Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-05 thester PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 5, 2004 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of HESTER FARMING CO., LTD. (REZ 03-030) was called to order at 9:35 a.m. in the Pahala Comm 96-1149 Kamani Street, Pahala, Ka'u, with First Vice-Chairperson Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSED:Fred Galdones William Graham Aurelio Mina, Jr. Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Pat OÓToole, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: HESTER FARMING CO., LTD. (REZ 03-030) Change of Zone for approximately 171+ acres of land from an Agri district to an Agricultural Project District. The property is located approximately 1.5 miles st (mauka) of Pahala Village in the vicinity of the former Meyer Ca, Ka'u, Hawaii, TMK: 9-6-5:18 and 9-6-6:4. FUJIKAWA:Next on the agenda is the HESTER FARMING CO., LTD. (REZ 03-030), change of Zone for approximately 171+ acres of land from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) district to an Agricultural Project District. Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission, good morning. The subject property is indicated, outlined in yellow, within this green area. Pahala town is indicated in this area here which consists of Single Family Residential zones, Commercial, Industrial. Kamani Street is this particular street that we just drove up. WeÓre situated at this location. The Te Drive-Inn and Commercial area is located in this general vicinity. Pahala High and Elementary School is located at this location. The subject property, to gain access to the subject property, you would go through one of these subdivision lots, or through this particular lot which heads out to Wood Valley. There is an easement that comes off on the EXHIBIT A connect to Meyer Road, which would be this particular road. These are private roadways which the applicant has access to. The entire area indicated in this dark green is zoned Agricultural 20-acres. The applicant is requesting that this particular area consisting of 171 acres be reclassified to an Agricultural Project District. And the reason for that is that, basically, they would like to seek some deviation from some of the Code requirements relative to water and roadway. According to the applicantÓs proposal, they would like to subdivide the property into lot sizes consisting of 5 to 12 acres. Their proposal is to construct 25 lots, or develop 25 lots. The Department recently submitted to you the staffÓs background report and recommendation, and our recommendation that was handed out to you was to defer the application since we did not receive any comments from the Department of Land and Natural Resources as to the acceptance of an archaeological survey. Since that time, we received a letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources indicating that they have reviewed the property and it would receive approval at this time; however, that before giving final approval, they would need to submit an archaeological inventory survey. That letter was passed out to all of you this morning. With that, in light, we are recommending approval of this particular rezoning request. And if you will note, proposed Condition J does state that an archaeological inventory shall be submitted prior to, for acceptance by the Department of Land and Historic Preservation District, as they had requested and commented in their letter. Although the applicant is requesting that the rezoning is to create 25 lots, we are, as noted in our proposed Condition F, restricting or recommending that the number of lots be restricted to 17; and the minimum lot size would be 5 acres. We are also proposing, and you donÓt have copies of this, that Condition D be amended by adding the following, and this was with regard to the water situation, and IÓll add to the existing language of the Condition D, ÐThe applicant shall construct a private water system which provides water to each lot. The water system may have a single source, and does not have to be constructed to County dedicable Department of Water Supply standards, but the project engineer shall certify that the components will be functionally equivalent to Department of Water Supply standards.Ñ We have shown this proposed amendment to the applicant, and the applicant is agreeable to that particular condition. With that, we are recommending approval with the conditions, as amended. Are there any questions? FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, to the staff? SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer. 2 SPRINGER:Norman, IÓm looking at Exhibit K and the response to it; and thatÓs from the Na Ala Hele Trails and Access System. IÓm just wondering whether that trail appears on the map, the map on the left, if possible. HAYASHI:The, unfortunately, we didnÓt follow up on the request with the Na Ala Hele Group. So, at this point in time, we donÓt know where the trail is located. I think thatÓs something that the group or DLNR is still researching. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:IÓm just, my concern is that it is mentioned in the background material and we donÓt see any reference to it in the conditions. So IÓm wondering how we should treat that. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, besides going on this trail matter with Commissioner Springer? You have a question, too, McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, maybe just a clarification. WeÓd probably have someone in the audience who could probably tell us where the trail probably is. I think, John, you might, or -. IÓm assuming itÓs probably the old road. But I did have one other question. You mentioned in J of the conditions that the archaeological inventory is covered. IÓm not sure if it is under your reading. IÓd like your opinion cause you have, the last sentence of J says that, you know, the first talks about the archaeological inventory survey and then the last sentence says, ÐIn lieu thereof the applicant can satisfy this condition with a no-effect letter from DLNR.Ñ So from my understanding, we have the no-effect letter so -. Am I misreading this or -? HAYASHI:We donÓt have a no-effect letter. Basically, the letter that was just distributed to you indicated that they reviewed it and their proposal is acceptable; however, they would need to still submit an archaeological inventory to DLNR for acceptance; and that s the proposed condition, the first portion of that condition. So by doing that at a subsequent date, then they would comply with that particular condition. MCCALL:Okay, I understand. Thank you. HAYASHI:And in response to Commissioner SpringerÓs comment regarding the trails, we do have a proposed Condition L that talks about the trail. Without specifically mentioning the trail that Na Ala Hele Program had indicated, we just said that any trails they should get approval from DLNR. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? Commissioner Kubota? 3 KUBOTA:Norman, can you give me the CountyÓs rationale for limiti the 25? I mean, whatÓs the rationale? I donÓt see it anywhere, or am I missing something? FUJIKAWA:Director? YUEN:The rationale is written up in the section in the recommendation where we talk about the question of creating smaller zoned, agriculturally zoned lots, than the 20-acre lot size. And let me mention, specifically thatÓs on, if you go to page 4, the middle of the page, ÐThe major concern in allowing a rezoning of agricultural land that creates smaller lot sizes is that this will reduce the potential use of the land for commercial agriculture by fragmenting the land into areas too small to be farmed on a commercial scale. W intensively cultivated on small acreages, these crops usually have a very limited market. Reducing the size of the lots can greatly reduce the range of potential agricultural uses. At the same time, a strong demand exists in the real estate market for lots in agricultural areas by purchasers who are interested in large-lot residential home sites or for speculation. The desire for these ÒgentlemanÓs estatesÓ tends to drive up the price of agricultural land making it less affordable for commercial farmers. ÐMost agricultural rezonings in Hawaii County in the last twenty years have resulted in subdivisions where the primary use is residential, not agricultural. For the most part, these rezonings did not occur on prime agricultural land,Ñ and this land here is prime agricultural land. ÐThe predominant zoning in the former sugar lands north of Hilo and in KaÓu is A-20a. There will be considerable interest by the new owners to rezone to red because the biggest component to value is the ability to build a home. The per-acre price is therefore higher if the property can be sold in smaller lots. T be handled very carefully because of the possible carving up of the land into uneconomical units, and the increasing per-acre price. The issue of the optimal lot size for agriculture is difficult because with the end of sugar, agriculture is in flux. No one crop, or even type of crop, has emerged as a probable economic mainstay, so it is difficult to determine an optimal size of a lot. The proposed rezoning has the potential to increase the agricultural productivity of the area by providing water. For that reason, the Director is willing to recommend approval of an Agricultural Project District, but with a limit of 17 lots (10 acre average) rather than the 25 proposed by the applicant. This will allow an experiment with a mix of lot sizes, rather than having a predominantly 5-acre lot project.Ñ And if I were to add anything, to add to say to that, we are really seeing, weÓve seen the end of the sugar era, the plantation sugar era. WeÓre seeing the sale of the property by the plantations to new owners; and we will see a desire to break up the property to smaller than the 20-acre lot sizes call for by the zoning. This is something that we do have to handle very carefully. I think we, I look at what is being proposed here as an experiment. And rather than have an experiment where the predominant lot size is 5 acres as proposed by the applicant, to my way of thinking thatÓs very marginal as far as something thatÓs going to create a viable commercial farming enterprise. So my recommendation is to allow some, itÓs essentially the rezoning would allow some mix of lot sizes, including some of 5 acres, but with an average of 10 acres in size. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any questions with the Director? 4 KUBOTA:Maybe IÓm being overly simplistic in my thinking. But if your goal is to prohibit smaller sized, what shall I say, breakup of the land itself, couldnÓt you do it by raising the minimum acreage, instead of 5 you can say, well, no I guess you canÓt do that. IÓll get back to it again. I think IÓm kind of mixed up in the explanation. YUEN:Yeah, you could, if you didnÓt have a project -. An alternative, for example, would be a 10-acre, you know, rezoning for 20-acre minimum lot size to 10-acre minimum lot size; but that would mean that all lots would inflexibly have to keep to a 10-acre minimum. There wouldnÓt be a mix of sizes where some would be b max out the number of lots, they would have to make them all 10 GRAHAM:Mr. Chairman -. FUJIKAWA:Graham. GRAHAM:This question would be for the Planning Director, or for Norman, whoever is appropriate to answer it. Because this is kind of a controversial in the sense of breaking new ground in the actions of the Commission, Òcause in the items here you have not reduced the lot sizes on prime agricultural land. I would wonder if the Director could give us a little context in the Kau district here in the sense of letting us know if there are any other similar intentions that have been expressed to the Planning Department for similar types of agricultural project districts or, and I believe I heard that Peter Savio was having put together a project to make more affordable land available in the district, if you could just give us a little update on what else in this district regarding large scale agricultural land might be afoot or what might have transpired already so that we have a context in which weÓre understanding this application. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Director. YUEN:The only other proposal that IÓm aware of right now is the Savio proposal which is for areas that are, on looking on the map, to the left of Pahala town, or in the South Point direction from Pahala town, that would involve about 1700 acres. And the proposal would result, would also be an agricultural project, would also involve a 5-acre minimum and a 10-acr average. ThatÓs what is being proposed. The application is being prepared. The application hasnÓt reached the Department yet. GRAHAM:Thank you. YUEN:And besides that, IÓm not, we donÓt have anything else in the shop; and IÓm not aware of any, I donÓt think weÓve had any specific inquiries from other landowners. ThereÓs a fair amount of zoning, the sugar lands, the former sugar lands, are just about all 20- acre zoning. I think as you get more towards South Point, thereÓs a fairly large area with 5-acre zoning in Kau, and some of thatÓs not subdivided. I could be wrong on that, though. 5 FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners, of the Director or the staff? Staff, you have anything? HAYASHI:Yes. In response to Commissioner SpringerÓs question as to the location of these trails, I was just handed a map filed by the applicantÓs representative, so IÓd like to circulate that to you. I think the applicant will be addressing this when he comes up. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioner Kubota, you okay, no questions? KUBOTA:No. ItÓs not okay, yet, but -. FUJIKAWA:I understand. Well, maybe weÓll have the applicant or his representative please step forward. Will the three of you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. I want you to state your name and address. And before we do that, the applicantÓs representative, youÓve got all the Background Report and Recommendation with you? FUKE:ThatÓs correct. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, good morning. My name is Sidney Fuke. IÓm a planning consultant. IÓm here like assisting the Applicants. My address is 100 Pauahi Street in Hilo, Hawaii. And in response to your question, we have had a chance to review both the Background Report and the proposed StaffÓs Recommendation; and, essentially, we have no objections, but we have some clarifications later on. FUJIKAWA:And your name? E. HESTER:Ellis Hester, and I live on Meyer Road on the property years. FUJIKAWA:Okay. And your name? A. HESTER:Adin Hester. I have two addresses, PO Box 219, Pahala and 121 East Maine, Visalia, California. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you may proceed. FUKE:Okay. Just to give you a little bit background on, these are obviously, brothers, Adin and Ellis Hester; and collectively they have like about over 40 years of farming experience. Whether itÓs directly in terms of doing the farming, like Adin here particularly, Adin, but Ellis has been very much involved in the farming in the Oregon area, specializing 6 primarily in different berries, whether itÓs strawberries, blueberries, raspberries. Adin Hester, on the other hand, is more like in the operating and the managing, the processing and marketing of farm coops. And, particularly, right now, as he mentioned in the Visalia area their specialty is really like in olives and making olive oil, and so on, and so forth. So between them they do have quite a bit of, both direct and indirect, experience in the farming and the marketing of products. What they really want to do is Mr. Hester, Ellis Hester, as he indicated lives on the property, has lived on the property for over two years; but over the last 3 or 4 years what theyÓve been systematically doing is trying to resuscitate the land to make it a little bit more arable. And their goal really to try to create more affordable smaller farm lots, more manageable sizes, much more than what the present zoning would allow which is 20 acres in size. And so they came up with this plan or, recognizing further that they do need to have some water system, you know, to make it really more successful, because Pahala is, not withstanding todayÓs weather, is relatively dry. So theyÓre, they wanted to create a little bit more, varied sizes of lot sizes. So the original plan called for, as the staff had indicated, a creation of 25 agricultural sized lots, ranging from about 5 to 12 acres in size. The Planning Director is recommending that it be capped to like 17 so that you would have an average density of 10 acres; and the applicant has no objections to that, you know, with the understanding that, I guess, some of the lots may be as small as 5 acres. But, for the most part, theyÓll average 10 acres, because Mr. Hester, both of them, I think, intend to have like a number of lots that would be definitely, that would be more than 10 or 15 acres in size. So that cap as proposed by your Director is not objectionable. Over the last few years, as I mentioned earlier, they have been trying to not only resuscitate the land but theyÓve constructed like an irrigation system on the property. They have, thereÓs like a Alii well at the top which is currently used by the Department o supplements the water system here, and probably Jeff knows more about this than anybody else, but this supplements the water system here in the Pahala area. But the Water Department is in the process of terminating that well, not the well, but itÓs a surface water. Because in compliance with the EPA requirement they have one of two options, either to establish a plant on the property or, alternatively, drill a new well, and then terminate that source. And so the Department, based on our discussion with the manager and his deputy, the DepartmentÓs plan right now calls for the termination of that well and constructing a new well that would be right in the vicinity of the subject property, but slightly more makai, which would service the Pahala area. What the Hesters have done is theyÓve been using like a, this overflow water and theyÓve constructed two, letÓs see, two 45,000-gallon steel tanks, you know, right adjacent to that reservoir, that open surface water area; and theyÓve also constructed an open reservoir which from, cause thereÓs a lot of water that comes in through this system. So they use, they first capture it through these two 45,000-gallon tanks and then whatever overflows from that goes into this real big open reservoir area which has a capacity of about 1 ½ million gallons; and theyÓre in the process right now constructing irrigation lines from that system that would service all of the proposed lots. 7 In addition to that, the Hesters have, over the last year or so, been drilling this 1200-foot deep well, you know, on the property and they have, itÓs successful. The quality and quantity have been proven. ItÓs roughly right now 200 gallons per minute. We talked to the Water Department about possibly having this well be utilized, you know, to supplement the County system. And what the Water Manager told us was that, well, you know, given the location of this well thatÓs on the property, itÓs a little too far from their system so they would prefer having possibly, using this well as a possible backup wherein the case of thereÓs a need for, you know, some sort of an emergency. So thatÓs kind of like still in the works. That well system that would be constructed, I mean, thatÓs on the property right now would be used for their potable purposes. The system that comes in from the Alii system will be used primarily for the irrigation system. Your staff had indicated about the archaeological thing. We did provide the archaeological report, you know, I think, to the Planning Department as well as to the State DLNR. The State Historic Preservation Division had indicated that based on that, all they found was a, remnants of an old flume. And because, I guess, the quirk of the StateÓs regulation is that anything thatÓs more than 50 years old is theoretically considered historic. And, as a result, when you find something like that, it kicks it up to that level of this archaeological inventory survey level. And what the State had informed me was that what Mr. Alan Haun did is sufficient and, nevertheless, he still has to put it in that Ðinventory level form;Ñ and so the DirectorÓs recommendation is saying that, you know, itÓs basically complying with that condition, and as the staff noted Condition J already addresses that; and I think, you know, weÓre appreciative of that. In specific response to Commissioner SpringerÓs question, and I apologize to the staff for not providing that correspondence that was just circulated, but I had a meeting with Mr. Kawashima of the Na Ala Hele Trails Access Group and he did point out that there are two possible trails; and those trails, if I can go to the board to just kind of point it out. One would be in this general area, and the other would be in this general area, lower end of the property. So what Mr. Kawashima is doing is asking the State, you know, to kind of verify whether, in fact, that is a trail or not; but I think IÓd like to just kind of read a certain portion of his letter to the State abstractor, Moana Roland. Basically, his conclusion is that ÐI appeared on the 1923 quad map,Ñ but nonetheless it has to, you know, they have to go through the process. So your staffÓs proposed conditions, I think, adequately addresses that because when and if this project, agricultural project district, is rezoned, if successful, then they would still have to come in for the subdivision. And, at that time, the six months that weÓre allocated, January, you know, youÓre looking at June or July. I donÓt think the application can be filed prior to that. And so if it gets filed, what we did indicate to Mr. Kawashima is that if the State, in fact, determines that these are, in fact, trails, then they will have to be recognized and incorporated in any of the subdivision maps. Finally, in relation to the DirectorÓs last condition, I guess, I just wanted to clarify on the water requirement. Because itÓs my understanding that the water system that theyÓre proposing as to whatÓs conventionally required by the Water Department is that initially if you had your private water system you must have a regular well and a backup well. All weÓre going to have is just one well. So, the second major deviation is that theyÓre going to construct on-site storage tanks and the tanks will be constructed out of galvanized steel as opposed to what the Water 8 Department requires, which is concrete tanks. And, thirdly, as opposed to what the Water Department requires, which is like galvanized ductile iron transmission lines, their intention is to have like PVC pipes. So itÓs like with that understanding that if your condition pretty much like covers that, then we would have no objections. But relative to, you know, the engineering standards in terms of whether you have sufficient pressure and all that stuff, they all would be compliant with whatever the engineer can certify to be consistent with the Water Department standards. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Director. YUEN:ThatÓs the intent of the condition, where it says functionally equivalent. Function is the ability to deliver water to a specific location, at a certain amount, at a certain pressure, rather than the specification like the concrete tank. The steel tank is acceptable. The engineer has to say that itÓs functionally equivalent. FUKE:Right, okay. With that understanding, the applicant would have no objections. FUJIKAWA:Okay, any questions, Commissioners, to the applicantÓs representative? KUBOTA:So, my, Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Fuke, then my understanding is that you are in agreement with the additional, addition to the condition regarding water that the County is proposing? FUKE:As clarified by the Director, correct, yes. We just want to kind of put it on the record. Because as the Director had indicated, on the previous petition, you know, the st reviews the conditions and then it goes down to the Water Department and the Water Department when they review the subdivision application they say, well, thatÓs not what this conditions states. But now at least we have it on the record, so we can go back to the record and say -. YUEN:Sure. FUKE:This is our understanding. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners, to the applicantÓs representative? Mr. Hessler, you have anything to say? E. HESSLER:No. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. 9 A. HESSLER:Just a couple of comments, if I may. You know, I think that in terms of an earlier comment with regard to some other land that was being proposed for a possible subdivision or an ag project development, you know, I think the intent is really important to look at the front end. Because I know from when we purchased the property, my brother purchased the property, and we moved in, if you go up there and look at it, youÓre going to find several hundred thousand dollars worth of farm equipment are out there with, there had been an excessive intent to go out and try to resuscitate the soil. ThereÓs no question that the sugar cane industry decimated a lot of the good soils here that have to really be brought back, because, basically, theyÓre in a sterile condition. And the other thing that has always impressed us about this particular area is that itÓs a good growing area and, you know, I think thereÓs a little good mystic about being Hawaiian grown because, you know, itÓs good, itÓs nutritious, and it makes sense to try to support, you know, your own local crops. And I think, probably, aside from the normal production problems you encounter in terms of insects and weather and that sort of thing, itÓs probably the biggest issue that weÓve encountered here, is that we could really expand and do a lot more but there is a limited amount of labor pool that you can get your hands on to need help. Because IÓll guarantee you when you talk about somebody, a man and his wife, trying to farm ten acres and do it on their own and plant it and harvest it and sell it, itÓs impossible. I mean, ten acres would be overwhelming, even five acres is a back-breaking job. But there is, I just want to say that there is, in my opinion, thereÓs a tremendous amount of potential in this area in terms of trying to, you know, put the Hawaiian produce back, you know, on the shelves in the market place. Because, itÓs interesting when you look at the farmer markets around here, at the number of people that repack stuff that comes from the mainland and put it on the table, compared to those that grow it here and give it to the people. The people are really alert, they know whatÓs fresh and they know whatÓs good, and they know whatÓs nutritious; and theyÓll always walk away from the stuff that is being brought in from the mainland. So I think that thereÓs a tremendous amount of opportunity in terms of what the farming community could do for the state. Because, you know, every wher more and more produce. The problem is how do you put the infrastructure together to get it there, particularly with the labor issue. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you . Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Hester or the applicantÓs representative at this time? The general public, is there anyone whoÓll do a testimony here on this matter? Have you signed in? LESTER:I just wanted to ask some quick questions. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, I would have to call you to the table at the time, but you have to sign in. Why donÓt you step forward. If youÓre the only one that would like to testify or ask a question -? LESTER:Oh, yes. FUJIKAWA:You want to raise your right hand first. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? 10 LESTER:Yes. FUJIKAWA:You want to state your name and your address? LESTER:My name is Mary Lester, and I live up at Wood Valley. FUJIKAWA:Okay, you may proceed. LESTER:First of all, I was kind of curious as to how the public was informed about this meeting, Òcause I just learned about it myself last night. I think thereÓd be quite a few more people here from the Pahala community if we were a little more i thatÓs just a statement there. And then I wanted to ask you guys also when you said that youÓre people, what is affordable and how much are you thinking about charging for your lots or per acre? A.HESTER:ThatÓs a difficult question right now because weÓre just in the process of putting in the infrastructure and then weÓve got nearly, we got $400,000 in just a hole in the ground. We donÓt have the pumps in, we donÓt have the boosters, we donÓt have the storage there; and then weÓve got to lay the lines to provide the water, water availability to all the lots. And until thatÓs done, itÓs almost impossible to determine what itÓs going to be. FUJIKAWA:Okay, thank you. ThereÓs the other question. Staff, do you have an answer to that? HAYASHI:Yes. As far as the hearing notice, that was published in the newspaper, both the West Hawaii Today and the Hawaii Tribune Herald. The applicant also was responsible for notifying surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. So I would assume that if you live in Wood Valley, that would be beyond that 500-foot distance. FUJIKAWA:Does that answer your question? LESTER:Yes. I do have a couple other questions here. Course, you know, being in Wood Valley, a concern with us always has been roads and road maintenance and, of course water. And it sounds like youÓre answering the water issue, but my concern is your road issues. And then weÓve had several fires out there so road conditions, and how you plan on maintaining the roads, and possibly fire hydrants? FUJIKAWA:Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Sure. Like specifically in relation to the access, the access, as the staff pointed out, like they have multiple accesses but then their primary access would be come off Huapala Road, which is like, you know, the extension of Huapala Road, which is a paved road 11 that leads directly into the site. The Planning Department is also recommending that any of those newly created lots be serviced by a private agricultural standard road. Depending on the number of lots that a road would be serviced it would have to be agricultural standard pavement, you know, which would either be oil treated or something along that line; and the width would vary. Their obligation is only to address the road system within their project area, they do have like a paved access, you know, through that Huapala extension to their property. So over and beyond that, they would have no obligation. ItÓs my understanding that the roadway system within the project area would be like the water system, would be owned and operated commonly by all of the property owners, would be formed like a co-op. LESTER:So whoever purchases the land would be responsible for maintaining their own road systems? A. HESTER:Yes, thatÓs true, because it will be -. You know, with regard to the well, you know, everyone is going to be using that facility and as a result they all have to be a part of it, Òcause thereÓs repairs and maintenance that have to be taken care of. And, likewise, with the road system, theyÓre going to be using the roads and, you know, theyÓre all going to be, you know, property lines will all be deeded, which will include part of the road. So itÓs going to be a community effort, yes. LESTER:Well, youÓve got a tough job set for you there then, cause I know from personal experience and a few other people here do know how hard it is to maintain roads and the water system. So, good luck to you on that. IÓm, my hair kind of stands on a little bit when I hear Chris say that this is somewhat of an experiment. IÓm wondering, I hear ten acres but, y know, IÓm a firm believer in Ag-20, so IÓm not against you guys or anything. IÓm just, IÓm a firm believer in Ag-20 and IÓd like to keep it that way. And I know progress is coming to our little place here. But I just think we, sometimes we need to sit back and kind of take a, slow down a little bit and take a closer look at what weÓre trying to do. I know that Peter Savio came in here, and he was up in Wood Valley and he was trying to do the same thing, affordable land prices for people. And as more of the community, the community became aware of it, it just didnÓt go, it didnÓt go. So, good luck. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any questions with the testifier or the applicant and its representative? Is there anyone else in the general public who would like to testify on this matter? If not, you would plan to testify? JUDALENA:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Would you come up forward, please. Can you use the mike. You want to have a seat and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? JUDALENA:Yes. My name is Rudy Judalena. I live in Pahala. 12 FUJIKAWA:You may sit, you may have a seat. JUDALENA:Well, I live right above, below where -. HAYASHI:Can you speak into the mike, please. JUDALENA:I live right below where the subdivision is. And IÓm just worried about runoff water, flooding controls. ÒCause prior to this, where I live there used to be a river and gulch, itÓs the dried-up kind river. So I was wondering if this was going to impact. At least have, you know, they should make some kind of drainage from that property, you know, runoff going to the, going south from the property. FUJIKAWA:What, excuse me, what is your name? JUDALENA:Rudy Judalena. FUJIKAWA:Where do you live? JUDALENA:I live in Pahala. I live right down Huapala Street where he mentioned. FUJIKAWA:Okay. JUDALENA:But I donÓt think theyÓre going to come down that street, itÓs an old street and itÓs a narrow road, you know. Where they coming down is above where I live; and this road that used to be an old plantation road that comes out by the sugar mill, where it used to be, thereÓs an intersection there, yeah. So I was just wondering, I mean, youÓve got to think about the runoff water, you know. ThatÓs the main thing cause-. Unless you guys going, the County is going to be liable then we can probably sue the County and get our money back and move somewhere else, you know. We need to get protection like that. Cause we, I remember their plans back, thatÓs, Paauau it says over here. It says Paauau. And my house is supposed, my dad bought a property, I was living Honolulu that time when I started college. It was like it had California grass coming out, and you could tramp across. Look a complete State job. They had to fix all those gulches. So thatÓs, maybe IÓll be dead by then but, you never know, you know, in the future -. ThatÓs all IÓve been worried about. But thereÓs an old existing hole, itÓs a big hole in the ground, I noticed, you know, where the old water tank is. If someone comes across that way after the water tank, maybe they could use that as part of the runoff, you know. So itÓs not that bad, but you FUJIKAWA:Okay, thank you. Thank you for your concern. Commissi questions? Okay, if not, Director, you have anything to say? YUEN:No, unless there are any specific questions. The rezoning, there is a condition in the rezoning that in the process of the subdivision approval the Department of 13 Public Works may require a drainage study, and then that would be held, the drainage improvements, if necessary, would be handled. We donÓt have this as a specific condition. But the most what I would expect to see happen is that there would be a conservation plan for the property with the local soil and water conservation district as to how runoff would be handled. Is that what you plan to do? A. HESTER:Yeah, Mr. Chairman. We have been in consultation with USDA and, in fact, the Soil Conservation with regard to our existing reservoir that we have, and also in terms of where the drainage has to go. But, of course, when you have some of these moments like the rainstorm of 1,000 years, I donÓt care what you do, it isnÓt going to stop the water. FUJIKAWA:McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, just a quick question. I assume, even though these are private roads, you arenÓt planning to close any of them off or anything? Because in the Kau area we frequently, when we do have these floods, different residents from different areas like Wood Valley needs to come, drive down through Meyer Camp Road to get out when their bridges wash out, and vice versa. So -. E. HESTER:Yeah, I understand. When I first got here, it is private, and a lot of the towns people and farmers asked if I was going to close the road, Òcause there are only four people that basically have easement on the whole property; and I said no. And after the storm came, you know, everybody from Wood Valley has to come down my road cause itÓs the only roads that are available. And we plan on, well, the open road, you see Meyer Road, thatÓs a fairly good paved road. It has got some pot holes but weÓve already been in touch and we want to pave the cross road that it ties into. Course, we wonÓt go clear to Wood Valley, but our roads will be well maintained and they will always be open as long as, respect us weÓll respect them and leave it open. So, and weÓve had no problems. We have a lot of, you know, petty theft, but thatÓs everywhere, you know. FUJIKAWA:Any questions or comments, Commissioners? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Springer. SPRINGER:This is for the Planning Director, with mention of the Soil and Water Conservation Service and their work, do you consult with them as youÓre considering the final application for the subdivision and the detailed site plan of the agricultural project district? FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, I mean, Director. YUEN:We do send subdivision applications to the local Soil and Water Conservation District, not necessarily the site plan, but thatÓs a good idea. And it would be a good idea to have the drainage set before the subdivision because very often to properly carry out 14 the water you need to have drainage cross easements that go across lots and to let people know that thatÓs what is going to happen. ItÓs usually not practical to dispose of your water just on your lot. In this case there are gulches, I think, on either side and the ultimate drainage solution would be, and this may exist on the property already, I donÓt know that there are cross berms or cross swales that do direct the water into the gullies that are there. E. HESTER:Yes. TheyÓve been out several times and there is a gulch down the left- hand side, and then there is one running right down the middle that comes past my place. You can kind of see it there. And there are still plenty of diversions, at which IÓve had a cat maintain repair since the big storm and stuff. So everything is being taken care of Òcause I donÓt want people to wash out, plus myself Òcause IÓm staying on 30 acres and my brother is, you know, got 20 acres. So weÓre watching out for that. FUKE:Just wondering, Mr. Chairman, like to answer, I guess, the discussions relating to the drainage and the role that the USDA Soil Conservation Service can play, whether Condition H could be amended by just inserting at the beginning ÐUpon consultation with the USDA Soil Conservation Service, a drainage studyÈ?Ñ FUJIKAWA: Okay. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:I appreciate Mr. FukeÓs recommendation of that. I didnÓt want to add the burden of another condition, but I have greater confidence when I understand that there is interagency consultation going back and forth. And I hope that thatÓs standard operating procedure with the County in these agricultural lands. Thank you. YUEN:Well, I hope that this is something that we do catch at the subdivision stage if we donÓt before. But just a word of caution, and sometimes people do forget to do this when they subdivide property -. But they have drainage systems that they expect to, they need to be established by easements across the various properties. Sometimes you get a property owner that doesnÓt like the idea of a drainage across their property anymore after they buy it, and if you havenÓt established an easement then thereÓs no master drainage anymore. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, of either the applicant or the Director? If not, do I hear a motion to close the public hearing on the testimonies? SPRINGER:So move. KUBOTA:Second. FUJIKAWA:Moved by Commissioner Springer and seconded by Commissioner Kubota that the public hearing testimony, testifying be closed. All those in favor say aye? 15 COMMISSIONERS:Aye. FUJIKAWA:No? Okay, so, now, Commissioners, your decision? This is the application for REZ 03-030. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Kubota. KUBOTA:I move that Change of Zone Application REZ 03-030 be given a favorable recommendation and forwarded to the County Council, along with the findings and recommendations submitted by the Planning Department with a chan Condition E by addition, words relating to the water system, and staff has that and applicant agrees to it. I think that was, oh, and by addition, as I understand it, to Condition H at the beginning of the condition, ÐUpon consultation with USDA,Ñ and some other words related to the consultation, and I think you have the proper words for that. FUJIKAWA:Director? YUEN:I think the proper agency is now called the NRCS. KUBOTA:NRCS? YUEN:Yes, it used to be the Soil Conservation Service; but now i NRCS, Natural Resources Conservation Service. KUBOTA:So amended. SPRINGER:Second. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded b Commissioner Springer that Application REZ 03-030 be approved and forwarded to the County Council. All in favor? HAYASHI:IÓll take a roll call vote. FUJIKAWA:YouÓll take a roll call, okay. SPRINGER:ThatÓs what -. FUJIKAWA:You want a discussion? Hear a discussion? GRAHAM:Yes. 16 FUJIKAWA:What is your discussion, are you asking for one? GRAHAM:I think thatÓs normal; after a motion, you have -. FUJIKAWA:I know. What you want is to discuss it? GRAHAM:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Then raise your hand -, go ahead. GRAHAM:In discussion of this application, I have a couple things I wanted to say. One is just a specific commentary from prior correspondence regarding the use of agricultural project district, and so I just wanted to read a little bit of that. Then not withstanding what I read there, I also wanted to just put forth my own general concerns and reasons that I would be also in favor of this project. So while historically itÓs an agricultural project district, I think, IÓm addressing this to the Planning Director as well as the Commission. In 1996 the new Zoning Code was put together which added for the first time whatÓs called a project district which we encountered in a recent application in Hilo, and also added the agricultural project district. And, basically, speaking to the agricultural project district now, basically I believe from what IÓve read from the minutes of the County Council Planning Committee that the agricultural project district is not intended for these sorts of situations. Not withstanding that, I have other comments IÓd like to make. But let me read from a small segment of the minutes of that Planning Committee/Council meeting October 30, 1996 regarding the agricultural project district when the Consultant Sandra Schutte was asked to give explanation for why this new district was being put in the Zoning Code. She gave a relatively long discussion of how the other agricultural project districts worked and what their requirements are and why this project district was being added for a different situation. And rather than read the long lengthy thing let me just touch for a little for now for this project district. So IÓll just quote one paragraph. She says, ÐThatÓs basically the concept here. The agricultural project district,Ñ sheÓs referring to, she says, Ðit would not apply. It would, again, in its intent also not apply to those areas that are classified, for the most part, as A or B soils, or good soils, and/or would not have been identified as, you know, good agricultural lands. This kind of district could not apply to those, except if the land happens to fall within the General Plan urban area growth area, so that there is that allowance again for things that are already planned to be, you know, within an urban and your greater density areas that would give you that kind of flexibility.Ñ So what sheÓs saying, I believe, is that there are a lot of restrictions on what can go on in agricultural areas and thereÓs a lot of agricultural areas that are not particularly good for agriculture. And from reading the prior information leading up to that quote, the gist of it in my reading is that for areas that really are not going to be used productively for agriculture, this agricultural project district allows for more flexibility in how one could use those areas somewhat for residential purposes and other things. And so I think the intent of the law as it was first formulated at the County Council when it was adopted in 1996 17 was, IÓm, clearly rather different from this. But probably weÓll, but we now have to live with the laws that were written in the code, not the initial intent that was put forth in the discussions. So as far as reading the Code, it seems to me this project probably does conform to the Code, but I wanted to put that background forth for everyoneÓs understanding. Not withstanding that background, as far as this particular situation, I appreciate the DirectorÓs reading into the minutes today what he had put forth in his recommendation about viewing this as an experiment and why he went for the 10-acre size and all; and I feel like I very much agree with what he said there. And I think, historically, we have a lot of Ag-20 zoned land and we have a lot of large parcels left-over from plantation era. The situation in Kohala where I live was much the same but it has evolved a lot more than it has here in Kau. I think what we want to do is increase the agricultural use of the land. At the same time, we donÓt want to promote a lot of gentlemen estate, trophy homes kind of situation; and I think that this particular application is probably as good a step in that direction as we can get where we are reducing the lot size it together who are doing farming, who have a great history of farming; and so, to me, itÓs an experiment. Where this situation where the water source is being developed, where the land is being repaired from agricultural use, to me it feels like there is a real chance that this will be a good step in the direction of increasing agricultural use. So, basically, I am in favor of this proposal as it now stands and as it was put forth with Commissioner KubotaÓs motion. My real concern to this is in the precedence. If they have other, if they have somebody with 20-acre parcel that wants to make a project district so they can subdivide into two parcels and all, what is there about this particular application that makes it appropriate, in line with the Planning DirectorÓs comments on what makes it appropriate, but would not make appropriate some other one where maybe we donÓt want to see these agricultural project districts just become a vehicle for reducing the size of agricultural lots? So I guess my, the synopsis of what I was saying in my long disc this project in favor of this motion; but IÓm very concerned about the precedence for others who may come forth doing project districts. And I view it as an experiment, as the Planning Director said, and hopefully the results of this experiment gives us added impetus to do more of the same than not. But IÓm wondering what we can put on the record or what the other Commissioners can suggest as a way of defining why this is somehow different from the potential of not other applicants coming in for project districts, as we really are reducing the lot size and go into agricultural land. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other comments or questions? McCall? MCCALL:Yeah. IÓm going to be voting in favor of this. I think this is a very good project, and I think this is basically what we need. I am in favor of the ag project district in this case because, primarily, I think in order to get land -. You know, itÓs one thing to have a 20-acre parcel of land, itÓs another thing to be able to farm it on a commercial basis. Just having a 20- acre parcel of land does not mean youÓre going to be able to be successful. You need access, you need roads, you need water, you need infrastructure. The subdivision process gives you these things, but the cost frequently puts it out of the reach of a natural farmer doing it. I think by 18 doing this ag project district and making some givebacks in the way of -. You know, weÓre not saying youÓve got to have paved roads to this thing, weÓre not saying youÓve got to have a full- fledged County water system to this thing, realizing that this is agriculture, that farmers are generally used to driving on graveled roads and frequently used to the gravel roads washing out sometimes, too. But I think these compromises that weÓre making are appropriate. And, to be honest, I think that a farmer given access to, you know, a farmer with ten acres who can, that was given water, that was given roads, can be as successful or perhaps be more successful than someone with a 20-acre parcel who still has to, has got to figure out how heÓs going to get his water, has got to figure out how to, you know, how to work his easements out through, you know, through these different people, and build the road and other infrastructure himself. As far as Commissioner GrahamÓs concerns about the ag project district getting out of control, I think, in general, I donÓt think we have to worry too much about a person with a 20-acre parcel wanting to split it up in an ag project district type of situation because we do still have these commitments that we need to make to, you know, in any subdivisio supply water, you do need to supply roads and other infrastructure. While weÓre making some compromises here, I think weÓre still, there are still a bit of in here as opposed to just a lot somewhere else. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other comments or questions, Commissioners? If not, staff. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Ayes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. 19 HAYASHI:Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. YouÓll be informed in writing. The discussion ended at 10:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 20