Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-26 TBeltcollins PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 26, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of BELT COLLINS HAWAII, LTD. (SMA was called to order at 1:52 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 06-000010) 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred GaldonesRene€ Siracusa Bill GrahamAndrew Iwashita Allen Salavea RodneyWatanabe IvanTorigoe,DeputyCorporationCounsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 26 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: BELT COLLINS HAWAII, LTD. (SMA 06-000010) Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of a 5-Lot Subdivision and related improvements. The property is located along the makai side of Akoni Pule Highway (Highway 270) and the Kohala Estates Subdivision, Kahuanui and Waika, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-9-17:1 ƒ 7. ALAMEDA:Applicant: Belt Collins Hawaii, Ltd. (SMA 06-000010). Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The subject property is indicated by this small orange dot. It is situated along the makai side of Akoni Pule Highway. And this would be in the Kawaihae direction, and this would be in the Kawaihae; and this would be in the Kohala direction. The Kohala Waterfront Project, or also known as Kohala Makai I Subdivision, is located at this particular location; and it is subdivided in 20,000 plus square foot lots. The Kohala Estates Subdivision is located in this general location; and we also have the Kohala Ranch development at this particular location, further mauka of the highway. The applicant intends to subdivide a 28-acre lot into five 5-acre lots. Initially the applicant came in for a 7-lot subdivision back in 1991 for which an SMA Minor Permit was granted to allow that particular development. And, basically, that was to allow the subdivision of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 lots; and that granted, as I indicated earlier, through an SMA Minor Permit. Final subdivision approval was granted in 2001. Nowthe applicant wants to further subdivide the 28-acre property into five plus additional lots, that€s indicated by this yellow area. The proposal also is to make improvements to the existing two cul-de-sacs from the previous subdivision and also for this particular cul-de-sac. The improvements would include landscaping and other infrastructural improvements at the cul-de- sac. The original subdivision also delineated a public access. A mauka/makai public access also referred to as Easement 35 is located on the north side of the original subdivision at this location and, also, a lateral access along the shoreline. The estimated cost of the improvements proposed under this particular project is $4.5 million. The General Plan designation is Low Density Urban and there is a strip of Open designation along the shoreline. The State Land Use designation is currently Urban. So based on the Urban designation technically the applicant could come in for a rezoning for a higher density development;however,theybasicallyintendtoretainthe5-acresizedlots.Thecurrentzoningis Agricultural - 5 acres. Back in 1988 the State Legislature, the Senate adopted a resolution, and it€s called or referred to as Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 179. I believe this initially was submitted to you as part of our package. And basically the concern was regarding viewplanes from Akoni Pule Highway looking makai; and basically the resolution suggested that the public view and open space of this precious Kohala area be retained. The property is currently vacant. As I indicated, the surrounding land uses includes the Kohala Makai I Subdivision, the Kohala Ranch Subdivision, or the proposed Kohala Ranch Subdivision, as well as the Kohala Estates and Kohala By The Sea Subdivisions. Access to the property, as indicated earlier, are by three cul-de-sacs from Highway 270 or the Akoni Pule Highway. Water will be provided by a public water system and wastewater will be an individual system by the lot owners. We did receive a letter from a Don Davis expressing his concern about using the ocean access; and that he also recommended that if it were to be approved, it would be approved with public access to the shoreline. The Planning Director is recommending approval of this application with conditions; and one of the conditions would be to have the required public access to and along the shoreline. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Could you give me a little background on why that original subdivision went through as a Minor SMA? HAYASHI:I believe the reason why they did go for a minor permit was that it was less than $125,000 in improvement costs. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? 2 GRAHAM:So you can€t really do much for infrastructure for less than $125,000. HAYASHI:That€s correct. And I guess, I don€t know what the original intent was. But I think when they came in that€s one of the things that the Planning Department took into consideration when reviewing the SMA Permit, that this particular improvement would be less than $125,000. I guess based on this new proposal, they determined that the improvement costs would be much more than that. This is why they€re now coming for the SMA Permit which would also cover the infrastructural improvements for the initial subdivision that was granted under that minor permit. GRAHAM:So maybe the original Planning Department prior to the current administration, I guess, approved as a minor because they didn€t include the infrastructure and now the infrastructure for that first approval is kind of being included with this one? Is that kind of right? HAYASHI:Well, back then it might have been, I mean the applicant felt that perhaps theycouldmaketheimprovementswithinthe$125,000improvementcost.Afterreevaluation,I guess, they felt that it would cost much more than what they initially had proposed; and this is why they wanted to include these two existing cul-de-sacs that were previously approved under the minor permit as part of this particular SMA Permit. GRAHAM:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I€ve got one question on that. Well, according to this, we€re looking at a 20-foot wide lateral shoreline public access. I believe that€s correct, yeah. And I guess my question is, you know, like a lot of these areas are like cliffs so, you know, through erosion, natural erosion, a cliff falls over, where is the access? HAYASHI:That has to be determined at later date. There is a delineation on the subdivision plans; but the actual delineation would be done at a much later time; and they would have to submit those plans to the Planning Director for approval. WATANABE:Okay, thank you. HAYASHI:And just for your information, while these areas may be at a cliff in certain places, you know, there are a lot of people that go down there for fishing; and whether they fish off the cliffs or there are lower areas, that€s -. WATANABE:Up to them. HAYASHI:Yes. WATANABE:Okay. HAYASHI:I€d also like to point out that as part of our conditions, if you€ll note, that we are requiring additional setbacks greater than what is normally required. And if you look at 3 therevised or amended Condition 2, we talk about a, the current height limit under the Agricultural zoned district is 35 feet; however, in this particular case because of the concerns regarding viewplanes we have imposed a condition that a maximum height of any structure be 25 feet, and it cannot exceed more than 30 feet. Because you can have a single family structure which meets the height limit of 25 feet but you can have gable that€s much higher than that; and that would fall under the definition of the height, compliance with the height. So we just want to say up to the gable if you want it to go that high it will be no more than 30 feet. And you would have to set back 150 feet from Akoni Pule Highway and also have a 100-foot setback from the ocean or the shoreline. ALAMEDA:Okay, I hear you. Any other questions? Seeing none, will the applicant or representative please come forward. All right, and I€ll swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOOERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You, too? MELROSE:I do. ALAMEDA:All right. Please state your name and address for the record. MOOERS:My name is Greg Mooers. I€m a planning consultant for the owner. Address is PO Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii. MELROSE:My name is Ken Melrose. I€m the project manager for the owner. My address is 81-950 Honoli Road, Kealakekua. ANDERSON:My name is Charlie Anderson; and my address if PO Box 367, Puueo, Hawaii. ALAMEDA:And are you the owner? ANDERSON:No, I€m a representative of the owner. ALAMEDA:Mr. Mooers, have you had a chance to review the Department€s recommendation and conditions? MOOERS:Yes, I did. Thank you. I just wanted to make a couple of points and answer some issues, I think, that Commissioner Graham raised and also Commissioner Watanabe. This owner was not the original applicant. So when this owner acquired the property, the property had been subdivided with that SMA Minor. The construction drawings for those two cul-de-sacs had been processed, all the agencies had signed off on them. They had actually bid the project out. Willocks Construction was the low bidder. And when Mr. Moody acquired the property, at that time in looking at the cost of it our advice to him was that it exceeded $125,000. And so even though he had a final subdivision approval, we recommended to him that he come back for the SMA Major. So that€s why this occurred the way it did. And 4 thenat the time we looked at the middle lot, we proposed to subdivide that at the same time so that the SMA Major being sought now covers the work that was proposed for the initial subdivision and then also with this subdivision. I know Commissioner Watanabe you were concerned about the trails. The requirement as written now requires two walkable trails, one mauka/makai and one lateral. The lateral trail will actually be developed on the property on the land; and after it€s developed it will be then surveyed in and placed on all maps so that it won€t be placed along the edge of the cliff that€s going to be road and fall. We will create a safe trail for the public to access. It will be clearly delineated and then it will be surveyed in. So even though there€s something that appears on the map now, it will be actually placed on the ground in a manner so that it can be safe for the public€s use. I will point out that we also asked for an amendment to Condition 15; and you€ll notice it says Theapplicantshallprovideaminimumofthree(3)publicparkingspacesincloseproximityto the mauka end of a mauka-makai pedestrian trail.‚ And the reason we asked for that is so it will give us flexibility to place the trail in proximity to thoseparking stalls so that it would work and that we not be stuck with a boundary line, a trail that may or may not be passable. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Yeah, I appreciate that. My real concern was cause I think the minimum setback was 100 feet from the shoreline. And I wondered if, you know, that was going to come into play or if you€d want to set back those oceanfront homes a little further so that they€d simply feel like they had privacy even though the trail -, you see what I€m saying? MOOERS:Yeah, that 100-foot is a minimum and I think most of the homes would probably be set considerably further back than that. If you look at some of the maps that show the topography there and some areas where some of the sketches are where the homes might be placed, those are the flatter areas of the lot. So we€re not seeking to encroach down on the ocean, but to be back in an area where there is a flatter area. WATANABE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Any questions for our applicant€s representative? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Well, I have two wishes that I€m concerned about with this. The primary issue from the SMA point of view is the viewplanes. And from what I€ve read from the conditions, it€s not clear to me that that€s going to preserve the viewplanes that I think you all are going to preserve also. And the other is the access issues on Akoni Pule Highway, the three, whereas I think we have a letter from the DOT saying they€d prefer it be one. So I kind of like to get into discussing that a little bit. MOOERS:Sure. I€ll speak to the access issue and then I€ll let Mr. Melrose speak a little bit about the viewplane. When this project was original developed and subdivided the construction drawings did show three access points on Akoni Pule Highway. And the reason for that is because there are a number of ravines that move up and down the property, kind of divide 5 thelotsin areas, and just north of the little two lots it€s very, very severe. And so to build a road across that it would be quite a challenge, particularly forsuch a low density subdivision as this. We understand the comments that came back from the Department of Transportation, which was a little surprising since they had signed the construction drawings showing three permitted access points on the Highway. The conditions as I understand it now is that the Planning Department would like us to consolidate two of those access points into one. And so what we€re proposing to do would be to consolidate the middle and the northern access point, and align it across from the road that runs mauka. Okay, now by doing that we€re probably losing a lot, okay, because of just the nature of it. And then we€ll have to build the frontage road running from the south and then to the north to pick up all of those other lots. So the number of access points will actually be decreased from three permitted accesses now to two. And to do oneand eliminate the one to the south would be an extreme hardship; and, you know, there are only two lots that access off of that southernmost access point now. GRAHAM:Okay, I think I understand you then on that. MOOERSSo then what we€d up with would be an access point directly from, across fromKohalaEstates,thecul-de-sacthere;andthentherewouldbeacul-de-sacatthesouthern end that would accommodate just the two lots. GRAHAM:Right. And then the one on the northern end you€re going to have to do some kind of a little lateral roadway to connect all the lots? MOOERS:That€s correct. And there€d be a frontage road. We just have sketches. We haven€t engineered it yet; and what it would do is it would allow us then to eliminate then that third access point. And, again, that€s one of the reasons we ask for flexibility about the public access because without that northern access point it now would create a very awkward situation to have public access and say, okay, you can park here at the cul-de-sac but now you€re going to have to walk 1,000 feet to the north to pick up that mauka/makai trail. And to do that, we don€t think that€s really functional. So we€re trying to keep the flexibility so that we can put that trail through the middle of the project somehow or, you know, some way to get it there so that the people can park near the access point, and then design it to come down. But the drawings that you see were what the original subdivision had. And, you know, just in responding to the comments that Director Yuen has made, we€re trying to come up with some ideas; and we haven€t fully engineered any of those. GRAHAM:So do we have the two access maximum in the conditions? MOOERS:Yes, it€s my understanding it is. YUEN:No, we didn€t put that in the SMA conditions because of the issues over putting traffic conditions in the SMA. And given the scale of the project, I didn€t see that as being something that we would put in the SMA conditions. We did state in the recommendation, background and recommendation that it is our intent to limit to two access points to Akoni Pule in the subdivision process. Because in the subdivision that follows this we can clearly require that. Since the center lot, although it has an access to Akoni Pule it also has a flag going to the 6 northern cul-de-sac. So we can say as a condition of subdivision that you have to consolidate the access with the other property. GRAHAM:Let me try this by Mr. Torigoe, if I may. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. GRAHAM:Ivan, when I was reading earlier today about conditions for approval of special management area permits, The development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable.‚ So in this case the only clear adverse effect is the viewplanes; and it looks like they are going to minimize that to the extent practicable. And then I continue on with the sentence, and is clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest.‚ So, to me, it feels like whatever adverse effect is there, even though it be minimized, should be outweighed by other concerns, such as public health, safety, and public interest. So the condition of the access is the roads are certainly factors that relate to public health, safety, and compelling public interest. So in that case, legally speaking, as long as there is any adverse environmental or ecological effect, even though it be minimized, as long as there€s a substantial effect and it be minimized would still need to be outweighed by these other factors. So these other factors certainly come into play. Does that sound appropriate on a legal basis to you? TORIGOE:Well, you can make an argument that that would be a basis for putting in some kind of conditions. Certainly I think if the applicant is willing to accommodate or to agree to the conditions you could come to an agreement along those lines. GRAHAM:Okay, thank you. I don€t think we have any disagreement on what we want to do, just was looking at what was appropriate to put here. MELROSE:Commissioner Graham, I think part of this is that the background report contains the intention of two and the applicant has acknowledged and received acceptance of the background report and conditions. I think there€s a body of support there to fulfill that requirement. You understand that there were completed engineering drawings here that are basically out the door and will start all over. So we will be doing that in the redesign of the intersection at this juncture; and this subdivision plan that has been approved and land courted at the north end lots will have to be completely redone as well. So that€s part of, in accepting the understanding from the Director we will have just two access points. That€s part of what we€re agreeing to do. GRAHAM:Does that sound adequate to you, Mr. Yuen? YUEN:I€m comfortable with leaving it as it is and handling it in the subdivision. MELROSE:The other question you asked relating to viewplane, this is, as you know driving the road regularly there€s a pretty significant slope away from the highway. The 150- foot setback, there€s currently a 100-foot setback on the existing subdivision maps. Increasing it to 150 feet adds to the distance of the highway, but also adds to the distance below the highway. The current average line across at that point is at least 30 feet below the highway. So rooftops are not in the highway view as you go along there below. GRAHAM:A couple of things. When I look at the viewplane material that we were given, which is like spacing of a potential viewplane, and it shows the angle of the natural view to the shoreline and the view to the rooftop over residences and the view to the horizon -. So what I€d like to do is have any view of any residences or anything be very low on the viewplane of the ocean, as they are on this particular example. But I also note, you know, we know that 7 especially wealthy people like to perch themselves up in commanding views and stuff like that. So I€m not convinced that the 30 feet will not intercept a much larger portion of the ocean view than what it shows in this sort of typical - So I€m wondering if there€s some way, assuming that . you all are certainly okay with the same concern I have, that it can be written into a condition so that we don€t have some applicant trying to take advantage of what he can to be on top of the world there. ALAMEDA:Response? MOOERS:You know, I€m clear with your intent. I€m just quite not sure how you would write that condition and how it would be enforced. The property, and if we had maybe larger topography maps, we could see slopes away from the highway. There are flatter areas but there are not promontories, you know, along the property that would extend above, other than a couple of spots right along the road that would be 150 feet of the road. So I€m not quite sure how to answer that question. There€s not, for example, a ridge on the property that someone would build on top of the ridge and become more noticeable than in other spots. It€s a pretty gradual drop to the ocean. In fact, it actually slopes down and then it drops very abruptly near the ocean. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, given the topography, does that still concern you, the 30-foot limit or -? GRAHAM:Yeah, it does concern me. And I wish I had the foresight to come out this morning to really look closely as I went by. We€re all looking at it from a mathematical point of view. There is a certain elevation of the road, I don€t know what it is. Let€s say it€s 300 feet and there is a certain distance to the shoreline. So you can draw a triangle and say that the shoreline is so many degrees below the horizontal. So if everything was to be more degrees below the horizontal map we wouldn€t see it intercepting the shoreline at all. So if we made some condition that if the degrees were 11 degrees below the horizontal then no housetop should be more than 8 degrees below the horizontal or something, that would feel like that would be very workable. MOOERS:From the roadway fronting this property, you cannot see the shoreline in any area. The shoreline is not visible. The ocean is visible but it drops abruptly into the ocean. So from the roadway you cannot see the shoreline at any spot along this property. YUEN:We did go through some in discussions. And I€m concerned about the same thing that you€re talking about, three things: the view of the horizon, the view to the ocean and then the nonview to the shoreline. GRAHAM:Okay. YUEN:Okay,theviewtothehorizonisessentiallyhorizontal. GRAHAM:Okay. YUEN:Andtheelevationoftheroadisatabout140feet.I€mconfidentwith theseconditionsyouwillnotblocktheviewtothehorizon;andthat€swhatthisdiagramalso shows.Youwouldhavetobuildprettyclosetotheroad,thetallestbuildingclosertotheroadto blockaviewtothehorizon.Allright?Youwill,thehouses,withthiscondition,willblockpart oftheviewofthesea,potentially.WhatI€msayingisasshowninthisdiagram,itwillblock part of the view to the sea. And what we€ve done, the condition we have to deal with that is just to limit the height, which will limit how much of the view is blocked, depending on how close it is to the ocean. 8 ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah, to me the not blockthe horizon is not sufficient. Certainly what Mr. Mooers said about once you get 150 feet, which is the new setback, from the road, if you€re down at least 30 feet that€s a big step in the right direction. I€m not sure if it handles everything. I€m also concerned on this Condition 2 which I don€t think is supplanted by these other conditions that are added today where it says unless the individual home builders submits a viewplane anaylysis,‚ that€s also concerning to me. Is that gone or is that still part of where we€re at? HAYASHI:That€s gone. GRAHAM:That€s gone. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah, along those lines, I think one of the things that can be done with regard to, you know, consideration for the viewplane is not only the height limitation but limiting also how much they can build the actual land up from the existing ground level. And I kind of feelconfidentthatthatwouldbeasufficientcompromise.Inotherwords,ifyou€reonlyableto build a certain percent beyond the existing ground level, you can€t get that house very high with the 30-foot limitation. You follow what I€m saying? Whereas, if you were able to build up the ground level, existing ground level, any amount you desired, then you could certainly intrude upon the viewplane. GRAHAM:I understand. I hate to fight details too much but it sure feels like the devil might be in the details when we wind up seeing what comes up from there a few years from now. YUEN:I think that€s a good suggestion. We said something like this in Kohanaiki that the height had to be measured from the natural grade or finished grade, whichever is less. WATANABE:Yeah, then that would force the builder to excavate from the mauka end of the property, you know, if they wanted a much flatter area and only allowed them to build up the lower end of the property by a certain amount. And that way, everybody is happy. They get a flat lot, you know. I think that will work out. You know, obviously, if the person took the highest point on his property and was able to build up the rest of the property to that level it wouldn€t matter what you€re seeing now because that€s not the new ground level. ALAMEDA:Let€s see what the applicants, you€ve heard the discussion, how do you guys feel about that? MOOERS:We€re willing to accept the existing grade right now. We€re not looking to create an environment that we, you know, elevate through ƒ bringing in a bunch a fill to try and raise it. I would point out to Mr. Graham, though, I€ve been doing this for a number of years and this is pretty unusual to have these kinds of conditions. I mean, we€re accepting a 25-foot height limit in an area which is zoned for 35 feet; and this is a State Urban district, it€s surrounded by residential development certainly on the south and on zoned properties to the north. So I think we€re accepting a very low density, and accepting a 10-foot drop in height elevation to 25 feet, 9 and a 150-foot setback. So I think this applicant is making exceptional efforts to try and preserve that viewplane. And I hope you would accept that. You know, that really has been, it€s something unique that I haven€t seen anywhere. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yeah, I trust you and understand what you€re saying here. But in the same way that you started out saying this is not the person who did the original SMA, this was purchased since then, well, somebody is going to wind up purchasing from you guys, I imagine, and they€re not the ones here talking to me today and saying we€re not going to do this and that. MOOERS:No, but they will have to comply with the rules that you approve today. So I guess any assurances that we give you, you have to make sure that they€re covered in the conditions. GRAHAM:Exactly, that€s what I€m trying to do. MOOERS:We have no problems with that. So if you want to put a condition in saying that the height shall be measured from finished grade, or the existing grade, no problem. You know, we€re already accepting a 150-foot setback, we€re already accepting a 25-foot height limit. We€re already, you know, well, basically the property is zoned Ag-5 even though it€s in the State Urban District and you€ve got half of their lots immediately adjacent to it. So it€s a very low density project. And I think we€ve accepted a lot of these things; and we€re more than willing to accept other conditions related to that to preserve what we€re trying to achieve here. GRAHAM:Okay. ALAMEDA:All right. Any other questions or -? GRAHAM:On Commissioner Watanabe€s condition about the existing grade, so if you have a piece of land that is not flat, so where is the existing grade? The highest point, the lowest point, the average point, or is that clear at all? WATANABE:I€d have to defer on that part because I think to get a level area they€re going to have to fill a certain amount, so you couldn€t stick to existing grade. That would be impossible for them to work with. I mean, you couldn€t expect them to dig everything out. It doesn€t make sense. YUEN:Well,thereisa,theZoningCodedoesdiscussthis.Andit€sfromthe,you taketheheightfromthehighestpointofthegradeadjacenttotheproperty,unlessthereismore thana10-footdifferentialbetweenthehighandlowgrade.AndthenIthinkyoutakethe,you taketheaverageofthetwo,Ican€trememberifyoutaketheaveragebetweenthehighandlow. So,inotherwords,thehousemay,sayahouseisbuilt,theydoleaveanaturalgradeandit€s builtonpostandpiertypeconstruction.Itcanbetallerfromthelowerpointoftheproperty. GRAHAM:Right. YUEN:Buttheheightismeasuredfromthe,becausetheheightisgoingtobe measured from the high point of the property. And on this site, the 10 feet, there€s not going to be more than 10 feet difference between the high and low grade, I don€t think. You know, if you€re going to make a slab, the typical thing would be to cut and then we measure from the, if we change the way we€re talking about, it would measure from the finished grade. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham. 10 GRAHAM:Excuse me, just for a point of information ƒ. Let€s suppose we do have a good slope and somebody wants to build one of the monster houses, so from the top they could go up 45 feet and from the bottom maybe they could have four stories or something down to wherever the bottom goes, is that right? ALAMEDA:Is that right, Mr. Director? YUEN:You could get another 10 feet. Yes, you can get at least another 10 feet without kicking in this averaging thing again. GRAHAM:Okay. But we could put in the condition so that if they have to kick in the averaging, they will kick in the averaging? Can we do that, however Commissioner Watanabe suggested it and you said there€s rules in place for it? YUEN:Well, what I just described to you is how you€d measure according to the Zoning Code. And the reason we may put that in here was cause there is a set of rules in the Zoning Code for how to measure height. If you scrap all of those, you€d have to start from scratch all over again and then think of how you€re going to do it. It€s true that under the Zoning Code even though a house might be measured at 25 feet high because you€re measuring from the high point of the grade, measured from the low point of the grade the house could be 35 feet high. That is true. GRAHAM:Okay. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the applicants? Seeing none, any further comments? MOOERS:No. I certainly appreciate Commissioner Graham€s concerns. And I think we€ve tried to make every effort we can to accommodate those, both in density and in height, and accommodate the viewplane and the public access issues. So hopefully the Commissioners will feel comfortable that we€ve made that and with conditions enforced, that those conditions will be carried out. ALAMEDA:Okay. We do have testimony today so we€ll call you guys back up again. You may be seated. Is there a Jeff Sacher? Please have a seat. Thank you for waiting patiently. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? SACHER:Ido. ALAMEDA:Thankyou,Jeff.Pleasestateyournameandaddressfortherecord. SACHER:MynameisJeffSacher,59-209LaninuiDrive,Kawaihae,96743. ALAMEDA:Youmayproceed. SACHER:Okay.WhenIfirstheardaboutthissubdivisionIthoughtitwasgreat becauseitwasgoingtohelpourpropertyvalues.ThenIstartedthinkingalittlebitdownthe road which I tried to do and see how it€s going to affect a lot of things that are going on around me. 11 I was kind of looking, it€s interesting to hear you talk about the viewplane because I was trying to think how that€s going to affect our viewplane. I think in Kohala Waterfront there€s a little bit different topography there than what there is where we are. And you€re talking about it does drop off from the highway, but there€s a lot of growth there. And I€m a little concerned about, you know, the role in here and stuff, and what you€re talking about, what is going to be the basis for the 25-foot height and if people are going to come in. And I€m not sure if Kohala Waterfront if they€re two-story homes or if they€re just really huge and they look that way, but I€d want to make certain that that doesn€t happen. There€s a lot of construction that€s going on on this island. I personally think a lot of it is too much too fast. I appreciate Mr. Graham concerns about the viewplane and how these things are going to be affected and whether someone else takes over this subdivision or not. About a year and a half ago the buzz words were tax revenue‚ and planned growth.‚ And I have really started questioning both of these things. I look at our roads, the schools, the police, the fire, Kawaihae Harbor, in the disarray that it€s in and other matters, and I question the use of what is going on on this island. I think with regard to planned growth we have plenty of subdivisions that are either being built currently or they€re permitted to be built. I think something that is really interesting is, and it came up earlier today, that these are taken away, beaches, parks, trails that families have used for years and for which many of the visitors come to this island. We€re lacking on our infrastructure and yet the building and the rezoning continue to go on. With regard to what I think I heard you say that it€s going to be County water, but I€ve heard many instances whether it€s County or private that people are concerned about water. They recently had a PUC hearing up in Waimea. People were concerned because Kohala Ranch Water Company, when they bought their homes or lots there, they were told that there€s plenty of water. Now all of a sudden they want to raise their rates and they€re saying they€re not sure about whether they€d be getting water. People are saying you€re going to be building your golf course, and you€re going to be building more homes there, how you€re going to handle it? I would think that although there are not a lot of homes planned for this subdivision, most likely the size of these homes and the landscaping that are going to be done is going to be taking use of that water. I don€t know if people who are going to be in these homes are going to be there full- time or if they€re just going to be there two or three months out of the year, in which case they€re still going to be watering their plants; and that is taking water away from the people who are there on a day-today basis. Questions have also arisen, and this is a big concern of mine, about building, especially building on the coast. There has been a lot of areas that they€re questioning about the runoff, whether it€s golf courses or homes and fertilizing whatever. And there€s a place down there, I believe it€s by Spencer, where they€ve said that the algae has been killed off from the rocks. The honu, that€s where they eat, that€s where they€ve live. And there are concerns about what€s going on there. Youalsomentioned,Ithink,somethingaboutthreeparkingspaces.Thisiswhatishappeningto alotofthebeachesonthisisland-ifyoudon€tgetdowntosomeofthesebeachesatacertain timeyoudon€tgetonthebeach.Andtherearealotoffamilieswhotrytogettheirkidsready-. IfyougodowntoMaunaKea,orMaunaLani,orsomething,KuaBay,there€sonlyacertain amountofparkingspaces.Anditwouldseemtomethatwhetherthesearecliffsorhikingareas wherethesubdivisionis,ifyouonlyhavethreeparkingspacesthatdoesnotseemtobealotof availabletopeople. Iwouldaskthatyouholdoffongrantingthispermitandpossiblyothersuntilwegetahandleon what is happening on the Big Island There are many community groups that have gotten together -- North Kohala, Waimea, Kona, South Kona -- and they€re doing a lot of research, and they€re finding out a lot of things and coming up with a lot of facts; and people are actually getting involved, more so than they have in the past. And I think it makes sense to get all the 12 facts and maybe wait and see what some of these community groups have come up with to see the best way to handle the traffic and the infrastructure. People come here because we are not Oahu, and because we are not Maui. We still have some beautiful beaches, places to hike, and wide open spaces. I ask that you be careful about granting permits until we address the many problems that affect those of us who live here now. Without doing that, we€re compounding our problems to the point that any fixes will be at best costly and at worst unable to be addressed. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions for our testifier? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just a few comments. I think we do, I mean, I€m really in favor of preserving our shorelines and, you know, not having these kinds of projects. But I think we need to keep in mind, like I think what Mr. Mooers was saying, in this particular case there is a project immediately to the north and another immediately to the south with just as high or higher density than this one right now, and the Planning Director has put in rather stringent requirements to try to preserve the viewplanes the best he can. So, in general, you know, I€m inclined to go along with this one because of those particular considerations. I think the water is coming from Waikoloa Water Company, if I remember. No? MOOERS:Kohala Ranch. GRAHAM:Kohala Ranch, excuse me. Kohala Ranch Water Company, that€s what I meant. I know it used to be an issue with Kohala Estates folks that Kohala Ranch was not giving them as much water as they wanted and all, but I haven€t heard any more about that lately. Anyway, I certainly feel like you do, but it feels like the most important thing is to do the best we can with the viewplane on something like this. SACHER:Okay. GRAHAM:Thanks. ALAMEDA:Any other questions? We do appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. Will the applicant/representative please return. As you€re sitting there, Mr. Mooers, any additional thoughts came to mind? MOOERS:Yeah, I€d like to address a couple of things Mr. Sacher brought up. I think that he€s right, we should try to get as many facts as possible. First of all, as far as the access to this site, this site was owned by Kahua and Ponoholo Ranches for years and it has been gated. Even though there have been some lateral pedestrian accesses, there has been no mauka/makai access through this. There has been no jeep trails through this. So it€s not a matter of taking an area and fencing it off or gating it away. The access will actually be improved to this area, improvedoverwhatitistoday. Second,asyoupointedoutMr.Graham,thewaterforthisareaisgoingtobeprovidedbya privatewatersystem,theKohalaRanchWatersystem.Thisprojectwiththislowdensityis usingjustafractionofthe87,000gallonsadaythathasbeenallocatedtothisproject.Sothere reallyisverylowimpactonthatwater.AndIwouldpointoutthatWestHawaiihasmore groundwaterthantheentireislandofOahu.Sotheproblemswehavewithwaterisnotthatwe don€thavewater,it€swedon€thavethedistributionsystem.Inthiscase,theKohalaWater Systemdrillingtheirownwells,providingtheirownreservoirsprovidesthatwater.Sothisis notwaterthatwaspartofthepublicsystem.SoIjustwantedtopointoutthat,again,it€slow density, much lower density than the surrounding properties are. There€s adequate water for it and there€s actually excess water that€s allocated for the project that will not be used. ALAMEDA:Given that, any further questions? Commissioner Galdones. 13 GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mooers, Condition No. 15, the testifier had raised some concerns about the three public parking spaces. MOOERS:Yes. GALDONES:Is there any kind of rule of thumb that€s being followed here to determine how many spaces should be provided, and do you have any history of how many people usually go through there, whether minimum three would be sufficient, minimum three stalls? MOOERS:Well, right now there is nobody going through there. I would point out that to the south of this project is the Kona Waterfront Project and on that south end there is a parking lot there; and I€m not sure the number of parking stalls in that lot. I think it€s probably, what, 10 or 15. And I have never, I go by there quite often when I€m riding my bike and I have never seen that parking lot full. And so that€s immediately adjacent to this existing project. As far as the standard, that€s probably a question for Mr. Yuen. I don€t know why three, not four, not two, why any. I don€t know where that number came from. GALDONES:Mr. Mooers, is it your intent to provide three or are you planning to develop more than three? MOOERS:Well, there€s adequate room there. I think that the intention would be to build the three; and if it became a problem where there€s three and people are parking outside to the road, then they€d probably have to be accommodated. But I, you know, I don€t see the use of that area as being that excessive, just not my experience; and like I say I go by there nearly every day and I€ve never seen the existing parking not have more than one or two cars there. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:As far as rule of thumb or normal, during the 1990s most of the SMA Permits would have one to ten ratio, one parking per ten developed units. I don€t think that€s enough, and a lot of it would depend on the kind of location. And this is not a high intensity use location and there€s not a sandy beach there. It€s a beautiful area, I€m sure people like to go there and fish, or just to go down to the water. So that€s where given that they are developing 11 lots we came up with three as a recommendation. There is a parking area immediately to the adjacent subdivision. And my expectation would be if the property that€s to the north ever came in for an SMA Permit there would be additional parking required there. ALAMEDA:I see your hand up, Mr. Sacher, but, sorry, we cannot backtrack on testimonies. Mr. Mooers, do you have any additional -? MOOERS:No,Mr.Chairman. ALAMEDA:FellowCommissioners,doyouhaveanyotherthoughts? WATANABE:JustmyquestionwouldbetoMr.Graham.Areyoucomfortableordowe need to modify this viewplane issue any further? GRAHAM:Well, I€m reasonably comfortable, I€m certainly not totally satisfied; but I don€tknowwhereelsetogowiththeviewplaneissueotherthanwhatwediscussed. 14 WATANABE:If there were any further modifications, Mr. Mooers, do you have any recommendation as far as how that ground, you know, buildup can be limited, maybe not so much for this developer but in the event that it were sold? MOOERS:Yeah, I think Chapter 25 on the method of measuring and determining the heights addresses that. The rules are pretty clear in there. I know that Mr. Yuen and I spent some time trying to talk about how to address this viewplane issue. And I think this is the best that we could come up with. And so I guess the answer is I don€t quite know other than the existing rules, you know, in the Zoning Code which talks about how to compute building heights, which I think addresses that. WATANABE:And you have conceded that an additional 10 feet -? MOOERS:That€s correct. WATANABE:Yeah. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Mooers. All right, Fellow Commissioners, that brings us toadiscussionphaseoramotion.CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:I move that we approve Belt Collins Hawaii Limited Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 06-000010) based on the amended conditions and the Director€s recommendations. SALAVEA:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Salavea. Discussion? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Are we not including something that you said a little while ago about the existing grade or something when we were doing the measuring? WATANABE:That€s why I brought that up earlier. But I wasn€t clear on what that amendment actually was. ALAMEDA:Director? GRAHAM:Maybe the Planning Director can -. WATANABE:Cause if you recall I did say I would have to defer it, and that€s why I also asked Mr. Mooers about this. Because, you know, I wouldn€t want to arbitrarily come out and say, oh, you can€t fill more than 10 feet above the natural grade when maybe that€s not appropriate. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director had a solution to that, I think. 15 YUEN:Well, I think the idea was to, well, we would say that it be measured from the natural grade or the finished grade, whichever is less. So if they cut the site flat then you measure the height from the cut height. If they want to for some reason make the house on a platform then all they€re doing is they€re cutting into the ultimate height of the house. WATANABE:Oh, so you, that was a little more than I had actually expected. So actually I think that€s very good. GRAHAM:I€m okay with that as he said. WATANABE:Should that be worded somehow or is it already worded into the -? YUEN:What I said was the house shall be measured from the natural grade or the finished grade, whichever is less. And this would still incorporate the Zoning Code€s condition thatit€sthehighpointofthegrade.Andsoiftheyleftitatthecompletenaturalgradeyou€re still going to the high point of the natural grade. And if chances are they€ve cut the grade to a point so there€s not really an issue of high or low, you end up measuring the house, you know, you can build the house 25 feet high from a, if they cut the thing high you can build it 25 feet from the finished flat grade. WATANABE:Actually that€s pretty good. GRAHAM:Is that part of your motion then to include it like that? WATANABE:Yeah, I take that as a friendly amendment and clarification. ALAMEDA:Very good. Any more discussion on that? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM?Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. 16 HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. ALAMEDA:Mr. Mooers, you will be informed in writing of this decision. MOOERS:Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 17