Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-20 THiluhilu PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT January 20, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of HILUHILU DEVELOPMENT LLC was called to order at 5:10 p.m. at the Outrigger Keauhou Beach Resort, 78-6740 (REZ 05-010) Alii Drive, Keauhou, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea Jeffrey McCall Rene Siracusa Hannah Springer Fred Galdones Chris Yuen, DeputyPlanning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HILUHILU DEVELOPMENT LLC (REZ 05-010) Change of Zone from Open (O) and Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to a Project District for 725.2 acres of land. The project, referred to as ‚Palamanuiƒ will be a master planned community with a mix of single-family and multiple-family residential units, commercial spaces, a village inn, 18- holegolfcourse,andrelatedimprovementsandinfrastructure.Thepropertyislocatednortheast of the Kona International Airport at Keahole, between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Makalei Estates Subdivision, Kau, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-2-5:1. ALAMEDA:Will the County Planning Commission now come back in order? Before we start I do want to have a little conversation with fellow commissioners. This is our second to the last agenda item. Actually the last agenda item kind of ties into this one. Its about a little after 5 oclock right now and I am concerned about the potential brain freeze and the inability to really focus so I want to propose a time of 7 oclock p.m. tonight as a time to shoot for to complete these 2 agenda items. And at that time, if we still have not completed it I would like to kind of bring the discussion back to see how, how you guys are doing in terms of your own capacity to continue. And if at that point you feel you just physically drained and cant continue then Id like to propose we end. How does that sound to you? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Id rather you made it one hour instead of 2 hours cause Im, Im getting close to brain freeze. EXHIBIT H 1 ALAMEDA:Okay. Its 5:10, at 6:10 well do a poll and well check with our Commissioners to see where theyre at. Okay? Thank you. Given that lets take up agenda item number 9. Hiluhilu Development LLC, Rezoning 05-010. Staff? Go ahead, Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Before we begin the staff introduction Id just like to disclose to my fellow Commissioners that I was interviewed during the Planning process of this application as a kamaaina of the region. And I also sit with the Dry Forest working group, which is a informal group of individuals who are interested in dry forest management and restoration who has a peripheral interest in these lands and I have received no compensation for any of these consultations but did want to disclose in case Mr. Torigoe or other members of the Commission have any questions of me. ALAMEDA:Mr.Torigoe,othermembersoftheCommission?Doyouhaveany objections to letting Commissioner Springer continue despite her interviewing process with the applicant? TORIGOE:No Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well I would like to ask Mrs. Springer if under the circumstances if she feels that she can make an impartial decision in this matter especially regarding the other non-dry forest issues? SPRINGER:Yes. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Seeing no further objections or questions Commissioner Springer were happy to have you. SPRINGER:Im happy to be here. ALAMEDA:All right. I want to check with the applicants. Do you have any objection to Commissioner Springer continuing in her capacity as a Commissioner? APPLICANTS:No. ALAMEDA:Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. Referring again to the overall location map. Someone has been playing with the map. The subject property is indicated and outlined in, by this red strip. It is situated mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and extends up until the Makalei Estates subdivision and this would be the Makalei Estates subdivision which has access from the Highway 190 or the Hawaii Belt Road. Again the Airport Access Road is located here and the property is approximately 1 mile from, north of the Airport Access Road. This particular EXHIBIT H 2 property again is the HELCO property. The maps indicate the various zoning designation. The makai portion of the property indicated at this elevation to Queen Kaahumanu Highway is currently zoned open and that basically followed the previous conservation line for this area. This particular area indicated in blue that extends to the Makalei Estates subdivision is zoned Agricultural 3 acre. And later on well be hearing about ordinance number 93-45 . This particular area in blue was also a part of that ordinance that including the Makalei Estates subdivision. As far as the specifics regarding the project Id like to defer that to the applicant however based on their submittal they indicated that they would be providing 519 single family units, 255 multiple residential units, commericial spaces for medical office, retail, classrooms and health related uses. There will also be a 120 room University Village Inn. Also proposed is an 18 hole golf course. And the applicant indicated that their golf course will be developed according to the Audubon International Signature Silver Program Standards. There will be active and passive parks including a dry land forest and if I may refer to this particular map. The dry land forest is located at this location which is mainly makai of the Makalei Estates Subdivisionandonthenortheasterncornerofthesubjectproperty.Thatparticularareaconsists of approximately 55 plus acres or thereabouts. As part of the development the applicant also proposes to provide a minimum of 100 affordable housing units on the property. A current plan right now is to add 50 rental units and 50 fee units. The development will occur in 3 phases over a period of 10 years and the first phase will consist of the infrastructure development. The second would be residential development and the third increment would consist of the multiple family residential and commercial developments. As part of the requests of this project district the applicant is also requesting some certain code deviations and these deviations would be related to the size of some of the lots in the residential areas also the variances from setback and road requirements. And these are all spelled out in the exhibit 2, Planning Department Exhibit 2. The overall cost of development according to the applicants estimate is 300 million dollars. This project will also at the end employ or create approximately 1800 jobs. The land use designation for the subject property, the general plan designation is urban expansion area and the state land use classification is urban. The applicant did receive or petition the land use commission to reclassify the property that was previously in conservation and that would be this particular area. And this particular area which is, which was within the state land use agricultural district into the urban district. And that reclassification was approved by the Land Use Commission in May of 2005. As far as the water availability, the applicant will be working and is continue to work with the Department of Water Supply in providing water for this particular project. The wastewater system will be private. Access will be from Queen Kaahumanu Highway at this particular location. We did receive several letters from members of the public. First of all from the Makalei Estates Community Association by Jerry Schneyer who is the President and a basic concern would be the roadway, mauka-makai roadway and the size of the existing Makalei Drive. We also received a letter from Allen and Ann Abaya who also expressed concern regarding the Makalei Drive as becoming the mauka-makai connection to the Queen, from this project to the Highway 190. Stephen Lopez also submitted a letter which expressed the same concern. As well as from David and Carol Ann Kwait I believe regarding the mauka-makai access. We also received a letter from Robert Ward who also expressed some concerns relative to traffic and access. The University of Hawaii Community College Chancellor Rockne Freitas submitted a letter in support of the request, as well as the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board signed by Mark McGuffie. Ill just briefly go over some of the, highlight some of the conditions that are proposed for this particular request. All of you EXHIBIT H 3 do have a copy and we just recently transmitted to you the second revision I believe or was it called the third? Its revision dated 1/19/06. And we apologize for this late changes, the reason for that is that this is a rather complex project and after coming out with the initial conditions we did have the opportunity to meet with the applicant and as a result of discussions with the applicant and upon our concurrence we made certain changes to the original submittal to you. I think one of the, well I was about to go over the, some of the, highlight some of the changes but since all of you had an opportunity to read that Ill defer it at this time and entertain any questions that you may have. There are 3 other conditions that we just came across that needed to be changed. Two of them being suggested by the representative from the Department of Public Works. One is condition M. And if you look on page 3 about the middle section of the page before condition N the second to the last sentence and it states, it makes reference to the uniform building code. Mr. Emler requested that we change the wording of that condition to read as follows. And Ill start with ‚regard to the requested sewer line building setbacks the applicant shall conform toƒ, and delete, ‚uniform building code requirements 1991 editionƒ, and insertthatwith,‚thecurrentHawaiiCountyBuildingCoderequirementƒ.Andtherestofthe condition will continue on as previously submitted to you. On condition Y4 on page, starting from page 7 and going to page 8, the last portion of that condition states that the Planning Director under condition SS, that should be changed to conditon TT. Everybody got that? So that would be on page 8 the ending of condition Y4. And finally, Mr. Emler indicated, requested that condition BB regarding the security gate be amended to delete the words ‚or propertyƒ on the second line. So the condition would read, ‚no vehicular security gate shall be installed within 60 feet of any proposed County road and a turnaround shall be provided within the private road on the County roadside of the gateƒ. So those are the additional changes that we are recommending. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Any questions Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman I dont, I think I didnt get to read some of these things that came out at the last minute for whatever reason but you were offering to sort of tell us about the things. I think one of the biggest issues has been the roads issue. Could you just tell us roughly as far as the mid-level roads, theres a Queen K connection road and the Mamalahoa Highway road what the Planning Department is recommending as conditions of approval in those regards at this point? HAYASHI:Okay Mr. Director would you like to explain that? Okay. YUEN:I think the easiest way to understand this is to go to Exhibit B thats in the yellow pages. The conditions of, at the end of the conditions of approval and then the map, roadway alignments conceptual. And so the specifics, you see the Palamanui property located there and you see the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. So road 1 is their main project access road, thats the spine road that goes mauka-makai. Road 2 is, becomes, is a portion of what is called the mid-level road in the K to K plan. Theres maybe a little confusion about this because at this location the mid-level and main street are the same road. They merge together. Ill show you the map, how that happens after we look at this map. So they would have to build this section of the road and it connects Kaiminani with their main project access road thats a distance of about a mile and a half. Then they have to build whats shown as road 3 across their property and this EXHIBIT H 4 would accommodate a possible future mauka-makai road to the Mamalahoa Highway along the alignment shown as road 4. Road 4 they would had to contribute to if it was done as a public project or if another developer came in and got a rezoning that required them to build a portion of road 4. Then road 5 is a small stub that forms their connection to another road that goes north-south, parallel to Mamalahoa Highway and at one end thats on the Palani end that would be Kealakaa Street. And then it would be, the long range plan is that that gets extended across and connects to Holoholo Street and across Kaiminani and through existing subdivisions to eventually to this location. So you would have those parallel connections and those mauka- makai connections. Do you have any questions on this map before, then we can go to the larger the more original map. GRAHAM:Sure, so starting at the beginning where the mauka-makai road connects to Queen Kaahumanu Highway seems like in all the stuff Ive been reading theres the issue about whether the airport road should be made into a 4-way intersection or whether it should be a new one.Areyousayingtheressortofageneralconsensusnowthatweregoingtomakeanewone or are you just saying that this is the Planning Departments recommendation or where are we at? YUEN:This came, this was hashed out specifically on, this is where road 1 connects to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This was hashed out at the Land Use Commission mostly involving the State DOT and the applicant. And the State DOT eventually accepted this as being a better connection. From the standpoint of getting people onto a parallel road network it does have the advantage of bringing people into that further north. If you connected at, by the airport which is about another mile or so south youre losing some of the advantage of that parallel road system. But this was ultimately what DOT wanted. GRAHAM:Okay then moving up to road 3. It looks like road 3 is connecting into another road that goes across to Kaiminani Drive. Is that road in place and all? YUEN:No. Thats also, thats an alignment shown on the tax map. And that was, thats still part of the plan to have a road there. Originally that was to be the mid-level but the mid-level, the idea of what we call the mid-level ws that it would be a big road or arterial road that would parallel Queen Kaahumanu Highway. But when you start to look at the practicalities of pushing it, of having that go through an existing residential subdivision like along Kaiminani, it just doesnt work out. So we would like eventually if the-. If a State property between Palisades subdivision on Kaiminani and Hiluhilu/Palamanui is built out there should be a road that connects the two of them on location. But it wouldnt be the main crossroad to get people north-south, because wed have to go through this existing neighborhood as part of that, part of that road. So the main road to go north-south would be parallel to Kaahumanu would be where 2 was and then extending that from there south to Kailua-Kona. GRAHAM:So I can look at this road kind of drawing I have on my map here as a prior planned road which may come about in the distant future but has it has its problems as far as coming about huh? YUEN:Right. And so thats not something that they are being required to build. EXHIBIT H 5 GRAHAM:Okay. If I continue on up above this road 5 which is the stub road it looks like thats going through the forest preserve area. It seems to me an issue for a forest preserve to keep it healthy and well would be fire potential and running a road through it probably adds to fire potential and I think we got a Department of Agriculture letter, some federal department saying they were unhappy with the idea of running a road through that reserve. Is that something youve dealt with with them or am I misunderstanding something or? YUEN:5 doesnt go through the forest preserve. Its easiest to look on the maps next to Norman, in the middle map. GRAHAM:Yeah. YUEN:And the forest preserve is in green there to the left of that road. GRAHAM:Isee. YUEN:Andthen5goesofftotherightupthere. GRAHAM:Okay. YUEN:Andsoitdoesntgointotheforestpreserve.Theroadthatwould,thepart of the main project access road that would connect to Makalei Drive does come very close to the forest preserve and we have had a couple of meetings about how that can be handled. And it looks like theres certainly theres a way to connect it. The ideal is hopefully theres a way to connect it without creating a full stop you know that you can connect it on a curve. As far as the fire, there is a fire break being, thats being constructed along the perimeter of the dry land forest. It is, thats always part of the major threat, in an area like this but there would be a fire break built. Theres a fire break built. GRAHAM:Okay and in overall terms, the correspondence that I read from the Department of Public Works sounded like they had a very live dispute with the Planning Department about the roads and I think they were mostly the north-south lateral roads. Im wondering if you and the Department of Public Works had sort of come into accord. That youre both okay with the current plan that you had put forward here or whether theres still a disagreement there? YUEN:I dont think we have major disagreements over the north-south road. Theres some issues of how much of it needs to be built at the present time. GRAHAM:Thats just timing agreements not layout or-? YUEN:(inaudible) the timing you know the layout is, this is. Well, what you may be referring to is that theres a earlier letter from Department of Public Works that really has to do with pushing all these roads through the property to the northern boundary. And the only road that were mandating be pushed through to the northern boundary would be road 3. And so, and in Public Works letter theyre talking about pushing road 2 to the norther boundary. We EXHIBIT H 6 dont think that thats important because we look at this property as a northern extent of the urban area of Kailua Kona. Thats what it is in the General Plan. North of this you have State property for which the State doesnt have any specific plans. Certainly we would recommend if the State were to develop other property in-, say we were going to do residential development on the properties in Kailua Kona. We have a, we would say first priorities are Kealakehe and Keahoulu which are next to near Palani and near the center of town. Then if the State got done with that when would say, the property, you see where, theres a 500 acre University site where number 2 is here. GRAHAM:Yes. YUEN:And then the south of Kaiminani between Kaiminani and Hina Lani Street thats mostly State land in there too so we would encourage the State to go in there and in-fill rather than going north. So we dont see a big need to keep, push this road system north. GRAHAM:I understand. Thank you very much for your explanations. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners. Commissioner Siracusa question for Mr. Hayashi? SIRACUSA:Yes. The light yellow revised conditions. I have a question about conditionH,whichhasbeenintheconstraintsarea.The65acredryforestpreservehasbeen reduced to approximately 55 acres and I was wondering Norman if you can explain why we lost 10 acres and where they went to. HAYASHI:Yeah basically the original submittal that the applicant had provided to us indicated that there was this constraint area that included the 65 acres of dry land forest. However after recalculating the area the applicant determined that the dry land forest area is actually, approximately 55+ acres. So between 55 to 60. So this is why we made that change. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa follow up? SIRACUSA:So you didnt take dry forest out of that category and-? HAYASHI:Oh no that wasnt our intent. SIRACUSA:It was just a correction of the actual dimensions? HAYASHI:Thats correct, yes. SIRACUSA:Okay thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Other questions for Mr. Hayashi before we ask the applicant to come forward? HAYASHI:I do want, I do have one more correction and this is condition V as in Victor. And its the last, lets see, the last sentence. Or the last line. We made a change in the EXHIBIT H 7 last, Ill read the last 2 sentence. Requirements to be determining consultation with the Department of, and it was Department of Parks and Recreation. And we changed that to Public Works but actually it should be the Department of Parks and Recreation. SIRACUSA:What condition was that? HAYASHI:Condition V as in Victor the last line. So it should go back to the Department of Parks and Recreation. ALAMEDA:Other specific details? HAYASHI:Thats it. ALAMEDA:Okay. Questions for Mr. Hayashi? Thank you Norman. Will the applicantoritsrepresentativespleasecomeforward?Pleaseraiseyourrighthand.Doyou swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? APPLICANTS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record? GIACOMETTI:Im Guido Giacometti. Im a owners representative for Hiluhilu Development LLC. My address is Kanehoa Street, Kamuela, Hawaii. Ill let the other applicant. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. HARRIS:My name is Roger Harris. My address is 66-1452 Ko Uka Place, Kamuela, Hawaii. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Mr. Giacometti. How do you spell your last name? How do you say it again? GIACOMETTI:Giacometti. You may call me Guido. ALAMEDA:Did you get a chance to look at all of the conditions that the Department has put together and the recommendations? GIACOMETTI:Yes we certainly have and I want to commend the Planning Director and the Staff for the attention that hes, they have provided to us. This is a large and complex project that there have been a series of discussions both at the Land Use Commission level which your department participated in as a representative of the County and also in the final application that wever brought before you today. So we have seen all of the background reports and the conditions including the yellow condition pages and the corrections that were made moments ago, we have no problem with any of them. EXHIBIT H 8 SIRACUSA:Excuse me a point of order, they havent been sworn in. ALAMEDA:I thought I. I did it. SIRACUSA:Im sorry. ALAMEDA:No problem, it is almost 6:00. SIRACUSA:Missed it. Brain freeze right? ALAMEDA:Brain freeze. Mr. Harris did you have any comments regarding the recommendations made by the Department? HARRIS:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. HARRIS:Wed be happy to answer any questions but were fine with the recommendedconditionsatthispoint. ALAMEDA:Mr.Giacometti? GIACOMETTI:Yes, I think I should mention that we have today with us several of our planning team including our legal counsel that has participated in certain areas. Our traffic consultants who have participated and our Chief Planning consultant who has submitted most of the materials for your consideration so if theres any questions of technical nature wed be happy to bring them up and have them testify. ALAMEDA:Thank you for bringing your team, we appreciate that. We may have questions. Questions for our 2 applicants here or their support staff? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I have a question for Mr. Harris. I know from common knowledge that you are interested in the forest and the preservation issues and I feel youre likely quite knowledgeable on that. All I really know about the forest is what I see from Queen K Highway looking mauka and what I see from the Mamalahoa Highway looking makai so. To get a context of the area thats being set aside, the 55 acres or whatever, when I look up there from the lower highway you see a lot of vegetation spread over a large area. So I wondered if there was some way you could you know go up to the map or whatevers appropriate for you and just sort of show us what is the extent of the solid good dry land forest. What is the extent to which there is some but is being croached upon or just so that we can see how this one parcel and what youre planning to do fits into the large picture of what is there in that area as dryland forest. HARRIS:Yes Im glad to. ALAMEDA:Thank you. EXHIBIT H 9 HARRIS:Im going to turn this map on its side. These 2 exhibits are the main exhibits of, the bigger project area, this being Kaahumanu Highway, this being the bottom of Makalei Estates on the top. This green area here in this alignment is the dry land, very good dry land forest on our land. And the boundaries are set by our main botanical consultant, Dr. Patrick Hart. And he estimated that about 65 acres and then when we. And then we went out and flagged the fire break and the intermediate protection you know and with Dr. Hart and then cut it in and then we had it surveyed and thats when it came out to equal 55 years approximately. We still got you know, its, so its going to be somewhere around 55, 60 acres. And there are some trees down in here as well as other isolated endangered trees that will be protected in what we call the incremental, I mean the integrated management plan. But the, on the map theyre called the preserve area or the no development area. There are certain archaeological sites and interesting caves particularly on the site. So thats the, and in the reports its described as about 177 acres. The road system, the big, the big point youre talking about is how to, how to make the corner at the bottom of Makalei Estates come in and miss the forests and still be driveable. Andtheresbeennumerousengineeringdiscussionbutbasicallyitlookslikewevegotawayto slow everybody way down but not come to a complete stop and then make a corner that misses the forest. And, there is a Halapepe tree right below that which we, which is listed endangered and under State law cant be moved at all so weve gotta, weve gotta deal with that. The other story on the forest and the region is at the Land Use Commission up where the forest area and the mauka these blue lines here the K to K roads. This one is the most mauka one that comes into section 5. And the whole idea there was over a couple of years to try and pull that road up to where Makalei Golf Course road is on Mamalahoa Highway so we didnt have to go up Makalei Drive every time. We did a botanical survey together with the neighbor, the neighbor who bought the Makalei Country Club recently and found that our dry land forest here extended the same good quality out into that land. Thats what drove us down here to road 4 and thats why the, you could say a little bit of a goofy situation but to summarize the road network and the K to K plan is based on getting from Queen Kaahumanu Highway without aggravating the situation at the airport intersection and a lot of back and forth for the State traffic engineers and our engineers essentially deciding that putting it at the north, 1 mile north was the best solution. At some time in the future the State may build a grade separated interchange near the airport. But it seems to be a bit off and turning that light into a four-way at this time they said would aggravate things worse. So, they can synchronize these 2 lights and the conclusion is it would be better if earlier. Secondly is the Director indicated you can get up into what we call a village center here. This is kind of a destination of our project. And at that point youll be able to walk back and forth to the future University Community College at West Hawaii Center that will start on this 500 acres adjacent to the infrastructure that were stubbing out here. That was, thats a huge basis for the kind of support weve had for this project. And we intend to agree to build with the University a, some rental space so they can move from where they are now, there rental down to here and get started until they build their own land. Thats going very well and the traffic related improvement would be extending from our road 1 down to Kaiminani, which puts you at another signalized intersection off Queen Kaahumanu Highway, allows to go mauka and as the Director indicated it gets us a little closer to Costco. And you know that were going to solve the link from Hina Lani essentially up to Palani Road. Thats the most hope we have for the K to K parallel system. And the big problem is, he pointed out, is the link across the State land here. Someday there will be a link up here and as the University grows therell be you know linkage here that feeds into this future four. Dont mean to be too confusing, thats kind of EXHIBIT H 10 how the big picture works together. So you end up having multiple ways to get in and out of the project and the educational system. Its not perfect but its pretty good. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I think maybe I didnt state my question so clearly because youve kind of thrown a lot of useful information but it didnt seem like it was right on point to what I was trying to deal with. If you look at that map you have right in front of you and you can put your-. No put the one right where you are. And you can put the tip of your point on the forest area that youre going to save. Right that youre going to-? HARRIS:Right here. And that road, it doesnt look like it misses it but it does basically. GRAHAM:Okaysomyquestionwasasidefromyourpropertyandwhatyouretrying to do, what is the extent of the valueable, good dryland forest in that whole area regardless of property lines and all so I have a sense of what part of all thats there are you talking about on your property. Can you give me the big picture if its more than your property? HARRIS:Yes. I did that very briefly. Its basically this, the yellow, the orange, light-orange land is the State owned land. GRAHAM:Right. HARRIS:And this is State between our property and the Makalei fee simple project property. GRAHAM:Right. HARRIS:And that area in there which was never chain dragged and turned into managed pasture is very similar-. Theres some different characteristics but basically good lowland dry forest. And the big deal is regenerating lama and kauila under the canopy of mature lama and kauila. For some reason our other remnants, other places in the dry land forest, we dont have the regeneration that we have right here and it justs-. The real amazing thing is it just turns out that just below the Makalei Estates connection is where that valueable regenerating part is kind of most evident. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:So like if I go in the Waimea direction at the same level as what youre planning to preserve and grab another hundred acres lets say thats in the State land. Thats not as good a dry land forest as what you have right preserving or its the same animal or what? I just want the larger picture of whats there since I dont know. HARRIS:Its about 90 percent as good, its real good. EXHIBIT H 11 GRAHAM:Okay. HARRIS:Particular, the Biologist are real excited about the piece on our side. So-. GRAHAM:So its a larger portion but the piece on your side is sort of a special good is that kind of the-? But the piece on your side is maybe a quarter of the whole good dryland forest there or ject give me some feel. HARRIS:I think thats a real good summary. Yes. GRAHAM:Okay, thats all I was after, thank you. ALAMEDA:You might want to stay there. Commissioner other questions? SIRACUSA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Whilehesupthere?CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah,youhadmentionedthatyourbiologicalconsultantwasPatHartand I know hes an onthologist basically. And, but we have a letter from the Institute of Pacific th Islands Forestry dated January 9 and Pat is one of the signatures to that letter. Ron Terry is another one that I know there and Susan Cordelle and they raise some issues and I was wondering if you had had a chance to study that letter and how would you address the points that they raise? HARRIS:Well essentially thats in support of just the discussion you just had. Theyre, theyre pointing out that the area on our land is very valueable in fact theres a halapepe pretty much in the alignment if you were to cut through, which is, the halapepes listed and you cant move you cant remove those trees under State law. Federal law you can but you cant under State so you cant. So weve gotta find, they were urging the Director to give real serious considerationandtomakingsurewecanmissthedryforest,definedasanythingmakaiofthe jeep road fire break that actually has been there for a long long time in that particular location. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa anything in particular you wanted Mr. Harris to address? SIRACUSA:Yes well Im wondering about this, the last bullet about the possibility of resubdividing and consolidating the Palamanui site. Would you point to the Palamanui site there? HARRIS:The Palamanui site is our site. SIRACUSA:Thats your site? HARRIS:Thats our site and what they? EXHIBIT H 12 SIRACUSA:And how would you? What is your take on that, how would you feel about applying of resubdivision and you know and consolidating with the adjacent Puu Kala State piece? Thats what is mentioned here. HARRIS:Yeah, we intend to create a lot that would be the dry forest lot. And the, Lisa Hadway whose with the State Forestry division was also into these discussions and part of the dry forest group. That statement essentially is, its sort of urging the State of Hawaii, Department of DLNR Forestry to take steps to protect this rather than unencumber DLNR land to put it under some kind of a managed, little more managed forest. And to do that, to change the designation they need a discreet lot or lots that contain the valueable resources. So shes talking about subdividing it out from the larger State parcel. And of course we would support that and I-, our Land Use Commission decision essentially mandates us to work together with the neighboring State Forest operation. SIRACUSA:Thankyou. ALAMEDA:Thankyou.OtherCommissioners?CommissionerSpringer? SPRINGER:Imlookingathelightyellowsheet,conditionKK,whichreadsthe applicant shall protect all Uhi Uhi and aiea trees and shall use best efforts to preserve the major stands of wili wili. Im wondering why were limiting ourselves to Uhi Uhi and Aiea, clearly alapepe is a species of interest. Im wondering if that should read something to the effect that the applicant shall protect all endangered species and shall use best efforts to preserve threatened trees or-. HARRIS:I think we should add, halapepe because maybe early in the game it wasnt listed but now its listed. And then number 2 we actually dont have any isolated alapepe, theyre all in the preserve area and thats referring to the isolated endangereds outside. SPRINGER:I see. HARRIS:But you could just say all endangered-. ALAMEDA:Sure, Director Yuen? YUEN:Yeah, that is the, what Roger just explained is the reason for this separate condition. All the halapepe were in the preserve area so we didnt have to separate them out. But therere a few aiea and uhi uhi that are outside, theyre not in specifically as preserve area but theyre going to have to dodge those in building the project. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer follow up? SPRINGER:Should we put that all isolated specimen or? ALAMEDA:For the Director? EXHIBIT H 13 HARRIS:I think that might be smart because when they find plants. YUEN:Thats right we could-. HARRIS:You know we might find a halapepe thats outside. YUEN:Right, we could add halapepe to that list in that KK. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? You okay with that? SPRINGER:Yeah, thank you. ALAMEDA:Very good, youre welcome. Other Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Excuse me for talking so much, or asking so much. Mr. Giacometti maybeyoucouldhelpmewiththisone.IknowwhenNormanwasfirsttalkingtousaboutthe project he mentioned that we had received a letter from the education folks. As I was looking through the Land Use Commission findings and all that and as I was looking through the EIS and you had a memorandum of understanding with the education folks. Somehow what I see is that your collaberation with them and building this whole University Center is a key part of what youre doing and certainly a very valuable part to us and feeling like thats one of the real values you bring to it. But I am, I am struck by the fact that I dont see anywhere that you know that the Chancellor or somebody says you know were paying $200,000 a month to rent facilities now so wed like to have an alternative and we like this site as a place to move it and all. I just dont see that anywhere. I just keep hearing well I have no reason to disbelieve that the University wouldnt be happy with this but Id hate to see us go 10 or 15 years down the road and nothing happens and we kind of find out well the University really had other plans and the Chancellor of Hilo didnt want to have a facility over here. Whatevers going on, I dont know Im just surprised by the absence of anything that really makes me know that the Universitys on board and wants to move and rent facilities when you make them available and all that. So just, could you explain that to me? GIACOMETTI:Sure, Ill be happy to try. At the start of planning for this project we recognized the relationship as a neighbor of the 500-acre University site. We contacted the University, talked with the Capital Improvements people, ultimately started to look carefully at how our project could work to resolve some of the problems that the University was facing. The main one being lack of infrastructure. Their site has no access, no water, no wastewater treatment or any utility connections and for them to, for the University to build anything on that 500-acres would require some off site work of substance. In fact it was enough so that earlier in the 1990s when plans were started for construction or development on the site they were stalled because there was no public funds available. Hiluhilu Developments property includes 2 water wells at the Mamalahoa level right below the highway you can see one of the tanks And those are water wells that are being planned for dedication to the public system. And theres a water agreement in place with the Department of Water Supply and Hiluhilu and another developer to bring water from those tanks or those wells and tanks downhill to the Queen Kaahumanu EXHIBIT H 14 connection and complete a north, northern leap if you will of that water system. In doing that the water system will come very close to the University site. We propose the University found quite valuable the concept of having our plan and their plan mesh in a way that would allow joint use of major utilities like water, access and in fact our wastewater treatment facility is located that or proposed location in that area that they could either tap into directly or expand across into public plan. Thats not on their 500 acre site but its on State lands that weve had conversations about this possibility with the State officials. As, at their request 2 years ago or a year and a half ago to be more correct, we developed a memorandum of understanding which was approved with the Board of Regents which provided that we would continue to conduct joint planning. It was not a binding instrument other than it was a expression of intent. We have done so. That memo has been extended a year and continues through April of this year. And well be, weve just rd submitted to the University a, further amendment to ask for, suggest a 3 year of joint planning. And just to try to bring this to, my comment on this to close, you may know that the Community College is looking at some development plans and has determined that in 2006 they were going, going to go through a planning process. Were a part of that in the sense that were talking with their planners and we think that this approach to a joint development using infrastructure brought in because well need it for project but it will work and help and be cost effective for the University, will be very beneficial. And finally, we have suggested to them and theyve said they will consider relocating to our site if we can build something in the order of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet of classroom facilities which they would rent at cost equal to or, equivalent to what they are paying now in other parts of the Kona Community. Thats all in the MOU. GRAHAM:Okay. ALAMEDA:CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:Guido,alongthewayyouweresayingjointplanningandyouresaying our plan and their plan mesh and all and I see your plan on paper and Ive seen your plan on paper for a couple of years for Land Use Commission but Ive never seen their plan on paper anywhere. Is there any plan on paper that they are putting forth? Then I can say yeah, that jives in with what youre doing or is all this talk? GIACOMETTI:Well, its a little more than that. Theyve had some plans. They have been working. They have no money for Planning thats one of the problems. The effort to do a public and private partnership that has been undertaken recently is part of their effort to move ahead on their planning side. But again what were trying to do is kind of get to point where they can plug in at the boundary if you will and build for example a single building or a couple of buildings instead of having to do an entire campus with all offsite infrastructure. GRAHAM:Okay thank you. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Why a golf course? EXHIBIT H 15 GIACOMETTI:Well theres several reasons. One is that the total amount of water that may be available for residential development I think limits to some degree the density of this area. The, another one is that the use for, of that water of the wastewater generated from urban development can be reclaimed and used on golf course purposes. And thirdly the owners of always had in mind building a golf course on this property. In 1999 I believe the, then Planning Commission granted a use permit for an 18-hole course on this property, on agricultural zone. That has been a continued interest on the part of the-, the owners. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa follow up? SIRACUSA:No, Im not sharp enough anymore to follow up. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners before we entertain the public testimony? Seeing none you may be seated. We do have testifiers, I dont know if all of them are still here. Only thestrongsurviveatthistimeso.AndIllgothroughthelist.Alsoletmeremindthetestifiers that we do appreciate focused testimony and if the previous testifier pretty much testifies kind of in the same light as you wed appreciate you just kind of reference to this testifier. And if you have anything, addition, any additions to add to that wed appreciate that too so. Lets go ahead and call up our 5 testifiers at a time, Mr. Joel Gimpel. Mr. Gimpel he signed up for all of them. Mr. Wallace Ishibashi. Mr. Jerry Schneyer. SCHNEYER:Thats me. ALAMEDA:Please come forward. Guido Giacometti? Oh Giooh, okay. Walter Zaszczunynski? SCHNEYER:He was unable to stay. ALAMEDA:He was unable to stay? Im torturing names but apologize. Sharon Smockhoffmann? SCHNEYER:She was unable to stay. ALAMEDA:She was unable to stay? Judie Killian? SCHNEYER:She was unable to stay. ALAMEDA:She was unable to stay. Joe Killian? SCHNEYER:He was unable to stay. ALAMEDA:Wow. SCHNEYER:Im speaking on their behalf. ALAMEDA:Okay. How about Lawrence and Karin Johnson? EXHIBIT H 16 JOHNSON L.:I made it. ALAMEDA:You made it? Is Karin? JOHNSON L.:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. How about Kathy Damon? Please come forward. And Mark McGuffe? Please come forward. Any other testifiers in the audience that would like to testify but didnt get your name on this? GOZDIESKI:I would like to. ALAMEDA:Please come forward. Could you all please raise your right hand? Do you swearoraffirmtotellthetruthnowbeforetheHawaiiCountyPlanningCommission? TESTIFIERS:Ido. ALAMEDA:Thankyou.Ifwecanstartoffonourright,myright?Youcanplease state your name and address for the record and you may proceed. DAMON:Its Kathy Damon and my address is P.O. Box 2215 Kamuela. JOHNSON:Lawrence Johnson. 72-4085 Alahee Street, Kailua-Kona. SCHNEYER:Jerry Schneyer, 721173 Hoopai Road. MCGUFFE:Mark McGuffe, Hawaii Island Economic Development Board, 117 Kiawe Street, Hilo, 96720. GOZDIESKI:Peter Gozdieski, 642 New Jersey Avenue, Lyndhurst, the State of New Jersey. ALAMEDA:Mrs. Damon would you like to go first? DAMON:Yeah let me introduce myself. My name is Kathy Damon and Im the Director of the University of Hawaii Center in West Hawaii. And what Id like to do today is note that the college has submitted a letter in support of Hiluhilus development and their petition for rezoning. And the letter comes from Dr. Rockne Freitas, our Chancellor of Hawaii Community College. It was written to the County Planning Commission. And so Id like to emphasize and read it for the record and you have that as part of your faxed information. It does note that the college is writing in support of this development petition for rezoning. It also says that the Community College continues its joint planning efforts with Hiluhilu Development and looks forward to the development of the two adjacent properties. In closing we did say that the Chancellor requests that if there are further questions that they be directed to his particular office in Hilo. But I did want to emphasize that letter for the record. Thank you. EXHIBIT H 17 ALAMEDA:Thank you Ms. Damon. Any questions Commissioner for our? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just a quick question. DAMON:Yeah. GRAHAM:Thanks for clarifying cause I was concerned about support and all. Do you have any prognosis or any idea if this development does go through and then sometime in the near future they make these facilities available, do you have a belief that the University system will take advantage and move in some expeditious way to move the campus and the classes and all over there? Can you give me any? DAMON:IguessthatsthetoughquestionIwouldsayspecificallyhaveyoureferto the Chancellor for that detailed response. But obviously we can say that you know what has been said earlier its been part of the process. But the timeline and everything else Id have to defer to the Chancellor to have his response. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Also as a matter of clarification for the testifiers you cannot go back you cannot back track on testimony so if another testifier says something then you want to comment then we cannot allow that. Unless our Commissioners have specific questions for you guys so just to remind you of the process. Any questions for, any other questions Ms. Damon? Seeing none, wed like to thank you for your testimony. Mr. Johnson? JOHNSON:I will defer to Jerry Schneyer who is our chairman, Makalei Estates and I would like to have the opportunity to add anything after he is through if thats possible. ALAMEDA:That is possible. JOHNSON:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Schneyer? SCHNEYER:Thank you Commissioners. Good evening. Id hope to say good afternoon to you but better late than never. Makalei Estates is the neighborhood immediately mauka of the proposed development of Palamanui, and the first developed by the same developer under Ordinance 93-45. At this time, our intent is not to try to stop or even slow down the current development, but to ensure that all applicable laws and ordinances are followed. We respectfully request any discussion of the Ordinance or zoning changes consider all the following. Condition G of the Ordinance requires that a proposed 80-foot wide right-of-way and its improvements shall be extended to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway if and when any development occurs within the existing Conservation District. That road has never been built and therefore cannot be extended. Instead, there is a substandard 50-foot wide right-of-way road EXHIBIT H 18 referred to at various times as Makalei Drive, Roadway A and University Drive. When asked why the required standard had not been followed the answer received was the planning and engineering had been done by the prior owner, Nansay, and that a variance had been obtained. However, a careful check of the Countys records reveals there is no variance. This is not an oversight, nor is it due to poor planning. Instead, there was deliberate and careful planning on the part of Nansay, the Planning Department and the Public Works Department as evidenced by the written public record that clarifies their intent. It was never meant for the existing road to satisfy the Ordinance and it does not meet applicable laws. With their team of lawyers, advisors and consultants, Hiluhilu either knew or should have known this. If instead they acted on the assumption they were meeting all requirements as opposed to conducting their own due diligence, they made a bad decision. If they knew and built the road anyway, they acted at their own peril. Either way, it doesnŒt relieve their obligations. Since bringing this issue to the developers attention, theyve recently acknowledged there is no variance. The following information has been obtained from the public record. Condition G originally stated the proposed80-footright-of-way.Itwasamendedtostateaproposedright-of-way,clearly indicating other roads were contemplated. This is supported by the public offering statement on Makalei Estates that says there will be two primary streets planned for the subdivision ... both with sixty foot rights-of-way and twenty-four foot pavement widths. Only one was built, and it doesnt meet the stated standard. Its only 50 feet. The Countys file contains many many documents supporting what Im saying. Theres one dated November 12, €93 titled Chronology th of Kau Zoning and Subdivision. Of particular interest is the entry of January 20 93, which states telecom, Mooers telecom with Yanabu says to leave the language alone, build the road to Ag-3 standards, dedicate and the County will refuse to accept. The following entry says meeting Goldstein, Yamato, and Kato. Uncomfortable with instructions, request language change asks for recommendations. The document goes on to document other discussions and correspondence, including some of the following. In June €93, Galen Kuba, who was then Acting Division Chief of the Engineering Division of the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works, wrote you will need to confirm and have us formally notified by the Planning Department that the main roadway,RoadA,willnotbeamajormauka-makaiconnectionbetweenMamalahoaHighway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway; and that this roadway will be a nondedicable private roadway in perpetuity. If the subject roadway is a nondedicable private roadway, then we will allow a maximum grade of 18 percent, direct individual lot access and nondedicable roadway sections. That was also copied to Planning and to Nansay. The requested formal notification was given on th September 7 by Planning Director Goldstein, stating we would like to state for the record. Im sorry this was one of the planning. The requested notification was given when Greg Mooers of Nansay wrote to Planning Director Goldstein stating wed like to state for the record the subdivision roads were designed as private roads, will be reviewed as private roads and that we intend to maintain them as private roads. The roadways will eventually pass to the homeowners association who will maintain them per the legal documentation that has been prepared. th Planning Director Goldstein responded on September 16 stating, this is to acknowledge receipt ofyourrecentletterregardingtheprivateownershipoftheroadwaysystemwithinthesubject subdivision. As requested, we are making your correspondence a part of the public record in the nd subdivisionfile.ShefollowedupwithamemoofNovember2stating,aspreviouslydiscussed, the roadway system for the subject subdivision application now under review is to remain in th privateownership.OnDecember29ofthatyeartheNansayrepresentativewrotetoDirector Goldstein, Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, Deputy Engineer Riley Smith and EXHIBIT H 19 th Galen Kuba stating after our recent meeting of December 17 and subsequent phone conferences, it is my understanding that we have agreed to the following: Planning has determined that Road A is not a collector but a minor street, Road A will be designed and reviewed as a 50 foot right of way county dedicable roadway with existing grades, which include two sections up to 18 percent. Director Goldstein replied in January, stating, please be advised that it is agreed that proposed Roadway A is to be considered a minor street consisting of a 50- foot wide county dedicable right-of-way which will include two sections up to 18 percent grade. In May of that year, Mooers wrote to Goldstein stating, in review of our rezoning ordinance we are complying with condition A, which states that we will comply with all conditions. He then goes on to cite their actions on Conditions A through Q. In one, he states Condition G requires an 80-foot right of way and improvements be extended to Queen Kaahumanu Highway when development occurs within a Conservation District. We will comply with this condition when such development occurs. On July 20, 1994 more than fourteen months after the effective date of the ordinance, Director Goldstein wrote proposed Roadway A is to be considered a minor streetconsistingofa50-footwidecountydedicableright-of-waywhichwillincludetwosections up to 18 percent grade. One might argue that despite the lack of the specified number of multiple applications, the failure to have paid the necessary fee or to post public notice as required by the Planning DepartmentŒs very specific rules pertaining to variances, this correspondence and the conversations referred to constitute a variance. Its a difficult argument considering the term itself is never once mentioned. But even accepting that, any variance might have been from the ordinance, not the County Code. The road was specifically designated as a minor road Section 23-3 of the Hawaii County Code defines a minor road as a street intended exclusively for access to abutting property. By declaring it a minor road, it was eliminated from use as a connector. A mauka-makai connector must be an arterial road, defined in the same section of the Code as a street of considerable continuity, which is primarily a traffic artery for intercommunication between or through large areas. According to Section 23-41 of the County Code, a secondary arterial is a road with an 80-foot right-of-way, and a collector a 60-foot right of way. Clearly, was the intent of 93-45 to require a secondary arterial. With a 25 mile per hour speed limit, substandard width and excessive grade, Makalei Drive is not that road. On April 7, 2003, County Planning Director Chris Yuen wrote, I believe that decisions made in the previous administration that allowed the development of Makalei Drive with a 50 foot right of way and a steep grade in certain sections clearly were inconsistent with Ordinance 93-45, but these earlier decisions did not excuse performance of the remaining conditions of the ordinance. Clearly, the condition in ordinance 93-45 requiring that an 80 foot right of way be extended to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway if there was any development in the Conservation District, meant that there was supposed to be an 80 foot right of way, in the A-a3 area which could then be extended. We agree completely. So why is the county willing to accept a substandard road built to maximize profit at the expense of safety if used for purposes other than it was as it was designed for and designated as? IŒm a Senior Vice President of a national company, part of an international one, that provides litigation support to attorneys and insurance companies. In my professional opinion with 36 years experience as an insurance claims professional, Im qualified to state that a road so far beyond the Countys own standards may well subject the County to liability when it is alleged an accident was caused in part by that road. This is especially so if laws have been violated, and when the Countys own officials have recommended against using the road as proposed. November €93, then Councilman Jim Rath wrote to Mayor Yamashiro stating, considering the many suits that the County has paid for sub-standard roads, costing tax EXHIBIT H 20 payers millions of dollars, it does not seem to me, nor any other reasonable person, advisable to accept an 18 percent grade. Prior to the meeting she held with Public Works and Nansay, and after the zoning calling for dedicable standards, Virginia Goldstein sent Nansay a letter stating that Nansay could keep this road private. This is in clear violation of the law. The Council cannot, knowing the possible liabilities, accept this road at those grades. This means that school buses could never use that road. He further states the County Code says that variations can be allowed when advisable to meet unusual conditions. I submit this is not advisable, nor even conscionable. Here is the government violating its own law to help a foreign developer. This should not even be an issue! Nansay knew at the time of zoning they couldnŒt meet the grade. They knew they had the juice to do it through the backdoor. On July 8, 2004, Galen Kuba, Division Chief, Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works wrote Makalei Drive was not designed and constructed to County collector street standards. It is constructed to local street standards with a 50-foot wide right-of-way, maximum grades of 18 percent and with individual parcels taking direct access from it. Construction from Queen Kaahumanu Highway toMamalahoaHighway,bypassingMakaleiDrive,isrecommended.Inthelitigationbusinessin which I deal with those documents are known as smoking guns. Section 23-50 of the County Code states, a grade shall not exceed seven percent on major arterials, eight percent on secondary arterials, ten percent on collector streets, or twelve percent on any other street. Variations from the required grade or curves may be permitted by the Director and the Director of Public Works where advisable to meet unusual conditions. The existing grade is 125 percent in excess of the standard of a secondary arterial road, and 50 percent over that of the any other street standard. Certainly, the existence of a steep grade in Hawaii County is not at all an unusual condition. What then are the unusual conditions used to justify this variation? Absent records of justification, the road violates the CountyŒs rules. The standards exist to protect our visitors and the residents of Hawaii both from physical injury and potential legal liability. These are more smoking guns. Plaintiff attorneys are usually ecstatic to find one, let alone multiple ones. Section 23-10 of the County Code, states the council shall not take over, receive by dedication or in any way accept as public highways any street in any subdivision except upon full compliance with the provisions of this chapter. It should also be noted that Section 23-4 of the Code states any person violating or failing to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall be sentenced by a fine not exceeding $500. The continuance of any such violation after conviction shall be deemed a new offense for each day of such continuance. The County can only accept dedication of Makalei Drive as a minor road as designed and designated and not as a mauka-makai connector. Any other use is a violation of the County Code and subject to penalty as specified. (coughs) Excuse me. The developer has suggested the solution, has suggested to me the solution may be to ask the County to condemn the land on either side of Makalei Drive to allow the required 80 foot right-of-way. Would such a request contain plans on how they would re- engineer the mountainside and re-grade the road to bring it to the 8 percent grade required by the Code? The option existed to do it right the first time. A series of switchbacks could have been built and were apparently considered, but that would have allowed fewer lots to sell. Instead the method that maximized profit was chosen. Since the existing road clearly does not satisfy the obligation and canŒt legally be used as intended, why is the county willing to grant additional favors when the original requirements havent been met? The people of Hawaii are entitled to a mauka-makai connector built to the proper, safe standards specified in our laws. Yes, our sales documents state the road may eventually go through, but we were told it was designed as a local street that would meander through the golf course with multiple controlled intersections to EXHIBIT H 21 discourage through traffic, not as a highway. Perhaps used that way, one could argue it was a minor road. Some of us were told it would be a gated community. In fact, I was specifically told 10 months after I moved in that materials had been ordered to gate the entrance. For the next 6 months we were told the holdup was due to the process of logo design. Last time I checked with him, the materials were still sitting in Kerry Humbles storage yard. But all of us relied upon our elected and appointed officials to ensure the road were built to proper and legal standards for its intended use. Now we all know it was not. To take it just because it is there is not acceptable. We suggest the county should be leading the discussions between Hiluhilu and the Peter Lynch group who will be coming forward with their own zoning, zoning ordinances. All parties agree the best solution is a road further north where the grade is considerably less steep. The County should be protecting the citizens of Hawaii County, not cooperating in ways to avoid obligations. Were not suggesting the current administration caused these problems. However, like it or not, they are responsible for resolving it. All we ask is the law is followed. To paraphrase Mr. Yuen, earlier decisions do not excuse performance of the remaining conditions of the ordinance, the PlanningDepartmentsownrules,andtheCountyCode.Allowingonedevelopertoavoidits obligations, either by oversight or deliberately establishes a precedent that others dont have to obey the law. And if they dont, why must the rest of us? Our laws exist for a reason. We must all obey all of our laws as written, and not just the sections of those that work for some when convenient. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Again not necessarily the testifier but if the Director could respond to the issues raised by him? YUEN:Well, thats a lot of background there. And essentially what he is discussing is approval of the existing Makalei Estates Road and a steep grade to allow the construction of the subdivision that he lives in and their concerns about them connecting that to the Palamanui Project. We as a matter of philosophy in the Planning Department we would insist upon connecting these 2 subdivisions so then we dont have 2 back to back cul-de-sacs as a result. Then the other major, theres a lot of discussion of legality. There are maximum grades stated in the subdivision code. Then theres a provision that says that these can be varied due to site conditions. As a, they, its not, most of mauka-makai roads in Kona currently exceed these grades. They have 3, right now you have 3 mauka-makai roads, Palani, Hina Lani and Kaiminani. Palani is the least steep but is also possibly the most dangerous because of the S- curves, sudden drop offs alongside of the road. Its the least steep because it comes down at a diagonal into Kailua-Kona. Hina Lani which is probably the best of the roads from the standpoint of width and the way its laid out has a section at the top thats 19, 18-1/2 percent so almost the same as Makalei Drive. Kaiminani is also almost as steep, it also is straight which tends to get people going pretty fast on it and has many many driveways going directly into Kaiminani. So, and the overall grade is, along the whole area is pretty steep and even the road that we have as a alternative, road 4 would have a section of 13 to 14 percent. The overall grade is in the area is not that much less its, its, if you jog the road a little bit you can get a little better grade than what weve done in Makalei Estates. The final point that Id like to address is this question of, is it illegal to, what theyre saying is that its illegal to connect-. You have a arterial road on the top, Mamalahoa Highway and an arterial road on the bottom Queen Kaahumanu Highway. EXHIBIT H 22 There argument is it is illegal to connect the two with a wider street. And I simply disagree with that. I mean you, you have to. You have a, and I was trying, Im trying to think of it, you have lots of examples in Hilo where things are gridded out. You know in a grid sys-, in a grid situation, you have minor streets, you have streets that connect between your arterial streets your connector streets that are minor streets. You dont have a complete hierarchy of streets that where every street that goes into an arterial is a collector and every street that goes into a collector is a minor. All that were doing here is were adding a minor street that, that does function as a way to get from one arterial street to another street. But I dont see anything in the Code that says you cant do that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? Go ahead. Let me just real quick. I know that the previous testifier has already testified and I just, I dont know if youre waiting for me to dismiss you but if you are, you are dismissed. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thankyou.Imwonderingwhynotbacktobackcul-de-sacsifthe Makalei association with okay with only 1 access or exit from an arterial road and Palamanui has 2 accesses or exits, one onto Kaiminani and the other onto Kaahumanu Highway. Can you explain to me again why not 2 back-to-back cul-de-sacs? YUEN:Well its the same, it creates the same situation where you have no circulation from one area to another area. And having the connection enables somebody to go from the Mamalahoa Highway down to if there is a University site down here they can take this road to get down there. And it gives them, it gives traffic instead of 3 ways to get from mauka to makai, it gives a fourth way that is a direct way into this particular area. And, whether you know the people who live in Makalei Estates may prefer to have there neighborhood be a cul-de-sac but it also results in. If they want to go to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, they go through Kaiminani neighborhood on Kaiminani. But also they go up to Mamalahoa and they have to get, you have this circuitous and this is what we have, you always have in Kona. Because you have all these cul-de-sacs in your neighborhoods you cant get from one area to another area without going to the major road. And in this case they have to go, they have to go up to Mamalahoa to go anywhere else including, and in the long range if you have a internal circulation like were showing along this map here it would be desirable for Makalei and all these other areas to be able to get down through an internal circulation into this parallel road system and not have to go on, in the case of Makalei and the neighborhoods up into, up to Mamalahoa down to Queen Kaahumanu. The final thing Id like to say is that if you go down Makalei Drive, theres a stub out at the end of it on the makai end. The road doesnt end where the last house is, it goes, theres a stub-out to this property. It clearly was an intent that this was going to continue on to the next, through the property makai of it. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thanks to the testifier. Could you please cite again the prohibition of minor streets as arterial connectors? SCHNEYER:I will. Section 23-3, defines a minor road as a street intended exclusively for access to abutting property, period. EXHIBIT H 23 ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:May I ask the Director to respond to the testifiers concern of using the minor road? ALAMEDA:Sure. Director? YUEN:Well-. SPRINGER:As in Section 23-3. YUEN:Hes reading that to define a minor street as a cul-de-sac. If you going to only use it to get to abutting property its a cul-de-sac. I mean you can, let me-. Let me just thinkforaminuteofanexample.Youcan,youcan,sayinWaiakeahouselotsareaofHilo.You can take Kilauea, you have Kanoelehua which would be considered an arterial and then parallel to that you have Kilauea. And now which would be a major collector. And Kilauea a four lane road, busy road in Hilo. You can take any number of streets from, and theres, theres, you can take any, there are a number of minor streets that go across from Kanoelehua to Kilauea, theyre minor streets. They connect and they connect from, they can do it. Where you can get from one to another thats what will happen if you have this Makalei Estates, Makalei Drive connect to the main project access road in Palamanui. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen are there any limitations on width of road, thickness of road in Makalei that would create hazardous conditions in your opinion? YUEN:Its not an ideal road but none of, none of the roads that get you from mauka to makai are. And people, people have to get from mauka to makai and I dont that taking Makalei Drive, I dont think its worse than taking Palani or Kaiminani. Its, I think its better than, Hina Lani is better than Makalei Drive but I dont think its worse than the other two options, particularly Kaiminani which is the road that most people would take from mauka to makai if this were not available. So, its not an ideal situation but its not that bad either really, its a wide road, it has wide paved shoulders and theres, theyre only, compared to Kaiminani there are relatively few driveway accesses. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Springer you have any questions for our testifiers? Id just like to remind the Commissioner if we have, I would like to go through our testimony and then we can entertain questions ourselves with the Director included I would prefer that? Any question for our testifier before we move on? Okay. How about, I dont know Im kind of feeling like you know that I did promise you that 1-hour wed do a check in. And so we are at the 1-hour, little over 1-hour point. I do want to go through the testimony at least before we take a break. But that was a very long testimony, you know that was about 6 pages worth. Can I just ask that if you do have a testimony like that for the future testifiers if you could EXHIBIT H 24 summarize it by giving us some of the highlights. So let me backtrack now. Mr. Johnson you wanted to, do you have anything else to add besides what Mr. Schneyer here mentioned? JOHNSON:Can I add to the rebuttal of Mr. Yuen or is that out of order? ALAMEDA:You could, you could testify, now is your chance so if its. Go ahead. JOHNSON:You mentioned Kaiminani and Palani. Those roads were developed without any planning whatsoever. Hina Lani was planned and connected to a sub standard road at the top, which is just what youre proposing to do with Makalei Drive. All of the problems we hear all of the speed posters that are put up the radar posters, theyre at the very top of Hina Lani. They create a very unsafe condition and I would ask that the Commission members before any major decision is made on this that you go out and drive down Makalei Drive. Observe the loaded semi-trucks going down there in compound low, 15, 20 miles an hour because theyre afraidtoshiftgearscausetheymustloseitatthebottom.Andatthebottomtheroadisflat, almost a 90 degree turn and there are houses on the other side of that turn. Its very feasible that theres going to be an accident there with trucks coming down or cars coming down 50, 60 miles an hour and not making the turn. And I think this is the time when youre planning the roadway system not to say well we did it before at Hina Lani because that was a bad decision too. That road should possibly have gone over to Palani Road up near the nursery connection. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA:This is your opportunity to add anything else because once we, once youre finished we cannot backtrack. Sorry, are you okay with your testimony? JOHNSON:All right if you put it that way. I really think that the law should be followed. And Jerry went through a great deal of effort as you saw to research what had been decided before. And I think those decisions were well founded they were repeated time and time and time again including by Mr. Yuen that this was not going to be a connector road. So to take a minor road like youre talking about in Hilo and adding it to a major collector road for the balance of the length of that road seems irresponsible to me. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Johnson. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Just a comment for Mr. Johnson. One of our conditions, Condition AA indicates that construction vehicles shall not use, utilize Makalei Drive. JOHNSON:They say that on Kaiminani also. Road limit 20 tons or something and you have all that traffic going down there all the time. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schneyer. How about Mr. McGuffe? MCGUFFE:Aloha ahiahi kakou. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and staff thank you for allowing me a few moments of your time. Ill be brief as you have received a letter of testimony earlier Im not going to read that to you. EXHIBIT H 25 ALAMEDA:Thank you. MCGUFFE:Okay. Im here as Executive Director of Hawaii Island Economic Development Board a non-profit organization with approximately 115 members island wide and in support of the petition for a change of zoning for the Palamanui project. And the main emphasis I think was addressed by Staff earlier on the opportunities this presents for particularly West Hawaii residents in the future. Not only on job opportunities but also for a little educational opportunities. So with careful planning especially on the road discussion I like the dotted line up on the wall there it seems to address that. Were very much in favor of the, of the project as a whole. Obviously theres some things that still need to be worked out but appreciate your time. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you for your testimony. MCGUFFE:Aloha. ALAMEDA:AnyquestionsforMr.McGuffe?SeeingnonehowaboutMr.Gozdieski? GOZDIESKI:Yes,Gozdieski. ALAMEDA:Gozdieski. GOZDIESKI:Peter Gozdieski. Okay I own lot 1, the top of the hill along 190 and it comes down to Makalei. That corner alone when you take a truck loaded with dirt, approximately 20 yard, tandem, single, no tri-axle, 40 ton, 80,000 pounds loaded. He makes that turn the front of his nose is approximately 12 to 15 feet to where he sits in that vehicle. When he touches the tip of that turn and he goes over the crest of that edge at an 18 degree the nose of that truck, the wheels are barely touching the front of the ground. Just to a thought to give you the idea of where this is at in the relationship of this mans eye to someone now standing, parked, double parked, making a U turn, hes never even going to see him. Children, people, walking, joggers coming up that rise hell never see the emblem of his truck or the rock thats across the end of that 190 highway until hes in the highway, when the front wheels touch that ground again. Anybody thats in that 60 feet in or out of that move is in trouble. And the other is as far as the safety addition of the board of the property around the perimeter of my property there is no safety. Ive been there 4 years, 3 months at a clip I come out here. Ive seen garbage and crates just thrown the other day out to the property side of my lawn. Regardless its not developed Ive yet to do something with it. The overall projection? Ive seen cars pull to the side of that shoulder of the road at 60 and brake and try to make that U turn inside, standing there. I spend weeks upon weeks standing there watching the action come up and down that hill. Theres absolutely no bearing of anybodys disregard of whose around. All they can say is again its as dangerous. That road itself from the full portion of that road, roads closer to it, theyre taking at the top of 190 are wrong. Arent constructed right, arent developed right. Why are we going to add to this problem thats already half-way wrong. Were going to put a brand new development down there. Lets put a right road thats going to take the people to the development and the new University, the new (inaudible), whats ever going to be proposed. Lets put the road thats going to be put in for that and lets not interfere with the residence that bought into a gated EXHIBIT H 26 community conversation. Im a general contractor. 35-years self employed in the State of New Jersey. I come from a builders state. You ask me where you live in New Jersey, I tell you what exit. Thats the roads we have in, were loaded with highways. The integrity of our road is to be inundated within 10 years because of the size of the capacity, and we have yet to look at in the State of Hawaii. It is the frontier of the world. Ask anybody on this planet, say the word Hawaii to them and the smile on their face is large. So as I say again this is so (inaudible) important that whatever road is being constructed to accommodate the people on this State they need to bring that road in from the new development correctly. Eliminate the evaluation of (inaudible) of any type of full turnout about that weight of a 30 foot tandem truck going up and down. I dont kid you the degree of level of speed. He loses one wheel or brake hes through my property thats 60 feet below him and Im the first stop. The gentleman on the other side has the first stop. If not the coffee field in the gentleman in front of that just stop. Its a 4-year development it should be recognized as a brand new development. Leave it as it is. The road is inadequate. Were putting in a new park development. Lets bring that new road and connect it in completely new accordingtotheconditionsoftheDOT.LadiesandGentlementhankyouverymuch. ALAMEDA:Thankyou.Thankyou.AnyquestionsforMr.Gozdieski?Closeenough. Thank you for your testify, appreciate it. You may be seated. I want to take 5 if you dont mind. SIRACUSA:Lets take a couple of weeks. ALAMEDA:Take a couple of weeks. Lets take 5 minutes and well come back finish up. RECESSED:The Chair called for a recess at 6:45 p.m. RECONVENED:The meeting was reconvened at 6:50 p.m. ALAMEDA:Will the Hawaii County Planning Commission now come back to order? Fellow Commissioners youve heard testimony before I call the applicants back up. Do you have any questions for our Director or Staff? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah I have, Id like to put things in perspective so you know youre probably quite familiar with the grade of Lako Street, which is very soon going to be a mauka- makai connector and I believe you guys struggled with the grade there also and Im wondering if you could share with us what the, what the grade was at the top? YUEN:I dont know that but maybe Ki knows that. Grade of Lako Street mauka? ALAMEDA:Mr. Emler? EMLER:Lako Street has a maximum grade of 16 percent. WATANABE:Pretty close. ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall and then Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT H 27 MCCALL:Yeah Chris I remember reading somewhere in our piles of paper here about discussion of limiting the size of vehicles that went on the Makalei Drive. Could you elaborate on that or where that is? YUEN:One of the conditions of the Land Use Commission approval was that the applicant, this applicant currently does own Makalei Drive that part that goes through the subdivision and theyre supposed to use their best efforts to have a restriction limiting vehicles on that to 10,000 pounds, Makalei Drive. Weve advised them to do that by asking for a separate traffic ordinance in connection with the dedication of Makalei Drive if it becomes dedicated it becomes public that thered be a traffic control on that. There would have to be a restriction. It would have to be in exception though for construction vehicles into the Makalei Estates subdivision because thats, otherwise you wont get a cement truck into Makalei Estates subdivision. The existing lot owners have, will be in construction and need to get heavier vehiclesinthere.Sothatswherethatstands. ALAMEDA:CommissionerMcCall,thenwereworkingourwaydowntothen Commissioner Springer. Commissioner I mean Graham go ahead. GRAHAM:I just have one specific point on this road issue were talking about. I just wanted to kind of throw it into the mix its probably not an acceptable thing but just kind of occurs because of the structure of whats going on. Commissioner Springer brought up before you know whats wrong with 2 cul-de-sacs. We can for safety foremost and then I can understand the Planning Director saying thats really not the kind of situation we want to have evolve. So, the only, theres one sort of middle ground that just occurred to me on a temporary basis. If the long term is willing to take that other road which may not be built for quite a while going mauka. When I come down roads like Hina Lani to me the danger is coming down. The danger is not going up. So it would seem to me that a possible interim solution would be that on the Palamanui portion of the connector before this Makalei thered be a stretch thats one way going up only. That means people could come down to Makalei and in the interim the only through traffic would be going up that goes all the way up to Mamalahoa Highway. Its not a great solution but its just something that I figured maybe you all could toss around in your minds whether its a something that be viable during the interim basis. ALAMEDA:Very good. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. With the discussion that has ensued focusing on Makalei Drive Im not sure if any of the Commissioners are familiar with it. I for one would benefit from a site visit where perhaps the testifiers could come and join with us and Mr., the Director. And we could have a discussion on site and be able to look not only at Makalei Drive but also at the, as discussed by Mr. Schneyer. But also have a look at what Dr. Cordell discusses at the bottom of it with regard to treatment of the dry forest if its accessible from Makalei Drive. And then also we might be able to see what our friend from New Jersey spoke about with regard to coming onto the Mamalahoa Highway. Where it seems to me his concern was with uphill traffic and accessing the Mamalahoa Highway. That would be my suggestion that we have a site visit and invite the rest of the parties to join with us at that time. EXHIBIT H 28 UNKNOWN:We would welcome that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: For Ivan, if in a site visit are we governed by certain procedures? Does it open it up again for public testimony on the site visit? Or is it just for the purposes of the Commissioners at the site visit? ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe what was the, what would a site visit, what are the parameters of a site visit? TORIGOE:Well normally what weve done in the site visit is to try and limit the interaction to basically allowing the Commissioners to do exactly that. To visit the site and have afirsthandeyeballfeetonthegroundviewofthefactsandthecircumstances.Butwetrynotto engage in testimony or give and take questioning out there because you want to make sure the record is very clear and its harder to control that out on a site visit. As well as making sure that you know anybody. Well, let me back up a bit. And we do have to allow for testimony but that doesnt have to happen on the site. So, you know normally we come back to the meeting place and allow for a time of public testimony there. GALDONES:Thank you. Follow up on Mr. Chair. Norman in terms of the time frame that we are working with are we up against timeline in making any kind of a decision? HAYASHI:Not at this time. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Chair you will be calling the applicants up for a last statement? Id like to reserve some questions later for that purpose. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you Commissioner Galdones. So, is the, I mean for my own clarification Mr. Galdones are you suggesting then that with regard to answering the question of a need for a site visit. Perhaps after we hear what the applicants have to say then you might have a better feel for whether or not a site visit is needed. Is that correct? GALDONES:That would help me to making a decision how we will proceed. ALAMEDA:That sounds fair to me. Any objections? Okay, could we ask that the applicants now return? Or their representative? Hearing the discussion and the questions from the Commissioners, as well as the testifiers do you have any feedback or comments? GIACOMETTI:Yes Mr. Chairman. When Hiluhilu Development purchased the property in 1999 the, as you can tell from the testimony of Mr. Schneyer most of the approvals for Makalei Estates were completed. And at that time the subdivision improvements had been designed. They had been signed off by County officials. We, I worked as project manager and owners representative on the Makalei Estates project. And we went back and had those plans resigned and reviewed and resigned by the agencies. We built, then built the project that is now EXHIBIT H 29 known as Makalei Estates. Sales of the 80 lots within that property included in the sales contract the notification to those buyers that Makalei Drive and Kauwila Street which is a short connector street to the south but unfortunately doesnt connect to anything at this point. Both those streets were built for dedication and would be dedicated in the future. So, notification to the buyers of the property for all of Makalei Estates was made at the time of sale. Recognizing the difficulty and discussing with the Planning Director and the Planning Department and Public Works Department we started to look at alternative ways to bring a mauka-makai connector into place and thats where this road 4 concept first evolved. And weve studied that and weve had a series of meetings with the private land owner which a part of that road follows, thats the Makalei Hawaii Golf course owner. Now Mr. Lynch Investments I believe is the correct, proper name for the new owner. And weve have, were in current conversation with those people about the possibility of obtaining right of way and then bringing the road to their property. Then theres the second element of that and thats the intervening state land that there are no funding, no plans by the state for any construction. If you note in the conditions of approval as recommendedbyyourDirector,IbelieveitsconditionY4providesthatwewillcontribute towards the development of that road 4. So were fully recognizing the issues, the concerns that were raised by the Makalei Estates Community Association. Wed like to see a resolution that works well for everybody. But we understand Director Yuens position that connecting a minor street to arterials is not an incorrect thing to do and we have prepared to make that dedication. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Question Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Giacometti. Just to make sure that I heard you correctly. Do I understand that the buyers of lots in Makalei Estates were informed that both Makalei Drive and Kauwila would be eventually connected to some other roads? GIACOMETTI:The sales contracts provide that both those streets were built to dedicable standards and it was the intention of the developer to dedicate. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Mr. Giacometti Im looking at the back sheet of our background recommendations. And is Kauwila Street the street that goes off of Makalei Drive towards the north and bumps up against the northern boundary of Makalei Estates? GIACOMETTI:No, if you. Let me try and do it on the bigger map. SPRINGER:Please. GIACOMETTI:Yeah the Makalei Drive, heres Mamalahoa Highway and Makalei Drive runs down like that. Kauwila Street is a short connector street from Makalei Drive south, to the southern boundary. Unfortunately at that point there is no connecting road on the adjacent subdivision. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer does that answer your question? Or follow-up? EXHIBIT H 30 SPRINGER:If I may. Then also on this map I see the site on the street that you are directing us to towards the south. There appears to be a street that does the same thing about a third of the way up on the northern side of the property. Is that also intended to connect to something else? GIACOMETTI:We built that street according to the plans that we have a sense inherited. Theres never been any discussion. That street is located here and it goes to the northern boundary of Makalei Estates. Ive never heard of any plan to connect that through anywhere. And its, and secondly that street is not built to dedicable standards of a minor street. SPRINGER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Springer. Additional questions for applicants, representatives? Commissioner Galdones what are your thoughts about potential site visit given whatyourehearinginfrontofus? GALDONES:Mr.Giacomettiwouldyouhaveanystrongfeelingsaboutthe Commissioners delaying any decision on your applications so that they can have a site visit to that they have a comfort level that when they do take action that it is in the best interest of all parties. GIACOMETTI:We have no objection to a site visit and we understand that that would delay resolution on our application but as long as we can move this forward and if this is the way to do it and it satisfies many people as possible I think its the right thing to do. GALDONES:Commission? ALAMEDA:Sure. GALDONES:Question to Commissioner Springer. Commissioner Springer introducing that thought and that would be your comfort level to have that site visit? SPRINGER:Id like to ask a couple of more questions now with the given some information that has more recently become available to us? ALAMEDA:Continue Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I guess Ill start with the Planning Director. Im not sure if he would be the final one to answer this question but, is notification to the buyers in Makalei Estates that Makalei Drive is built to dedicable standards and would eventually be connected to a road that would be built up to and connect with it. Does that ameliorate if not nullify the concerns that were brought forward by Mr. Schneyer? YUEN:Well they have a right to testify in opposition to having this road connect. They, they have some-. The road is not ideal and I think some of the things that theyve said about the way it was built have validity and I pointed out as-. If theres a question of fairness, EXHIBIT H 31 there are things certainly they have a right to complain about. But this question of fairness to them as lot purchasers from lack of notice that this might be a through road used by the general public to me the disclosure on the sales document takes care of that, that part of the issue or the concern. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Just with regard to Commissioner Galdones question to me. Id be interested in hearing any of the other Commissioners and whether or not a site visit would be a benefit to them. ALAMEDA:Sure fellow Commissioners the question posed by Commissioner Galdones is one on comfort level and I think if-. The question at hand is if you are not comfortable with the information presented and you need a site visit to feel more comfortable thenpleaseletusknow.CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes,IwouldcertainlyfeelmorecomfortablewithasitevisitandIthink its even more than just my comfort level I think I really need to see the situation on the ground otherwise I would be sorely tempted to abstain. ALAMEDA:Anybody else is feeling the same need or? Commissioner McCall first, Commissioner Graham second. MCCALL:Yeah I certainly dont have any problem with a site visit. I generally feel relatively good about this project with the exception of this one road issue which-. And I cant really see a, oh sorry, I mean I cant really see a, in a mind a way to resolve it at this point in time. ALAMEDA:Okay. MCCALL:But, so I, certainly a site visit would help clear things up for me. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah, the alternative for me would be I feel I think very much like Mr. McCall. Im generally in favor of this application for the benefits it brings but I dont feel like this issue with Makalei Drive has been resolved satisfactorily. So, for me the alternative to the site visit would be for us to put forward some recommendation, which explicitly disclaims satisfactory resolution of the connection mauka. In other words throw it in the lap of the County Council that you know were just saying were for it except for that problem which hasnt resolved yet in our minds. And probably somebody should do a site visit. The only thing that seems would be wrong if we did a site visit and the County Council turns around, they want to do the site visit then we would just postponing things. But, anyway thats Im up for a site visit if I think it would help. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? EXHIBIT H 32 SPRINGER:When we return from our site visit. Will we be then accepting public testimony and Mr. Schneyer and the organization can then give us input with the confidence that weve been out onto the site and have a deeper understanding of the lay of the land than we do now? ALAMEDA:I believe so. Mr. Torigoe? If we do, do a site visit, will that open up testimony again. TORIGOE:Well anytime, anytime it comes back on the agenda then youre going to have public testimony. ALAMEDA:I need to share my own thoughts on this. In terms of my comfort level, I feel that the information presented before me is suffice in terms of moving forward on this. Theressomanyintricacieswiththeroadissueandsomanydifferentsites,thatIdontthinkfor me that a site visit would help make me anymore comfortable than I am already. But thats just me. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, I dont know, if its possible could we explore. Commissioner Graham had an idea about putting somehow, so if we could figure out a way to put a proviso in our recommendation. Something to the effect of you know, we approve of or you know we have a position recommendation for everything except for this one. Im, Im not sure how to say it but if theres one way to put that and or you know throw it on the laps of the Council or throw it on the laps of, I dont know if Kis still here or-. You know Public Works and you know put something that you know that that wed like to see something, something more looked at and developed between Public Works. ALAMEDA:Sure. MCCALL:I dont have a clue as to how to put this in words but if anybody else has any ideas. ALAMEDA:Yeah. MCCALL:Id be willing to be in favor of this project if we could put some sort of proviso in at this point in time. Cause the truth is, I dont, I mean I can go look at it, Im sure its a, Im sure its a fairly steep road and Im you know but you know Id like to see some resolution. I dont think Im an expert thats going to be able to look at it and say oh we can do this or we can do that. Thats for the you know-. ALAMEDA:Right. MCCALL:Its for the people who are trained for that so. ALAMEDA:Right, right. EXHIBIT H 33 MCCALL:So, I dont know does anybody have any other ideas or like or dislike this idea? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I asked for the grade at Lako Street because I, I live off of Lako Street and I know thats going to be a mauka-makai connector and I kind of had a feeling that the grade is relatively steep there also. This discussion about connectors in my mind is something we will continually go through. In fact if Im right I believe the County is condemning some of the land between various already existing subdivisions because theyve encouraged the connectors but theyve never occurred. And, I think its a battle we going wind up fighting forever in other words. Its kind of like Lindy Effect [sic] you know, we all know we need connectors but not in my backyard. And, I also work at the credit union, which now has a new office off of Hina Lani Street. And I have had occasion to go down from Mamalahoa down Hina Lani and it is relativelysteepandyeahifyoudontsteponyourbrakesyoucanachievesomeprettyhigh speeds. But that said I dont see where its so dangerous that its not negotiable. I think the Director made an important point also. When you look at Palani Road, which is by default a main arterial road and I say default because it has no width to it, no shoulders, very winding. A lot of side streets come in, a lot of driveways coming in. That very well may be more of a hazard than a wider road with slightly better view planes and less driveways etc. you know coming into the main road. Thats not to say that these people who have voiced concerns dont have a valid concern. Its just that it, you kind of deal with it in this topography. ALAMEDA:Before us the question is site visit or no site visit cause if theres no site visit then were going to proceed. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:I put a lot of weight to my colleague, fellow colleague Commissioner Watanabes statement (inaudible) for the simple reason that he lives in Kona, he understands the road system. And he feels that theres some comfort level in us proceeding because theres a way of mitigating that. Then Im, I am prepared to proceed in taking action. I dont want to delay it anymore than necessary. If a site visit not really going to change anything then I think its all in fairness to the applicant I think we should move forward. And furthermore, Mr. Chair, theres this Traffic Impact Analysis Report, its a pretty thick document that was written and Im sure all the concerns that was raised was, was taken into consideration in putting the recommendations and the conditions set forth so. Mr. Chair if theres no further discussion Im prepared to move forward if youre prepared to entertain a motion. ALAMEDA:I wanted to just check with our Commissioner Siracusa, just to see cause you did mention that the option of abstaining if we refuse a site visit. I wanted to know how would we, we treat that in our voting? Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:You will need to have 5 votes in the affirmative to do anything. ALAMEDA:What if we have, what if have abstain how would we treat that? TORIGOE:I dont think we would treat that as an affirmative vote. EXHIBIT H 34 ALAMEDA:Would it be a negative? TORIGOE:It would be an abstention. ALAMEDA:Abstention okay. So that theres a, there is a-, that is an option then. So given what we have at the table there seems to be a consensus to move forward. Are there any objections with that besides Commissioner Siracusas possible abstention? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Maybe just to state I think, I think the record will be clear if we do send a recommendation up to the County Council the record will be clear that there are, that we have some issues with this, with the road connections and you know that we hope that something more maybe can be done at the Council level to, to make this you know, to raise the comfort levelforeverybody. ALAMEDA:Mmhm.Verywell.CommissionerGrahamandthenCommissioner Springer? GRAHAM:Yeah I would certainly support what I said before in the sense of if we construct our recommendation that we are not validating the mauka roadway connection. That I would vote in favor of this recommendation that theyve provided to us given that the issue within our mind is not resolved as to how the mauka road connection will be. But, Im not willing to vote in favor and just leave it to the record and say let them read the record and what we talked about and they can see that we werent real happy with it that doesnt feel adequate to me. So you know absent us explicitly saying in our recommendation that it has satisfactorily resolved I would be inclined to abstain, which is gonna perhaps bring this to another meeting anyway so. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Seems our attention has been drawn to the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Is Makalei Drive discussed in here in particular with regard to the discussion that weve had here this evening? Its about traffic Im not sure it goes into grades. GIACOMETTI:I think theres a recognition that it is a steep street and that it has curves to it that make it a more difficult street to negotiate than would be desirable under better circumstances. I dont think that analysis was intended to determine whether or not this street should be dedicated or not. It was intended to determine traffic volumes and the kinds of improvements that would be needed particularly at the connections at Queen Kaahumanu and the value of having alternative rights of way and routing in and out of the project including the connection to Kaiminani. SPRINGER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? EXHIBIT H 35 GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. Norman is there any, in reference to the concern that Commissioner Graham is raising in framing this motion is there anything in the recommendations and the conditions set forth that addresses that and so therefore we can just flag it out in such a way to-, we informing the County Council that by and large were okay with the project except the Commissioners have a concern about it, that portion of? HAYASHI:There is reference to connection to Makalei Drive and-. WATANABE:That said though I dont know that we want to completely eliminate any connector, mauka-makai connector do we? Thats not your intent huh? Because you know the-. Its so contradictory to be saying you know we need all of these mauka-makai connectors and inner subdivision connectors and then turn around and say were just not comfortable with it. Im not, Im like you Im not sure how you would word that in other words. But I certainly wouldntwanttotakeoutany,mauka-makaiconnectorandIthinktheDirectorhassaidthathe would not be in favor of eliminating that requirement yeah? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. It is not my intention or am I going in that direction to eliminate any connectors because in the earlier application I had mentioned about the traffic problems that were having and here we are trying to provide, the Directors trying to provide a way to alleviate that problem. So no Im not saying that eliminate the connector roads. Im not heading in that direction. If anything I think were just trying to flag out to the County Council. We had a, weve had a lot of discussion with this issue and maybe they can help us sort through this and still be able to provide the connector but they may have a better idea of how we can address this. ALAMEDA:Sure. GALDONES:I think thats the direction that Commissioner Graham is heading for. And so that we can move this project forward. ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi you have a comment? HAYASHI:Yes, that condition is condition Y 1. YUEN:If I could-, ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:-make a suggestion? And this is just a suggestion. This is, the Commission has to make its own decision but for, if the Commission is, is trying to reach a consensus here where they want to send a favorable recommendation but they want to express some (inaudible) concern about the connection at Makalei Drive I would suggest that the Commission, that the motion could be that the Commission sends a favorable recommendation to EXHIBIT H 36 the Council but say that the Planning Commission was not fully satisfied with the treatment of the connection to Makalei Drive and it requests that the Council pay further attention to this in its deliberation. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? YUEN:Thats the sense of what the Commission wants, thats, I would suggest that as a wording. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham since youre the originator of that issue what do you feel towards that? GRAHAM:I think thats on target Im not sure that its exactly right but its on target. I think we need to clearly say in my mind that we are in favor of this project but only if a satisfactorymaukaconnectioncanbeworkedoutattheCountyCouncillevelandwechooseto pass the positive recommendation forward to them with the understanding that we expect them to work that out, which we have not yet done. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director is that more than what you suggested or does that parallel your comment? YUEN:I think its about the same. And, I guess what Im hearing is that its not that the Commission is rejecting the idea of the Makalei Drive connector its just that they wish that, theyre not ready to fully endorse it either and, but they wish to send a favorable recommendation to the Council with the request that this be worked on further at the Council level? Is that about the gist of it? GRAHAM:Thats correct. YUEN:Okay. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Springer did you have your hand up? SPRINGER:Assuming this is a healthy direction that the discussion and the intention is going in Im not sure. I concur with those who say that going out and looking at the site we might not be possessed of sufficient engineering or legal training to make a even more informed decision that we have here. I was satisfied by Mr. Giacomettis testimony, Im not satisfied but Mr. Giacomettis testimony indicating notification to the Makalei buyers that the Makalei Drive would eventually be connected out of Makalei Estates just clarified the issue for me. And that if I understood correctly the applicant indeed owns Makalei Drive. GIACOMETTI:Yes, thats true. SPRINGER:These things help to clarify for me. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Springer. EXHIBIT H 37 SPRINGER:Youre welcome. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SPRINGER:The answers probably no but it seems to me that the problem is that Makalei Drive is, does not seem to be sufficiently safe to hook up with the road coming from this project. And since its your road would you be willing to make some improvements to it, you know if we were to set a condition that you should make some improvements to it prior, prior to connecting up? Addressing the parts where there, it has been noted the dangerous situations. GIACOMETTI:Mr. Schneyers testimony included a comment that the Developer, I think he meant me or someone I represent had indicated that maybe there should be a condemnation of additional width. Thats not quite correct. What I did suggest and discuss with Jerry Schneyer is thethoughtthattheexistingrightofwayisnotaswideasaconnectorcould,issupposedtobe. Its 50 feet instead of the 80 feet I believe or whatever the numbers are. And it would be very difficult to figure out a way to condemn and obtain that right of way given the existing conditions of the road. Thats probably a lesser problem than the issue of trying to eliminate a grade where you have to get from one point A to point B, the top to the bottom if you will and you have to stay within that right of way. I have currently a registered civil engineering license. Ive studied civil engineering, acted as a construction manager in my career and I can tell you that it would not be possible in my view to make any feasible changes to Makalei Drive that would really resolve the problem. It is a steep road and its going to remain a steep road. Unfortunately thats where we are. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any other questions before we entertain a motion? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:One last question. Basically what youre saying is the right of way that you now own is not wide enough to increase the lower level so that the grade would be less than the 18, 18-1/2 percent that it currently is because now youre going to encroach on everyone elses driveway and everything else right? GIACOMETTI:Well Mr. Schneyer suggested that greater switchbacks would be possible if it had been designed differently and thats true. Within the right of way theres no way to extend the length of the road adequately to reduce the grade. Its a matter of geometrical issues. If you have more distance to get from a higher point to a lower point or vice-versa you can do it at a lesser grade, simple as that. HARRIS:I just have one, one thing to add and Im not a civil engineer. But there are and particularly on this forest issue trying to make you know that work. The efforts of the engineering and traffic calming type improvements to, within the existing right of way and the part right above the forest or possibly as you bring up other parts of the road. That may be a limited type of thing that might be helpful. EXHIBIT H 38 SIRACUSA:Well I guess thats why I was feeling the need for a site visit because I just, Im having trouble envisioning the on the ground situation. ALAMEDA:Sure. If theres no further questions for our applicants. Fellow Commissioners I would like to ask them to sit down so that we could deliberate. Thank you, you may sit down. A motion is in order, discussion to follow. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:I am willing to yield to my fellow Commissioner Graham because he has a concern that he wanted, right? ALAMEDA:Sure. GALDONES:That he would like to raise and that he probably could articulate it better. ALAMEDA:Nicepoint.CommissionerGrahamcouldyou-?Wouldyouliketo respond to Commissioner Galdones request that you be the maker of the motion? GRAHAM:Certainly thank you Commissioner Galdones. Im going to try to make a motion as best I can and if we need to adjust it a little bit we can and the Planning Director can help me with this thereafter. I would move that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for a Change of Zone application REZ 05-010 by Hiluhilu Development LLC but this favorable recommendation does not include our favorable. Nope Im going off track again. Does not include our endorsement of the mauka connector through Makalei Estates. It requests the County Council to further explore the mauka connection and hopefully arrive at a resolution which satisfies them and we are willing to go forward with them accepting that responsibility. ALAMEDA:Is there a second? GALDONES:Ill second the motion. ALAMEDA:Motion was made by Commissioner Graham. Seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Just a question for the Director with, to interact, I think would you be willing to make any friendly amendment or do you feel comfortable with the way its worded? YUEN:Im a little concerned about the way it is worded because when-, it sounds like youre rejecting the mauka connection in the way its worded. And I dont think that whats youre doing. I think youre saying, I would say that-. You know the way Id word it was to say that the Planning Commission is not satisfied with the treatment of the mauka connection and requests that this be further studied at the County Council. When you say it does not include our endorsement that sounds like you are not in favor of it. I think thats an important point and if thats if you want to say youre not in favor of it thats, then the Commission can make that motion but I thought that where you were going with this was to essentially say that you have, that the Commission has concerns about and is not ready to approve that aspect of it. EXHIBIT H 39 ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah, rather than re-wording what I said I think I would maybe just add on that our lack of endorsement of the mauka connector does not mean we find it unacceptable as currently stated. It does mean that we have not, we have not felt satisfied to ourselves to whereby we can positively endorse it. But we are just willing to have the County Council come to a resolution on that. ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:I think thats clear enough and that if so were going to go with we will send it up to the County Council with the understanding that the Commission was, wanted them to further consider this point and the Commission was neither endorsing nor rejecting the conceptofthisconnectiontoMakaleiDrive. ALAMEDA:CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:Yesthatscorrect. ALAMEDA:CommissionerWatanabe?Youhavea?Furtherdiscussiononthetable before I ask for row? GRAHAM:We need a second? Or did we get a second for this? ALAMEDA:It was seconded by Galdones, Commissioner Galdones so. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just one somewhat off topic. I dont feel I need to make a motion of this, I mean make an amendment at this time but one other concern I was carrying on another sense is that I believe the sense of the developer is to, in regards to the lowland forest is to like bring the forest down beyond the 55 acres and preserve it as much as possible and the rest of the landscaping of the resort. And I only would like to see the zoning ordinance somehow put that in more firm terms than just the intention of the developer but I again dont feel I need to put that in my motion but I just wanted to put that concern on the record for the County Council when they read. ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Graham. Other thoughts or comments? Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? EXHIBIT H 40 GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Abstain. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:ChairAlameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Youll be informed in writing of this decision. Appreciate your time and testifiers appreciate your time too. Its late. This discussion ended at 7:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawai€i Secretary EXHIBIT H 41