (O) to a General Industrial 1-acre (MG-la) district Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going to the location map, the subject property is indicated in red. It is along the mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, that's this particular property here. As a matter of orientation, the Kaloko Industrial Subdivision is to the north, immediately to the north of the property, and the Honokohau Business Park is located to the south. These areas in gray are either zoned for Limited Industrial zoned district or MCX, which is the extension of the Kaloko Industrial Subdivision. Makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway is the Kaloko-Honokohau Historical National Pazk. The Honokohau Harbor is situated at this location and the Rutter/Kohanaiki project is situated at this location here. The Commissioners will also recall that the Clifto's property is situated along the south side of the Kona International Airport. This is Hina Lani Street that extends mauka-makai from Mamalahoa to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This particular roadway is the Kealakehe Parkway which goes towards this particular subdivision as well as the Kealakehe High School. Going to the proposal by the Applicant, the Applicant intends to rezone this particular property to Open and MG for approximately 85 acres. Also proposed is to rezone this particular area shaded in blue from Open to MCX-20. There are two azeas involved, 106 acres as well as a 9.9 acre property, which is adjacent to Honokohau Street, or to the Honokohau Business Park. The Applicant intends to subdivide the property, first of all, within the MG area from 1 to 25 acres in size. The actual amount is undetermined at this particular time. And as far as the MCX area, they propose to subdivide the property from half-acre to five acres in size. Again, the amount of lots are undetermined at this time. Just as a matter of orientation, from the roadway network standpoint, again, this is Queen Kaahumanu Highway running south and towards North Kohala side. The Costco shopping complex or warehouse and retail complex is situated here. This is Kamanu Street. And the proposal will be to construct Kamanu Street to the property and hook-up to the Honokohau Street, which is part of the Honokohau Business Park. There is also Kalalani Street located on the makai side of the Kaloko Industrial Park; and that particular roadway would extend in this general configuration within the subject property. The current access to the property is situated here and is identified as the North Access Road. The eventual proposal is to construct the South Access Road, which would be right across the National Park Services roadway. So that would be the major access to this particular area. For this particulaz 9.9 acre property, access would be from Honokohau Street, the existing Honokohau Street. This particular map, the applicant would be using this particular map so I won't be, this is the same map as this particular map, and it just identified this particulaz boundary for a particular purpose. This map is also the Applicant's map and, basically, it represents what the area is, an aerial photo of the particular property. Again, this is Costco, and this is the existing quarry area, and this area shaded in red is the area to be rezoned. 2 The Land Use Commission had approved this particular petition from a Conservation to the Urban District back in September of 2003; and they approved it with numerous conditions. And as we are recommending approval of this petition, one of the conditions would be to comply with all of the conditions that were imposed by the State Land Use Commission; and those have been provided to you as an exhibit. We provided you with the amended conditions indicated in that golden rod handout. There are three changes that were made from the ones that we previously sent out to you. And the first change would be a new Condition F. If you look at the, refer to the golden rod, the new Condition F would require them to do a revised TIAR to be submitted prior to receipt of Fina] Subdivision Approval. So that would be a new Condition F. Now, the previous Condition H which talked about Kamanu Street that was a lengthy condition which is now in the golden rod color shaded paper, is referred to now as Condition I. And, basically, what we included was that Kamanu Street shall be constructed according to County dedicable standards, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks. And that's referred to on page 3, I believe, of the golden rod sheet. And the last condition that we're amending is Condition F, which is now a new Condition L on the golden rod sheet and on page 4. And there are a couple of changes. First was that Honokohau Road, actually it's Honokohau Street, referred to as Honokohau Street. So we changed that from Road to Street. And at the end of the original condition, what we did was delete the end of the sentence which stated, "including paved swales and on-street parking." So, basically, it ended "with the approval of the Department of Public Works." The Applicant also had passed out this morning their proposed changes to Conditions F, which actually is now new Condition G, and Condition L, which is now our new Condition M. So they'll be discussing their suggested changes to you. With that, Commissioners, are there any questions to the staff s Background Report or Recommendation? GALDONES: Before we entertain questions by the Commissioners, Mr. Takemoto has to leave for another engagement pretty soon, in another five minutes. There is a concern that was raised by Commissioner Springer that Mr. Takemoto would like to address. TAKEMOTO: Yes. Okay, I'll just supplement with what Norman has just presented. Some of you Commissioners maybe wondering how this project distinguishes from the Ooma/Clifto's project where at the last minute the Mayor recommended that the Council defer approval of that decision based on the lack of improvements on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This project is also along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. So the question is why the difference? There are two things. 3 One is that, in the Clifto's case, that project was, could only be accessed by Queen Kaahumanu. This project, and let me add additionally with that, the widening of Queen Kaahumanu from two to four lanes is being done in two phases. The first phase is from Kealakehe Drive to Henry Street, and in the second phase, from Kealakehe north to the airport. Clifto's was entirely on Phase 2. This project is right at the junction between Phases 1 and 2; and there's a high possibility that the Phase 2 improvements fronting this property could be done when they are ready to occupy the project. The second point is that we've realized that the problem with Queen Kaahumanu is the lack of internal network roads that can take the local traffic. Right now all the traffic has to funnel down to Queen Kaahumanu because of the lack of roads that can take traffic in the same direction of Queen Kaahumanu but off of Queen Kaahumanu. This project, by requiring them to put in Kamanu Street connecting Kealakehe to Hina Lani is the beginning of a very, is a significant beginning of this internal network of streets. So, for this project, even if the second phase is not implemented of Queen K widening, the first phase would be completed, and that would be four lanes up to Kealakehe. People can go up Kealakehe and across Kamanu Street if Queen K is still two lanes and full of traffic. So Kamanu would offer that kind of relief. And given those two reasons, the administration, the Planning Director decided to recommend approval of this project. GALDONES: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Takemoto before he leaves? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Roy, one of the recommendations of the Department of Public Works is that the Applicant participate in an Improvement District to, at some point, produce amid-level artery across, you know, going the same direction as Queen K and all that. I don't see that in your recommendations. Is there any reason why that wasn't put in there, or did I miss something? TAKEMOTO: The mid-level is off-site from this project. Kamanu Street actually is direct impact. By not putting a condition in, it doesn't prevent us from asking their participation. And, in fact, we have been in discussions with all the landowners. The mid-level is a bigger problem, bigger problem in the sense that more landowners need to be involved and the cost is going to be greater. And I think that takes a lot more thinking and planning before we start imposing conditions. GRAHAM: Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I just wonder if the Director was, made these recommendations in consultation with the Mayor? 4 TAKEMOTO: Yes, he did. SPRINGER: Thank you. ALAMEDA: I'm just GALDONES: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Just one for clarification, I guess, for Roy. With the updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report, so from what I think I'm reading, that is that they will come up with some recommendations of potential mitigated kind of conditions. And then, based on that, the Applicant would have to comply with that in order to get Final Approval? Is that what I'm reading? TAKEMOTO: You know, there is an existing TIAR, Traffic Impact Analysis Report. But, I guess, Public Works felt that the limitations on that report was that it was focused on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. So the internal roads need to be analyzed. And, I think, the gist of this second TIAR is to focus on the internal roads. Of course, Kamanu Street would be a major contributor towazds that. Does that answer your question or ALAMEDA: Yeah, and that whatever recommendations or findings that come out of that report, that that would have to be implemented by the Applicant in order to get the permit. Is that correct? TAKEMOTO: What we aze addressing as conditions in this approval is the major arteries, mainly Kamanu Street and Kainalani. And the TIAR may have other recommendations on the local roads that go within the project which would be addressed at the subdivision level. So the TIAR, I see the benefits of the TIAR, primarily helping us analyze at the subdivision stage. ALAMEDA: Thank you. That answers my question. GALDONES: Any further questions of Mr. Takemoto? GRAHAM: I could ask either Norman or Roy. But if Norman is fielding, I mean, excuse me, if Roy is fielding these traffic questions, I might as well go ahead, if that's all right? GALDONES: Go ahead. GRAHAM In our Background Report, it says in here the State Department of Transportation announced that in August of 2004, next month, work would commence on widening the Queen K Highway to a four-lane divided highway between Henry Street and the airport. First phase goes only to Kealakehe and will take 18 months to complete. Representative Dwight Takamine had a community meeting about two months ago in 5 Kohala and Stan Kimura from the Department of Transportation came along; and he told us in Kohala at that time that a key individual in the whole project was leaving or had left, and that the project would be set backed time-wise quite a bit because of that. And I certainly have no sense that it's going to begin next month and take only 18 months to complete. I'm wondering if you had any updated timeline on what we can expect on the widening of Queen K Highway from Henry Street to Kealakehe Parkway? TAKEMOTO: I wasn't aware of that key individual. All I can say is that DOT is doing Phase 1 as a design-build project, meaning that supposedly this design-build process expedites the time period to complete. Between the County and DOT, we've had many meetings, and DOT is very aware of the high priority to do Phase 1 as well as Phase 2. Phase 1, I would consider, even despite the departure of the key individual, that knowing the priority of this project, that DOT will make every effort to proceed as expeditiously The question with DOT was Phase 2; and only now we're starting to get answers that they aze committed to do Phase 2 in a timely way, which means getting the design and construction monies lined up so that they would immediately follow the completion of Phase 1. GRAHAM: Thank you. GALDONES: Any further question of Mr. Takemoto before we excuse him? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Takemoto. Norman? Commissioners, any questions of Norman? Hearing none, is the Applicant or the representative present with us this morning? Please step forward. Good morning, could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOORS: I do. GALDONES: Could you please state your name and your residence address? MOORS: Yes. My name is William Moore. My residence address is 159 Halai Street, H-a-1-a-i, in Hilo. I'm the planning consultant for Lanihau Properties. West Hawaii Business Park is a subsidiazy. With me is James Greenwell, the president of Lanihau Properties, LLC, as well as West Hawaii Business Park. GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Moore. Have you received a copy of the Background Report and the Recommendations, and any comments on those? MOORS: Yes, I have. We received the revised Recommendations this morning like everybody else and, as you noted, we had some suggested changes to some of the original conditions. But there aze a couple of concerns or issues that we have with the proposed conditions that I'd like to run through. The first is the Condition F, the new condition related to a TIAR. I think, Commissioner Alameda, the requirement is that we need to do what is called for in there in order to get 6 Final Subdivision Approval. Our concern is that the condition as worded is wide open. We need to analyze regional impacts. And we think it's not fair if we have to do what's called for in the TIAR that's not related to our project but is a regional impact. So we would suggest an amendment to the last sentence which calls for "All additional mitigation measures called for in the revised TIAR shall be implemented." What we would suggest is that deleting "All additional" and language would read, the condition would read, "Mitigation measures called for in the revised TIAR," and the new language "that are reasonably related to the project impacts shall be implemented meeting with the approval of the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works." So it is as long as your impacts are reasonably related, but it's still up to the County to determine what those are, and not the Applicant. So the control is still with the County. But it does, again We']l talk a little bit about the conditions and how we got to where we are. And we're trying to address some regional concerns, and we don't want to be penalized for trying to be a good guy. We will do our share, we'll do what we need to do. But to go above and beyond that, we're already stretching what this project can afford. So we just want to have some door opening there in terms of what's reasonable. The new Condition G, we just wanted to add language, this is in that handout which was Condition H, I believe, is just to clarify that Lanihau, the National Park Service-Lanihau intersection is what we're calling the South Access Road or the Quarry Road. So Lanihau was used in a different context, so it's just clarifying that; but no change in the condition. Condition I, as noted by Norman, there is a, the original language provided for paved swales within Kamanu Street. The proposed language calls for curb, gutter, sidewalk. We would ask that the paved Swale requirement be retained. This is consistent with the property to the north, TSA. So there's already paved swales within that road. We acknowledge that there are sidewalks to the south, but the main traffic is going to come, you know, and, again, we don't anticipate a lot of pedestrian traffic in this area. It's a major cost item. And, again, we're trying to build a major system across the property; and, again, the way it's worded is we're going to be responsible for those costs. So we're just trying to be reasonable here in terms of actual usage. So we would suggest that the curb, gutter, sidewalk language be deleted and the paved swales, all language be retained. The next condition is Condition L. This is relating to Honokohau Street. There was a deletion of reference to the allowance of on-street parking; but, also, in that, there was a deletion of the paved Swale requirement. There is, there are paved swales there. What we understand the condition to be is bring those, that road up to a County dedicable standard. That's a private road. Lanihau only owns half of the road so it's not, we can't dedicate it. But we need to bring that up to dedicable standard. But the language there provided for paved swales and, again, this is consistent with the TSA requirement next door. All of their roads in there were paved swales. We just don't want to have the door open that it could be interpreted that we have to do curb, gutter, sidewalks. We have no objections to the deletion of the on-street parking allowance. Our understanding of that is 7 that that does not preclude on-street parking, but it just gives that option up to the County to determine that parking could or could not allowed there. For your information, Honokohau Street is used for on-street parking by the people adjacent, across the street, the over-flow parking. They're parking on the street now. So it's just one Well, we have no objections to the deletion of the reference to on-street pazking, but we would like to add back. And the language would be, "Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy within Parcel 3, the Applicant shall improve the north side of Honokohau Street with paved swales," would be the new language, "meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works." With respect to Condition M, we had offered some suggested language. I believe it shows up as Condition N in that handout. I would submit that that condition is no longer required. This provides for Public Works to require us to do traffic improvements and intersection improvements and signals within our project area. Those requirements are now, I think, are reasonably covered by Condition F, where we have to do the TIAR and provide whatever improvements are called for. So rather than amending Condition M, I would suggest that we just delete Condition M; and all those improvements and requirements will be covered under Condition F. If the Commission decides to keep this, then we would suggest that that language be imposed. What we want to make sure is that if requirements are imposed on us that there's a reasonable basis for that. The standard basis for determining traffic signals is this manual on traffic control devices. That's the national standard. It sets up the warrants so you don't have a signal where you don't need it. So we just want to make sure that if that is required Now, in the TIAR, that's the basis that they would use to determine whether there's a signal or not. So, again, we believe that that is adequately covered by the new Condition F. One typo within Condition N, on the last sentence or the last line within that that reads "system with the road right-of-way." That should be "within the road right-of-way." That's just a typo that missed the first time around. Other than that, with those suggested changes, we have no, again, we're fine with the conditions. And, again, I would like to really thank the staff and the Director in working with us in coming up with a reasonable set of conditions. I want to go a little bit of how we got to here as some background, as soon as we're done with this segment. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Moore. Welcome, Mr. Greenwell. I just want to make sure that I understood you correctly, Mr. Moore. Under the Condition M on the golden rod sheet, the streetlights would also be covered under the new Condition F? MOORE: Yes. Streetlights are called for under the Public Works; and they're going to require us to put in streetlights, whether there's a condition there or not. That's just a requirement within urban areas. So it is part of their standard requirements as part of the subdivision. So that is, you know, we fully expect that. They have every 8 right to impose it; and, you know, that is just part of their normal subdivision requirements. SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: Norman, did you get the amendments that were proposed by Mr. Moore? HAYASHI: I have a general gist of the proposed amendments. GALDONES: Do you have any comments on those amendments? HAYASHI: Regarding their proposed Condition F, amendment to proposed Condition F, we don't have any problems with that. As faz as Condition G, we also don't have any problems. That relates to changing the wording from "Lanihau intersection" to I believe was "South Access Road", etc. And that's the sheet that they handed out to you. Regarding proposed Condition I, which they would like to delete the curb, gutter, sidewalk requirement, we would prefer to retain that based on a suggestion by the Department of Public Works. Similarly for Condition L, we would prefer to retain the wording that we have in the golden rod sheet. Regarding Condition M, this is a standard condition that we impose for all large developments such as this. If that can be incorporated within the TIAR condition, then we have no objections to deleting M. Also, as far as the typo error, we' 11 correct that. Other than that, those are our general reaction to, or comments to the suggested changes. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Norman, just so I can understand a little bit what we're comparing here with paved swales versus the curbs, gutters and sidewalks The paved swales, is that like with asphalt where there's HAYASHI: Yes, that would be generally asphalt. There is no curb. [t's basically like I don't know if you've gone to Kailua, Nani Kailua Subdivision, where they do have paved swales. Or even like Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, those aze paved swales. SPRINGER: Thank you. 9 GALDONES: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Chair. Norman, I was wondering on the updated Condition F, if we're to input the words, "reasonable," who has the final say on determining reasonableness? HAYASHI: In, final say in what? ALAMEDA: In determining reasonableness, who HAYASHI: I think the determination would be made by the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works. ALAMEDA: Okay. So it's acollaborative HAYASHI: Yes. ALAMEDA: Kind of a consensus, if you will? HAYASHI: Yes. ALAMEDA: Thank you. GALDONES: Further questions? Mr. Moore, hearing Mr. Hayashi's response to your amendments, any further comments on those? MOORS: No. We understand the Department of Public Works. Again, this is consistent, they recommended curb, gutter, sidewalks within the TSA Subdivision, the Council deleted that and provided for the paved swales. Our argument is we just want to be treated consistently. So, again, if the Commission chooses to retaining the Director's language, I just want to be real clear, we're going to be making our case to the Council as well on that point, so we are treated the same as TSA. So we leave it to you to make your recommendations but with the understanding that we're retaining the right to make our arguments as we go up the ladder, especially since they can, the Council overrode Public Works with respect to the adjacent property. GALDONES: Mr. Moore, the curb, gutters, that would be in Condition I. Would that also, is that also in Condition L? MOORS: No. Condition L is silent as to what the requirement would be. So it is just that it opens the door whether curb, gutter, sidewalks could be imposed, as opposed to being clear that paved swales are allowed, so that's the clarification. It just won't, you know, so we won't be in azgument at the time of the subdivision as to what the level of improvements are supposed to be, so this is just a clarity we're seeking. 10 GALDONES: Mr. Hayashi mentioned that the amendment to Condition L, he finds that objectionable. MOORE: Yes. GALDONES: Would you be acceptable to accepting the condition as is? MOORE: Again, we would prefer that the paved swales be specifically in there so we're not, again, in a disagreement. Again, that's a clarification. If we can get confirmation that that's what it means then we'd be fine. But, again, we, this maybe developed two, three, four, five, six years from now with the new administration and a new Planning Director, a new Chief Engineer. So just to make sure that there's clarity, we would prefer that language. Again, if you prefer to not include it, we would make our case and just see where that goes; but, again, it's just clarity is what we're seeking. GALDONES: What about Condition M? MOORE: Condition M, you know, again, I think, we believe that that's covered under Condition E If there's any question, you know, Ithink Because we haven't had time, I think if you want to retain it and, with our proposed language, hopefully, then we can make, we can clarify that with Public Works as we go up the ladder and meet, and so, and then determine at that time whether it makes sense to delete or not. So I leave that one to you. I think Norman, you know, seems to be comfortable with the deletion. But if there's any question by the Commission, if you want to keep it, then we will have time to work with Public Works to give them some comfort that these requirements are actually covered in Condition F. So, again, as long as we understand that this may come up later, as long as we're all comfortable GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions of Mr. Moore or Mr. Greenwell? If not, is there anybody here from the public to testify on this subject matter? Sir, could you please come forward. Mr. Greenwell, can you, you can stay there but have him use the microphone. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you sweaz or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MCCLEAN: I do. GALDONES: Sir, could you please state your name and your residence address. MCCLEAN: Robert McClean, 77-344 Sunset, Kailua-Kona. GALDONES: Mr. McClean, you may begin your testimony. MCCLEAN: We own the property just south of the property that you're considering. And on the plan that's presented to you, they propose to move all the traffic on Kamanu Street to our property. 11 GALDONES: Mr. McClean, would, do you find it better if you could go up there and show us where your concerns are? Why don't you go around the table and speak into the microphone, please. MCCLEAN: Our property is this property here, between Lanihau This is our property here, just south of the blue line. And this shows Kamanu Street coming to our property right here and then moving the traffic onto our property. Kamanu Street, which we have built not quite this far, is a private road and this is Jimmy Greenwell talked to us about this kind of a plan and we said, no, because up here he has two ready-mix companies, he has got a quarry with quarry trucks going in and out, and he has got a paving company. And if we let them come onto our property, all of those big trucks are going to filter right through our small, we have a small industrial area, it'll all come this way, instead of this way. The same with all of Costco and all of this, this traffic will all come through our property. I think that the solution is to have a through street up here that comes all the way over to Palani that would take the traffic off of Queen K, and not just dump it all on us. And we told Jimmy that and I, this is the first time I knew he was going to go ahead with this plan. GALDONES: Commissioners, any question of Mr. McClean? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I don't have a question for the testifier but the testifier's comments do raise a question that I might like to ask the staff? GALDONES: Proceed. SPRINGER: Norman, how does routing such as we're discussing regarding Kamanu Street come to be? How can routing be across property of a landowner without the landowner apparently being consulted about this proposal that's before us today? HAYASHI: Back in 1999, Mr. McClean did come in for a rezoning of his particular property. And in that particular rezoning, there was a condition, and this their Condition J, and it states that a 60-foot wide dedicable road shall be constructed to commercial standards within the project site to the south property line; and that was the requirement that they had. And that is, I believe, the same roadway that we're talking about; and that is this section here. So, at some point in time, they would need to dedicate that roadway to the County, based on the ordinance. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions of Mr. McClean? MCCLEAN: I would say at such point as we dedicate it, we'll obviously accept the traffic. But now it's private and Honokohau Street is private; and we don't want all that traffic coming through us at this point. 12 SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Then, thank you, testifier, for that comment. Norman, who determines when dedication occurs? Is it the landowner or is it the County, dedication of a road such as this section of Kamanu Street that we're discussing? HAYASHI: I didn't get the first part of your question. SPRINGER: Who determines when the dedication occurs? Is it up to the landowner or to the County? HAYASHL I believe that would be the County that would determine at what point in time that they would like to have that road dedicated over to the County. SPRINGER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. McClean. Mr. Moore, any closing comments? MOORE: Yes. Just to reiterate the, our original plan was to not build Kamanu all the way across. That was done, again, when we filed an application in February, and it was for, to take Kamanu half way across. In response to meeting with the Planning Director, we amended our plans to do it. So the conditions that we're looking at, we're responding to the County. We're not proposing this as a solution to impact our neighbor. This is in response to what the County is dictating. So, you know, we really see this as the County needs to resolve these issues. We're providing the connection to make a system work. I would agree with Mr. McClean that we need a lot more networks in here, but we need to take them one step at a time. We can't afford to build them all at once. And here's a solution that will allow traffic to stay off of Kaahumanu Highway. It's going to take coordination; and we're willing to participate as provided in our conditions, hopefully, with the changes that we've recommended or suggested. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Mr. Chairman, we can continue in discussion with the Applicant and his representative at this time? GALDONES: Yes, we are. SPRINGER: Okay. May I? GALDONES: Proceed. 13 SPRINGER: I've agreed with various applicants when they've come in and spoken in favor of paved swales rather than curbs, gutters and sidewalks. But depending upon what is occurring in our lives, I find in Kona the lack of curbs, gutters and sidewalks beginning to be problematic and an issue for myself as a user. In this subdivision that you're proposing, if curbs, gutters and sidewalks were established as a standard, that would be consistent within your subdivision. I gather some discussion that we've had at this Commission with the Planning Director has indicated that there may come a time in the rest of the new industrial area that curbs, gutters and sidewalks maybe imposed. I just offer this to the, while I have agreed with let's keep it to paved swales, under some circumstances the curbs, gutters and sidewalks are missed, particulazly if we go into the old industrial area where there's perhaps more foot traffic than we would have thought, or maybe there's so much car traffic that it's easier just to park your car and go about your business on foot. But I'm beginning to see that lack as a bit of a problem in Kona, so I just offer that as a comment. MOORE: Just as in response, I know that you didn't ask for response. But I agree, I think it depends on where it is. We're in an area that is isolated from other traffic generators. If this was in the Kona industrial azea and adjacent to that, I would be hazd- pressed to argue for curb, gutters and sidewalks. I might on behalf of my client, but I would be hard-pressed to do it. Here, I think it's reasonable. I think the Council already made a policy call next door, and we're asking to be treated the same. I mean, if they had imposed curb, gutter, sidewalks on the adjacent property, it'd be very difficult for us to ask for paved swales. But because they asked for, excuse me, for paved swales next door, it's hazd for us to say, yeah, we agree to curb, gutter, sidewalks. We'd give our neighbors a competitive advantage over cost, you know. And where are we and how does that work? So that's really the question that we're putting on the table. And what's appropriate? We don't think it's necessarily appropriate in this area, this is not a high traffic area. It's isolated from any other major traffic generators in here, so SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: Any further discussions? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Could I ask you a question, Mr. Moore, also? Actually, with the late findings, the late suggested recommendations and everything, I'm a little bit in a swim with all the changes and specifics. But from my reading prior, one issue that I really picked up on was something to the effect that in the K-to-K Plan, and also with Department of Transportation, there was no intention that there'd be this one particular junction you folks aze planning with the Queen K Highway; and then as I remember reading the Planning Department's recommendations or the Department of Public Works' it was that you design your interior roads such that in the future if that has to go away you're in good situation for dealing with the revised. So I'm just kind of wondering, you know, in hard reality, what's the probable course, that we've asked that you're going to build something and then they're going to come on at some point in the future, is that really going to happen? So could you just bring me up to your thinking on it? 14 MOORE: Sure, if I can GRAHAM: Yeah, please. GRAHAM: Use the map here. The question, and Public Works' letter raised it and heightened it, is respect to the South Access Road; and they questioned whether that is permitted or not. Some history here. We have an agreement, I'll leave a copy with the Commission, I didn't make copies for everybody. But this agreement is between Lanihau and DOT, and it specifically provides for the construction of the South Access Road improvements by DOT; and let me go through some of the history for that. When this property was originally, when Kaahumanu Highway was originally developed, the access to the property to both the National Park property and to Lanihau property was at this location on North Access Road. In relationship to that, DOT required Lanihau to improve the North Access Road with a full turning movement for the quarry operations which they did. Normally, that's done as part of a subdivision. They made them do it, Lanihau agreed to do it just because of the size of the trucks here coming out. So they put in the improvements in this location. Unbeknownst to Lanihau, when National Park Service came in for their plans, they didn't want to use this site here. There's a trail that comes across, and they didn't want to impact the trail. So DOT allowed them to relocate their main entrance from this location to this location; and that's what got built. So that is the intersection for National Park Service. We end up now with the situation where Lanihau's required access is the North Access Road and National Park Service's access is at the South Access Road. When in the design of the four-lanes, DOT finally realized that we have a problem. They approached Lanihau and asked, "Can we move your access to coincide with the south access?" At that time, we were going through a boundary amendment, all of our development ties were based on the North Access Road. Everything that we had done, all of the zoning increments, all of our financials were based on the North Access Road. We now had a situation we have to extend all of our infrastructure and the like. So what was agreed to was that DOT would build the South Access Road intersection improvements as part of the four-lane in the design, and build. And that is specifically an agreement between DOT and Lanihau; and, again, I'll leave a copy here. In return, Lanihau can utilize this North Access Road until such time it constructs its internal improvements to the South Access Road, at which point in time DOT has the ability to determine what happens here. We fully expect at that point in time this will not be a full access intersection, even though that's what it's designed for, that at best it'll be a right- in, right-out. And we're fully accepting of that, and that's fine with us; and we're working towards that so we can give some certainty to the owners. Again, that's provided for in here. So that's the situation on access and how we got there in terms of the north access versus south access; and, again, I will present this to the staff. Item 2 in there specifically 15 provides that DOT will construct those improvements and that Lanihau can use them, West Hawaii Business Park. GRAHAM: Bill, while you're there, somehow when I was reading the K-to-K Plan, and the K-to-K Plan just has the Hina Lani intersection and the Kealakehe Pazkway ones and they're kind of, you know, off-leveled, also. So I was assuming that maybe that big plan was to have all this stuff run from frontage roads, and all like that. But is that all kind of history and long gone and they aren't trying to do that anymore, or what? MOORE: There are two different plans here. There is what I call the long- rangeplan; and, again, I was, as a consultant, I was involved in the State's long-range plan for this area. The long-range plan is for Kaahumanu to be a four-lane highway; and as part of that four-lane highway there will be a fully, a signalized intersection at the South Access Road and National Park Service. There's also what's called the long, long- rangeplan; and the State looked at this corridor and said sometime in the future it needs to be a freeway, a six-lane freeway with frontage roads. And at that point where would the intersection points be? And if that happens, which I don't expect in my lifetime or anybody else's, then, no, there may not be a direct access to that freeway from this point. But that is not on the books, it's not being planned for. There is a conceptual plan that's out there by DOT. So I'm not sure if that was what Public Works was referring to, but that's not in, you know, again, we don't anticipate that happening in the foreseeable future. What is on the books is a four-lane highway; and as part of that four-lane highway there will be an intersection at this location, again, to accommodate National Park Service, to accommodate Lanihau as specifically provided for in this agreement. GRAHAM: Can Ifollow-up on that? GALDONES: Sure. GRAHAM: I appreciate that `cause I didn't understand all that. The Assistant Planning Director, Roy, spoke before about the close connection with the Department of Transportation, they're realizing the urgency. Can we, in some way, guarantee that people of Kona, who have been waiting for things for so long that that four-lane highway at least through the Kealakehe Pazkway will be operational and all before your guys' project is going, or is that, that's real tentative, or we don't know, or MOORE: You know, the funding for that has been committed. So I think that's what we can reasonably rely on. We're looking at, you know, the development of this property is not going to happen at once. You're not going to see 300 acres of lands developed right now. The quarry is already there. This rezoning is not going to change those uses that are already there. There will be some additional activities, but there is a process that we have to go through. We have to subdivide it, we have to construct the improvements, we have to get People are going to build their buildings and occupy. So there's going to be a long timeframe; and the activities will come on slowly, they don't come on all at once. So the fact that the funding is assured, and the sequencing and the timing may not be there, you know, again, we can't control any of that. But we think 16 it's reasonable; and then, I think, you know, we hope the County has been relying on that, as Roy indicated. So we would think that, that tying it to the, you know, the improvements when no one else has been tied to it, again, would be treating us differently than other developers here. GRAHAM: Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: For Mr. Moore, is Kealakehe Parkway appointed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks? MOORE: I don't believe that there aze sidewalks. I can't remember the specific improvements here. SPRINGER: It seems to me that on the north side of it that there aze, and perhaps on the south side that there are not. Is Kamanu Street to your knowledge appointed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks? MOORE: Within the McClean property, yes; but not within the TSA. Keep in mind that Kealakehe Parkway is within an area proposed specifically for commercial. There are areas that are commercial, and residential developments along Kealakehe Parkway as part of the State's plans. So in, there is a high school. It's a little different situation in terms of the, you know, the south side of this project azea. Whereas our north neighbor is really an industrial azea and a different type ofpedestrian-way. SPRINGER: And there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on Hina Lani, for example? MOORE: No, there are not. There's paved swales on Hina Lani. SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you. Just for my own, so, if this term comes up again So long-range plan and long, long-range plan, and I'm assuming there's ashort-term or short-range plan, give me some timeframes on that. Long-range plan is between what and what? MOORE: Again, I call it the long, long-range plan. I'm not sure what the I think the Queen Kaahumanu corridor study is what that original plan, that, again, the plans were a conceptual freeway. The long-term plan is a 20-yeaz plan. The cun•ent plan, which I believe is going to be updated soon, is a 20-20 projection; and I'm not sure what the next plan will be projected. But it's a 20-year projection. And that long-range plan, the existing long-range plan, which is the basis for the State proceeding with these 17 improvements that are ongoing now, calls for the four-lanes, you know, of Kaahumahu Highway. ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you. GALDONES: Any further comments or further questions? Hearing none, Commissioners, the Applicant has proposed amendments to Conditions F, G, I, L and also there was a typo. Staff finds F and G acceptable, typo is not a problem, but they find some exceptions to the amendments to I, L and M. If there's no further comments or further questions, what is the pleasure of the Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: So we have no other public testimony than that one gentleman who spoke? GALDONES: Oh, there is another gentleman who wishes to speak. Could you please come forward. Are there any others besides this gentleman who's come forward, coming forward who wants to make a public testimony? Ma'am? Mr. Moore and Mr. Greenwell, we're going to need a chair, please. Okay. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? GIMPEL I do. GALDONES: Sir, can you give your name and your address? GIMPEL: Yes, my name is Joel Gimpel. I reside at 73-4686 Hina Lani Street in Kailua-Kona; and I'm here this morning representing the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. I'm the public affairs chair. I hadn't really intended to testify but I thought that it would be appropriate to reiterate some of the comments that the Traffic Safety Committee made in response to the revised application filed by Lanihau. We submitted those comments on June 29`h, so just to briefly summarize them. We did review the revised application and appreciate the recognition that construction of the Kamanu Street extension in conjunction with the initial phase of the development is appropriate and needed to provide that inter-connection between Hina Lani Street and Kealakehe Parkway, and it would help to improve the traffic circulation in the area. We also acknowledge and appreciate that the Applicant continues to propose to extend the Kalalani Street from the northern boundary to intersect with both north and South Access Roads and to do certain other improvements to the roads in the area. So we think that the creation, if you will, of a frontage road along, running north and south, mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway is appropriate and will certainly help to relieve some of the congestion that exists now. 18 We do remain concerned, however, about the timing of the planned but not yet begun improvements to Queen Kaahumanu Highway by the State. That remains problematic. And Phase 2 of those improvements which would be adjacent to the proposed project won't begin until Phase 1, which would take the improvements up to Kealakehe Parkway, is completed; and that part isn't even funded yet. So we do remain concerned about those issues, but thank the Applicant for recognizing our concern about traffic on Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the need for that frontage road tied to, from, inter- connectionbetween Hina Lani Street and Kealakehe Parkway. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Sorry for the frog in my throat. GALDONES: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Gimpel? Thank you very much, Mr. Gimpel. Ma'am, could you please state your name and your residence address? TAYLOR: Tiffany Taylor, 73-5601 Maiau Street, Kailua 96740. GALDONES: Ms. Taylor, you may begin your testimony. TAYLOR: I just have some questions for Mr. Moore since he's fully knowledgeable of some of the plans on the highway. Can you tell me the, you're a separate subdivision with the nine acres to the south? Is that what I heard correctly? Is it a separate 9-acre or 9 parcel subdivision planned to the south? Is that correct? HAYASHI: There is a separate parcel which is a 9.9 acre property, MCX, proposed to be placed into the MCX-zoned district; and that would part of Phase 1 of the Applicant's development. TAYLOR: Okay. And that access is on the Honokohau Road? HAYASHI: That would gain access from Honokohau Street, yes. TAYLOR: Honokohau Street. Since we're speaking about access previously, is there discussion on the access in that particular road and what's planned for it that anybody knows of? Right now it's left-in, left-out availability there. Is there any plans anybody knows how that may change or may stay that way, assurances that it may stay with the left-in, left-out? HAYASHI: Well, that would be determined by the Department of Transportation, because they're the ones that would be responsible for TAYLOR: Right. I was just curious if there's any, there has been any discussion about HAYASHI: That you'll have to defer I need to defer that question to the Applicant. 19 TAYLOR: Mr. Moore, do you know HAYASHL Mr. Chair, if, you may want to direct that question to the Applicant's representative. GALDONES: Mr. Moore? MOORS: I'm sorry, just to be real clear. The question is whether Honokohau Street will have improvements or provide access, is that the question? TAYLOR: Or if the access will be changed from what it is now, also. MOORS: Yeah, my understanding is that as part of the four-lane plans, is that that Honokohau Street will be retained as a full movement intersection. It will be unsignalized. Because there's a signalized right next door at the Kealakehe Parkway, my understanding and, again, this is based on second-hand discussions, our engineers were talking to DOT engineers, that that would stay, remain as a full turning-movement intersection but unsignalized. TAYLOR: Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioners, anything further? Ms. Taylor? TAYLOR: No. That's all. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further Are there any questions of ALAMEDA: Question for Ms. Taylor. Just to clarify. So you asked that question `cause you were thinking TAYLOR: I have interest in the parcel to the south with the Chevron station. GALDONES: Further questions or comments? Mr. Gimpel, Ms. Taylor, thank you very much. TAYLOR: Thank you. GALDONES: Mr. Moore, in light of the testimony from Mr. Gimpel and Ms. Taylor, do you have anything further? MOORS: No. GALDONES: Commissioners? Commissioner SPRINGER: Springer. 20 GALDONES: Springer. SPRINGER: It has been a long time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'm looking at Condition B which indicates that the Applicant shall comply with all of the conditions of the approval of the State Land Use Commission's Decision and Order. I'm wondering if, in preparation for the application that we're looking at today, there has been any discussion with National Park Service regarding any of the concerns which they raised, in particular with regard to water quality and water quality monitoring? MOORS: You know, again, Mr. Greenwell did meet with the National Park Service. I think the fact that they're not here says a lot about how we've been trying to deal with them. Just, I'm sure you're aware the boundary amendment process, especially with TSA, was rather contentious. We were able to reach a stipulated agreement with the National Park Service as to all of the conditions that we needed to comply with. That has been incorporated as conditions of approval of the LUC. Part of that is we need to do a pollution prevention plan. We have not done that yet. Until we know what kinds of uses are allowed, we can't, it's really hard to do it. We do know that TSA has been working, they have the similar conditions, not quite exactly the same. We have some more stringent than them, they have some more stringent, not, actually they don't have more stringent ones than us, I don't believe. So we ended up with a set of conditions. We will continue to work with them. There is a requirement that we submit our pollution prevention plan to them. If they disagree with it, it goes to the Land Use Commission to be mediated, so they do have a lot of say in these areas. GREENWELL: If I might just add to that, my last meeting with the Superintendent Jerry Bell, and the resource manager Stanley Bowen was about maybe six weeks ago, just in an effort to stay in touch `cause there's a number of things through the LUC that we were required to consult with them on. Some of these issues we aren't even there yet. But at that meeting I took to them a sample of our landscaping pallet and asked them, for example, you know, what do you do with your frontage or entries, should we look alike, should we look different, what parts do you have as far as your CC and Rs in that regard? So there's a lot of discussions going on in some of these different areas, and our intent has been to be pretty open book and get their feedback as we proceed. MOORS: Excuse me, there's one more condition that I was just going through and I thought I'd forgotten something and I did find it. I just want to clarify if we can. If it's okay, Mr. Chairman? GALDONES: Please proceed. MOORS: This is in Condition G and, again, this is that one I submitted and something I had talked to Norman about, but I forgot to type it up. It says in the last full sentence that "Access shall be limited to the North Access Road, and after construction of 21 the National Park South Access Road signalized intersection." We need to clarify that that is to Parcel 1. Parcel 1 is the, I'm sorry, your Parcel 1 is the MCX area excluding that 9.9-acre area which is access from Honokohau Street. So if we take this literally, then, we would not be able to access from Honokohau Street. We would also like to clarify, I don't think it's really clear or necessary but just to be real clear, is that access is to Parcel 1 from Queen Kaahumanu Highway. `Cause otherwise it maybe construed that we cannot access this parcel from Kalalani or Kamanu Street, if you take a really literal reading of that condition. So we would add "Access," new language, "to Parcel 1 from Queen Kaahumanu Highway shall be limited," and all the rest stays the same. And, again, I apologize for that oversight. GALDONES: Norman, do you find the amendments acceptable? HAYASHI: That's acceptable. GALDONES: Okay. Commissioners, further questions? Mr. Moore, anything more? MOORE: No, noting else. GALDONES: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I just wanted to express one serious concern that I have about this whole thing we haven't talked about and nobody really here addressed it, but it seems like it's a long standing Kona growth problem. When I looked in the EIS for this in the economic section, the development of the, this is 4-96 in the Final EIS, "The development of the Kaloko-Honokohau Business Park (would create 174,000 worker years and employment during the 34 years required to build out the project)." Well, if I just do my straight math of sticking 34 years into 174,000 worker years, it's like, you know, roughly, 5,000 workers full-time is the average over the 34 years of this project. So, and that's not including the operation of it, you know, once the business is there. So that's 5,000 workers presumably going to be working here. So where are those 5,000 workers going to be? They're not going to find low-cost housing in the area so they're going to be adding to all the commuting roads that the Planning Director talks about. I just feel like, you know, we can look at this project like this two-ways. We can look at it, it's like supporting the industry to accommodate the people who live here, or we can look at it like, you know, it's creating a lot more employment, it's going to bring in a lot of people from outside, it's going to create new housing needs and all the traffic and infrastructure problems. So I just can't shut my eyes to that and look at all these specifics about, you know, whether we're making this roadway, curbs and gutters, or this and the other thing. I feel 22 like the Planning Department has, you know, worked and the Applicant has certainly pitched in towards trying to mitigate many specific concerns about access and higher traffic and all. But, to me, this is another big boost to Kona growth that's going to kind of fly all over the place as far as Palani Road, as far as all kinds of places. And, as Mr. Moore says, you know, they'd like to be treated like others who've come before them, but things do kind of do cumulatively add. And if there's all this kind of keep adding on, the problems can keep getting worse. So I can't feel comfortable supporting this big extra boost to the Kona development in the region, even though I don't fault any of the particulars of what has been said in people participating in. Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I welcome the Applicant's response, if any. GALDONES: Mr. Moore? MOORE: The only response I have to that is, one, we've been working with the County administration and, again, they've given you a favorable recommendation. This is consistent with the General Plan, which calls for industrial uses here. There are policy provisions within the County that we have to comply with, specifically related to housing. There is a condition that says we have to comply with that, and we intend to. We understand that the County is looking at that and, so, we don't quite know when that's going to be; but it is the County policy and we'll comply with it. So we believe that the policy decisions, really, that underlay the foundation for this have been laid by our policy-makers, and that's what we've been following; and, therefore, we really feel this is appropriate. Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: As I was listening to Commissioner Graham, I scanned through the Condition R on the golden rod sheet where there's that discussion of the housing element of the General Plan. And, Mr. Moore, can you sketch out first what this means practically? MOORE: What it means practically, again, what it means is we need to do a study, and that's also called for by the Land Use Commission, to determine what our actual housing needs are, the employment impacts aze from the operation of this industrial park on the housing market, and whether we're going to be contributing to that or not. So there aze specific requirements within the housing policy to deal with industrial developments and their impacts on housing. And then to the extent that our Council or the housing agency, again, which is our Council members sitting as a whole, find that we have to do something, then we need to do that. And, again, that all needs to be done before, I believe, when we can get Subdivision approval. SPRINGER: Can you describe forme the housing agency that you referred to? 23 MOORE: Again, the Chapter 11 sets up the housing agency as the body that determines what the policy is. The housing agency is the County Council, all nine members of the County Council sitting as a committee. So effectively it's our County Council that makes those decisions as to what is required and what is not required as to comply with this policy. And, again, the policy is adopted by ordinance. So it is, again, it's Chapter 11. SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? GALDONES: Go ahead. SPRINGER: I'm not sure if it's germane to this discussion. So let me just ask the question if the Leeward Planning Conference addresses affordable housing and the impacts of developments such as this on the housing market, and if you have any, received any guidance from them? MOORE: Again, normally they don't get involved in a specific, you know, again, the Council is looking at a new, an amendment to Chapter 11, and that is ongoing right now. There's a language that's out there. And I think that is what HRPC is looking at; and, so, we're not quite sure what's going to come out of that policy. Again, it's an amendment to Chapter 11 that's being proposed right now. So we're looking at both what the current language is and what that proposed language might be. But, either way, we know we have to comply with Chapter 11. SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: A quick one for Commissioner Graham, just to make sure I get your point on the concern of the accumulative effect, if you will. I think that'll be a concern for us, all of us as basic citizens. So how, just kind of your thinking on at what point or how do we, as your colleagues, kind of make sense of that so that we could take that into our own kind ofdecision-making, if you will? GRAHAM: Even though it works on tentative, I think your point is real clear, and I understand, and I thank you. To me, I guess, it's timing. You know, it's not up to us to say, well, Kona shouldn't grow or anything like that. But we have watched Kona grow at a rapid pace, and it has gotten well ahead of its infrastructure. And I feel like, here, we're treating these folks, I presume, as Mr. Moore has indicated, you know, in a way we treated others, which they would expect perhaps. But the gist of doing that is having a bunch more employment here that's going to bring a lot of new people to the azea. As everyone who lives in West Hawaii knows, if you can do any construction work, there's plenty of jobs waiting for you right now. So my sense as the Planning Commission is that if there's no shortage of MCX azeas, industrial-commercial areas, in the area, which there are not, when I pulled up my map of what we have in West Hawaii, that basically something like this should be put on hold until such time as the 24 infrastructure catches up. I don't feel like putting it on hold. There's a detriment to the community because, like I say, they have plenty other industrial areas. I don't find the land has a better use for it, there's no particulaz use that, you know, is better for it. But it's just the timing thing for us to be moving forward with more development when the infrastructure is not in place. To me it's contrazy to one of the aspects of the General Plan which says urban-type development should take place where there's an adequate access and infrastructure; and I don't think we have that yet. So, to me, if we conditioned a prof ect like this on the completion of the four-lane highway or something, then we may have infrastructure up to a place where we can handle it, that would make a lot of sense. But to just keep going forward like this, feels to me, it's making a problem that we have now even worse. ALAMEDA: Thank you. SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I concur heartily with Commissioner Graham's concern about zoning outpacing actual infrastructure on the ground. But a question to Norman, aze not a number of the conditions worded so that prior to the issuance of a Certificate for Occupancy or various phased approvals occur that there needs to be the widenings that Commissioner Graham has spoken to and other infrastructure improvements? HAYASHI: That is correct. For example, to Condition I, it talks about that. SPRINGER: And that had assuaged those concerns that my colleagues have heard me discuss at other meetings that that infrastructure development has not always, what is on the ground has not always kept up with what is on paper, and I grappled with that in so many of these applications. But in reading through this, I noticed that there are, a number of the conditions are prefaced with prior to occupancy or activity in the area. A number of conditions need to be met. GALDONES: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I'll just say with respect to Condition I, clearly the Planning Department is not neglecting this issue. But what they're saying is either Queen K Highway is widened or the Kamanu Street extension shall be constructed and available for use. So the Kamanu Street extension, you know, is a good well thought-out response to the particular local needs of this project. But all of the folks that aze going to have to commute to come to work here and all that, they're not coming in all the way on the Kamanu Street extension. So GALDONES: Okay. Commissioners? Hearing no further discussion, Commissioner Fujikawa? 25 FUJIKAWA: I'm making a motion. GALDONES: Okay. The Chair is prepazed to entertain a motion. FUJIKAWA: I'd like to make a motion in this application, Change of Zone application (REZ 04-003), to be approved and recommend that it be forwazded to the County Council with all the changes, amendments, typo errors to be corrected, as so recorded. GALDONES: Is there a second? THIBADEAU: Second. GALDONES: It has been moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Thibadeau that West Hawaii Business Park, LLC, Change of Zone application (REZ 04-003) be given a favorable recommendation for a Change of Zone and be forwarded to the County Council with amendments to the conditions. That would be Conditions Fand Gand Commissioner Fujikawa, would that include I, L and M? FUJIKAWA: Yes, all. GALDONES: All of the proposed amendments FUJIKAWA: Yes. GALDONES: As presented by the Applicant? Further discussion? Any Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Thanks to Commissioner Graham for pointing out that "either/or" aspect of Condition I. At the south end of Kamanu Street where it enters onto the Kealakehe Pazkway, is there any intention I know the mid-level road is sometime off in the future as far as planning. Is there any intention to connect, move Kealakehe High School, for Kealakehe Intermediate and Elementary School area, will there be an extension either of the Pazkway or some other interior road up to the high school, I mean, the intermediate and elementary school area? HAYASHI: My understanding, first of all, Kamanu Street, the proposal is to extend it beyond Honokohau Street, okay, and hook up to Kealakehe Parkway, yeah, Kealakehe Parkway. Eventually, and hopefully, there would be an extension of Kealakehe Pazkway to the mauka Mamalahoa Highway. SPRINGER: Do we know what the timeframe for that is? HAYASHI: I don't have that information, unless the Applicant's representative is more familiar with that. 26 MOORE: You know, again, there is an environmental impact statement for the extension of Kealakehe Parkway but it is not on the, I mean, and it is priority project, it's not on the books right now. I just wanted to let you, anecdotal, I spoke to the Chief Engineer the other day, yesterday, in fact, or day before yesterday. There is a workshop, I guess, next Thursday on traffic situations, is what I hear, where DOT and the Mayor and everybody will be here. But it is my understanding that they're working out an internal connection between the intermediate school and the high school using some existing roads and the, and a water easement. So, again, that's anecdotal, I'm not, you know, again, this is what I'm hearing; so, but I think that's in process. I know that that has been a priority to provide that kind of internal linkage as well. SPRINGER: Now when the Phase I of the Kaahumanu widening project occurs and, if I understand correctly, it's a high priority, there's a high likelihood of funding being released for it in the near future? Is that correct so faz? HAYASHI: That's my understanding, yes. SPRINGER: What happens then in this vicinity when the four lanes come down to two lanes? What does that look like? HAYASHI: I'm sorry, I'm not able to answer that question. MOORE: You know, that is part of the final design. That is what is being, you know, again, our understanding is similar to what Roy had said and what Norman's understanding is, that this is a design build. The design build, a consultant, or a development team is hired by the State. They will design that road, all the intersections and the transitions back from a four lane to a two lane. Those transitions aze needed to meet all of the safety requirements and will be reviewed and approved by DOT. So we don't know what, I don't know what they are until the final designs come in. But there will be a transition back on, you know, no project just ends there. There's always a taper back into, you know, from four lane back to a two lane. So whatever the project boundary is, you know, the actual construction will extend beyond that with the transitions. But that would be, I'm sure, a specific part of all, you know, any highway improvement. SPRINGER: So it maybe that some time, I'm song, may I? GALDONES: Proceed. SPRINGER: It maybe some time before the intersection with the light that the four lanes would, there'd be signage and whatnot that indicates that they'll become two lanes before or after the traffic light? Don't know yet? MOORE: I don't know, yeah. GALDONES: Further discussion? Commissioner Springer? 27 SPRINGER: While I, early on in our discussion, I'm wondering if I might ask you for afive-minute break so I can review the conditions. I had not read them clearly. Commissioner Graham pointed out to me that "either/or" aspect of Condition I; and I'd like to have the opportunity to review them with more care, if I may. GALDONES: Request granted. SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: We're on afive-minute recess. RECESS The Chair called a short recess at 12:23 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 12:32 p.m. GALDONES: The Hawaii County Planning Commission is back in order. SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Thank you for the time for allowing me to review the conditions and to review the maps and to consider the application before us. And certainly with regard to the documentation, the planning maps, the zoning narratives, there's a certain sensibility to the placement of this application; but I'm having a hard time with the timing. I'm having a hard time with cumulative effects on Kaahumanu as it is presently traveled. And upon looking at Condition I, for example, and the others, that indicate that it's either the completion, or either Queen Kaahumanu will be widened to four lanes fronting the project, or the Kamanu Street extension will be constructed and available for use across the entire project area, whichever comes first. But I'm having a hazd time with if Kamanu Street, the Kamanu Street extension is what comes first; and we then have traffic feeding into the Kealakehe Parkway to the south or Hina Lani to the north. There may be a tremendous amount of traffic that will then result in the backlog of cars that we see at other intersections in Kona. And so with deep respect for the applicant and all of the effort that has gone into this, at this point, my inclination is not to vote for it. But I'll welcome to hear any other discussion that my colleagues might have. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further discussion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to be cleaz, the proposed amendments are all of those that, as requested by the Applicant? GALDONES: That is correct. HAYASHL• With that, I'll call a roll call. Commissioner Fujikawa? 28 FUJIKAWA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Nay. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: No. HAYASHI: Chair Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, there are four aye votes, three no votes. Motion does not pass. GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Mr. Moore, you will be informed in writing of today's actions. SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? GALDONES: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I have a query of Corporation, Deputy Corporation Counsel O'Toole. It seems to me, based on past applications before us, that afour-three vote is not conclusive in either direction. And I wonder if you could correct me if I'm mistaken, or if you can offer us guidance where we proceed from here. O'TOOLE: Well, I think if you were the final decision-making body, afour- three vote would not be sufficient to take final action. But since this is a recommendation to the Council, I don't know what, you know, I think it can go up; and it would go up with an unfavorable recommendation. Unless you want to continue when more 29 Commissioners are here, that could be an option. I don't know That would require a motion as well to continue. SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: Any further questions? Mr. Moore? MOORE: As I understand it, this goes forward with unfavorable recommendation? GALDONES: That is correct. MOORE: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate the time and efforts of the Commission with thoughts. GREENWELL: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 12:37 p.m. R~esopectfully submitted, o ~ Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 30