Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-03 TRaymond PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 3, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND (REZ 05-022)was called to order at 9:10 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Hannah SpringerJeffrey McCall Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel NormanHayashi,PlanningProgramManager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 11 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND (REZ 05-022) Continued hearing on a Change of Zone application for 34.5 acres of land from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to a Family Agricultural 3-acre (FA-3a) district. The property is located along the south side of Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 2,750 feet southeast of the Mamalahoa Highway ƒ Hawaii Belt Road intersection. Waikoekoe, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMK: 4-7-7:48. ALAMEDA:The first agenda item is applicant Christopher Raymond. This is a rezoning, REZ 05-022; and this is a continuing hearing on a Change of Zone application for 34.5 acres of land from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to a Family Agricultural 3-acre (FA-3a) district. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. If I may direct your attention to our location map, as the Chairman had mentioned this is a continued hearing from our last Hilo meeting. Since then the Planning Director has issued a recommendation for this application. The applicant in this case, Christopher Raymond, is requesting a change of zone for 34.5 acres of land from Agricultural 20-acres to Family Agricultural-3 acres. The parcel is located within the Hamakua District of Hawaii. It€s located in this area. There€s a dark green shaded area displaying the zoning for the property, which is Agricultural 20-acres. The blue area that you see surrounding it is identified as an Agricultural 40-acre property. The property is accessed through EXHIBIT A Mamalahoa Highway,which is this white line running in a west-east direction to Old Mamalahoa Highway passing Lakeland Subdivision. And it is identified as a triangular piece of property. The property borders both Vierra Road, which is a County road, as well as Old Mamalahoa, which is also a County road. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into eleven parcels identified. A proposed subdivision layout is identified here, submitted by the applicant. The applicant intends to retain eight lots for family members and proposes to sell the remaining three lots to be able to cover cost of improvements that are going to be required for this change of zone. Conditions to mention, Condition C requires that the applicant comply with the requirements for construction and installation of water improvements. The Department of Water Supply is requesting that the applicant place a 6-inch line, waterline, along both boundaries of the property, approximately 4400 linear feet of a new 6-inch waterline. TheDepartmentofPublicWorksisrequestingthattheapplicantwidenVierraRoadto20feetin length. There is at this time a 10-foot paved roadway that runs approximately, maybe about four-fifths of the property. The applicant will be required to widen the areas that already have existing pavement and the area that doesn€t have pavement they will need to bring it to 20 feet along the length of the property. Another condition that will be required of the applicant is the affordable housing requirements. Since our last meeting we received one letter of opposition from Duane and Getchen Colbeen, who reside on the property to the east of the applicant. The applicant has also submitted a response letter to agency comments. The Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Thank you, Jeff. Commissioner Siracusa, questions? SIRACUSA:Thank you. I have two questions. One is you said that they are going to comply with the affordable housing but you€ve also said that eight of the lots are for family members. Are those eight going to be the affordable housing, or do we specify in some way that the affordable housing would be the ones that are up for sale? Or maybe the Director should answer that. He looks like he€s chomping at the bit. YUEN:I€m not chomping at the bit to answer it because it€s a twist on the general affordable housing policy question that was not really answered in the, it€s one of the details or one aspect that€s not directly answered by the policy. And it depends upon how the applicant actually goes about developing the property. And the twist is that they have an affordable housing requirement that can be met in a number of ways. One way is an in-lieu fee; and the example we give is the in-lieu fee is a fraction of the difference between the sales price of your lot and the affordable price. So, technically, the in-lieu fee is levied as the properties are sold. Now, then the question is what happens to the lots as they€re held. And say they€re conveyed to a family member for a nominal value. We don€t want to say that you just get to do that because part of the idea of the affordable housing policy is to get affordable housing into the community. And although we have an applicant here that is, where the owner has a large family and is 2EXHIBIT A apparently not a land developer by profession, land developers have families, too. And you could easily have a situation where a person does a subdivision, who is a land developer, conveys lots to the immediate family members, and if you allow those to be exempted from affordable housing, then you don€t get any affordable housing on, perhaps, quite a large number of lots, depending how broadly you define the concept of family members. Well, there are many people who have a dozen or so brothers, sisters, and children, even if you take that as a family member, or perhaps even more. So my, one possible resolution of this is that if the developer goes by in-lieu fee that the in-lieu fee is charged on any subsequent conveyance to somebody other than a family member. But this is something that has not really been solved and I think has to be dealt with at the Council level. Because it€s not, right now as I sit here, I€d say that the affordable housing has to apply to even conveyances to family members. And that€s the position I have to take unless a less restrictive position is taken by the Council. SIRACUSA:I -. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Correct me if I€m wrong, Director Yuen, but when we were talking about impactfeesandthebenefitsofimpactfeesasopposedtothewaytheCountyhasbeengoing where we would really be generating more income for the County, the in-lieu doesn€t really cover the cost of the additional infrastructure needs that are created. Would you comment on that, please. YUEN:Well, the impact fees and the housing requirement are two different tracks or two different types of fees. The in-lieu fee, I mean, the impact feet or what we now call the fair share and what would go to an impact fee system, if we passed an impact fee ordinance, is meant to deal with the impacts other than affordable housing of a new development. So there€s actually not a fair share or an impact fee that covers or is meant to pay for affordable housing. That€s, so the affordable housing requirement is a separate requirement. You would have, there€s no impact, there€s no fair share on this, on it being a three-acre subdivision. Right? The cutoff between having a fair share and not has been, I believe, the one- acre limit. But, so, that€s really a separate track. And affordable housing is not under impact fees or fair share As far as whether the in-lieu fee covers the cost of affordable housing, the idea was that, the in- lieu fee is an option for the developer. In the past before the change in February 2005, the in-lieu fee was a very attractive option because it was quite low. In the current way of calculating in- lieu fee, it tends to be quite a bit of money, particularly with the price of lots. So, for example, let€s leave aside the question of the family members in this case and say they were going to sell lots at market, and just to use numbers say there was $295,000. Then every lot that they sold, and they went in-lieu for the affordable housing, every lot that they sold would be $50,000 as an in-lieu fee. So this eleven-lot subdivision, you would collect $550,000 toward affordable housing. And you don€t have to give people free houses with the in-lieu fee. All you have to do is collect enough money that you can bring down the price of a unit that is made, say, by a public 3EXHIBIT A project to an affordable level. So that$550,000 would subsidize several units, and allow several units to be produced at an affordable price level. So the current, I think that the current in-lieu fee does, most people will not go to the in-lieu fee; and if they do, it will work in producing a fair number of affordable units. SIRACUSA:Thank you. I had the second question for Mr. Darrow. ALAMEDA:Sure. Commissioner Siracusa, go ahead. SIRACUSA:In the background report, Jeff, number four, it refers to a previous change of zone ordinance which rezoned 57.597 acres from the Ag-40 to Ag-20 and now one of the lots is up for resubdivision. And I€m wondering if you could point out on the map where the larger parcel is, the 57. -? Was it contiguous? I got the feeling it was, but on the maps I was unable to -. DARROW:The original parcel was actually extended, this triangle piece from the cornerofVierraRoadandOldMamalahoa,andwenttothis,thelotthatisdirectlyeastofthis parcel. So they were both, when that change of zone occurred from Agricultural 40-acres to Agricultural 20-acres, the lots were then subdivided into two lots. The Raymonds held one and then one was sold; and I believe the owner of that lot is the Colbeens who had submitted a letter to the -. Maybe the applicant can verify that when he come sup. SIRACUSA:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Graham GRAHAM:One of the things we consider, of course, is whether the zoning is sort of compatible with adjacent zoning and all, and I guess your blue is all Ag-20 and Ag-40. But yet across the street there which, I guess, is the Vierra Road, it looks like, from the photos looks like there are kind of residences and small lots. Can you explain a little bit to us about what those lot sizes are across the road and all? DARROW:This particular area here, where you€re seeing the lighter green shaded lots, are smaller lots zoned Agricultural 1-acre; and these consist of three subdivisions, the Kamuela Lakeland Subdivision, the Wailani -. I need -. GRAHAM: Actually, Jeff, I was referring to the ones straight across the road that are still in the blue. DARROW:Okay. These particular lots are zoned Agricultural 40 acres. Although they€re not 40 acres in size, they€re nonconforming in size. Each one of them as you see along Vierra Road have residences on them. But they€re not small lots, I mean, they€re approximately 5 acres to 20 acres in size. They all differ in size in this particular area. GRAHAM:Okay, thank you. 4EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, you have any follow-up or thoughts to that? That€s good? GRAHAM:No. ALAMEDA:Other questions, Commissioners -? YUEN:May I just follow-up on that? ALAMEDA:Director. YUEN:Just an educational point that -- what happened here is that the subdivision of the property even in Lakeland preceded the zoning. So all these lots were subdivided and then they were zoned to, in the case of the area across the street, was zoned to a 40-acre lot size. Lakelandis,tome,thelotstherearemostly9,000to10,000squarefeet,right? DARROW:Correct.Inthe,number12inthebackgroundreportmentionsthatthese lots within the subdivisions, the Kamuela Lakeland, Wailani Ranchos and the Waimea Vacationland range from 8,000 square feet to 1.5 acres in size. And, again, as the Director was saying, these are all nonconforming or grandfathered lots, that they existed prior -. YUEN:Yeah, this is something that you do see quite often in the zoning maps. And, I, sometimes I can€t really give you a good explanation for why because -. I mean I can give you, the neighborhood I grew up in most of the lots are 10,000 to 11,000 square feet in Hilo and it€s zoned RS-15, you know, after they€ve already subdivided to 10- or 11,000-square foot lots. It€s just a peculiarity. But it is a factor to consider on this application that although the area is zoned Ag-40 there are quite a few lots of much smaller sizes and varying sizes in the immediate vicinity. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Yeah, I have a quick question for Jeff. The 20 feet you€re referring to is paved area? DARROW:Correct, on Vierra Road. WATANABE:Yeah, so not just easement , right? DARROW:No. WATANABE:It€s paved? DARROW:This is paved, yes. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:No, that€s good. Thank you. 5EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:Seeing nofurther questions, will the applicant or its representative please come forward. Good morning. I€m going to swear you in. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? RAYMOND:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. And would you please state your name and address for the record. RAYMOND:My name is Christopher M. Raymond, and my address is Vierra Road, Waimea. ALAMEDA:Mr.Raymond,didyougetachancetolookattheDepartment€s recommendation report? RAYMOND:Yes, I have. ALAMEDA:Do you have questions or concerns, comments? RAYMOND:At this point, no, I don€t. ALAMEDA:Okay. Fellow Commissioners, do you have any questions for our applicant? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:We were discussing the affordable housing issue and in the application you did mention that the intent was to retain eight of the eleven lots should this application go through. And I guess you€re going to fund the infrastructure improvements through the sale of the remaining three lots. Would, is it safe to say that that€s the only route you would be able to take financially? I mean -? RAYMOND:Not necessarily, no; but we would prefer to do it that way. WATANABE:So then those three lots would represent the 20 percent requirement for affordable housing, is that correct, on the sale? ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:If they used the, if they sold the lots at an affordable price to handle their affordable housing requirement, they would have to sell the lots at, realistically, what is far below market. The affordable, we, and they would only get actually a half credit for the sale. For the sale of one lot for $95,000, and this is approximate because it€s not a readjusted lot price, but $95,000 was the affordable lot price, and you only got a half credit for that. So you have to earn, they have to earn two credits. WATANABE:Oh, 20 percent. 6EXHIBIT A YUEN:Okay? WATANABE:Yeah. YUEN:So the sale of -. WATANABE:Yeah, so you€d have to sell four lots. YUEN:You€d have to sell four lots at $95,000; or to get a full credit you have to sell a lot at $53,000. That€s why -. WATANABE:Then he€s not going to fund anything with the 53 -. YUEN:Well,that€s,so-.Theaffordablehousingrequirementisdifficultona,say a project like this that€s a small Ag lot. But you, unless you -. You know, you can do affordable, there are other options. You know, you can do affordable housing off-site within a 15-mile radius, or you can pay an in-lieu fee. WATANABE:Or he could purchase affordable housing credits from another developer who had -? YUEN:That€s right, that€s right, if there were any for purchase within a 15-mile radius, which I don€t know is true. WATANABE:Oh, 15? YUEN:Yeah, within a 15-mile radius. But, you know, there are options. You know, you can do, you can purchase property some place, make an affordable house and sell that as an affordable house and get credits for doing that, to give you an example, of another option that you have. So both the in -. We had discussed all this with the applicant and we told the applicant that if you go to a 5-acre lot that€s a breakpoint, you don€t have these kinds of issues with affordable housing. But at a 3-acre lot you have an affordable housing requirement that you have to deal with. The applicant decided to go ahead at the 3 acres. But there are a number of ways to do it. The in-lieu is expensive. The selling the lots, selling your own lots is not a very good option because of the difference between what you can probably get on the market and what the affordable lot price is going to be. But, at least, there are options including develop a couple of units of affordable housing some place nearby and purchasing credits from somebody if anybody has affordable housing credits to sell. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a follow-up question. That eight family members that you€re referring to that, you know, you intend to retain the lots for -? RAYMOND:Yes. 7EXHIBIT A WATANABE:They all reside here? RAYMOND:Not on the Big Island. There are a few in the State; but most of them are on the mainland. WATANABE:I see. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, follow-up? WATANABE:No. Thank you. No follow-up. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just probably two miles down the road towards Waimea in recent months therewasalotofcontroversyaboutfloodingonanAgriculturalrezoning. RAYMOND:I€mawareofthat.Yes,I-. GRAHAM:You€reinthesameverywetarea.Howdoesthewaterflowoffofyour property and all so that we can be assured that we don€t have some flood issues here to be concerned about? RAYMOND:Certainly. I€ve lived at that residence since December of €83 and there has never been a flooding issue in my area, specifically a dangerous flooding. I mean there has been ponding and so forth, but there has never been a flooding issue in my specific area of Vierra Road and Old Mamalahoa within my -, even within the Lakeland area that I€m aware of. I, anecdotally, of course, being a farmer, I€m pretty aware and I€m conscious of the weather patterns; and it is increasingly getting dryer. When I first moved there I believe the average rainfall was somewhere between 80 and 90 inches. My estimation now it€s between 40 and 50 inches annually. GRAHAM:All right, thank you. RAYMOND:You€re welcome. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Thank you. Mr. Raymond, getting back to the affordable housing issue, I€m just curious, at this point, in light of what the discussions you had with the Planning Department, are you able to share with the Commission any plans that you have, preliminary plans that you have made to fulfill the requirement? Just curious. RAYMOND:We are planning on going the in-lieu route. And I believe that is after we sell the lots that we will be required to take care of that; and that€s our intentions. SALAVEA:Thank you. 8EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:For clarification, so then you€re anticipating that you will sell the lots; and based on the information the Director provided, you€re looking at something like a half a million that you€re going to put down for affordable housing? RAYMOND:Some, I mean, that€s an arbitrary figure, but it is based on the sale price of the lot at the time and what an affordable home‚ is for a median family of four or earning their median income. WATANABE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Soifyoufollowthatprocedure,thenwhat€syourunderstandingastohow many lots the affordable housing in-lieu requirement would apply to? RAYMOND:After talking to Planning Commissioner (sic) Yuen this morning, we still have to work that out. I mean, it€s a vague area. The specific numbers that this is going to be applied to, how many lots we€re going to have to provide affordable housing in relation to, at this point, I€m not sure. I initially thought four lots. Now we€re in negotiation, it appears we might have to work something out; and the Council might have to work that issue out initially. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, follow-up? IWASHITA:So it€s my impression that under the present interpretation expressed by the Director it€s that the affordable housing requirement, in-lieu payment, would apply to four of the lots, the first four sold? YUEN:It would clearly apply to any sales at market. What we would do in a sale where the person says, oh, I sold this for a $1 and love is something that we had never, is a detail that we had not resolved; and I think that it needs to be resolved at the Council level and done, you know, done in a blanket way. The situation where somebody is legitimately conveying a piece of property that they€ve had for a long time to a family member is a sympathetic one. But as I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, if you say that that works all the time regardless of circumstances, you are opening up a loophole where a developer can wash the initial transaction and avoid the payment of an in-lieu fee and then the properties, ultimately sell the properties on the market. You know, they can be sold right away by the family member to somebody else or it can even be used as an estate planning tool by a land developer. So that€s something where I recognized this as an issue when we did the ordinance in February 2005 and we didn€t come to a, it was a level of detail that we didn€t come to a final resolution on. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, and then Commissioner Iwashita. WATANABE:I have a follow-up question for the Director. And you did mention you would like that issue or that loophole resolved in general; and I would tend to agree. However, with respect to this application, is there a way you think that we might word that condition, cause 9EXHIBIT A we do after all only send then a recommendation to the Council, that they provide some assurances that the affordable housing condition is not -. And I€m not exactly sure how you word it, but, you know, it couldn€t be used or offset just by transfer to family members or something to that effect. YUEN:Well, I don€t think that we want to make that decision at the Planning Commission as to whether or not, as to how the policy applies. The condition as it stands is fine. It just says that the applicant shall comply with the affordable housing policy. I do think that by the time the rezone is done, we should be explicit as to what happens in a conveyance to a family member if they€re going in-lieu. But that is, the Chapter 11 is an ordinance, it€s within the Council€s purview. We have a condition that, if the condition goes through as stated, the applicant will have to comply with the affordable housing policy. We would have to get a reading from the Council as to how they want to apply it in a situation where there may be a legitimate nonfinancial transfer to family members. So I think that as far as at this stage, it€s fine tohavethisdiscussion.We€vehadthisdiscussionwiththeapplicant,buttheconditionworksas worded. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Condition M, the last sentence says that this requirement shall be approved by the Administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development prior to final subdivision approval. Is that your understanding, Mr. Raymond? I just want to make sure that you understand that before -, this says before you actually get final subdivision approval and a right to sell or transfer lots you have to come to a, or get the approval of the Administrator of Office of Housing and Community Development of how you€re going to meet the affordable housing requirement. Is that your understanding? RAYMOND:Yes, it is. IWASHITA:Then you understand that no transfers of any lot can be had until that approval is had? RAYMOND:Yes, yes, I do. Thank you. IWASHITA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Very good, Commissioner Iwashita. Thank you for pointing that out. Other questions? Commissioner Springer, and then Commissioner Siracusa following. SPRINGER:Good morning, Mr. Raymond. RAYMOND:Good morning. SPRINGER:I€m looking at a correspondence dated March 1, 2005 where it mentions that the property came off a 99-year lease from Parker Ranch. RAYMOND:Yes. 10EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Was that lease held by the family? RAYMOND:Yes, it was. SPRINGER:Thank you. RAYMOND:You€re welcome. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yeah, you mentioned that some of the familymembers live on the mainland. Do they have intensions of relocating once this rezoning takes place? th RAYMOND:Myfatherjustcelebratedhis84 birthday on Maui two weeks ago and we had a family reunion over there. And I talked to all my siblings, and they all have professions and families on the mainland but they do plan on retiring back to the State where they all grew up, approximately within about 10 years. SIRACUSA:The reason I€m asking that is because I like the idea of family subdivisions because it keeps families together; and that€s a good thing. You know, we have a lot of social problems because families aren€t together. On the other hand, playing devil€s advocate, you know, we look at something like this and we say, well, you know, there€s nothing really to stop any of these people if they decide not to move here to sell off their parcels. And affordable housing issues not withstanding, what it ends being upon the ground is another development, another housing development. I look at the map and I see that we€ve got that Lakeland Subdivision,andthenacrossthestreetwehaveallthesenonconforminglots;andourcriteriato consider has to do with consistency for the area . And, I€m wondering, are we required to be consistent with nonconforming? ALAMEDA:Yeah, it€s a good question. Who you want to direct that question to? SIRACUSA:Well, I€m going to direct that one to the Director cause he€s looking up at the ceiling. ALAMEDA:Okay. Director Yuen? YUEN:You€re not required to be consistent with anything; but it€s a factor to consider. It would be a stronger factor if you had, say, an Ag-3 zone across the street with 3-acre lots. But it is also a factor when you have, you actually have 3-acre lots that happen to be in an Ag-40 zone. It€s a factor. So, and it€s a factor to consider in favor of the applicant. But it€s not something that you€re required to, you€re not required to rezone, or refuse to rezone, or to recommend approval, or to not recommend approval. SIRACUSA:Okay. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? 11EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:Yeah, I have a, well, a question to direct to Mr. Darrow. The other light green spots that we€re looking at on the map there, those all appear from here, I€m without my glasses, to have their ingress and egress routes right on Mamalahoa Highway. And this would be, if we grant this, it would be the first subdivision, basically, that does not access onto that road? Is that -? DARROW:We have, you have several subdivisions identified in light green that are accessing directly. SIRACUSA:Yes, and they all access -. DARROW:Yeah, they€ll have a main road into the subdivision and then the lots are accessed -. SIRACUSA:And the Lakeland one? DARROW:The Lakeland actually is, you would enter from Mamalahoa Highway onto OldMamalahoaHighway,andthenaccessthesubdivisionthroughOldMamalahoaHighway, which the same thing will happen with half of the lots if the configuration remains the same for the Raymond Subdivision. It appears that the other half will gain access from Vierra Road. But it€s my understanding as well, and maybe the applicant can verify that, that other people access their properties from Vierra Road as well. SIRACUSA:I€m just wondering if we should consider this spot development. Do you want to address that, Jeff, or does the Director? ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:There€s this phrase that€s called spot zoning that unfortunately it€s one of these phrases that suggests more than it really tells you. You€ll see spot zoning condemned in planning texts. But spot zoning is singling out a piece of property for special treatment not in accordance with a comprehensive plan. So we look at, that€s why when we look at a recommendation we tie it in to the General Plan. So, but just taking one piece of ground and rezoning it is not necessarily spot zoning. And that€s why the term is not that good a term, because it suggests to people that you€re not supposed to do that. What you€re not supposed to do is take a piece of property and either violate your comprehensive plan or not have a comprehensive plan and rezone that spot. But it doesn€t mean that you can€t just take one piece of property and rezone it. SIRACUSA:Thank you for clarifying that. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I€m feeling like maybe we might be ready for a, to entertain testimony. Do you have anything else to add, Mr. Raymond? RAYMOND:At this time, Mr. Chairman, no. 12EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners? There doesn€t appear to be any testimony. Is there anybody from the public who would like to testify on this particular agenda item? Seeing none, Fellow Commissioners, we can discuss further or -? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Do you want to go to sort of general discussion now -? ALAMEDA:Sure. GRAHAM:As if we were going to make a motion as opposed to any further questions of the applicant? ALAMEDA:If there€s no further questions for the applicant, I would entertain -. SIRACUSA:I have a question. ALAMEDA:Go ahead, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yeah, just one question. You said that you€re a farmer. RAYMOND:Yes. SIRACUSA:And you€re living on, you€re farming this land? RAYMOND:Correct. SIRACUSA:What are your crops? RAYMOND:Well, it has taken me a number of years to find something that was successful and I found that coffee is very successful up there. And within the last week since I€ve had time after submitting this application, I€ve been finishing planting the 2 1/2 acres that I initiated three years ago. SIRACUSA:And that€s the acreage on the point? RAYMOND:That is correct. SIRACUSA:Which is where the house is? RAYMOND:Correct. SIRACUSA:Is that accurate? RAYMOND:That is correct. SIRACUSA:And you said that, you know, a lot of your relatives have professions and they won€t be coming here, to move over here until they€re retired. So I€m wondering if they€re looking to farm the land after retirement, or if we€re looking at gentleman farmer situation here? 13EXHIBIT A RAYMOND:These are small lots. Their intentions, their backgrounds, none of them are agricultural; but they know that mine is, of course; and they know that I am finding success in coffee. There€s also a large market right now for pasture rental for horses in Waimea. It is my intention that I will probably be managing the properties until they retire and move over here, and will either sublease them out myself or work as an intermediary between my family members and potential lessors of their properties. What they decide to do once they move over here is anyone€s guess. I€m sure they will do their best to comply with all the County regulations pertaining to agricultural lots. SIRACUSA:Thank you. That was my big concern, that we not open up to more gentleman farmer situations; and I€m thinking about people retiring, and coffee is very labor intensive. So I know now that I€m retired, I wouldn€t want to do it. But -. Thank you. ALAMEDA:I€mgoingtoCommissionerSpringerandthenCommissionerGrahamfor a possible motion. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thanks. Is the property presently held in undivided interest? RAYMOND:Yes, it is. SPRINGER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Springer. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Well, in order to move forward, I would like to make a motion for a favorable recommendation including Commissioner Watanabe€s additional caveat. So in the matter of Rezoning Application 05-022 from Ag-20 to Family Ag-3 by Christopher Raymond, I would move that the County Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the County Council and that an additional condition be included to the effect that the public benefits of the County affordable housing requirement are not substantially diluted by transfer or sale of property to a family member. SPRINGER:Second. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Motion was made by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner Springer. Discussion? SIRACUSA:Excuse me. Shouldn€t Mr. Raymond step back while we€re in discussion? ALAMEDA:We can do that. Thank you, Mr. Raymond. You can step back for a little while. Discussion? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Couple of questions for the Director. I know I did mention about the transfers. And I was just wondering if you feel comfortable with the motion as it is currently worded, not that I have any differences in the intent. But I do note that Mr. Iwashita had pointed out Condition M, I think it€s M, about the affordable housing that would have to be approved 14EXHIBIT A prior to subdivision approval by the, what is that, Administrator of Office of Housing -. So I€m wondering if we need to -. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? WATANABE:Add any conditions? YUEN:I take it that the intent of the condition is to actually make a recommendation on one side of this question; and that is that not withstanding the fact that you may convey to a family member for less than market price that you would still impose somekind of fee or affordable housing requirement on those lots. Is that the intent of the condition? GRAHAM:I think it€s easier almost to address your question more directly to what Commissioner Watanabe said. I mean, this will eventually get decided by an administrative action.AndsoIthink,ingeneral,consequentialactionsintheCountyweliketotakeplaceina public forum, not in somebody€s office. So the intention of my motion here, my amendment to the motion is to direct that whenever that administrative decision gets made that it be made such that the public benefit of the affordable housing requirement is not lost in a substantial way, recognizing that it will be made in that office. But it€s sort of like an instruction to that office; and, of course, it has to go through the County Council and they may modify it; but it represents my intention as a Commissioner on this body. WATANABE:Please understand I€m not opposed to the -. GRAHAM:I understand. WATANABE:Motion in itself. I€m just trying to make sure we€re all kosher with it. YUEN:Well, let me, if I could -. ALAMEDA:Director. YUEN:If I can talk about how this is actually going to play out. I do expect that this very point will be discussed at the Council. And it€s my hope that we would, because this is a first time that it€s going to come up to them; and my hope is that we will come out with a decision on one way or the other how this is handled. There are a number of ways it could be handled. You could say, okay, we€re on the side of letting them transfer it to a family member and it, and we say that it€s a one-time exemption and so you can only, as an individual, you can only do it on one piece of property. There are a number of ways this could be handled. If, it€s also possible that it will be completely punted to the Administrator to make a decision as to whether, you know, an in-lieu fee will be charged in some way at the time things are transferred to a family member. I hope that it€s not done that way because I do think that it ought to be decided; and the Council is essentially a legislative policy setting body that should look at this kind of issue and say, and tell the administrator what the administrator should do in a circumstance like this. And so if the Planning Commission wants to take one side of the, when I say one side of the question, one, the side of essentially getting some affordable housing requirement out of properties that are transferred to a family member, then that€s, you€re free to 15EXHIBIT A make a recommendation. If that€s what you€re doing, you know, I want to understand that that€s what you€re doing as a recommendation. Just to then give a little further explanation of what would, what it means -. If there isn€t a decision, if there isn€t say a set decision by the Council, then on this kind of a situation the Administrator of the Housing Agency will have to use his judgment of how to read the ordinance and make that decision at the time of final subdivision approval. If they say that it€s in-lieu and they€re not going to pay, the Administrator will have to make a decision on whether or not the in-lieu has to be paid for properties that are transferred for less than market to a family member. But that would, I would think that, as I said, that the, I hope that that€s dealt with at the Council level and a firm decision is made one way or another then. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe and then Commissioner Springer. WATANABE:Oh,I€msorry.Butasafollow-upthendoyoufeelthatthewaythe motion is worded would help to insure that the Council would take it up as a matter and not completely punt it to Housing Administrator? You see, I guess what I€m saying is I have nothing against the individual there but, you know, we€re talking about things that will last over time, and people in positions change, and what not. And so hopefully, you know, the spirit of it will be conveyed. I think that€s where the Commissioners are kind of wrestling with this. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Well, it probably would bring it more to the attention of the Council Members. As I said, I think it will be discussed at the time of Council. But as worded it does, I read it as a recommendation from the Planning Commission in favor of charging some kind of in-lieu fee to family member transfers. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Does the proposed amendment, which articulation, as written or with the proposed amendment, which offers more options to the applicant, or are they the same? YUEN:I think in the end the applicant has the same options. I do think that the intent of the motion was to say that if there is a family member transfer there should be some affordable housing requirement on it. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, was that the intent of the motion? GRAHAM:Sure, that was the intent. And as long as we€re in discussion I might just add a little bit about why I made this motion for a favorable recommendation was -. ALAMEDA:Please do. GRAHAM:And when I, before I came to this meeting, I was thinking more in terms of Commissioner Iwashita€s continual returning to community development plans and all. And in this situation we have the Waimea Community very actively working on what they want to 16EXHIBIT A happen in their community; and Councilman Hoffman is certainly very attuned to that. But technically this falls a little bit outside South Kohala so probably it doesn€t really fall within their jurisdiction. And my concern is, you know, just moving essentially residential areas out into our Ag land. And so that€s why I was kind of conflicted about making a recommendation positive at the beginning. But when I looked at the specifics, well, the map is changed, but it€s located across the street from other similarly sized parcels and it is on the Mauna Kea Mountain side of Old Mamalahoa Highway, so it€s not impinging on the pasture land that€s actively used and viewed by all of the folks on the main throughway, highway. And so, you know, on balance, I feel like the community is probably not going to resolve this direction as to whether this zoning is appropriate or not in the near future. And given the particulars of the application, I think I can support it. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Couldtheapplicant€sfamilydividetheirinterestthatisnowheldin common on this property without going through subdivision? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:No. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? YUEN:No. This is a tough aspect of the land use laws; and the effect of -. You can, you know, say you have eight family members own a piece of property in undivided interest, informally amongst yourselves you can agree you get to grow things over there, and you get to grow things over there. But that€s not a legal division of the property with respect to the outside world. The subdivision is the only thing that does that. The subdivision is the only thing that enables you to have a piece of, to break that property up into individual lots that you as an individual can own and convey separately from the rest of the property. That€s the fundamental importance of subdivision. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:So then regardless that the family has held the property since 1877 in leasehold and then in fee simple, in this generation in order for them to divide the property amongst the family, they have to subdivide, and they must be subject to the in-lieu fees or some sort of affordable housing aspect? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Well, the first part is right. There is, the only exception to subdivisions, we get things, we have what we call pre-existing lot determinations in the Planning Department where there are old grants that are submerged within a tax map key or somebody can prove that the property was actually conveyed before there was a subdivision law that controlled it. What happens in the tax map system is that particularly in plantation areas they would combine grants into one tax map key and, for administrative purposes and billing purposes. The Planning 17EXHIBIT A Department does not consider that to be a legal consolidation so that you can then break out the grants. In this case though, this is definitely not a pre-existing lot situation. This lot was created by a rezoning and then a subdivision after that. So the only way to break it up is a subdivision. And, in this case, because the zoning is Ag-40 the preliminary to that is a rezoning. Having an affordable housing requirement is a result of another law that was passed. You know, that kind of law can be changed. It has gone up and down over the years in terms of strictness. So, but at this point in time because there is this Ag-5 cutoff, or for a, actually a FA cutoff for affordable housing, the particular rezoning at hand would trigger the affordable housing requirements. And it€s just a question of how would it be applied in this situation of a potential transfer to family members. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer, follow-up? SPRINGER:Idospeakinfavorofthemotion.Andtheapplicanthasindicatedthe family€s willingness to deal with their division of property now held in common by virtue of this method. I speak in favor of the motion. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Springer. All right, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I think that the fact that, you know, this is family-owned property and there are multiple family owners of the property in and of itself does not entitle or lend any credence or weight to the application. I say that because the family as a whole can benefit from this property as it is. I mean, it€s not easy for them to do that; but in the end, you know, they can all benefit from it, well, simply if it were sold as a whole and they divided up the proceeds; and they wouldn€t have to go through this process. I see the question about or the concern about gentlemen farms and whether this is going to end up being gentlemen farms. You know, whether the family intends to or not at this point, to me, is just one, the first part of the issue. When those family members get on, they start thinking about their estate situations, I think ultimately if this is approved in 20, 30 or 40 years we€re going to end up with gentlemen farms. The families are going to end up selling these properties, whatever the market is, down the road. You know, right now you€re talking about eight family members. Those family members have children, so you€re talking about 20 or 30 down the road. And then the children of the current family members more likely than not, I would give you really good odds down the road that when the current family members die at that point almost certainly by then all these properties will be sold to gentlemen farmers. They€re going to be residences that people buy to live, maybe raise families. But that€s ultimately where this is going to end up. In my mind there€s absolutely no question. It€s just a question of time, whether it€s 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. But when these family members pass on, that€s what happens. The kids are not going to, the grandkids, or kids, or whatever, they€re not going to keep these properties, unless they end up well to do enough for somebody to buy out somebody at that point. The other issue that I have which Commissioner Graham raised earlier is my general concern that we have a process approved by the Council almost a year ago that€s called the community development plan and which is starting in parts of the island but not all of the island, and I really believe that that is the proper process by which a development like this should go through. And the reason I say that is, is that I believe that this fits the definition of spot zoning. 18EXHIBIT A About a year ago as part of the General Plan amendments, we had some general rezonings done. This area was not one of those. So we had a consideration of all of the zoning on its face a year ago on what the zonings should be for this island. And we know that at that time houselots was upzoned to medium density from low density. Okay? That did not happen in this area. The zoning was kept at Ag-40 and now we€re being asked to downzone it to Ag-3, when all the surrounding properties including the property across the street that has nonconforming lots, all of that is still Ag-40. And we€re cutting out this little triangular piece, literally cutting it out, from all of that Ag-40 zoning. If that€s not spot zoning, if that is not giving special treatment to a piece of land contrary to the comprehensive plan adopted by the Council a year ago, I don€t know what is. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Any other questions? Let€s go with Commissioner Siracusa, and then Commissioner Watanabe; and let€s be -. SIRACUSA:I -. ALAMEDA:Yeah, go ahead. SIRACUSA:I want to thank Commissioner Iwashita on expanding on my concerns aboutgentlemanfarming.Irecallawhilebackwehadanapplicationbeforeus.Andoneofthe things we did there was make a recommendation or a condition, I can€t recall which it was and I don€t remember the name of it, but maybe someone else will, that no further rezoning would take place on those parcels if we rezoned it then. And I€m wondering if something like that would be applicable here to prevent one of the parcels from coming back later on and saying, well, you know, we want to reduce it down to residential, or Ag-1, or whatever, you know, like that, to keep this process from continuing to snowball just smaller and smaller and smaller, to the point where then we€re taking good Ag land out of Ag. I wouldn€t want to see that happen. WATANABE:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:In response to that, I believe he should refer to Condition E that the Director has already included in that with restrictive covenants as to resubdivision. Of course, it still would lay in the hands of the County Council, meaning the County Council would be the only people that could waive that. That€s how I€m interpreting that. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director, is that the intent of that Condition E? SIRACUSA:Can you hold off just a minute so I can read it again? ALAMEDA:Okay, go ahead. SIRACUSA:Thank you. 19EXHIBIT A WATANABE:This is similar to what we did with the Inaba parcels that were, what was that, 5-acre lots that we said only one dwelling per lot? SIRACUSA:But this is not addressing my concern about that the lot size might be further reduced through rezoning. ALAMEDA:Well, let€s check with the maker of the recommendation. Director Yuen? YUEN:For somebody to, if this rezoning went through and you create 3-acre lots and in the future somebody wants to make 1-acre lots, it would need another rezoning. The only example I can think of, and somebody can chime in if they can think of another one, the only example I can think of where we put a restriction on future rezoning, we were actually only transmitting or carrying on something in the Land Use Commission. I€m thinking of the Newton. Can you think of other examples? DARROW:No. YUEN:No. And the reason, I understand the desire to want to say that€s it; but rezoningisalegislativeprocessthat€sdoneultimatelybytheCountyCouncil.EventheCounty Council, the Charter says that the Council makes decisions by a majority vote. So you take any ordinance that€s passed, like a zoning ordinance, and -. The Council today should not pass something that says that the Council in the future can€t change it. That€s, we don€t know what the conditions are going to be in 20 or 30 years; and, I don€t know, in 30 years everybody may think that 1-acre lots with little farms is the best thing that could ever happen. So I, certainly, you know, I understand the sentiment of wanting to lock up an area. But I am concerned and I, without saying we€d never do it, I wouldn€t recommend a condition like that, nor do I think in, nor do I think that you could really enforce it. Because if you put a condition like that in the ordinance today, the Council can amend the ordinance by majority vote in the future and take that out and say that you can rezone it, and now you can go ahead with your one-acre rezoning at some point in the future. That€s something that we have to live with, that we€re making decisions at one point in time and other people at another point in the time get to make decisions as well. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Director. Commissioner Siracusa, you want to follow up on that? SIRACUSA:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I tend to agree with Mr. Iwashita on several points, that, yes, eventually this will amount to gentlemen farms and, yes, the family members, even without subdividing, could share in the appreciation that has occurred over the years. But I also like the fact that I think indirectly the motion is saying that in spite of that we don€t want the housing, affordable housing requirements to be diluted. And where I differ from Mr. Iwashita is, I don€t have as much of a problem with the spot zoning or whether it even is spot zoning. I understand it€s right, currently 40 acres. But I don€t see any real concerted effort for large farming and maybe three 20EXHIBIT A acres would make it more productive in Ag than it is currently. In the background report it seems like it€s being currently used as pasture land; and we all know that we generally send off the cattle to be fattened up in the mainland because we just can€t afford to raise them here. So I, this might make it actually, in my mind, more productive agriculturally, at least during these economic conditions. And for those reasons I would speak in favor of the motion. ALAMEDA:All right. All right, fellow Commissioners, I€m ready to wrap up this discussion, unless you guys have any more burning comments. Go ahead, Commissioner Iwashita, and then Commissioner Siracusa. IWASHITA:I don€t know if it€s a burning concern, but I just wanted to make a final point. And that is that, going back to the community development plan, and my belief that that really should be the process that the County goes through in the next couple of years, as it applies to this application. And the intent expressed by the applicant and the families, I guess, whatitintendstodointhenext10years,Idon€tseethatdenyingthisapplicationatthistime would impair, and waiting for the community development plan to be completed, would impair any of the family€s intent. And so that enlarged measure I€m weighing as a factor that I will be voting against the motion. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, I just wanted to point out to Mr., Commissioner Watanabe that right now it could be that catalyst down, but you certainly need larger acreage than 3 acres to make something more productive than just having a family cow. On the other hand, in the future, for the sustainability of this island, if God forbid we should get cut off from the rest of the world for a while, being able to grow our own food is crucial, is critical really. And I also wanted to point out that not all livestock are cows. You know, I know people who make a very nice living with just a few Arabian horses which can sell, they€re very pricey, they€re very pricy. And so you can have Ag, you know, on pasture land that€s productive; and 3 acre lots really don€t cut it for that. If somebody was growing orchids on benches, yeah, you know, you can do that on a quarter of an acre and make a nice amount of money. But right now you need to make at least $2,000, I believe, in order to qualify for the agricultural exemption. And I don€t think that with pasture you could do that on 3 acres. So just to discuss the agricultural, you know, underpinnings of this whole thing -. ALAMEDA:Point taken. Fellow Commissioners? Mr. Torigoe, seeing that there€s no further discussion, should we invite the applicant back to hear the vote or could he sit there? TORIGOE:He could sit there. ALAMEDA:Okay. Seeing that there€s no further discussion, we had a motion, it was seconded. Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. 21EXHIBIT A DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Nay. DARROW:CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:AndMr.Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes five to two. ALAMEDA:Mr. Raymond, you€ll be informed in writing of this decision. Thank you for your time. The discussion ended at 10:21 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 22EXHIBIT A