Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-04 TLEHUALANI PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT December 4, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the applications of LEHUA LANI, LLC (REZ 03-025/SMA 03-015) was called to order at 11:16 a.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Koa Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, HawaiÒi, wi Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: William Graham Earl Fujikawa Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Pat OÓToole, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: LEHUA LANI, LLC (REZ 03-025/SMA 03-015) a.Change of Zone for 10.1 acres from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Single Family Residential Î 7,500 square foot (RS-7.5) district. b.Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a single family residential house and lot subdivision and related improvements. The property is located along the east (mauka) side of Alii Drive, between the Alii Lani Condominium and the Alli Garden Marketplace and across from the nd and Kona Riviera Villas condominium complexes, Puapuaa 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-20:71 & 72. GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 2 under New Business. The applicant is Lehua Lani, LLC. (REZ 03-025/SMA 03- a.Change of Zone for 10.1 acres from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Single Family Residential Î 7,500 square foot (RS-7.5) district. b.Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a single family residential house and lot subdivision and related improvements. Norman? 1 HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, to the location map on the subject property is located in this red dot situated along Alii Drive. This is the proposed Alii Highway or also referred to the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway. The Alii Condominiums is located at this particular location. ItÓs indicated in this brown-shaded area. And as the Chair had indicated, the applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agriculture to Urban, excuse me, from, I here. The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural-5 acre to Single- Family Residential Î 7,500 square feet and also an SMA Use Permi development of a 58-house and lot package. Referring to the site map, this would be the general configuration of the proposed subdivision with access off of Alii Drive. There will be no acc proposed Kahului to Keauhou Parkway. The lots are proposed to be between 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in size and some of the setbacks would be less than the minimum requirement of 15 feet front and rear, and 8 feet on the sides. For this reason the applicant, should this request be approved, the applicant will be submitting a Planned Unit Development which would be processed administratively. The estimated value of this particular project is $15,000,000 and it will take about two years for a complete buildout of the project. The Director is recommending approval of the zone change from Agricultural - 5 acre to RS-7.5, as well as recommending approval of the special management area use permit to allow the development of the 58-unit house and lot package with the proposed conditions. Are there any questions at this time? GALDONES:Commissioners, are there any questions? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman -? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:On page 1 you refer to Planned Unit Development process, What is that? Please explain. HAYASHI:Yeah, basically, itÓs an overall development concept where the minimum lot size would be two acres. In order to apply for a PUD, you would need a minimum lot size of two acres; and that particular process would be done administratively. Through that process, youÓll provide some open space, and you can also request -. The design of the subdivision would allow you to come in for variances for setback, height, lot size. So this is why the applicant would be coming in for a planned unit development. Their proposal is to create, although the minimum lot size, should this rezoning be approved, although the minimum lot size would be 7,500 square feet, they are proposing 4,000 to 6,000 square foot sized lots. TheyÓre also requesting lesser setbacks than what would be required under the RS-7.5 zoning. So this would be an overall design concept which would allow for the lesser setbacks as well as, in this particular case, the smaller lot sizes. 2 KUBOTA:May I continue? GALDONES:Yes. KUBOTA:In essence, what it ends up with is creating a higher density within that particular -? HAYASHI:No -. KUBOTA:No? HAYASHI:The density would still remain the same of that if it were within the, say if the density of this particular area was for, well, 58 lots, then thatÓs all they could go to. They could not exceed that particular density. KUBOTA:Okay. Okay. HAYASHI:So basically what theyÓre asking for deviation from, for instance, in this particular case, would be the size of the lot, and the setback requirements, and, perhaps, also the roadway requirements. KUBOTA:Then youÓre not saying theyÓre going to carve out that particular rectangular shaped thing into 58 equal lots? Some are going to be large than 7.5 square feet? HAYASHI:It could be. Basically what the applicant at this time is saying that, yeah, what the applicant is saying that -. KUBOTA:Oh, square feet? HAYASHI:Yeah. What the applicant is saying that they would like to be able to provide for lots that are 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in size; but that doesnÓt necessarily restrict them from creating some of the lots which are 7,500 square feet or even greater than that. GALDONES:Norman, so the restriction would be on the number of lots that they can provide? HAYASHI:Yeah. The zoning would dictate the number of lots that allowed under this particular, for this particular property. So if, as I said, if the zoning says that density would calculate to the maximum of 58 lots, thatÓs the amount of lots they would be allowed to do, maximum. They cannot go more than GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. 3 KUBOTA:I guess this sounds pretty stupid but why, if they are going to, on their request they are requesting single family housing, 58 single family residential, 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. TheyÓre going to -. If theyÓre going to request that, it seems to me that they want all of those to be either the lots, 58 lots, to be either between 4,000 and 6,500. Okay? Why donÓt they come in for, what is it, a zone change that calls for single family residential 4,000 to 6,000 square feet rather than 7.5? HAYASHI:Yeah, the reason for that is, first of all, our Zoning C allow you to come in for lot sizes, to get a zoning which is less than 7,500 square feet. KUBOTA:Okay. Okay, okay. HAYASHI:But the Zoning Code also allows you a process in which y get variances from this requirement. And since youÓre in for a number of variances, in this particular case would be for the lot size, the setback and possibly for some of the roadway requirements to get lesser standards, this is why the ap would be coming in for a planned unit development. And that would also allow the developer to also provide for, you know, some open spaces. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Norman, IÓm looking at page 11 of the Background Report. After the second bullet, there is a reference to the Civil Defense which noted that any additional development along Alii Drive without a corresponding mauka/makai access route will have an adverse effect on traffic in the event of an emergency evacuation, further tsunami evacuation zone. How is that addressed in the permit or the conditions? HAYASHI:None of those are addressed in the conditions or, the change of zone conditions or the permit conditions. But we are looking at from Queen Kaahumanu Highway, as well as from Kuakini Highway to Alii Drive. One of them would be the Lako Street extension. SPRINGER:And just, is there a time frame for that, while weÓre looking at it? HAYASHI:I donÓt know what the time frame is. SPRINGER:Thank you. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. 4 KUBOTA:Mr. Hayashi, you know, this morning we received some mail from the department agencies; and one of which was from the Department of Land and Natural Resources; and they speak specifically to the burial sites that were found -. And the final recommendation by that agency is that we need take no action on this subject application until the final archaeological inventory report has been approved and all mitigation measures are agreed upon. And I know in our Condition No. 11 it speaks to the treatment of the found sites. Have mitigation measures been agreed to by all parties? HAYASHI:You know, unfortunately, the comments from the Department of Land and Natural Resources came after the, we had completed our project -. KUBOTA:I see, I see. HAYASHI:And we had sent these recommendations out to you prior to the DLNR comments coming to us. But I think we have addressed those in conditions of approval where there would be -. KUBOTA:In number 11? HAYASHI:Yes, in Condition No. 11 of the SMA appli -. KUBOTA:You feel that it is covered and bound so that we can go on and process this application? HAYASHI:Yes. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Any further questions of Norman? If none, could we have the applicant or its representative please come forward. Mr. Fuke you have already been sworn in and you still are under oath. Have you received a copy of the Background Report and the Recommendations? And can we have your comments, like you to address the Conditions D and H and V amendments. FUKE:Okay, sure. Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, my name i Sidney Fuke and IÓm a planning consultant. IÓm here representing the applicant. The applicant Lehua Lani, LLC is actually two individuals from Ancorage, Alaska who are not here today. But we do have their local representative, her name is Carrie Nickelson. SheÓs in the audience. We also have Bruce Witcher who did the traffic analysis, as well as the specific engineering report. So if there are technical questions relating to either the roadway system or the drainage system, then he would be available for that discussion. Before going on, however, Mr. Chairman, IÓd like to initially express my appreciation to the Planning Director for, in this application, providing both recommendations to the 5 Commission. ÒCause you will notice that this is a rezoning as well an SMA application; and IÓm appreciative of that fact. To answer some of the questions that were raised by the Commissioners, you know, specifically in relation to the PUD issue, the zone change, as the staff had indicated, it provides you with, if itÓs approved, gives you like the maximum density that can be allowed on the property. So with the requested RS-7.5 zone, then the maximum number of units that would be possible mathematically on the property would be 58 units. As the staff had indicated, there is no category thatÓs like an RS-4 or RS-3 or whatever. The smallest denomination for the single family residential designation category is RS-7.5. The PUD as distinguished from like a variance, if you normally w typical variance, maybe like a setback, or like a height, or a lot size, or whatever have you, you have to prove that there is sufficient hardship. And so just want to have, you know, more park space, or narrow roads to create a different kind of ambiance or character of the project, then they donÓt really fit in the category of like what they call hardship. And so the way the Zoning Code was structured it provides for this Planned Unit Development Permit which allows for all of the standard Code, but you look at the project purely from a design perspective. And thatÓs what, and thatÓs the difference between like a standard variance and the Planned Unit Development, or the PUD. The only difference, like in this particular situation, is if you apply for the PUD you cannot have a use thatÓs not otherwise allowed. For example, what weÓre proposing, you know, based on the RS-7.5 zone, all of the homes have to be single family residential units. They cannot be duplexes, they cannot be triplexes, or fourplexes, or whatever the case might be, even though your maximum number of units would not exceed 58. You know, they all have to be single family in design and in use. And thatÓs kind of like the major difference. The developer of this project was totally impressed with the way that Mauna Lani was developed, you know, in the Kailua-Kona area. And that project, and, so, you know, he contracted the same designer of that. ItÓs Michael Reihm. And that project was, you know, is heavily oriented towards a very pedestrian oriented, more street friendly and, as a result as, what the staff pointed out, what, the requested application ultimately that has to go to the Planning Director for consideration is, would be lesser road standards, narrow, smaller lots, so on and so forth. But you want to create a more open type of feeling. The area thatÓs identified as a burial will be physically preserved and incorporated as part of the open space landscaping. There are other open space areas, particularly adjacent to the planned parkway on the mauka side of the property, that would provide some measure of visual as well as noise buffer. I think Commissioner Springer raised a very good point in terms of like the Civil Defense comment. And to that the Department had, you know, accurately reflected, addressed 6 that concern, as the staff had indicated. Two, I think there are two conditions. Specifically, you know, in addition to like, you know, thereÓs like this, ultimately along the Alii Drive area the County is increasingly looking at more mauka/makai kind of connections. But like as it relates to this particular property, there is a provision in Condition H of the proposed zone change which allows for the emergency vehicle egress, you know, a breakaway gate, you know, to allow for this project as well as others in that area in the event there is an emergency to get through this property and get into the highway, the Alii Parkway. ThereÓs also Condition S which requires that the applicant shall purchase and install an emergency outdoor warning siren acceptable to the County Civil Defense, and an Emergency Response Plan will all, you know, shall also be submitted for the Civil Defense approval. And so, you know, there are ways that the pro you know, some of the concerns raised by the Civil Defense. The proposed amendment thatÓs requested, maybe itÓs not really like an amendment but maybe more clarification -. And so if the staff can clarify it, then, you know, understandably the amendment would not be requested. But one of the things that we looked at is, like was Condition D. And this project is not intended to be a gated community; and I believe that the 45-foot storage and turn-around area was put in largely on the basis that this would be like a gated community. So if the interpretation of existing condition D can be read to say that if itÓs going to be gated then this is what you have to do; and if itÓs going to be gated, then you know, you just comply with standard Department of Public Works requirements, then there would be no need to amend Condition D. On Condition H relating to the parkway and the setting aside of additional right-of-way, the language right now does not specifically say when the County will determine when this additional right-of-way is needed. And so what, from the developerÓs standing they got a little bit concerned. Because say if, you know, your project is already completed and then, you know, five years from now then the County says lik figured out like we need additional land, then itÓs going to be hard for them to make these kind of adjustments. So what weÓre asking here is that realistically to give the Department of Public Works maybe three months or, what did we say, three months, you know, like from the time that the zone change is approved to say, okay, do you want it or donÓt you want it, and if so how many feet; and then we can kind of plan around that. And, lastly, on Condition V, V as in Victor, I think itÓs normally standard that whenever there are additional rights-of-way that are conveyed and improvements within the additional rights-of-way that are conveyed to the County then appropriate credit be given pursuant to the impact fee formula. So I really, like these are not really major substantive changes but they deal more with clarification as well as, yeah, more really clarification. 7 GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, before I open it up for questions, can you al the letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources? FUKE:Oh, sure. You noticed that the letter said that, you know, a draft, the preliminary environmental, excuse, preliminary, see, IÓm back on the other application. The draft archaeological inventory survey plan was already prepared; and it was submitted to the State. They provided the review. Some add then sent back to the State, you know, for their review and approval. I believe like the way that your staff had written the condition is, you know, there is adequate protection. Because before any construction or land development related perm grading or grubbing or subdivision review and approval, you have to have like an approved archaeological inventory plan which then leads to the next step, which is to have like an approved burial treatment plan. And only after all of those things are in place, then can you have land disturbance activity occur on the GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioners, are there any questions of Mr. Fuke? Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Yes. I have a question. Mr. Fuke, about, itÓs not a question but I want some input on this. It has to do with the traffic study, TIAR. ItÓs on the page 8 of the Background Report. You know, it says the levels of service scale thatÓs used is A, B, C, D, E and F. And on some of the studies I notice that we go up to C and as far as E and, oh, D and E. You know, thatÓs at the higher scale of the LOS scale as established. And yet there are no mitigating, what is it, it says that it will not be significantly impacted by this development, thatÓs the findings, thatÓs the conclusion; and there are no mitigating, what am I trying to say, help me -. GALDONES:Conditions. KUBOTA:Conditions that are set up. FUKE:True. The level of -. KUBOTA:Discuss that with me. FUKE:Okay. Mr. Witcher is over here but IÓll try as best as a, from a lay perspective or like a non-engineering perspective to share what I understand. I donÓt know what the difference between E or F, except that I know that if youÓre in normal grading situation, my wife is a school teacher, an F is like, you know, youÓre failing. KUBOTA:ThatÓs right. FUKE:Yeah. KUBOTA:This one also. 8 FUKE:But I donÓt know whatÓs the difference between an E and an because thereÓs no grade for E. But, anyway, like not withstanding that terminology the discussion for level of services usually deal like with the intersections, at the various intersection, and not this particular area. The proposed mitiga recommended, which the applicant has accepted, is as it relates to this project site. The proposed mitigation in this area here would be the extension of the third lane, what we, I guess, maybe jokingly call like a suicide lane, but it basically allows for both mauka and makai type of turning lanes. Because there is a lane right now which, that exists in that area but stops short of this property. So what the staff is recommending, which the applicant has agreed to, is to have it extended through the length of this intersection so as not to interfere or slow down traffic movements, making mauka or makai movements. Now if you want Mr. Witcher to answer the difference between an E and an F, then heÓs here. KUBOTA:Well, see, this one, this one says -. May I continue, Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:You may. KUBOTA:The report says that, it doesnÓt talk about the intersections specifically as I read it, oh, it does, no, okay, okay. The following -. I understand. It does speak to the intersection. It speaks to the Lunapule Road and itÓs -. Whether E for the p.m., and IÓm kind of concerned that E is very close to F, y impact is not there is what the report seems to say to me. And I just kind of wondered if itÓs close to the highest point then there must be some impact that is there, and some mitigating factors need to be addressed. GALDONES:May I swear you in before you testify, sir. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? WITCHER:I do. GALDONES:Could you speak into the microphone -. WITCHER:I do. GALDONES:So we can have you recorded. Could you state your name your residence address. WITCHER:Bruce Witcher. I live at 75-5489D Mamalahoa Highway in Holualoa. GALDONES;YouÓve heard the discussion that is on-going and there seems to be the question regarding the traffic impact. If you could address that, please. 9 WITCHER:Well, the difference between E and F is bad to worse is what it is. ThatÓs the way you describe it. You have a situation that youÓre talking about on Lunapule at the intersection, the turning movement that has the E or F is on Lunapule, as opposed to Alii Drive. ItÓs getting onto Alii Drive as opposed to through traffic on Alii Drive. FUKE:SheÓs referring, correct me if IÓm wrong, I think the reference is like if youÓre on Lunapule trying to make a left- turn on Alii Drive, thatÓs where your Level of Service is E or F. WITCHER:In other words, itÓs going to take you a while to get on you find a break in the traffic. GALDONES:Mr. Witcher, do you have any mitigating measures that can be taken to alleviate that and reduce it from F to a lower level? WITCHER:Well, the situation for most part already exists; and th would be put in a light or something there at that intersection, if a warrant study is done. But it wasnÓt part of this project to do mitigation measures abo away. FUKE:I think that, Commissioner Kubota, if I can direct your attention to the, you know, the applicantÓs report. And, you know, on Figure 2 where it shows like where the subject site, it shows that property in relation to like Lunapule Road and Royal Poinciana Drive, which are the two closest intersections, you know, to the subject property, but -. And in this situation Lunapule Road, as Mr. Witcher had indicated, is approximately about a mile -? WITCHER:Yeah, about a mile, mile and a half. FUKE:Yeah, north of the project area. So itÓs not like itÓs right next door. GALDONES:Any further questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Kubota, does it address your concerns? KUBOTA:No. Traffic is never something that I feel comfortable wi Commissioner Springer brought out earlier today. And hereÓs another case where weÓre adding on to more traffic but I donÓt see any solution for it, other than to place a moratorium on all developments; and that, of course, is not realistic planning. So -. GALDONES:Any further questions or comments? If none, I do not have a list of people who have signed up to testify. Did I miss anybody? If none -? HAYASHI: Mr. Chair? 10 GALDONES:Norman. HAYASHI:We do want to make one addition to the proposed conditio that would be both for the change of zone and the SMA Use Permit regard to a hook up to the County sewer system; and, if I may, just read the proposed condition. For the SMA this would be new Condition 7, and all others would be renumbered accordingly. And the condition would state that, ÐThe proposed subdivision shall connect to the County sewer system.Ñ And for change of zone application, this would be a new Condition K, and all the remaining conditions would be realphabetized accordingly. And, again, this would be the same condition; and it would read, ÐThe proposed subdivision shall connect to the County sewer system.Ñ GALDONES:Norman, in reference to the proposed amendments to Cond D, H and V, does the Department have any comments to those? HAYASHI:I havenÓt had the chance to really look, review those conditions so, unless the Director had an opportunity to do so. YUEN:No problem with the 30-foot gate. I think we can put the clarification on the record. I think it is written in a way that it only refers to if the subdivision is gated. If, I donÓt, I can put that on the record. I donÓt think itÓs necessary to change the wording. This is so that if they put in a gate, that the cars stopping at the gate donÓt stick out into the traffic and cause a problem. And, also, that thereÓs a place for people to turn around if they mistakenly find themselves facing, turning off the highway and facing a gate. V, the amendment to V relating to that credit can be given for donations of the right-of- way, I have no problem with that. I would ask Ki about time frame, in the course of he time frame for determining whether additional right-of-way is needed for Alii Parkway; and can we give a time frame. GALDONES:Mr. Emler? EMLER:I believe the applicant asked for three months. I would probably rather go six; but I know that weÓve already, weÓve received the final map on the additional right-of-way we need already from the consultant of Alii Highway. So I donÓt think itÓs a problem. I just wanted a little more leeway. FUKE:Part of the thing, too, is like you know, the applicant, you know, would be three months from the time that the zone change is approved. And if it goes through the normal course of thing, I think the zone change would probably, you know, you would have like about two more months from now. So defacto you would have like about five months. 11 EMLER:Well, IÓm 99 percent certain that the right-of-way has been determined at this point. FUKE:So shall we say like four months then? EMLER:IÓll live with four months. GALDONES:So Condition H would be amended to four months, Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Correct. GALDONES:Good negotiation skills. Commissioners, any further questions? Norman, any further comme HAYASHI:No further comments. YUEN:Can I just add that the amendment to V should say that, letÓs see here, it says that the fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities Î no, I donÓt think an amendment to that is necessary because it says that you terms of in cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof. FUKE:So if -. YUEN:So. FUKE:If you feel like itÓs redundant, like in the first condition, then you know, we would have no objection. YUEN:I think itÓs included. I think the possibility that the donation could be counted toward their road impact fee or fair share fee is contained within that present wording. WeÓve done that with this kind of wording in the past. FUKE:Okay. ThatÓs fine. GALDONES:So, Mr. Fuke, as I understand it, then Condition D, you Condition D and Condition V are hereby withdrawn? FUKE:Correct. And the only change would be on Condition H which from three months to four months. GALDONES:Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any further questions? Mr. Emler? 12 EMLER:I would like to ask a question of the Corporation Counsel, whether this condition limits us to ever being able to take additional right-of-way. OÓTOOLE:Which condition? EMLER:ItÓs the revised Condition H. KUBOTA:H. OÓTOOLE:YouÓre asking whether the County could ever ask for addi right-of-ways for the Kahului to Keauhou Parkwway? EMLER:Whether through condemnation procedure or other. OÓTOOLE:Well, certainly not. This canÓt limit our condemnation p EMLER:Thank you. GALDONES:Any further questions or discussions? Again, is there anybody from the public here to testify on this subject matter now before us? If not, Mr. Fuke, any closing comments? FUKE:No, thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, having no further speakers, motion in order to close this public hearing. KUBOTA:I so move, Mr. Chair. SPRINGER:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Springer that we close the public hearing on this matter. Discussion? All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS:Aye. GALDONES:Oppose nay? Motion carried. Commissioners, there are two issues that we are dealing with. One is the change of zoning and the other is for a special management area use permit. There have been some discussions about amendments made to both applications. WhatÓs the pleasure of the body? It comes with a favorable recommendation to be forwarded to the County Council. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? GALDO NES:Commissioner Kubota. 13 KUBOTA:I move that a favorable recommendation for a change of zone request be forwarded to the County Council, REZ 03-025, along with the findings and recommendations made by the Planning Department with a couple of conditions, namely, no, more than a couple. Namely, first, we start with H, we put a time line in, as requested by the applicant. And that I donÓt have the verbiage for it but the gist of it is that the Public Works will make their request within fo of, zoning change is, change of zone request is accepted. There was an addition of a new K which has to do with a sewer system connection, a County connection, connection to the County sewage system, and all subsequent, wait, one more, no that was it, and all subsequent conditions -. GALDONES:Be renumbered? KUBOTA:Be renumbered. Sorry about that. FUJIKAWA:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota applicant Lehua Lani, LLC, change of zone application (REZ 03-025) be given a favorable recommendation and forwarded to the County Council, along with the findings of facts and the recommendations, and amendment to Condition H, and also adding o Condition K, and the subsequent conditions be renumbered. It was seconded by Commissioner Fujikawa. Discussion? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:While it seems on these applications that I have a standing reservation with regard to traffic issues and while indeed Alii Drive is congested, we donÓt have the high speed that seems to result in some of the gridlocking on Queen Kaahumanu Highway. So although I have reservations, I speak in favor of the motion. GALDONES:Thank you, Commissioner Springer. Further discussion, Commissioners? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? 14 MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Commissioners, special management a use permit application, this comes with a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission and there has been an amendment, a new No. 7 in reference to connecting to the sewer system proposal. The wishes of the Commissioners? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:I move the special management area use permit (SMA 03-015 approved, along with the findings and recommendations made by the Planning Department, with one addition to Condition No. 7, I think it was -. GALDONES:Yes. KUBOTA:Regarding the connection to the County sewer system, and all subsequent conditions be renumbered. FUJIKAWA:Second. 15 GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Fujikawa Lehua Lani, LLCÓs special management area (SMA 03-015) be given an approval, along with the findings and recommendations, and the amendment by adding a new Condition No. 7 referencing connection to the County sewer system, and the subsequent conditions be renumbered. Commissioners, discussion? Hearing none, Norman. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Mr. Fuke, you will be informed in todayÓs actions. FUKE:Thank you very much. 16 GALDONES:Thank you. The discussion ended at 12:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 17