Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-05 TSONOMURA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 5, 2008 SONOMURA RENTALS, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 08-000081) was called to order at 9:04 a.m. in the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Conference Room, 655 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Daryn Arai, Acting Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: SONOMURA RENTALS, LLC (SLU 08-000020/REZ 08-000081) a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 6.3 acres of land. b. Change of zone from Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to Residential and Agricultural .5 acre (RA-.5a) for 6.3 acres of land. The property is located along the west side of Awa Street approximately 1,300 feet north of the Awa Street – Makalika Street intersection, Panaewa Farm Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-48:10 and 120. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 1 is, let’s see, Sonomura Rentals LLC, SLU 08- 000020/REZ 08-000081. This would be a State Land Use Boundary Amendment and a Change of Zone. Maija? COTTLE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first application is a Change of Zone Request and State land Use Boundary Amendment. And at our last meeting I kind of gave an overview of where the property was and the zoning. And we have a new slide today showing the General Plan designation. Just to orient the Commissioners, the property is outlined in red on the slide; and it’s located in South Hilo, east of the highway heading out of town towards Keaau, and south of East Palani Street, north of Makalika Street; and it’s just off of Awa Street, to the EXHIBIT A west of Awa Street. The General Plan designation for the property is Low Density Urban. And you can see south of the street here that comes off of the highway, and the property is east of Railroad Avenue, these are all designated Important Agricultural Land; but all the properties towards town, north of that and west of that, are Low Density Urban. This is the State Land Use Designation Map that’s also in this slide. It shows the property is in the Agricultural Land Use District. And, again, south of Makalika Street there is a large portion of land that was reclassified into the Urban Land Use District. And then again the more dense area of South Hilo to the left top part of the slide is also designated Urban. We have a few new conditions that we’ve added to address an issue that came up last time which was protection of the adjacent farm operations and farm lands in the Ag Land Use District. The Hawaii Right to Farm Act protects farming operations when you have land that’s reclassified out of the State Land Use Ag District but you have adjacent lands still within the State Land Use Ag District. Those farming operations are protected from nuisance complaints by this Act. And so we’ve added two conditions to the Rezone Conditions D and E; and you should have a revised Recommendation Report for that. And we’ve added Conditions A and B to the State Land Use Boundary Amendment Recommendation. The Planning Department is recommending a favorable recommendation for both the Change of Zone from Ag-3 acres to Residential- Agricultural .5 acre and a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, any questions of staff? Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Under the Low Density designation how many units can you put in on one acre? COTTLE: I believe it’s five. DOMINGO: Five units on Low Density? COTTLE: I’m sorry, it’s six. DOMINGO: Six, acre? COTTLE: Six units per acre. DOMINGO: Okay. WATANABE: Follow-up question to that, but this will only allow two, yeah, as it’s stated right now, cause it’s a half acre, right? COTTLE: This would allow two, yes. WATANABE: Okay. Any further questions of staff? Okay, moving along. I do have three people here that signed up to testify. So maybe I can call two of you, well, I can call all three of you up. Marvellee Branco-Azevedo, would you come up please, Jack Branco, and Greg EXHIBIT A 2 Branco. So if I might, I’d like to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, I don’t know which one of you wants to start. J. BRANCO: I’ll start. WATANABE: You’re going to start. Okay, would you state your name and address. J. BRANCO: My name is Jack -. WATANABE: Please speak into the mike. J. BRANCO: Okay. My name is Jack L. Branco. And I live at, my address is 133 Awa Street. And I am the oldest of our family here and we are neighbors to that proposed half acre development there. And years ago, we’ve been there all our life, over 50 years. And in 1991 we started to, as we were getting older, my parents got older, it’s my mom and dad back there, they subdivided the place. And they gave us for $1.00 so we can have a place. And then we went through the whole process with the Planning Commission at that time, took us about four years. And we all got, you know, we went through the whole thing that the County approved. One of the biggest setbacks, there are the waterwells. There are three wells in the back of our place, very, very close to -. You have to have a radius that comes through our land. So we were restricted to put certain, you know, houses or whatever it is because you have to be out of the radius to not contaminate the drinking water. So, anyway, Norman was on that one and Taka was, this is years ago when they were involved in this here. And we have the agriculture, we’ve been maintaining the thing. We have pasture land, we have ten heads of cattle there. We mow our places. Our grasses, we have nine different grasses in there. Our carcasses that we take to Kulana Foods are graded choice. And we also have mac nuts. But it’s the dying industry right now, it’s not feasible to pick the nuts. But if it was to pick up again, I mean, we could pick them. You know what I mean? So it is maintained Ag-3. Everybody has their lots as full a use as we can do it. You know what I mean? So the neighbors all around us they followed suit, you know, they got Ag-3, and they gave to their families, and stuff like that. We have a very good community over there. Everybody takes care of each other. It’s a clean community. And Roy Sonomura purchased his land from his dad, I guess. He got it next door to us, that’s where the canal went through, the Waiakea Uka Flood Control. And there are big trees. When the wind comes we worry. Because north winds, those big Albesia trees, they’re not very stable. They’re 150 feet tall or higher. And if they break on the top they fall on the fence. Three of them fell already but, you know, we’re neighborly, we cut the trees, fix the fence so that we don’t worry if the cattle gets out and a car hits them. And then what? There’s a, you know, the problem progresses, you know. And now to put a total development in there, you know, we didn’t have a problem when he went for Ag-3 or Ag-4, whatever it is. You know, everybody is, we stayed status quo, you know. But now we have a problem where the infrastructure is not suitable for a subdivision over there. There are all rocks, and rock piles, and everything. Our place it has -- I have pictures and I’ll be glad to show all you guys, I took them yesterday -- our fences, our cattle, our nut farm. Everything is all, it’s in very EXHIBIT A 3 good condition, you know, versus our neighbor. That’s pro development all the way, which we are against because it’ll ruin all of our lifestyle in our area. So that’s one of the reasons we’re here to contest the thing. It will change the way our whole community, our whole subdivision will come about; and we’re totally against it. We don’t have a problem with the Ag-3. We have a problem with breaking them down. You’re going to have septic problems probably. The water is in the back, and everything is going to be all congested in the front cause he has got to stay out of a radius, unless they put those real expensive septic systems in, I guess. So that’s the reason I’m over here. I’m totally against it, but I’m not against what’s there now. But I’m against making a subdivision which is all pro development; and we’re going to stay agriculture. We’re losing too much agricultural land as it is already, you know. And we didn’t leave our place neglected. Like I said we abided by all the Planning Commission rules that were set forth for us back in ’95; and this is 13 years later and, you know, we’re up there. You know what I mean? We didn’t back off or we didn’t neglect anything. So, and I have pictures if you guys want to see them showing our place, or you’re welcome to come. WATANABE: I think we’ll take your word for it. J. BRANCO: But that’s my reasoning for being here this morning. I’m totally against, I’m not against what he has now. I’m totally against making a subdivision in our agricultural development place in our area, in our community. Okay, thank you very much. WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, anybody has any questions, follow-up? Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know, the other people around, your neighbors, with the Ag-3 lands, what are they doing with their property? J. BRANCO: Well, they’re farming them. They have nuts. DOMINGO: Everybody, most everybody? J. BRANCO: Yes. If you come on Makalika Street, that’s our neighbor. Roy is our neighbor on the Hilo side; and after that is all Hawaiian Homes after the canal. So the neighbors next to us is a nursery, two nut fields, and they’ve got lichee trees and stuff, the two other guys; and they have their places very neat also.So they’re an asset to our community also. DOMINGO: And this property is right near that, near the place? J. BRANCO: The property would be on the Hilo side. Roy’s property is by the canal on the Hilo side. So he’s right next to us so we’re the first guys that are going to be against him. Our neighbors are on the opposite side of us. DOMINGO: Can you farm on those lands? J. BFANCO: Which ones? EXHIBIT A 4 DOMINGO: You know, I mean you described it as lots of rocks and everything. He can farm on those lands? J. BRANCO: Well, if you put a lot of money into it and work the land you can farm it, but you’d have to go orchard farming or pasture land. Cause pasture land is pretty good cause it’s very good aeration in the soil over there. And like I said earlier we planted grass. We have nine different types of grasses in there. And the University is couple of blocks over, you know, up on Stainback. And they have good quality stuff too because those grasses grow well with aerated rocks and stuff. It’s not muddy, everything is clean. So I guess if he wanted to make an orchard or make a pasture, you know, like all of us, he could do it. DOMINGO: That’s the only things he can do, pasture or orchard? J. BRANCO.: Well, on that particular area that would be the most feasible. But you can put a nursery, you know. You can put saran houses and stuff like that too, I hear, you know. But just to work the land, those are the two best because there’s not too much topsoil in there. But in our place, too, I forgot to mention that we mow it constantly. So the more you run the grass mower and cut the grass, you know, more dirt comes in. So, we have good moisture in the ground, keeps the grass, the roots wet and, you know -. So we’re doing all right as far as I’m concerned. You know what I mean? But to start that would be the two things, an orchard or a pasture land would be good for him, you know. DOMINGO So you’re against this only because it’s right next to you guys’ property? J. BRANCO: That is correct, it’s right next to us. DOMINGO: What about the other people, your neighbors, like that? J. BRANCO: Well, like I said the Hilo side is the canal and across the street they just got that place, you know. They’re working on it right now. And that’s all I can say. It’s very small because that’s the block of Nani Mau. So Nani Mau cut them off all in the back. They only have a small area, you know. DOMINGO: I see. J. BRANCO: Right across Roy there’s a small lot and then behind them is all Nani Mau already, you know, if you look at your guys’ plans. So it’s very limited. They don’t have too much of an area, they don’t have a big area. And then they have the canal right next to them, too, coming down. DOMINGO: Okay. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to address the question that Mr. Domingo raised. In the background the land classification system, the soil is rated E or Very EXHIBIT A 5 Poor, consists of well-drained thin, extremely stony organic soils over aa lava – for what that’s worth. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions? J. BRANCO: You want me to answer that one? That’s the reason we got grass and we mow them, so that, you know, we can create more dirt, more black dirt. And we got cinder in the back places and stuff like that. So, like I say, we got some pictures and we can attest to what we did; and it’s working out pretty good. It’s not all dried up, you know. So because we don’t have all that dirt, the rock is very good for the different types of grasses we’re planting. WATANABE: You did understand, yeah, Mr. Branco, that they’ve since added some conditions too, yeah, that basically say even though that property may change they would not be able to file nuisance claims against you or anyone else that is already in ag, agriculture. See, so, you know, if you get up early in the morning to do your mowing or if at some point you decide, well, mac nuts are worthwhile now so I’m going to blow the leaves so I can pick the nuts -. J. BANCO: They cannot go against us, I understand that. WATANABE: Yeah, they cannot make further claims. J. BRANCO: But actually at this point it’s more them, more their problem giving us problem with all those big trees unmaintained falling on our fences and we’re worrying about the cattle running away. You know what I mean? Because that’s -. WATANABE: Oh, those trees that you were referring to? J. BRANCO: Those Albesia trees. WATANABE: That are on Sonomura’s property? J. BRANCO: On Sonomura’s, that is correct, yes. WATANABE: Oh, that might be something that they may be able to mitigate though. J. BRANCO: That’s a problem for us, you know. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just had a follow-up on the -. You mentioned you have wells? EXHIBIT A 6 J. BRANCO: No, we do not have wells. The County has three waterwells in the back of our property in the land they have, and the radius is run through Sonomura’s property and our property, and I have pictures of where the wells are. G. BRANCO: The waterwells is located right here. This is Department of Water Supply. The three waterwells are right here. Entrance is off Makalika Street and the waterwells that service all of Hilo is here. OGATA: We need his name. WATANABE: Well, he’ll wind up identifying -. F. BRANCO: I got the thing here and then it has all the readings, see. WATANABE: Okay, okay. F. BRANCO: So here’s the waterwells. WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: So can I address -? F. BRANCO: Yes. IWASHITA: So maybe staff can address, so the radius that limit developments, that doesn’t impact this property? COTTLE: I can address that. WATANABE: Maija, go ahead. COTTLE: The wells -. F. BRANCO: There’s three wells. COTTLE: Are on this property here. And in the subdivision plan the applicant submitted, they show a line that designates the 1,000-foot boundary to protect those wells. So all of the proposed lots are outside of that 1,000-foot boundary. IWASHITA: So basically no structures can be built within that 1,000-foot radius? F. BRANCO: Well, they wouldn’t recommend it for contamination of the drinking water that they use to pump up to Waiakea Uka. IWASHITA: Thank you. F. BRANCO: They have three wells. One, two and three; and I have it right here. EXHIBIT A 7 WATANABE: Yeah, okay. We have the general concept of that. Thank you, Mr. Branco. Okay, who would like to go next? You, Ma’am? BRANCO-AZEVEDO: I’ll go. Hi. Good morning. My name is Marvellee Branco-Azevedo. My address is 184 Awa Street. I’m next to the proposed application. I’m opposed for two reasons. Basically, I’m concerned about Urban sprawl. Second, I’d like to protect Ag lands. I understand that there are conditions that have been added; and that’s great. However, I still see there may be some type of neighborly concerns. I mean I understand there’s a condition but it doesn’t prevent a neighbor from calling to complain, you know; and that’s something we need to deal with should that happen. As far as Urban sprawl I noticed you had explained on the north end and west ends. In the General Plan there’s Urban development, and that’s great. Eventually when the time comes we’ll have to have more Urban lands. But for the time being I think if we can control and keep growth to a very minimum at this time, I think that’s best for our community and our island. Where the more we develop all these Ag lands into Urban and we live amongst towns, we’re going to lose our general idea of the aloha land. We’re going to be living in cities. We already have that happening in the Puna area where infrastructure is very low. How is that going to affect our lifestyles where we are? There are traffic concerns, there are police concerns. I mean right now Nani Mau has got some type of an amendment. They’re operating a school. It has impacted our community tremendously. We’ve got students roaming the area, you know, we’ve got traffic impacted by the students being dropped off and picked up and buses; and it’s just not the serene community that we’ve come to know or we’ve enjoyed all these many years. And I really feel that if we keep it Ag there are many other areas that we can have growth. And as far as selling this for development purposes or having our real property be affected should these lands be divided up into half acre lots, I’m against that. Basically our land has been owned by our family for over 50 years. There’s no intent for it to be sold. Our children know that. It’s just a family commitment that Panaewa is our homeland, and all the grandchildren know that. I’ve submitted a letter from the grandchildren; and we’d just like to preserve our area as long as we can. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Azevedo? Seeing none, okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: What do you think about one acre lots? BRANCO-AZEVEDO: I would be satisfied with one acre. I’m definitely against half acre lots. One acre is all right, but the ultimate idea is three acres is what we would want. One acre if they have to develop and chop it up into an acre, you still can farm, you still preserve some area. But at this point in time I think three acres is most feasible. WATANABE: Any further -? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: One acre is like Sunrise Ridge. BRANCO-AZEVEDO: Correct. EXHIBIT A 8 IWASHITA: You see any farming in Sunrise Ridge? BRANCO-AZEVEDO: Absolutely not. WATANABE: Okay. If we’re done with questioning, Greg Branco. Yes, name and address, please, first. G. BRANCO: Greg Branco. My physical address is 136 Hoaka Road; and my farm address is 133 Awa Street, Hilo. I spoke last time concerning this, a few matters. No. 1 is I wanted to just know the clarifications of the amendments that were presented here. You folks have notes of that when it was first presented? And I just wanted to know, the amendment was only about the noise, if it should pass or something the people, we have a right to continue doing what we’re doing? I saw two, there were two amendments. What is the other amendment on that? WATANABE: Give us a second. We’ll have staff address that. G. BRANCO: Sure, sure. WATANABE: Maija, would you care to address that or, either one of you? COTTLE: I’m sorry, what was the question? WATANABE: He wants clarification on the two amendments. That would be D and E and whatever else. COTTLE: The Right to Farm Act amendment? WATANABE: Yeah. And I guess, I think for them the key would be clarifying the notification process. COTTLE: Okay. Let me grab the amendment real quick. Okay, one of the, the first amendment requires that any purchasers of the property of the new lots that would be created, or tenants, or lessees, are notified of the farming operations on adjacent properties. And that requirement, it also required that that is disclosed in any deed for sale or transfer of the lots. So that if one person bought a lot and in the future they sell the lot to somebody else, it has to transfer through the deed, that notification of the Right to Farm. WATANABE: Okay. COTTLE: Then the other condition states that any action that would interfere with or restrain farming operations on adjacent or contiguous properties shall be prohibited. So that may come into play with the issue of the Albesia trees. If they continue to fall on the fence, your livestock gets loose, that would be, that could be an interference of farming operations. So that condition also addresses your issue on the fence. Those were the two conditions that have been added. G. BRANCO: Thank you. EXHIBIT A 9 WATANABE: Is that pretty clear for you? G. BRANCO: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. G. BRANCO: Thank you. There was just, I wanted to just briefly say what I wanted to say, is that I also oppose the rezoning of half acre. No. 1 is I don’t believe there is a market right now for it. There’s not a great demand for it. It’s a misfit. I mean you look at the whole area of Makalika Street and the whole entire development of Panaewa Farm Lots, yeah, and to have it broken into half acre lots is not desirable. Like I said before the main concern was when my parents back in early nineties wanted to subdivide the property, which they eventually did, it took four or five years to get that done; and the main objective was the water. Those three waterwells, in the back of the property, our property, and also the Sonomura Rental’s, applicant, there are three deep waterwells, Panaewa waterwells; and that’s the water that services most all of Hilo. And we had a hard time, we had to, the radius came about -. And, you know, ground contamination, although it’s septic, and cesspools, but still ground contamination and things, you know -. And so there’s a 1,000-foot radius of making a dwelling, so we had to abide by that. That’s why the lot, our own property in the back -. My parents’ is a triangle area, if you noticed, so that the two lot owners, my brother and I, we both can -. I mean he has a home there constructed already, and it’s within, it’s, you know, up to specs. But, however, it’s just, you know, 1,000 feet away from that now all of a sudden you’re allowing a half acre lots with homes. I just have concern about it. Although it’s septic but there’s still, I just think of ground contamination. That’s my only thing about it, cause the water was the biggest concern when my parents subdivided into three-acre lots, which we have now. Another concern I have is the, I have children going college, and they’re Ag majors. One of my daughters, you know, and my son is looking to forestry, you know, and farming also, cause we were brought up that way. And, you know, we’re looking at food sources. And currently I have a nursery located in the back of my parent’s home, plant nursery, and I spray. Like I mentioned last time, I, you know, nowadays with introduction of pests and stuff, we continue farming it, and mist blow, and everything, you know. And in case my kids wants vegetables, you know, do crops, home consumption, there’s a knowing. I mean mist blowers and stuff gotta be done every, you know, two or three times a week, rain or shine. The noise, the spray, you know, that’s my concern. Although the homes there, you know, people can’t complain or anything, but it’s just courtesy, you know, using our head. I mean the way the property is the mist, you know, it might travel through and cause nausea. I mean there are people now, they’ll have residents living there. And that’s just my concern. Although they can’t do nothing, but it’s, it’s consideration, I believe, yeah, especially half acre lots. And a clarification, most of that lot that Sonomura purchased is all fill. Those, when they dug for the canal the Waiakea flood channel there, all that material that was dredged went to fill that lot. So they’re all boulders, it’s all stones, it’s all rocks, boulders; but Albesia got their way in there. I mean they’re huge. And that’s what occupies most of that parcel being concerned right now that they want to subdivide. It’s all boulders. It’s all the fill that came from the flood channel. I just wanted to make a mention of that. EXHIBIT A 10 Also a concern is to preserve agricultural lands. And my daughter going to Oahu went to see our representative in our district, our State Representative (of course she went to visit him after the general election) to give a letter about preserving agriculture land, like how my parents purchased it, you know. And his reply was, the wife my classmate, yeah, he doesn’t want to get involved. Because they supported his election, and I really thought differently of that. You know, it’s not an issue about who you know as a representative. You’re supposed to help us out, with the constituents, or give us an answer. Shut the door, and that was the answer, and nothing further than that. And I was really disappointed at that, very, very disappointed, as a public servant, to give me an answer if, you know -. I just wanted to make note of that. Yeah? Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any -? Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know the fill for that, the ones that they dredged? G. BRANCO: Yes. DOMINGO: How far back does the fill go? G. BRANCO: The fill goes right to the back of the proposed six acres that they want to subdivide, right where the red outline is. WATANABE: Yes. G. BRANCO: It stops there, it stops there because then the land tapers off to the waterwell. Back there were all mac nuts before. But all that fill is in the majority of that, the property that’s being, wanting to be amended. WATANABE: Subdivided. G. BRANCO: Yeah, subdivided. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? DOMINGO: I have a question for staff, if I can get that afterwards? WATANABE: Yeah, okay. Maybe I can get them to be seated then. So, thank you for your testimony, yeah. G. BRANCO: All right. Thank you. WATANABE: We’ll take that into consideration. Okay, Mr. Domingo, you had questions for staff before we bring up the applicant? DOMINGO: Yeah. You know that, I think the 1,000-foot radius from the well to any development, is there any kind of specific development that they’re looking at? Because we’re looking at a number of half acre lots and if they’re going to use a septic system then, you EXHIBIT A 11 know, that will be different compared to just maybe one residential lot per 1,000-square foot lot. But in this case we’re looking at something that’s more, I think, in the nature -. COTTLE: I believe the 1,000-foot from the waterwell, that area, it’s not a no build. It’s any waste disposal system has to be approved by Department of Health; and they have a higher standard. They usually require like an aerobic septic system or an aerobic wastewater system. So it doesn’t limit any type of development. They just have higher standards for waste disposal. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: If I might just address this because this has come up before in other matters. And basically as Maija was saying you can build within that 1,000-foot radius but you have to put in an aerobic system. And if you build within that 1,000-foot radius the Department of Health also requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. But that’s academic because these proposed lots are outside of that 1,000-foot radius. WATANABE: Okay, anything else? Okay. Maybe we can call up the applicant. Mr. Nishimura? Oh, the applicant’s representative. Let me swear you in real quickly, Brian. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? NISHIMURA: I do. WATANABE: And you know the drill, name and address. NISHIMURA: Brian Nishimura, 1174 Awiki Place, Hilo, Hawaii. WATANABE: Okay. Have you had a chance to review the recommendations by the Department? NISHIMURA: Yes. WATANABE: And do you have any further comments on those? NISHIMURA: No. The applicant will be able to comply with the proposed conditions. WATANABE: What about what has been discussed here so far with regard to the testimonies by the public? NISHIMURA: I’d like to address some of the points that were made. And I’d like to clarify, you know, for everyone that the proposed subdivision of the half acre lots are completely outside of the 1,000-foot radius, they’re not within the 1,000-foot radius from the wells. I can understand, you know, the concerns of the family that live adjacent to the property and, you know, the effect on their on-going farming operations. And I think the thing that I’d like to point out, however, is that this is an area in transition. You know, at one time there were much larger agricultural lots in the area. The applicant’s property as well as the neighboring properties were EXHIBIT A 12 rezoned to Ag-3, and 3 acre lots were then created. If I could get the slide up showing the State Land Use boundaries -. If you note the purple areas, that’s State Land Use Urban. There was a reference to Urban sprawl. And I’d like to point out that the area in question sits between two Urban designated areas; and I would characterize it more as an in-filling of Urban rather than, you know, sprawling out, because the boundary for Urban has extended beyond this particular property in terms of its relationship to the center of town. And, you know, I think any time an area is in transition there will be impacts felt, particularly to, you know, those families that may not be ready for the type of change that is coming. But the point is, is that, you know, at some point in time these changes are likely to occur. You know, the testimony provided has indicated that they have already experienced increased traffic and increased number of people that are coming to the area based on other uses that have already been established in the Panaewa community; and I think that in the future that is like, you know, more than likely to increase. So whether it is this applicant or other property owners in the area I think that these types of changes will be occurring. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Nishimura, though, you know, they did discuss trees. And I forgot what the specific name of species it was, but apparently those trees are volunteer trees that have taken root on Mr. Sonomura’s property. And I’m thinking that because we have Conditions D and E now added to that, and not so much that this applies in that manner, you would probably want to take out those trees anyway if you develop that. Because you certainly, if you have half acre lots, let’s say, you wouldn’t want to have a situation where Mr. Branco’s cattle may be running into one of your subdivided lots and certainly you wouldn’t want to contribute to that probability by having the trees so close to his fences, yeah? Is that reasonable? NISHIMURA: I believe so, yes. WATANABE: And would you concur also that property basically was all consisted of fill so it’s pretty stony? NISHIMURA: It appears that way. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any -? Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Yeah. Were you alluding to the fact that the developer will cut the trees? WATANABE: Right. I think it’s logical that the developer would cut the trees to prevent, you know, an occurrence of fence breaking during high winds. DOMINGO: Well, Mr. Chairman, that seems to have been one of the major concerns about the trees often falling and breaking the fence and they have to repair it and the animals, you know, getting loose. So having the developer cut the trees is I think the appropriate -. WATANABE: Well, that’s it, I don’t think it needs to be a condition though because I think it stands to reason that he’s going to develop it that way. It just makes good sense for him to do that to -. EXHIBIT A 13 DOMINGO: Some people love trees in their property, you know, Mr. Chairman. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My perspective on this tree discussion is that the current owner has an obligation to make sure those trees don’t fall on his neighbor’s fence now. He doesn’t need any rezoning or anything. I mean, the fact that the Branco’s, you know, don’t call Mr. Sonomura on the fact that his trees are falling on their fence and causing them damage is not, you know, they’re being very neighborly about it. The fact is though that, you know -. Legally in my view, you know, they could call them on it and say you’ve got to take care of paying for all these damages your trees on your property are causing us. So this whole discussion about the trees to me is sort of besides their point in terms of what we have to decide today. And I do have a question for Mr. Nishimura. Essentially what you’re saying, Mr. Nishimura, is that it’s inevitable, all of Panaewa, you know, between Makalika Street and Hawaiian Home Land that’s all going to be one day all be a residential area so we may as well start now? Essentially that’s my understanding of your testimony. Is that correct? NISHIMURA: My testimony is that the County’s long-range plan for the area, which is reflected in the County General Plan, has designated that entire area Low Density Urban. IWASHITA: And it’s also true that the community plan for Hilo, which is older than the General Plan, designates this area as ag, correct? There’s a conflict in the planning documents? NISHIMURA; Nevertheless by ordinance the General Plan is the document that is -. IWASHITA: I understand it. But there is a conflict in those two planning documents? NISHIMURA: Well, there can be a conflict because it reflects a difference in terms of period of time that it addresses. IWASHITA: I understand it. But there is a conflict? NISHIMURA: I’ve said that, yes. IWASHITA: Yeah. And just for clarification, it’s my understanding that there is a, in the proposed budget for the next fiscal period, the community development plan for this area is supposed to be funded. Is that correct? Yes? That’s my understanding. WATANABE: You’re asking staff? IWASHITA: Yes. EXHIBIT A 14 ARAI: I’m not aware that we can expect the Hilo CDP to be funded. All we know for now is that we currently have funding for like the Kau CDP. IWASHITA: Right. ARAI: So I don’t think we should be speculating that. IWASHITA: Oh, I was just trying to confirm information I got from Brad. But, anyway, that’s my understanding. And I guess it’s my hope that -. I’ll reiterate my concern, that the idea that really concerns me is that this is inevitable, that one day all of Panaewa forest is basically going to be one big new Hawaii Kai or something like that. You know, it’s just going to be all -. And that’s what we’re looking at, that’s the argument that we’re seeing, is that, well, it’s Low Density Urban so it’s going to be one day all Residential. The fact is that, you know, we’re facing today the crises of Urban sprawl and how it has affected, how it’s really going to affect the future of how we live, and whether or not that’s really the way we want our community to grow and -. WATANABE: Okay, Mr. -. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, I’m almost done. And so my position and what I’d like to clarify with Mr. Nishimura is -. You think it’s appropriate for the Commission to consider whether or not this direction of sprawling Urban development should not be the direction we’re going as part of our consideration of this application? NISHIMURA: My response was that this is not Urban sprawl. Irregardless of what the General Plan designation is, you have the State Land Use Urban designation between, from Makalika Street over already in the area, and that’s further or that’s beyond, further away from the town center than my client’s property. WATANABE: Okay. Let’s not deliberate. Okay, do we have any -? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know, I hate to bring up this subject about the trees, and I think you did that also because you were concerned. And that was the concern of the neighbor apparently when they developed that place, they cut down the trees and everything. But what I was concerned about was that, you know, if you put -. And Commissioner Iwashita mentioned that it’s irrelevant, the discussion is irrelevant with regards to the conditions we put in there. I think, you know, if the condition is put in there, if we decide to put it in there, it’s appropriate. Because, you know, many times I’ve heard where neighbors are concerned about one or the other’s trees growing so tall and infringing over the boundary of the property and that upon confronting the neighbor and asking them if they could cut the trees they would refuse to do so because of the cost in hiring people to do it and the work that it would entail. Then the only recourse for that neighbor to do is take them to court; and not everyone has that means to hire an attorney to go to court and go through all of the procedures just to have the trees taken away. So I just wanted to mention, you know, it’s an important factor that we’re considering. EXHIBIT A 15 WATANABE: Okay. We’re not quite in deliberation yet though, yeah? DOMINGO Yes, I know, I know, but I’m just making that clear. WATANABE: Thank you. Ms. Bowman, you had some questions? BOWMAN: I had a question mainly for staff but, so I can wait. WATANABE: Do we have any further questions of the applicant’s representative? Okay, you may be seated then, Brian. Thank you. Okay, I guess we can open up for discussion. And we’ve heard initially from Mr. Iwashita that he’s concerned about Urban sprawl. Certainly we have three witnesses that are equally concerned about Urban sprawl. Do we have anyone that would care to add? BOWMAN: I have a question -. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: That may relate to that. Refresh my memory. The subdivision with Nani Mau to the, that side, how many acres was that? Was that three-acre? COTTLE: Daryn, do you recall? HAYASHI: That particular property at Nani Mau has Agricultural 1-acre zoning. BOWMAN: So it’s Ag-1. That’s the subdivision that we had deliberated about -? HAYASHI: Last year sometime, yes.. BOWMAN: Last year. Okay, so that’s one-acre. My question then is, the Urban area to the south is 3-acre, correct? No, you had it, I mean the purple. COTTLE: The area south of Makalika? BOWMAN: Right, right. COTTLE: That is Agricultural 3-acre. BOWMAN: And that purple is Urban if you go back, right? COTTLE: That is -. BOWMAN: Urban? COTTLE: Urban. EXHIBIT A 16 BOWMAN: So potentially they could apply for the same. I just see this as precedent setting. Right? So if we have .5 acre there, which is still Land Use Ag, I mean, there’s the potential for that Urban area to be expanded. COTTLE: They could subdivide to a greater density, yes. BOWMAN: Okay. And could you just tell me what the, cause I’m not familiar with Hilo, sorry, those lots, are they all pretty much occupied? COTTLE: The lots south of Makalika? BOWMAN: Right, in that Urban area. COTTLE: Yes, they are. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further discussion items? Well, let’s try -. We have I believe six Commissioners here so why don’t we give it a shot. Would anybody? IWASHITA: Seven. WATANABE: Seven do we? IWASHITA: Seven. WATANABE: Oh, well, then we’ll have a better chance. Why don’t we give it a shot then? Would someone care to make a motion? And I guess we would, the appropriate course of action would be to address the State Land Use Boundary, I believe, first. So would anyone care to make a motion? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, one point of clarification. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Even if we go to one-acre lots, it still has to be, its designation needs to be still RA-1, 1 acre? WATANABE: This is RA-.5 so the designation would change, I believe. And I think -. Daryn, I believe the process starts all over, right? I don’t think you can just, you know, on the fly change it. You’d have to turn this down, start all over again, renotice, etc. ARAI: Yes. DOMINGO: You know, can I make a comment? WATANABE: Sure. EXHIBIT A 17 DOMINGO: You know, considering a fact, because we have some strong arguments, and especially by the neighboring families, and the fact that there isn’t .5 acre lots in the present time in that area and also considering the fact that we approved the 1-acre zoning up the street, you know, I was thinking would it not be better if we would just extend that one-acre zoning to this application? Now I realize that when we speak of Urban sprawl it’s more likely to happen, you know, it’s more likely to happen when you look at the zoning map and the State Land Use designation there. As a matter of time, it will happen. What we’re looking at is slowly easing into that Urban area with a change. Probably .5 acre is too drastic at this time to do it. WATANABE: Okay. You’ve stated some reasons and yet I think procedurally it’s clear that we don’t have the option of changing on the fly from an application that states .5 acre to 1 acre; therefore, we would have to vote this down. And like I stated earlier the process starts all over again. That’s -. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: Toward facilitating that discussion I’m prepared to make a motion. WATANABE: Okay. IWASHITA: I move that with regard to SLU 08-000020, and we’ll just do that part, State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agriculture Urban for 6.3 acres of land that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the County Council. BOWMAN: Second. WATANABE: Now you would have to state reasons, yeah. IWASHITA: Yeah, the reasons being that, well, my reasons being that there is no present need shown for the requested subdivision and the general concern to minimize the Urbanization of agricultural lands. WATANABE: Thank you. And we do have a second on that. Discussion? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I look at this entirely different. This is a property that’s located in an area that the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide has designated as Low Density Urban. So within the parameters of that designation you could actually have six lots per acre. And really the only cogent argument we’ve heard is from the neighbors who say essentially “not in my backyard,” and I can’t see a legitimate course based on that fact alone. So I have a hard time saying that the request is not a reasonable request. WATANABE: Thank you. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT A 18 WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I’m an anti-spot zoning guy. And I know the prior Director had a legalese definition that basically if this is designated Low Density Urban then any zoning application within that area conforms to that designation is not spot zoning. I totally disagree with that. If you just look at this map you have that red outlined area, right? That’s a spot of red in a sea of green or a lake of green, whatever you want to call it. You know, I just cannot agree with those that think that, well, once we designate it as Low Density Urban that’s the way it’s going to be, no matter what. That’s not how I view my job. And in light of the need to really concentrate our development and to do smarter growth and not to have Hawaii Kai’s, Mililani’s, and Kapolei’s on this island, which we have a greater propensity to screw it up much, much worse than they did on Oahu if we just keep going down this road, keep thinking like that. We’ve got to stop doing it. And the way to do that is to not allow this kind of spot zoning, and to really take heed on what we want to do and for everyone to support funding the community development planning for Hilo so that we can all agree basically to that process how Hilo is going to look and where the Urbanization is going to take place. And if it’s necessary later on to change this back to Ag and take it out of Low Density Urban as a result of that process, then we do that. You know, it’s not like, planning is not fixed where once it’s done it’s always going to be that way. So we can change it if we have the political will as a community to do that; and that’s what I’m hoping that gets done in the next couple of years. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Any further discussion? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Just so, to follow up a little bit -. You know, I appreciate the Brancos’s testimony. But without their testimony I still, as Mr. Iwashita feels, that it really is spot zoning. And my concern is you have this three-acre Urban, you know, with the potential, and once you set this precedence it’s -- again, I don’t know how many of them are developed or if they can come in for -- you know, if you did it up the street then we can further subdivide, which is already Urban State Land Use. I hear that it’s, you know, LUPAG Low Density, but that’s long-term planning. So, again, I voice the same sentiment as far as precedent setting and spot zoning. Thank you. WATANABE: Any further discussion? Well, for myself, let me throw in my two cents. I understand where a number of people are coming from. I’m not insensitive to the Brancos’s concerns. I’m sure that there are other people, neighbors, who may share those concerns. On the other hand we have heard testimony both from the Brancos as well as from the applicant’s representative that the soils there are very poor. In fact, the soils on this particular six-acre parcel is largely fill that came from a canal. The Brancos stated it’s mostly boulders, etc. The Brancos stated that their property has soils because they’ve planted nine different types of grasses, mowed them continually, and they’ve nurtured the land so they can produce ag. But they’ve also stated that the best Ag use for this is either Orchards or Pasture Land, nothing against Orchards or Pasture Land. At the same time the Brancos indicated that right now they still have mac nuts but it’s not feasible, it’s not agriculturally feasible or economically feasible to pick the nuts. They’re not going to destroy the trees because maybe mac nut pricing will come back some day. But that’s one of the best uses according to their testimony. I don’t see this so much as Important Ag Land. I don’t see this so much as a sprawl. EXHIBIT A 19 With regard to Mr. Iwashita’s comment about smart growth, and I know Mr. Iwashita proposed that we have a rail system, etc., but then you’re going to have to get rid of the height limits because you have to have really high density to make that work. It does not work with single story. Okay? So I would tend to agree, again not being insensitive to the Brancos or their neighbors or the other farm concerns there, I tend to agree with Mr. Woodward that this isn’t an unreasonable request for rezoning. If we don’t have any further comments, then I think we can -. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know, I tried, and I guess, probably even knowing before I brought it up, the possibility of considering this as one-acre parcels. And I understand that this has to be initiated either by the Planning Director or the Council. WATANABE: Three. DOMINGO: Three parties? WATANABE: Three parties can initiate change of zones. That would be the applicant, the Planning Director, or the Council. But we don’t have that authority. DOMINGO: That’s why, you know, what I need to refer on is the fact that as a Planning Commissioner and as I look at what we have before us is that we’re looking at a parcel that is already on the LUPAG Map for Medium Density. And as Mr. Woodward said that, you know, under that designation that they could put in six lots. WATANABE: That’s correct. DOMINGO: Yeah. So by its designation alone that, you know, what’s being proposed here is in accordance with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. So I think, you know, in considering this application I was wondering even if we should go for one-acre lots, would that be spot zoning? Because the lots in that area all three acres, you know. So would that be considered spot zoning again? And I think it’s for us as a Commission, you know, that responsibility upon us is to make some rationale decision as to whether or not we’re going to go with some other zoning that is less than what we have before us or to go, go and approve the zoning. You know, we have that responsibility. It lies with us today. In considering this application and knowing the fact that some day, as I indicated, you know, what we might be entertaining on the whole map would be Urban, the family, the Branco family, in my opinion would be addressed. For one thing, you know, their land would not in any way be damaged or impacted by that use. And, in fact, you know, one of the concerns was the trees were from time to time breaking their fence; and according to the developer, you know, I’m satisfied that it can be taken care of. And even if we have to insert that as a condition of approval, then we should consider that. But other than that, conducting the agricultural use in that land will not change, will never change. By law they’re permitted to do what they’re doing. In fact, some years ago along the Hamakua coast I had a call from an individual who was raising pigs, you know; and people were building homes around his piggery. And, you know, with the EXHIBIT A 20 upwind and trade winds blowing, those individuals started to complain; and he called me up and he asked me, you know, what can I do. You know, he felt that he’s entitled to go along and do what he’s doing because he was there first and the zoning permits him to do it under Agriculture. I told him, you know, what you’re doing is appropriate with the zoning, you have no need to worry. So, in essence, what actually happened was those who were really, who were concerned about that and who could not live with that environment had to move away; and he had this in several areas in his community. And that proves that no matter what, you know, if you’re in Agricultural land and whatever you’re doing is in keeping with that designation then by law you cannot be stopped from doing it. And that’s the satisfaction I would get knowing that the law is there and would protect anyone who wished to farm. WATANABE: Okay, fine. Ms. Bowman, you had some comments? BOWMAN: Well, first of all, it’s Low Density, not Medium Density, just so you know. And I think if our rationale, what I hear some of the rationale, is well it’s in fill, it’s not really good Ag land so the best use would be, you know, RA-.5, I caution us in thinking that. Because I live in Kohala, I live by South Kohala and, you know, that’s dry “junk land.” So I’m just a little hesitant on that rationale. The other thing is that, again, the green is Ag-1, right? HAYASHI: Correct. BOWMAN: Okay. And if the applicant would cut them into Ag-1, would they have to go through a State Land Use Boundary change? HAYASHI: No. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, I know you’re in deliberation right now -. WATANABE: Yes. HAYASHI: But I just wanted to point out something. WATANABE: Yes. HAYASHI: Some of the Commissioners may recall we did have a similar rezoning back in 1997 last year for RA-.5 -. BOWMAN: Two thousand seven. HAYASHI: Two thousand, yeah -. WATANABE: He’s trying to get younger, so minus ten years. HAYASHI: Anyway, that particular property for your information is off the map, but it is located right here in this general location. And both the Planning -. EXHIBIT A 21 WATANABE: We’re discussing the Nani Mau? HAYASHI: No. That’s beyond Nani Mau. This is Volcano Highway, this is Makalika Street. Nani Mau is located here. The subject property is further this side of Lama Street. This is Lama Street. And that is a rezoning that was granted to Glen Nakamura back in 19 -, excuse me, 2007 which was last year. And this Commission, well, some of you were not on the Commission at that time, but this Commission and the County Council approved the reclassification as well as the rezoning of that particular property to RA-.5, similar to this request. WATANABE: Which was further away from the center of Hilo is your point? HAYASHI: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. If we have, final comment, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Just that that application was within that already Urban designation in the State Land Use. So it was just a rezoning, it wasn’t changing of the land use boundary. HAYASHI: If I may correct Commissioner Iwashita. That particular property was not within the area that was already within the State Land Use Urban District. They came in for reclassification from a State Land Use Ag -. IWASHITA: Oh, that’s on the edge. HAYASHI: Yes, it’s on the edge of that existing Urban District. WATANABE: Okay. So it was similar in that we took two actions on that -? HAYASHI: That’s correct. WATANABE: Amendment of State Land Use Boundary as well as zoning? HAYASHI: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: You know, I guess it’s just talking about creep and inevitability; and I really, you know, that’s up to us, that really is up to us whether we let it go down this road or not. And in my mind I have a very hard time justifying it because we have such a surplus of residential, developable, buildable lots now. I mean there is really no need. I mean if you go to Puna you can buy a buildable lot and you can build it, and there are tens of thousands of buildable lots, there are thousands. You know, we don’t have a surplus, lack of supply. And I understand people can develop what they want, but it’s our job to look at it from a public policy point of view and say what are the needs and where are we going. And if the standard is, well, if it’s LUPAG, you know, Low Density Urban, that’s all you have to meet, is essentially the argument I’m hearing, we don’t have to be here. I mean essentially we’re a rubberstamp to any developer that comes in and says this is Low Density Urban, give me what I’m entitled to. EXHIBIT A 22 That’s not how it works. That’s not the standard. And I really have a difficult time with that in my mind; and that’s why I cannot support this. And, you know, the reason I’m on the Commission is because in 1990 I had my tiffs, having moved from Maui and coming back to Hilo in ’85 and gone back to Maui in 1990, and seeing in those five years, from ’85 to 1990, Kihei went from one hotel on Wailea Beach to be completely built out. Kihei Road had no street lights and how it had two streets lights. Kihei Road had no really strip malls. It was Ezekia’s Place and now it was strip mall city. You know, all of those entitlements were approved by Maui’s Planning Commission, by Maui’s County Council, all supposedly in a planned environment, right, you know, within the guidelines of the General Plan, the LUPAG and everything they had on Maui. Right? And in my humble opinion it got screwed up real bad down in Kihei, I mean, real bad. And I found only one person so far that said, oh, no, Kihei is great the way it is. And that’s why I’m on the Commission, because I look at it and said, you know, Kihei became basically a mini-Waikiki, planned. I mean, it was some, and I don’t take anything away from the Maui County Council or any of those planners. Everybody had great intentions. They screwed it up. Right? And if we keep going down this road with the same good intentions, we’ll get the same result. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: I’d like to make one comment. I’m with the Brancos as far as preserving Ag land. I think that’s very important. However in this case it does seem that the dominant factor is the Land Use Urban pretty much surrounding this property. And so it looks like it’s inevitable. Who knows when? Maybe not now but, you know, some time in the future that the Urban is going to be the dominant factor in that vicinity, in that area. The other concern I have is going to .5 acre lots is certainly setting a precedent over the surrounding property with increased density. I’m not sure that going to one acre would be a solution because obviously either .5-acre or l-acre would probably not preserve the agricultural properties there. It’s difficult to grow anything on that small land. But I guess my biggest concern is that if indeed this will eventually go Urban that making the benefit of going to .5 acre lots will make the lots more affordable so the housing will be more affordable than 1-acre lots. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I’d like to point out, though, before we leave this, because I’m not insensitive to the Branco’s concerns, that there are two new conditions within that help preserve their right to agricultural activity. Anyway, I think we’ve -. Maija, we’ve discussed this enough. Yeah. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the vote before us is to send a negative recommendation to the County Council on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. EXHIBIT A 23 COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: No. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Nay. COTTLE: The motion fails, five-two. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: I would like to move that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council with regard to State Land Use Boundary Amendment No., whole bunch of zeros, 171, I guess it is. I’ll put my glasses on here, 171, yeah, 08-000171. WATANABE: No, Land Use is 000020, I think. I’m not sure where you’re getting the -. WOODWARD: This is what I have. ARAI: The Recommendation Report had the wrong number. WATANABE: Oh, we had the wrong, I’m sorry. It is, what is the correct number, Maija? COTTLE: The Revised Recommendation is incorrect. It should be 08-000020. WOODWARD: Okay. WATANABE: Two zeros. WOODWARD: Change it to that then, please. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. EXHIBIT A 24 COTTLE: Sorry about that. WATANABE: Based on the Department’s Recommendation? WOODWARD: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. Do I have a second to that? OGATA: Second. WATANABE: Thank you, Ms. Ogata. Any discussion on this? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I have a concern about the Condition A on page 4. It only applies to the applicant. And in my mind then once the applicant, once the property is developed and it’s sold, after the subdivision is sold then this condition would no longer apply to any subsequent owner. So if -. WATANABE: I’m sorry. Let me get to that. IWASHITA: This is under Revised Recommendations, canary, canary one, page 4, paragraph A. WOODWARD: At least my copy says “This notice shall be included in any disclosure required for the sale or transfer of all of the proposed lots.” IWASHITA: Right. Mr. Chair, my -. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, I think to make it, rather than prolong the issue, I think I know what Commissioner Iwashita is trying to say. So what we can do is change that condition to say “The applicant, successors or assigns shall” whatever. IWASHITA: That’s fine. WATANABE: “The…successors or assigns shall,” okay. WOODWARD: All right. I will restate the motion then with the -. WATANABE: As revised? WOODWARD: Revision of Condition A as stated by Mr. Hayashi. Is that acceptable to you, Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, any further discussion on this? None, Maija. COTTLE: Thank you. Commissioner Woodward? EXHIBIT A 25 WOODWARD: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: The motion passes, five to two. WATANABE: Thank you. Follow-up, we have the change of zone now that we need to address. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: All right. I’m not sure I got the right numbers here. Let me see, okay, that is the right number. All right. In the matter of Change of Zone Application REZ 08- 000081, I recommend that we send a favorable recommendation to County Council per the recommendations of the Planning Director. WATANABE: Any second on that? HOUSEL: Yeah, I’ll second that. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Housel. Any further discussion on this? IWASHITA: Like the same change in the condition? WATANABE: To Condition A? IWASHITA: On this one it would be Condition D. EXHIBIT A 26 WATANABE: D, okay, okay, yes. Would you take a friendly amendment to that? WOODWARD: Absolutely, absolutely. WATANABE: Is staff clear on the condition, a similar change to Condition D that we made to Condition A of the Land Use? COTTLE: Yes. WATANABE: And you’re acceptable to that? Wait, Mr. Housel, you’re acceptable to that revision? HOUSEL: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. It doesn’t seem like we have discussion. So, Maija. IWASHITA: Well -. WATANABE: Oh, excuse me. Okay, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Just one final point. Can you bring out that zoning -. Since we’re going down this road, apparently going to start going down this road, I guess in my, the only point I wanted to make was that all that yellow which is RS-10 or -. Is that RS-10, the yellow? COTTLE: Yes. IWASHITA: In my mind, starting down this road, essentially all of this blue down here at the bottom is going to turn yellow. And, you know, this whole idea about in-fill between Urban areas, that’s the whole thing that got us, you know, between Honolulu proper and the Waianae coast, all of that Ag land essentially is, you know, we’re doing to Panaewa what Oahu did to the Ewa Plains; and, you know, it’s just, and we’ve got a lot more of this that we can do. You know, all of Oahu we can stick in Puna and still have much more land to mess up. And I just have, I want it clear on the record that I cannot support that. WATANABE: It doesn’t seem like we have further comments. Maija? COTTLE: Thank you. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. EXHIBIT A 27 COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: The motion passes, five-two. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Nishimura, you’re being notified in writing. J. BRANCO: Excuse me. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Branco. J. BRANCO: Agriculture land, no land is junk land. We have the equipment and the technology today to fix any land. So if this land is no good, it can be fixed very fast. Throw one D-11 dozer in there, in couple of hours you have it up there. I just wanted to enlighten you guy’s minds that agriculture lands can be fixed very easily, you know, with equipment. Down Waikoloa, all those dozers in the lava rocks, they got resorts over there, equipment, you know. So I just wanted to -. I cannot see that listening to all this; but I just telling you guys that agriculture land, no land is junk land. It can be fixed. BRANCO-AZEVEDO: I have a comment too. I’d like to thank all you Commissioners, but I’d also like all of you to take responsibility for the development of Hilo and the loss of preservation of land. And I’d like to thank also Mr. Iwashita for having the insight to see the possibility and the potential what the development will bring. And I really feel that at this time it’s not feasible to have that, especially into .5-acre lots. And there are other lands available for purchase for living conditions, for agriculture conditions. But in this time, I don’t think it’s warranted. And, yes, the General Plan does call for Urban sprawl but this is not the right time. Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 28