Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-15 Leeward Exh B - Waikoloa Mauka LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 15, 2012 WAIKOLOA MAUKA, LLC (Amend A regularly advertised hearing on the application of REZ 678) was called to order at 11:25 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin, Lani Bowman, Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Richard Nelson, III and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Wayne Iokepa ALSO PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Cottle (Planner), Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 28 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA MAUKA, LLC (Amend REZ 678) Amendment to Condition B (Final Subdivision Approval) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 07 127. The property, referred to as the proposed Waikoloa Highlands Subdivision, is located along the south side of Waikoloa Road and south - southeast of Waikoloa Village, Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: 6-8-2: portion of 16. GIFFIN: Commissioners, we are now on Agenda Item No. 2. The applicant is Waikoloa Mauka, LLC. The application is an amendment, a request for an amendment to Condition B, Final Subdivision Approval, of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 07 127. Daryn? ARAI: Thank you. Once again, directing your attention to the location map on our presenter on the screen. Again, I believe you are familiar with the orientation of this map due to the previous application; but this time we are focusing on this property here located along the south, or Kona side of Waikoloa Road, which maintains zoning of Agricultural-1a. The white line you see running from left to right on the screen is Waikoloa Road. And again, the area that we just considered, Hawaiian Riverbend, is located in this proximity here along the north side of Waikoloa Road. The applicant’s, excuse me, this is a close-up of the project site. Again, it’s the area outlined by the mustard color, which currently maintains a zoning designation of Agricultural-1a, as well as some Open district classifications here indicated by the darker green color. This is the State Land Use District Boundary Map, which identifies the project site as maintaining a Rural classification that was secured by the applicant in 2005 from the state Land Use Commission. This is the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map, which closely replicates the zone district map that I showed you earlier, showing a Rural designation as indicated by the mustard color, with Open classified, or Open designation shown in the dark green. This is the South Kohala Community Development Plan Concept Plan, and the project site is located here where my laser pointer is showing, and the Plan does already recognize the project site as an existing project. This is an 1 EXHIBIT B aerial photo of the project site as outlined with the black line, and up to the top of the map, you’ll see the existing Waikoloa Village. The applicant is requesting an amendment to Condition B in which to secure final subdivision approval. The current ordinance provides that the applicant secure final subdivision approval for the proposed 400-lot subdivision by September 20, 2012. The applicant is requesting that the -. And that is the existing Condition B and I’m not going to read it to you verbatim, but I just wanted to indicate to you that aside from a deadline to secure final subdivision approval by September 20, 2012, there was additional language toward the bottom of the condition where it talks about constructing and dedicating the intersection improvements required by this particular ordinance, which is further specified within the subsequent Condition C, talks about the possibility of providing, entering into an agreement and bonding up the improvements meeting with the approval of the Director, and confirming that no occupancy permit for any lot within the property shall be secured until such time those improvements are provided or, let’s see, “until all of the infrastructure improvements covered by the bond or surety have been constructed and approved by the County.” So Condition B as shown here will be synthesized as proposed by the applicant and to the version you have up on the screen, which is basically asking for an additional five years in which to complete or secure final subdivision approval for the first phase of the project consisting of no less than 50 lots, and additional, I’m sorry, and ten years by which to complete construction of the entire 400-lot subdivision development. The applicant states that the reason for the request is due to the current market conditions that prevented them from completing the subdivision by their September 20, 2012, deadline as stipulated by the existing change of zone ordinance. The applicant is proposing for the subdivision to proceed in eight separate phases with the first phase, again, to be completed within five years and consisting of no less than 50 lots, with the remain of the project within a ten-year time frame. This is a concept of the subdivision layout that was originally provided by the applicant in his request. I should note that we have just distributed to you an amended subdivision layout, which shows the more current version of the proposed subdivision, and more specifically you will note that there are two highlighted areas, which is basically depicting two specific access points for the proposed subdivision onto Waikoloa Road. And if I can use my laser pointer. The existing access is, well, not existing, the proposed access for the initial phase is being shown here, and on the revised map it will show a new, or an additional access point in this proximity here. This is a view of the project site from Waikoloa Road. This is looking makai along Waikoloa Road with the project site off to your left in this location here. Again, this is looking makai once again and this is the access point into Waikoloa Stables. This is looking makai and the intersection of Waikoloa Road is located in this proximity here. The Planning Director is recommending favorable consideration of this request for an extension of time. Let’s see -. With that, we also provided you with another addendum, or supplement, to the Director’s recommendation, and it’s on a single sheet of paper identified as “Item No. 2, Waikoloa Mauka, LLC, Amendment to Condition B, Change of Zone Ordinance No. 07-127.” The proposed amendment is specifically highlighted in yellow and underscored. And what the amendment for is simply to clarify that the roundabout at the intersection of Waikoloa Road and Pua Melia Road must be provided in conjunction with final subdivision approval of the first phase of the development; so we just wanted to make the provision explicitly clear. The proposed amendment that’s highlighted in yellow reads, “This roundabout system, including the”; Public Works is asking that a minor tweak to the language be provided, which will now read, “this roundabout system and the first channelized intersection improvements” and so forth and so on. We have no objection to the 2 EXHIBIT B clarifying language. But with that, I have no further information for you, so I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Daryn? Daryn, I just wanted to clarify that this project has already been approved, and all we are doing today is entertaining a change in one of the conditions, correct? ARAI: That is correct. GIFFIN: Okay. Any other questions? Daryn, did you want to add? ARAI: And just to clarify that while the focus is on an extension of time, one of the requirements of the code is that we still do look at concurrency requirements, which is why the applicant, as part of the request, provided a traffic impact analysis report. And regarding water, there is an existing condition, which assures that the applicant is obligated to provide a water system meeting with Water Supply’s approval. So with those two items being addressed, we believe it does satisfy the concurrency requirements. GIFFIN: All right. Thank you very much. Sid, since I’ve already sworn you in, I don’t think that’s necessary. But why don’t you go ahead and give us some more additional background information? FUKE: Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, again. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. FUKE: First of all, tentative approval, as you had indicated, you know, the basic entitlement is already in place. The map that you showed over there, tentative subdivision approval has been granted. We, after the Council had approved the provision of second access where the staff kind of pointed out, then we submitted the revised map to the Council. The other thing I wanted to kind of more for clarification is that the Land Use Commission had -. You know, all of the zoning was in place and we got an amendment in 2007. They did as much as they could like doing the channelized intersection plans and related things, you know, associated with the project. But unfortunately, they didn’t want to proceed aggressively in 2007 for two reasons: One was that, you know, it was, the market, there were indications that the market was beginning to turn south, and it really, you know, like came very strong in 2008, and the second reason was that they wanted to wait to see what the Land Use Commission was going to do. And the Land Use Commission finally decided in June 2008 that this property can be reclassified into the Rural district and we all know, not knowing what the Land Use Commission may require as additional conditions, they didn’t want to proceed aggressively. Then 2008 came and then I think the rest is history, you know, in terms of the overall market, so -. The other thing is just to make clear, as the staff indicated, one is that the channelized intersections will be constructed, will be required at both of the intersections, and second is that there is a roundabout requirement that if the development goes as scheduled, and as recommended by the staff, it should be in at the very latest five years from now. GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? I know you don’t -. WHITTEMORE: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: I’m sorry. Tom. 3 EXHIBIT B WHITTEMORE: Just, Sidney, just for clarification, it seems both the prior item that we were dealing with and the current are both tied in to this roundabout. Who pulls the trigger first? FUKE: Whoever comes on line first. WHITTEMORE: So they bear the full burden then? FUKE: There is an agreement between Hawaiian Riverbend and Waikoloa Mauka that, you know, depends on who goes first like, just going to have to be like a cost sharing, you know, on that intersection because when they, when Hawaiian Riverbend had the consideration for the park and the commercial area, it was my statement to them that be prepared that, if Waikoloa Mauka, like this subdivision doesn’t go through, there will be a requirement for a roundabout or some sort of improvements at the intersection; so both parties know going in that there is that obligation, so they are going to have to work it out who pays how much. WHITTEMORE: Okay. GIFFIN: Any other questions? Lani. BOWMAN: Just a quick question. So the first phase is going to be -? Do they have any plans for the first phase, I mean, where? FUKE: Yeah, the first phase tentatively is designed to be like, you know, if you travel up and down on Waikoloa Road, you’ll see there is like a nice rock wall that says like Waikoloa Highlands; that is the entrance for the lower section, and then the upper section is probably like about nearly a three-quarter of a mile or a mile away. BOWMAN: So the first phase will be makai. FUKE: The first phase will be just in this general area -. BOWMAN: Okay. FUKE: Because otherwise, you know, this is, you know, where the existing water infrastructure would have to be done, so it will be probably built kind of like around in that area. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Any other questions? Hearing none, thank you, Sid. There are four people who signed up to testify on this agenda item, and they appear to be the same people, or the first four, that we had for the first agenda item. Will you please come forward, Robert Green, Bette Green, Richard Schulherr and Mary Wills Schulherr. And since I’ve sworn you all in, I don’t think that’s necessary to do it again. Mr. Green, may we please begin with you? R. GREEN: Thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. 4 EXHIBIT B R. GREEN: My name is Robert Green, and I guess I gave you my qualifications the first time I got up and I hedged my concerns. And another thing that, sitting back there, I’ve got this October 24, 2012, issue; this is what I worked on, and I spent a lot of time on this, and I went through and I looked through the whole site. And then what I’m finding here is that it seems that you want public contributions, but you changed the map; in other words, when I looked at that map, one of the major concerns that I had, and many hours of looking at this thing, I find that the second exit, or actually the third exit, that you finally put in for the second phase. Okay, now, that was not given to any of us. So what basically I think is that, you know, we, that we have the same information that, if we are going to be requested to contribute our opinions, we should have the good information. Now, because I always had basically the same concern I mentioned earlier; you only get half the information when you look at this. When you take a look at the exits that they’re mentioning again, you find that they’re greatly affected by the first phase where the traffic is. As you look across here, and you’ll find on the upper left hand side, you see the two little lines out there, okay, that is a Stables road. Okay, then you go down, there is nothing there, and that is all the traffic involved with the new proposed shopping center. I don’t have any problem with the shopping center because I think for a private enterprise, he has a right to make his own judgments, good or bad. But I do think that we need to have all the information out. And when I look at this proposal here, I see we completely eliminated – so you have to go really get into it and realize that, hey, that two little lines out there for reference is going to be the Stables road – there is no lines or reference or nothing as far as the new proposals. When you get off into the second exit onto the extension of Paniolo by the post office, you have another, the second entrance there, and what they do is they follow it through and they meet at a crossing, which is a point of that you have – I don’t use that thing – so you have a single point of, and if anything happens at the intersection, the whole thing is kaput – no traffic out until Phase 2 is completed, see? And then when you look at that, Phase 2 is completed only with, only with the second, or the third, entrance that we were, I was not privy to when I did all my research, okay? Again, and another thing that I looked at that, I see, where are the cul-de-sacs? What I’m looking at is side streets. Because, you know, if you look at Paniolo, there are no houses on Paniolo; all the houses are off streets. Okay, then you turn left on Hulu, and you see that no houses on Hulu until you get over to the Sunset Ridge, and that’s been a contention I guess we all know about. But anyway, hopefully we -. But if you look at this situation, you find nothing but side streets. Every street there’s houses, excuse me, cars backed out or driven out of; you do not have a iwikuamo‘o, or a spine, where you don’t have all these houses directly to the road. If you look at that first exit, and in the morning when you are all set to go back -. And look at all those houses that you see along Paniolo. Where are their entrances? You know, you have, you see, we are looking at all those houses next to Waikoloa Road – I’m sorry, Waikoloa Road – see Waikoloa Road, you see a rail of houses next to Waikoloa Road, then you see another row of houses next to an inner road, which leads me to believe they are expecting to run all the traffic on Waikoloa Road. I don’t know, you know, I’m just looking at the plans that I have, and it seems that there is some -. I’m very concerned about that. You know, I think, not that I’m against it, I think, I think that the project should be given, time should be given because of economic situations, but I think the planning involved in this is really lacking, when you sit down and look at it. And also, I’m very concerned with is that I know and you know that the State is putting in an extension of Saddle Road. And we are all hoping that it bends over, on Alternate 3, I think it is, it touches the Waikoloa Road; that puts it pretty close to Pu‘u Hina‘i. And I think it’d be a really interesting fact if they, on that lower right hand side, they possibly had some area down there that they could extend to get another entrance, or exit, to the new highway that’s going to cross. But, you know, I’m looking at those, so all these roads, as I said, all on no spine, no in-and-out, every road subject to a driveway, and we’ve got a 5 EXHIBIT B thousand people going to be living in there – 400 houses, two and a half per house, a thousand cars, or 800 cars, two cars per household. So I think that this needs to go back to the planning board. Now, there was some, now I’m going to kind of divert a little bit, then go to talk about round-out, because everybody talks about round-outs from the book. We had a gentleman here who talked about round-outs from personal experience. Let me talk about round-outs from personal experiences, okay? The first thing, Mauna Lani, great, fantastic, I love it, I love the round-out, okay? Then I go back to Annapolis, and in the back of the shopping center there is a very little used road with a round-out, roundabout, great – no traffic, roundabout’s great. Now, go down West Street, and this is where you get traffic, and that is one hell of a mess, I hate it. I hate to go down there because it’s dangerous; you’re all steering to the right, you’ve got traffic coming to right, but then you’ve got pedestrians to the left. See, all your roundabouts basically are moving the pedestrians out on the right hand side, and people come in, and you are all looking to the left, and so when you have pedestrians running across, it -. A roundabout on a busy street is hell; roundabouts on a not-used street is great, it’s fantastic. And I think that the Waikoloa Road is approaching hell as far as roundabouts are concerned. Now, in summary, I think it’s great that they want the extension. I think because of economic situations, I think the County should be flex enough to allow developers to go with the economy. You know, when we got, when they got money, they can spend it; when they don’t, they can’t spend it, but they have plans and they have investment. So I think it’s fantastic, and I think I will highly recommend that they give some leeway for economic conditions. Thank you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Green? Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted to clarify, because you were talking about some of the lots abutting Waikoloa Road; there are specific conditions that they are not going to have access, the access to Waikoloa Road is limited to two points. So you won’t have multiple driveways. R. GREEN: Now it’s three. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, it’s going to be -. R. GREEN: Three now. And I apologize because that’s what’s written inside -. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, it’s the existing Melia Road and then the other two that come up the Waikoloa Road; the existing condition says that the development, other than Melia Road, which would become the third, is limited to two. The lots will not have individual driveways onto Waikoloa Road. R. GREEN: Yeah, I saw that. I apologize, because -. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. I just, I just wanted to clarify that so that you don’t think that there is multiple cars coming off of those lots. R. GREEN: No, no, I apologize. When I looked, when I kind of looked at the map -. And I apologize for that. I’d like to retract that statement. But -. GIFFIN: Thank you. I will. 6 EXHIBIT B R. GREEN: But I do think that we need some kind of road through there without individual backup driveways; like Paniolo, Hulu and Iwikuamo‘o, I think those should set an example of spines going through a development area like this. Thank you. GIFFIN: All right. Commissioners, any other questions of Mr. Green? Hearing none, ma’am? Please state your name again. B. GREEN: I will. Bette Green, and I live in Waikoloa Village. And my original concern was the fact that this was just going to be another big cul-de-sac. On the morning when everybody was trying to get out at the T or the X that’s over there in the first phase, if it ever gets backed up, those people will not get out. And that was really basically my concern was the ingress and exit. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Mrs. Green? Hearing none, thank you. Ma’am? Please state your name again. M. SCHULHERR: Mary Wills Schulherr. GIFFIN: Thank you. M. SCHULHERR: Is this the development that has to have, in the first hearing, the first agenda item, is this the subdivision that says we need to give the County a park? GIFFIN: Oh, that’s adjacent to the lot we voted on? M. SCHULHERR: Yes. GIFFIN: Yes. M. SCHULHERR: Can we look at this and there is no place in the beautiful development for a park, a park for our community? GIFFIN: You know, I think, and Daryn, where are you? Daryn, correct me, if I’m wrong. Correct me, if I’m wrong. The question by this testifier was, is there any space in the proposed property for a park. And my understanding is that the park site was already developed, suggested for across the street by the applicant for Agenda Item No. 1 and Agenda Item No. 2, and concurred to by the County councilman from that area, correct? ARAI: Maybe we can later bring the applicant’s representative up to make sure I represented it correctly; but the councilman for the district simply indicated their support but, you know, confirmation is really going to occur when the park site is accepted and dedicated to the County. The applicant, what the applicant is doing is there is a fair share obligation upon this project, and in order to satisfy the fair share obligation in lieu of actually just paying moneys, they are going to actually provide a physical site. The location of it was vetted through numerous community meetings, speaking with the Department of Parks and Recreation, the councilman, Councilman Hoffmann. So where it ended up was really based on community input. Now, whether or not there is a site here within this property, that, only the applicant’s representative can speak to; but it could raise the question about accessibility because it was meant to be a community park, it was meant to be in proximity to where people could easily access it. So although those things came -. 7 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Right, right. And this is across the street. ARAI: This is across the street, right. GIFFIN: Okay. Ma’am? M. SCHULHERR: My understanding then, from his answer, is that we will give Hawai‘i County a park, which will be accessible, according to the master development of the first agenda item, through a commercial area parking lot, because there is no place in this beautiful development for a park. I think that’s a little bit shortsighted. And I would request that there be some accommodation for some of the children who will be living there to have an additional park, because it’s going to be awfully difficult with the traffic situation for any of these people to enjoy the community park, that they will have to get through a commercial parking lot because there is no access to this proposed park that is dangled to the County of Hawai‘i in order to have this approved and go through. Again, I raise the concerns: We do need a traffic circle, a traffic light or some easement of that development or adjacent to the intersection of Paniolo, excuse me, Waikoloa Road, Pua Melia, which is the other side of Paniolo Avenue. I don’t want these people to have the same situation we have; if there is going to be a wild fire, and there are many, how are they going to get out, if they’re going to have to go through the same congested intersection, Waikoloa Road, Paniolo Avenue, Pua Melia Street? GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Hearing none, sir? Would you please state your name again. R. SCHULHERR: Absolutely. Richard Schulherr. I’m a resident of Waikoloa Village. I have several concerns about this project, and one of my concerns does come back to this traffic circle because there seems to be a feeling that we are going to separate pedestrians from the traffic circle, but somehow magically no one is going to have to stop their truck. They are going to drive along the road, though they are not going to have to stop for pedestrians; I guess we are going to put in an over-path or an under-path or, I don’t really know what. But there is really no provisions have been made for pedestrians to get to cross the road. And you are putting a park across the road from this division, and the park is located in, as the gentleman on the other, a traffic nightmare. And I’m very confused as to why the entrance to this development -. I’m not against the development. Let me make that clear. And I’m not against development in general; I’m against ill-considered development. And my problem with this program is that it had, it’s looking for an extension now, it already had five years, and I understand that there are economic decisions to make people not to start the projects; however, that doesn’t stop them from planning them well, and if you have a delay in your project. I don’t see why you can’t plan it better so it has more efficient and safe egress for people from problems, fires, whatever may come along. I don’t understand why they don’t have better access to this so-called park which, let me be quite frank, is a deal so they get this. The park is supposed to be an enjoyable thing; it’s not supposed to be a kid killer. You have Waikoloa Road, which at present is 35 miles-an-hour speed limit. I’m from New York City, and in New York City the speed limit in general, the limit is 35 miles-an-hour, and there is a very specific reason for that; if you get hit by a vehicle going 30 miles an hour, your chances of surviving are 80 percent; if you get hit by a vehicle going 40 miles an hour, your chances of surviving are more like 20 percent. And I’d say that again, if anybody doesn’t, I’ll be glad to repeat it, it’s very simple; it’s going to be a kid killer. You are going to have kids on bikes, they are going to be walking along. People barrel 8 EXHIBIT B through that intersection as fast as they can anyway right now. And for some reason there seems to be a desire to create a traffic nightmare. It’s not responsible development. The other concern I have is that this development is going to share the water from the Village, and that there is not enough water. The water is going to have to be hauled in. And my concern as a resident of the Village is, who is going to make sure this keeps happening? We are going to have to rely on some corporation, which may go bankrupt or disappear, in order to keep hauling water; so ten years down the road or 20 years down the road, are we going to be in a water situation because this development, you know, because they don’t want to supply water anymore? It’s trying to make a problem. Thank you very much. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. Commissioners, any questions? Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I just want to say that I’m not necessarily a fan of roundabouts, but the roundabout is in the original ordinance, and there is a segment of the population on this island, including people who live in Waikoloa, that expressed their interest in having a roundabout at that intersection. And there are also a number of people who, you know, reputedly have traffic backgrounds that advocate roundabouts all the time whether it’s appropriate or not. Really to a great extent when something is coming through our Department, and it’s a time extension, then we are just looking at that issue. The issue of the roundabout is really something that has to be addressed with the Council, with the Department of Public Works, and perhaps with your newly elected representative of this area, who I see sitting in the back of the room. What I was talking about the trucks was, I was saying that the information that I had been given was that there was a preference for some of the trucks going through, that they preferred a roundabout because they didn’t want a signalized intersection. I happened to like signalized intersections for pedestrians. Because I’ve seen some roundabouts on the mainland that after a while they put signals on every piece. In the DC area when they planned it, you had a roundabout, and I got there and I was like, wow, every piece of the roundabout wasn’t really functioning like a roundabout because there were traffic lights at every piece – I was thinking about Dupont Circle in particular – because that was how they ended up having to control the traffic at the roundabout. So it really is a function of where it’s located, whether it’s appropriate in the amount of traffic. But there is a segment of the population here that is in love with roundabouts. And so I think the discussion has to be had in the community and with the County Council in particular and people who developed the Community Development Plans whether this is an appropriate place for it. What we are doing is we are just trying to deal with the conditions that have already been imposed, and the request in front of us is primarily just a time extension and not an amendment to the other conditions. So I just wanted to clarify that. But I agree with a lot of what you have said, because I’m not entirely convinced personally that this is an appropriate place for a roundabout. But it’s in the plans, it’s what a lot of people in the community, as the plans were being developed, came out and said that this is what they wanted. So you may find yourself to be the salmon swimming upstream in this in terms of the input that you’ll get from the rest of the community. R. SCHULHERR: I do, if I may -. GIFFIN: Any other comments for the testifier? Sir, did you want to say anything else? R. SCHULHERR: I just want to say I wish the Commission and the people who are proposing this project would step back for a minute and try to get the big picture. They’ve been given a rare opportunity for an extension, if this is approved, and I’m sure it will be, and I wish they would 9 EXHIBIT B make use of it and I wish that our representatives and the zoning council and whoever else would try to hold these people’s toes to the fire a little bit, for a lack of a better word, because they practice obfuscation, they practice spin, they make the maps look so everything is beautiful for them. I understand that; people do this all the time, that’s just business, it ain’t no big thing. But it’s the irresponsible planning that’s going on. I don’t understand why the entrance has to be at Paniolo Avenue for this development. I don’t understand why it can’t be up the road, and that’s where their main entrance is. And then it’s a separate traffic problem from the traffic problem down the road where we are already putting in, trying to put in another commercial center. There is a commercial center there. I was here for the tsunami; Paniolo Avenue had cars going a quarter mile down the road at least, trying to get gasoline. This is one, is now one way in Paniolo Avenue that’s no longer available for exiting from the area. And I don’t know if the Police were called, but I know there was a lot of problems over there at that time. And, you know, I’m concerned about fire. I don’t like Queen Victoria; I don’t want to end up burned up dead. Thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. Commissioners? All right. Ma’am? M. SCHULHERR: If I may -. GIFFIN: Sure. M. SCHULHERR: If the entrance is going to be right near where the Stables are and, back to Agenda Item 1, the only entrance to the development that’s going to be commercial would be off of Paniolo Avenue right-turn-only in and right-turn-only out, how the people who are going through the roundabout get to the commercial area, which – those two little lines represent where the Stables will be – if they are in the roundabout and they go up to Waikoloa Road, won’t they have to make a left turn into that two little lines, which indicate where the strip part of the commercial property would be? Or will they go through the roundabout, go to Paniolo Avenue and use the one road to get into the commercial area? There has to be the roundabout, I understand, until such time as they will have the left-turn lane for people traveling from Paniolo to Waikoloa Road – that would mean a five-lane intersection, because you’ll have to have some left-turn access onto Paniolo Road. You’ll also need to increase the lanes at Waikoloa Road to accommodate those who bypass the proposed traffic circle and go to Waikoloa Road and make a left somewhere near the strip mall that’s going to be near the entrance to, near the Stables. It just seems to be an awful lot of congestion to an already congested area, and as I mentioned, the sole exit for all of our Waikoloa Hills residents. Thank you for your time. GIFFIN: Thank you for your comments, and you are excused, the four of you. I’m going to ask the applicant to come back. And I know that you’ve heard most of the comments that were expressed, and you may want to spend some time addressing it. FUKE: Sure, I’ll be very brief. GIFFIN: All right. FUKE: First of all, I think that what Mr. Green talked about, like possibly having, you know, in the interests of connectivity, maybe another access on the south side of the property, and I think that can be kind of worked out internally between the Planning Department and the developer. And this is like a longtime project, so I think that the concept can be broached further. And I think it’s a good idea, particularly if the Saddle Road extension kind of like falls along that area. But my 10 EXHIBIT B understanding is the extension is going a little bit further south. I think like prior to, you know, this Striker Brigade or whatever, you know, it was going to get pretty close, but nevertheless, I think it’s a good concept that can be explored. The other one, as far as – it has nothing to do with this – but the mauka-bound traffic on Waikoloa Road, you know, going back again to the Riverbend project, there will be a requirement that there be a dedicated left-turn lane going into the Riverbend project from Waikoloa Road; so if you are going through the roundabout and you are heading mauka, then there is a requirement there is going to be a dedicated left-turn lane, so it doesn’t force you to go through the roundabout, go on Paniolo and make a right turn. Finally, on the issue about the park, you know, the developer is trying to satisfy their park, their fair share requirement for the park. This is a 760-acre site. Formerly it was going to be used for a golf course. They’ve got 380, 390 lots proposed. They have about roughly 250 acres of open space land, so the area that was formerly set aside for the golf course could easily have been translated for a park and be utilized to satisfy the developer’s fair share obligation. But they said, “no, what we want to do is work with the community,” because having a park at this particular location would benefit these residents, but would not necessary benefit the entire community; so the developer said, “fine, let us try to satisfy that obligation elsewhere where the community wants.” And so that’s where it settled. So as far as the balance of the property, you know, where the former golf course is going to be, is still going to be open; the idea behind, the concept that the developer has right now is to just leave that as natural and use that as a walking path, nothing active, as a passive park. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Lani. BOWMAN: I just have a comment, being a mother of nine and, you know, going to different parks. I hear at Waikoloa it’s like, can the kids get there, can they ride their bikes? But, you know, other areas, other villages or towns, a lot of them are not accessible by the kids riding their bikes. So I just think that having another park there would be beneficial for the entire Waikoloa community. Thanks. GIFFIN: Any other questions? Sid, there was some comment about the water, and whether or not this subdivision would absorb all of the water that the system now has available to it. Would you address that? FUKE: Sure. The water, it’s a private water company over there, and it’s kind of owned and controlled by this Hawai‘i Water Services, and then they in turn have like two separate companies: One is called Waikoloa Water Company and then the other one is Waikoloa, I mean, Waikoloa Water Company and the other one is Waikoloa Sewer Company. And so these are like PUC, Public Utility Commission approved. Now, as far as the water system, they need, according to the PUC, you know, the company, the water company has a legal obligation to provide water to this respective properties, and the funding and the development of this water system would be the responsibility of the water company. What the applicant has to do is pay what is called like a CIAC fee, which is the equivalent of like a facilities charge. CIAC is an acronym for “Contribution in Aid of Construction” fee. And then their fee is not like $5,000 or $6,000 per unit, and it is not based like 600 gallons per day; it’s predicated upon what a water company determines that you might need for your property. So the developer and the water company have been kind of like going back and forth in terms of, you know, how much water is really required per lot; the water company is saying that “you require 1,000 gallons,” and then so the developer is saying on the other hand, “the 11 EXHIBIT B County is only requiring 600 or 400 gallons, you know, like maximum 600 gallons per day, why are you saying we need 1,000 gallons.” But, so that’s kind of like a big question mark. And the CIAC is a function of how much gallons a project, or a lot, is proposed to have. So right now it’s like about $25,000 to $30,000, and so if you multiply that roughly by 400, you know, that’s a significant amount. But the bottom line is that it’s the water company that has the obligation to provide the necessary improvements, and over and beyond the CIAC fees, if the project needs like the construction of a new well, the difference would have to be absorbed by the developer. So what the developer in terms of the water system, they need to have like a reservoir that would have to be at least 100 feet above of the elevation line; so they have also looked at having water tank sites not only on this side to service the makai side but also like further mauka. Fortunately, they own properties for the mauka. GIFFIN: Right, right, okay. Once again, Commissioners, any questions? Hearing none, thank you, Sid. Commissioners, I’d just like to reiterate that this agenda item is simply an amendment to Condition B for final plan (sic) approval for the Change of Zone originally, the number was 07 127, Rezoning 678, No. 678. Any discussion on this agenda item? I want to reiterate that there was also a proposed change by the Department that concern Agenda Item C, I’m sorry, Condition C. Any more comments? Do I sense that there is anyone who would like to make a motion? Lani. BOWMAN: If I can do this right. I move that we approve the amendment to Condition B, final subdivision, of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 07 127 -. GIFFIN: Along with. BOWMAN: Along with the – okay, help me. GIFFIN: Condition starting on Page 4 of the recommendation. BOWMAN: Thank you. With the inclusion of “This roundabout system and the” be added, okay; the amendment, so the amendment to Condition C that includes, “The roundabout system and the” be added. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? BEAUDET: Second. GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Bowman and seconded by Commissioner Beaudet that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council regarding an amendment to Condition B, the final plan (sic) approval, for the Change of Zone Ordinance No. 07 127, which also included the recommendations by the Department and an amendment that included the change to Condition C. Daryn, did I cover everything? ARAI: I believe you did by just making reference to the Director’s recommendations, which also includes not only adjustments to, amendments to Condition B, but you may note in your goldenrod recommendation there are several amendments to other conditions that were predicated on -. GIFFIN: Oh, you are right. I apologize. You are absolutely right, Daryn. 12 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Right, so, predicated on comments that we received from the reviewing agencies in response to this amendment request. GIFFIN: Right, right, and so there were major changes. I’m sorry, Daryn. Any other discussion? Hearing none, Daryn? ARAI: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion carries with six aye votes. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 12:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 13 EXHIBIT B