HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-20 Leeward Exh A (REZ 04-022)
LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
AUGUST 20, 2015
KUKUI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (REZ
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of
04-022)
was called to order at 9:33 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center,
Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Brandi
Beaudet presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Collin Kaholo, Barbara Nobriga,
Sonny Shimaoka, Keith Unger and Thomas Whittemore
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Scott Church
ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Counsel for the Commission), Bobby Command (Deputy Planning
Director), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko
Sauer (Commission Secretary)
And approximately ten people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: KUKUI DEVELOPMENT, LLC (REZ 04-022)
Request for a 5-year time extension to comply with Condition C (complete construction of
92-unit Hale Nanea Condominium) of Ordinance No. 05-74, which rezoned approximately 6.27
acres of land from a Resort-Hotel-1,250 square foot per unit (V-1.25) and an Agricultural-1 acre
(A-1a) zoning districts to a Multiple Family Residential–2,500 square foot per unit (RM-2.5) zoning
district. The property is located along the south side of Hualālai Road, approximately 1,100 feet
thst
mauka from the Hualālai Road-Kuakini Highway intersection, Hienaloli 6 and ‘Auhaukea‘ē 1,
North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-5-009:067.
BEAUDET: Today’s first agenda item is Applicant, Kukui Development, LLC, Rezoning 04-022.
Staff, presentation?
KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Members of the Commission. So the first
application today is for Kukui Development, LLC, and they are coming in for an amendment to
Condition C, time to complete construction for Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 74. Just to orient
you to the site, the subject parcel outlined here in yellow is located in the North Kona District of
Hawai‘i Island, and is approximately 1,100 feet mauka of the intersection of Kuakini Highway,
which runs generally north-south through the slide, and Hualālai Road, which runs generally
east-west. The zoning for the subject parcel is Multiple Family Residential-2,500 square foot per
unit. Surrounding zoning in the area includes property to the east zoned Single Family
Residential-10,000 square feet; further to the east is the Aloha Kona Subdivision, and it’s this area
that’s in Ag-5, these are residential units here; to the southeast we have again some more Multiple
Family Residential; to the immediate south Agricultural-1 acre; and further south again Multiple
Family Residential zoning; to the west we’ve got some Resort Hotel zoning; and to the immediate
1
EXHIBIT A
north some Community, sorry, Village Commercial zoning. The General Plan designation for the
subject parcel and surrounding area is Medium Density Urban as indicated by this mustard color.
The State Land Use Boundary designation for the area is Urban as well. And relative to the Kona
CDP the subject parcel is located in the Kona Urban Area, and is also located within the Kailua
Village Redevelopment Regional Center TOD, which is in this rose-colored circle here.
This aerial photograph is again just showing the subject property outlined in yellow here; I just
wanted to give you a sense of where it is relative to some of the single-family and the
multiple-family dwelling type of uses in the area.
The applicant is requesting a five-year time extension, which amends Condition C, time to complete
construction, of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 74. The Change of Zone Ordinance rezoned
approximately 6.27 acres of land from Resort Hotel-1,250 square feet per unit and Agricultural-1
acre zoning districts to Multiple Family Residential-2,500 square foot per unit zoning district. The
purpose of this zoning change was to allow the construction of a 92-unit condominium project
known as the Hale Nanea Condominiums.
Here is the applicant’s site plan. Again, this is Hualālai Road running east-west through the slide.
You see the main access here and then the condo development and the interior of the property.
Here are some photographs just showing the frontage of the property along Hualālai Road; this is
kind of directly on where the Change of Zone sign is and then more mauka. And this is looking
along Hualālai Road; looking makai the property is on the left, and if you are looking mauka along
Hualālai Road the property is on the right.
So the Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council, with a modification. We, the Director felt that instead of the five years that the applicant
originally requested, we are recommending an extension of ten years to complete construction due
to the size and the scale of the project, which has plan to include road infrastructure improvements,
as well as two construction phases. So we thought that an additional five years on the request
would be appropriate.
I have just two additional things. You should have received via email yesterday and in your packets
today a memo that we got yesterday from the Department of Public Works. And, again, that came
out since we sent out the background and rec. And then if you look at the background report, Page
2, Item 10, there was just a factual correction here: It indicates that the issuance of building permit
for 44 condo units took place in November 2014; in reality those permits were applied for and
signed off on but they have yet to be issued. So with that I’m happy to answer any questions that
the Commission may have.
BEAUDET: Go ahead, Commissioners, any questions? Tom.
WHITTEMORE: We, as I understand it, there are two phases now to this project?
KAY: Correct.
2
EXHIBIT A
WHITTEMORE: And I’m assuming then one of the phases would be started within a reasonable
period of time, certainly within five years, right?
KAY: That’s my understanding, correct.
WHITTEMORE: Why wouldn’t you, if you’ve already agreed, the Department has already agreed
to do staggered projects there, phases of construction, why wouldn’t you also phase the approval?
So rather than spinning it all out to ten years, do five years on the first, then ten on the second
phase. Just out of curiosity, what was the thinking?
KAY: You know, that’s certainly a possibility. The Director thought that, again, given the scope
and the size of the project, that we just give ten and so that in five years if the project wasn’t
complete fully, then they wouldn’t have to come back to the Commission for an additional time
extension. So, you know, I need to apologize, I was away when the recommendation was complete,
so I’m not sure exactly what the justification was. Jeff might be able to speak to that.
DARROW: Commissioner Whittemore, we usually do do that. We will have phasing within our
construction condition. And what we just did is we followed the original ordinance in this one; the
original ordinance just had a construction timeline for the entire project. We could easily, if it’s the
Commission’s wish, we could simply amend the condition to have Phase One be done, completed,
within five years, and Phase Two be completed within ten years, if that’s the wish of the
Commission. But it is something that we usually do on a regular basis. But again, in this particular
case we were following the original ordinance, and just put a one timeframe on the entire project.
WHITTEMORE: Okay, that’s fine, thank you.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any more discussion on the topic of the phasing? Tom, you are
comfortable with that?
WHITTEMORE: Yeah, I’m fine.
BEAUDET: Okay. Any other comments for staff, Commissioners? Okay, if no further questions,
would the applicant or their representative please come forward?
BAKER: Hello Commissioner --.
BEAUDET: Good morning.
BAKER: Good morning.
BEAUDET: Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth now
and before the Leeward Planning Commission?
BAKER: Yes.
BEAUDET: Thank you. If you could just state your name and introduce yourself to start with.
3
EXHIBIT A
BAKER: My name is George Baker. I’m the manager of Kukui Development, LLC, and the
developer of the project
BEAUDET: Thank you. Would you like to take this time to communicate any of your current
status of the project or any of the conditions that you would want to discuss right now?
BAKER: Yes. Basically, of the, as per my red notice of the lenders that we have, construction
lenders, have requested that we get this extension C, because it was coming up against the deadline,
which was May, and before they will fund the project, they wanted the five-year extension given on
this project so they would be able to fund it. Our grading permit has been pulled; I will have to
extend it by the end of this week. And as the Planning Director stated, or Ki \[sic\] stated, that the
permits were ready to be pulled. My lender, which is American Savings Bank, they are ready to
fund as long as the condition is approved, Condition C is approved. And so the comment about
when the project is going to start, we are anticipating starting breaking ground in October of this
year, if everything passes.
BEAUDET: Is the construction, is it planned for immediate startup of Phase Two or is it just
specifically the Phase One?
BAKER: It will be, the grading has to be centered to the tight site, it’s six acres, to balance the site.
My grading contractor stated that it’s, we have to grade the whole site and get it all prepped, and
then we will go into the phasing of the 44 first phase, and then go right in, depending on sales and
everything, go right into the second phase. We are not anticipating any break between the two.
BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioners, any comments or questions of the applicant? Okay,
thank you. I need to ask for the record if you are okay, if you are comfortable with the conditions as
stated in the recommendation.
BAKER: Yes.
BEAUDET: Okay, thanks. So no further comment – thank you, sir, appreciate it – we have one
individual from the audience, who wishes to testify. I’d like to call Curtis Tyler. Do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth now and before the Leeward Planning Commission?
TYLER: I do.
BEAUDET: thank you. If you could speak into the mike, sir, and introduce yourself and your
address.
TYLER: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Leeward Planning Commission, my name is Curtis
Tyler. I’m a descendent of people who inhabited this property. And I also have been quite
involved in the conditions and things that were put on this property when they came in for original
zoning. And I want to, I have no opposition to the extension; however, the owner has not complied
with the conditions of rezoning. And that is that the lower portion, which is shown an Open, or
4
EXHIBIT A
Ag-1a, it’s under Condition J and K, has not been properly maintained. To the contrary, and most
recently, a dozer went through the parcel and destroyed a number of sites. And I noticed this, I
called Mike Vitousek, he said, “Oh, no, everything is taken care of, all the red fencing is up.” And I
said, “Are you speaking about the burial, and up?” And he said, “Yeah, the burial,” and said, “I
went down there.” I said, “I know there is no more red fencing because it’s not up on the bottom
parcel.” That whole bottom parcel is supposed to be in red fencing. Nothing, no mechanical
equipment, is to go in there because it’s, this is where the queen mother lived, Keōpūolani, okay?
And she is the mother of Kamehameha II, Kamehameha III, and Nahienaena. This, I spoke to
Mr. Baker and his other representatives before the meeting started, to inform them of my concern.
Whether it was under a previous owner with whom, who tried to give me the parcel, by the way,
saying, “What are we going to do with the parcel?” I said, you know, I was a councilman, “I
couldn’t, you can’t give me the parcel.” And there is a condition in here that calls for a covenant to
be recorded, and it’s, I don’t know whether it’s been done or not. But it’s under the consolidation
and resubdivision deed, and it is on Exhibit A, and it’s No. 12, Condition No. 12, on the last page,
and the grantee has consented to the County rezoning to 1a with area and the prohibition of any
development or improvement of that area in such a way as to interfere with or negatively affect the
archaeological and historic features of such area, as determined by the State Historic Preservation
Office. Okay? There is --.
BEAUDET: Mr. Tyler, could I just interject --.
TYLER: Sure, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
BEAUDET: -- one second. The application is for what TMK?
KAY: It’s for the subject property here. However, when the original ordinance was passed, it was
for both of these parcels; this was subsequently consolidated and resubdivided, but the original
ordinance speaks to this Parcel 54 on makai of the subject parcel. And on your yellow paper it’s
Condition K that Mr. Tyler is speaking about, pardon me, J and K speak to archaeological issues
relative to the makai parcel.
BEAUDET: So what is the parcel number of concern right now from Mr. Tyler’s perspective?
KAY: Sure. That would be this right here in Ag-1 and right now I believe that’s 7-5-009:054.
BEAUDET: So the consolidation and resubdivision allowed for --.
KAY: The creation of this Parcel 67, correct.
BEAUDET: -- the creation of --.
KAY: Parcel 67, correct --.
BEAUDET: Okay, of the RM-2.5.
KAY: Correct.
5
EXHIBIT A
BEAUDET: Okay, so the conditions as imposed on the Open area is relative to, it’s all one
application.
KAY: Correct. When they originally came in back in 2004, the ordinance that passed in 2005
spoke to the entire site here, which included both parcels. And those conditions relative to Parcel
54 carry through with this update, or amendment.
BEAUDET: And are current.
KAY: And are current, correct.
BEAUDET: I just needed the clarification, Mr. Tyler, so if you could proceed.
TYLER: I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear. It is confusing because it was all one parcel that
belonged to Lanihau, and the history of the arch sites, or cultural resources there, goes back to the
60’s, I believe, perhaps earlier; I have all that information in my file when Mr. Greenwell, etc.
bought, where they could develop the parcel, what could happen. And it’s been very clear from the
start of this whoever has owned this land knew that this was here, that these cultural resources were
here. And as has happened so often in my almost 70 years of living in Kona, it’s best laid plans of
men and women, the devil is in the details and nobody paid attention. And all of a sudden I drive
by one day and I see the bulldozer tracks going through this whole lower parcel. I call Mike
Vitousek and I ask him, and he tells me that oh no they’ve marked everything. I said, “You’d better
go out there and check it out. There is bulldozer’s tracks all through there. I’m not blind and I
know what they look like.” He went out there and he said, “Yeah, but there is no red fencing out
there.” And I said, he said, “The burial area, the large burial area that’s in Parcel 67, that has been
properly marked, the wall has been properly marked.” But the area that’s almost three acres that
has more cultural sites than any place else almost known in Kona, gets the bulldozer to go through
there. And I asked why. And I’m told that the representative for the current owner ordered the
bulldozer to go through there to clean up all the rubbish from the homeless people. Can you
imagine such a thing happening in the pyramids or in, I mean, it’s just unconscionable to me,
unconscionable to me that this would go on. And then when I call to the attention, I speak to
Building, Building says, “Oh, no, everything is fine, there is no problem.” Either people, you know,
memories are short, people don’t pay attention to what’s in the palapala, but it is all here. And I
want to know if the covenant that is required by SHPD about no disturbance of this area has been
recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances, because it’s supposed to run with the land as is true for all
burial treatment plans. I don’t see it; I don’t know. All I see is that, yes, they’ve agreed to it, yes,
they are going to do it. Well, it’s not quite worked out yet, but, yes, we understand that. But is
there any red fencing up there? No, there isn’t.
And my point is, Commissioners, and guests and to the owner and the applicants and
representatives, is I don’t have an objection to a five-year extension. I understand how these things
work. But what I ask first and foremost is you meet the obligations that were called for in the
County Council, called for by the Hawai‘i Island Burial Council, called for by the descendants like
myself, and called for in the Plan Approval by the Planning Department, and do that first before
anything else happens; because next time maybe I might not be around here, I might not notice,
6
EXHIBIT A
somebody may say, “Oh, bro, it’s all done already, they graded the whole place.” There is, they
may have all the grading permits in the world, but they have no grading permits to go in the parcel,
none whatsoever. And I want to be sure that none are ever issued to go in there, because it’s part of
the law and we are under the rule of law; we are not, “Hey, bro, brother told me it’s okay, no
problem, we going, you know, he told me, hey, get the damn homeless people out of here. Oh,
yeah, so they are going back there now. I know we’ve got a problem. But, if I could, I’d be down
there every day pounding those guys, getting them out of there, making sure they are not there. But
I can’t do that, and --.
BEAUDET: I think you’ve made your point, Mr. Tyler --.
TYLER: Yeah, okay, mahalo.
BEAUDET: -- I don’t mean to be disrespectful.
TYLER: I’m done. I’m happy to answer any questions. I just want everyone to maka‘ala this.
And this is going to the Council, so believe me, I’m going to go to the Council. You folks are an
advisory. I’m going to go --.
BEAUDET: And rightfully so. We’ve got your point.
TYLER: Thank you. Mahalo. I’m happy to answer any questions. I dropped my file just before I
came forward.
BEAUDET: Staff, with regard to the conditions as written in the ordinance, with regard to the
conditions as stated by SHPD, now who is responsible to make sure that those conditions are met?
Is that the County action or is that the State action?
KAY: That would be up to the, the conditions are actually on the applicant; it’s the applicant’s
requirement to meet all of the conditions of the ordinance.
BEAUDET: Yeah, but who goes after?
KAY: It would be in conjunction with the State and in the case of one condition with the County as
well; so the applicant is supposed to be working with the State and the County depending on what
the condition states on different aspect. So for instance, if you look at Condition J in your yellow
sheet, at the very bottom it says, “A separate Preservation Plan for the portion of 7-5-9:54 that is
zoned A-1a shall be submitted to SHPD prior to any mechanical disturbance or issuance of any land
disturbance permit of that area.” We are unclear as to whether or not the Preservation Plan was ever
done. We have contacted with SHPD right now to see if that was done. There were preservation
plans and burial treatment plans that were done for Parcel 67, which is the subject parcel that we are
dealing with now, and SHPD signed off on those. But we are unclear as to whether or not there was
anything done for 54.
BEAUDET: Would that --.
7
EXHIBIT A
TYLER: Condition K is the --.
KAY: Yeah, the other one is Condition K --.
BEAUDET: Can we do that before it goes to Council?
KAY: In terms of getting started on --.
BEAUDET: Finding the status.
KAY: Yeah, yeah, we are working on now trying to find the status of that, yeah. I hope we can get
the information from either the applicant or from SHPD as well, yeah.
Condition K is the other one, and this is the one that Mr. Tyler was speaking to relative to “recorded
document shall be filed with the Planning Department,” pardon me, “submit a covenant to be
recorded with the State of Hawai‘i Bureau of Conveyances to the Planning Director for review and
approval … Said restrictive covenant … shall acknowledge that the applicant or its successors or
assigns has consented to a County-initiated rezoning of the A-1a zoned area into the Open district
and the prohibition of any development or improvement ….” Back in 2005 there was a document,
or recorded, a document that was recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances that spoke to that, and
the applicant at the time agreed that the County, that they agreed with the County-initiated rezoning.
The County has not initiated the rezoning to this point.
Okay, and the other one is Condition L, and L states that, relative to Parcel 54, that “the applicant
shall identify an entity that would be responsible for the management and care of the
archaeological/cultural features on that portion of TMK … 54 that is not covered by this ordinance.
Prior to its designation, the applicant shall solicit the input of the native Hawaiian community and
the County Council. Within 60 days of the identification of this entity, this area, with the
concurrence of the County Council, shall be conveyed via lease or fee to the identified entity for
$1.00.” So the intention here was to identify a group to manage Parcel 54. As of the applicant’s
update on Conditions, they said they are still working on that and intend to have that done before
certificate of occupancy is granted.
BEAUDET: Is there a recommended timeline?
KAY: So currently there is no recommended timeline to make that happen. Should the
Commission desire a timeline, you are more than welcome to suggest.
BEAUDET: The challenge that we have here is, from a cultural preservation standpoint, we have,
there are responsibilities, there’s conditions to be met, but there is no timeline on it. But yet, the
only timeline that we have as far as formalizing these plans is occupancy; so disturbance of the land
can take place.
KAY: So --.
8
EXHIBIT A
BEAUDET: What is the definition of occupancy? Because that’s what you said, right, before the
issuance of --.
KAY: Right, before the issuance of the --.
BEAUDET: -- certificate of occupancy.
KAY: -- certification of occupancy from the Department of Public Works.
BEAUDET: Okay.
KAY: So relative to the disturbance of land on Parcel 54 it says that there needs to be in place a
preservation plan before any issuance of a grading or grubbing permit or any land disturbance. So
should the applicant, who also owns Parcel 54, desired to do anything on there, they need to get a
preservation plan in place first. So right now if there was bulldozing done there, then they will be in
violation of the ordinance. And we also have Ki Emler here from the Department of Public Works,
Engineering Division, to answer any questions about the grading permit process, should you have
any more specific questions.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any comments for staff or Mr. Tyler before we proceed with bringing
up the applicant again?
WHITTEMORE: Going back to your, Mr. Tyler, your early part of your presentation --.
TYLER: Yes, Mr. Whittemore.
WHITTEMORE: -- you made reference to Sites J and K? Was I hearing that right or was that?
TYLER: No, Conditions.
WHITTEMORE: Conditions, okay.
TYLER: Ordinance conditions.
WHITTEMORE: Okay, okay then. My other question then was going to be, is there any historic
preservation sites on this existing site right now, 67?
TYLER: There are. On 67 where they are planning to, where they are asking for an extension.
WHITTEMORE: Right, right.
TYLER: Yes, there are.
WHITTEMORE: Okay, and that’s already built into this plan?
TYLER: It’s built it --.
9
EXHIBIT A
WHITTEMORE: It’s been approved? The preservation has?
TYLER: The preservation of those items is for that parcel, 67, is built in, and, yes, there is red
fencing. So there has been confusion between 54 and 67. I’m not speaking about 67; I’m speaking
about 54. And that’s the one that had most sensitive sites in addition to the burial that’s on, burial
complex on 67, and there are other burials.
WHITTEMORE: Okay. Is there any condition in the, all these conditions spelled out here, so I
understand clearly, 67 to trigger the occupancy they have to have the preservation plan in place for
54?
KAY: Not that I’m aware of, no.
WHITTEMORE: It’s not a condition. Okay, so that could, 54 could just remain as is now and 67
continues to be developed without any conditions there.
KAY: Right. Really the only timing here is before any grading permit is granted or any mechanical
disturbance on 54, they need to get a preservation plan.
WHITTEMORE: Okay.
TYLER: And I thought it was the same for 67 that they couldn’t get anything until they preserve,
put preservation buffers up for 54, because otherwise what happened happen. In other words, the
bulldozer went down there to clean up. There was no demarcation there between 67 and 54. And
so the very essence of the law, J and K, to preserve the lower parcel and leave it, or have it rezoned
from Ag-1 to Open, failed; it didn’t happen because the left hand didn’t know what the right hand
was doing. And by the time I saw it nobody seemed to acknowledge that there was such a condition
that no mechanical disturbance could be there, including Public Works, who went out there and
said, no, they found no violation. But it’s clear. Anyway, thank you for the question.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any more comments?
SHIMAOKA: Well, the question I have is that, are they any restrictions from having any
mechanical machinery on 54?
KAY: Yeah, there are restrictions --.
SHIMAOKA: According, when I read this, that’s what it says. And so you are in violation already
when you put any kind of mechanical equipment on 54.
BEAUDET: Yeah, so the violation is is that they went in prior to the formalization of the
preservation plan for Parcel 54.
KAY: Correct.
10
EXHIBIT A
BEAUDET: Okay, so, and then now it’s on record that the property owner is in violation of the
covenant.
SHIMAOKA: It is on record.
BEAUDET: Well, it’s on record this morning.
KAY: It’s on our record.
SHIMAOKA: Now.
KAY: Yeah, and my understanding from Mr. Tyler is that he’s made a formal complaint with
SHPD relative to that. Is that? Yeah.
COMMAND: I have one question of Mr. Tyler. Have you filed a complaint with the Department
of Public Works?
TYLER: I did.
COMMAND: Thank you.
TYLER: And they did, they went out there and said there was no violation. And also, I did first
speak with Mr. Vitousek, the State archaeologist for this island, and he also went out there and told
me there was no violation.
BEAUDET: I think violation can, this conversation is kind of getting gray, so let’s keep things in
perspective. They are in violation of the covenant, okay, but that’s not what is the issue, right,
today, right? It’s the extension of time on the, for the application, or for the ordinance, or one
condition of the ordinance.
TYLER: If I may, Mr. --.
BEAUDET: But, but – just, let me flow.
TYLER: I’m sorry, sir.
BEAUDET: Okay, so I think when observers of who have been out to the site for physical and
visual inspection and say that there is no violation, maybe, I’m assuming, but there is clarity that
needs to be there that no violation means that none of the historical or cultural sites were damaged.
Okay, but, but, going onto the parcel with heavy equipment is still in violation of the covenant, and
that needs to be addressed. But it’s not going to, it’s been communicated here, but this is not the
forum to address the violation.
KAY: We’ll continue to follow up with Mr. Tyler and the applicant to look into this as far as
following up and working with SHPD as well.
11
EXHIBIT A
BEAUDET: Thank you.
TYLER: And, Mr. Chairman, I’m more than happy to help the applicants and, you know, to resolve
this issue. This is not something that needs to go to court or, you know, have a big protest or
anything; this is something that we move forward from here. And I’ve already told them that I’m
willing to work with them, same with Building, and same with Mr. Vitousek. We can’t turn back
the clock, but we can protect from now on.
BEAUDET: Thank you.
TYLER: Thank you, sir. Thank you all very much.
BEAUDET: Would the applicant please step forward once again?
BAKER: Yes.
BEAUDET: Just giving you the opportunity to follow up on the communication and the dialogue
that just took place.
BAKER: Yes, as he stated, the reason the other folks have said there was no violation, because the
sites, they are marked, clearly marked on our site plan, including Parcel 54, were fenced and
protected. As far as the bulldozer, I do not have knowledge which bulldozer was down there, but I
know the Fire Department, due to the two fires, have been down there with bulldozers twice, and
we had a bulldozer up on 67 in clearing up some of the homeless, I guess, homeless rubbish down
on that site we had to clean it up per the Fire Department and the Police Department, because there
was a substantial homeless camp being created on that Parcel 54, which actually has resulted in two
fires, one in 2012-13 time frame and one recently in 2014, substantial fires.
BEAUDET: Commissioners, any comments or questions of the applicant? I just have a comment,
yeah. So it seems like, you know, all of the conditions have been met for the developable area,
okay, and it could be looked at as a separate issue as far as the conditions that are directly related to
the makai parcel. But they are all under the same ordinance, yeah, so they need to be adhere to
with, you know, regardless of what the request is or the amendment is of the ordinance; they are all
one package. So as the developer of the parcel, you know, I have to emphasize, you know, the
importance of meeting the conditions of the ordinances as they are written, especially when they are
dealing with cultural and historical sites. They, not because it’s a sensitive issue today with stuff
going on, Mauna Kea and Haleakala and things like that, but because they are important to the
people of Hawai‘i, especially to the people who are lineal descendants of those who had resided in
that area. And if it’s hard for some of us to understand that, just respect it for what it is. So as you
move forward on your development, you know, I really emphasize that you learn what is there on
both sites, understand the significance of them as best you can, but at a minimum, at a minimum,
you know, make sure you are in compliance with the conditions of the ordinance.
BAKER: And I want to reiterate, we were and are in compliance. The sites were --.
BEAUDET: You still need your preservation plan.
12
EXHIBIT A
BAKER: The sites were marked. And we do have a preservation plan.
BEAUDET: But it hasn’t been formalized and accepted.
BAKER: I’ll get that done, completed. And Mr. Darrow also went out and verified that the Fire
Department did have dozers on those sites.
TYLER \[in audience\]: Two thousand twelve.
BAKER: And 14.
TYLER \[in audience\]: Long time ago. Talking about 2015 \[inaudible\].
BEAUDET: We can continue the discussion between you two outside, I mean that’s fine. So --.
BAKER: Any other questions?
BEAUDET: I don’t. I don’t. Commissioners and staff, do you have anything to share with us?
KAY: There was one suggestion relative to putting a time frame on identifying the management
entity. And should you want to make a suggestion to add that in, that might help kind of, again, put
some fire under that; identify the management entity within a certain amount of time, and go from
there. Just a thought.
BEAUDET: I would prefer a timeline on it rather than prior to occupancy.
KAY: Okay. One possibility is a 180 days; that’s six months. You could go a year.
BAKER: They are being --.
BEAUDET: I like shorter when it comes to time frames, you know, as far as identifying a
contractor. That’s not, you know, that’s not like doing an archaeological survey; it’s finding a
consultant, so.
BAKER: We have a consultant on it, but I would say during the, prior to completion of the first
phase or a year whichever is sooner.
COMMAND: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the applicant if he has had any discussions with entities
that might want to take on the responsibility.
BAKER: We’ve asked our archaeological consultant to identify some people, but we haven’t had
anybody step forward that would have asked. But I will work with, Mr. Tyler might know, or if you
guys have a recommendation, I’m all ears, so.
13
EXHIBIT A
KAY: So I apologize, one thing that was brought to my attention, the condition states that prior to
the designation of this management group the applicant shall solicit the input of the native Hawaiian
community and the County Council. So that brings in the possibility of scheduling and some other
kind of time constraints. So just kind of keep that in mind as you are determining what your
timeline might be.
BEAUDET: My suggestion is, you know, no longer than twelve months. Commissioners, any
discussion on that before we move forward?
SHIMAOKA: Yeah, I agree with the shorter time limit that we make sure that we ensure that the
things get cleared up first. That’s important to me.
KAY: If I may just suggest some language in terms of, in front of, before the starting of L, “Within
one year of the effective date of this amendment, the applicant shall identify an entity that would be
responsible for the management and care of the archaeological/cultural features …” and so on.
BEAUDET: I’m all right with it.
TYLER \[in audience\]: Is there a time limit for it being turned over? So that’s the other question
about the stewardship.
KAY: So the actual condition speaks to that: “Within 60 days of the identification of this entity,
this area, with the concurrence of the County Council, shall be conveyed via lease or fee to the
identified entity for $1.00.”
BEAUDET: I’m okay with the language, you know, and I’m okay with the way the conditions are
written. You know, as a developer, I think if the conditions are met in a timely fashion, I think you
can set the example for future development, and that’s, you know, that’s a positive way of looking
at it, because there has been so many challenges in the past, and, you know, what better place to be
than to set the example, or to create that, yeah. And working with your neighbors is a best way to
do that. Thank you.
BAKER: Thank you.
BEAUDET: Okay, so just clarifying, there is, only change is to Condition L?
KAY: That’s correct at this point.
BEAUDET: Okay, can you read that just one more time?
KAY: Sure. So that states, “Within one year of the effective date of this amendment, the applicant
shall identify an entity that would be responsible for the management and care of the
archaeological/cultural features …” and so on.
BEAUDET: Okay. Thank you. I need to officially close the public testimony portion of this
meeting, so could I have a motion?
14
EXHIBIT A
SHIMAOKA: So move.
WHITTEMORE: Second.
BEAUDET: Thank you. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye \[unanimously\].
BEAUDET: Okay. With no further discussion, if there is none, Commissioners, I’d like to ask for
a motion for action.
WHITTEMORE: I’d like to move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council on the application to amend Condition C of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 74, Docket
Number REZ 04-002, based on the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings, and proposed
conditions, which shall be adopted, to include the amended change to L.
KAHOLO: Second.
BEAUDET: It’s been moved by Commissioner Whittemore for a favorable recommendation, and
seconded by Commissioner Kaholo. Staff, please take the roll.
KAY: Okay. Commissioner Whittemore?
WHITTEMORE: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Kaholo?
KAHOLO: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Nobriga?
NOBRIGA: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Shimaoka?
SHIMAOKA: Aye.
KAY: Commissioner Unger?
UNGER: Aye.
KAY: And Chair Beaudet?
BEAUDET: Aye.
15
EXHIBIT A
KAY: The motion carries, six-nothing. Thank you.
The discussion ended at 10:18 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
Leeward Planning Commission
16
EXHIBIT A