Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-19 Leeward Exh A - 327 Kona LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 19, 2011 327 KONA LLC (REZ 11-135) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:36 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Vice Chair Lani Bowman presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lani Bowman, Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Wayne Iokepa, Richard Nelson and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Geraldine Giffin STAFF PRESENT: Julie Mecklenburg (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Roz Newlon (Staff Planner) And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: 327 KONA LLC (REZ 11-135) Application for a Change of Zone from Agricultural-5 acres (A-5a) and Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a) to Family Agricultural-1 acre (FA-1a) for approximately 12.17 acres of land. The subject property is located adjacent to and south of Kona Heavens-Unit I subdivision and immediately makai (west) of Kona View Estates-Phase I subdivision, and situated at the southern end of Halolani Street, st Honokōhau 1, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-4-026: 033. BOWMAN: The first item on the agenda is the applicant, 327 Kona LLC, rezoning 11-135, application for a change of zone from Agricultural-5 acres and Agricultural-1 acre to Family Ag-1 acre for approximately 12.17 acres of land. Do we have the staff presentation? NEWLON: Yes, thank you. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. NEWLON: If I may direct your attention to the presentation on the wall. This morning our first application is from 327 Kona, LLC. They are requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 5-acres and Agricultural 1-acre to Family Agricultural 1-acre for approximately 12.17 acres to accommodate a proposed ten-lot subdivision with lots a minimum of one acre in size. The area of this application is within the North Kona district near the Palani junction. Māmalahoa Highway is situated along the right side of this map with Hina Lani running in a mauka-makai direction. Here is Hina Lani right here. Here is the project area. Halolani Street comes off of Hina Lani Street and provides the primary access to the subject property. The affected parcel, outlined in black, is at the south end of Halolani Street. The colors on the map represent the different zonings for the area. The darker green is identified as Agricultural-1 acre zoning. The lighter green, which also is the zoning for the subject parcel, is identified as Agricultural 5-acre. There is a small portion of the subject property zoned Agricultural 1-acre, which is in the bottom portion, the southeast 1 EXHIBIT A portion of the property, just a small sliver. Their surrounding subdivisions include Kona Heavens, which is just to the north, just adjacent right here, and then Kona View Estates, which is right here. The next slide depicts the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designation for the area. The subject property is outlined in black and is situated within the crosshatched area identified as Urban Expansion Area by the General Plan. The yellow area adjacent to the north is designated for Low Density Urban uses. This is an aerial photograph of the subject parcel, which is now outlined in red. This is an old photograph; there is now a subdivision. The applicant is requesting to subdivide to ten lots, approximately one acre, twelve (sic) one-acre lots. This is the proposed layout, with Halolani Street shown to the left, this plan actually go, it’s on the side, so Halolani is on the left. This is Halolani Street extension and this is the new road – this is a road that cuts right through the parcel right now, Waiha Loop that comes through. This slide was taken at the entrance from Halolani Street. This is inside the subdivision, looking at from Halolani Street extension. This is the Official Concurrency Map from the Kona Community Development Plan, which identifies the property as situated within the Kona Urban Area, which is the red outlined area on the map. According to Transportation Policy 6-1, the Kona Urban Area, which includes the subject property, has been designated as a critical road area, as defined in the Zoning Code, whereby rezonings shall comply with the Official Concurrency Map, which identifies the road segments to be constructed concurrent with occupancy of units as the minimum area mitigation. According to the Concurrency Table, the project is within Zone H, which identifies the segments of Kealaka’a Street that need to be constructed concurrent with the occupancy of units as the minimum area mitigation. These two segments are identified as 9B, Kealaka’a Street, which is from Hina Lani Street to Kealakehe Parkway, and Road 9C segment, which is Kealaka’a Street also, which is Kealakehe Parkway to Hao Kuni Street. H is right here and the two segments are right here, and this is Hina Lani Street over here. As of this time there is no completion dates scheduled for either of these segments. For the reasons stated, the project is inconsistent with the Land Use and Transportation policies in the Kona CDP, and the Planning Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation of this change of zone request. Do you have any questions for staff? BOWMAN: Any questions for the staff? No? Would the applicant or representative please come forward? Thank you. FUKE: Good morning. BOWMAN: Good morning. Could you please raise your right hand? FUKE: Sure. BOWMAN: Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. 2 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: Thank you. Would you state your name and address? FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i. With me this morning are the applicants, Mr. Tom Smith and Arturo Litwak, who both flew in from the mainland a few days ago for this hearing. They are part of the group called 327 Kona LLC. Just by way of background, the reason why 327 Kona LLC was formed, I mean, you know, they purchased 327 acres of land, and that’s the reason why it’s 327 LLC. The subject area is a portion of this 327 acres. Now, we’ve had a chance to review the staff’s background report and the Director’s proposed recommendation. We have absolutely no problem with the background report because, you know, it’s very accurate. We do, of course, differ with the Director’s recommendation. We do understand the Director’s position, you know, in light of the Kona Community Development Plan. And if the Commission would indulge me, I’d like to go over a presentation that, you know, with the kindness of your staff; they enabled me to have whatever I was going to present on your PowerPoint just to make it easier for the presentation purposes. So, okay, the Planning Department’s -. Oh, it’s yours. Nope. Where are mine? Okay, here is where we begin. The reasons for the denial recommendation: If you read the staff’s background report, it said it was not because of the General Plan Land Use Map, you know, because it’s within the General Plan Urban Expansion Area; and it was not because there is no water, because there is more than sufficient water commitment for the project; it was not because of any archaeological or other environmental constraints, because there is no archaeological impacts, you know, we did the study, everything was done; and it’s not within any floodway; it is not because they are not going to be providing any affordable housing or make their fair share contribution, because they are required as a condition of all zone change to comply with the County affordable housing requirements, and in addition to that, the fair share requirements. And the denial recommendation, if you read carefully, it’s also not citing any of community or public agency objections; neither the Police, Fire, you know, had, or Public Works Department, had any objections to the request. The question then is, why was, what motivated the Department to recommend denial? And the only reason they came up with was because of the Kona Community Development Plan in relative to the concurrency issue. Specifically, as the staff pointed out, it says that the Kealaka‘a Street extension, essentially between Palani Road and Hina Lani Street, must be completed before occupancy can occur. And at this point in time we all know that the timetable of its completion is unknown. And so, that essentially is the primary reason for the denial. This is the map of the Kona Urban Area reflected in the Kona Community Development Plan. And what I’ve tried to do is, this is the 327-acre property, and this area outlined in red is the so-called Kona Urban Area. And if you can see, you know, there is, a lot of urban area is being directed towards, you know, where we are sitting right now, you know, in the Kona Palisades, the Kona Acres area. And largely the thrust behind creating urban zones in this area is to minimize pressures for development for your better agricultural land, which would be outside of your Urban Area like, you know, Hōlualoa and Kealia and heading down South Kona. So, as the growth occurs in the North and South Kona area, there has to be a competition for this area. So the Plan, you know, reflective essentially of the General Plan basically saying that let us focus development in this area, which does not have very competitive agricultural resources. 3 EXHIBIT A This is a blow-up of the Kona Community Development Plan. Again, this is your Urban Area and this is the 327 acres parcel. This is Hina Lani Street. Then what I did was just taking an excerpt from the Kona Community Development Plan just to make it easier. And basically if you read down this section over here – sorry the yellow didn’t come out – but it’s basically, as the staff has stated, that you have this policy, and the policy states that “rezonings within the Kona Urban Area shall comply with the Official Concurrency Map, which identifies the road segments to be constructed concurrent with occupancy of units as a minimum area mitigation.” So it’s clear in the Kona Community Development Plan; it states that if you don’t have certain road improvements completed, then basically you can’t develop, you can’t have the zoning. And there is another policy, which also states – again, it’s kind of like faint up here – but basically in this section over here it also states that in addition to having certain basic infrastructure improvements be completed, one of the common threads was that the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway extension had to be completed before, I mean, the Highway extension up to the airport had to be completed before any occupancy can be provided. So in addition to that requirement, there was this concurrency requirement for certain improvements that had to be done. So then we come now to, you know, like I said, okay, what does the concurrency table say relative to this parcel? And again, this is the road map for the Kona Urban Area and this is the subject area. Again, this is the subject area. And the 327-acre area, as you notice, has two so-called concurrency zoned area: One is Zone H, which affects this particular area, the subject area, the proposed ten lots subdivision; the balance of the property on the lower side falls within the so-called Concurrency Zone G. So then you look at like, what does concurrency for H say, which is the subject area? And the concurrency says essentially that Kealaka‘a Street has to be completed from essentially Palani Road to Hina Lani Street. And so again, I’m just kind of pointing out these things largely just to indicate that there is no question from the Planning Director’s standpoint in reading the Community Development Plan, and we agree, just the way the language is written, it’s saying that if the Kealaka‘a Street extension is not completed, then no rezoning, you know, within that area can occur. Then there is another provision in the Kona Community Development Plan, which talks about – again, it’s very, I’m sorry, it’s kind of faint – but it says this priority road improvements, and in that priority road improvements, it basically states that these are all of your road proprieties, and the first one is the completion of the Kahului-Keauhou Parkway, and if you look at where the Kealaka‘a Street extension is, it’s almost near the bottom. So this Plan kind of forces administrators in terms of trying to implement all of the roadway improvements called for in the Plan according to this level of priorities. And then there is another provision, it says over here, like, how do you accomplish the realization of all of these roadway improvements? It says, well, you develop a financing plan for streets according to the priorities listed over here, and that responsibility falls with the Planning Department, the Department of Public Works and the Finance Department. This is kind of like a blow-up of the entire 327 acres. This is the area that the proposed ten lots subdivision is– and again, it’s kind of faint – but this is the proposed Kealakehe Highway extension, I mean if you extend this road, it goes up and basically it would be going through a portion of the applicant’s property. And this is the so-called Kealaka‘a Street extension, the north-south extension. 4 EXHIBIT A The reason why I kind of like provided all that background with the Commission is that to basically concede that, yes, you know, the Director’s recommendation is what it is, because she has an obligation to look at what the Community Development Plan says and provide its interpretation, and it’s an interpretation that unfortunately we concur. But we don’t necessarily agree with the Plan. And this is what we are trying to say that if this policy is continued, you know, adding for an item not necessarily only for this application, what happens is that you have de facto moratorium on rezoning for not only this but almost all area within the Kona Urban Area, because no single landowner can develop the called-upon road improvements, you know, listed in the Plan. These improvements, they cross many properties, which are out of the control of a single landowner, and the completion of these required improvements are regional and not local in nature and cost prohibitive for any single development. It also creates an incentive for landowners to develop outside of the Kona Urban Area, mostly in the agricultural or rural areas, to escape the major road improvement requirement. If you remember, like this concurrency requirement applies only if you fall under Urban Area; so if within the Urban Area, all of these roadways have to be in, what is does is like, I can’t make the improvements, and so what happens is, there is still a demand for lots, then the tendency is to look outside of the properties, outside of the Kona Urban Area, because it’s easier to develop, easier to rezone, because there is no concurrency requirement. Then the other thing is that, you know, it does not foster an incentive for landowners to participate in helping make the improvements, because the only option outlined in the CDP is all or nothing. This would result in the landowner not doing anything, or developing the property under the existing zoning, which in turn does nothing toward helping address the infrastructure shortfall. Like in this particular instance, the 327 acres, they are zoned 5 acres; so if they are coming in to create smaller lots based on what the urban plan is saying, the urban plan is that you want to create smaller lots to accommodate the added growth in this area, but if it comes at such a high price where no person can develop, then the alternative is to say, well, I’ll just develop based on the 5-acre zoning. And if you develop based on the 5-acre zoning, then you escape that requirement. And you have large lots, and the large-lots doesn’t help out the Plan, doesn’t really implement the Plan, because the Plan talks about trying to have smaller lots and not agricultural size lots in this area. Let’s talk about like, what has Kona 327 done to date? Over the last three years, what they have done is they’ve worked with the adjoining property owners – on one side of their property is, on the south side, it’s owned by Greenwell Lanihau, and on the north side, it’s owned by Stanford Carr Development. So they’ve worked with these two property owners, and then they’ve worked with the County to establish this Kealaka‘a Street corridor between Palani Road and Hina Lani Street. So that general corridor has been established. They’ve spent over $750,000. They’ve conducted archaeological survey not only of their site but also of the adjoining property to the north, the Stanford Carr development. They did the archaeological studies. They went before the Burial Council. They got the Burial Council’s approval, you know, this is only as it relates to the applicant’s property. They’ve done a topographic survey. They’ve done a flora and fauna study. They’ve completed a topo and archaeological survey also of Stanford Carr’s development. So over the last three years, this is what they’ve done, you know, trying to work with the County to establish this Kealaka‘a Street extension. Right now they have in their hands a draft of the right-of-way agreement that was provided by the County to say like, can we do this, can we use your land, can we do this to accomplish the Kealaka‘a Street extension. But it’s a question of like whether they will actually review and continue to execute that Kealaka‘a Street extension. In addition to, you know, working with the County and the adjoining property owners on the Kealaka‘a Street extension, what they’ve also done over the past three years, you know, they’ve also worked with the 5 EXHIBIT A State and the County in trying to have the Kealakehe Parkway extension, which is the extension of this road that eventually would take you up to either the Māmalahoa Highway or near the Palani Road junction, you know, because it goes through this property. So what does Kona 327 want to do? They say, like, well, if they had the druthers, they want to continue working with the County, continue working with the adjoining property owners, to help realize the implementation of the construction and the implementation of the Kealakehe Street extension, as well as the Kealaka‘a Street extension. But they need funds. They need some funds to help pay for the $750,000 that they dispensed to date and future efforts. And that’s one of the reasons why they are coming in with this ten-lot subdivision with the hope of generating some funds so that they can continue its effort, you know, in continuing to work with the County, the State and the adjoining property owners. The alternative, however, as I mentioned earlier, is just to subdivide into five-acre lots or larger, and then if that happens, then they basically walk away. And unfortunately, what happens under that basis is that you frustrate the long-term objective of being able to develop and implement, plan, develop and implement the Kealakehe Parkway extension, as well as the Kealaka‘a, because it goes through this property here. So the question now, I think, is like, you know, where do we go from here? The infrastructure, we all know, cannot be completed by government alone; there has to be private sector participation. The problem today is even greater because the government doesn’t have the money to make this kind of major improvements. The approach or premise of the Kona Community Development Plan is that no development until the infrastructure is completed without any consideration for how projects, whether they are small or large, can collectively or individually help address this infrastructure shortfall. The CDP basically has a sledgehammer way to approach infrastructure shortfall; it places entire burden on the private sector, delegating the government to the role of an accountant – basically just saying the roadways in, you are in, the roadways out, you are out, and then with no way to figure out like, well, how can we work collaboratively to get these much needed improvements done. So, all we are asking, I guess, is like, we know what the Director’s position is and she is obligated by law to uphold the Kona Community Development Plan; I guess we are here, we are asking the Commission, if you can understand some of the logic behind what we are trying to say here, you know, you are a little freer, if I can say the word, than the Planning Director, but I think the message, if you concur, you know, should be sent to decision makers, particularly the County Council, to let them know that these are some of the consequences, intended or otherwise, of the Kona Community Development Plan. I’m available for any questions. BOWMAN: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? BEAUDET: Let me ask one question. BOWMAN: Yes, Mr. Beaudet. BEAUDET: One question, Sidney. You are encouraging a collaborative effort between the private sector and the County in infrastructure development. Can you clarify again how 327 can contribute to that collaboration or the partnership? 6 EXHIBIT A FUKE: Okay, I think that right now the Planning Director’s hands are tied because just the way the CDP is written; the CDP is written to say that you either have this infrastructure in, or you are out, you know, you are in or out, and it doesn’t provide, there is no language in the CDP that says that, look, have the Planning Department or any agency work with the developer in trying to see whether they can accomplish the much needed infrastructure. If there were language to that extent, I can see, for example, like I would hopefully, you know, would want to have the Director come up with a favorable recommendation with conditions that require further collaboration between the applicant and the County in having the rights-of-way set aside for both the Kealaka‘a and the Kealakehe extensions, because once you get the right-of-way established, it’s merely a function of trying to find the funding, you know, for the improvements; but if you don’t have the land, it’s going to be very difficult to have the improvements completed. So the way the CDP is structured, it doesn’t give the landowner, you know, the reason to want to collaborate with government; it’s easier for them to just say I’ll just develop five-acre lots, don’t have to worry, don’t have to hustle, don’t have to worry about the affordable housing requirements, I don’t have to hustle with fair share requirements, I don’t have to worry about making this Kealaka‘a or Kealakehe Street extension, just do the five acres and get out. And so, when you look at it from a long-term standpoint, it doesn’t really do justice, you know, to what the Plan is really intended to do. The Plan, I think, the philosophy behind the Plan is not necessarily in terms of the concept or where do I want to have the land uses go; the philosophy lies in how it’s going to be implemented. And so, we are asking like whether that kind of message can be sent to the Council so that there would be an opportunity for greater collaboration between the private sector and government in fulfilling or achieving these objectives, and not simply say it’s in or out. BOWMAN: Any other questions? Planning Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I was just going to say that I’m having the same conversation with other property owners and not just the Kona CDP. But there are other people saying that because of the requirements and the inability to try and do like things incrementally, like, you know, I have somebody with a piece of property where a piece of a road would go through their property, and they are willing to build the piece of the road that goes through their property, but the next piece of property is not ready to go; but because I can’t get the whole thing built at one time to comply with the concurrency, I have to do a negative recommendation on the first property owner until the next one or until I can get money from the County to build the rest. I’m also having conversations with other property owners that are just saying that they will just go and subdivide to existing zoning, which means that the corridors that you are going to need for some of the infrastructure in various areas are not going to be there and you are also not going to have the -. The reality is is that in order to put some infrastructure in, you need to zone to a density that allows you to split the cost of the infrastructure over that density, and if you are just going to subdivide it five acres, then you are not going to get some of that infrastructure that you want. And so I think with the best of intentions a lot of the CDP’s had these requirements and these concurrency issues in them, but it really didn’t take into account financing. And if you look at the Kona CDP, the idea of the Kona CDP is that, oh, government is going to pay 100 percent for some of these roads, and so the developers will sit there and the landowners have to sit there and wait until the County can come in. But the problem is is that the estimate for the infrastructure for the Kona CDP is in the neighborhood of $800,000,000, and I just don’t think that the County is going to be really realistically taking the lead on that. We have paid for a financing plan, but a lot of that requires basically doing improvement districts and then that requires collaboration, and that means 7 EXHIBIT A you have to have multiple landowners willing to go and do the development at the same time. And the reality is, with property owners along the corridor of a highway, is that one property owner may be ready to go because he’s got his financing in place, but the other piece of property, the owners of that one are not ready to go, either because they don’t have the financing or they haven’t quite figured out what they want to do with their property. And so there are going to be a lot of bumps in the way, and the reality is, I think, that in many ways it is working as a moratorium on most rezoning within the Kona Urban Area – then I don’t know if that was what people anticipated when it was adopted. FUKE: I’d like to also kind of point out that – this is the 327-acre area and this is the Kealaka‘a Street extension – the length of the Kealaka‘a Street extension is approximately three miles. So this is Stanford Carr’s development, this is part of the applicant’s property and this property is owned by Greenwell. So that’s why the County and the applicant, as well as, you know, collaborating with the two adjoining property owners in getting this road alignment set, and relative to like the Stanford Carr property, this property, the original alignment actually kind of bisected Stanford’s project, and so they kind of worked together to have the alignment maybe be situated at the lower end of Stanford’s property so as to make it more feasible for him to do it. So, you know, all of these efforts, I would think, would go out in a wash. And just, if the CDP continues to be interpreted or implemented, or maybe unimplemented in the way it’s been written, you know, it forces developers to not work together in getting these much needed infrastructure. BOWMAN: Any other questions? Just for the record, we have no one signed up to testify. Do I hear a motion? BEAUDET: I’d like to make a motion. BOWMAN: Okay, Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: You might have to guide me on the proper language. But I would like to move for a favorable recommendation for the application, or for change of zone, REZ 10-134 (sic), 327 Kona LLC, but with the recommendation that the applicant and the appropriate County agencies collaborate with each other to establish recommended rights-of-ways and fair share improvement obligations. BOWMAN: And this is a favorable recommendation to the County Council, correct? BEAUDET: Yes. BOWMAN: Do I hear a second? WHITTEMORE: I’ll second. BOWMAN: Okay, Commissioner Whittemore, second. ARAI: Madam Chair? BOWMAN: Yes. 8 EXHIBIT A ARAI: Obviously, you are aware of the Director’s unfavorable recommendation; if you are going to go ahead with a favorable recommendation, then that motion must be accompanied by findings to support your favorable recommendation. BOWMAN: Correct. ARAI: And maybe even draft conditions of approval or -. BOWMAN: Could you help us or Commissioner Beaudet? LEITHEAD TODD: Perhaps we could take a break. BOWMAN: Okay. May we call for a recess? BEAUDET: Call for a recess for clarification. BOWMAN: Please, a recess for clarification? ARAI: Sure, a recess will be appropriate. BOWMAN: Ten, five, ten minutes? ARAI: Can we make it -. Five minutes is fine. BOWMAN: Five minutes, okay, a five-minute recess, and we’ll call you back. Thank you. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 10:10 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:22 a.m. BOWMAN: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: For the record, I think – (microphone problem) how’s that, is it working, okay – I think I need a minute or two to just elaborate on what my concerns are with the situation that we have here. The application for the change of zone is in compliance with the zoning plans within the General Plan, it does comply with the zoning requirements for the CDP, you know, for the most part, access to or availability of utilities is all in place or accessible in that given area, and there is surrounding development; but the one thing that it doesn’t meet is the infrastructure requirement of the roads. My issue with what we have in front of us is that here we have an application for rezoning, but it’s under, given the way that the CDP is written, the approval of that rezoning is restricted until certain roads are built, which all falls under the responsibility of the County. Currently and for the near future which we can see, there is no need to justify the County to seek the funding to develop that road. So my position here is to, because the CDP doesn’t speak to any means of collaboration, that is the position that I’m trying to find – find the way that private landowners can work with the government in order to expedite certain projects that will be beneficial to our community and that fall within the compliance of the plans that we have in front of us whether they be General Plan or the CDP. So, with that, you know, I’d like to encourage any 9 EXHIBIT A dialogue from the Commission, if they have anything to say that may be supportive or counter to what I’ve just explained. BOWMAN: Any comments, Commissioners? Commissioner Nelson. NELSON: We do have a motion and a second on the floor. We need to address that. BOWMAN: Thank you. This is discussion on the motion. NELSON: Okay. BOWMAN: Thank you. Any other -? Commissioner Hickcox. HICKCOX: Madam Chair, if I may? BOWMAN: Certainly. HICKCOX: I concur with our Director’s recommendations in reference to an unfavorable response, and that’s basically based on language within the CDP. I am not really clear as to whether or not this body can make a ruling in reference to the validity of the CDP’s requirements. My recommendations would be that consideration be given to addressing the specific issues that were raised by Sid, and they are quite valid, however, because of a wide reaching effect of the decisions that we make at this particular juncture, it would become necessary in my opinion to have either the corp. counsel review it in its entirety to see where we stand with this, or as another thing, or another avenue is to have the applicant challenge a negative ruling in court in reference to the CDP. That’s where my head is kind of going through right now. I really, you know, we can defer the decision until maybe corp. counsel make some recommendations, but right now just based on the evidence presented to us, I cannot vote in favor of that because it violates the CDP. So, I mean it’s unfortunate, but I think to have a long-lasting effect on this thing, it’s got to go out of our hands; it’s got to go towards to corp. counsel, to the courts, if necessary, to wherever it may take to correct this wrong. BOWMAN: Thank you, Commissioner Hickcox. Any other comments, Commissioners? Questions? Concerns? FUKE: Madam Chair? BOWMAN: Yes, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: I know that you are in deliberation. Would I be able to just make one comment, just to clarify the applicant’s position? BOWMAN: Is that all right, Commissioners? Sure, thank you. FUKE: Which is kind of like what I had on my last – shucks, is it this one – so looking at the bottom, just to let you know, if the Commission is inclined to recommend denial of the application to the Council, we also ask that you include a statement or two asking the Council to revisit the Kona Community Development Plan, and among the other consequences noted earlier, to seek ways 10 EXHIBIT A to allow consideration for projects like this, which represent an opportunity to help address much needed infrastructure. We understand that, you know, the Director’s hands are tied, you know, the roles and responsibility of the Director, as well as the Planning Commission, is to advise the Mayor and the County Council; so, yes, you’ve got to follow the law, but I think that in so doing the Commission and the Director are, you know, given the responsibility to let decision makers know that there is some problems here or maybe you ought to take a look at this whatever, you know. So that’s kind of like our position. BOWMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioner Beaudet, do you have any comments since you made the motion? Or anyone else? BEAUDET: Well, if there is no further discussion, then I think it prudent that I withdraw my recommendation in favor of the applicant, and that we move for another motion. BOWMAN: Okay. The second? WHITTEMORE: I withdraw my second. BOWMAN: Okay, and Commissioner Whittemore withdraws his second for the motion. May I entertain a new motion? HICKCOX: I don’t know if I’m going to say this right, but please help me. In reference to 327 Kona LLC, change of zone application, REZ 10-134 (sic), I recommend that, not recommend, I move that we put forth an unfavorable recommendation in reference to the application and also to include Mr. Fuke’s language in the request of having this application forwarded to the Corporation Counsel, I’m sorry, the County Council, requesting that the concerns in reference to the ability to implement language in the Kona Community Development Plan be re-looked at so that it may be more flexible to the point of allowing rezonings to go through, however, also taking into account means of maybe creating a collaborative kind of plan with developers and the government to move forward with the infrastructure. Is that long enough or what? MECKLENBURG: Commissioners, are you clear on the motion? So the motion is to forward an unfavorable recommendation but to, I guess, to have staff draft a communication to the County Council, incorporating Mr. Fuke’s concerns that were raised and discussed today. Is that correct? HICKCOX: Correct. BOWMAN: Do I hear a second? IOKEPA: Yeah, I’ll second. Second. BOWMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Iokepa, second. Any discussion? ARAI: Madam Chair? BOWMAN: Yes, Mr. Arai. 11 EXHIBIT A ARAI: If there is no further discussion, I just want to clarify, maybe make a suggestion. A lot of weight seems to have been placed on the presentation that was provided by Mr. Fuke, as well as the material shown on his slide presentation. It could be easier, not only do we make some sort of a statement to the Council, but actually including that presentation as part of the package that we forward to the County Council, if that’s okay with the Commissioners. BOWMAN: Okay. Is that all right? I thought I heard Commissioner Hickcox say that, but maybe not, so we can put it in a -. ARAI: I just wanted to make sure if it’s okay, if the intent was to also include the presentation. BOWMAN: Was it? HICKCOX: Yes. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. And, do we have to ask Mr. Fuke? Is that -? FUKE: No, it’s all public records, though. BOWMAN: Okay. Do I hear a second? WHITTEMORE: There was a second. NELSON: Wayne. MECKLENBURG: There was a second. BOWMAN: Oh, there was a second, sorry. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I would like to ask for the vote, please. NEWLON: Thomas Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. NEWLON: Wayne Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. NEWLON: Brandi Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. NEWLON: Richard Nelson? NELSON: Aye. NEWLON: Thomas Whittemore? 12 EXHIBIT A WHITTEMORE: Aye. NEWLON: Chair Lani Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. NEWLON: Thank you. It’s unanimous vote. Motion passed. FUKE: Thank you very much, Chairman and Members of the Commission. BOWMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. The discussion ended at 10:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 13 EXHIBIT A