Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-04 THICDC ORI PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 4, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of HAWAII ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/HAWAIIAN RAINBOWS BUSINESS was called to order at 10:45 a.m. DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 07-000013/REZ 07-000059) in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT:William Graham C. Kimo Alameda TakashiDomingo Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Rene Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 27 people from the public in attendance APPLICANTS: HAWAII ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/HAWAIIAN RAINBOWS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (SLU 07-000013/REZ 07-000059) a.State Land Use Boundary amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District for 6.718 acres. b.Change of Zone from Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5 „ 6.718 acres), Agricultural 10-acre (A-10a „ 118.36 acres) and Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a „ 14.46 acres) for 139.748 acres of land. The proposed RS-7.5 and A-5a areas are located along the east (makai) side of the Old Mamalahoa Highway in the vicinity of the Kulaimano Heights Subdivision, Unit V and the proposed A-10a area is located along the east (makai) side of the Old Railroad Right- of-Way, Kahua and Makahanaloa, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-8-8:111, 143 through 147. GRAHAM:The first item on our agenda today is a continued hearing on an application by Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation and Hawaiian Rainbows Business Development, LLC. This is an application for a State Land Use Boundary amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District for 6.7 acres, a Change of Zone from Ag-20 to Single-Family Residential RS-7.5, Ag-10 and Ag-5 for 139.74 acres of land. Because this is a 1EXHIBIT A rezoning application, our role as the Planning Commission is just to make a recommendation to the County Council who will make the final decision. And Ill start off this agenda item today. Well have Jeff give us a brief presentation; he gave us a presentation at our last meeting. And after he gives a brief presentation and points out anything thats new that has come since then, then Im going to invite the applicants to come up and give us their presentation. If you may recall, last time I held them to a very, just brief overview of what was involved, so they never had a real chance to delineate their project in detail. So, Jeff, go ahead. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the location map, the area of this application is within the South Hilo District of Hawaii. More specifically, we are looking at the area of Pepeekeo. On the location map this is identified mainly in yellow, which is Residential zoning. The areas of the application are outlined in yellow. More specifically, for reference we have the Hawaii Belt Road running in a north-south direction, as well as Old Mamalahoa Highway. Therearetwoareasassociatedwiththisapplication.OneisParcel111identifiedinthis particular area; this area will include a State Land Use Boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 6.7 acres, as well as a Change of Zone from Ag-20 to RS-7.5 for the same particular area of 6.7 acres, as well as a Change of Zone from Agricultural-20 to Agricultural-5 for the remainder areas associated with this particular parcel. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Ag-20 to Ag-10 in this particular area on the property for approximately 118 acres. This morning the Planning Commission had the opportunity to conduct a site inspection of the areas associated with this application as well as the issues that have been raised by the public. The applicants in this case, Hawaii Island Community Development as well as Hawaiian Rainbows Business Development, LLC, are requesting these proposed changes to the Planning Commission. Since our last meeting the Planning Department has made changes to the Recommendation; weve added a new Condition B as well as a revision from the original Condition D, which will now be the new Condition E. With the addition of the new Condition B, all Conditions after that will be re-alphabetized. Additionally, since our last meeting, thereve been numerous letters that have come into the Planning Department, as well as a letter thats been generated by the Planning Director. If I can just briefly mention these to make sure that the Commissioners do have these. This morning we received a letter from the Pepeekeo Community Association, Lorraine Mendoza, as well as Lucille Meek, Steven Meek, Lucy Snyder & Chris Gallery, Bob and Duyen Williams, and also weve received a letter from the applicants speaking to some of the issues regarding this. Again I want to bring to your attention as well a letter thats dated th April 27 from the Planning Director to Ms. Lorraine Mendoza with the Pepeekeo Community Association, addressing questions that the Association had sent into the Planning Director. YUEN:Just one thing for the Commissioners, there was supposed to be the same topomapthatyouareseeinguphereattachedtothatletter,andapparentlyitwasntputinyour copy, so Im going to just pass that out right now. GRAHAM:Commissioner Siracusa? 2EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:I have a procedural question, and Im not sure if I should be asking Jeff or Ivan or the Director. This is the first time Ive ever seen us get anything where we are dealing with two parcelsthat are not contiguous. And Im wondering when the time comes to vote, I assume well be taking separate motions on the State Land Use Boundary amendment and separate ones on the Change of Zone. Im wondering if well also be taking special separate motions on the Change of Zone for each parcel, or is it going to be all bunched together. GRAHAM:Commissioner Siracusa, my understanding is that this whole thing is put together as one package. And although it is different than what we usually encounter, I think were going to be making a decision on the one package. But Ill ask -. SIRACUSA:So for clarity, then if I like one part and not the other part, I have to make a choice one way or the other? Its an all or nothing thing, is that correct? GRAHAM:Ibelieveso.Mr.Torigoe,doyouhavecomments? TORIGOE:Well,Ithinkthisisaninterestingsituationbecauseasyounoted,asyou look at the materials, it is presented as a package. And if you are planning on trying to split the matter, and deal with it parcel by parcel, then that probably would require further discussion with the developer and with the Planning Department because I think its all kind of integrated. GRAHAM:And maybe I can just indicate to the -. DOMINGO:Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM:To the applicant that you could, at that point when you make your presentation, discuss this issue also. Yes, Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did I hear it right that if doing the deliberation of the issues, then we can suggest to separate the issues, or -? There is no other alternative but to consider both applications together? GRAHAM:My sense, Commissioner Domingo, is thats where we are starting. But as we go through the process today, if we come to a point where the Commissioners want to do something different, we can ask Mr. Torigoe for approval and probably proceed the way we would like to. DOMINGO:But, you know, whats compelling here is that even if we do separate the issues and if we decide to deliberate on the Land Use Boundary amendment first, it would not be - I dont know what words to use, but -. You know, the fact is that particular property would be given to the Housing Foundation only and being contingent upon the rezoning granted to the applicant; and there I find it very difficult to really separate that. You know, we can separate it, but it would not mean a thing because all is contingent upon the acquisition of the rezoning of the 20-acre to 10-acre zoning issue. GRAHAM:I think its a helpful issue you brought up because the applicant will have that in mind, as well as the Commissioners here. I think what we should do is go ahead and 3EXHIBIT A proceed with what weve got, and then well deal with that in an appropriate manner. Jeff, do you want to continue? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to briefly summarize, again we do have two applications before us „ a State Land Use Boundary amendment from Ag to Urban for this particular area of 6.7 acres, which is part of the area in the Change of Zone from Ag-20 to RS- 7.5; Hawaiian Rainbows Business Development has entered into an agreement with Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation to be able to allow them to build a 30-lot affordable subdivision. We have two applications: One is a State Land Use Boundary amendment; the other one is a Change of Zone, which encompasses all these actions together „ Agricultural 20-acres to RS-7.5 for 6.7 acres, the remainder of the parcel from Ag-20 to Ag-5 and then a larger parcel of 118 acres from Ag-20 to Ag-10. The entire project is approximately 140 acres in size. TherecommendationofthePlanningDirectoratthistimeisthatthePlanningCommissionsend a favorable recommendation for these applications to the Hawaii County Council. Are there any questions? GRAHAM:Thank you, Jeff. Yes, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question for, I guess, the Director really, and its more for clarification purposes because we just took that site visit this morning. And it seems clear to me that Soil Conservation had the developer create some berms, etc. to reduce the potential for flooding, and to conserve the soil obviously. And irrespective of what this application states, because with the additional material that we got from the developer as well as the site visit and the topo map that we recently got, you know, the application states 30 houses, but irrespective of how the application came in, we would never allow any building in an AE flood zone anyway. And so Im wanting to make sure that, you know -. Typically the system has other checks and balances within it, which means that potentially the subdivision would have been downsized, even if we had approved it as it had come in. YUEN:Right. Its quite common that an area would be residentially zoned and well have areas that have to be set aside for a drainage way within the RS zoning. Part of the Subdivision Code says that the subdivider has to lay out watercourses and drainage ways within the subdivision, and set them aside in drainage easements. So we see this quite commonly that it wasnt necessarily determined at the time of zoning where the drainage ways would be, but that its taken care of in the subdivision approval in the subdivision stage. GRAHAM:Any other questions from the Commissioners at this point? DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman, if I may? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO:With speaking of building drainage ways and other factors tied in with the development I just have one question. Would the cost of all of those infrastructure be tagged onto the cost of the homes? 4EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:I think wed probably need to wait and ask that when the applicant comes up. DOMINGO:Okay. GRAHAM:Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:I have another question. If you look at this -. We weretold there were going to be 30 lots for affordable housing. If you lookat this topographic map that we just got, they have taken out the ones that would have been in the drainage, and they have taken out the ones where more than 50% of the lot was within the 1,000 feet of the well. That leaves them with 19 by my count. So weve gone from 30 to 19. We were not informed of that. There are 19 lots drawn on this map. GRAHAM:Doyouwanttoanswerthat? YUEN:Well,thisissomethingyoucandiscussmorewiththeapplicant.But typically when you have a subdivision layout at this stage, its not a final layout. So I dont think that -. The subdivision layout that was presented with the application nor this one are necessarily the final layout. This shows how you could lay out lots on not involving -, and stay outside of the drainage way and the 1,000-foot radius. You will probably not get 30 lots when you do that. WOODWARD:Well, I had one other question. It seems to me a little peculiar, and this may be more for discussion down the road, that they are planning to donate what essentially is less than 5 percent of their total land holdings for affordable homes, and which now looks like its 19 lots instead of 30, and it is being donated to an alternate corporation over which we have no control. So how are we even going to be sure that those homes in fact get built, if we decide to pursue it? GRAHAM:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:The conditions of zoning require the donation of the property to HICDC before final subdivision approval of the 10-acre lot area, so the donation is required. As far as the applicant that you have before us, theyve built over 200 housing units on the island. You can ask them what their confidence level is of being able to do the project, if they have the zoning. I think thats a fair question to ask, and certainly a question that we discussed with them before making our favorable recommendation on this. But they have a track record of delivering units, and they are the non-profit organization on the island that has created the most affordable housing units certainly. GRAHAM:All right. Thank you. I think some of these comments were getting are very germane in the sense that they reflect larger issues that the Commissioners are concerned about. During the hearing today, Id like to kind of keep it moving as much as I can, so if I kind of seem abrupt or anything at times, thats just because I want the process to move. But I know these issues are all very important. Could the applicant come forward at this time? Could you all three raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? 5EXHIBIT A APPLICANTS:Yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. So, Mr. Kato, if you want to begin, or whoever, take turns as you wish, and just start with your name and address, and then go right ahead with your testimony. KATO:My name is Keith Kato. Im the Executive Director of Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation. My address is P. O. Box 303, Papaikou, Hawaii 96781. Well, I think maybe just to start with the most recent questions that have come up, which is separating the zonings, we went into this agreement with Hawaiian Rainbows with the understanding that the application would be considered as one. I think they have, you know, business reasons for wanting it that way. From our standpoint, if thats the way they want it, then thats the way it has to be from our side. We cannot compel them to give us property. They areofferingittous,andtheyareofferingittousonterms,whichincludesthisgoingforwardas one application. If you want to do -. Do you want to discuss all of the physical issues at this point, or would you rather we wait -? GRAHAM:I dont think we want to discuss all the issues at this point. I think what we would like at this point is again for you all to just present as you wish to present; and then if the Commissioners still have any questions about what you are presenting, well take that. Then after that well take public testimony. Then youll come back up sort of for a final time, and then all these hard-nosed questions that we have we can bring them right to you at that point. KATO:All right. Fine. Could I do it from the maps? GRAHAM:Certainly. KATO:Thank you. GRAHAM:We would like you to use the mike. KATO:Good Morning. What Ive given to Jeff is actually a petition that we, we went out into the Kulaimano community and solicited signatures of people who live there and who are in support of the project. We havent really covered the entire subdivision yet. But the reason we did that was theres a representation been made that people at Kulaimano are opposed to the project. I think youll see when you look at it, everybody on there is a resident of Kulaimano. And were about two-thirds of the way through; we intend to continue this until weve basically covered the entire subdivision. But the response that weve gotten is very favorable in terms of people understanding the need for affordable housing and supporting this particular project. What we have -. I think it was great that we had the field trip this morning because I think it gave everybody a sense of what things are happening. The property again was just to the right of that culvert, and went down -. There was a corner here. It went across the drainage area, and then back along -. You notice that this was a berm here. It basically runs inside -. I guess it 6EXHIBIT A straddles the property line, but it runs along all the way down here. This is the gate, and this was the first flag. And the road that we were on actually headed off in this direction here. The drainage area is generally in this area here. You can see by the topo map and by what you saw there, there is a ditch that runs along here, and then it transitions into this wide swale thats basically created by the berm here. What we will be doing is, if this thing moves forward, there will be a requirement that their civil engineer do a drainage study, and they will delineate the precise boundaries of where the drainage area is. Once that happens, that area will be turned into an easement and we will not be building any lots in that easement area. Right now we have a revised tentative layout, like I said out there in the field. We are not sure how far makai we can go with the lots. I think that will be defined by the drainage study. But right now our plan is basically to keep the same configuration and develop it to the extent that we can. None of the septic systems will be installed in the drainage area. For those of you who havent gone through this process recently, the Department of Health requires that you do a percolation testforeachsepticsystemthatyoudo;andthisinvolvespre-soakingthegroundactuallyfora substantial period of time, and then you introduce additional water into it, and then they basically judge how fast, or they measure in fact, how fast the water perks out. We have a sanitary engineer doing that work for us right now. He should be getting his report into us any day soon. But weve worked in similar soils; we know that it does percolate. And its, really the function of that report is to size the leach field. But again nothing will be built without the Department of Health permits. The 1,000-foot radius comes across here. The implication of that is that we will not be able to put any septic system, leach fields, within this 1,000 feet. Its possible to build within the 1,000 feet, but you cannot install a leach field within the 1,000 feet. So well be avoiding that. I think that the last physical issue really has to do with access. We dont know exactly how many lots we are going to end up with, maybe between 20 and 25. And those lots actually have access right here off the Mamalahoa Highway. What will happen, you know, once, if we were to develop basically in this area, which path the residents will take we are not sure. But as the Planning Directors letter indicates typical traffic generation from 30 homes would be something like 21 trips during a peak hour. Again we dont know exactly which way theyre going to travel. So whether they are going to come out on Kulaimano Road, come up Pepeekeo Street and enter where the channelized intersection is, or come out where the easement is, we really dont know. But what we do know is that this easement really provides access to a number of lots that are generated down here. Right now our understanding is theres something like 150 lots that were created down there over the past few years through consolidation and resubdivision. And it seems to me that the impact of that, once it builds out, is probably much more significant than our 20 or 25 lots. Taka asked about whether the cost of infrastructure is going to be added on or passed on to the home buyers. For our purposes, that will be the case. We need to basically recover cost that we invest in the project, and so any additional cost is going to have to be passed on. For example, there is a requirement, I think its Condition L, that we pay the impact fee, which is just over 10,000 dollars. DOMINGO:Per unit? 7EXHIBIT A KATO:Per unit, right. Typically, the County has not been assessing that on affordable housing projects with idea that theyre just trying to keep the cost down. But, you know, that being the case, in this case, those costs will be added on. We have to add it on and pass it on to the buyers. I might point out that included in that $10,000 is roughly $4,000 for road impacts. And so Im not sure exactly what the County is going to do with the impact fees that it collects, but certainly it should go to addressing the access situation here. I dont have any further comments. Gordon, do you want to say anything about the project at this point? GRAHAM:Mr. Inouye, would you begin by giving your name and your address, and then go ahead? INOUYE:Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gordon Inouye. I live in Papaikou, P.O.Box595,Papaikou,Hawaii.Andmymeansoflivelihoodisthatofafarmer. IjustwanttoaddressmyselfessentiallytotheproposaltodevelopAg-10lots.Wehavesold13 Ag-20 lots in this development that you all had a chance to see this morning. And of course with the market the way it is, pricing for an Ag-20 lot is fairly, very steep. Our hope, of course, is to be able to offer Ag-10 lots to a larger population base, and hopefully make that available to more people. This is our layout. It includes an installation of an agricultural water system, which we will install and have in place before we sell any of the property. And of course there are some conditions as to how many lots we can develop, and we will of course abide by those. Essentially thats all I have to say. The key areas that -. I know someone expressed the concern about a toxic waste dump; there is no toxic waste dump. Weve got an issue of the coal ash pile that Brewer left behind. Theyve been held responsible by the State Department of Health to recycle the coal ash. Theyve been working on it for about two years now, and its very close to being approved and written up by the Department of Health. In fact, we are hoping within the next few weeks that the Department of Health will give them a completion or a clean bill of health. At that point in time, of course, the property is going to be transferred to Hawaiian Rainbows Business Development. Essentially thats all I have to say, Commissioners, unless you have some questions for me. GRAHAM:Mr. Inouye, I know at the beginning a couple of the Commissioners spoke of this as really two separate geographical parcels and all. Do you want to make any comments over that -? INOUYE:Yes. GRAHAM:Question as to whether its appropriate for us to separate it? INOUYE:You may separate it; but the development agreement we have with HICDC is contingent upon getting approval for all the properties. So if they are separated and one is not approved, the development agreement is null and void. 8EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:In going over the material that we have, a significant concern I have is regarding the community, the effect that this project has had so far in terms of the community. And I commend that it looks like, what I can see, there were like five meetings from November through March with the community and the applicants. The community association in particular is asking for further meetings and trying to work out whatever the residual concerns that they have. And under our Rules, we are working under a 90-day deadline basically that started back in the beginning of April when we first were presented with this application. Our Rule 11-3 (b) (2) allows for a longer time for the Commission to consider this matter as long as the applicant agrees to additional time. So my question to the applicants is whether you would agree to extend the 90-day time for the Commission to consider this matter, so that you can go backtothecommunitytohavefurthermeetingsandtrytoworkitout,sotherecanbeaunified-. If you work it out, my hope is that you come back and there will be a consensus in the community. Or at least the association and so forth would come back and say, okay, this is how we like, you know, we are all happy now, and go ahead and let this project go through. INOUYE:Commissioner Iwashita, we would be happy to do that if we felt that somewhere along the line that a compromised solution was available. Unfortunately, our view is nothing short of withdrawing our application right now would satisfy those that have opposed our project. So we may as well figure out now whether we want to go forward or not. And if not, then well just go on our way. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Inouye. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair? Just a follow-up. GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Iwashita, follow-up? IWASHITA:Yeah. I appreciate your frank response, Mr. Inouye. You know, my view is we have our responsibility. And our, you know, what powers limited in this case that we have to do, I really view planning, and that power is given to us under the Codes, the laws that are in effect here. But I really believe that in reading in particular the community associations request, I dont see that thats on the record, if you will, that there has been a totally exhaustive effort done in terms of trying to work it out with the community. And this is a significant, as I see it, multi-million dollar project that is being proposed, and it will have a long-term effect and probably a precedential effect in the community, in this rural community. So I really believe that the community -, any developer, not just this applicant, should make a, what I will term, complete and total effort to address the community concerns, go to the community and do the best in trying to work that out. And my humble opinion now is that further time can be used to address these concerns. So I strongly suggest that we have more time to deal with this. That doesnt require a response. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Do you wish to make a comment, Mr. Inouye? 9EXHIBIT A INOUYE:May I address that myself? GRAHAM:If you wish. INOUYE:Yes. I appreciate that. And I also believe in working closely with the community, and we have worked very closely with the community. Again weve had a number of meetings, as I mentioned. We brought this forth, and weve talked to many of the community members. The objections that have been raised are centered around very specific things, this drainage and traffic; and I think those issues have been addressed comprehensively. Again many of the other objections center upon a great project but a wrong site; and unfortunately we have no control over the site other than that within our own ownership. And as I say, you know, after considerable discussion in this area, the opponents, you know, would only be satisfied when this is withdrawn. OfparticularimpactwasMr.DomingosquestiontoMr.Meekatourlastmeetingwhere objections were raised; and Mr. Domingo specifically asked Mr. Meek if these specific issues can be addressed, would you support the proposal. And I think youll see in the record, Mr. Meek refused to answer that, or declined, or did not answer that question. So its clear to me that all these technical issues aside, we can address them, we can do it, we can plan it, we can ensure that all these factors are not a problem, and yet I know that well still have objections. So again from our standpoint, we cant do any more than we have thus far in terms of making this as acceptable as possible to create a win-win situation for as many members of our community as possible, and -. So we may as well decide now. And if its a nay, well just go on with our lives and do the best we can to serve our community. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you. Mr. Nishimura, are you going to make presentation also? NISHIMURA:No. But I just wanted to point out -. GRAHAM:Give your name and address first, please. NISHIMURA:Okay. Brian Nishimura. Im a planning consultant for the applicants. 1174 Awiki Place in Hilo. Commissioner Iwashita referred to a communication from the community association; we have not seen the second letter from the community association. So its hard for us to respond to that because we dont know what it contains. We did provide a response to issues that were raised in the initial hearing. And we believe that Chris Yuens response to the first letter from the community association was done quite well and more eloquently than I can respond to. But like I said we are not aware of the contents of any second communication that may exist from the community association. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Nishimura. DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Thank you very much. Mr. Inouye, the Department of Health, Wastewater Branch recommends a denial of the subdivision only because of its individual sized lots. And 10EXHIBIT A they say its prohibited under Administrative Rule Chapter 11-62, a minimum size lot of 10,000 square feet is required in order to use individual wastewater systems. How will this factor in to your proposed development? NISHIMURA:Ill have Mr. Kato respond. KATO:Okay, a couple of things. First of all, right now we have permits to do ten septic systems up in Mr. View. None of those lots have 10,000 square feet. Department of Health has issued those permits and they do that as a matter of routine. In this particular case, I guess, because its a subdivision, a new application, theyre taking this position. And that being the case, what well have to do is apply for a variance from that requirement. Weve applied for variances for other projects, more senior housing projects actually, and those variances have been processed and approved. Now we dont know whether it will be approved in this case. If it is not approved, then we will have no choice but to create, increase the lot size to 10,000 square feet,whichisallowableundertheRS-7.5zoning. GRAHAM:Thankyou,Mr.Kato.Follow-up,Mr.Domingo? DOMINGO:Whowoulddeterminethevariance?Whowouldaddressthevariance, Department of Health? KATO:Thats right. DOMINGO:Okay. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. GRAHAM:All right, procedurally were going to bring up the public to testify in a minute; and then the applicants will come back again; and well have any follow-up questions before we move to our decision-making. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. Mr. Nishimura stated that he has not seen the letter that the Pepeekeo Community Association submitted this morning. I would like to lend him my copy. DARROW:Heres -. SIRACUSA:Oh, okay, so that he can then have a chance to read it and address the question that was asked of him. NISHIMURA:Thank you. GRAHAM:Okay, can we move to the public testimony now? You all can sit back now. Thank you for your presentation. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Just for the record, the record should note that a copy of the letter referenced by Commissioner Siracusa was presented by Jeff Darrow to the applicant. 11EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you. I have six people signed up to testify here. Maybe Ill just call three at a time, and then you all can come sit up front. Richard Baker, Steve Meek and Lucille Meek, are the three of you here? TESTIFIERS:Yes. GRAHAM:Good. Could you all raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS:I do. GRAHAM:Thank you. Maybe Ill start on the right here, Ms. Meek. And would you just begin by giving your name and your address and then go right into your testimony. L. MEEK:Okay. Im Lucille Meek and my mailing address is PO Box 928, Pepeekeo.Duringourlastmeeting80signaturesweresubmittedonbluesheetsofpaperwith people indicating that they were in favor of the self-help housing portion of the proposed rezoning. When looking at this list, I found that only 12 people out of the 80 names gave Pepeekeo addresses. As for the self-help housing part of the rezoning I think it again needs to be mentioned that there is no guarantee that residents of Pepeekeo will get into the houses. As Mr. Kato stated in the last meeting, we are Federal programs, we cannot give anybody any kind of priority. However, it was very interesting as I went door to door that I came across a couple, and the lady said she would not sign my petition because her girlfriend is going to get one of those houses. And I said thats impossible to say at this point because its a Federal-funded program and she has to go through the right -. And she said her girlfriend was invited to a meeting and at that meeting her name was placed on a list and she was told her in two years she will get one of those houses. And I tried to explain to this lady thats impossible. But she continued to say no, no, no. Now the interesting thing is her husband is against the proposal because he is against doing anything with Ag lots, but he wouldnt sign either cause his wife wouldnt sign because her girlfriend is going to get one of those houses. Over the past month as schedules have allowed me, we have gone, not only me but others, we have gone door to door in the community. Weve spoken to people who live both below and above the highway. A majority of the people weve talked to knew nothing at all about the rezoning. Some were surprised and some were angry. Very few were for the rezoning. But approximately 95 percent of the people we did speak to were against the rezoning. To date, over 200 signatures have been collected, all are residents of the Pepeekeo community, with the exception of three who work in Pepeekeo but wanted to sign because they think this is a bad idea. All that signed are concerned for the future of their community. I ask the Commission to take into account these concerned citizens and recommend a denial of this rezoning, or at least that they would postpone it till more information could be gotten to. We cannot wait until after its done to get the problems settled. Problems need to be settled before the rezoning. GRAHAM:Thank you, Ms. Meek. I have a question from Commissioner Siracusa I believe. 12EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:Yes. It was just circulated around to us a bunch of pages of petitions in favor of the development from residents of Kulaimano Subdivision; and I looked them over to see if there were Pepeekeo addresses, and as far as I could tell most of them were. So I was wondering when you were going around talking to people, were you talking to people within that subdivision, or outside of that subdivision, or a little of both or, could you be a little more clearer about that? L. MEEK:Ive been to almost every street in the Kulaimano, and weve got Old Mamalahoa, and some of them above the highway. In the beginning my husband and I were going back to houses that people werent home, and then it got to the point where this is ridiculous were never going to finish this thing if we keep doing that. So we just, if somebody wasnt home we just kept on going and we didnt -. At the beginning we were writing down all the addresses we missed so that we could go back to them. But, and afterward we said forget this, Ill never finish. But even up to last night, I was out till 8:30 in the evening up in the upper areasandpeopledidntknowaboutthishappening.Thereweretwopeoplethatdidknowabout it. One man was very irate about the whole thing and he said, give me that, let me sign; and I said, no, I cannot let you sign unless I go through my whole spill because I dont want you to sign unless you know what youre signing about. And so he had to sit there while I went through my whole spill. And then another person had heard about it, and he said if youre here to tell me that you want this to go through, its no. And I said ‚No, Im with a petition;ƒ and he said ‚Okay, give it to me, let me sign.ƒ But I also want to mention, if you look at my petition, there is an area where were asking for mitigation where were saying lets try to find an alternate place. We had somebody looking for an alternate place. That person turned in four lots to Mr. Yagong. We dont know what happened to it after we turned it in. Also, were saying if they want to do this, then just like the rest of the Pepeekeo-Kulaimano people, have them hook up to the sewer line. Of course, theyve already told us in the very first meeting when we met with them that they wont do it because its too expensive, and yet the subdivision is only a quarter mile away from the sewer plant. And then we also say have them fix the road because people are complaining that its even -. SIRACUSA:Okay, I had asked for just one simple question. And it was if you had polled the people in Kulaimano -. L. MEEK:Yes. SIRACUSA:Because we have a petition from them that runs counter to your petition. Thats all I wanted to know -. L. MEEK:Sorry. I get like that -. SIRACUSA:If you had Kulaimano people on your petition also. L. MEEK:Yes. SIRACUSA:Okay, thank you. 13EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you, Ms. Meek. L. MEEK:I can go sit down? GRAHAM:You can or you can wait till were finished with the three, whatever you prefer. L. MEEK:Okay, Im too embarrassed. Im going to sit down. GRAHAM:Okay. L. MEEK:I talk plenty. I was trying not to this time, you know. GRAHAM:Mr. Steve Meek, would you care to give your testimony? And start with yournameandaddress,please. S.MEEK:MynameisSteveMeek,PostOfficeBox982,Pepeekeo96783.AndI would like to just, first of all, comment about what Gordon said when Mr. Domingo asked about, well, if these different situations were mitigated how would you feel then. And I talked about its important to mitigate the sewage problem, road problem. What I was mentioning or tried to get across at that point was even with those things being mitigated theres still a problem of Urban sprawl into the Agricultural land and a subdivision being surrounded by Agricultural land which cannot be mitigated. So Im not saying if they did all that then, I mean, obviously if they did all that then itd probably go through, I would think, without a question. But thats the point I was trying to make to where thats a problem that cannot be mitigated with these types of solutions. Getting to the testimony, I kind of want to address, I want to just make a couple of points. And one was in regards to the affordable housing aspect of the project. And as we learned this morning the original 30 lots, which is brand new news this morning, is now going to be cut down by an unknown amount of lots. And if the variance is not given for the septic tank requirement of having 10,000-square foot lots to be even less and, of course, theres going to be extra cost of doing the drainage, my question would be how much are these lots actually going to be costing when all thats factored? Because obviously if you cut the lots way back, each lot and each house is going to be much more expensive. And so then related to that the Planning Director in his recommendation talks about just the severe crunch in affordable housing that we all know that there is a problem with affordable housing. But in his recommendation he said its very difficult from Wainaku to Honokaa to find homes for under $400,000. Now when I saw that, and it was right before we were going to have the last meeting, I had my son pull up a quick MLS listing; and there were many, many homes for less than $300,000, just from Papaikou to Honomu, which is in the general area people would like to have some affordable housing. So the next day I did a couple hours drive through, and I didnt even attempt the ones like in the mid-200s which these might end up being that much anyhow. You know, we dont know. But I focused more on the homes in about the $200,000 range, plus or minus. And I found six of them, theres a few more but I couldnt find them. And there was one in Honomu, two in Pepeekeo, three in Papaikou; and you can see what the prices are. These are all in the past year. And in driving through and taking the pictures, these were nice starter homes, maybe with the exception of that $120,000 one which needs some work. But 14EXHIBIT A you put $60,000 into it it will be a nice home. All the others were very nice homes. So the reason I bring that out is the affordable housing aspect of this whole thing is like driving, it is driving the recommendation by the Planning Director. And its like we have to sell at these prices so well give the for-profit developer this stuff because hes going to donate this land because of the crisis. But I just want to point out that the crises might not be so bad if that proper planning is diligently done. Again, not to say that, obviously theres a problem but these pictures show there are homes out there. My last point I want to talk about is the water situation, and thats the Director in his recommendation talks about the water commitments from the Water Supply to the lower lots, the ones going from 20 acre to 10 acre. But in reading all the file, everything from the Water Department -- theres not only, not the water commitments, its just the opposite -- theyre plainly stating water will not be given to those lower lots. Andtherestalkabout,well,theycantbefinallysubdividedunlesstheygetthewater.Butmy question is how often are for-profit enterprises without water being definitely committed given rezoning? To me I thought that just didnt happen. And to hope that everything is solved in the subdivision stage, I think, is too late because at that point theres no public input, theres no oversight. Here is where these issues need to be addressed. And just one final point, I know Im going on. But we personally are on a variance and we understood when we bought the place we were on a variance, no water. Talking to Water Department they said when more water does become available then that variance could possibly be lifted and we could get water. So my final point would be if this thing goes through there should be a condition to where people like us on the variance -- and people who were before us with variances they should go before us -- those people who have been waiting for years for more water should be allowed water, and then water given to these lower lots. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Meek. I want to try and move it along a little faster here with other testimony. I also want to say I think probably a lot of you have no real sense how we as Commissioners are going to vote on this. You can see our concerns and things like that; and I dont really know either, of course. But weve all spent a lot of time reading this stuff so were pretty good on understanding most of the issues. So I think what we want in the public testimony is for those Commissioners who are really still undecided, you know, if you just bring up something new that they havent heard before, you know, maybe it will have an impact on them. But as much as possible, you know, be concise and bring new information if you have any. Thank you. SIRACUSA:Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. I probably should have asked this while your wife was still up, but I assume that if she knows the answer you do, too. Commissioner Iwashita raised the question about the land between the highway and Old Mamalahoa, which he pointed out was already zoned for increased density. And I was wondering when you were looking around for alternate parcels to suggest to the developers if that were ones that you had looked at or mentioned to them. 15EXHIBIT A S. MEEK:The four that my wife was referring to, I believe two are on Old Mamalahoa Highway past Low Store. You know where Low Store is? It would be across that one lane bridge and a little bit farther. And then two right on Kulaimano Road going up, theres a couple like, I think, 8- to 10-acre parcels there. And, in fact, I just recently wrote to those owners hoping to get input. Nothing yet but we are still looking. I mean to me thats a real feasible alternative, a swap. But -. GRAHAM:All right, thank you, Mr. Baker, excuse me, Mr. Meek. Okay, Richard Baker, could you give your name and address first and give us your testimony. And thank you, Mr. Meek. BAKER:My name is Richard Baker, Jr. I live at Pepeekeo. I have PO Box 362, Pepeekeo, Hawaii. I was employed at the Hilo Coast Processing and I worked for the sugar companyfrom1967.IlivedinthePepeekeoMillCampandthenwemovedtoKulaimano Subdivision back in 1971, early seventies. We too were against housing. We were young, we were insecure; and we were against even leaving the plantation camps. We couldnt beat $19 a month and $1 for water. So we fought like hell as young rebels against our own union for the union sponsoring to have a subdivision. And we were too young and we didnt understand. Eventually through meetings and stuff we were made aware that this is something that needed to be done. And today, thats why I come out here to say, the young lady said she went around, she talked to people, she got signatures. She came to my house. I didnt want to sign. I believe that, Im not saying that theyre going to lie and Im not trying to be disrespectful, but I believe they present a side of a picture that presents fear, the same fear that I had when I was a young guy and didnt want to leave that plantation camp. They brought fear and they brought things about polluting the water, the septic tanks overflowing, the flooded area. But I could be able to not sign that petition because I had been more educated and knew better. Because I was a Planning Commissioner like you folks, I served for five years and I became the Chairman of the Commission, and I learned a lot of things about that. And I tried to explain to them that in this state we have good laws, we have good bounds, we have people like you folks who are going to make the right decision. We have the Health Department. We will not allow things to be built that would affect the people. We have checks and balances. And fear is what people react to. So people rush to sign things, people get angry, people get upset, because they dont understand. Its unfortunate because everybody is working and everybody doesnt attend meetings, and so people dont get the education that they need to. You see today here, do you see a lot of people here? Working people probably out working. They dont have the time to come to something like this. So they wont know know, they cannot participate. But people go out and get petitions. So as a Commissioner I myself sat there and was impressed with petitions. But then I had to realize is this, all these people really understood what they signed? While you want to hope that they do cause you figure that theyre educated enough, theyve got the facts, and they got all the information, but a lot of times its not so. And so sometimes people sign things and they dont have all the information. But we need affordable housing. I have my little plantation lot now when I moved out of the camp. And you know what? Now that I look back, thats the best thing that ever happened to me. That was the greatest thing that happened, that our union leaders, Gilbert De Motta, Shige 16EXHIBIT A Nakatani and the committee from the union sat with the company and decided to get together and make housing. Its unfortunate now that we cannot make more housing for more people. That area was all plantation camps. We talk about we dont want to have Ag land be turned into -. We have Ag land. We have a lot of Ag land there. We have all that sugar land that the lucky rich guys can buy. The poor guy cannot buy. Maybe well break this up a little smaller then maybe one of our guys can buy. They cannot buy 20 acres, but they might be able to scrounge around and get the family together and buy the 5 acres. Were hoping and were trying to encourage our guys to buy. But, you know, Im not against the guy who has got money either. Thats his good luck or her good luck that theyve got money to buy it. But you know what? We were born and raised on this island. You know, I went to Hilo High School, I didnt go to college. But I learned things through the world of hard knocks and working. And I learned the role of you folks as a Commissioner, and I understand that youre going to have to make this decision. And there are a lot of emotions involved, but we cannot make our decision by emotions. Weve got to make our decisions on the right thing to do under our rule and laws; and thebeautypartaboutthisstateisthatwehavelaws.Andso,yes,wewanted30houselots. Maybe we cant get them because weve got requirements to put in, weve got regulations to do, so we might have to reduce it. You know the house that I live on and the lot I have, theres a storm ditch. You know who takes care of that storm ditch? Richard Baker. The plantation made my lot; and to make it like how they said, they had to make an area for runoff and water, and theres a big culvert. I take care of that culvert, I make sure it doesnt get locked up. That was my commitment in getting that lot. And part of the deal on my lot was they reduced my price so I had it a little bit cheaper price for my almost 12,000-square foot lot. And thats why it was a little bit bigger because I got the ditch. And so I take care of the ditch. And when it rains like hell, this boy picks up three to four bags of rubbish for somebody else up there throwing their rubbish down there. But thats my responsibility and I do it. So, you know, because we have affordable housing, this is why this can be done. Yeah, there are a lot of houses around the island that are cheap, that might be cheaper than what they quoted on, but can they qualify for that? Through the affordable housing, the regulations and guideline, and the self-help, it will allow somebody to get a house that normally one cannot get. And thats what its about. Its not about running around and looking for a real estate sign thats got a house thats pretty respectable and the guys can go and get a loan for it. There are certain people that will not be able to have a house; and this is the opportunity for them. This is why we ask you as Commissioners to vote favorably on this, make sure you do your job and make sure that it meets all the guidelines. And Im pretty sure that if the Director is recommending it and is looking at it with the attorneys sitting there, then we should -. You need to do whatever you need to do to make it fit, but at least give people a chance to get a house. Its going to be a little bit more costly because we have to add some stuff, but were trying to keep it as affordable as possible. I know Im not going to get anything for my kids, my kids arent going to get a house lot there. Ive got two of them, theyre on the mainland. But somebodys kids, somebodys family will have a house. So, again, I ask you, please vote in favor. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Baker. Were still having long testimony, although its heartfelt and appreciated. Id certainly hope we can at least get the, we have six more to testify, at least get them in for sure before the 12:30 break and maybe we can move even farther along. Any questions first? All right. Thank you, Mr. Baker; and thank you, Mr. Meek. The next three we have are David Miller, Sheridan Kobayashi and Randall Duryea. Are the three of you here? 17EXHIBIT A Thank you. Could you all three raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Hawaii County Planning Commission today on this matter? TESTIFIERSI do. GRAHAM:Thank you. Ill start with Mr. Miller, and just give your name and address first and then try to be concise with your testimony. MILLER:I will. GRAHAM:Thank you. MILLER:You know, Im a university professor. I think I can probably make myself heard without a microphone. HAYASHI:Can you use the microphone, please. MILLER:Oh, I do need to use the microphone? SIRACUSA:Its for the stenographer. MILLER:Okay. Hello. DARROW:Its on. MILLER:It is on, okay, fine. I submitted written testimony the last time, you have that. I was intrigue by the question that Commissioner Siracusa asked at the very beginning of this because it really strikes to the heart of it. She says ‚Why are we having these two proposals at the same time?ƒ And in my written testimony at the last meeting I brought up this point as a scholar of language. Language is important. And when this whole process began, the developer came and said were making a donation. And then I said, ‚Well, why dont you donate land next to the existing urbanized area?ƒ He said, ‚Well, because that would be too expensive.ƒ So that kind of crossed the line of privacy. I felt I had a right to ask ‚What are the costs?ƒ So the correct answer I think, Commissioner Siracusa, to your question is this is a deal. Its a deal. Its a deal as you as a Commissioner is being asked to support so that the County Council will, in effect, write a fairly large amount, the equivalent of a fairly large check to Mr. Inouyes corporation. Now I dont object to business. I think thats a legitimate activity. Its just that as a taxpayer I have asked at meeting, after meeting, after meeting, this last meeting, and I would ask it again, ‚What is the deal? How much more money will the developer get for selling his property in five-acre parcels rather than the present required 20 acres?ƒ Now I know that there was some denial of the statement. But at one of the meetings it was stated that the developer went to the Planning Commission, rather the Planning Director and said will you allow me to subdivided this into five- and ten- acre parcels; and the answer was no. So they came back again and said, ‚Well, tell you what, if I can subdivide some of this into 5- and 10-acre parcels, will you allow me to do that if I give this property to the development corporation?ƒ And the answer was, ‚Sure, thats a good deal, we want to have affordable housing.ƒ Okay, so Id like to focus on that. This is a deal. This is a deal that if you approve it you would be recommending to the County Council. Now can I go over to the map up here? I really will keep it short. 18EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Yes, Mr. Miller, you are taking a bit of time though. MILLER:Okay. No, Ill keep it real, well, I will ask the Commissioners to imagine this morning as you stood in front of the big gear and if you looked down towards the ocean, all of the rain that falls on that land belonging to Mr. Richard Ha flows down through a culvert and flows down to the area where you were standing before you got into your vehicles before you came back to town. Right? The Planning Commission (sic) and the developer want you to believe somehow or other that water flows along lines on a map rather than downhill. The simple fact is that all the water that flows down through that culvert. All the water that flows down the other properties, all the water that flows under my house, my house is the one where the lower room floods, all of that water will flow down into the area where this development is proposed. So the simple fact as I see it is if urban development is to occur in this property, it should be required to occur contingent to the existing urban area connected to the sewer system. Secondly, and my final point, is it was my understanding that property owners, and my property is12feet,wellwithinthe500-footdefinitionpropertyownersweresupposedtobenotifiedof whatever the proposal is. The original proposal was sent to us with a map. Theres a new proposal thats quite different. And the final point, the developer has said first develop, first give us the zoning and then well do the drainage study. I think it has to be the other way around. I think this a very bad idea. Im not at all opposed to low income housing. But I think it makes much more sense to put new urban development next to existing urban development and to use existing sewer systems rather than to allow, whether its 30, or 19, or however many new septic tanks to drain down -- and we have a report from the Health Department that specifies this -- directly into the well where we get our water. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Miller. Our next testifier is Sheridan Kobayashi. Mr. Kobayashi, give your name and address and carry on. KOBAYASHI:Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Hawaii Planning Commission. My name is Sheridan Kobayashi, I reside in Hilo, 61 Wilson Street. Im here to testify on this matter as an individual. Id like to give you a brief background. I am a former agriculturalist and former state president of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation. While I do know Mr. Inouye and his family and have supported his sister-in-law in all her elections and stuff -- and I commend them for proposing these affordable housing units -- however, my primary concern is were disregarding the LESA and ALISH studies of prime agricultural lands in the State of Hawaii. If this area is to be cut down to smaller acreage lots, it would make it affordable for some of the farmers to get into but not all of them. And I think that, you know, this area is considered prime agricultural land; and if this is taken away, theres no going back. We talk about a lot of how we should be self-sufficient in agriculture in the State of Hawaii and we can grow practically anything on this land. I took a drive out there one day. I swear the soil is about 8 feet deep and maybe no rocks. And with an irrigation system Im confident that we can grow practically anything. And this is why Mr. Ha is doing so well out there. And this is also why in the past theyve tried to grow papayas in the area and I told some of the people out there that if youre going to grow papayas in that rich soil youre lucky if you can harvest two crops, the trees are going to grow so fast; and thats exactly what happened. So my primary 19EXHIBIT A concern is are we setting a precedent here in rezoning agricultural lots to residential? I think we should take a real hard look at losing our prime agricultural lands in the State of Hawaii. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Kobayashi. Commissioner Domingo, did you have a question? DOMINGO:Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. Im impressed with this testimony because most of the comments have been directed and focused on affordable housing, to which I have no opposition. But the fact of the matter is were looking at prime agricultural lands that are going to be rezoned. And I think, you know, having worked in the sugar industry myself in the past I must add that the Pepeekeo sugar lands are the lands in which yielded the most tonnage of cane per acre, and its merely because of the soil conditions and the method of harvesting. And thats my concern. And I thought people have lost focus, besides housing, and not mentionedgoodagriculturallands.Thankyou. GRAHAM:Thankyou,CommissionerDomingo.RandallDuryea,startwithyour name and address, please. ALAMEDA:Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:I appreciate Commissioner Domingos comment on that. I just wanted to make sure that as Fellow Commissioners maybe if we can exercise our discipline and, cause this part is mostly for us to ask the questions to the testifiers. And if we go off on comments then, you know, I have a comment too, and if I give a comment then everybody else is going to comment; and were never going to finish this process. So if we can exercise some discipline, I would appreciate it, Fellow Commissioners. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Go ahead, Mr. Duryea. DURYEA:My name is Randall Duryea. I live in Pepeekeo. And these gentlemen, especially Mr. Miller, addressed some of the issues that I want to bring up. Im an appraiser and I want to point out that this is very definitely a deal. The difference in the sale price between a 10-acre parcel and a 20-acre parcel is not very great, same goes for 5 acre to A-20. There was a time, I assume, after the demise of the sugar industry when this entity, the Planning Commission, instituted 20-ace zoning. And I assume it was done for good reason, considering infrastructure on the Hamakua coast. There are a great number of houses going up on the Hamakua Coast in a variety of areas. Theres enough draining on the services, particularly the highway system in that direction already. I am not at all opposed to affordable housing. I think its a good thing that this community really needs, really needs. But I would simply ask all of you to very deeply consider the infrastructure up the coast. And my last point to focus on is that recently there was work being done on the Honolii bridge, the traffic that was caused by that -. We have basically one modern bridge that goes up that way. If anything happens to that bridge, weve had earthquakes in the past, recent past, there are serious considerations. Theres no way to go up and above that river at this time. Thank you. 20EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Duryea. All right, you all can go back. We appreciate your testimony. I have three more signed up, T. J. Steele, Darren Johnson, and Chengwu Chen. Thank you all. Could you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. Ill start with Mr. Steele and, again, I would ask you to please be concise if you could. Thank you. STEELE:T. J. Steele, PO Box 979, Pepeekeo. I think that Mr. Domingo hit it on the head when he said we lost our focus. Weve had so much discussion about affordable housing. I havent heard anybody say we dont want affordable housing. Everybody is all thumbs up. Its justnottherightspot.Wevealreadyseenweregoingfrom30tomaybe20,maybe15.So now the deal is not looking so good. And we do have to plan for what we want to do in the future. I mean thats the whole idea, I thought, by the Planning Commission. And do we want to start mixing and matching? Do we want to start jamming stuff in and not have infrastructure like they do over in Kona? So I think that that was an appropriate comment about losing the focus, because were not planning here. Were trying to cut deals to get affordable housing; and its not the right spot. If were not going to get the affordable housing density we had heard we were originally going to get out of it, its not worth it to lose our Ag land and to cut these things up, when it was already denied to begin with. If its a rezoning issue, lets do the rezoning. Lets take the affordable housing out of it and see how it flies. I guess its not going to work. Weve already turned it down. Anyway, I think we need to keep focused on whether this is the right spot for this affordable housing. GRAHAM:All right. Darren Johnson, please. Your name and then address. JOHNSON:Darren Johnson, 28-498 Pepeekeo, Sugar Mill Road. This is actually my first meeting here but Ive been keeping up on the whole project. My first question is that how could not the Board Members know that this was a packaged deal when Rene actually brought it up, which is a great question, and when Mr. Inouye said to Andrew that, you know, its either or, no, well pull out. And my question is that when the petitions were sent out to sign, did anybody recognize and know that this was packaged deal? Instead of 28 acres, now its what, 140 acres that they have to be approved for. And now theyre cutting up their lots from 20 now to 5; and thats going to bring more traffic up that road. And my main concern is that are you prepared for the consequences that are going to be behind the actions of this decision? And the gentleman before us said, you know, theres no turning back. I mean once you sign this agreement theres no turning back. And when we first bought land out there, we were under the impression, and it was actually told to us, that this is going to be Ag land, the greatest soil on the planet, you guys can grow anything here. And that was our basis for buying out there, not because we have a lot of money, were billionaires, and this and that, but because we wanted to farm. And then for somebody to come up and say all of a sudden everything has changed, were going to take some of the best land that we have on this island and were going to build on it -. 21EXHIBIT A And I have nothing opposed to affordable housing. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. When I was 5 or 6 I was raised in the projects. I know about not planning for the future. And for the gentleman to say that its all rich people out there buying the land up, I dont know if they are or not. All I know is Ive got two jobs; and my first job is working on the land from 6 till 3 oclock, and then from 3 to 10 I go to my other job. So I dont know where hes misinformed about that. But now the decision is that those other 120 acres are now going to be developed into smaller parcels which is going to bring more housing, which is going to bring more traffic up to our road that can barely handle the traffic coming down now from tourists. And now youre going to build out there, thats just going to be totally a bottleneck right there. And then, I mean, is there anything in the plans where there is going to be more money brought in to fix the roads out there? You know, everybody is talking about affordable housing, great, hurrah; but, you know, youre looking at a long-term effect that can affect not only the people that youre going to put in theaffordablehousingbutthepeoplethatarealreadyoutthere.ThatsallIhavetosay. GRAHAM:Thankyou,Mr.Johnson.Andourfinaltestifiertoday,Mr.Chengwu Chen. CHEN:Chengwu Chen, PO Box 1067, Pepeekeo. I wasnt planning to testify because I figure let the nature takes it course. I am against the project completely. But I read Mr. Yuens response to the community. I just have to correct him a little bit. This is not about 7 acres of land converting to Ag-10. This is about continuation of the whole Pepeekeo community, the whole area converting to residential, you know, paradise, private residence, things like that. Let the history be the point. If you look at all of Pepeekeo right now, all the lands subdivided, Continental Pacific and Hank Corrreas selling property, and everybody selling property, how many of those lots today is really doing agriculture? Hawaiian Rainbows first phase, there were only three lots, I believe there are three lots in Phase A left that are doing agriculture, two on sweet potatoes, one of them doing cattle farming. And the one that doing the cattle farming, Mr. Fred Wohlschlagel is doing the cattle farming. Thats it, out of 100 acres. And if you cut them down again, how many of those pieces of acres are going to building, planning on something? Most people will just kind of let it become their own vacation home or, hopefully no investment, and something like that. So you guys went there this morning. Look at it and see how many of those subdivided land from Continental Pacific is really doing agricultural stuff? Now I own a 5-acre land on my lot, I have a day job. I build my own house, Im still building a house after three years. I didnt have enough money to build, to finish up doing it, but Im doing it. I enjoy my house; and we plant exotic flowers and banana, and we do farmers market every Saturday to earn some income. Now Im rich, like everybody says, you know. Ive got money, but I earned that through farmers market every Saturday. So thats something that you have to understand. Now when I tried to convince my farmer friends to come and say, you know, voice opinions, one of the objection I find is they fear, you know, retributions. You know, the developer may go against them. All right? Then I got a phone call right after last Commission meeting that their gates were locked. They couldnt access the Phase I land any more, the one Hawaiian Rainbows, you know, the land, Lot A that theyre subdividing. They locked up the gate so the farmer couldnt get into the lot to do the farming on Lot B. I finally had to call Richard Johnson 22EXHIBIT A on Sunday morning to ask him to at least open the gates. And we finally, it took an hour of me bouncing back and forth to finally get him to allow the farmer to put another lock and a daisy chain so that they can go in to harvest potatoes, for the Lot B. And my farmer friend turned and said ‚See, I told you. They got mad at us, they locked us out.ƒ Now I dont think thats the case but perception is there. This happened just right after the Commission meeting from previous one. Okay? So its something to be considering. Please dont do this. I need more land to plant my banana. Give me a chance to lease the land for a large acreage, because apple banana is my line. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Chen. All right, you all can go back; and thank you much for your testimony. We have ten more minutes or so before we do our break. But maybe the applicant could come forward and we can have you respond if youd like to any of the comments you received, and then well take any questions from the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Kato, you want to start? KATO: Yes. The question came up I guess about what will happen with the decreaseindensityintermsofthecostofthefinishedproducttothefamilies.Theimpacts actually that were looking at are the drainage areas will not be used, and so, you know, there will be less lots. But theres no cost to that. Were just simply not going to use that land because, and the reason that theres no cost is theres no land cost. If we go 10,000-square foot lots, the lots are going to be 70 feet wide as opposed to 60 feet wide for 7,500-square foot lots, which means youve got a little bit more frontage. Now in our review of subdivisions, usually average amount of road that youve got to do for a 10,000-square foot lot is something like 60 feet, or let me put it this way, its 60 percent of the frontage. So if you look at the difference, the difference in frontage is going to be 10 feet. Were going to have to basically build 6 more lineal feet of road per lot, which may end up being about $1,000 to $2,000. So in this case because the land is coming over at no cost, you know, to decrease the density is not really going to have a significant impact on the cost of the house to the family. The other thing is relating to the letter from the Pepeekeo Community Association which, I guess, you guys just received this morning and which we had a chance to read. And I really did not know Lorraine Mendoza until I got involved with this project. And since that time Ive had a number of conversations with her. I see her in Ross, I see her in Pepeekeo. And her primary focus, really, is on the community association. I guess she has been with it for a number of years. Shes really dedicated to the association. And as you can see in the letter it distresses her that the association is now being divided, you might say. Weve spoken with them before and, you know, there are in people in the association who are in favor of the project, there are people who apparently recently joined and theyre opposed to it. I dont really believe that theres going to be any resolution where youre going to get some kind of consensus within that organization. Were happy to continue to talk to them to see what can be done but I dont think anything is going to be achieved by delaying the process. We have a number of steps that we have to go through, and all of that is going to take time. And so, you know, we really would not be in favor of any kind of continuance. We think the issues are basically out there and, you know, its really up to the decision-makers to make some decisions. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Kato. Mr. Inouye? 23EXHIBIT A INOUYE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to address myself to a couple of points that were brought up to make sure the record is correct. One of the gentlemen mentioned that, he suggested that we offer Parcel A-3 to HICDC but that we didnt do that because it was more expensive. Well, the truth of the matter is that was the first parcel that we offered to HICDC. But in that most of the property is within the 1000-foot radius it would have imposed a very significant additional cost to the affordable homes, making them unaffordable. And so basically we turned the parcel, the entire 20-acre parcel, over to HICDC and said where could you develop your affordable homes? And, of course, the proposal you see before is what they proposed, which we agreed to and agreed to provide as a contribution to the project. The issue of affordable meant that the cost of developing that parcel closest to the stream and the sewer system would have driven up the infrastructure cost significantly and would not have been affordable to the clients of HICDC. I, again, readdress myself to the question that Mr. Domingo had given to Mr. Meek and, again, at thistimeheaddressedhimselftothatsamequestionbutdeclinedtoanswer.Soitsclearin terms of where the positions are and, again, any further discussion that we could -. And, again, hes a friend of mine, I coached his son, I love Lucille and Steve, Ive known them for years. You know, we differ on this issue. I dont think that any further discussion, as much as we might try to mitigate the circumstances, will change their positions on this matter. And so, again, my response to Mr. Iwashita is that I certainly am a diplomat, I would seek to forge consensus. Weve attempted to do this by discussions weve had with the community association. We respect the association. We have worked with the association in dealing with a number of issues where it impacts a community and hopefully have been good neighbors to the PCA, and will continue to do that in the future and will continue to seek dialogue with them. But I dont think on this matter that we can reach a consensus, but we will continue to work in that direction. On Mr. Chens comment about the locks, I think as you drove down Sugar Mill Road and turned to your right, I think you may have seen some of the vandalism that occurred to some of the land where people came in and did wheelies and things along that line. And it was right after that, which was coincidental to the time after our last meeting, but we put locks on the gate to prevent access like that. As soon as we found out that the farmer needed access, of course, we were able to get him to use the right access that accesses Lot B; and thats off the Sugar Mill Road. And we met him and had him put his lock on the chain of the gate there. So he has free access to the property. It was never our intention to prohibit the farmer access to the property. And the comment about since the development that there has been less farm usage of our properties, I beg to differ. Of the original seven parcels that we sold, I believe there is one parcel that is not actively farmed at the present time; and thats the second one next to Mr. Johnsons farm. Mr. Johnson has the tropical fruit farm there. Below that is used for grazing. Theres a tropical fruit nursery in the back. Below that theres grazing. Across the street theres a sweet potato farmer. And I think below that Mr. Wohlschlagelis in cattle right now. Below that theres sweet potato being farmed. Lot X which is in escrow is being planned for, again, more sweet potato farming, thats why the grass has been poisoned there. But, you know, weve done the best we could to groom the land, put it back into good agricultural use. And were actually very proud of the utilization and what we have done with the land and putting it into good agricultural use. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Inouye. Mr. Nishimura? 24EXHIBIT A NISHIMURA:Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address one point that has been raised and a concern that has been expressed by the public, as well as by some of the Planning Commissioners, and that is the issue of conversion of prime Agricultural land to Urban uses, and the point being made that this would set a precedent that the public does not wish to see. And Id like to refer the Commission Members to Chris Yuens response to Lorraine Mendoza, page 5, the last paragraph, in which he addresses this point; and I just want to re-emphasize the point that Chris is making here. And that is that all along the Hamakua coast in the community of, not only along the Hamakua coast but Waimea in North Kohala, you have existing communities that are surrounded by prime Agricultural land. These areas, many of which were in sugar at one time, are considered prime Agricultural land. However, the County has designated small portions of these areas which surround existing communities for Low Density Urban uses. And this is something that is reflected in the County General Plan, its part of the long-range planning document for the County of Hawaii; and it recognizes that certain portions of these prime AgriculturallandswillhavetobeutilizedforUrbanpurposes.Thisisonesucharea.Itisnot something that we pulled out of the air or we are proposing to change at this point. Its something that has been on the County General Plan for many, many years, the Low Density Urban designation. And I think that if you look at all of the acreage along the Hamakua coast and North Kohala, we have, you know, Chris says 47,000 acres with this designation. Taking 7 acres to utilize for an affordable housing project is not making a dent in that acreage; and its not doing something that is contrary to the Countys long-range plan for the area. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Nishimura. I think were about ready for a lunch break, maybe well come back, wed be back like quarter to 2. Does that sound doable Sharon? N0MURA:Yes. GRAHAM:Okay. I want to let you all know were sort of fortunate today in that we have 8 Commissioners here, so our chances of actually reaching a decision and not having a split vote is better than usual. And I also want to let you know that when we do go to lunch we generally eat together but we dont discuss this matter at all. So when we come back were just like we are right now. So dont be concerned about that. Thank you. So lunch break. RECESSEDThe Chair called a lunch recess at 12:30 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:54 p.m. GRAHAM:All right, the Planning Commission is back in order now. The agenda item before us that we were taking up before lunch is the application of Hawaiian Island Community Development Corporation and Hawaiian Rainbow Business Development, LLC with aStateLandUseBoundaryAmendmentandarezoningordinance.Wejustfinishedthepublic testimony part of the hearing and the applicants came back to the table, presented some responsesontheirparttowhattheyhadheardfromthepublictestimony,andIthinkitwouldbe appropriate if they wanted to come back to the table right now. Well probably catch a few questionsfromtheCommissionersbeforetheCommissiongoesintoitsdeliberationanddecision today. Lets see, so I think this is the point where the Commissioners have any exchange theyd liketodowiththeapplicantnowaboutwhathasbeenpresentedandquestionstothateffectis the right time to do it. And I think weve heard from the three applicants just before we took a 25EXHIBIT A break. So any Commissioners have anything they want to ask or come forward with at this time? Maybe not. All right, thank you. WATANABE:Mr. Chair. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:You know, weve heard considerable testimony over the past couple of Planning Commission meetings in Hilo regarding this subject and Id like to move that we close the hearing before we enter the deliberations. GRAHAM:All right, thats fine. Do we have a second? RHO:Second. GRAHAM:So moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Rho, toclosethehearing,thenwegointodeliberations.Howaboutwedoalittlebitofdiscussion before we do a motion; and maybe well get a little feel for how the Commissioners feel. Would you rather start with a motion, someone? WATANABE:Oh, but you didnt -. I dont know if you want discussion. GRAHAM:Excuse me? WATANABE:We dont have to ask for the question? TORIGOE:You need to close. GRAHAM:Oh, Im sorry, we never voted on this. Sorry. Go ahead, Jeff. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to close the hearing, the public hearing. With that, Ill take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? 26EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes eight to zero. GRAHAM:Thank you, Jeff. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Id be prepared to make a motion. I move that a favorable recommendationfortheStateLandUseBoundaryAmendmentapplicationSLU07-000013be forwarded to the County Council based on the Directors recommendation. GRAHAM:Id like to just interject a thought before we go forward on that. Since weve heard earlier that these two are really hooked together but the State Land Use one only relates to one, it seems to me it might be more appropriate to do the rezoning one first -- but maybe I would ask Mr. Torigoe -- so that, you know, we see where we go with the whole project as one before we do another motion on just a small part of the project. WATANABE:May I respond to that? GRAHAM:Certainly. WATANABE:The reason I made that motion with regard to the Hawaii Island Community Development project was because that is contingent upon the second going through. And so even if we were to approve it and not approve the second, change of zone, it would not matter. The land would never be given to Hawaii Island Community. So I think this way everything will work out anyway. GRAHAM:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Yeah, Id like just to make brief suggestion. You have to vote on the LUC matter first, on the boundary reclassification from Ag to Urban first, simply because then the rezone follows, the rezone of the Residential area. The Residential area cannot be rezoned unless the area is reclassified from Ag to Urban. You know, the matter is coming together as a package so it makes sense for the Commissioners to discuss both of them at the same time, then take a vote on the Ag to Urban; and then take a vote on the remainder, on the other motion. Thats my suggestion for how to proceed. 27EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:That sounds reasonable to me. So procedurally do you think we should do the discussion before we do any motion and then do the motion on the State Land Use, or just discuss everything even though the motion is on the State Land Use? YUEN:I would, you know, you have the motion, you can take the motion on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, but you might as well discuss everything. GRAHAM:Okay, so it sounds all right. Is that all right with the Commissioners? All right, so I think we need a second for Commissioner Watanabes motion. WATANABE:No second. GRAHAM:No second. We have an alternative motion anyone would care to make? CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:InthematterofHawaiiIslandCommunityDevelopmentCorporation/ Hawaiian Rainbows Business Development, LLC, SLU 07-000013 and Rezoning 07-00005 -. GRAHAM:Well stick with one first, Rene. I think we need to. SIRACUSA:Oh, all right. The Land Use? GRAHAM:Yes. SIRACUSA:Okay. I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on this application. GRAHAM:Thank you. Do I have a second? IWASHITA:Second. GRAHAM:Seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. All right. So we can take some discussion from the Commission Members about the full project in line with what Mr. Yuen recommended. ALAMEDA:Procedural -? GRAHAM:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought, and maybe Mr. Torigoe can help us with this, that if theres an unfavorable recommendation then the maker of the motion will describe at least generally some reasons why. Or am I missing -? GRAHAM:We can ask Mr. Torigoe. It seems to me in general that sometimes we do that and sometimes we dont, and it sort of comes out in the discussion if we dont. TORIGOE:Sure. 28EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:I can do it if it will make you feel more comfortable. I was planning on stating my reasons anyway. ALAMEDA:All right. Either way. TORIGOE:Thats fine. GRAHAM:As you wish. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:For me the bottom line is that this is prime Ag land. When we were out there today I picked up some soil and felt it -- I have gardened and farmed since I was five years old when I grew my first plot of radishes -- and I saw healthy soil, I saw a field with really healthy sweet potatoes growing. Mike over there was telling me about how deep the soil is. And itseemstomethatifwerelookingatawholelotofpopulationgrowthwithalltheneeds, infrastructure and everything else that goes with that, including affordable housing by the way, and were looking to make our island self-sustainable, and there is a 2050 Sustainability Plan thats in progress right now, then among other things were going to need prime Ag land no matter how much there is now. With the population growing, were going to need prime Ag land for food for these increased populations. Were going to need productive Ag land. And I feel that if these two things were separated out I might be talking differently, you know. And I do support affordable housing, especially self-help housing. I dont think thats the right place for it. And since were stuck with looking at both of them together I dont feel that its the proper thing for us to do to take prime Ag land out of potential production. We have seen so many issues come before us in the past where there was Ag land but it wasnt prime. It was, you know, silty rocky loam or something else, you know, shallow soil, what not. This is deep rich soil; and I dont think we should cover it over. I think they should find another location for their affordable housing. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:Yeah. I have several concerns with this project. One is I think it has been unfortunately fairly poorly thought out. You know, we went out there today and we were told there were going to be 30 lots, and now were told there are 19. The flood management question was never really well addressed and I think thats why a good number of the lots are where it is. The 1,000-foot radius from the waterwell was not really well thought out. That lost a few more lots. So were down to 19. If in fact they have to be 10,000-foot lots, were going to be down to about 15 or 16. But the real problem I have with it, and a number of the people who have testified brought this up, is the concern about groundwater and waterwell contamination. You know, the Department of Health has a reason for a 10,000-foot lot size; and that is to reduce groundwater contamination. And, in fact, we have a letter from Mr. Pavao. He says ‚In order for us to be good stewards of our precious drinking water sources, we typically comment that there is a potential for adverse impacts when asked to comment on individual wastewater systems that are uphill of our sources. There is no way to absolutely eliminate the potential for contamination.ƒSothereisapotential,andthatisaconcern.Also,obviously,whenwegot the original documentation it said well this is in FEMA zone ‚Xƒ, which either means its not in 29EXHIBIT A a flood plain or FEMA hasnt surveyed it. Well, we found out obviously FEMA hasnt surveyed it because theres a potential river that goes right through the middle of this thing. Weve had testimony to that effect. Weve seen photographs from some of our testifiers to that effect. Another thing, whatever happened to the concept of concurrency as in the bill we just recommended to the Legislature (sic) a month or so ago? Right now weve heard considerable testimony that the roads are marginal for the traffic thats currently there. There are dangerous intersections and roads, and there has been no mandate on the developers to even improve the roads for the increased traffic or improvements to the water supply. What theyre doing is essentially subdividing 6 lots into 43 lots. It certainly also will change the rural characteristic of this community. And I had 30 at the last meeting and Ive gotten several more now from local residents detailing their opposition; and I also have a problem with putting fairly densely packed housing in prime Agricultural land. As I say I think its really going to significantly change the character of that community. And as some of the people have testified, and Id say, this was a deal.Thiswasaquidproquo.Previousconsiderationbeforetheapplicantshadofferedthe carrot of the affordable housing was no way. Now were talking about dividing six Ag-20 lots into 43, and the developers are giving us or giving for affordable housing less than 5 percent of the property. The other thing is I have problems with subdividing the 118 acres into 10-acre plots if there is no foreseeable water in their future. I mean we have a memorandum from Mr. Yuen that said they had water meters for six, but that leaves the others still out in limbo. And I think, you know, what were trying to do is, or the thrust of this, the reason it was even promoted or presented to us was affordable public housing is a very significant consideration. Nobody argues against it. As Commissioner Domingo said at the last meeting, affordable housing is like, you know, motherhood and apple pie. Nobody is against it. But I think this is the wrong place for that. And, as I say, the thing that makes it even less attractive now is there has been a significant reduction in the number of affordable housing units based on the testimony weve heard today. And I think, as far as planning goes, when you let political considerations determine other choices that you have to make in planning, it may not be in the best long-term interest of the community. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Woodward. Other Commissioners have any comments? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Just to be clear on the record, the reasons stated by Commissioner Siracusa is the basis for a motion and I second those reasons. And I guess, you know, most of the Commissioners know my feelings about how our process really should be changed. And our job today under the way our system works is we make the decision today to recommend or not up to the Council and the Council is ultimately going to decide this issue. What I really believe, and, you know, the issue I brought up, the question I brought up, was suggesting to the applicant that they go back to the community and work on this some more and come up with something that the community can agree to, if theres going to be an agreement. They gave their honest assessment that there was no possibility of doing it in this particular proposal but, you know, maybe things can be changed. 30EXHIBIT A Anyway, I really believe that the community development plan process needs to be implemented island-wide, and it is being partially implemented mostly on the west side and in Puna now. But if they, you know, we had a community development plan that did apply to Pepeekeo and did have, and that plan would include how Pepeekeo is going to look in 50 to 60 years and this project was within it, you know, we wouldnt have had to spend all these hours and hours doing it. You would have to spend a lot more time coming up with such a plan, obviously; but in the end I think for us to have effective planning thats really what we need to do. And I would just add that as additional concerns on why I will be voting in favor of this negative recommendation. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Further comments from the Commissioners? Ill just put in my own two cents. For me the killer for this is the two-prong nature. I feel like its a real overreach of our mandate as a Planning Department or Planning Commission to try to go forward with something like this. The two-prong nature being that we would approve a rezoning, an upzoning of those Ag-20 parcels, those 118 acres, to the benefit of athirdpartywhoisgoingtotakesomeofthewindfallfromthatandgiveittoausethatwe support, which is affordable housing. I feel like if the County wishes to support affordable housing by funding it for the nature of the cost of the land or whatever, then the County should appropriate funds for that. But it shouldnt do that at the expense of our Agricultural lands and put through rezonings as a way to generate revenue that will be used for affordable housing. And to me for us to do something like this is way out of our mandate; and I hope I dont see more bifurcations like this, or however we want to characterize them. So, for me, the particulars of the parcel where the self-help housing would be doesnt even come into play, because of the nature of the whole process I found objectionable. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. For me the testimony actually, you know, its just very strong that it is not in favor of this particular application. And although there are a lot of signatures that show, I guess, favorability, the people are just not here. And if theyre not here, theres not a supported letter of any sort -. So just gauging the testimony, it seems to me that the community is more against it than for it. And thats whats pushing me more towards actually being in favor of Commissioner Siracusas motion. So I just wanted to share that. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Anything further? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Basically I subscribe to the whole idea of a self-help housing concept. As a matter of fact, there are a number of those projects that have been done throughout the Big Island, and I can say that theres nothing but praise for such a project. Because I know a number of people who have participated in the program, and it has helped them tremendously. As I look at this particular project, my concern first is when you look at the improvements that you have to make and the cost of the improvements, for instance the drainage, and now were looking at a reduction of the number of units and then, of course, it has been mentioned that their per capita assessment would be in the vicinity of a little over $10,000, now aside from that -. Now it was mentioned that those money, those fees would be used to effectuate some of the improvements and needs to be made outside of the project area. And what I can look at right now is an increase in the size of that roadway with the Old Mamalahoa Highway, because were looking at addressing a number of additional cars traveling through there. And as I look at it then there certainly needs to be a bridge, a new bridge built, or some modification to address the increase in traffic, and that would be with the widening of the 31EXHIBIT A roadway. So that alone in itself will never be covered by the impact fee assessment. And, you know, in my mind I dont think that this project will be a viable one. And, of course, as I indicated earlier I hope, I had wished that this project was before us on its own merits and not tied in together with the zoning, you know, either/or. And same with the rezoning, I hoped it had come before us on its own merits, and the housing program with its own merits, so that we can look at that more objectively and really single out and focus on the necessary issues that we need to, so that it can be a viable one. With that I would go along with the motion. GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Rho? th RHO:I think that the Directors April 27 letter to Lorraine Mendoza I think really sums up the parcel that they want to use to build those affordable housing. And for me that letter answered all my questions regarding the affordable housing. My real concern is on the other five or six parcels that are going to be subdivided from 20 to 10. And Im a fairly new Commissioner, and I may be not speaking out of turn but may be speaking from ignorance, but in North Kona theres this subdivision thats called Kaloko Mauka; and I believe its 10 acres. And now the residents are coming in to the Planning Commission and asking for a rezoning from 10 to 5; and then theyre selling off the 5 making, I would say, $600,000 plus. But, you know, thats the capital market. If I was the neighbor to this project, I would come in to the Planning Commission and ask for rezoning from 20 to 10. And if I was fortunate to buy 10, I would come in and ask for 5. Maybe I wouldnt be the initial person, but I would certainly be the second person to come in. I think were setting a precedent or we would set a precedent with this project. Although I dont know whats around that, you know, I dont know the details of whats completely around this project. But it seemed to me from the visit today there are a number of parcels 20 acres, and theyre all going to come in, cause the general gist of it is that most of them are not farming. Its their primary residence, its their residence. They cannot afford to farm, farming is hard, whatever. But I just want it on the record that thats the reason for my vote. It has nothing to do with affordable housing, nothing to do with the three parcels. I would like it to be connected to the sewer, thats true; but, you know, I could live with it based on the letter from the Director. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Rho. I think the folks in the audience can see that we are certainly independently-minded people here. Everybody caught on to different aspects that was most important to them. Anything further from the Commissioners before we have Jeff take the vote? IWASHITA:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:One thing I wanted to mention earlier, and that is in alignment with Commissioner Siracusas reference to the Sustainability Plan for 2050 that Senator Kokubun is chairing, that effort, theres also, you know, I was surprised to hear Governor Lingle talk about changing the basis of how we look at the future of our island and the economy and not relying so much on tourism, and basically what, you know, kind of development that were talking about now. So that also plays into, you know, my view on how we should proceed and how we should view these things. And so that is also a consideration that is driving my vote also. 32EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you. Mr. Darrow, I guess we can proceed with the vote. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment 07-000013 from Agricultural toUrban for 6.713 acres. With that Ill take the vote. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. DARROW:CommissionerAlameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes seven to one. GRAHAM:Thank you, Jeff. Then we should also have a motion now regarding the rezoning application. Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I move that in the matter of Hawaiian Island Community Development Corporation/Hawaiian Rainbow Business Development, LLC, Rezoning 07-000059, I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application, based on the reasons that I and all the other Commissioners gave before. IWASHITA:Second. 33EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you. Moved by Commissioner Siracusa, seconded by Commissioner Iwashita, for an unfavorable recommendation for this Rezoning 07-000059. Do we have any further comments by the Commissioners? Jeff? Excuse me, Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO:Are you opening for discussion on the motion? GRAHAM:If we have any comments on this motion in discussion this is the right time. DOMINGO:Okay. As I have stated in the past, I have strong reservations about entertaining any form of agricultural rezoning, whether it be here in Hilo, in Kamuela, in Hamakua, or wherever it may be, but more so especially to this. The issue before us is very importantbecauseitsprimeagriculturalland,primeagriculturalland.AndwhatIveseenby reading the history of those lands indicates to me that there is a trend that had been started, and that it started with C. Brewer selling their lands to Continental. And for some reason or some method they have been able to sell a number of parcels, agricultural parcels, in smaller sizes. And perhaps that has been done by some innovative work by consolidating and resubdividing of the properties and created additional lots, and they managed to zone the lands up to 20 acres. And now we have the Rainbow Business Development, LLC coming before us having control of a number of 20-acre parcels, and now theyre coming in to rezone their lands to 10-acre parcels. You know, how long would it be before we start looking at applications that would probably rezone those parcels to Ag-5, you know? And this is not only addressing this particular development because were looking at this same trend throughout the whole island. And whats happening is good prime agricultural lands are being taken away. Granted todays application further rezones the property to Ag, but to smaller size lots, and which by standard is still workable if you would sell it to someone who would go into some kind of agricultural endeavor. But when you look at the median price of those lands, agricultural lands, that are being sold, its far beyond what a farmer would be able to pay, you know; and thats something that bothers me. Because if this goes unchecked it will go on and on; and well probably find in the future not farmers on agricultural lands but 3-, 5-acre, 10-acre estates being owned by people who are effluent and who can afford to buy it. And we here who, of course, there are people here on the island who certainly would like to go into farming, as evidenced by some remarks made by the people who spoke to us today and the last meeting. So, you know, on top of that its prime, prime agricultural land. And as I look at the history of that, prime agricultural lands are being designated by the County first, and then sent in to the State; and upon review and concurrence then its put on a prime agricultural ALISH land, agricultural lands of importance to the State of Hawaii. Then its put on that list; and thats why we see it here today as prime Ag under the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii. Now this I would assume originated here on the County level. Now I dont know who, probably even before this administration came into power, but this was done. And now that we have this as a policy as part of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, I hope that the administration would look at it very closely and scrutinize it, and decide whether it would be in 34EXHIBIT A the best interest of the people on the island. Now even though the LUPAG Map and the General Plan policy guidelines indicate that this particular area probably should be considered for Alternate Urban, I think more than that we should look, before we even consider that, look at what it is now categorized under, which is very important. If we go ahead and put this aside, and go down the whole Hamakua coast, and we find that we can go and outright rezone any Agricultural land willy nilly and create housing, residential parcels, and forget about agricultural uses then, you know, were in a sad predicament. And I hope that the administration can look at this in the future. Thank you. GRAHAM:All right. Jeff, I think were ready for a vote. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation for Change of Zone 07-000059 to the Hawaii County Council. With that, Ill take the roll call. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes seven to one. 35EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you, Jeff. And, to the applicant, we will be preparing a written document explaining our action here today. The discussion ended at 2:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary 36EXHIBIT A