Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-02 TKULANA_KEA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 2, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of KULANA KEA, LLC (REZ 05-018)was called to order at 2:37 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Second Vice-Chairman Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Hannah SpringerBill Graham Jeffrey McCallAndrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director NormanHayashi,PlanningProgramManager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And eight people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KULANA KEA, LLC (REZ 05-018) Change of Zone for 26.122 acres of land from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) district and a Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot (RS-15) district to a Family Agricultural 5-acre (FA-5a) district. The properties involved are located along the north side of Kulana Kea Road, approximately 850 feet west of the Kulana Kea Road ƒ Wainaku Street intersection, Wainaku Farms Subdivision, Wainaku, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-6-32:4 & 5. ALAMEDA:All right, let€s look at applicant Kulana Kea, LLC (REZ 05-018). Okay, this is a Change of Zone for 26.122 acres of land from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) district and a Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot (RS-15) district to a Family Agricultural 5-acre (FA-5a) district. The properties involved are located along the north side of Kulana Kea Road, approximately 850 feet west of the Kulana Kea Road-Wainaku Street intersection. Staff? DARROW:Okay, if I could direct your attention to the location map on the board. The area of this application is within the South District of Hilo, more specifically we have the Hawaii Belt Road running in a north-south direction. This particular area here is Wainaku. We have Kawiki Road running in this way; and this particular road running in a mauka-makai, east- west direction is identified as Kulana Kea Drive. The area of this application is identified in blue. We have two subject properties that are part of this application. As noted on the map we have the dark green zoning identified as Agricultural 20 acres, as well as a light orange zoning which is identified as Single Family Residential 15,000 square feet. If you€ll notice there is a 1EXHIBIT D portion of the Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot zoning on the two properties identified in this application as well. The applicant in this case, Kulana Kea, LLC, is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 20 acres and Single Family Residential 15,000 square feet to Family Agricultural 5 acres. The applicant intendsto create five separate lots. The applicant intends to keep two of the lots and to sell three of the lots. Again, on the location map are the site plan that was submitted by the applicant. Just for reference this is the Kulana Kea Drive. Wainaku Street is located in this particular area. And this is Kauhiula Road that also is fronting the subject property as well. Conditions of approval also include improvements to the water system for this area to be able to provide water for the proposed lots. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Yes. Jeff, could you just for clarification explain how the parcel is two differentzones,whereandwhat€szoneddifferently? DARROW:Previouslyin1996therewasachangeofzoneinitiatedbythePlanning Director. That was for this particular parcel here. And the reason for the reasoning was to be able to, C. Brewer was contemplating bringing their office to this island. They wanted to be able to provide an area for their employees to be able to have housing. They were intending to subdivide into 25 lots to provide housing. In the process, there were, in the change of zone ordinance, which was 96 152, there were conditions in regards to that, including roadway improvements. When the subdivision occurred, I€m not sure exactly how it happened, but after the subdivision occurred and the roadway came into place, they noticed that there was a slight change in the zoning and that a portion of the RS zoning fell on the properties across the street. I€m not exactly sure how that occurred but it occurred through that manner to the -. SALAVEA:All right, thank you, Jeff. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, question? SIRACUSA:Yes. So continuing with that line of, so the parcel that€s now zoned RS is going to be part of this change of zone and go to Ag 5? DARROW:Correct. SIRACUSA:Okay, then I have a question on the background report. We€re told that the LUPAG map is listing this area as low density urban and yet the ALISH has it prime agricultural land. That seems like a, I would hope not that prime, which is so rare around here. I don€t understand how prime Ag land which has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops, etc., etc. could, how can you get it zoned into low density urban? Can the Director or somebody address that question, please. ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? 2EXHIBIT D YUEN:I€m not sure when this went into low density urban in the General Plan. It was done either in the 89 General Plan or it possibly goes back to the 1971 General Plan. There are some areas around some of the urban areas of Hamakua,North Hilo, that are general planned for urban but were actually either planted in cane at the timeit was done or are potential cane land. So almost all of the former cane lands in the Hamakua coast are prime in the ALISH system and also the cane lands of Kau and Kohala. So, and the existing, some existing neighborhoods like Wainaku or Paukaa or Papaikou, if you typed out the soils that are under them, they would have been prime too. But there were these neighborhoods created; and the General Plan allowed for some expansion of these areas. If you look at the General Plan now, you€ll find that there are some very, actually the low density urban area goes very far mauka in Wainaku. And we are, I did a workshop just in the last couple of days with a proposed interim General Plan Amendment that would cut back the size of those low density urban areas from these agricultural areas. But whenever, I can€t speak exact reason why this was put into low densityurban;butwheneveritwasputintheGeneralPlansomebodymadeadecisionthatsome residential expansion adjacent to these existing neighborhoods should be supported. SIRACUSA:It has been my experience that whenever you had sugar cane you did have pretty deep soil, doesn€t grow on broken up rocks the way papaya trees do, you know. But I would certainly feel that this would be a prime example of when we shouldn€t follow the General Plan, when we shouldn€t feel bound by it, when we have a, you know, a distinction like or discrepancy like this when we do have prime Ag land. And so I€m glad that Kulana Kea is not asking to go low density urban here with their change of zone, but they€re looking to keep it in Ag. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Other Commissioners, question for staff? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Mr. Darrow, do you have any idea just how much of that area was zoned RS-10? DARROW:Yes. WATANABE:Very small I take it. DARROW:It was 14.6 acres. WATANABE:Oh, 14.6. DARROW:Are we talking about the original RS-15 zoning? WATANABE:No, no, the portion that€s affected by this application for rezoning. DARROW:Yes, that€s included in the -. WATANABE:Oh, I€m sorry. Did I miss it? DARROW:No problem. It€s 1., if I can refer to the background report, 1.372 acres. 3EXHIBIT D WATANABE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for staff before we proceed? Okay, thank you,Mr. Darrow. Will the applicant or their representative please come forward. I was just checking if I€ve got to swear you in again. No need. Okay, you€ve already been sworn in so you can proceed. FUKE:Sure. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, again, just for the record, my name is Sidney Fuke. I€m a planning consultant. The applicants are here today. We have Ed Olson and Robin Ura. They both make up collectively Kulana Kea, LLC. In specific response to some of questions, I think those are very good questions Commissioner Siracusa raised about the agricultural designation of the property. My understanding is that whentheALISHmapswerepreparedbytheStateDepartmentofAgriculture,theyweredone like the late 70s or early 80s. And I don€t believe that they€ve ever had any updates to that map. But, you know, subsequent to that they were looking at what is called like the LESA System, the Land Evaluation Soil Analysis System; and, I guess, that€s sort of like under review right now by the State. And then the County has an obligation to come up with different soil, not soil but land classification for these better agricultural lands. Notwithstanding that the Land Study Bureau has classified that property as C and by virtue of, if you look at the property and you see what the prior use was and, you know, more recently they had some corn farm on the property, it€s fairly evident that you do have very good agricultural potential that€s very, you know, soil based, agricultural potential. When I was approached by the owners to assist them in the processing of the application, we had examined different alternatives; and the soil characteristics, the overall character of that area also kind of played into part. And one of the things that we€re looking at is trying as much as possible to minimize the number of lots that, you know, notwithstanding what the General Plan said, like it says it€s low density urban, but, you know, to see what can reasonably done to the property to make it feasible for small scale agricultural pursuits and still, you know, maintain the agricultural rural kind of ambiance. So we started off like, you know, there are two existing lots of record; and as the staff pointed out you have like a, you know, erroneously or otherwise, but you still have like about an acre, a little more than an acre that€s presently zoned RS-15. And so cumulatively it€s possibly like about five lots in that area, you know, your two existing plus your RS-15 being subdivided into three 15,000 square foot lots. But, and so we kind of used that as a basis to say like, well, this alternative by downzoning the property, the RS-15 to Ag-5, FA-5 and downzoning the balance from Ag-20 to Ag-5, you know, you basically, it will arrive at the same kind of density. But, at the same time, you would enhance the agricultural opportunities for the property. Just by way of further background, Mr. Olson is intimately involved in a number of agricultural pursuits here in the island. He has about over 3,000 acres of land that€s presently cultivated in active macadamia nut both in the Kau district as well as in the Hilo/Hamakua area. He has a ranchland that€s nearly about 4,000 acres of land that€s in the Kau as well as in the Puna district. And, particularly, like in this general area he has about 300 or 400 acres of land, excuse me, 300 acres of land in the Puueo area which he calls it OK Farms; and presently it is being cultivated with a whole bunch of different type of agricultural pursuits. And I was surprised to learn that he has coffee grown on the premises; and, you know, this was his first year of harvest, in the coffee. 4EXHIBIT D He has macadamia nuts on the property, rambu-,not rambutan, but hearts of palm that he is kind of currently marketing. And so, you know, he spans the gamut of different types of agricultural pursuits. And, you know, with that background he felt that it would be, you know, he€d like to make that kind of opportunity available, given the soil characteristics, you know, of the property available to people who are interested in possibly doing some backyard farming. The partnership, the LLC basically consists of two individuals, himself and Mr. Rohr. And both of them, you know, intend to, if the property is approved, would retain, you know, the respective 5 acres and then go out and find for four or three individuals or entities that would be interested in doing some limited farming on the property. So, in a nutshell, that€s what they€re proposing. One of the biggest infrastructure hurdles that we had to overcome was the issue about the water system. There€s presently, according to the Water Department€s policy they allow only one unit of water per existing lot of record. And to overcome them what they needed to do, and based on discussionswiththeWaterDepartment,istheywouldhavetoimproveapproximatelyabouta 2400-foot of, construct a 2400-foot long waterline that stretches from an existing tank mauka of their properties down generally to this area; and it would basically form a loop, an overall water loop in that area. And with that improvement, the Water Department felt that the subdivision would be allowed to proceed with full water; and more critically it would mean that a fire hydrant could be installed along that general area. So that€s what they€re prepared to do in conjunction with the owners who are across the street immediately to the Hilo side of the Kulana Kea Road. So they will be participating jointly, you know, subject to this zoning being approved, you know, on the water system. ALAMEDA:Mr. Fuke, did you also get a chance to read the -? FUKE:I€m sorry, yeah. ALAMEDA:Of course, and all of the conditions? FUKE:Correct. ALAMEDA:And I assume the applicant and you don€t have any problems with those conditions? FUKE:Correct, yeah. The proposed conditions as recommended by the Planning Director were reviewed with the applicant and the applicant found them to be acceptable. I€d like to also kind of note that, you know, since one of the parties that were here earlier this morning hoping to testify -. You know, I had met with one of the surrounding property owners who had expressed some initial concerns about like the potential visual impact that any homes would have on their property. And so after conferring with the owners, the owners have said that, you know, we will restrict the height of any structures to no higher than what the existing agricultural zoning calls, I mean, residential zoning which is 35 feet; and, you know, they€ll kind of talk story with the neighbor to make sure that the siting of any dwellings or structures on the property would not have any adverse visual impact on the property owners to the mauka side. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioner McCall, you have a question? 5EXHIBIT D MCCALL:Yeah. A few years ago we had a previous application in this area where the, Imean, of course, the issue is Kulana Road or -. FUKE:Kulana Kea Road, yeah. MCCALL:Yeah, the road intersection with down below. I just, can you, since you€re involved with that, can you, what is going to be required in the way of road improvements to that intersection? FUKE:My understanding is that based on the RS-15 zoning condition and, you know, the applicant, the owners of that property that you€re referring to, Mr. McCall, which is the 14-plus acre property on the Hilo side of Kulana Kea directly across of the subject property, they have an obligation to make some intersectional improvements at the bottom of Kulana Kea and the Mamalahoa Highway, otherwise known as the, I guess, Wainaku Road; and that would bealldonewithintheexistingright-of-way.AndIthink,youknow,thatstillwouldbesubject to Department of Public Works€ review and approval. But I suspect that what it will amount to is pretty much like shaving off the bank and widening, you know, just that entrance area. I can€t really commit, you know, specifically, to what it would be because it still would have to be worked out with the DPW; but there is that condition. MCCALL:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah. So I noticed in one of the pictures it seemed like the access off of the road was more than a 90-degree angle, so it went back on itself a little bit before it leveled out. So that€s the part you€re talking about? FUKE:That€s correct. SIRACUSA:Okay. Cause I noticed that did need a little aproning. FUKE:Yeah. And fortunately -. Well, the map doesn€t show it but like if you look on the tax map key it kind of like flares out at the end, so there would appear to be sufficient room within the existing road right-of-way. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, that height limitation that you were discussing with us, would that be covered under Condition E or do we need some additional language? There€s a sentence in there that says The owners of the property may also impose private covenants restricting the number of dwellings.‚ But would that be covered by that covenant discussion? FUKE:It would yeah. But if you want to really have more specific tie down to that, I mean, you know, I do have proposed language. But essentially, you know, Mr. Olson and Mr. Rohr are here. They€ve had discussions with the owner and they€ve given the owners, not the owners, but the adjoining property owner that assurance that they€d keep the height limit down to, not to exceed 35 feet. 6EXHIBIT D SPRINGER:And you have that language ready? FUKE:Yes, I do. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer, follow up. Would you like Mr. Fuke to share it with us that language? SPRINGER:Yeah; and if it€s in the form of a new condition, or if it would be added to E, or some other one. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Darrow, would you mind reading that for the Commissioners? FUKE:Actually on that, it would really be like on proposed Condition E. What it justsaysis,Restrictivecovenantsinthedeedsofalltheproposedlotsshallincludeprovisions that require the height of all structures to not exceed 35 feet and consultation with the immediate adjoining property owners regarding the placement of all structures prior to submittal of plans for a building permit.‚ Again, you know, it€s not to say that the adjoining property owner has any veto power. But what you want to do is create like a sense of community that, you know, you just talk story and hopefully you can kind of resolve things. I mean, you are going to be neighbors so that€s what it kind of mandates, yeah. ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:When it talks about consultation with adjacent property owners, does it mean that somebody in the subdivision has to consult with another member, with another owner within that same subdivision, or are you talking about adjoining property outside of this rezoning? FUKE:We€re talking about the immediately adjoining properties. YUEN:So if I, say this ends up in a subdivision being Lots 1 to 5, if I buy Lot 2, do I have to consult with the owner of Lot 3? FUKE:No, the -. That€s a very good question. I think I understand what -. YUEN:The way you wrote it, I think that€s what it does, yeah. FUKE:Oh, okay. YUEN:And we can, if the idea, I think we should identify the, possibly just identify the tax map keys of the, what we mean by adjoining properties because, again, you know, say if you have, if it€s meant to be in favor of the people immediately mauka of this then the person, once you subdivide it, for example, Lot 3 may not, it€s not adjacent to that anymore. FUKE:I got you. No, I understand 7EXHIBIT D YUEN:Okay? FUKE: So I would welcome any suggestedlanguage that you would have to accomplish that objective. YUEN:Let me look at it for a minute. And we can go on and we€ll try to work out something. ALAMEDA:Commissioners, questions for Mr. Fuke? If not, this is a public hearing. We do have testimony before us. I would like to, Mr. Fuke, you can sit down. FUKE:Okay. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I€d like to call up Mr. Leonard Cardoza and Mr. Garrett Kim andaMs.Evonne-. BJORNEN.Bjornen. ALAMEDA:Bjornen.Pleasecomeupandmakeyourselfcomfortable.Allright,how about I swear everybody in at once. Can you all please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Ms. Evonne, maybe we can start with you. If you could state your name and address, and then you can proceed with your testimony BJORNEN:Thank you. ALAMEDA:You€re welcome. BJORNEN:I€m Evonne Bjornen and I live at 805-Kauhiula Road in Hilo. ALAMEDA:Okay. And you can proceed. BJORNEN:I am for this project for many reasons. I have no intentions to subdividing myself, so it€s not because I am here to support somebody that is going to subdivide so that I can. I have almost a 25-acre parcel. I feel that this is going to be a real quality development of only 5-acre lots, I think some of them are a little bigger than 5 acres. And I think it€s going to give more security to the area. We€ve had a lot of vagrants up there so it€s real good to have some nice quality homes. And I have talked with the two owners, as well as their planner, and I€m very pleased with what I hear. I also know they€re bringing up more water which is going to be good. So I just would like to say that I definitely approve it. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. At this time, Commissioners, do you have questions for our testifier. All right, thank you for sharing. I appreciate it. You can slide the mike down or you could share the mike. Mr. Cardoza? 8EXHIBIT D CARDOZA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Aloha. Could you please state your name and address for the record. CARDOZA:Leonard Cardoza. I live on 499 Kulana Kea Drive, Hilo. ALAMEDA:Aloha, Leonard. You can go ahead and proceed with your testimony. CARDOZA:Yeah, I know Mr. Olson that€s doing this project. He€s a good friend of mine and I€d like to see this project happen. But I have a few comments to say. ALAMEDA:Sure. CARDOZA:I€vesaiditinthepastwhensomeoneelsetriedtodevelop,Ithink,itwas 14 acres on Kualana Kea Drive, go back to the old standards. When they tried to subdivide this area, they had a plan that they had to realign that road or make it safer, and the water improvement. And, you know, I€d like to see the project happen. But, you know, maybe it€s not you that makes the decision or the Commission, but we have water issues and we have road issues; and it€s a private road so I don€t know where that falls into play. And, you know, where is this old plan, is it thrown out, is it still in existence? Why is it not being talked about? All of a sudden, you know, we€ve got 5 lots, possibly, maybe 10 or 15 more. Why open the crack a little and let the little ones go and eventually you€re choked? I mean everybody should start looking at the picture. It€s happening, it€s coming. Why don€t we lay the cards on the table and do it right, instead of trying to get in, you know, do a short-cut, so called, you know, sell the lots. And basically it€s the people that live in the subdivision going to be the deep pockets. And, you know, you want to make this subdivision happen, and then you as the Commissioners over here made a good deed and people come back and say you did a good job -. You know, I think people should look at those things, you know. I mean stop this short-cut stuff. You know, we€ve got problems all over this island with these shortcuts, you know, so let€s do it right. You know, I don€t mind if we€ve got to chip in as lot owners but we should do this subdivision right. Not that on the bottom, oh, just shave the bank a little, I can see the car coming. I personally got into an accident here cause I couldn€t make a turn. I mean, and Evonne came a few minutes later. I mean, I saw this car coming but we couldn€t fit two cars in there. And I brought this matter up at the last hearing, so -. You know, the road is the big issue. The land is nice, it€s, I€d like to see it subdivided. I mean I€m not here to stop it; but I€d like to see it done right, if I can get help from the people to do it right. Cause eventually it€s going to be done right, why not do it now. But I can see it, it€s not doing right now. Cut the corners, let€s make sure you can see. When somebody gets into an accident it€s their problem, then we end up with law suits and insurance and association dues. We€ve got to pay more because the Commission let this thing slide. You know, they only look at the zoning and let it go. Even the water easement, do they have enough water easement to put the new line in? Is it 10 feet, is it 20 feet, is it 50 feet? How many more feet they need? Are they going to cut up Kulana Kea Road. Are we going to have a patch road when the waterline is done? Are we going 9EXHIBIT D to have a new road put in? It€s probably not your problem, but these are issues that I€m bringing forth because it€s going to happen; and I€d like to see it happen. But how are we going to take care of the situation? You know water and roads, big concern. We€ve got power so we€re okay. I think everybody is happy with those kinds of situations. I don€t know how the rest of my neighborhood feels as far as more lots. I cannot speak for them. I€m here for what I see. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you, Mr. Cardoza. Any questions, Commissioners? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Sure, Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:I have a question not for the testifier but for the Director based on the testimony today. Mr. Cardoza has brought up the issues of sight distance and road width, impactstoKulanaKeaRoad,andalsoquestionswhetherthewaterrequirementsforthe applicant are sufficient. Mr. Director, can you address those issues? YUEN:The conditions as written would require them to do these water improvements that are discussed in the Department of Water Supply€s letter which include extending the 8-inch line; and this would have to be done before final subdivision approval. Kulana Kea Road itself is a pretty good road; and quite adequate for rezoning this property from Ag-20 to Ag-5, certainly, and creating five lots. We did not, there is, the intersection with Wainaku Road is a little odd. It€s a little bit of a drop as you come down there. There€s a little, as you approach there€s a little bit of a hairpin. Given the minimal increase due to this particular rezoning, which actually does not increase the number of lots from that, if you count the RS-15 portion, it does not increase the number of lots, we did not put in a condition on improving the intersection with the Wainaku Road. ALAMEDA:Other questions for Mr. Cardoza, Commissioners? SALAVEA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Mr. Cardoza, who currently maintains the Kulana Kea Road? CARDOZA:Right now we don€t pay dues so I do mowing when I can on the grass, on the road edges; and I€ve seen my neighbor here, Garrett Kim, does some. And we used to have the person that used to rent from Mr. Olson, Danny Loeffler, he used do to do some mowing. Other than that, that€s all we€ve done. I mean, unless I see some little problems which I€ve done about four years ago we had a little washout from erosion and I went in and fixed it with some gravel at my own expense. But other than that, we don€t pay any dues or anything at this point to -. If that€s what you€re asking of me. SALAVEA:Yeah. And so as far as paving, that is taken care of just whomever? CARDOZA:Well, we bought it as is so -. 10EXHIBIT D BJORNEN:May I say something ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea, could we allow -? SALAVEA:Sure, sure. ALAMEDA:Ms. Bjornen. SALAVEA:If you could use the microphone, please, for record purposes. Thank you. BJORNEN:The roads are still owned by the old C. Brewer/Mauna Kea Ag. The association does not own the roads at this point, as of yesterday. I called them, talked to them. ALAMEDA:Okay.AnyotherquestionofMr.CardozabeforewemoveontoMr. Kim? SIRACUSA:Yeah. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:You mentioned our concerns about the road. And when Mr. Fuke was up at the table and I asked him about that very awkward looking entry and he indicated that they were planning to widen that because it was within the space allowable anyway. Is that the primary area of your concern on the roads, that particular spot there? CARDOZA:That would be one area. SIRACUSA:So that one it looks like it€s going to be dealt with already, according to Mr. Fuke. CARDOZA:Yeah, if that€s what he meant, cutting away the embankment to make better visibility. But that€s, like I say, you know, I told the chairman earlier, don€t do a little and someone else do a little. Why don€t we do it right? So what I€m trying to say is we need to open the entrance but we also need to realign that road a little fatter so traffic can flow properly in both directions. And also above Mr. Kim€s lot there€s a little bad turn, little, poor visibility and on one side it just drops off suddenly. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, to the Director. I€m wondering whether we can do anything about this at all anyway, you know, within the Planning Commission because we€re talking about a road that is not owned by the applicant or by the subdivision that the applicant, the larger, it€s owned by C. Brewer. So I don€t see how we can address road issues. It seems to me like you should be talking to the owner of the road about those concerns. CARDOZA:Well, at the same token, how can you approve something if there is a bad problem? So if there is a problem, one hand turns the other, in my opinion. But -. 11EXHIBIT D SIRACUSA:Is there a logistic there, Mr. Director? YUEN:We can make, require improvements to private roads as a condition of approving a change of zone on those roads. So we would have the power to do that. I went on Kulana Kea when we had that other rezoning application, the Plant Mason application. The Kulana Kea itself is certainly an adequate road for rezoning this property from Ag-20 to Ag-5. SIRACUSA:So you don€t see any need to add extra wording into the conditions? YUEN:No. And then the intersection at the bottom is supposed to be fixed in connection with any subdivision of the 15,000 square foot zoned area across the street. So my recommendation is just leave it at that. ALAMEDA:Allright-. CARDOZA:See,myquestioniswehad,orthePlanningDepartmenthadtorealignthat road or improve it. Where is that picture went? Right? We bought that subdivision, the existing lot owners, with the conditions that were there. In the event they would do the subdivision the road and the water would have to coincide. We€re losing something here. For the record, we€re losing something here. What€s wrong? I don€t know, I don€t have the answer. If I knew I would tell you. But there was a plan drawn out as far as I know. Idon€t have it with me. I wish I would. I would share it with you. But there is something as far as I can recall. So something, something is missing; and it€s not being brought forward. I don€t know the answer. I just want you folks all to know that we bought the lots the way it was, the water system and the road. The improvements that was going to take place a few years ago was to coincide with water and road. Evidently, something is wrong. That€s all I have to say. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Cardoza. Any questions, final questions for Mr. Cardoza? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Mr. Cardoza, with whom did this discussion take place and by whom was this commitment made? CARDOZA:Well, it wasn€t a discussion. It was when Brewer wanted to subdivide that 14 acres, I believe, and make all those lots. To do that, they needed to do the water system and the road. And I believe, but like I say I don€t have any paperwork or maps to show you, but I believe it was made. SPRINGER:And the 14 acres, are those towards Hawaii Belt Road or above? CARDOZA:I beg your pardon? SPRINGER:The 14 acres, is that below the subject site or above? CARDOZA:No. It€s actually directly across the street from Mr. Olson€s lot. It€s 14 acres. That was the Plant Mason that was bought, I think, two years ago maybe. 12EXHIBIT D YUEN:There were supposed to be improvements made that would go, that would go along with subdividing the area across Kulana Kea Street that€s zoned RS-15. Because, those have never happened because that area has never been subdivided. If somebody came in and wanted to do a subdivision of 15,000 square foot lots, which it€s zoned for, there are somethings that they€d have to do to make that subdivision happen. They couldn€t just do on-site roads. There are some off-site things that are still supposed to happen. But, again, that€s tied to that being subdivided. As long as it€s kept in one lot, that doesn€t happen. CARDOZA:So what you€re trying to say Chris that was the 15,000 square foot lots and they would have to require that road to be improved? YUEN:I don€t know, I think Mr. Darrow is more upon the exact conditions on that; but there were some improvements that had to be made with that, including the bottom -. CARDOZA:Imean,Idon€twanttotwiststoriesaround.Iownabout70acresupthere and if I was to do 5-acre lots, you know, then I could still use that road without any improvements. You know how many lots I can make with 70 acres and create a lot more traffic. So what I€m trying to say is you crack it a little and sooner or later it€s going to happen. I know you cannot see behind the tunnel but we all here know that€s what€s going to happen. So all I€m trying to do is just kind of speed you guys up to par because, you know, the first wheel is going to go forward, the first wheel going to take all the beating; and the second wheel going to ride smoother. And, you know, think of it, give it some thought because that€s why they€re slipping the road aside, right, because we€re doing bigger lots; and if they did smaller lots would have to do a lot of improvements. What€s the difference whether it was a 5-acre lot or a 15,000 square foot lot? It€s an improvement. They€re cutting the lots now. When we bought it, that was it. There were no lots to be cut. That€s it, final. Right? Now they€re going for a change. The road is pushed aside, and the water, but maybe it€s coming forward. Probably more water than road because the road is just shave the bank, keep everybody happy, let the dust settle. But, anyway, you folks going to make the choice, we€re going to live with it. YUEN:Okay. ALAMEDA:Any other comments or questions for our testifier before we move on? SALAVEA:Mr. Cardoza -? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Do you have any recommendations for a solution? And the reason I ask that is because as the Planning Commission, we rely heavily on public input and testimony such as yours; and in that testimony we hope that we, or is included in that testimony possible solutions to help improve the situation only because we ourselves may not reside in the area. So you as being a local resident, understanding the unique circumstances that exist in the area, we would have to rely on you. And it€s really, we can do only so much in terms of creating conditions and trying to say, well, you know, if you want to subdivide the land then you€re going to have to make some improvements and such. But we really don€t have the first-hand knowledge to go ahead and make, I think, in my opinion, go ahead and make, create solutions that would be to everyone€s approval in that area. So do you have anything that you could -? 13EXHIBIT D CARDOZA:Well, all I€m trying to say is, I€m sure there was a plan; and I could probably ask Mr. Darrow if he has any copy of that plan that was made 10 years ago. I think the County has a copy of that. Can I ask Mr. Darrow? KIM:I got it, I mean, I know what it was supposed to be. ALAMEDA:Perhaps our next testifier might be able to address that. SALAVEA:Sure, sure. My question or query to you folks is help us do the right thing by providing us with information and suggestions and solutions. CARDOZA:Yeah, that€s what I€m trying to say, you know, I want to say it now. Right? You know, so everyone hears it. ALAMEDA:Well, thank you, Mr. Cardoza. I appreciate your candidness. Anybody else?CommissionerMcCall? MCCALL:Yeah,maybejust-.ThePlantMasononethatcamebeforeus,thatwas for the 14 acres that RS-15 zoning, is that correct? DARROW:Correct. MCCALL:And we approved that, or did they with -? DARROW:They withdrew? MCCALL:They withdrew? DARROW:Yes. MCCALL:They withdrew, okay, that€s what it was. Okay. So what it was is we put the condition on that if they were to, they needed to improve the road if they were going to going to develop that as RS-15. CARDOZA:No, I don€t think that was even -. KIM:It was never discussed at the RS-15. CARDOZA:That was pretty much going to go -. Yeah, they actually was going to make only five lots, I believe, instead of the RS-15, at that time, if I can recall it to that. MCCALL:Yeah I can€t -. Yeah, it probably wasn€t RS-15 but they were going to subdivide it anyway, I believe. ALAMEDA:Excuse me, sorry, we cannot backtrack on testimony so I cannot acknowledge your hand, although I see it up. But, Mr. Cardoza, you have anything to close, any final statements before we move forward? 14EXHIBIT D CARDOZA:Well, like I said, I don€t know if Mr. Darrow, you know, would have any map that would show that road if they was to subdivide, you know, to do it right. Cause I think they had an engineer do it, to do it right; and that€s where I€m at. But like I say, I mean, I€d like to see the project happen, you know, cause I€m sure my neighbor, Plant Mason going to come and do it, too. But, you know, I just want to let you folks know, let€s do it right, you know, so we have a good safe community. ALAMEDA:All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Cardoza. CARDOZA:Sure. ALAMEDA:Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Kim, could you please state your name and address for the record, and then you may proceed with your testimony. KIM:Yeah, my name is Garrett Kim. I live at 67 Kulana Kea Drive, which is directlybelowthisproperty.AsfarastheroadissuethatMr.Cardozawasdiscussing,there were two initial, I wouldn€t say promises, but what was discussed, with the original seller of the lot, which was Prudential who was representing C. Brewer. And they said if they were going to go with that RS-15 and developed that entire section, they would have to come in from Kaiwiki Road and redo that road. So it wouldn€t even come up Kulana Kea Drive. That was what was promised to me. And as far as the realignment that Mr. Cardoza was talking, it was a major realignment involving three properties. ALAMEDA:You can go ahead and show us if you wanted to, yeah. KIM:Okay. ALAMEDA:Jeff, would you give him the mike, please. KIM:Okay, right here you can see it would come directly mauka, come across the top of my property which is right here, and then cut up right through this little triangle section right here. So this, do you know who owns this property, Leonard? CARDOZA:Where? KIM:Right here, across me. CARDOZA:Who owns that, Evonne? BJORNEN:Right above you? KIM:No, directly Hamakua. CARDOZA:On the left, right? Yeah, right above you? KIM:No, no, across the street, Hamakua of me. 15EXHIBIT D CARDOZA:Oh, Lalakea. KIM:Lalakea, okay, he would lose a huge section here. About an acre or so of his property would be lost; and that is in the deed that was sold to him. I would lose a bit of the top of my section, and the road would continue directly right down the middle of this section right here. However, they sold this property so that€s not available right now. But in his deed, it says that he has, I mean, they have the option of buying this property from him and realigning the road here. As far as you can see this road here it€s less than a 45 degree angle cut back on itself. Two cars cannot pass this road at all. I mean, I don€t care how small your car is, two cars can€t pass this road; and there€s a lot of heavy traffic moving up and down this road. So this section right here is, like I said, in that deed that was originally sold. Okay, and as far as like that major realignment that would, hopefully, bring up the road to County Code, which it is not now. That€s why they couldn€t, I guess, give the road to the Countywhentheyoriginallytriedtodoitwhentheymadethesubdivision.Asfarastheroad issue, there€s also a bend right at the top like where lots, I guess, the bottom two lots are, which is a blind downward turn. And any driveway coming off of that road right there, you know, is a major traffic hazard. I can see, you know, even night time or day time cars coming on that road and a car pulling out of that driveway, there€s no sight lines on that road. Okay, let€s see. As far as Ms. Siracusa had questioned earlier, you know, this is a prime Ag lot. I mean it€s a beautiful flat deep soil, you know, 20-foot plus deep soil lot, that€s what it is. It has always been Ag. It was farmed Ag right up until it was purchased recently. And the zoning mistake‚ that let this supposedly five lots be put into this, I mean, it was put there, say, by mistake. But it€s purely for speculation later on which is what€s happening right now. I mean if you zone that, I mean if you split up this little sliver into that five lots, I mean, they€re very undesirable lots. You couldn€t sell them really for, you know, what they€re trying to sell it for now, which is what it purely speculation I can see. And you can say that it€s going to be small, small farmer lots and stuff. But we all know that€s it€s just going to be a residential 5-acre lots, you know; and you put a 35-foot high, you know, height requirement on this, 35 feet that€s the Olympic pool diving tower. You know, that€s 35 feet, it€s ridiculously high. You know, it doesn€t fall into anything in that general area, 35 feet is. Like I said, that 35 feet height requirement doesn€t really do anything to, you know, minimize impact of the sight zone, I mean, the sight lines. And as far as the Water Department putting in this line, from what I discussed with the Water Department, it€s the Water Department that€s putting in the line, not the developer. And that€s about it. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any questions for Mr. Kim? Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. You mentioned that is prime Ag land and it€s beautiful deep soil; and then you said that if it was broken up into five-acre lots they wouldn€t be so good. KIM:No, what I -. SIRACUSA:Now could you, I€m paraphrasing you. 16EXHIBIT D KIM:Okay, what -. SIRACUSA:Yeah, could you clarify that? KIM:What I said was that five-acre lots that are zoned RS-15, if they would just leave this 25-acre lot alone and then subdivide that, you know, the 1.3 acres into those five lots, that€s not nearly as desirable as what he€s trying to do now. So leave it like it is. I mean say, save the two lots of it then as Ag. If you want to try and sell it because of this so-called mistake that originally put this RS-15 zoning into this prime Ag lots, you know, then so be it. SIRACUSA:Maybe I€m not understanding you correctly or something somewhere along the line here -. It€s my understanding that the part that€s RS-15 now is, that€s going to be, we€re going to cancel that, and back to what the whole thing is, you know, and then divide up intofive-acrelots.AndthatwouldincludewhatwaspreviouslytheRS-15sothatyouwouldn€t have any RS-15 on -? KIM:Yes, that€s correct. But what I€m saying now, as it€s zoned RS-15 right now, that little sliver there, I mean, I can€t see anybody wanting to purchase those. It€s that mistake so-called, that let that in there, it€s just that. I mean, it€s just a, you know -. SIRACUSA:I€m saying it wouldn€t be there any more. It€s a sliver -. KIM:Yeah, but what I€m saying is now that mistake is what€s enabling that other five lots to be expanded on out of that 25-acre spot. Because if it -. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, I don€t understand how it€s enabling. I€m confused here. KIM:Because what they€re saying is they€re saying, oh, we€re already zoned for 5 lots in this overall big picture. And now, you know, will it, you downgrade this tiny little sliver which is on, you know, it doesn€t mean much cause like all it is, it€s that tiny little sliver along the side of the road. And we want to, you know, rezone this bigger lot which is the prime Ag zone lot there anyway. So you€re getting the same number of lots but now all of a sudden it becomes hugely desirable because now you have five 5-acre lots with basically absolutely no infrastructure improvements at all. They don€t address the drainage issue that is directly above me that has already caused me problems in the past. SIRACUSA:Could I ask you what your annual rainfall is? KIM:A hundred and twenty six inches a year, that€s just for the City of Hilo. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Mr. Kim, if you could, between either you and Mr. Cardoza or, I€m sorry, all three of you out there, maybe describe to us the uses of the land directly adjacent on the Kulana Kea Road. I want to get a feel for what, you know -? 17EXHIBIT D KIM:At the moment right? SALAVEA:Is it residential or Ag, a lot of Ag, vacant? KIM:It€s, on the road itself you have my house which is on a 5-acre lot; and directly across me right now is an open field that they€re planting some sweet potatoes and other various agricultural things. And it used to be, this lot that they€re discussing now used to be either corn fields or other Ag. And there€s macadamia nut fields directly above us. And then about, at the moment, there€s about seven houses in the area. SALAVEA:Along that -? KIM:Along the road there€s only one, which is my house. ALAMEDA:Does that answer your question, Commissioner Salavea? BJORNEN:Could I answer that? SALAVEA:Yeah. If Mr. Cardoza or -? ALAMEDA:As long as you answer the question and not provide further testimony? BJORNEN:Okay. I€m just answering his questions. ALAMEDA:Sure. BJORNEN:The area there and across the street from it is not being used as Ag as far as I can see. It was leased to Loeffler for the corn, but he wasn€t an owner in there. So there was corn in there. The macadamia nuts which start where I am, which is across the street, that starts macadamia nuts. And where Leonard€s property starts macadamia but not the immediate section there -. Can I ask you one question? I forgot to bring up that I have the paper which I gave all of you from -. ALAMEDA:It€s all, yeah, we have that. Fellow Commissioners all have a copy of the written testimony. BJORNEN:So I don€t need to read it or anything? ALAMEDA:No, you don€t need to. No, Ma€am. BJORNEN:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. It€s already for the record. Other questions for Mr. Kim? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Going back to Mr. Cardoza, can you tell us what your 70 acres are, you€re using that acreage for? 18EXHIBIT D CARDOZA:Macadamia nut and cattle. SALAVEA:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah, I€ve got a question for the Director. This is with regard to Condition F, which is kind of typical when we€re discussing all development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site. And we just heard testimony that he€s experiencing some problem. Am I right in assuming that possibly this development might actually help him in the runoff area? Would it require some sculpting of the land to more effectively, you know, deal with the runoff? YUEN:Itwouldn€trequireit.That€sastandardconditionanditjustrequiresthat the developer take care of increased runoff that€s caused by their own development activity. Mostly in this case it would be based on the subdivision itself. So, for example, if there was a subdivision, internal subdivision road that causes runoff, there would typically be a drywell to take that. This subdivision is, if it€s laid out the way it€s planned to be laid out, it€s not going to, there€s not going to be any special drainage improvements required because there isn€t anything, there€s nothing in the subdivision itself. WATANABE:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Other questions for Mr. Kim or the Director? Mr. Kim, I have a question for you. If you could just maybe summarize for me kind of how this particular application will, real candidly, will affect you, or your property, or your quality of life? KIM:I don€t see how just the subdivision itself will affect my quality of life, other than like I said the increased traffic and problems like that. But unless they specifically address the drainage issue which, like I said, that huge area that€s 25 plus acres that drain directly above me, if they don€t maintain those swales and those ditches, it causes a huge problem. And I don€t see any wording in here that they have to maintain this and, also, when they create their houses and their driveways that they maintain it or even improve on the drainage issues there. ALAMEDA:Okay. YUEN:Can I ask -? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director. YUEN:Can I ask you to show what you€re talking about on the map? Are there old plantation period drainage features going across this property? KIM:Okay, for those of you who are not familiar, this is pretty much, up until right here is a completely flat area, and then it slopes off drastically right here. What happens is 19EXHIBIT D water from this area and also above the street here collects here and it will flow down, either along here in a little ditch to a big, what is that, a swale right here ƒ. CARDOZA:Contour ditch. KIMA contour ditch which then takes it down towards Wainaku Street here. Failure to maintain this contour ditch and this also runoff swale here caused, you know, a lot of this soil and water to flow across the road which, you know, it eroded all the gravel along this road and also brought all the soil down, which is my property right here, into my driveway. It cost me several thousand dollars to repair, you know, my driveway because of this. What was the other question again? ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:Yeah, what you just showed as far as, there was a contour area? KIM:There is one presently right here. YUEN:And, okay, what happened to that kept it so it€s not working right now? KIM:Well, they repaired it after the flood, after the damage to my property. But basically what it does is it fills up with all the debris from this huge area up here and also up here; and it just can€t handle the amount of water that€s coming down from this huge parcel. And it just overflows this road, which wasn€t a problem before in the sugarcane days because if it flows across the road and it goes into this property, it€s not a problem. But now that, you know, there€s going to be a house here, well, actually, excuse me, right here and this is the top of my lot here, it causes, you know, huge problems of the volume of water that can come across the road if these ditches and this contour ditch is not maintained. YUEN:Is there a drainage that directs it toward Honolii side across this property? KIM:Yes, yes. It€s right here. YUEN:And does it go all the way across the property? KIM:It comes down here. And right here is the major contour ditch which sends it Hamakua and then it drops it pretty much straight down into the middle of Lalakea€s property, which is a semi valley type of a, which drains it directly into Wainaku Stream. YUEN:Let me work on a condition on that because this is something that comes up as a problem. And what has happened over the years is the plantations had certain drainage systems and they often went across property lines. And, in this case, it€s all on one property. But if we do a subdivision it€s going to be, there will be different properties involved, and the different property owners may not want the water to come across their property. But that€s the way that, that€s the logical for it to move across the property. So in other areas we have been trying to put conditions on subdivisions that say that they have to maintain these existing systems and as drainage easements. So let me work on a condition that would discuss this. 20EXHIBIT D The one that goes along the road, is that just, is there a drainage ditch there or is that just a natural flow? KIM:It was a drainage ditch; and it was, you know, you can tell in years past that it was much more significant than it is now. I guess, you know, over the years as they worked it and the sugar cane, you know, they did a great job before when it was sugar cane as far as maintaining their fields. But now because the sugar cane companies are not there, you know, it tends to degrade, it fills up with soil, and then, you know, from there it€s a huge problem as far as water runoff. YUEN:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any other further questions for Mr. Kim before we move forward?Iseeahandup.Mr.Salavea,andthenwe€regoingtogotoMs.Siracusa. Commissioner Salavea first. SALAVEA:For, was not for Mr. Kim. ALAMEDA:Let me check with if any questions -. Some of our testifiers probably have to leave that€s why. It€s getting late. Any questions for Mr. Kim, Commissioners? Okay, any further comments? Thank you. Thank you very much for providing testimony today. You guys may sit down. SIRACUSA:My question for the Director -. SALAVEA:I have a question for Mr. -. ALAMEDA:One of the testifiers? SALAVEA:Yeah, one of the testifiers. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. SALAVEA:Sorry, go ahead, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:As long as the testifier answers the question and not provide more testimony, that€s fine. Commissioner Salavea, go ahead. SALAVEA:Yeah, very quickly. When I asked for a solution, I wasn€t asking physically what needs to be done to the road. An engineer could, you know, figure that out and have that. What I€m asking for is do you have a suggestion on who should pay for the, is that what you€re asking the Commission, to make it mandatory upon this development that they pay for road correction below and the improvement to the area that had the blind turn? That€s what I was asking, not what should be done but -. CARDOZA:Well, you€ve got to look at two scenarios, right? One is we bought the property as is with the conditions. Now if you€re going to make changes, how much changes do 21EXHIBIT D you do? Do you just subdivide and don€t improve anything else? Or how much improvement do you do? Do you do it right, do it wrong? I mean that€s a touchy question that you€re asking because it€s either do it right, or don€t do it at all, or you can do it half way and keep spending maintenance on it. The problem is you got two choices. You can let the guy subdivide it, don€t fix the road. Or don€t, I mean, don€t let him subdivide it, don€t fix the road, or let him subdivide and don€t fix the road, and do what you want, basically. But somebody is going to end up with the problem. SALAVEA:And that€s why, like I was saying before, we need your input. CARDOZA:So I cannot answer the solution because you all miss -. You know, I€m not looking to point finger at anyone, right? But as more developments go, and same like in the County system, right? In the County system if you€ve got more traffic, more people, they improve the road, they put more highways. But who pays? Our tax money. Right? In this situation,we€regettingimprovements,we€regettingmorepeople,wesubdividewegetmore people, we get more. But where is the infrastructure, if that the right word to use. Where are we going with this? Maybe it€s not in your folks rules, that it€s none of your business, all you€re concern is how we cut the lots up - I€m not sure. I€m not educated enough here to answer that kind of question probably. All I know is there is a problem. ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you. SALAVEA:I need -. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for -? Oh, you have another question? SALAVEA:Sorry, not for the testifiers. ALAMEDA:Any questions for the testifiers before we let them go? Okay, you can go. Thank you so much for your testimony. We really appreciate public opinions. Thank you. Could the applicant now return to the front and have a seat? We may have some questions. Commissioner Siracusa, any questions? SIRACUSA:Yes. I have one question of the Director and then I have question of Mr. Fuke. A lot of times we€ll put in a condition that a drainage study should be done. Do you feel that that might be appropriate in this situation, considering what we€ve heard from two of the testifiers? YUEN:Well, I think we should do something. I€m not sure of what we get in a drainage study. A lot of the drainage studies are simply, a lot of them are in more urban settings and they€re simply, they€re more like calculations of runoff due to pavement and what kind of drywell you need to have in order to handle that. This is a matter of really continuing a practice of when the area was in the agricultural use of how water gets diverted. And I€m trying to work up something that says, that basically says that. MCCALL:Could I make just a quick -? 22EXHIBIT D ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:A simple thing would be to ask that they develop a conservation plan through NRCS. That€s frequently whatis done with leasehold properties. If, like say when Brewer was leasing properties, they would say that the person leasing the property needs to have a conservation plan with NRCS and follow the plan, which would keep these drainage areas going and that type of thing. SIRACUSA:That€s agood point because that is always done for Ag land anyway, yeah. ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:That€s a very good point. And it€s a kind of plan more than a drainage studythat is needed here, is the kind of thing that NRCS does, is a conservation plan. I€m just tryingtoremember,theNRCSdoes,I€vehadsomediscussionwiththemwheretheydon€tlike us to require NRCS plans because the NRCS process is supposed to be voluntary. MCCALL:Yeah. But there are leasees that do exactly that. YUEN:Where the lessor makes them do it. MCCALL:Yeah, the lessor. Brewer out in Kau made it a requirement. YUEN:Well, yeah. Well, that may be the best way to deal with it. It may be some of the things that we had talked about with the NRCS where they felt were more, were not really their area because they were more residential. So let me mull this over a little bit. I think we do need some, based on what has been said, we need some kind of a condition here because there is an existing problem. SIRACUSA:My -. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Remember I said I had a question of Mr. Fuke. And the question is having heard what the testifiers said about the road conditions and about the drainage, would you like to address those two issues for us from the applicant€s point of view? FUKE: Sure. Thank you very much. Thanks for this opportunity. First of all, I€d like make clear that what this project is designed to do and all of the infrastructure requirements, you know, the developer as I mentioned earlier is trying to be responsible. And, you know, there€s really like obviously no short cut except that they€re trying to, there€s no except. There€s no really short cut from an infrastructure standpoint; and let me explain why. People may disagree with the rationale. First of all, from, relative to water, the water system, I mean, you know, there was a statement made that the Water Department is going to be putting in that system - absolutely not. The waterline obligation is a part of this condition. The Water Department will not put that in. Without that system coming in, that area will not be able to have water, fire hydrants. With the 23EXHIBIT D water system improvement, however, fire hydrants to each and every one of the lots would be available within that subdivision. Secondly, where would the waterline be in? The waterline would not be within the road. There€s a 20-foot wide pavement in that area. So the waterlines, like all waterline improvements, are within the right-of-way. That€s outside of the pavement area; and that€s where the waterline is planned to be made. Prior to its installation, however, it becomes incumbent upon this developer or in conjunction with any other developer in that area, they would have to submit construction plans to the Water Department for their review and approval; and then they€ve got to approve it. And unless they approve it, Mr. Yuen will not approve the subdivision. Relative to the roadway, and I think that, you know, there has been a lot of confusion as far as like whose obligation was it, so on and so forth. And, you know, quite honestly I don€t have all ofthefactualhistorybehindit.ButjusttryingtopiecetogetherwhatinformationthatIhave based upon my knowledge of the Plant Mason subdivision, I mean, Plant Mason€s property and my discussions with Mr. Tallett and hearing today€s discussion -. And I think the best way to do it is like if you can look at this map, you know, on this map over here, it will kind of like give you some idea as far as like, you know, where this RS-15 area is. And from what I understand, when the property was initially rezoned, it was rezoned, you know, back in 1996, it included this 1.372 acre area; and that was how the roadway was going to be realigned. And then in 1997 when the subdivision was approved, the subdivision created this existing line, I mean, you know, the way that you see right now. And whether the subdivider then, you know, which was C. Brewer or whatever the current name is, you know, had intended to realign that road to make it consistent with, you know, how you see that crescent shape area, you know, I€m not really sure. But the fact of the matter remains today is that it can€t really be implemented because, you know, all of these property owners in the realignment section has, you know, the properties are all owned, you know, are all sold already. I mean if C. Brewer then, you know, continues to own all of these properties then possibly it would be possible to, you know, have this road realigned. But, you know, that€s kind of like water under the bridge. Who owns this roadway? The roadway right now is not owned by all of these property owners. They all have easement rights or access rights over it. It€s owned by Mauna Kea Sugar Property. And if, you know, there was a question as far as like well who, you know, I think Commissioner Salavea asked the questioned like, well, what€s the possible alternative. I mean like if I were in that kind of position, I would want to say that, well, there were a number of lots coming in this area, you have people who are using the property residentially, you have people using it agriculturally, you have some people that are using it for industrial uses, I mean, like, we€ll, we€ve all got to get together. We€ve all got to ask C. Brewer to have the land conveyed to the association and the association now it becomes incumbent upon you to maintain that road. Because, you know, C. Brewer owns that road right now. But say if there€s like a major problem to that roadway, there€s disrepair, I mean, you know, at some point in time it€s going to fall into disrepair, whose obligation is it to repair it? I don€t think you€re going to find C. Brewer or Mauna Kea Sugar to say I€m going to fix the road. I think the best way to do it, you€ve got to convey the roadway, that sliver of land has got to be conveyed to the association, and you have some sort of a maintenance agreement and everybody pay your pro rata share. 24EXHIBIT D But, in the meantime, I admit that, but it was the Plant Mason€s across the street, they do have an obligation, they do have an obligation based on the existing zoning to do something because they€re increasing the number of lots. So they do have an obligation to fix that intersection as best as they can, you know, within the existing road right-of-way. And, but relative to this particular area, you know, in answer to, I think that Mr. Kim raised the issue about like the sight distance; and I think that that€s a very legitimate point in terms of the sight distance. And I would suggest that as an added condition that any lots that take access, you know, from Kulana Kea Road, you know, the sight distance has to meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works, so that you don€t have any of the lots coming, you know, accessing the Kulana Kea Road right at the bend or at an area where it would compromise safety. Finally, and I think on the issue of the drainage, I think that, Commissioner McCall, I was going to get into that area because I think that€s an excellent suggestion. I did, I had a meeting with the homeownersassociationlikeIthinkmaybeaboutayearagoandtherewererepresentativesfrom the Soil Conservation Service or the, what you call, Natural, NRCS. You know, they came in and they were talking about like how this area used to have a lot of drainage issues. But the plantation used to have their own drainage system which intercepted a lot of the water coming down from mauka and used to kind of push the water to the north end. And what they have as, I think it€s a restrictive convenant in all of the respective properties, you know, that they must maintain that drainage system. And I think it really would be appropriate, I mean, I can recognize maybe where the NRCS is coming from, you know, in terms of not, you know, putting the burden on them. But on the other hand if you have a condition that would require that, you know, prior to any land disturbance activity that the applicants, you know, submits an approved NRCS, is it NRC, NRCS plan, you know, to the Planning Department, and then it, indirectly it€s an obligation of all of the property owners within the proposed subdivision before they have any land disturbance activity, you know, they submit to the Planning Department to say, like, and Planning Department signs off any grading or grubbing permits. So before they do anything then they show that, you know, that plan, that we have an approved plan that we€re going to be implementing. I mean, it€s a long winded way to explain. SIRACUSA:Yeah, but it was very thorough and I appreciate that, Sidney. Would the Director be willing to work up, Mr. Fuke mentioned two possible conditions. And would the Director be willing to work up some wording regarding those or is he doing that already? YUEN:I€m working on that right now. This does raise, you know, the testimony did raise this question and a little bit of a red flag, the ownership of Kulana Kea Drive, Road by C. Brewer, Mauna Kea Agri Business. I know that they are trying to divest themselves of all assets so they can close up the company. And so they€ve talked to the County about taking over certain roads, their odd remnant pieces that they own, there€s a whole -. I don€t remember this ever coming up; and I can€t believe that they€ve not already come to the association and tried to get them to take the road. FUKE:I€m not really sure but, you know, there are, like Mr. Tallet is over here and Evonne, and maybe Mr. Cardoza could directly answer that question. I don€t know. I know that Mr. Crudele, Bob Crudele, is president of the association and there may have been some contact with him. But -. 25EXHIBIT D YUEN:Okay. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:I was just going to ask if the NRCS frowns upon the County making conditions that require the conservation plans, could that be something that the applicant could take up in a similar way that they can provide restrictive covenants? YUEN:Yeah, they can do it. I think I have a way around that. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for applicant€s representative before we entertain a motion? Fellow Commissioners, anybody has any further comments or questions, or perhaps -? WATANABE:Well, I€d like to hear the wording that the Director has worked up for someoftheseconditions. ALAMEDA:Okay. YUEN:Well,thedrainageonewouldbeTheapplicantshallestablishdrainage easements and maintain drainageways so as to direct water in a northerly direction away from Kulana Kea Road. The drainage easement shall follow the existing plantation system unless otherwise established by a conservation plan approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District.‚ I€m not a 100 percent sure but I think the NRCS provides the technical advice and the Soil and Water Conservation District is the actual approving entity to the plan. Jeff? MCCALL:Yeah, that€s correct. I sat on the Kau SWC before, yes, that€s correct. And maybe -. YUEN:Okay. And then it goes on to say The applicant, its successors and assigns shall maintain the drainage easements. The drainage easements shall be included in any preliminary subdivision map.‚ So at the time of coming forward with a subdivision map, the subdivision map would have to show the drainage easements; and then they could be looked at by Public Works when they review the map. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Mr. McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, maybe just as a final comment and to make sure that people understand. If somebody comes to Public Works looking for, you know, help with a two-acre, five-acre, ten-acre parcel, Public Works refers them to NRCS and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. And the Soil and Water Conservation Districts are funded, a small portion, but they are funded by the counties. The counties supply, I believe it€s about, well, enough, I think it€s about $200,000 a year is given to the seven districts on this island to help with implementing conservation plans. So we shouldn€t feel too guilty about burdening the conservation districts. SIRACUSA:Isn€t this a USDA funded -? 26EXHIBIT D MCCALL:There€s, no, not to the conservation districts. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I had a follow up for, by the way, I like that addition. But I have a follow up for the Director. I think he had some concerns about the wording -. FUKE:Sight distance? WATANABE:Well, yeah, maybe that also. But the Director expressed some concern about the wording for the height limitation because once you subdivide various lots would not abut anymore, the lots you€re trying to protect the sight distance from. And so I think that€s one that we€d want to address; and the other, I guess, would be this new one that was just brought up withregardtothesightdistancethatMr.Fukeofferedupasaconcession.So,youknow,Isense that the Commission as a whole is ready for a motion except maybe what we do need is some clarification on how we€re going to work out these additional conditions. YUEN:The height one, I would do this by having a separate condition saying The height of any building shall not exceed that allowed in an RS district.‚ And as far as the consultation, was it the idea that, say you create these lots. Let€s number them one to five from top to bottom, okay? And is this in favor only of one piece of property? Is that the idea or is it in favor of several pieces of property? FUKE:Ultimately the applicant intends to have like CC&Rs that would try to identify placement of dwellings or structures on each of the respective five lots. So the idea behind that is that the internal five lots would pretty much like have their own self-policing mechanism. The idea behind this condition was to provide some measure of potential relief to the surrounding property owners, particularly the mauka property owners. YUEN:Well, say you own Lot 3 and you€re in the middle of the subdivision, are you supposed to consult with people who are on the mauka end now after this -? FUKE:No, that€s not the intent. YUEN:Only the person who owns Lot 1? FUKE:Lot No. 1, correct. YUEN:The mauka lot. FUKE:Yes. YUEN:Okay. And are you able to identify what lots are supposed to be consulted with? Are they, you know, we have TMKs there somewhere. I€d like to do this by TMK if we could. 27EXHIBIT D FUKE:Coincidentally, I do have the TMKs. And so, it€s 2-6-32, parcels 13, 14, and 20. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director, would you like us to take a break or you€re almost -? YUEN:If you€re waiting for me then you should take a break because it will take me a couple of minutes. If you had something else you want to do, then you can go ahead. ALAMEDA:Let me just point out that our fellow Commissioner Springer will be leaving us at 4 -. SPRINGER:No, 5:30. ALAMEDA:Oh, 5:30. Any other Commissioners leaving us before then? Okay, no problem.Wehavetimethen.Mr.Fuke,wouldyoumindifwetakeacoupleminutesbreak? FUKE:No,Ithinkthatwouldbeappropriate,yeah. ALAMEDA:Okay.Thankyou.Letustakeafive-minutebreakareturn. RECESSEDTheChaircalledashortrecessat3:02p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 3:12 p.m. ALAMEDA:Will the Hawaii County Planning Commission now come back to order. I believe we may have come to some wording; and we€ll give our Director a few more minutes to jump at the mike and explain to us what the wording might be. YUEN:Well, this is the one about the consultation. And after further discussion, just to put this on the record, just a further discussion with Mr. Fuke, it was only, the only lot that€s supposed to be burdened by this covenant is the lot at the mauka end of the subdivision, correct? FUKE:That€s correct, yeah. YUEN:And I also want to note that the three TMKS are not actually adjoining any ofthepropertiesbecausetheyareseparatedbyaroadlot.Sothewordingwouldbe,Asagreed by the applicant, a restrictive covenant in the deed to the mauka-most lot shall require the lot ownertoconsultwiththeownersoftaxmapkeynumbers2-6-32:13,14,and20,regardingthe placement of structures before the submittal of plans for a building permit. ALAMEDA:Mr. Fuke, comments? FUKE:That actually captures the intent. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioners, does it capture the intent as well? Commissioner Watanabe? 28EXHIBIT D WATANABE:Sounds good to me. I don€t want to continually burden you but that sight distance issue that he did bring up? ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe, for remembering. YUEN:The way that Mr. Fuke said it, it works. Just to, I also, if our secretary doesn€t have that, the gist of it was -? WATANAE:Maybe you could refer to what, well, this would be a new condition or -? YUEN:This would be a new condition. FUKE:Actually if I might add, Mr. Chairman, I can repeat what I stated on that. It€s like Any access for lots fronting Kulana Kea Road shall meet with the sight distance requirementoftheDepartmentofPublicWorks.‚ ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Ithinkthat€sfine.Theyhaveasightdistance,letmethink.I€mtryingto think of the, see, they would consider this a driveway. These will be individual driveway accesses rather than the subdivision -. FUKE:Yeah, because like -. YUEN:I don€t know that they have a standard for a driveway access. They have a sight distance -? FUKE:I€m not really sure on that, but all I know is that the preliminary subdivision map you have over there, you know, if this project gets, you know, goes through, the makai-most lots will be reconfigured to avoid any potential sight distance issue that Mr. Kim raised. And I can just give you some general ideas as far as how the lots will look like. Tentatively, rather than having the lots, you know, like one and two -. And I think Mr. Kim€s property is over here, so he had expressed concern about like having any access generally coming along over here, cause the road kind of goes down this way. So what is tentatively being planned is that he€ll probably do like a flag over here so that access to these two lots would pretty much like be from up in this area, be on a straight area. YUEN:My suggested wording would be that The preliminary subdivision map shall show location of all allowed driveway accesses on Kulana Kea Drive with an indication of available sight distance. The driveway accesses and sight distances shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works. ALAMEDA:Mr. Fuke? FUKE:That€s fine. That€s fine. It accomplishes the same thing, correct. 29EXHIBIT D ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Sounds good to me. I€m ready for a motion. SALAVEA:Go. ALAMEDA:Any other questions before we entertain a motion? Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I move to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for Kulana Kea, LLC€s Change of Zone of Application REZ 05-018, subject to all of the conditions within the Planning Director€s recommendations and inclusive of the amendments to the height limitation, the sight distance, and maintenance of existing flood control features. ALAMEDA:Isthereasecond? SIRACUSA:Second. ALAMEDA:MotionwasmadebyCommissionerWatanabe,secondwasmadeby Commissioner Siracusa. Discussion? Seeing none, roll call. DARROW:If I could get a clarification. The amendment to Condition E submitted by Mr. Fuke, is that still part of the added conditions or that is not? YUEN:Not. DARROW:Okay, thank you. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? 30EXHIBIT D ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes six to zero. FUKE:Thank you very much. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. You€ll be informed in writing. And thank you fellow Commissioners for ironing out the details. And thank you to the public, thank you. The discussion ended at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura Secretary, East Hawaii 31EXHIBIT D