Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-07 TCLIFTO PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 7, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the appkhb`shnmrneBKHESNlRJNM@BN@RS+KKB'QDY 03-010 and SMA 03-005) was called to order at 5:23 p.m. in the Ohana Keauhou Beach ` Resort, Kahaluu Ballroom, 78-6740 Alii Drive, North Kona, Hawai`i, with Second Vice- Chairman Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah SpringerABSENT AND EXCUSED:Earl Fujikawa Bill Graham Fred Galdones Florence KubotaAurelio C. Mina, Jr. Jeffrey McCall Francis Smith Bill Thibadeau Patricia O'Toole, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 26 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CLIFTO'S KONA COAST, LLC (REZ 03-010/SMA 03-005) Continued hearing on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a commercial Î residential complex consisting of family housing, facilities for transient accommodations, and related improvements. The property is located along the west (makai) side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway (State Highway 19), approximately 2,100 feet south of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Î NELHA Access Road, nd Ooma 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-9:22. SPRINGER:Agenda Item No. 7 is CliftoÓs Kona Coast, LLC (REZ 03-0 03-005). ItÓs a continued hearing on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a commercial-residential complex consisting of offices, retail uses, multi-family housing, facilities for transient accommodations, and related improvements. The property is located along the west (makai) side of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (State Highway 19), approximately 2,100 feet south of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, the Natural nd Energy Lab Hawaii Access Road, Ooma 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-9:22. Thank you, Norman. HAYASHI:Okay. This application has been before you for the past four months. The hearing first started in August and was continued in October, November and now, excuse me, August, September, October and now, November. The Director is recommending that this EXHIBIT E application be deferred inasmuch as there are certain issues that still need to be discussed, and now IÓll turn it over to the Director. YUEN:At the last meeting, as I discussed, my recommendation is that we defer action until after the County Council has acted on the Project District rezoning action that was voted on by the Commission at the last meeting. Without, IÓm not going to, I discussed the reasons for that at the last meeting. I donÓt, IÓm not going to go into that in any more detail. There were some questions about consistency with past actions. I did go back and look, as far as rezonings that are concurrent with SMA permits. There have been, I believe, just two in this administration which we did take concurrently. TheyÓre not that common. I went back about ten years, and there were three or four examples. We are hearing this concurrently. My recommendation is though that we defer the decision. If the Commission does want to vote on this and bring it to a decision today, the Department has prepared a draft, the Commission has to have a decision before it to make. If the Commission wants to vote in favor of it along the same lines as the Commission voted four to one in favor of the Project District zoning, we have prepared something that would accomplish that. It contains the necessary findings and conditions that are the same, essentially, as those in the Project District zoning. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, I just wanted to add that the Applicant requested that we circulate the, his proposed findings. Jeff is now, weÓll be circulating the draft that the Applicant has just provided to us with the additional condition to the SMA permit. I believe the proposed findings that the Applicant had drafted were circulated to those that were in attendance at the last meeting. YUEN:You know, if I could explain. The ApplicantÓs proposed Finding and Decision, actually, is different than what the Department, is different in a couple of respects, I believe, from what went up in the, what has gone to the Council, in that they have the 400 in the hotel versus the 200 and -. Is the minimum development increment in there? FUKE:ItÓs not included but I was going to address that. But, you know, we donÓt have -. YUEN:Okay. All right. So the ApplicantÓs proposed, the ApplicantÓs Findings are a little bit different in the wording and the ApplicantÓs proposed conditions are different in the hotel. And, in another respect, Mr. Fuke will discuss then what -. We prepared a draft, if the Department wants, if the Planning Commission wants to send something, a decision that basically follows the four to one vote on the Project District. KUBOTA:Madam Chair, a point of personal privilege, please. IÓm getting fuzzy in here because itÓs awfully warm. Maybe IÓm excited, I donÓt know something else. I would like a five-minute recess. SPRINGER:All right. Thank you. 2 RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 5:33 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 5:41 p.m. SPRINGER:IÓd like to call the Hawaii County Planning Commission meeting back to order, please. What is now before us is the CliftoÓs Kona Coast Special Management Area Use Permit application. The Planning Director has made a recommendation to us for deferral. Is there a motion on that, Commissioners? Hearing no -. Is there a motion -? The Planning Director has asked us for deferral of this item. What weÓre asking now for is a motion to defer or not. KUBOTA:Are you asking me for a motion? I will make a motion. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota, if you are ready to make a motion, I am re motion. KUBOTA:All right. As I started discussing last month, I felt that the rationale for deferral was not acceptable to me, so I will move that we consider, the Commission considers this SMA application. SPRINGER:Is there a -? OÓTOOLE:If I can interrupt. If no one is going to move to defer, then weÓre on the agenda item, and we should just proceed with that. So I take it as no one is moving to defer. GRAHAM:I sort of will make a motion to defer so that we can vote upon it. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. KUBOTA:Go ahead. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Did I interrupt your motion? KUBOTA:What, thereÓs no second so it dies for a lack of second. Nobody seconded my motion, did they? So it dies for a lack of second, doesnÓt it? Or do I, you want me to retract it? OÓTOOLE:No. Well, if Mr. Graham wants to move it -. But, you k wants to defer it, then weÓre just going to proceed with the application. NOMURA:Microphone, please. 3 OÓTOOL:I said if no one wants to move to defer it, and a second, then weÓre just going to proceed with the application. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ms. OÓToole, for that clarification. What we have before us is a recommendation by the Planning Director to defer this item. What weÓre looking for is a motion in support of that deferral. In the absence of that motion, weÓll continue on. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:As I understand, Commissioner Kubota was going to make a we continue to deal with this matter. And our Corporation Counsel has advised us that we donÓt need such a motion since if we failed to defer, I mean, failed to continue until the next meeting, then we are automatically still dealing with this. There was no second to that motion, so I think Ms. Kubota was saying then that motion becomes dead in the water. So in response to the Planning DepartmentÓs recommendation for deferral, I would like, at this point, to make a motion that we defer consideration of SMA Use Permit 03-005 unti SPRINGER:Is there a second? MCCALL:IÓll second just to, I mean, just for discussion purposes. SPRINGER:Okay, thank you, Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:IÓd like to hear from Commissioner Graham. SPRINGER:It has been moved and seconded by Commissioners Graham and McCall to defer this item as recommended by the Planning Director. Discussion? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:In response to Commissioner McCall, the motion is, one, to defer, which is the choice of the Planning Director. And my belief is that the reason for deferral is to have more specific information from the Council on the rezoning. My particular opinion about this project, you know, I expressed somewhat at the last meeting. And when the time comes that we do deal with the project, you know, I will certainly voice it, but that doesnÓt feel like thatÓs what the issue is right now. So maybe I should let the Planning Director explain once more why heÓs choosing to defer, or why he recommends that we defer. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:My recommendation is to defer until after the Planning Commission has voted on the rezoning ordinance so that we have more specifics before we vote on the SMA permit. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Thank you. Can I just address that question. I can understand what the Director is saying. But, you know, if the Council denies the rezoning, then the SMA permit -. If 4 you assume, also, that the SMA permit before you is approved by this Commission as proposed, and if the Council denies the rezoning, then the SMA permit doesnÓt become valid at all. If, on the other hand, the Council approves the rezoning without any significant modification, then the permit is valid. If there is a need for an amendment then, at that point in time, you know, we will have to come in for an amendment. But that is a risk, thatÓs not the DepartmentÓs risk. That is a risk that the Applicant has to sustain whether he wants to wait or come back. This item, you know, in total, whether youÓve looked at the zone change or the SMA, youÓve looked at the whole project in its total. ItÓs just that one is a zone change that needs to be considered by another body, and the SMA is considered by this body. But, nonetheless, you have looked at the application. It just is unfortunate that it has to take separate tracks. And that is why that, you know, the Applicant is willing to assume the risk, not knowing what the County Council may do. You know, he would be willing to risk, you know, having the Commission decide on this matter if the Commission feels ready, you know, based on all that information. You know, I cannot speak for the Commission. You know, I mean, IÓm not a Commissioner. But like relative from the ApplicantÓs standpoint, you know, this matter, as the staff has pointed out, has been before this body for four meetings. Today is going to be the fourth public hearing on this matter. It has not been inordinately controversial, unlike other kinds of project like the one that you had this morning. We had a deferral on the second waiting for the input of the State Department of Transportation, that we got. But at the third meeting, at the last meeting, anyway, the Planning Director had, you know, made his statement. I believe that, you know, there are like sufficient basis for the Commission to make a decision. The Director had pointed out that, you know, he does, the staff does have a proposed findings, you know, for an SMA, which is generally the same as what I had presented to the Commission at the last meeting. And the conditions that I had proposed at the last meeting, not the -, what you had before you from the Applicant, is identical, you know, to what the Planning Director had recommended on the zone change. There are only two exceptions. know, is going to debate on this issue, then IÓd like to kind of like go over those items. But, you know, it just pretty much like speaks to the idea of about like the deferral or the non-deferral. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. I would just inquire of Counsel because this is an on-going and continued matter in terms of protocol and procedure. Do we ask now for the discussion that the ApplicantÓs representative is proposing or do we go into public testimony? OÓTOOLE:Well, you have to take public testimony on any agenda item, so -. SPRINGER:I wonder if we should have the ApplicantÓs representative present what new information he has for us tonight, and then go into that phase? OÓTOOLE:If you end up deferring it, then he has made his argument already on deferral, right, on why you donÓt want it deferred. So maybe we should vote on that and then take public testimony. 5 SPRINGER:Okay, thank you. So, members, we have before us a motion for deferral. It has been moved by Commissioner Graham and seconded by Commissioner McCall to follow the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation for deferral of this item before us. Is there any further discussion on the motion to defer? KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:IÓd like to speak against the motion. And my primary reason is that, we went over this at the last meeting. But for Mr. McCall who was not here at the last meeting, let me just highlight some of my objections to it. I feel that, first and foremost, fairness and consistency of implementing our rules ought to be the foundation. In this particular case, although the Planning Director makes a good cause, by his estimation, of having to defer it, I feel that whatever rationale he uses for deferment could have been used, is used for other applications as well. And, at the same time, what we have done is -. Well, the first argument that the Planning Director, the answer that he gave me last month was that itÓs an unformed idea, this project is very nebulous. Well, they have a conceptual plan presented to us. And I feel that all applicants submit to us conceptual plans. And the conceptual plans are merely plans that they hope they can build up to. TheyÓre not formed in concrete. Even as far as developers coming into it, investors coming into it, no more price -, every applicant that comes to us, maybe not every one but most of them that come to us, I donÓt think they have all their investors lined up, so to speak. So, you know, as long as the Applicant comes within the law, the rules that we have to work with, I think every applicant ought to be treated in the same manner. I was reminded that past practice is not always the best way. However, it gives some consistency and some assurance to the public and to consultants when they work with their clients of what to expect, how to advise, and so forth. So I feel that the Planning DirectorÓs rationale for deferment of this particular SMA is unfounded; and I just donÓt go along with it. So, therefore, I speak against it. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Kubota. Commissioner McCall, you have any follow-up? MCCALL:Not really. I did read the transcripts, though I wasnÓt here last month. YouÓve got a good argument that, you know, perhaps we should, yo see where we are, and just to be fair to the Applicant. So -. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners? I have a question for the Applicant. Was this notion of bifurcating the items presented to you in discussions with the Director? DARROW:Not until we were made aware of it at the last Planning C meeting. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Director? 6 YUEN:Oh, I think we did discuss it a few days before, in advance. DARROW:But that was kind of just prior to the meeting -. YUEN:Yes. DARROW:Until we received this, at the fourth Commission meeting rather. YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. Members, we have before us a motion to defer this item in keeping with the Planning DirectorÓs recommendations. Is there any further discussion on this matter? Seeing none, Norman, may we take a roll call vote? HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:No. HAYASHI:Chair Springer? SPRINGER:No. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion does not carry. SPRINGER:Thank you. Now we have decision-making on this matter before us. Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Madam Chair, again, thank you very much and, begging your indulgence, I really would want to make this very brief. The Planning Director had recommended favorably on the Change of Zone. And I think, as Commissioner Kubota expressed, what we have is like a 7 concept plan; and the concept plan before you is basically no different than the two other applications youÓre going to hear after this in the level of specificities. But in the DirectorÓs favorable recommendation on the Change of Zone, there were essentially like two substantive areas that we had disagreed with. One was that the DirectorÓs recommendation calls for establishing a minimum of 30,000- square foot minimum building a project can get off the ground in that area. The other one was establishing a minimum, excuse me, a maximum room count of 200 rooms for the hotel versus, like 400 as we had requested. In consideration of everything, I think that, at this point in time, the Applicant is willing to accept all of the conditions as proposed in the zone change; and pretty much I have reflected that in the, whatÓs written down as like the ApplicantÓs proposed findings. And we would also concede to the DirectorÓs original recommendation of wanting to have the first increment having a minimum of 30,000 square feet. We have, you know, weÓll make that conce But relative to the maximum 200-room count, that was not part of the DirectorÓs, you know, original recommendation; but, you know, it becomes very important from the ApplicantÓs perspective that heÓd be allowed to build up to 400 rooms. The proposals thatÓs before you call for a maximum of three small, you know, business-type of hotel. You know, itÓs something along the line like, family-oriented like maybe Pagoda, the Marriott Courtyard, the Holiday Inn Express, itÓs something along that line. ItÓs not intended to be a high-end type of hotel. And the Applicant has already had some, you know, preliminary discussions with hotel operators whoÓve kind of like indicated that they need to at least, you know, the economies of scale call for at least anywhere from about 125, 150, even if itÓs small scale. So if you limit it to that, then pretty much what youÓre limiting yourself to is just like only one hotel -. The DepartmentÓs recommendation also, you know, the reason for why they wanted to limit it to 200 rooms was, is, and IÓll just quote it, Ðbecause of the speculative nature of the market for an airport-oriented business hotel.Ñ To that, then, you know, we would just kind of say that as in all developments, you know, whether a project is economically feasible or not, you know, thatÓs the developerÓs risk. ThatÓs not the DepartmentÓs risk, thatÓs not is whether in the evaluation of, the impact of the particular project, whether thereÓs like an adequate evaluation. If youÓre doing this much, then what is the impact. And I would submit to you that the report that was prepared by the consultants, you know, it just kind of sticked by it, you know, addressed all of that impact. It didnÓt address 200 rooms, it addressed 400 rooms. You know, both from a standpoint of your economic, your marketing, your social, your infrastructure, you know, it all dealt with 400 rooms. Now if you fast-forward and then in the end like it turns out that, you know, thereÓs no hotels constructed in that area, then what you have is that basically that level of impact is reduced. So itÓs kind of like on that basis that, you know, we would submit that, you know, like allowing the Applicant the opportunity to go up to 400 rooms I think is a reasonable one and a fair one. This is what we had represented. This is what the application and its environmental assessment totally talked about. If we didnÓt talk about, you know, 400 rooms and instead we only talked about 200 and at the last minute we wanted to add like another 100 or 200 rooms, then I think there would be every reason to be concerned about whether, in fact, the assessment or the application totally addressed that type of impact. So, Madam Chair, you know, and the 8 Commission, you know, we would respectfully request that, you know, you take favorable action on this matter, and with the added change that we had suggested that, to include the Condition K of the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation on the zone change which was relating to the 30,000- square foot minimum gross area which is not included in the recommendation that I had forwarded you. The recommendation I had forwarded you, however, does reflect a 400-room, maximum rooms. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions or comments to the ApplicantÓs representative? Mr. Director, any response to the ApplicantÓs representative? YUEN:Just briefly on the 200 rooms versus 400 rooms. We had hea testimony earlier today about infrastructure deficits in West Hawaii. The Commission voted in opposition to a project that would add 43 single-family homes to new zoning of very, very large proportions. And I think about, well, we, to which the Department, we had recommended cutting from a 400, from having no hotel rooms under the current zoning, rather than approving 400 hotel rooms as they requested, that the Commission only approve 200. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions or comments for the Director or for the ApplicantÓs representative? Understanding that this is a continued hearing, we do have members from the public who have signed up to testify at this time. I would ask them, well, let me invite them to come forward now. Joel Gimpel, Lunakanawai Hauanio and Janice Palma-Glennie. Good evening, I believe you both have been sworn in. If you could begin, starting with you, Janice, please, again, your name, and address, and your testimon PALMA-GLENNIE:My name is Janice Palma-Glennie and my address is P.O. Box 4849, Kailua-Kona. ItÓs getting little foggy. I scratched out a lot of things here. IÓm speaking for myself this time and, first, IÓve shortened my testimony incredibly. But, first, IÓd like to say I do not support the SMA permitting for CliftoÓs as it would be an added burden to already lagging infrastructure, as being requested only for speculative purposes, opening up that area to - . ThereÓs a large difference between 100 rooms and 400 rooms, and thatÓs the difference between 100 cars and 400 cars. And I believe that the issues that you folks so widely discussed regarding Nani-Kailua are just as important in this area with the congestion. If any of you have had the benefit of being there from one in the afternoon till seven at night, itÓs just getting too over-burdened to keep saying yes to hundreds of rooms and hundre So assuming I donÓt want this application approved, I still would like to talk about a few things in case it is. One of things that IÓm still concerned about is, yes, let me go back here, is that, what IÓve heard is that Mr. Morris would like to put a gate at the highway entrance which is at the mauka-makai jeep trail that runs to the shoreline. And though this hearing is regarding the mauka portion of his property, this gate would still affect the whole thing. 9 Though the owner of CliftoÓs has known the dangers of trash pile-up, vehicle abandonments, squatting, and other negative use of this property which has been going on since he owned the property, Mr. Morris has chosen to do little, if anything, to be a caretaker of that land. Now, apparently, he intends to simply take a non-holistic quick-fix approach to solving the problem of trash and squatting by erecting a gate which would, in fact, possibly negatively affect many more people than it would help, just as NELHA has done with arbitrary and narrowing shoreline access (including less parking, no camping and shorter hours) that has become alarming to the areaÓs regular users. And a few portable lua and a passing caretaker, with the ability/authority to evict those who are long-term camping, would positively affect not only the homeless problem but the trash as well. In that type of approach, Mr. Morris could also contribute to this community by allowing much-needed, free, wilderness-style campin and until a coastal recreation area is created in cooperation with the Kohanaiki parcel. However, if the gate is erected on the mauka-makai jeep trail, it should be set back from the highway with plenty of room for cars to park outside of it, just as that Kekahakai State Park. This would ensure 24 hours a day, seven days a week pedestrian access to the shoreline, which is used for every sort of activity from fishing, surfing, jogging, everything. Hours of the gate opening and closure should be far more lenient and fair than those now set by NELHA. IÓd like to see them set, if there is a SMA permit, IÓd like to see it in the permit that a gate at Ooma should be opened from no less than 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. year-round, Kohanaiki and NELHA, so that the public can access the shoreline for all the activities that now pursues there, fishing, camping, surfing, diving, jogging, etc. And NELHA, this is important because NELHA has made it difficult, if not possible, for, before- and after-workers to enjoy this coastal area, especially in summer when daylight hours are longer, people are up earlier, and leave the beach later in the evening. By requiring these restrictions in the SMA permit, the County would be approaching shoreline access in a balanced, proper way and acknowledge increasingly worrisome decrease in the ability of the public to access the shoreline without overburdening this owner. And to remind you, this jeep access road has been in nearly continual public use since 1976. In conclusion, if you decide to give the go-ahead to this SMA permit, I think itÓs imperative that the strictest conditions are put on that permit, as well as ensure the enforcement of those rules. Having already dealt with Mr. Morris regarding the trash, I feel that he needs to have things written in stone for him to actually contribute and do the things that heÓs supposed to do to make this area safe, healthy and better for the community. Commission Members are asked to remember that this property is an area uniquely used and uniquely remaining as all other coastal land is approved and developed for largely private use, and is enjoyed by growing numbers of people in this growing community. Thank you again for allowing me to speak regarding this proposal which will affect the lives of all Kailua-Kona residents. SPRINGER:Thank you, Janice. Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments for the testifier? Joel? 10 GIMPEL:Thank you. It has been a long day but IÓm still Joel Gimpel, Public Affairs Chair for the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. Our previous written comments and testimony regarding this application are already part of your CommissionÓs record. But IÓm appearing here today, this evening, to draw to your attention an article that appeared in the th Friday, October 17 edition of West Hawaii Today, which some of you may not have seen, and which should also be a part of the official record. I have attached a printout of that article to my written testimony which you have before you. It lists ten projects that are slated for development along Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Kailua town and the airport. In addition to CliftoÓs Kona Coast, they include an 18-hole golf course between the Police Station and Kealakehe Parkway, State housing mauka of the golf course, commercial and hotel development of 500 acres by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands makai of the golf course, and marina expansion by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, a 335-acre West Hawaii business park north and mauka of Kealakehe Parkway, 1,500 commercial and industrial lots mauka of the Kaloko Light Industrial Park and north of West Hawaii Business Park, and a 500-lot subdivision with an 18-hole golf course, north and makai of Hinalani Street. These, of course, would be in addition to the existing old industrial area, Makalapua Shopping Center, Kohanaiki Business Park and Kaloko Light Industrial Park. We estimate that these proposed developments, when completed, wo 3- and 4,000 vehicles per day to the traffic on Queen Kaahumanu Highway, not to mention the many heavy construction vehicles and workersÓ cars before completion. This is unacceptable. The Kona Traffic Safety Committee brings this to your attention to emphasize the fact that while a particular development, in this case, CliftoÓs Kona Coast, might not itself add significantly to the vehicle load on Kona streets, we must take into account the anticipated total vehicle load that will be added by all developments in the area within the foreseeable future when evaluating the applications for rezoning and special management area use permit Here, our present road infrastructure is sorely lacking and the planned widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway will probably create more traffic snarls than presently exist; accordingly, we urge that all developers in the area be required to fund the planned collector road between Hinalani Street and Kealakehe Parkway and that additional access Highway not be permitted until an alternate north-south road makai of the highway is available. Further, we suggest that the County explore extending Kuakini Highway north to the harbor. Finally, we request that the Planning Department help push for a the makai side of the highway to help offset this increasing demand of motorized travel. This pathway was initially part of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening project, but the section from Makala Boulevard north has been left off the current plans. Despite the attention drawn to this concern by the State Department of Transportation District Engineer, the decision-makers on Oahu are under the impression that this area is not under development, how mistaken they are, and will not be developed for many years to come. The community gave this pathway project No. 1 priority in recent public hearings on the State of Hawaii Bike Plan, which is now in final draft form. So, please, add your voice to the communityÓs in requesting this much-needed facility. 11 Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions; and IÓll be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners? I have a question. Perhaps the Director, regarding the vehicle counts and tonnage thatÓs added to the highway that the testifier made reference to, do you have any comments on that, Mr. Yuen? YUEN:ItÓs definitely a problem. The widening from Henry Street, Queen Kaahumanu from Henry Street to Kealakehe Parkway is currently funded and should happen. The widening to Keahole Airport is also a high priority and very likely to happen. Other than that, I donÓt have any more, you do have a traffic report in the application. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Members, any questions or comments for the testifiers? Hearing none, thank you both for your participation this evening. Mr. Fuke, do you have any follow-up? FUKE:Sure. Specifically in relation to the public access question, couple things needs to be pointed out. One is that, you know, although the owner owns both properties, this is not the coastal property that has been under consideration by the Commission. This is adjacent to the highway. But notwithstanding that issue, you will note that if youÓre tracking the Planning DirectorÓs Change of Zone recommendation or mine, my proposed SMA conditions, you will notice that on the DirectorÓs Change of Zone Condition II, or the one that I had recommended which is identical to the DirectorÓs Condition II, Condition No. 30, they deal with the public access issue in terms of allowing for that access and making sure it does not impede the development of the properties to the south or to the north relative to access. On the overall roadway issue, couple points IÓd like to make. One is that, you know, the K-to-K Plan does specifically address this particular parcel. It basically states that in this particular area it would be ideal for like some sort of a commercial industrial area and, as a matter of fact, make the concession it would be more appropriate for like an office retail commercial complex, pretty much along the line of what the Applicant is proposing. But notwithstanding that, I think that the Planning Director has assumed a rather pro-active approach in terms of how you address this regional type of roadway system and that is found like I think in their, the DirectorÓs rezoning recommendation, Condition Y. Actually, you know, his goes from like Condition X, Y, Z. And what I had suggested in here, which are identical to his, would be Conditions 19, 20, 21 and 22. But in Condition Y or Condition 21, essentially what it says is that this developer, and probably like others in that area, will have to work together with the State Department of Transportation and come up with a prorata, you know, and discuss the overall transportation system in this area, and then come up with a prorata scheme. And then this developer would have to pay its own share before you can get Final Subdivision Approval or as it reads, what does it read, basically, before you can actually create an impact to the 12 community, you already have to pay your prorata share. And I think this is a relatively pro- active way, realizing that there is this under-serviced infrastructure area in this area and government does not really like have all of the financial wherewithal now to make all of these improvements. So theyÓre looking at the private developers to help or to participate in addressing these issues. And I think that the condition, thatÓs kind of structured and identified in Condition No. 21, or the DirectorÓs Condition Y, I think, pretty much addresses that. SPRINGER:Commissioners, have you had a chance to review those conditions to which Mr. Fuke is referring to? Are there any questions or comments to either the Applicant, Planning Director or Counsel? As we go into decision-making, you know, here we are in another area that has been identified for urban expansion but, again, the discussion comes up about infrastructure inadequacies. And while thereÓs some discussion that the proposal will indeed add to the infrastructure, I think weÓre still grappling with the juxtaposition of lands designated for urban expansion but which donÓt yet have infrastructure leading to them. Commissioners, if there is no further discussion -. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Since I was the lone dissenter on the rezoning, I feel like I ought to, again, now weÓre dealing with the SMA permit but, at least explain what my problems are with this application for everybody to hear. I made a little list of, you know, I could run on too much, but I want to try to keep on certain topics. I made a list of five things, so if I can just try to follow them and catch them one at a time. Within the last month, we went over to Maui for the Hawaii Conference of Planning Officials, a number of us did. And I wanted, certain things, there were some talks and there was different speakers but certain things kind of catch your ear. And, for me, you know, the planning issues certainly got my interest. They spoke of infrastructure problems, and specifically traffic problems, not as just a result of growth but as a result of poor planning, saying that was a base of them. And in that regard, a Mr. Michael Dietz, you know, I just wrote down when I was there, one of the quotes came from him, which was, ÐDonÓt let developer you are trying to do with your planning.Ñ So, when I look at this proposal, you know, immediately south of the airport for a 400-room hotel, 240 units of residential housing, and I try to think of our Planning Director, and suppose our Planning Director had come up with a plan for how he wanted to use this property, I donÓt see any way weÓre anywhere close to that. I havenÓt heard anybody in the public say we need an airport hotel -. So, anyway, I feel like, as Ms. Kubota said, if this Applicant is proposing this, we should treat it seriously and we deal with it on the merits; and I have no problem with that. I just find that the merits as far as proper planning donÓt match up at all if the planning were to be initiated by the Planning Department. Secondly, as I said the last time, on the K-to-K Plan, which is the Kailua to Keahole Plan, which is the sort of subsidiary to the General Plan, in other words, it speaks of just one specific area and was passed by the Council as resolution only, it speaks of three between Kailua and the airport. And it says, ÐThe coastal zone, which is the low-lying lands makai of Queen K Highway, are planned primarily for public recreational facilities, parks, open space and resort development.Ñ So, again, the residential housing, the hotel, which is not a resort 13 hotel, itÓs intended to be an airport hotel, donÓt fee-, nor does the residential-commer -, the commercial industrial, although it is zoned currently for industrial -. Second one, that was the second one, excuse me. The third point I want to bring up is when we look at our grounds for approval of special management area use permits, basically, you know, we see, ÐThe A proposed development only upon finding that:Ñ and then, the gist of it is, ÐThe development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicableÈ.Ñ So, you know, we do h have the traffic effect, we are adding nutrients to the ground. You know, we have some adverse environmental effects and ecological effects, but they need to be minimized to the extent practicable. I think the developer is trying to do that and I think he has worked to minimize the site plan and all that. However, we still have some adverse effects. And then it says these must be Ðclearly outweighed by public health, safety or compelling public interest.Ñ Well, I havenÓt heard of any public health values, any safety values or compelling public interest values. Whereas, if I looked at the SMA permits preceding this one, which is the Kona Coastal Park, thereÓs tremendous public value there. When I look at the one coming afterwards, the Kohanaiki thing where theyÓre developing access to the ocean, restrooms and all that, again, I see a tremendous value to weigh against any of the detrimental effects. I donÓt see that value at all in this application. Also, just speaking, you know, without regard to any of the laws and all but just the way this application, this is my fourth point, struck me when I first read it, it seemed to me that whatÓs makai of Queen K Highway is really valuable because of its more ocean orientation. So with regards to the Ooma parcel or this parcel, these two parcels we have now, to be looking at the mauka parcel before we look at the makai parcel, if the developer chooses to bring it to us that way, we will look at it that way. But, basically, thereÓs a limited amount of what we can do without endangering the ocean and without there being too much traffic. And it feels like what we want to do is make use of the assets first, which are the ocean assets. So by doing a large- scale development, at this point, weÓre really tying our hands for what we can do later along the ocean because weÓve already built in a lot of impacts. And when I read HRS 205A, it says, ÐEncourage those developments which are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas,Ñ which, again, it seems to me thatÓs what weÓre doing with your, that locating where it is so near the ocean is restricting real values that can come from what we do along the ocean. Finally, just on pure density, the original Ooma project, which was passed back in 1986, back in the days when coastal projects were hotels, and residential and golf course built around them, even that project was 900 units on 300 acres, more than 300 acres. So the density was really less than three units an acre. When we look at this project, weÓre talking about 640 units on only 83 acres; and I think thatÓs what the Planning Director is making reference to. Here weÓre talking almost eight units an acre; and weÓre not even touching the real value there, which is along the coast. So itÓs very dense, itÓs at a place that doesnÓt need to be. It doesnÓt agree with the plan, we have the K-to-K Plan. And it certainly is not planning directed by our Planning Department, itÓs planning directed by the Applicant. 14 So all of those things are really bothersome to me. You know, if we were to defer and I could see what was going on in the coast first, you know, itÓd be more interesting to look at the specifics. But to me, it doesnÓt figure. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Other Commissioners, any further discussion, comments, questions? Then weÓre ready for a motion. Is anybody prepared to make a motion on this matter? OÓTOOLE:You should have a motion to close the public hearing. SPRINGER:IÓm sorry, thank you, Corporation Counsel OÓToole. HereÓs a motion that I think we can agree to, and thatÓs to close the public hearing portion of this agenda item. KUBOTA:Yes, I so move. SPRINGER:Thank you. MCCALL:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you. Moved and seconded by Commissioners Kubota and McCall to close the public hearing portion of this agenda item. Is there any discussion, Commissioners? Hearing none, all those in favor of closing the public hearing portion of this agenda item indicate so by saying aye? COMMISSIONERS:Aye. SPRINGER:Any opposed? Thank you. WeÓre now back to the hard work of crafting a motion on this agenda item. KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Am I on? YUEN:YouÓre on. SPRINGER:Madam Chair, I move that Special Management Area Use Permit application, SMA 03-005, be approved by this Commission, along, canÓt say along with the Findings now, be approved. SPRINGER:Is there a second? SMITH:Second. 15 SPRINGER:Moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve this Special Management Area, the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 03-005. And, Commissioners, youÓre then working off of the ApplicantÓs proposed findings? KUBOTA:For a lack of any other, yes. SPRINGER:This is a discussion period that weÓre in now. Director Yuen, do you have any guidance for us, given this motion before us now? YUEN:The Commission does have to make findings and have conditions. Because we service, although my recommendation was for a deferra Commission and looking ahead to the possibility that the Commission would want to take a vote on the merits, we do have a set of findings and conditions that we prepared. TheyÓre essentially the same as Mr. FukeÓs, except that the findings, the discussion and the findings are, tone down some of the positive things he says about his project. TheyÓre in neutral language, thatÓs not important. Then the conditions are essentially the same except that his incorporate, the conditions are the same, I think, except that his incorporate 400 and that we have the 200. And, again, this is not our recommendation. But if the Commission wants to take a vote on essentially what the Applicant has proposed, we would suggest that the Commission use this set of findings and conditions, except that the Commission should, and the mover, should make it specific whether they are moving for 200 or 400 on the number of rooms. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Yes, IÓd like to speak to my motion. The zoning has to be approved by the Council yet. If the Council sees in its wisdom to limit that hotel occupancy, then they will change it there. And, so, the conceptual plans call for, I think, two hotels, two or three hotels. And if the Council wishes to lop it off, well, they will do so; and our SMA will have to follow suit. Until then it has no value or, yes, it has no value at this time. And the Applicants are willing to take that chance and come back in for an amendment if necessary, so I would stick to my original motion of following -. If theyÓre essentially the same as Mr. Yuen said, I would stick with the ApplicantÓs proposal. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any further discussion or comment on this matter? OÓTOOLE:To clarify, then, youÓre taking Mr. FukeÓs findings and his suggested conditions? KUBOTA:On the condition that Mr. Yuen said theyÓre essentially the same except for Condition E, 400 versus 200. OÓTOOLE:And then I think Mr. Fuke said to, he would agree to include Condition K from the Change of Zone. FUKE:ThatÓs correct. 16 KUBOTA:Yeah. So, therefore, everything else goes with the Applicant and everything else is the same, I understand. I havenÓt seen the CountyÓs so I canÓt speak to it. But the word of the Planning Director is that theyÓre essentially the same except for the numbers involved in the hotel rooms. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any further discussion? Hearing none, can we have the roll call vote. HAYASHI:Thank you. Madam Chair, just for clarification then, the motion is to approve as, with the findings submitted by the Applicant and the amended by the Applicant? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:With that, IÓll take the roll call vote. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Excuse me, I just see in my hands the County Planning Commission Findings and Decision. I havenÓt had a chance to look at this yet, but I will -. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota, would you like to take a brief recess to compare the two? KUBOTA:Well, no, IÓm too tired to go through this line-by-line. I will take the DirectorÓs word that it is essentially the same and -. WhereÓs the Condition E? LetÓs look at Condition E. Find Condition E for me, staff, where is it, where it speaks to the number of rooms. FUKE:ThatÓll be Condition 6 in the DirectorÓs recommendation. KUBOTA:Condition No. 6 you say, No. 6. HAYASHI:ItÓs on page 13. KUBOTA:Okay, okay, on page 13. I will just change that to 400 transient accommodation rooms. OÓTOOLE:It says 200. KUBOTA:No, IÓm changing it to 400. OÓTOOLE:Well, the motion is on the floor to adopt the ApplicantÓs Findings - KUBOTA:Oh, okay. OÓTOOLE:So thereÓs no need to amend the DirectorÓs Findings. 17 KUBOTA:Okay. I will stay by my first motion. IÓm getting confu you, Pat. The effect at the end is exactly the same. SPRINGER:And just the last comment, while coming into this meeting with an open mind, and being mindful of the Planning DirectorÓs previous recommendations, and having not been available to vote in the last time that we heard this matter, IÓve been very impressed and thankful for Commissioner GrahamÓs assessment and critique of the application before us. And in keeping with our previous discussion, being consistent with those concerns that we raised over infrastructure and carrying capacities of Kona roadways and applicant-driven planning, IÓll be voting against the motion. KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Yes. Going back to the discussion that you just referred to the previous infrastructure dilemma that we were faced with, I feel that this particular one is a little bit different. Because in the previous one there was no other alternative, there was nothing planned to improve the roadway or the traffic pattern; and in this particular one weÓre talking about the possibility. IÓm not saying itÓs going to happen. But at least they have a plan to expand, what is it, Queen Kaahumanu, okay. And there are plans being made with assessments planned. And I feel itÓs a little bit different from the one that we talked about earlier, so I will be voting for this. SPRINGER:Thank you. Other Commissioners? Okay, hearing none, N HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. HAYASHI:And Chair Springer? 18 SPRINGER:No. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, there are three aye votes and three no vote not pass. SPRINGER:Thank you. And this will be carried, these proceedings will go forward, is that correct, or the SMA rests here? YUEN:Can I explain? For the benefit of the Commission and for the Applicant and the public, what happens, there is a specific rule in the SMA Rule, Rule 9, on what happens if there is a vote of less than five in favor. ItÓs a denial. But the Applicant has the opportunity to bring it up for a re-vote at the next meeting in that there are not five to -. We could take a, I suppose perhaps the proper thing to do is to take a vote on the motion to deny. Did we have a motion to deny? SPRINGER:No. YUEN:No, we did not. But assuming that that is the vote, that itÓs three to three on the motion for denial, then the Applicant can ask to have the matter re-voted on by the Planning Commission at the next meeting. I believe that would, I believe we cannot make, actually, the next meeting, I believe it would have to be the next Kona meeting; and it gets voted on again at that time. If the Applicant does not receive five votes at that time, then it is a denial. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, youÓll be informed. FUKE:I understand, correct, thank you very much. SPRINGER:YouÓre welcome. The discussion ended at 6:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 19