HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-21 Leeward Exh H (Items 5&6 Hawaii One1 PL-REZ-2022-000014 & PL-SMA-2022-000012) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JULY 21, 2022
A regularly advertised continued hearing on the applications of HAWAII ONE1 INVESTORS
LLC (FORMERLY KONA HEIGHTS LLC) (PL-REZ-2022-000014/AMEND REZ 07-075
& PL-SMA-2022-000012/AMEND SMA 07-024) was heard at 2:36 p.m. in the West Hawaii
Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway,
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, and via Zoom, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Barbara DeFranco, Michael Dela Cruz,
Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, and Zaheva Knowles
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Mahina Paishon-Duarte and Faith"Faye" Yates
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission),
Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director),
Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Jessica Andrews
(Planner), Janice Hata(Zoom host), and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary)
APPLICANT: HAWAII ONE1 INVESTORS LLC (FORMERLY KONA HEIGHTS LLC)
(PL-REZ-2022-000014/AMEND REZ 07-075)
Application for a five (5)-year time extension to Condition E(Time to Secure Final Subdivision
Approval) and amendment to Condition K(Drainage Improvements)to allow for the option of
bonding the drainage improvements or the use of other acceptable forms of surety in lieu of the
construction of drainage improvements,prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval, of
Ordinance 09 8, which reclassified 11.05 acres of land from an Agricultural 5-acres (A-5a) to a
Single-Family Residential-7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) zoned district. The property is located at
the south end of Naniloa Street adjacent to the White Sands Beach Estates and Keauhou View
Estates Subdivisions, Pahoehoe 1st, Kapala`alaea 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-7-008:121.
APPLICANT: HAWAII ONEI INVESTORS LLC (FORMERLY KONA HEIGHTS LLC)
(PL-SMA-2022-000012/AMEND SMA 07-024)
Application for a five (5)-year time extension to Condition 4 (Time to Secure Final Subdivision
Approval) of SMA Use Permit No. 07-024, which was approved to allow the development of a
65-lot, single family residential subdivision and related improvements. The property is located at
the south end of Naniloa Street adjacent to the White Sands Beach Estates and Keauhou View
Estates Subdivisions, Pahoehoe 1st, Kapala`alaea 2nd, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-7-008:121.
VITOUSEK: We'll take up the next two agenda items, Unfinished Business, together. Item 5,
applicant is Hawaii Onel Investors LLC, formerly Kona Heights LLC, PL-REZ-2022-
000014/AMEND REZ 07-075
DARROW: Chair, sorry, any chance I can take a two-minute break to get Zendo back down?
1
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: You bet. Okay, we'll do a two-minute, two-minute recess.
[Chairman Vitousek called a short recess at 2:36 p.m. He called the hearing back to order at
2:41 p.m.]
VITOUSEK: Okay, continuing agenda item 5, application for a five-year time extension to
Condition E, Time to Secure Final Subdivision Approval, and amendment to Condition K,
Drainage Improvements, to allow for the option of bonding the drainage improvements or the
use of other acceptable forms of surety in lieu of the construction of drainage improvements,
prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval, of Ordinance 09 8, which reclassified
11.05 acres of land from Ag-5 acres to a Single-Family Residential-7,500 square feet, RS-7.5,
zoned district. The property is located in the south end of Naniloa Street, adjacent to the White
Sands Beach Estates and Keauhou View Estates Subdivisions, Pahoehoe 1st, and Kapala`alaea
2nd, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-7-008:121 parcel.
And same applicant, Hawaii Onel Investors, PL-SMA-2022-000012/AMEND SMA 07-24,
application for a five-year time extension to Condition 4, Time to Secure Final Subdivision
Approval, of SMA Use Permit No. 07-024, which was approved to allow the development of a
65-lot, single family residential subdivision and related improvements. The property is located
at the south end of Naniloa—same place, same place, same place.
This is a continued hearing. At the first hearing on April 21, 2021 [sic] 2022, the Commission
voted to continue the matter until the Cultural Resources Commission had the opportunity to
review the applications. We've received a response letter from the Cultural Resources
Commission, dated June 16, 2022, recommending that the developer perform additional
consultations with lineal and cultural descendants from the proposed parcel and neighboring
ahupua`a.
Staff, Christian, is there anything that the Planning Department would like to add at this time?
KAY: No, actually, you just did my job; I was just going to give you a brief chronology since
the last meeting, so, outside of additional public testimony, about 58 additional pieces of public
testimony.
VITOUSEK: Okay, at this time we can open up the floor to public testimony. Is the Zoom still
running?
KAY: Yes.
VITOUSEK: Okay. Is there anybody on Zoom that wants to testify on this particular agenda
item?
HATA: Yes, we have three testifiers.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
2
EXHIBIT G
HATA: Antu Harvey, would you like to start?
HARVEY: Yes. Good afternoon, this is Antu Harvey from H61ualoa, and I do not support any
extensions. We should not be on autopilot and apply rules and policies in place for 10 or 20
years ago when we now know they clearly don't meet our present and future needs for people,
culture, and `aina. The land development is for investment and profit. Delays carry business
risk that the ground rules and goals will move. Please don't grant grandfathering extensions.
Start over.
I previously testified on this matter. Other testifiers like Auntie Simmy speak far better about the
cultural, historic, public safety, and livability concerns. Today I'd like you to consider an
additional reason to reconsider this application as designed; it's about the County's fiscal
irresponsibility to this and other cul-de-sac subdivisions imposed on our taxpayers. Growth
should be incremental and solvent. This development is going to create too many unfunded
maintenance obligations going forward. It will add 65 houses on 7,500-square foot lots.
Low-density suburban living requires more miles of roads, sidewalks, water mains, sewer mains,
electrical lines, stormwater systems than they will ever pay for a tax revenue and service fees,
meaning it is not solvent. It will ultimately bankrupt us. The most obvious burden is the
imposition on our roads that all these vehicle-dependent developments required to connect
people to any destination. No jurisdiction has been able to expand the roads to meet the growing
demand these monolithic sprawling housing developments require. We cannot support what we
have already allowed to be built, let alone continue to infill more and more until all the vacant
land between the ocean and upper roads is completed and expect a miracle to resolve the
exponential increase in traffic. We need to follow the KCDP strategy of TOD villages with
compact development and mixed use surrounded by large tracts of open space resources that
aren't a burden on infrastructure and cost to the taxpayers. We cannot continue these piecemeal
sprawl developments and expect to build our way out of our deferred infrastructure issues and
revenue-expense imbalance. Please take the fiscally responsible action. Do not extend these
permits, especially not until the infrastructure is brought up to meet current needs. Mahalo nui
loa.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo. And is there any other?
HATA: Yes, next we have Janet Matlock.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
MATLOCK: Aloha. I would like to first echo the mahalo of Antu Harvey for being able to
engage with this civic process remotely, to be able to in person, and in writing. The only piece
that seems to be missing is the ability to read the full written testimony of others, and so I look
forward to being able to access that information online, hopefully for this meeting and in the
future. So mahalo for that.
There are so many reasons to oppose this attempt to resurrect to this expired application, and
you've heard quite a few of them today already, ranging from the global aspects of climate
3
EXHIBIT G
change, development runoff, the impact to ocean health, utilization of a bond to put the potential
work or cleanup on the County, issues of traffic, issues of tsunami evacuation, issues of the lack
of local affordable housing and just throwing credits and trading credits—and we know how
that's gone—issues of drought, sewer hookup, water hookup, and the disruption of lives and
livelihoods of neighbors. So consider all of those granularly reiterated here.
Having sit through this all day with you, I'd like to reflect on a couple of items that were touched
upon by Land Planning Hawai`i's representative, John Pipan. While Mr. Pipan is not the
applicant's representative in this particular application, his company is involved with two parcels
mauka, so his comments that he made today are relevant here. Mr. Pipan stated that the County
sewage treatment plant system is—and I quote his words as closely as I could—"aging
undeveloped sewer system" and he indicated his belief that it is risky to be putting our faith,
putting our whole faith in that. And that's just for 11 lots. Yet this Naniloa development is 62
lots, and the one's in mauka, one that he represents is at 45, and another one farther up that he
represents is probably going to be between, I don't know, three five[inaudible] and in between
that there is another couple of lots that will be in that same thing when the dominoes fall, which
hopefully they will not. Mr. Pipan also reflected on the emotional impact of hearing all these
strong voices we heard,pleading respect for ancestors and for kanaka maoli today and in the
future, and to all of us who really do consider ourselves allies and lovers of this island. He said
he was reading a book on the topic of, if I heard him correctly, solace-less trauma. Trauma is
something I know a little bit about; I am a practicing marriage and family therapist. I'm licensed
in the State of California and the State of Hawaii and have been since 2011. I'm a certified
thanatologist, and thanatology is the study of death and dying. I'm not familiar with the term
solace-less trauma in the way he defined it. I can testify very loudly that intergenerational
trauma is real, is extraordinarily painful, and it is ongoing. So I think today you have been given
an extraordinary gift to take steps to begin a piece in the healing of the trauma. You heard so
clearly this morning. You have the opportunity to say that now we know better. This type of
destruction of so much richness and archaeological, cultural, and ongoing. Just all of our
kuleana. You can stop it here now. You can say no. And I encourage you to do that. Mahalo
for your time.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo.
HATA: Our last testifier is Shannon Rudolph.
RUDOLPH: Aloha. I hadn't planned to testify on the Bolton item, but I had testified on that
before in the beginning, and I just like to say that I oppose that, that item I guess it's item number
2, I'm opposed. I live in H61ualoa
VIOTUSEK: That item has already been completed. Would you like to make a comment on
item 5 or 6? Hawaii Onel?
RUDOLPH: Yes.
VIOTUSEK: Okay, go ahead.
4
EXHIBIT G
RUDOLPH: Okay, the SMA permit expired in 2019. I don't think we should keep giving
extensions. Isn't this like the third extension? And I'm concerned about a drainage extension
for the same reason. Maybe they need to start over on those permits if they are old. Also, I'm
concerned about having you vote on either of these items before the cultural community
discussion is held. I think you'll be getting incomplete information if you vote before that
happens. So maybe you should delay this. And I've been testifying on big projects on Alii
Drive for decades, and all the problems remain the same. There is already a terrible problem
with traffic on Alii Drive, and I'm under the understanding that they did the traffic study during
COVID when there were no visitors here, so that's a problem. I'm also concerned about the
traffic as far as evacuation zones go and no, not enough connecting roads to get out of there,
because I got stuck in the last one and was stuck on Alii Drive for I can't remember how long,
at least an hour or so, trying to get out, but it was at a standstill, and that was, that was quite a
while ago, and there is more traffic now. And the infrastructure just can't handle anymore big
developments down on Alii Drive. And there is—I'll reiterate the other problems that other
people have the sewer, the runoff into the ocean, the ocean health, climate change, more big
houses without any kind of affordable housing—let's see, I just—and even, even our visitors are
complaining saying they won't be back because it's too crowded. So I hope that you will deny
both of these, both items 5 and 6. It's, it's the same problem with any development that's going
on down there until the sewers get fixed, and until there is some kind of setback for climate
change, until there is some kind of traffic mitigation. Adding, adding to the problems are just,
it's crazy. For those of you that don't live in Kona, you don't understand what people are going
through when they are trying to fight traffic to get to work, when they need to evacuate. It's, it's
terrible down there, even when there is no visitors here. So please deny both 5 and 6. Thank
you. Aloha.
VIOUTSEK: Mahalo. I think the last testifier on our list, Lamaku Lauren Roy. Is that Auntie
Mikahala? Did she just walk out?
PARRISH [from the audience]: [Inaudible]
VITOUSEK: What's that?
PARRISH: I would like to testify.
VITOUSEK: Please. Would you please raise your hand? Thank you. Would you swear or
affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Planning Commission?
PARRISH: Yes.
VIOTUSEK: Thank you. Please state your name and the town you live in.
PARRISH: My name is Emilia Parrish. I live in Keauhou View Estates. On February 16th I
was on my way to take my son to the airport. There was a fire right off the highway. There was
a helicopter around, but no fire engines were in sight. On my way home I tried to come back on
the highway; it was closed. I tried to get to Kuakini; it was closed. So my only way home was
Alii because there are no alternative routes. I sat on Alii Drive for two and a half hours trying
5
EXHIBIT G
to get home. It was gridlock both ways. Thank God I had something to drink and thank God I
didn't have to go to the bathroom, it would have been a nightmare. I have a friend that lives off
of Kuakini who wasn't even able to get home that night with her grandson, not until nine, ten
o'clock that night. There was no access. We need to do something with infrastructure before
another development is approved here. It's ridiculous what's going on with the traffic. It's a
nightmare. And what was done since the last tsunami? Nothing. All the roads are exactly the
same. Nothing's been done to alleviate it. And the problem with these developments is that they
all have one way in and one way out. There is nothing connecting the different neighborhoods
because they all end with cul-de-sacs. The developers need to be made to open up these roads
and to have less profit, not having so many houses built. Leave it open so that in the future these
developments will connect and not all end in cul-de-sacs with one way in and out. It's a hazard.
And like with La`aloa, it wasn't opened up till how many years after the development was done?
It's crazy. We need to build roads before we continue with the developments. Like any other
place in the world, you put in your infrastructure, and then you build. Here it's the other way
around, and it's insane what's going on.
Queen Kalama is a blind intersection. If you try to make a left or right hand turn onto Alii
Drive, you can't see either way. And you want to add another at least 200 cars to have to deal
with this problem? It's crazy. Queen Kalama is also a very narrow road, and it can barely
accommodate the traffic that's there now. There are no sidewalks. And it's the same thing for
Naniloa. There is no way that they can accommodate this type of traffic that's going to be
happening there. It's craziness to think that it's all going to work out. It's not. And the same
thing is happening here; all, it's all ending in cul-de-sacs. There is nothing connecting to
anything. There is going to be one way in and out of here. It's, it's crazy. It's unsafe.
We are at least 10 years behind in infrastructure here on this island, and nothing's been done to
improve anything in years. So we need to stop approving these developments until we get our
infrastructure together. Thank you for your time.
VITOUSEK: Thank you for your testimony. Lamaku? Aloha. Would you please raise your
right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth matter before the Planning Commission?
ROY: Yes.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Please state your name and the town you live in and proceed with your
testimony.
ROY: Lamaku Lauren Mikahala Roy is my name. I live in Kahalu`u, Kona. Mahalo.
Commissioners, please receive this edition that is more explicit in color for I want to highlight
these words in my testimony today, which I'll begin now.
Receive this testimony for the ages of mankind relating to the lands of the ages of`6iwi and
mankind. I am Lamaku Mikahala Roy of Ahu`ena Heiau in Kamakahonu, Hawaii, the first
capital of the Kingdom of Hawaii unified by Ka M6`i Kamehameha-the-Great. Ahu`ena Heiau
was restored in the mid-70's. Ahu`ena Heiau is the first restored temple of worship of`6iwi in
Hawaii, the Pacific, and the world.
6
EXHIBIT G
By decree of Akua, the Kauoha o Ke Akua was created in service to Akua at Ahu`ena Heiau,
Kamakahonu. This kauoha, or order, command, is named Na Mamaka o Ka Lama. It means that
I am one of two who are chosen to uphold the Highest Light of Most High God, Akua
Manamanaloa, at Kamakahonu.
The other chosen one is Kahu Alii Nui Mo`i King Edmund K. Paki-Silva, Jr. of the Kingdom of
Hawaii Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni o Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii is restored by Akua at
Ahu`ena Heiau, Kamakahonu. By Akua, the Kingdom of Hawaii has a long spiritual ancestry
that keeps all its members unified.
Receive the attached letter dated March 3, 2021, from myself to the members of the Hawaii
State Legislature. Here, find sacred spiritual conveyances of the ancestors of`oiwi who uphold
the Highest Light of Akua Manamanaloa at Ahu`ena Heiau, Kamakahonu.
By these sacred words of Light, let it be known that all of the Ahupua`a of Kapala`alaea,
Pahoehoe, La`aloa, all ahupua`a from Kaloko in the north to Honaunau in the south are identified
by the ancestors of`oiwi as the repository of the sacred lands of Akua.
These lands and all lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii are here and now reclaimed by Akua in the
chosen ruler of Akua, Alii Nui Mo`i Edmund Keli`i Paki-Silva, Jr., Kahu Ahu`ena Heiau. You
seek approval of the County, Hawaii Onel LLC, with agreement from the State and federal
leadership for this project. Where is your approval from Akua in the Kingdom of Hawaii Nou
Ke Akua Ke Aupuni o Hawaii?
Simply said, magnanimously extended to the ends of the earth, extended spiritually, is this
statement, and this statement of record today for the, for the commission, Leeward Planning
Commission entertaining an application from Hawaii Onel LLC. I hope all of you have made
your time in your day to read the material I submitted with my testimony. Can I see a show of
hands to ask if any of you have glanced over it yet? [All five commissioners raised their hands.]
Thank you. It's one of those documents that you know it's best to secure some time. You could
read it over a period of months and still need more time, for it speaks to you spiritually, and it's
the kind of thing where time is appreciated, and space, when you read it. So I'm thankful for the
ones who have raised your hands to look at this, because this was sent to the legislature last year,
and it's self-explanatory, all of the information is there present. Are there any questions?
[None.] I really am sad to hear that, because we are now in the realm of spirit and you should
have questions. Because we are all human beings and we are all spiritual beings, you should
have questions for me.
VITOUSEK: I have a question. I know you to be often involved as a lineal and cultural
descendant in projects such as this. Have you completed the process for recognition on this
property?
ROY: The care of the lands races along, Mr. Vitousek, so quickly that often does the fulfilling
of the material requirements of the law under the State interfere with the protection of the lands.
7
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: May I rephrase that? I'm sorry. Are you a lineal and cultural descendant to the
property?
ROY: Absolutely.
VIOTUSEK: Mahalo, mahalo.
ROY: Absolutely
VITOUSEK: Have you been consulted by the, with any of that?
ROY: No.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
ROY: No, and many of you may have seen, perhaps you've seen this letter to the legislature. If
you have, it's, it is well worth placing your value, a very important time there, because this is a
look at the future. It begins as a result of this day, of this occasion, when someone is applying
again for these cherished lands now begin this, now begins the hearing of this testimony of work
that has been well underway for years. And I'm prepared to provide any addresses that you may
desire for the kingdom. But this is the news that you need to be alert to. This is alive by Akua,
and that, my dear friends, is real. This is alive, and this is now proclaimed in red[referring to
her written testimony]. Please keep your copy. These lands, Kapala`alaea, the lands from
Kaloko in the north, Honaunau in the south, have been identified as the repository lands of
sacred character, sacred, sacredness of Akua, Akua. This was so important to be stated by the
ancestors themselves, and how fortunate you all are to read that, as well as the legislature, that
these lands are reclaimed, and all of the lands of Hawaii are reclaimed by Akua by this
exclamation. So, again, I say you to have the proper any addresses that you will need for the
kingdom, I am here to provide that for you. But you should have questions, Mr. Kern, any of
you, Mr. Vitousek, a man who's worked with history for many years. Now this is what they call
living history, and this is the meeting of the tires and the road. Here it is, something that we all
live, we all live in Hawaii. We are all a part of the living history, but some of us come from the
very beginnings, and I'm so grateful to see Mr. Kanuha here. And thank you for reading this,
because I'm told by the ancestors that when you need to be reignited in your readiness for prayer,
read it again because the words are fully flowing with spirit at any time, and anytime you pick it
up, you are feeling, you will feel a wonderful sensation of lightness of positivity. This, my
friends, is what we are calling for on the earth. Here in Hawaii, ha the breath, the wai of Most
High God. This is what is cherished here. This is what the ancestors are prepared to teach.
They asked me to teach, and I have begun. But in the meantime, this comes up. This must be
answered. It is no. And do check, do, do ask the kingdom, because there is an address by Akua.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Thank you for your testimony. I believe that is the last of our public
testifiers. Could someone make a motion to close public testimony for this agenda item? [Vice
Chair DeFranco raised her hand in response.] Moved by Vice Chair DeFranco. Is there a
second? [Commissioner Kanuha raised his hand in response.] Second by Commissioner
Kanuha. All those in favor?
8
EXHIBIT G
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
VITOUSEK: Any opposed? [None.] Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, could the
applicant please come forward? Thank you. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Planning Commission?
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES: Yes.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Okay,please state your name and town you live in and proceed.
VAN BERGEN: Ken Van Bergen, Kailua-Kona.
ARAI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Daryn Arai.
I'm a land use planning consultant here assisting the applicant, Hawaii Onel Investors.
Mr. Van Bergen already introduced himself, he is a consultant to the applicant. We also have
two additional consultants helping the consultants sitting behind me; one of them is Mr. Sidney
Fuke in the back who resides in Hilo, and also Mr., Dr. Alan Haun who is an archaeologist,
consulting archaeologist for the project. Anyway, we know it's been a long day. We appreciate
your time and service, so I'll try to be as concise as possible.
At the direction of the Leeward Planning Commission at our, after our April meeting, you know,
we did meet with the Cultural Resources Commission. It was a very engaging discussion, and
their recommendations and the record itself is before all of you for your consideration. And with
that said, the applicant does accept the recommendation of the Cultural Resources Commission
to seek out further consultation with the lineal descendants from the land and the adjoining
property to the south. With that, we have prepared a proposed condition for your consideration
that we hope can be included as part of the Planning Director's recommended conditions of
approval for the propose- amendment request. And I'll wait for it to be distributed, sorry.
[Mr. Kay distributed the applicant's proposed condition.] So again, briefly, the condition that
we are looking at states that"With the input of the County Cultural Resources Commission, the
applicant shall form a Cultural Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of, but not limited to, lineal
and cultural descendants from the proposed parcel and neighboring ahupua`a to provide
consultation during the planning and implementation phases of this project. The CAG shall be in
place within 60 days of final approval of the rezoning time extension. The applicant shall
provide a report of the activities of the CAG in conjunction with the annual report requirement of
the rezoning ordinance." So, that as a condition will hold the applicant, you know, to standing
up this advisory group that will help guide the design of the project going forward.
With that said, I kind of wanted to take a step back and kind of re-present ourselves as we sit
here today. And I wish to do that by basically asking two fundamental questions: Has all the, has
the project checked all of the proper regulatory boxes, and by checking those boxes how we
adequately address the concerns of the general public and the reviewing agencies? And I believe
the applicant can affirm both of those questions.
9
EXHIBIT G
I'll briefly go over why we feel that we have checked all those regulatory boxes. For example,
for regarding the SMA criteria and guidelines, have those criteria and guidelines for the SMA
Use Permit changed since the initial approval of the SMA permit back in 2009? And the answer
is no. More specifically, for archaeological and cultural and environmental, I'm sorry, an
archaeological inventory survey was prepared, as well as a Cultural Impact Assessment, that was
done both in 2006. The data recovery plan and burial treatment plan was prepared and
ultimately approved by SHPD in 2017. The applicant did follow all the archaeological protocols,
including basically completing five of the six historical preservation review steps required by the
State of Hawaii. And the condition that we presented to you also is a commitment to go up and
beyond for the requirements of the State Historic Preservation Division. Regarding flora and
fauna resources, there are none. A biological survey was conducted of the property. Regarding
coastal water impact, the project itself will connect to County sewer and, which is required by
Planning Director Condition L. A non-point discharge NPDES requirement to adjust pollutants
from surface runoff into coastal waters is required as per Director's Condition, proposed
Condition N. Let's see, as far as recreational resources, the project site itself is not located
adjacent to the shoreline nor is an impediment to existing or proposed coastal accesses in the
area. And on that note, the applicant is also working to provide, as required by Condition C, a
three-acre neighborhood public park in the vicinity of La`aloa, and that will basically add to the
non-coastal recreational resources within this particular area of Kona. As far as zoning
considerations are concerned, the General Plan has not changed; it still remains Low Density
Urban, as it was back in 2009. The project as a single-family residential development is
consistent with the General Plan designation. Kona Community Development Plan, likewise, no
change, the project remains within the Kona Urban Area and is considered an infill development,
and that was confirmed in the Planning Director's assessment and recommendation. As far as
the zoning ordinance and concurrency requirements, there are Civil Defense sirens within
proximity of the project site. Traffic Impact Analysis was done, and the applicant will abide by
the mitigating requirements, and those are prescribed by Conditions F, G, H, and I within the
proposed conditions of approval recommended by the Director. And finally, regarding water,
water is still available and committed to the property, and the applicant,per the Condition D, will
comply with these standards as far as water, design for water availability. So again, the bottom
line is, does this project check all of those regulatory boxes? And we believe that it does.
Now, as far as the comments from the general public regarding traffic, unfortunately, you know,
that is a consequence of infill development where you try to focus development within a specific
area. There will be added traffic in that particular area, but with the proper mitigation required
by the TIAR and the applicant's contribution in the matter of fair share contributions to traffic
improvements, we believe the applicant has taken,basically provided its fair share. Regarding
nature of housing, is this project designed for outsiders? The answer is no. There will be an
affordable housing requirement that will be made,that is a condition within the conditions of
approval. Short-term vacation rentals are not allowed in a project like this. And again, the
project is trying to create basically a community, a new community, within this particular area of
Kona.
Finally, I kind of want to focus on performance because this is what it's really about, right? The
conditions prescribe a certain time frame for which the project is to be completed. The applicant
was not able to satisfy the particular requirement, but it doesn't mean that since the landowner's,
10
EXHIBIT G
since the applicant's acquisition of the property in 2013, that absolutely nothing was done; a lot
was accomplished in that particular time period, including completion of archaeological studies
and subsequent mitigation plans, designed and secured approvals of the various subdivision
infrastructure plans,prepared an environmental assessment, and did some preliminary design
work for the three-acre neighborhood park in La`aloa. The applicant has demonstrated over the
years that it is committed toward completing this project where it could have simply flipped the
property many years ago and not done anything. But I think we've demonstrated quite well that
a lot of resources what had been committed by the applicant to try to get this subdivision
designed, constructed, and approved. The only failure I could say of the applicant is they simply
did not meet the February 9, 2019, deadline. Every other condition of approval, both within the
SMA permit and the Change of Zone ordinance, was complied with. So, with that, we hope that
the single failure should not result in what we feel as an excessively punitive action upon the
applicant. So with that being said, you know, we hope for your favorable consideration of the
amendment request.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Any questions from Commissioners?
KANUHA: I have two. First one is regarding, you know, Mr. Haun here. How come no lineal
descendants that come from that area were contacted in the very beginning? And also, two, what
was the excuse and how come the, you know, the applicant isn't here in the process? Because of
that SMA, like you said, in 2019 moving forward, for anyone, say, one of us have what, we want
to do a building project, our permit expires, we have to reapply; we just don't, we can't change
and get existing condition and say, oh, we are going to get another time extension on there.
There's ways of doing it. But I just want to know what, what held them back. It would be
accomplished every single thing on that checklist, besides coming back in 2019. I'm just curious
what, what was the excuse?
VAN BERGEN: When you say coming back in 2019
KANUHA: You know, obviously, the SMA was coming up. How come an extension wasn't
filed previously to it just being kind of expired? It's been a few years now. Obviously, we had
COVID, that was going on, but I'm just curious, you know, that was, you just, Mr. Arai just
brought it up on his last statement that he made. What, why did the applicant not pursue that in
the very beginning, if he did everything else in the checklist?
VAN BERGEN: Up until February of 2019, we thought this project was a go. I mean there was
a, there was an enormous amount of work, working extremely closely with Jeff at the Planning
Department and Public Works, and Wastewater, all the agencies involved. We had our final
plans, construction plans signed off in the fall, and the only criteria was the housing requirement,
and that gust up with the current Housing Director at the time—and I think, Malia, you might
have been, were you counseled them, for Housing? Yeah. And there was a delay. And
unfortunately, timing-wise, the funds that were committed had a deadline as well, and we just
missed it by a matter of weeks. So up until the very end, we thought the project was going to go
up because the approvals were there, but we just couldn't quite get over the finish line. Since
then, yeah, COVID hit, so a lot of people took a step back and re-evaluate, you know, other
projects that the client has. But then he hired Mr. Arai and Mr. Fuke to jumpstart this. That was
11
EXHIBIT G
well over a year ago. Was that almost two years ago? It was, it was quite a while ago. And it's
just a process. And they want to do it right; they are not here to make any shortcuts. They just
want to build some homes and meet the criterias, and that's why we are here asking for an
extension.
KANUHA: And then that first question, you know, I know obviously, since SHPD was, you
know, they had gone through everything with the arch report. The lineal and cultural
descendants which there are on that ahupua`a I know for a fact, you know, I sat on the Burial
Council with my father, I've seen many things come up—how come nobody was notified? Or
like, you know, Miss Roy just said she's, nobody was ever spoken to about it. Especially with
this project,just having any cultural concern of what was there.
VAN BERGEN: I'll defer, all I'll say is when I got involved in the project in 2017I was
involved earlier with the park, because that was a huge County benefit SHPD was already done
many years ago and the cultural resource consultation and the document back in 2009, so I'll let
Daryn, maybe Alan, speak to that. I have no idea.
ARAI: Yeah—and Dr. Haun is available but at the same time, you know, as part of the
Cultural Impact Assessment, there was effort to reach out to descendants in the area and some of
them were interviewed. Then also as part of the process, there was notification in various
statewide publications, the Advertiser, for example, Ka Wai Ola, you know, and basically saying
seeking out andmaybe, Dr. Haun? Would it be okay if he kind of speak to it?
VITOUSEK: Absolutely. Please step forward. Would you please raise your right hand? Do
you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Planning Commission? [Inaudible
affirmative response by Dr. Haun.] Mahalo. Please state your name and town you live in.
HAUN: My name is Alan Haun. We did the original inventory survey and subsequent data
recovery work. We also did a burial treatment plan for this project, and as part of the preparation
for the burial treatment plan, we run legal notices, Ka Wai Ola and West Hawaii Today, Star
Bulletin, and didn't get any responses from those. We, another firm had done a burial treatment
plan for the seaward parcel, and one individual had been identified through that, their process,
and we provided that individual with a copy of this plan when it was being drafted. And this
response, or the lack thereof, was conveyed to the Burial Council. We met with the Burial
Council four times. One of the times there was no quorum but four times in total. And when
there are no responses to those ads, normally, the council members step things up a notch and act
really on the behalf of potential descendants, and there were, you know, extended discussion of
the treatment plan in these council meetings, and a number of people, all of which would at least
be cultural descendants, spoke up and provided input during the meetings, as well as the council
members. And the plan evolved with input from those individuals. And ultimately, the plan was
reviewed and approved. And as was pointed out, this is, the Cultural Impact Assessment effort
was a separate project with another consultant, but that also sought to identify individuals and
did in fact discuss with a number of individuals
VITOUSEK: As a follow-up, have you reviewed the Cultural Impact Assessment?
12
EXHIBIT G
HAUN: Not, not in the last six months.
VITOUSEK: You can continue,please.
KANUHA: No, I'm, you answered my questions.
KNOWLES: With respect to your proposed condition, how do you intend to convene this
cultural advisory group? And who would be responsible for doing that? And how do you
identify the members of this committee?
ARAI: Well, we are trying to, we'll seek guidance obviously from Kaimi Pono I believe was the
consulting company, Maria, Maria Orr, she did the CIA. So we are, and then the establishment
of this group was something that was also recommended and included within the CIA, you
know, so that's definitely who we will reach out to, I would imagine, to seek guidance on who to
reach out to, who to contact, and help in standing it up.
VITOUSEK: This is more of a question for the Planning Department I think, but I couldn't find
the CIA in our background documents. Was that provided to us?
KAY: I'm trying to remember; I believe it was not submitted to us as part of the application.
Daryn and I after the last meeting spoke, and I believe that was the case. We had information
about the CIA and what the findings were but didn't have the actual document.
VITOUSEK: Right, the Cultural Resources Commission I believe was provided
KAY: That's correct, yes. That's, that was, now I'm remembering, yeah, that's why we were
having that conversation, and we then made it available to CRC to review.
VITOUSEK: Right, and my understanding from watching the CRC meeting was that they found
it to be inadequate.
KAY: If I recall correctly, that's the case, and then I believe that led to them voting for further
consultation.
VITOUSEK: Right, and so my understanding, and this as it applies to the SMA permit
component of this, is that we have to take into consideration the effect of the proposed project on
traditional cultural practices that occur in the area prior to making a determination on any action
that could lead to an effect within the SMA. And if we don't have that information and it's been
determined to be inadequate, do we have enough information now to make that determination?
Does the County feel like we have enough information?
KAY: I think I defer that question to our director.
KERN: Mr. Chair, I'd say most SMA applications, we don't get a CIA. CIA is usually triggered
when there is some type of EA or other elements. I believe, with the archaeological work that
was done, I believe they went check many boxes you would know more about this, that's your
13
EXHIBIT G
background. I believe that the condition that they are proposing would potentially bring that to
fruition, kind of what the CRC was feeling was lacking on that, so I believe it would do that.
Based on the previous approval that was done, I do feel like we are comfortable moving forward
with that. And again, the CIA is not standard for all SMAS.
VITOUSEK: Not always, but the, you know, the Ka Pa`akai analysis of the SMA is bare
minimum standard, correct?
KERN: Correct.
VITOUSEK: Okay. Would, you know, with the existing CIA that was reviewed by the Cultural
Resources Commission and determined to be in their opinion inadequate, from 2006, right? The
document was prepared in 2006. And in the testimony, you stated that there has been no change
on the property. How do we know that there has been no change if there is no evaluation of
current cultural practices on the area?
VAN BERGEN: Can you define change? You mean cultural practice changes or like
VITOUSEK: Right—
VAN
ightVAN BERGEN: geographical changes?
VITOUSEK: what the I believe Mr. Arai said was that nothing has changed since the initial
assessment regarding any—and my take on that is meaning that the conditions on the property,
the use of the property, the traditional cultural practices on the property, remain the same now in
2022 as they did in 2006. That's my assumption. Is that correct?
ARAI: Yeah, basically. Let me frame it this way, the biological report did not find any
endangered species, plants, and animal. The Cultural Impact Assessment did not specifically
identify any resource within the property that provided, you know, like for gathering right—
VITOUSEK:
ightVITOUSEK: No, I believe that they did
ARAI: cultural practice
VITOUSEK: I believe that in the Cultural Impact Assessment, they did identify cultural
resources that are valued that can be utilized for traditional religious purposes, but they didn't
identify whether there was any activity taking place on a property.
ARAI: Yeah, on the property, correct, that's correct—
VITOUSEK:
orrectVITOUSEK: Yeah.
ARAI: —sorry if I misspoke, but, yes, that is correct. And with that being said, and then
obviously later the property, when was it, 2018, the property has been grubbed since then, so,
with the exception of areas like where the burial sites are located, so
14
EXHIBIT G
VAN BERGEN: Let me clarify just so there is no question. The burial areas were hand-cleared
with a monitor, construction fence put up, and then it was grubbed all 11 acres with a monitor
from Mr. Haun's office. So it's under compliance with all protocols based on the burial plan and
the preservation plan.
ARAI: And we can appreciate Ka Pa`akai O Ka `Rina requirements, right, I mean and the
implications for making a decision without having the report. But in this particular case, I guess
the reason for the condition was also in respect to the fact that the report was done in 2006, it
was assessed by various decision makers at the County level, throughout County level, all the
way up to the County Council; based on those decisions and actions, the applicant proceeded
with various actions related to the development of this subdivision, complying with all of the
requirements that, including doing additional studies off-site for like the La`aloa Park, all of
these things were set into motion based on expectations and decision made back in from 2006 to
the decisions issued in 2009. So over, over ado my math—and then the applicant secured the
property in 2013, and now almost a decade later just when they are this close to getting final
subdivision approval, they lost the funding, and then they have to take a step back and say where
do we go from here, and they ultimately decided, the decision was let's keep trying. And that's
what brings us here today, which is why at the very end conclusion, we totally get the concerns
about the adequacy of the Cultural Assessment, Impact Assessment, but it's not like it was never
done, it was not something that was overlooked or disregarded. And there was this reliance on
the people that we thought would review it and provide that proper.
VITOUSEK: And it may have been adequate for the time in 2006 when it was prepared, but the
nature of the elapsed permit means that we have to evaluate the project based on existing
conditions, not conditions in 2006. Had they gone through and gotten their everything taken care
of in time, we have no say here, we have no voice. But because we are back here on an elapsed
permit requesting a time extension, we have to almost treat this as if it's a new project that's
coming in, which is very common when we get these time extensions, and we get up-to-date
analysis of these issues. And whether it reaches the level of a Cultural Impact Assessment or
not, there is usually some indication that the conditions that are on the property today are
actually the same as they were in 2008, or there has been change maybe, maybe given the
amount of consultation with the cultural resource committee with the amount of people who are
involved in traditional and cultural practices, maybe a different environment out there, there may
be people doing things that weren't done in 2006. We don't know. And so it's hard for us to
make an evaluation without that.
VAN BERGEN: When you say doing things, what are you referring to?
VITOUSEK: Well, as many of the cultural practitioners have suggested, these sites could be
used for religious purposes, for worship, for other,you know, traditional cultural practices. I,
there is a bunch of examples that people have talked about in the committee, the Cultural
Resources Commission, you know, there is a descendant access for religious purposes, for
worshiping burial sites
VAN BERGEN: So for cultural practices
15
EXHIBIT G
VIOTUSEK: Yeah.
VAN BERGEN: so is there cultu-yes, to my knowledge there have been absolutely no
cultural practices since
KNOWLES: Well, we've, we've heard extensive testimony over the last several meetings that
people do view it as culturally significant in the community and are practicing, and that the wall
in particular has religious significance to people.
VAN BERGEN: The wall is on parcel 1, and we can talk about that
KNOWLES: The area.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah.
VITOUSEK: 2, yeah.
VAN BERGEN: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be or there couldn't be, but the property has
not been used, I mean before you grubbed it, you couldn't walk into it. It took almost two and a
half months just to clear the burial areas because you had to do by hand with chainsaws. So if
there was any practice going on, I don't know how they even access the property, because
ROY [from the audience]: Heinous, heinous [inaudible]
VITOUSEK: Order. Sorry
ROY: What you are testifying is wrongdoing, and the reason why
VITOUSEK: Auntie, we can't, we have to maintain order for this. If you, if you'd like a
chance to respond, I'll give you a chance to respond, but for now you have to maintain order
ROY: Yes, but it is, it is not[Inaudible]I will, I will, because it is not in order
VITOUSEK: I will, I will give you an opportunity to respond as a descendent—
ROY:
escendentROY: This is, this is the examination that I was well expecting to the degree
VITOUSEK: Mahalo, mahalo. I will give you a chance to respond, but for now we'll let the
applicant—
VAN
pplicantVAN BERGEN: If I can just, if I can just clarify. I'm not saying there shouldn't be or there
couldn't be; I'm just saying there has been no observance by the owners
VITOUSEK: That you know of.
16
EXHIBIT G
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, by the owners
VITOUSEK: Yes, that you know of.
VAN BERGEN: or his representative, that's all I'm saying. I mean, yeah, and the owners are,
they are very, they are open to whatever is best for the community and whatever cultural
practices should be. It's not they are against it; I'm just simply stating they have
VITOUSEK: You are simply not aware of any at the time.
VAN BERGEN: No, that's all I'm saying.
VITOUSEK: I understand, and I think that the issue being is that we've had, there's been
multiple public testimony indicating that there may be or there is a desire to continue those
practices. And my understanding is that the PASH rights preserves not only the practice
themselves but the ability to conduct that practice. Now I'm not saying that that's being
infringed by the development; all I'm saying is I don't know. I don't think we've had that, that
thorough analysis at this point. Commissioner DeFranco.
DEFRANCO: I'm going to change the subject a little bit, if that's okay.
VITOUSEK: Sure.
DEFRANCO: Because, you know, Mike is saying things have changed, you know, from 2006
until now, and so what—you know, the other point that people have brought up is traffic, right?
VITOUSEK: Yes.
DEFRANCO: And, and so when was the last time a traffic impact study—or did you do a recent
one of how this would affect the traffic? And the other thing that people bring up is the tsunami,
you know, and I mean those are all current concerns, too, besides the cultural thing, which I
think you are trying to address by this proposed condition, right? That's how you are trying to
do the cultural thing. But the other concern that I hear from community is the traffic, the
tsunami, the overuse of the road. Can you speak to that a little bit, too?
VAN BERGEN: I want to just say that as far as the road goes, yes, there will be increased traffic
on Alii Drive, and we did do a second TIAR as far as this application. But we are talking about
a limited portion of Alii Drive for 90 percent of the traffic, because when you leave, if that
subdivision does occur, the subdivision, most of the times if you are going the Kona, you are
going to go a very short distance and go up La`aloa. Back in 2009 when the ordinance was
passed, we didn't have La`aloa.
DEFRANCO: We didn't have La`aloa and
17
EXHIBIT G
VAN BERGEN: And Naniloa will right cut over to La`aloa, and you can also go to Queen
Kalama up to Mahiehie, cut over to La`aloa. So there's different ways to get to La`aloa besides
Alii Drive, and it is a short distance.
DEFRANCO: Yeah, and in all of this
VAN BERGEN: For most of the traffic.
DEFRANCO: —does Alii bypass or Alii corridor road ever come up? Is that—
VAN
hatVAN BERGEN: The property abuts Alii bypass.
DEFRANCO: So if that road ever actually happened, it would alleviate a lot for you, right?
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, if it was built like it was supposed to be 14 years ago
DEFRANCO: Right.
VAN BERGEN: that would be the access.
DEFRANCO: Right. And I'm not sure where that is. I know that there was a lot of talk about
that that I was included in months ago about looking at that and trying to move forward. I'm
sure that's sort of a slow-moving thing, but I might ask the Planning Director. How are we doing
there?
KERN: I don't have a good update for you. I know it's being worked on, and I know it's being
looked at, I know there is a desire to get it done. But I don't have an update for you, sorry.
DEFRANCO: Yeah, because I know that—
VAN
hatVAN BERGEN: I will say,just to be clear, not the Keauhou side of the Parkway, but simply
from La`aloa to the subdivision, there is a very short part of the Parkway, which my
understanding was there was no parallel issues in that section, but that's where the top of this
parcel is.
DEFRANCO: Yeah, okay. And then my other question is to the park, the La`aloa Park. What's
happening with that? Did you build it or is it assigned? Where are you going to build it? Or
what's happening with the park?
VAN BERGEN: Just a brief summary because it's a whole discussion on its own. For whatever
reasonI think I mentioned this when we were here last timeHawaii Onel owned much of,
they wanted to process mauka, this parcel, so the project initially was 200-some homes, and part
of that project, they agreed to a three-acre off-site park up to a half mile away. Since that time
this is in the early 2000's the project was shrunk, they sold those parcels off, this is one 11-acre
parcel, and even though the scope of the project shrunk from 200-plus homes, 250 I believe,
down to 62, they agreed to keep the three-acre commitment, which is a very large commitment
18
EXHIBIT G
because, you know, several million dollars to build a park of this size. So, I think it was 2014,
give or take, the County acquired the YMCA parcel back, the 6.2 acres, and then worked with
the applicant closely to develop a park plan that was approved by the Parks and also approved by
Public, you know, the plan was approved by Public Works. We actually have construction plans
for that park, and that was part of the
DEFRANCO: And where is it exactly located?
VAN BERGEN: You go up La`aloa, on the left-hand side, there is an 11-acre, used to be an 11-
acre parcel, now, the YMCA recently put in a walkabout, I don't know if you've seen that, on the
top of La`aloa,just below that, that's the top four acres, below that is the 6.2 acres,just above the
Alii Parkway easement.
DEFRANCO: Would be the park.
VAN BERGEN: Yes, that would, that's where the park would come.
DEFRANCO: Thank you.
FUKE: I'm, for the record again, I'm Sidney Fuke, I affirm again, and I'm the consultant to the
consultant, so sitting down in the back and all that. So I'd like to just kind of share several of my
thoughts, and I've kind of had some preliminary discussions with them whispering in their ears.
But I think that, you know, Mr. Chair, you are correct in a sense that although this is a time
extension, the time extension requirements require that you look at all of the existing regulations
and see whether it's, if you were to see this as a brand-new project, whether you still meet the
test, and so the application was kind of framed around that. And so what Mr. Arai was trying to
point out, if I understand correctly, was just that if this were a brand-new application, you look at
the SMA guidelines, you look at the General Plan for, you know, like zone change, they still will
meet the test. Notwithstanding, you know, on the SMA portion, it's true, I really appreciate your
comment about Ka Pa`akai, and, you know, like the implication for decision makers. You know,
it's not our or like Planning Director's decision to determine whether the CIA is or is not
adequate; it's really you guys, you guys are the decision maker. So if in your, at the end of the
day if you feel that the CIA is inadequate, it has to be updated or whatever have you, then, then
maybe there is really like no grounds from [inaudible]from the Ka Pa`akai decision, no grounds
for the Commission to approve the request, and it really would, you know, it doesn't vote well
for the applicants.
So, and I think in terms of the the original CIA was done, that's true, back in 2006—like how
the SHPD standards have changed, have, you know, evolved over time, you know, likewise
perhaps like the CIA's, you know, Cultural Impact Assessment, you know, the perspective
changes, too. And I think this was painfully made aware when we went before the Cultural
Resources Commission, and all of the different people came about and testified and said they
didn't consult us, da-la-la-la[phonetic], and so, you know, we were painfully made aware of
that. So that's the reason why like, you know, we sat down and we figured like how can we
address the Cultural Resources Commission; that's the reason why we came up with this kind of
condition. So basically, having, you know, creating a separate opportunity for the, you know, for
19
EXHIBIT G
lineal descendants and others to weigh in on the project during the planning and implementation
phases of the project. Nonetheless, you know, if the Commission so desires like an updated CIA
to be able to make a reasonable decision, you know, relative to that aspect, then that's your
prerogative. So, but just, we have already reached out, you know, regardless of this, we have
already reached out to the former, to the person who did the initial CIA, you know, we've
already reached out to that person to see whether she would be in a position to do an updated
CIA.
You know, relative to you know, that's on the cultural portion—and I realized that, you know,
just hearing all these conversations about the importance of whether it's this parcel or the parcel
immediately on the makai side of the Kuakini Wall, the historical signi-potential historical
cultural significance, if, you know, if the community sincerely believes that this is a very, very
important parcel—like I think Ms. Roy referred to like Ahu`ena Heiau, at one point in time it
was private, the County, you know, eventually bought it—now you have PONC's funds, so it's
an opportunity for the County Council, you know, if, with the community's blessing, to say that
this is a very important parcel and, you know, and you think it should be number one or number
two on a priority list, set aside the funds. I mean that's what the Charter created, this whole
PONC concept. But, so that's an alternative.
I kind of want to respond very briefly to, you know, the question about the evacuation. I think
that if you just sit back and really think about it, oh yes, okay, it is a concern on the evacuation
along Alii Drive. I think that whenever you have a need for evacuation, you are always going to
have a traffic issue, you know, whether it's a fire or whether it's like a tsunami, you know, even
earthquake, you know, you are going to have it. The question is like whether, what is the, I think
the level of threat, the level of threat. So if you have like on the tsunami portion, for exampleI
was just kind of thinking about it, you know, driving over this morning with Darynso, you
know, if you have, what is the level of threat of a tsunami? If this property were within a
tsunami zone, you know, like just, you know, makai of the Alii Drive or just immediately
mauka, then you are going to have to worry about getting out there, especially, if you have a
locally generated tsunami. If you have a tsunami that's generated in the Aleutians or Chile, you
have, with this early warning system, you have the opportunity to get out of there reasonably, it
might take time, but you have the opportunity to get out of there. So I think that, you know, like
when you look at the project—and I appreciate that you are asking that question, Commissioner
DeFranco, because you mentioned about the Alii Parkway—and I think this is where, you
remember, we were talking about the last time extension in Kaloko Mauka, the County has like
about 750 or 800,000 dollars, and it belongs to this, you know, it's a State highway and nobody
wants to make any kind of improvements; well, this project, if it realizes, will contribute like
about a million dollars in-65 times 15,000—roughly about a million dollars, about a million
dollars in fair share impact fee. What's to stop then for the Council or whoever to, you know, for
the Commission, ultimately, the decision being that your fair share shall be used to design and
implement in even an interim evacuation system from this property going? If you look at the
map, in this property using the Alii Parkway to get to La`aloa is a short leg. Nobody says you
need to have like a full-lane highway evacuation route; same thing like what we have down in
Hilo in the Keaukaha area, all you need is evacuation route. Now why can't those funds be used
to kind of help implement that? You don't have to have the deluxe version, not for evacuation.
And those are my comments then so.
20
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: Just a follow-up question. The fair share, is that in addition to the park or is the
park eating up the majority of that fair share contributions?
VAN BERGEN: No, it's separate. So there's road fair share, education,police, fire, all the
normal fair share plus, it's actually a bonus.
VITOUSEK: So the park fair share is eaten up by the park.
VAN BERGEN: Correct.
VITOUSEK: But the rest of it goes into the pot.
VAN BERGEN: They have to, because the park eats up ten times the fair share.
VITOUSEK: Yes.
FUKE: So like, I'm not really sure on that, but, you know, hypothetically, if it did, if it were
secure then, then you would have like 15,000 dollars of which 5,000 dollars be set aside, you
know, for the park fees, so 10,000 dollars would be for solid waste, police, fire, and roadway.
Like what we did on the Kaloko situation, all of the fair share funds were just collapsed into only
the roadway to address the Kaloko-Mamalahoa Highway
VITOUSEK: I see. Thank you.
VAN BERGEN: If you want an example of the fire access, Alii Heights, which is a very nearby
subdivision just above this proposed,just above Keauhou View Estates, they actually had one at
the very top that connected to, before La`aloa was built, they put this little, driveway basically,
one road and connected, and that's what was used, that goes there.
VITOUSEK: Puako as well.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, I'm sure there's many of them.
VIOTUSEK: Yeah, Puako.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah.
VITOUSEK: Yeah.
VAN BERGEN: Can I just say one thing?
VITOUSEK: Yeah.
21
EXHIBIT G
VAN BERGEN: Mainly for Commissioner Kanuha and for all of you, you know, I've gotten to
know these owners very closely over the last three, four years. We've become friends. And they
are not—yes, they are developers by trade, but they also have strong faith in which you'd call
Akua and God—and they are not here to be greedy developers. They will accommodate
whatever is reasonable to allow Hawaiian practition. They are community-based. They are not,
they are not looking to cut corners. We are here because we thought we followed all the rules.
We weren't, there was no rules that we were trying to be shortcutted, and if there is more CIA
work that has to be done or whatever, they are open to working with whoever to get that done,
so
VITOUSEK: That's great.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah.
VITOUSEK: Would you mind telling us about the developer and previous projects that they've
done and examples of successful projects that they've done here or
VAN BERGEN: I can't go into a lot of detail finan- like the projects on the mainland. I know
their names, I've seen pictures, I haven't actually visited them. I can briefly tell you, I won't go
in too much detail unless you want to know, I first met them when I was the Deputy Director of
Parks because of the park project. Mayor Kenoi asked me to work on this, because first I lived
in La`aloa, so I was familiar with it. But, and so I met Mr. Mansi originally in 2013-14
specifically on the park, and it was quite a project on its own, because at that time the YMCA
still owned the land, and we had to get, the County had to get it back, and we had to subdivide it,
and there's a lot of process that goes. So I've seen pictures and am familiar with some of the
work they've done in California, but I can't give a lot of details into the numbers or success. But
if you'd like to see some current projects that they're working on or some things that they've
completed, I could get that information.
VIOTUSEK: Yeah, I think that was something we asked last time. I thought so
VAN BERGEN: I think you are thinking of the other extension we worked on.
VITOUSEK: Was it?
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, with Spring Capital
VITOUSEK: For the same people?
VAN BERGEN: No, these are different, those are different guys, big time.
VITOUSEK: But[towards Commissioners Kanuha and Knowles]you were here for that,
right? So it would have been
KNOWLES: We did.
22
EXHIBIT G
KANUHA: He was onscreen.
KNOWLES: Yeah.
VITOUSEK: Yeah.
KANUHA: We talked to the owner.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, Matt, that's, yeah
VITOUSEK: Yeah, so we asked them for some more examples to come before this time of
projects that they worked on. I think we asked Matt.
VAN BERGEN: Okay, we might have missed that, so we apologize.
VITOUSEK: Okay. Could you tell us a little bit about this development plan? What, what price
point they are trying to hit? Is it going to be a built product?
VAN BERGEN: Yes. So back in 2019, or 18 basically, 2017, 18, we were rushing to get all
these boxes checked. We changed the subdivision; instead of having a 162-lot subdivision, we
were going to phase it. So it was actually got approved in 2019 and construction plans approved
by DPW was an 18-lot phase one. So what's actually been approved is the 18 lots plus the two
burials preservations, a 5,000-square foot park, and then an open space park, or parcel, excuse
me, that would be used for phase two, which would be 44 homes. It is a PUD, so it's an RS-75
subdivision, but Michael Riehm did a PUD, which allows you to move things around, and so the
lots are actually a little bit smaller because there is a lot of open space andI don't know if
you've seen the actual, I'll be happy to get that to you but so it's come off Naniloa, or Pi`ilani
which will be the new street, the 18 homes at the bottom, and then at the top would be the 44
phase two parcels of homes. The lots are, I think the range is from 4,5[00] to 6,500 square feet,
if I remember correctly. So the homes won't be quite, they won't be very large, you know, big
homes, because the parcels aren't real big; it's more domestic community, the Keauhou View,
the Alii Heights, more of your standard local subdivision, not like a resort, you know, or
bigger
KNOWLES: I believe that in our last meeting the, one of the developers said, or the previous
meeting where you presented, one of the developers said 750,000 dollars had been their original
price point for the houses, but that the market—was my recollection.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, so back in 2019 or so, I think it was a range between like 650 and 8[00]
with an average of 750 in that range, but I have to go look. Obviously, the market has changed
since then, and it's still changing. Now it's starting to
VITOUSEK: Yep.
VAN BERGEN: —cool off quite a bit. And who knows where that's going to go.
23
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: Yeah. And then would you take us through the affordable housing component of
this? And how that affordable housing conditions would be satisfied?
ARAI: Well, obviously, we are going to have to go back to the Office of Housing and
Community Development to make sure that the credits that's going to be utilized to satisfy the
affordable housing requirements are still valid and can be applied to satisfy the obligations of the
applicant.
VITOUSEK: You know, I've seen the skepticism expressed by many of the testifiers today,
given the corruption that was exposed, and I understand the concern definitely. And to me as not
an expert in the affordable housing credit process, it's, it's a lot to digest, right, trying to
understand how that translates to houses for regular people to live in. And so far, the answer has
been that it doesn't. And so I would ask if, of you guys, if there is a way of looking at something
outside of the box that would allow for a component of this project to not necessarily be an
affordable housing per regulatory definition but to be attainable to median income family homes
so that some of these homes could be available for median income families and some of them
would be sold at market rate, if that is an option that could be considered. And, you know, since
we are just kicking around ideas, the possibility of putting a restrictive covenant on a portion of
the homes that would prohibit resale for a period of time, be it 10 years, be it 15 years, so that it's
being sold to a family who intends to live here and not intend to flip it for a profit. And it
doesn't have to apply to all of them by any means, but if there is a way of trying to put
conditions in place that make it less appealing to, you know, predatory real estate practices and
more appealing to people who just want a place to live, if we could explore that possibility, I
think that would be really, really awesome.
VAN BERGEN: I, I don't have the authority to give that answer, and we'd have to talk to the
owners
VITOUSEK: Understood, yeah.
VAN BERGEN: but I think that at this point, knowing them as they do, they are open. You
know, the park is quite a financial consider- it made this project extremely tight. It's really hard
to give that kind of public gift—
VITOUSEK:
iftVITOUSEK: Yeah
VAN BERGEN: with nothing in return.
VITOUSEK: Yeah, understood.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, and so, and I know the affordable housing is a huge issue, more so today
than maybe three, four years ago, definitely more than 10 years ago, and it's not going to get
better until we have inventory and other things. But I think, I think they are open. It just a lot of
times comes down to finances and what can be worked. But besides Chapter 11 and besides the
housing credits, there is really no avenues through the code, so it would have to be something, I
don't know
24
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: Something weird, right?
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, I don't know what that would look like
VITOUSEK: Yeah.
VAN BERGEN: I have no idea.
DEFRANCO: Mike?
VITOUSEK: Yes.
DEFRANCO: I love kicking around ideas with you, it's so fun, but I think specifically, you
know, when they gave us their last presentation, and we went through the whole thing, I think
what we asked them to come back with was really a lot to do with the cultural oversight and to
make sure that it was going to come up to date with what people wanted. Did we put any other
conditions on them or? Do you remember?
VITOUSEK: We made other requests for information.
DEFRANCO: For information of other projects they had done.
VITOUSEK: Yeah, and I believe we looked for more information on the affordable housing
component as well about what credits are satisfied andI don't remember everything, we'd have
to look at the minutes but the way I see it, while we are still reviewing something, we are able
to look at all the aspects of it. We are not limited to our previous
DEFRANCO: Yeah, that's good
VITOUSEK: You know, at this point, are there any other questions from Commissioners?
Okayoh, go ahead.
DELA CRUZ: I didn't catch your name, the gentleman down the far right.
HAUN: Alan Haun.
DELA CRUZ: Alan. Did you mention something, and I don't know if I heard you correctly,
you guys did some study and then put it on the news bulletin or something or some sort, and
there were some support or something? Was there any study?
HAUN: As part of the preparation of a burial treatment plan, one of the required components of
it is a search for cultural and lineal descendants, and part of that has to be running public notices
in one, at least one newspaper of statewide circulation, one of local circulation, West Hawaii
Today, and then optionally Ka Wai Ola, having a notice placed in that periodical, and all of those
things were done. It was part of the burial treatment plan process.
25
EXHIBIT G
DELA CRUZ: And you mentioned that there were people that spoke up?
HAUN: No one responded to the ads for us. Someone had responded to the ads run for the
adjacent parcel. And as I said, we supplied that person with a draft of this plan, as well as, you
know, as part of the meeting process, other people who are likely cultural descendants, spoke up
in the context of those meetings.
DELA CRUZ: And what was their comments?
HAUN: They were commenting on the plan, you know, things like the buffers around the sites.
One of the lots, we reconfigured the lots in response to comments like that. There were input
onto what the interpreter, not really interpreter signs but warning signs. And there were a
number of substantive comments provided by both the council members, as well as attendees in
these council meetings.
DELA CRUZ: You know,just kind of curious, you know, any of those supporters for this
project, you know, I'm just surprised that hearing there's a lot of, you know, testimonies are
opposed to this thing, this project, but there is none I've heard that are in support of this. So, you
know, I'm just curious that, you know, you've had this, you said, we've put in newspaper. How
long have you posted this in the newspaper, or, you know, how much time did you set up
meetings or some sort I just want to understand.
HAUN: Well, like I said, we ran these ads, we also consult with the Historic Preservation
Division as to, you know,potential descendants, and that was part of the effort originally done
back in 2005. It's been quite a bit of time since we did this.
DELA CRUZ: Thank you.
VITOUSEK: Okay. [To Ms. Roy in the audience]Would you like your opportunity to respond?
And we'll do brief response, three minutes, and maintain respectful behavior. Mahalo.
ROY: They will always be respectful behavior.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo.
ROY: And I'm very kind to all who are hearing me, because, my testimony, I should say, the
onus is on your, your shoulders for not asking what you should. If you have even looked at this,
at this material, you are knowing this is oral history that comes from sublime conveyance of
spirit. In 2010 these began to come to me. The oracle at Ahu`ena Heiau is the only oracle in the
world that is receiving words from Most High God. How amazing is this history. And you—I
need to clarify what you are hearing from me in this testimony. I am reporting to you words of
spirit. We are talking about a history and an instance are not unlike the story of Joan of Arc.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the huge magnitude of this story. You remember on TV watching
"The Greatest Story Ever Told?" Well, you are about to learn by this examination the new
26
EXHIBIT G
greatest story ever told. It began in Kaloko by a group of people who worked at Kaloko Park,
wanting to do a blessing of graves there. I was called, and Akua in that instance told me
VITOUSEK: Actually, I'm so sorry, but if you'd like to respond to what they said, that's okay
ROY: It is part of it
VITOUSEK: —but we've closed public testimony for now.
ROY: It is very part of it, Mr. Vitousek, and
VITOUSEK: Go ahead.
ROY: you need to support the words I'm saying because it is absolutely about, everything
about history here, comes from spirit. Where does history begin? And here, it is a living history
of spirit. So when we are talking about burials, I have been before all of the boards for many
years. We all have, like you are reflecting, many people being against the cultural care of the
whole area. But now this testimony began in 2010. What was 2010 but the 200th anniversary of
the unification of the islands by Kamehameha. Now what did you have here by my testimony
today? You have the announcement by Akua that the kingdom is born again. These lands are
protected by Akua. This kingdom is begun again at Ahu`ena Heiau. And this, you have nothing
to contest with. This is absolutely in the light of the most sublime light of day. And that's what
this means. And, gentlemen, your land, when you begin to talk about your grubbing and talk
about it in such a cavalier way, I have to tell you, this brings great, great horror. [Towards the
applicant's representatives] How dare you talk about the lands and grubbing
VITOUSEK: Okay,point of order. You may address to me but not to them.
ROY: I am saying that how dare this be brought to this discussion in this way. To the
consultants, I say to you, too
VITOUSEK: I think that'll be about it—
ROY:
tROY: —for many years you have worked with the people
VITOUSEK: we are going to have to, we are going to have to stop, Auntie, I'm so sorry
ROY: —the people who have stood here
VITOUSEK: we always respect your mana`o
ROY: —and who have defended this culture
VITOUSEK: —we've given you the opportunity to speak
ROY: now I'm giving the,please do not speak while I am talking
27
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: I cannot—
ROY:
annotROY: this is my time
VITOUSEK: —it's my duty as the Chair to keep the meeting in order
ROY: —and this is
VITOUSEK: the public testimony is ended.
ROY: the important area
VITOUSEK: we are going to ask you to stop, Auntie.
ROY: that you need to learn, to read, please. Please take the time to read it because
VITOUSEK: We really appreciate your mana`o, Auntie.
ROY: this comes from Most High God, and this is the only place in the world. Ahu`ena
Heiau is the first temple on earth, the ancestors tell me
VITOUSEK: We thank you for your passion, Auntie, we have to continue the meeting
ROY: —and this, this is truth, Michael
VITOUSEK: I'm very sorry
ROY: Mr. Vitousek
VITOUSEK: I understand
ROY: I'm going to keep talking because it needs to be said that this place, this testimony is so
very important because this location is so very important and
VITOUSEK: We are going to call for, we are taking a recess. We take a recess, 4:12. Be back
in five minutes.
[Chairman Vitousek called a short recess at 4:12 p.m. He called the hearing back to order at
4:18 p.m.]
VITOUSEK: Okay, can we return to order? Mahalo. Thank you for being here, guys. Okay,
Commissioners, if there are no further questions, I think at this point, we can move forward with
a motion to forward a positive recommendation or a negative recommendation or request a
deferral with additional information be provided at a later date. So I'll leave that up to—go
ahead.
28
EXHIBIT G
DEFRANCO: I recommend a deferral personally. I, I couldn't focus right now anyway to make
a vote.
VITOUSEK: I agree, I think a deferral is appropriate, but I think maybe you can make that
motion, and then we can have a discussion about it.
DEFRANCO: Okay, I'd like to make a motion to defer the action for the applicant Hawaii
Onel Investment [sic]. Is this just 5? Or is this 5 and 6?
VITOUSEK: 5 and 6. Can we do them together or do we have to do separate?
KAY: I believe we have to do them separately.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
KNOWLES: Second.
VITOUSEK: Okay, for Item 5, we have a motion for deferral. Item 5 is the rezone, correct?
KAY: Correct.
VITOUSEK: Okay. Let's see, so to me, what I think would be the most, the most concrete thing
that I would request a deferral on is the updated Cultural Impact Assessment, but I believe that
pertains more directly to agenda item 6, which is the SMA permit application, as Ka Pa`akai
or—we are doing for both?
ARAI: If it's okay
VITOUSEK: Sure, of course, yes.
ARAI: I think we want to end this day on a more uplifting note, but the applicant will support
the request for deferral, and clearly, in order to perform an updated CIA. We believe that Ka
Pa`akai analysis can apply not only to the SMA but also as part of the rezoning, so I hope
VITOUSEK: Sure, sure. It would apply to both, but in the case of the SMA, it is the
Commission's final authority
ARAI: Correct.
VIOTUSEK: on acceptance of the SMA, so, yes, we'll just apply it to both.
KNOWLES: Chair, if I could
VITOUSEK: Oh, yeah, one second.
29
EXHIBIT G
ARAI: I'm sorry, Sensei reminded me to make sure that the report, the updated CIA, is also
passed through the CRC as well
VITOUSEK: That would be terrific.
ARAI: before, yep
VITOUSEK: Yes, that would be terrific.
ARAI: because they'll just be included as part of the overall review process.
VITOUSEK: And then, now, that, that is the only thing that I would put into the, in writing
about what the deferral is for, but when you come back, I would love to see if there are any of
those creative mitigation strategies for providing a level of affordable housing component to the
project. Now, I, you guys are probably smarter than I am, but if that's a discussion that you can
have internally with the developers and figure out if there is any sort of possibility of turning
affordable housing from a credit that goes off into who knows where to a house for someone to
live in, I would really appreciate that. I think everybody would as well.
VAN BERGEN: We'll talk to the develop- owners and I think Housing as well because
VITOUSEK: Yep.
VAN BERGEN: they'd be pretty involved in something like that.
VITOUSEK: Yes, awesome, okay.
KNOWLES: The only other thing I wanted to throw out there as part of our discussion, which
Vice Chair DeFranco had brought up, is the traffic considerations that many of the testifiers
raised. He noted that the traffic report was done at the end of 2020, and there was some
reference to that COVID was over and people were going back to work and those things, but I
don't, that's not been, that was not my experience of the end of 2020, and so I think one of the
things I am also interested in is getting a better sense of what the current traffic flow is in this
area that is—because now we are really back from COVID, I don't think we were at the end of
2020 quite frankly.
VITOUSEK: And in addition potentially including the discussion about escape route, if that, if
there is a possibility.
KNOWLES: Which is very relevant
VIOTUSEK: Yes.
KNOWLES: —given what just happened in Waikoloa.
30
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: About the possibility of doing that escape route on the Kahului-Keauhou corridor
parkway.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, I'm sure they'd be open to looking at that, and that would have to be
coordinated with the County as well, because that's County land, right?
VITOUSEK: Yes, yes. And just looking at those options [to Ms. Roy coming forward] I'm
sorry, Auntie, we've closed public testimony, there's no availability
ROY: [Speaking out ofmicrophone range]
VITOUSEK: Okay, Ms. Roy.
JACKSON: Ms. Roy.
KERN: Ms. Roy.
ROY: [Continuing]
VITOUSEK: Do we have to recess again, Ms. Roy? I would really like to complete this and
move forward. Please. Thank you. Mr. Arai, you may continue.
ARAI: Since we are speaking about just clarifying expectations for the next meeting, and we
were speaking about the TIAR, we were speaking about theI'm sorry?
VITOUSEK: The CIA, Cultural Impact—
ARAI:
mpactARAI: Oh, right, the CIA, I'm sorry, but I was more concerned about the TIAR. I just wanted
to verify; because of the deferral, and you know, typically concurrency requirements, TIAR, six
months from prior to filing, the expectations on the department as far as the concurrency
requirements, and deferral, because we have no idea how long an updated CIA will take. We
have no clue.
KAY: So, Daryn, that seems fine. So your question is just whether or not we'll work with you
on the timeline of the TIAR update relative to requirements to submit?
ARAI: Yeah, we just want to make sure we know, we understand the need to possibly update it,
but we have to be sensitive about the six months whether that comes into play once again.
KAY: Understood.
JACKSON: Mr. Arai, the application has already been filed, and your TIAR was done in
October of 2021, so the concurrency requirement for traffic has already been met.
VITOUSEK: Okay.
31
EXHIBIT G
ARAI: Thank you.
VITOUSEK: Okay, we can proceed with a vote on that for agenda item 5.
KAY: So,just so I'm clear, the deferral is to have the applicant provide an updated Cultural
Impact Assessment to be reviewed by the CRC before it comes back, and that's what's limited,
everything else was just an additional
VITOUSEK: Request.
KAY: Request.
VITOUSEK: Yep.
KAY: Okay. All right, thank you. Vice Chair DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Knowles?
KNOWLES: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Kanuha?
KANUHA: Aye.
KAY: And Chair Vitousek?
VITOUSEK: Aye.
KAY: Thank you. Mr. Chair, the motion carries, five-nothing.
VITOUSEK: And then we will, I will seek a similar motion for agenda item 6.
DEFRANCO: Okay, I motion to defer Item 6 for Hawaii One I.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Under the same parameters?
KNOWLES: I second.
DEFRANCO: Under the same parameters.
32
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: Mahalo. So motion by Vice Chair DeFranco, second by Commissioner Knowles.
Any discussion? Okay, we'll proceed with a roll call voteoh, yes.
KANUHA: [Inaudible] share.
VITOUSEK: Sure.
KANUHA: So, moving forward,just like what we just did with this SMA moving forward, and
it being so long in 2019, I believe there is a lot of steps kind of with what's going on and moving
forward with the Cultural Impact Assessment Statement, meeting with cultural—obviously, you
know, we've seen today—reaching out to families. I believe that the developer is a good guy
from what it sounds like, you know. I just see that,just kind of what was brought up by, you
know, Mr. Dela Cruz, our whole community and majority a lot of people were not in support of
this; there was nobody that came out that was here to support it. And that's, like for us that's a
big decision. I understand, too, the affordable housing, you know, the credits that were there, we
understand what that is; a lot of people don't. Just putting that, moving that forward.
So I'm, I'm conflicted on what we are doing and if we are just going to keep pushing the ball and
keep going down, down, I guess down the rabbit hole to get to the same position that we are in
today, you know. And if I would say the landowner, which you guys represent, is able to
accomplish these things which the community is asking for, which is, you know, a lot of the
concern that was brought up to many people, you know, I think that's, that's huge for us to make
an issue on for one. For two, the SMA being so long, like I said, it was, all conditions were met
except for one that they didn't come back. But that's something that we've brought up as a
Commission that needs to start changing; we need to hold accountability to everyone on that
SMA, any, any development, not only this one. If it's done, you need to come back and reapply,
plain and simple, you know, we can't just keep, it doesn't makeI don't know, like I said, if we
don't, and this is for my fellow Commissioners and, you know, the Commission as well, you
know, where does it end type of a thing. And that's just my opinion. I, you know, I said the
park is amazing, it sounds, the guy is a great guy, it sounds like he's willing to do whatever he
can to suffice the community. But it's, we are sitting here, we are stuck between a rock and a
hard place, and we are keeping asking to get more information and going for more information,
which things were done in 2006, you know. We just got a recent traffic study that's 2020, but
obviously,just that, that new one that was there that we knew about as well. So I think there is
just, you know, I think there is a lot of, I would say not confusion but confliction with moving
things forward to where, are we going to get this done? You know, is there a timeline that's
there that is feasible for the owner to be able to do? You know, the parameters I guess maybe set
forth, if he's going to be able to do that? You know, those are the questions I'm here to ask
and
VITOUSEK: That makes sense. I totally understand your perspective on that. And I feel like
when they come back after doing this, that I'm hopeful that it'll be a presentation of essentially
enough information that would be supplied for a new permit application. So, I mean we've had
that multiple times from Mr. Fuke where an application will come in as if it was a new
application even though it's a time extension. And to me that's more applicable to the SMA than
it is to the rezoning ordinance; rezoning ordinance is, runs with the land, it's going to be stale,
33
EXHIBIT G
but a permit is defined. And so I think that if we are treating it as a new permit when it comes
back to us, and we have all the information to review it against the current standards, and we can
apply any conditions that would be applied to a new permit to this, and it serves the same
purpose. So as long as we have enough information to review the project's impacts on the
Special Management Area today based on the conditions today, then we have enough
information to rule on whether this project should move forward.
KNOWLES: I agree.
VAN BERGEN: Just to be clear, we are focused on the cultural aspect, correct?
VITOUSEK: Correct—
VAN
orrectVAN BERGEN: Because you had the TIAR, you have the EIS, that's also the cultural aspect.
KNOWLES: Yeah, yeah.
KANUHA: Yes, yeah, yeah, cultural aspect.
VAN BERGEN: Thank you.
VITOUSEK: But also, you know, like we talked about, the additional components of looking at
the affordable housing and what can be done on that, on that side,just to see if we are looking at
this from a new lens, today's, today's eyes are seeing this, and what can we do? Is it still
affordable housing credits, or is there something different that we can do to accomplish this in a
better way?
VAN BERGEN: The affordable housing is not part of the SMA; that's part of the
VITOUSEK: Yes.
VAN BERGEN: So we are talking about, I'm just trying to be clear, all right, so
VITOUSEK: But one project, right?
VAN BERGEN: Yes.
VITOUSEK: It's one project, and we are just trying to find the best way to review it on today's
standards.
VAN BERGEN: Okay.
KAY: And when we transmit our action letter, we'll make clear kind of what the asks are, the
reasons for deferral, with the additional requested information.
34
EXHIBIT G
VITOUSEK: Okay, okay, terrific. The timeline will be on—we didn't put a specific timeline
because the timeline is the Cultural Impact Assessment, so that's going to be up to them and up
to the Cultural Resources Commission and up to the process to play itself out.
DEFRANCO: And, Mike, I mean the next time you guys come back, can the actual person be
on Zoom with us or, you know
VITOUSEK: Ken is an actual person.
VAN BERGEN: Okay, we are just holograms over here.
DEFRANCO: You know what I mean.
VAN BERGEN: Actually, he wanted to participate you want the owner?
DEFRANCO: Yeah.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, he wanted to be on Zoom today, but I guess the rules were changed, so
we couldn't have him on Zoom.
VITOUSEK: Oh, really? We can't even have the applicant on Zoom?
KAY: The agenda indicates that applicants and Commissioners will be available in person, and
so
VAN BERGEN: So can that be, for people that don't live in the State, can that be, is there any
exceptions? Or could that be made an exception?
VITOUSEK: Certainly, we can talk about it off-line.
VAN BERGEN: Yeah, he wanted to be here today, but—
VITOUSEK:
utVITOUSEK: Yeah, we'll get back with you on that, instead of figure it out right now.
VAN BERGEN: Okay.
VITOUSEK: That is a request that came from the Commission, so we'll try to see what we can
do. Okay? Can we proceed with the roll call vote?
KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is a motion to defer,pending an updated CIA
reviewed by the Cultural Resources Commission. Commissioner DeFranco?
DEFRANCO: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Knowles?
35
EXHIBIT G
KNOWLES: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Kanuha?
KANUHA: Aye.
KAY: And Chair Vitousek?
VITOUSEK: Aye.
KAY: Thank you. Mr. Chair, the motion carries with five aye votes.
VITOUSEK: Mahalo, guys, we appreciate you coming in here. We realize that everybody's got
the same goals, and we do want to continue to work towards the best project that we can.
Mahalo.
VAN BERGEN: I have a whole new respect for you guys. Thank you. I've never spent this
much time. Thank you very much.
VITOUSEK: Yeah, and bring your project list, my attorney has reminded me.
VAN BERGEN: Thank you. That was our bet.
The hearing was adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
36
EXHIBIT G