Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-06 TNANIMAU PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 6, 2008 NANI MAU INC. (REZ 792) A regularly advertised hearing on the was called to order at 9:09 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance. NANI MAU INC. (REZ 792) Amendments to Condition B of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-55 (REZ 792), which rezoned 37.247 acres of land from an Agricultural-10 acres (A-10a) to an Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a) zoned district and 4.502 acres from an Agricultural-3 acres (A-3a) to an Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a) zoned district. The request is for a 5-year time extension to secure Final Subdivision Approval and to delete the portion of Condition B that limits the maximum number of lots to 22. The project site is located at the Nani Mau Gardens, bordered by Railroad Avenue, Makalika Street, Awa Street and the Flood Control Channel, Panaewa Farm Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, TMK: 2-2-48: Portions of 13 and 93. WATANABE: The second agenda item is the applicant Nani Mau Inc. (REZ 792) and it looks like Mr. Darrow will be providing us the background on this. While Mr. Darrow is getting ready, may I remind members of the public if you wish to testify on any of these agenda items please sign up on the sign up sheet with Sharon Nomura. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the board, the applicant in this case is Nani Mau, Inc. They are requesting an amendment or amendments to Condition B of Change EXHIBIT A 1 of Zone 95-55 which was originally approved on April 26, 1995 to change the zoning from Ag-10 and Ag-3 acres to Ag-1 for approximately 42 acres. The area of this application is within the South Hilo District of Hawaii, more specifically we’re looking at the Panaewa Farm Lots location. We have the Hawaii Belt Road or the Volcano Highway running in an east-west direction. This way would be towards Hilo, this would be towards Volcano. We have Makalika Street and Awa Street, as well as Railroad Avenue, that borders the project site. The actual location of the project site is identified with a blue line perimeter. The Ag-1 zoning is the area that was affected by this change of zone. So that would include this particular property as well as a portion of this particular property. The zoning right now at this time is Ag-1 for approximately 42 acres, and the remainder is Agricultural-10 acres; and that’s where the current botanical garden, commercial arboretum is located in this particular area. The applicant is requesting a change of zone, correction, an amendment to Condition B, which is the timeframe to secure the final subdivision approval. The applicant has received tentative subdivision approval as of December of 2003. There have been some delays that have prevented the applicant from securing final subdivision approval. They’re requesting a 5-year time th extension from April 26, of 2005 when that particular condition ended to April 26 of 2010. Additionally, Condition B limited the amount of lots to 22, a maximum of 22 lots. The applicant is requesting to delete that portion of the condition. The reason for the request as we had mentioned earlier, the time extension is because they had, it took quite a considerable amount of time to get the construction plans through and they need more time to be able to secure the construction bond. The reasons for the request to delete the lots is that at this time the applicant is no longer going to pursue or develop the pitch and putt golf course that they had originally planned. In 1973 this particular project received a special permit to begin this project from the State Land Use Commission. It was for a commercial arboretum as well as related improvements. Through the years there have been 9 amendments to that particular permit. In 1994, the applicant had received a Use Permit to be able to operate or be able to develop a 9-hole golf course, pitch and putt golf course. And then shortly after that in 1995 they had received this change of zone. The intention it appeared was that the applicant would subdivide the properties as well as use this pitch and putt as a part of that for this particular project. In 2004 the applicant had come in and requested that the use permit for the pitch and putt be revoked. And so at this time he is requesting that this particular portion of the condition that limited the amount of lots be deleted from 22. The Planning Director had requested that we specifically ask what the applicant is, you know, looking for as far as additional lots. They had sent in a letter, which is Exhibit No. 10, stating that they are only looking at 2 or 3 more lots. And so the Planning Director is recommending rather than leaving that open that it be just upped to 25 lots, giving them the additional 3 lots. The proposed subdivision layout has been submitted, as it has been mentioned, in 2003. This is the particular layout at this time. This only shows 22 lots so they may be coming in for an amendment for this. This was the previous layout of the project. The existing facility is located in this particular area, as we saw the Agricultural 10-acre zoning. This is Makalika Street and we have Awa Street in this location. The area that is affected by the subdivision is located in this area. It’s difficult to see but this actually shows the layout of the lots as well as the pitch and putt as originally designed by the applicant. EXHIBIT A 2 The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the 5-year extension as well as the amendment to the increase to 25 lots. Are there any questions? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Several, actually. One thing I would like to ask Mr. Torigoe since there are two parts to this, one is the time extension and the other is the lot increase, if we should take everything together? I mean in terms of discussion we can take everything together. But in terms of motions later on would we do two separate motions? TORIGOE: Well, I think, in the course of our discussion you’ll kind of see how things are shaping up, you know, and then we can probably address that. As the discussion goes on you may find that, you know, you may want to go a particular direction on the time extension; and that may be dispositive. At that point you may decide that somebody should just make a motion along those lines. So it’s kind of hard for me to, you know, try and draw lines for you at this point. SIRACUSA: Okay, so we play it by ear then and see how things go. My question of Jeff is, Jeff, I’m a little bit confused about this. The project site is 41.75 acres and so we’re being asked to rezone all 41.75 but we’d only increase three lots? Is that -? DARROW: The actual project site, the entire project site is approximately 53 acres. That includes this extra portion here. The actual area that we’re looking at for this amendment is the light green area that’s identified as Agricultural-1 acre. The applicant is requesting an amendment to allow a 5-year time extension. SIRACUSA: The 5-year part I got. What I’m confused about is those three lots -. DARROW: Okay. SIRACUSA: They’re not already zoned Ag-1 I take it cause they’re asking to do a rezoning. So they are, where are those three lots, and what are they zoned now? WATANABE: May I intercede. Actually they’re not asking for a rezoning. It’s just a change of conditions. And what we -. SIRACUSA: We have change of zone, it’s an amendment to a change of zone but it is a -. WATANABE: Yeah. Am I not correct, it’s already zoned Ag-1 so you’re not looking for -? DARROW: Yeah. If I could just give a brief explanation. EXHIBIT A 3 SIRACUSA: I’m just, I want this to, my confusion. All right? DARROW: At this time the area that we’re looking at is zoned Ag-1. The applicant is in the process of creating a subdivision to break those up into smaller lots. The applicant previously had represented that he was only going to be doing 22 lots maximum within this 41- acre area, and then also inclusive was going to be this pitch and putt. At this time they’ve deleted the plans to go ahead with the pitch and putt and they’re asking that they be allowed to at least create 25 lots within this 41-, 42-acre area. So even though, if this didn’t have a limit they could develop it up to 41 lots. But at this time there is going to be a limit of 25 lots for the area. SIRACUSA: Okay, now I understand. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, are there any further questions? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to comment on Commissioner Siracusa’s question. I think it would be much simpler if we voted on these two issues separately because we’ve gotten tangled up in this sort of thing before where there are issues that are related but not necessarily the same. And I think it’s much clearer when it comes right down to it if we vote on the issues separately, that is the amendment to extend the time and then the amendment to increase the number of lots to 25. WATANABE: Okay. Well, are there any further comments on this, at this point, although we’re not quite in deliberation yet? Okay, you know, I do have one member of the audience who wishes to testify. So if I may I’d like to call up Ray Kawachi. So, Mr. Kawachi, would you have a seat please. Would you raise your right hand so I can swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? KAWACHI: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Thank you. Before you begin your testimony could you state your name and address for the record and then you may begin with your testimony. KAWACHI: My name is Ray Kawachi. I live at 600 Makalika, it’s within the 500 feet. I received this notice of the meeting. I’ll be brief. SIRACUSA: Please hold the mike closer to your mouth so we can hear you. KAWACHI: All right. I’ll be brief. The main concerns I have is quite common. The increase in the number of lots from 22 to25 doesn’t seem like much. And as I understand it this number of 22 is already approved pending final approval. Is that right? WATANABE: That is correct. My understanding it is, yeah; and it is, for your information, as Jeff pointed out, I guess a significantly lower amount than what the actual zoning would allow. EXHIBIT A 4 KAWACHI: I see. I’d only like to point out that the present density on this street, Makalika Street from the Highway to Railroad Avenue, is about 40 residential units; and within the half mile from Railroad to Awa Street which pretty much fronts Nani Mau Gardens is 14. So we’re looking at a considerable increase in density. All of these cars, people, exiting onto Makalika Street is not going to be pleasant. But changes happen, I understand that. I have a few other concerns regarding the use of the land presently. I understand there was a problem with a dump site. This is a few years ago. It would be toward the eastern end of this property. I don’t believe it has really been cleaned up. Yeah? WATANABE: I don’t have any information to that effect. KAWACHI: It was in the paper. WATANABE: Oh. KAWACHI: Anybody familiar with this? WATANABE: No. But why don’t you provide your testimony and provide your concerns and address it to the group. It almost seems like you’re addressing them to me. KAWACHI: Oh, sorry. I haven’t done this before. WATANABE: And then we can proceed and, you know, try to address your concerns. KAWACHI: Yeah, I understand. The problem was apparently resolved. I don’t know if it really has been, but to me it’s an indication of how things might be done. That’s my only concern. WATANABE: You have any further concerns other than that? KAWACHI: No, that would be it. WATANABE: Okay. Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. What sort of stuff was being dumped? KAWACHI: A lot of restaurant refuse. SIRACUSA: Okay. KAWACHI: Does this sound familiar? SIRACUSA: That’s the sort of thing that should be reported to the Department of Health. KAWACHI: I believe they did investigate. EXHIBIT A 5 SIRACUSA: Okay. I know that street is rather a short street. It sort of ends at, was it Railroad Avenue? KAWACHI: Yes. SIRACUSA: Yeah. And right now do you have problems getting out onto the highway say during morning rush hour or at other times of the day? Is traffic a concern? KAWACHI: Yes. I’m sure by many people standards it would not be, because it always has been in a farm lot area. But, yes, traffic obviously has increased. Makalika Street is being used as a cutoff to get to Railroad for a lot of people who want to avoid the stop lights along Mamalahoa Highway. So if you’re there at 8 o’clock you should be careful getting out. I’m sure it’d be passable. But I can also see where at some point perhaps Makalika Street is going to be between Railroad, which may be continued to Puna and the Highway. And, you know, we will be the shortcut. This isn’t going to help. I know we can’t stop these things but it’s going to happen. WATANABE: Do we have any other questions for the testifier? Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: Not for the testifier. WATANABE: Oh, okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Kawachi; and you’re welcome to stay. I mean you can be seated and you’re welcome to stay. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: I did have a follow-up. WATANABE: Oh, I’m sorry. Would you get back up. Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Morning, Ray. KAWACHI: Hi. IWASHITA: I did not see that article you referenced. It was in the paper? KAWACHI: Yes. IWASHITA: How long ago? KAWACHI: Perhaps three or four years. IWASHITA: Oh, okay. Well, I have a short-term memory loss. Okay, and you’re saying as far as you know it has never been -. Have you seen it lately? EXHIBIT A 6 KAWACHI: I have seen it, yes. IWASHITA: And how recently? KAWACHI: Few weeks ago. IWASHITA: Is it visible from the road? KAWACHI: No. IWASHITA: Okay. But you’ve seen it and it has not been resolved as of a few weeks ago, as far as you can see? KAWACHI: I don’t know. It appears questionable or I wouldn’t bring it up. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further questioning? Okay, thank you, Mr. Kawachi. Okay, at this time then I’d like to call up the applicant or the applicant’s representative. Oh, okay, Mr. Fujiyama. You have been in receipt of the Planning Director’s recommendations. And do you have any concerns or wish to voice any concerns? FUJIYAMA: I looked through the whole recommendation and, you know, it’s -. WATANABE: Oh, excuse me. I neglected - may I swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? FUJIYAMA: Yes, I will. WATANABE: And would you for the record again state your full name and address. FUJIYAMA: Okay, Ken Fujiyama. My address is at Nani Mau, 421 Makalika Street. I’m the CEO of Nani Mau, Inc. WATANABE: Thank you. You may proceed. FUJIYAMA: Okay. I just want to make a couple of comments to the favorable recommendation; and it’s not in any opposition or anything like that. I just want to make it known. And maybe I should even answer the question that he brought up earlier on the refuse. We were cited from the State Health Department because we were trying to do a compost field in the back utilizing all of our green matter and restaurant matter. For us to comply with the State recommendation they said that we should have a permit, which we did not have a permit to do compost. And to do the composting, the permit would have cost us $25. We had stopped the composting because the condition to do the composting was not cost effective. And part of, our biggest problem on composting was that we were dumping plastic bags; and for us to separate the plastic bags from the rest of the compost matter it was, again, it wasn’t cost-effective. They also had a rodent concern, you know, mongoose and rats and so forth. So ever since that issue EXHIBIT A 7 came up, we ceased putting any restaurant materials back there. However, we were assured that we could still compost the green matter, you know, all of our leaves and branches or whatever we do from the gardens itself. So we still do that, but it’s all green matter. It’s not food items or, you know, other kinds of things like that. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. FUJIYAMA: Okay, just to comment, you know, a long time ago I was in favor of fees from the developers to the County because I used to develop a lot of properties in the past; and this was like in the eighties when they first implemented the water fee, you know, per lot. And I was in favor of that because, you know, it made a little sense. But it’s getting to be quite costly; and in this particular subdivision where we have 22 lots our fees and because of the delays, our fees went up to like $10,000 a lot. So if you add $10,000 to 22 lots, that’s $220,000 for one -, you know, for the project for 22 lots. And if you add the water fee for another $100,000 something, electrical fee for another $119,000 I guess, you know, you’re talking $400,000 something just for fees. You know, it’s a far cry from before where we put in $2,000 to $3,000 for a water commitment fee and could do the project. Now $400,000 or two lots on 22, we’re talking almost 10 percent in fees now that’s adding on to any project; and that’s quite expensive. And it’s, in essence it’s being passed on to the consumers. Right? You know, ultimately it goes to the consumer. So I think some of the fees should be re-evaluated. You know, I’m not saying do it on this project. We just want to get it done and move on. I can see where if the fees are just going to a general fund then there’s no real benefit in attaching fees to projects. I can see if it, you know, has a direct bearing to the project or to the area. And that’s all I wanted to say. The other, one more thing, because of the delays in getting our approvals, somehow timing should be shortened. Because if we’re going through the Council every time there’s a delay or a rezoning application, you know, the Council changes every two years; and if an application takes more than two years, you know, most likely it’s longer, right, it just delays the processing procedure. So this isn’t a Commission type-concern but I think it’s a concern of the County where we should evaluate how we do things, you know. And because also of the delay now we have an affordable housing requirement attached to this. And the impact from what I think, I’m not really familiar on the affordable housing conditions; however, just from briefly looking at it, we have to provide like four affordable housing. You know, so, again, the impact is severe when things are delayed, not even counting the cost of money. You know, that’s the interest rate over the term of the, you know, when we apply. It adds considerable cost. Again, it falls all back to the consumer. We pay up front, you know, we carry the project hopefully to get it done; but ultimately all the cost gets added back to the consumer. Okay, so other than that I wish you recommend a favorable recommendation. WATANABE: And any comments to the limit of 25, the new proposed limit of 25? FUJIYAMA: I wish we could get 41 but realistically I think we would be satisfied with that, you know, just from the neighborhood and the type. We, in terms of traffic, I don’t think it will be that significant. There was one other condition if I remember from the traffic flow, and they put a limit where we couldn’t have access to Railroad. And if you look at that map there, can I just go and show you the -? EXHIBIT A 8 WATANABE: Yeah, I guess so. FUJIYAMA: Maybe Chris can -. Okay. Our roadway to the subdivision project will come in here, off of Makalika. This is Makalika Street. But the roadway will come in here and then come out, and then come out to a deadend cul-de-sac here. One of the conditions that was imposed, I’m almost certain, was that there could be no access to Railroad. However, in my opinion I think an access to Railroad would have been better because Railroad now is really improved considering when they were thinking of these kinds of approvals, and also because of the cul-de-sac effect where we couldn’t have a through, you know, through roadway. It limits the amount of roads we can have on the cul-de-sac, you know, from a zoning standpoint. So, again, those are a couple of things that, the conditions that sort of limit the potential of this property. But, you know, as I said we don’t want to change anything. We just want to move on, yeah. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Fellow Commissioners, does anyone have any questions of the applicant? Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I just have a quick question cause I’m so nosy and I wasn’t here before. Why did you drop, I’m just curious about why you dropped the plans for the pitch and putt. And then what will you be doing with, you know, you said it was going to be about 15 acres so your lot sizes are going to be bigger? Thank you. FUJIYAMA: From, when we evaluated the potential for a golf course, you know, there was no way we could say, no way we could make it feasible, you know, from a business operational standpoint. And I don’t golf so it wasn’t a, you know, real hot issue for me. But more from a financial standpoint it just didn’t make sense to us. And as far as the lot size, now we’re going to try and limit it to one-acre sizes. And can I see your subdivision again? DARROW: Here. FUJIYAMA: Well, this is the subdivision site right here. However, the application shows that the property goes into Nani Mau Gardens, the botanical gardens that we use right now. So eventually I think I want to just take this section out because we’re not even subdividing this section here in our application. You know, so it just makes -. This back section is about 32 acres I think. So that’s all we’re concerned about. So some lots will be slightly larger than an acre. WATANABE: Okay. Follow-up, Ms. Bowman? Any follow-up? BOWMAN: No, thank you. WATANABE: Okay. SIRACUSA: Don’t put those away, don’t put it away. Go back to the -. Because my question is where precisely do you plan to put these three additional lots if we approve them? Could you show us with the little light pointer, please. EXHIBIT A 9 FUJIYAMA: You know, at this point I really don’t know.However, from a zoning, not a zoning but a subdivision approval process, we have here three acres, I think. So this could be a possibility. But I think we would need a variance to even utilize, to utilize the three lots. And the reason for that is because within a limited cul-de-sac -. And, again, we’re limited to the number of lots that we can have on a cul-de-sac. So, again, you know, we haven’t really decided where we want to put that yet. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions of the applicant? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Fujiyama. So you may be seated. Thank you. Okay, well, we have, possibly we can get into some discussion then or, and then we can decide on whether we should split these two issues to vote on. Would anyone care to begin? Ms. Siracusa, you have anything? No? SIRACUSA: No. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I liked some of the comments that Mr. Fujiyama made with regards to the impact fees. And I think it would be wise, although it would not be applied to this project, it would be wise to revisit that whole concept and see how effective it has been and whether if in fact it has proved to be beneficial for the County, or has it at the same time been a detriment to some of the other people in the County who wish to develop. And I mean those mom-and-pop situations where they have a small acreage of land and they would come for a rezoning and then probably subdivide their land into maybe three or four lots. And, you know, it’s quite an impact for families who are just trying to make a go of it, and where you find that there is difficulty in the cost of land already. And then when you have to consider all the different points that you have to address in the impact fee ordinance, I think, you know, I certainly would feel comfortable if we looked at it, revisit that, and see where we go from there. WATANABE: Mr. Yuen, would you care to make any comments on that? I know it doesn’t really involve this particular project and it doesn’t appear the applicant was looking for any waiver of any particular fees. YUEN: Well, there’s a standard practice. There is, you know, it has been a standard clause of rezoning for many years and the Council is looking at formalizing impact fees. The biggest issue there is whether that would be, it would apply impact fees across the board to new construction, whereas the current policy just applies if the project gets rezoned where there is this benefit of the upzoning for the landowner. The biggest concern that the administration has had with across the board impact fees is the effect on the individual who happens to own a piece of property and then seeks a building permit. In this situation though I think it is a useful tool so that new development pays for infrastructure that becomes necessary as a result of more lots being created by new zoning. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. EXHIBIT A 10 WOODWARD: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to say with regard to Mr. Domingo’s comments, Amen, my friend. We have, and we’ve just heard from the representative of this group that wants to put these lots up that they’re looking at another 20 percent essentially on the cost of the land that’s going to be passed on to the consumers. They have to do impact fees, water fees, electric hookup fees, and various other fees. And I think the County Council really needs to seriously address that. That’s not our providence, it’s not our kuleana, but it is a problem. And I would just say once again, Amen, my friend, you said it exactly right. WATANABE: Any further comments? Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I have a question. I may be throwing us a wrench in the spokes but -. And I can plead ignorance because I do not live in Hilo and I don’t know Railroad Avenue and if it has been improved significantly since 2005. I’m just looking, I can hear the applicant’s question, what if you did have two, you know, it goes all the way to Railroad -? WATANABE: Exit? BOWMAN: Yeah, exit? WATANABE: I think I have the answer to that but I would prefer that the Director answer you. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. YUEN: Well, first, it’s not a condition of the zoning that there not be an exit to Railroad. So this came up at the subdivision. And typically, I don’t have a specific answer of why the approval of the subdivision said not to come out to Railroad. You know, I’d have to go back to the subdivision file. Typically what happens when, you have zoning and you still come in for a subdivision; and the Public Works Department looks at the subdivision and will make comments on how it should be laid out, and where the road actually should be. And if there’s a problem with the way that it has been presented they’ll say don’t do this. So I’m guessing on this strictly; and my guess is that because Railroad Avenue is shown as a major road in the future that there’s a desire not to have additional intersections on Railroad. Normally you would, if it’s two local streets, that would be fine; and in some cases it would be a better layout. But that’s my guess as to the concern about Railroad, that instead of having just subdivisions that come out -. And I’m not sure if the, well, clearly the lots you would not, you see how the individual lots abut Railroad Avenue? You wouldn’t, there are lots that abut Railroad Avenue, particularly in the Hawaiian Homes area; but you don’t want to see a lot of, you don’t want to see lots of driveways out to Railroad, for example; and it may be that they didn’t want to create another intersection there. And as I say I’m just guessing. It’s something that can be looked at again in a subdivision stage and it is not part of the zoning. BOWMAN: Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, any further questions? Yes, Ms. Siracusa. EXHIBIT A 11 SIRACUSA: Well, Mr. Fujiyama did mention that there’s a limit to the number of lots you can have in a cul-de-sac; and I don’t know if that’s the case or not. But it seems logical because in the event of an emergency, you know, you would have evacuation problems if you had too many on one road. So, you know, I would be hesitant to approve three additional lots, actually I would have been hesitant if I had been on the Council then to have approved the 22 lots without a back door. I mean even when you build a house you have to have a back door for fire escape; and there isn’t one here. So I was wondering if we would have to go back to Public Works and see if they would grant, what they would tell us about the possibility of putting in a condition for an exit. That’s one thing. Another thing is that Mr. Fujiyama had mentioned about the financial hardship that all these delays have cost him. So I went back and looked at the chronology here that we have in our background report; and of the nine amendments to the permit so far, I’m not counting this application, five of those were extensions that the applicant requested. So I submit to my fellow Commissioners that not all of the fault was with the County that there were delays. A lot of that, the majority of them were the applicant, maybe not Mr. Fujiyama at the time but whoever was the previous owner of Nani Maui; and I think we should take that into consideration. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to revisit Commissioner Woodward’s request that we may take this up in two parts. I don’t know if you wanted to readdress that, Commissioner Woodward, or -? WOODWARD: Well, I don’t have really strong feelings on that. It’s just that we’ve gotten up against the wall on a couple of other issues that were, you know, like the Kohala situation where we had five separate issues we tried to address as one.I have no problem addressing these two together because I think they are very closely related; but I was just bringing that up as a caution. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Any follow-up to that? IWASHITA: Yes. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Just couple of comments. I guess I wanted clarification from staff regarding the time it has taken as far as the subdivision approval. It’s not clear to me on the record what the delays have been since 1995 when the ordinance was first passed. I can’t tell when the original subdivision plans were submitted, why it took to 2003 to do tentative approval, you know, cause it is a long time. Mr. Fujiyama raised that as a concern, right? You know, is that all Building Department’s fault or is that, you know, plans get sent back and changes are aren’t made by the developer? We’re being asked to extend this time up to 2010 essentially on what I see as a 3-year, almost 3-year, delay since the expiration of the deadline for final approval, you know; and tentative approval was received in 2003, so that’s five years ago. And, you know, I just don’t understand. There’s no explanation as to, you know, why there are all these delays or, you know, why is there such is such a long delay. And I guess the impression I EXHIBIT A 12 had from Mr. Fujiyama’s testimony is that he’s trying to lay that on Building. But I wanted a clarification if it was Building’s fault or basically, you know, or is it what we hear is financial, the market doesn’t allow the investment to be made over some period of time so the developer doesn’t do anything for a while, doesn’t want to spend the money to get the subdivision. WATANABE: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita, I can give you information that we have available. It might be worthwhile to ask the applicant, you know, for more detailed information. But in 2000 the applicant had requested an administrative extension of time for 5 years; and the reason for that request was that Nani Mau Inc. had just become the new owner at that particular time, which was December of 1999. And so they were asking for the extension because they just had owned the property for a very short time. So their reasoning at this time is that they had considerable delays getting the construction plans through and they need additional time to be able to continue on with the subdivision process. As I’m looking in the subdivision as well, there is a variance that was also approved for the road, a roadway variance, so I’m sure that had taken some time as well. WATANABE: Ms. Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yeah, I guess this is a question for the Director. If we deny the time extension to Condition B, what are the ramifications of that? YUEN: Oh, you mean if the Council denied it, if the Council denied it? SIRACUSA: Yes. YUEN: The next stage would be, the zoning takes it from -. Jeff, what was the zoning before, before the Ag-1? DARROW: The zoning before was Ag-10 acres for approximately 37 acres and Ag-3 acres for approximately 4 acres. So the majority of it was in Agricultural-10 acres. This small little square was Agricultural-3 acres. So it would -. YUEN: Well, the first question would be the reason for denying it, because it doesn’t make any sense to deny the time extension if the Planning Commission and the Council is comfortable with the one-acre zoning, you see. So if the idea is that the Council, if the Council said we don’t want to extend time because we don’t like the zoning to be 1 acre, then the next stage for, is to get some direction as to what they want the zoning to be because properties are in a bit of a limbo until the time is extended, I mean, or until the rezoning is done. So if the direction was, no, this should be 5 acres, then either the Council or -- most likely the landowner would not initiate a rezoning -- either the Council or the Director would initiate a rezoning to some different lot size, and that would mean that they would not be able to go ahead with the subdivision to 1-acre lots. SIRACUSA: Director -. EXHIBIT A 13 WATANABE: Okay, follow-up. SIRACUSA: My concern is Ag-1 in the first place. I think what we’re looking at is not going to be really Ag. It’s going to be creating more gentlemen farmer lots in an area that’s already, has large acreage lots where people are practicing agriculture; and it is listed as Other Important Agricultural Lands. But once you start building houses on these 1-acre lots it’s not going to be Ag. What we’re really doing is, what has been created by a previous Commission and Council has been a residential subdivision. By any other name, that’s basically what it is. WATANABE: Thank you. Is that it? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Iwashita, I think you had a follow-up. IWASHITA: Yeah. Well, I got the time, that’s enough as far as the timing is concerned. I wanted to make a comment about this affordable housing matter that has been discussed. And that is, you know, the record before us has been pretty clear. The Mayor has emphasized in a lot of his comments over his tenure that housing, affordable housing, is like the issue in this County; and he has done, I’ve read articles where he has taken priority in affordable housing projects that have been done to attempt to meet that need. But, you know, it’s far from being really addressed in a way that alleviates the problems significantly. The affordable housing, these fees that are being charged, they are expensive. But I don’t, you know, we need as the Commission, the Council, as a body on this island, we need a way. We can’t just say that this one looks too expensive so let’s try and change it. We need to figure out if not this way then a better way. But to say that, you know, it’s expensive so we really shouldn’t do it, to me, ignores the root problem; and the root problem is we have a housing crisis on this island. And we don’t, I don’t want to get it to the point where, you know, the future Mayor has to do what Mayor Hanneman has to do on Oahu, and that is every six months tell the Parks Department to clean out, you know, a park that homeless people have established as their place to live. And, you know, we really need to do something about it. So whether it’s this way or another way, it’s something that needs to be addressed. It’s like public transit, it needs to be addressed. We can be like Oahu and ignore the requirements for public transit in the future and end up paying, you know, -. Barbara Marshall’s biggest argument against public transit is it costs too much money. Well, it cost too much money ten years ago when they denied it and now it’s costing them double to do it. The problem is not going to go away and the cost is not going to get any less. So, you know, my view is, you know, I hope the Council when the Council addresses it is that let’s deal with this, it’s a real problem, it needs to be dealt with. We on the Commission carry a, I think, a bigger burden in terms, cause we’re appointed to help try and address these issues. So I think we should shoulder that burden and help come up with solutions to the housing problem. The affordable housing fees are part of that solution now. We need to do a lot more, and that’s what we should we talking about. Thank you. WATANABE: Any further comments? Mr. Domingo? EXHIBIT A 14 DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, in a way I agree with Commissioner Iwashita’s rationale with regards to the impact fees. But I also look at this, you know, there are developments that come in certain, by the numbers and certain size or, and it depends on the impact that they cause. Now if you find an individual, who is a mom/pop, who wants to subdivide for their children, you know, to impose a similar amount of fees to them -- as well as to a developer -- who in turn when they develop it’s in essence more to develop housing units for sale and to invite more people to move here, whether they come from Honolulu or from wherever, what we’re doing is we’re increasing the density level of this County. Therefore it impacts roads, it impacts water and police and fire protection, and a demand for parks. There’s a great demand for that when you increase the population. But when you find a small, a very small minute development for a mom-and-pop situation where they’d just like to provide lots for their children, you know, who want to come back home, you know, I feel that the degree of, and the amount of assessment should reflect that, rather than just go on a whole-sale blanket coverage of the situation, that issue. I think, you know, fair is fair. You pay for the impacts that you’ve caused, and then one should not be the same as the other in this case.Developers, I think, have to pay their faire share, certainly. But I think in this particular instance too, you know, as is applied right now I think with regards to entry to the property, and I know that Mr. Fujiyama has already configured the layout for the development with a cul-de-sac in there -. But right now as I look at it, if the entry or the egress and the ingress will be through Railroad Avenue I think it would be more appropriate and I think more convenient for those who would live in this subdivision. Because Railroad Avenue has been drastically improved and it can accommodate the larger traffic, whereas Makalika has not; and it has been that way for a long time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: We have any further -? Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Just one. My uncle lived on Makalika Street. He’s one of the original owners there so I’m familiar with Railroad and Makalika. You know, I share the concern. Well, I know Railroad is better. The problem is it’s too much better; and I think that probably the traffic, I would see the traffic concern is where this site is located.If you look at that map, I guess, that’s north of the property, that’s a drainage canal. There’s a bridge that goes across the drainage canal where the property meets Railroad and the drainage canal. If you have a road access right directly onto Railroad Avenue any vehicle pulling out left will have a limited line of sight for a vehicle coming across that bridge. It’s a blind -. You won’t be able to see cars before they actually come across the bridge; and there have been numerous people that have died in speeding accidents on Railroad Avenue. So I can see the concern for allowing access onto Railroad, because of that line of sight issue and the potential for basically somebody pulling out and not being able to avoid because it cannot see a car speeding across that bridge. And so, you know, anyway, that’s that. As far as the motion on the actual request, I would like to see it dealt with separately, that is the request for 5-year time extension be voted on separately from the increase in the lots from 22 to 25. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do we have further comments at this point? If not, I’d like to make a comment with regard to the access, which I think from a safety standpoint is potentially an issue. And I tend to agree with the Director’s comments with regard to Railroad. I EXHIBIT A 15 believe they’re trying to preserve that as more of a highway or a future highway, and so I think they’d want to limit that. On the other hand, as I’m looking at this map here, it appears that from this subdivision you also have another cul-de-sac that enters into Awa Street. And so I believe because the subdivision approval map is really in flux, depending on whether you’re going to increase the number of lots, etc., potentially those two cul-de-sacs would not need to be cul-de- sacs. You could have a 90-degree there and reconfigure the lots, and you would actually have two exits out of the subdivision, none of which affect Railroad Avenue and limit the amount of intersections at Railroad Avenue. And so in the event of some emergency I think they still would have alternate routes of access. But, again, that’s for the experts and, I believe, for Public Works to determine. But that may be something that they would consider. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Well, I’d just like to make a comment and then if it’s appropriate I’ll make a motion. But I think we ought to get input from the State Department of Highways. You know, this has been addressed many years ago, and things have changed as Commissioner Iwashita was mentioning. But I think before we go addressing the issue of access to Railroad Avenue we ought to get input from State Department of Highways. So my motion, if it’s appropriate at this time, would be that we approve with regard to Rezoning Application 792, that we approve the time extension and ask that they revisit, the State Department of Highways, with regard to the question of access to Railroad Avenue. WATANABE: Okay, we have a motion -. SIRACUSA: No, I have a point of order on this. WATANABE: Yes. SIRACUSA: I believe it’s County Roads Division, not State Highways. WOODWARD: Oh, okay. Is that what it is, a County road? YUEN: Yes. SIRACUSA: Railroad is a County road. WOODWARD: Okay, then I will revise that to the County Roads Department. WATANABE: Okay. We have a motion. Do I have a second? No second at this point? Any second? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Second by Mr. Domingo. ALAMEDA: Sorry -. WATANABE: Yes. EXHIBIT A 16 ALAMEDA: You know, the motion is not asking us to revisit the, I mean the application is not asking us to do anything with road access or anything like that. So I just wondered if that motion is accurate? I mean -. WOODWARD: Okay, well, let’s just keep it simple. And that is let’s just vote, just to extend the time period with the advice to the developer and the Council to revisit that issue with the County Roads Department; and that would be just be an advisory, not a part of the motion. WATANABE: So, okay. DOMINGO: I second. WATANABE: You’re in agreement with this. So we have a motion now to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the extension of time, I believe that was Condition C. TORIGOE: B. SIRACUSA: B. WATANABE: B, excuse me, to the proposed five years. Right? WOODWARD: Right. WATANABE: Any further discussion on this issue? Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: I’m just waiting for Mr. Iwashita, Commissioner Iwashita for responding. He’s looking through his paperwork so -. WATANABE: Oh. Do we have any discussion on this motion? Mr. Iwashita, do you have something to add? IWASHITA: No, I’m just checking. Both changes are in paragraph B, so that’s fine. WATANABE: I beg your pardon? IWASHITA: This motion only addresses the amendment to the first sentence of Section 2. WATANABE: Yeah, and we’ll address the lot issue. And I believe that was your request to take it separately, yeah? IWASHITA: Right. So just for the record, I’ll make it clear that this motion addresses the changes to Section 2, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph B, Sub Part B,right, if I’m reading this correctly, of the proposed ordinance and does not address the second, the changes after that. WATANABE: That is correct. EXHIBIT A 17 IWASHITA: Thank you. WATANABE: We’re just addressing the time extension at this point. So do we have any further discussion on this? Okay, Mr. Darrow, seeing that there’s no discussion, I guess we can call for the vote. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the 5-year time extension for Condition B. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Nay. DARROW: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes eight to one. EXHIBIT A 18 WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Now we have a separate issue, cause we elected to separate it, with regard to the number of lots. As the condition is currently stated, the number of lots is limited to 22 lots, yeah. And as it is recommended by the Director, it’s moving up to I believe it was 25 lots, which is an addition of three lots. I believe the main concern here was access and multiple accesses. So maybe we can begin discussion there. IWASHITA: I’m -. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I’m prepared to make a motion. WATANABE: Oh, you’re prepared to make a motion. Okay, fine. IWASHITA: I move that with regard to REZ 792, the request to increase the maximum number of lots from 22 to 25 and amending Section 2, (2)(B), (B), that a negative recommendation be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council. SIRACUSA: Second. WATANABE: Okay, it has been moved and seconded that a negative recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on an increase in the lot size from 22 to 25. Is there any discussion on this matter? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: All right. On several angles of this, as we heard testimony there are about 40 units now on that street, Makalika Street; and it is not a long street. Between the highway and Railroad Avenue, it’s only a couple of blocks long, and that’s even before we add the 22 that has already been permitted. It’s already, that highway is getting, the traffic is getting pretty bad. It’s getting very crowded; and you have to wait quite a while to get a space where you can scoot out, even with the apron and the turning lane. Once this is developed with 22 more units it’s going to be a real nightmare; and if we add three more, that’s just compounding the problems. A possible alleviation would be taking out the cul-de-sac situation so that we do have an emergency exit on the other end, whether that goes to Railroad or as Commissioner Watanabe pointed out, which is some good out of the box thinking, that’s a short hop right there to the, take the left-turn in and go out to Awa Street. I don’t feel comfortable landlocking that many homes into a situation which -. I mean if something happened there, we would all feel lousy. And I’m looking at public safety from two angles. One is the traffic going out to the highway which is almost a recipe for people crashing into each other there; and then over here where there’s no back way out. So those are the two reasons why -. If the developer were to come back later on and say he had figured out a way to get some other access, I would have a different feeling about this whole thing. But the way it stands right now, the public safety issue is incontrovertible. EXHIBIT A 19 WATANABE: Well, bear in mind now we’re not approving the subdivision, the current subdivision plan. SIRACUSA: Yes, I know that. WATANABE: You need to bear that in mind. WOODWARD: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: I believe I have a response. Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: I’ll yield to Mr. Woodward again. WATANABE: Oh, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree. I think the problem we have right now -- and the developer was quite frank in saying he didn’t know where those extra three lots were going to go -- and we have a problem with the cul-de-sac that has already got about 12 or 15 lots coming onto one cul-de-sac. I think until we get a more concrete proposal -- and this is where it comes with the comment I made before about getting the County Road Department involved -- if we can work out a different situation with the roads, say with an access to Railroad Avenue, you know, I would have no problem going from 22 to 25. But I think we don’t really have a firm proposal. All we’re asked is to give an increase in the number without an idea of where the lots are going to go or how the roads are going to be. I think we’re dealing with a little bit of sketchy information. And I would suggest that we might want to, you know, if the developer wants to the talk to the County Highway Department and readdress this issue, you know, I would probably be in favor of it. But from what I know now, like say we just have, the information is a little too sketchy. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The developer already has a permit to, has already acquired rezoning for his 22 lots? WATANABE: That’s correct. DOMINGO: So there’s nothing that we can do with it, unless the Department or the Planning Commission decides to revoke the original zoning bill and revert to its former zoning; and that would certainly take away the 22 lots. But, you know, the fact that he has zoning for the additional 22 lots, then it would be unfair for us to take it away, you know. We think about the doctrine of fairness and what is fair in the land use issues and the decisions that we make because we have to be careful. But what we’re doing here is just establishing another three lots by deletion of the requirement, the commitment to build a pitch and putt course. So I think for us to really make a denial decision, based on the 22 lots that he has already, is not proper, is not fair to EXHIBIT A 20 him. And I also feel that, you know, during the plan approval process, you know, the plan approval process, the staff will look at the plan and decide wherein further improvements need to be made to accommodate traffic, or water, or fire protection, or whatever there needs to be, you know; and that we’ll leave it up to the staff, to the Planning Department, to do it. I mean we can sit here and we can manage, micromanage every issue, and we’ll never be done. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mrs. Bowman. BOWMAN: Ms., but that’s okay. I just want to remind us that I think the amount of traffic that would have been created by the pitch and putt is equivalent or more to probably the three additional lots. And being the Pollyanna that I am, I’m thinking, boy, wouldn’t it be nice for the applicant to create some kind of park for all those kids there, but that’s only my, because I have kids. But, so I just want us to, you know, remember that, that I think -. I don’t know if the traffic study was done with the pitch and putt.But my kids play golf and I know that there would be a significant more amount of traffic, and probably after work during busy time, too. Thanks. WATANABE: Thank you. Thank you for waiting patiently. ALAMEDA: No, I just was actually -. Usually when the maker of the motion gives a negative recommendation we take it back to the original maker to see what are the reasons why. So I know Commissioner Siracusa stated a few reasons, but she was the second. So I wanted to just ask Commissioner Iwashita if there’s anything else that Commissioner Siracusa didn’t add that you wanted to add why you provided a negative recommendation. That’s all. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Actually I share the concerns that a couple of the Commissioners raised. My view is that this application or this property had got the right to do the 22-lot subdivision in 1995, I’m sorry, is that right, yeah, in 1995 when the original ordinance was passed; and that set all the timelines into motion. And the original owner that got the 22 lots didn’t do anything with it and sold the property four years later presumably at a profit; and now the current applicant has, you know, started the process of subdivision. I just don’t see anything in what has been presented by the applicant that, you know, other than basically saying, well, I’m changing my mind I want to have three more lots, I’m asking for more lots to be sold. Just asking for it to me is not a justification. And, you know, the property was purchased with the 22-lot limit on it, that’s what the applicant paid for. I don’t see, you know I share the concerns about the effects of increasing it, whether by 3 or taking a cap off. So that’s the basis for my motion for a negative recommendation. The other, obviously, I’m going to take this opportunity to make my little community development plan pitch. And that is this whole area to me, again, we’ve seen applications before in this area for change of zones and, you know, the reduction in the size of these agricultural lots. You know, we don’t have to look past Hawaiian Paradise Park, Orchidland, Ainaloa and all those what we call today as substandard lot subdivisions that pose tremendous infrastructure challenges for those people and for us, you know, to see that we need to do things a different way. And the general plan provides us a way to do that, it’s called community development EXHIBIT A 21 plan. There is no process for that going on now. For the record, again, it’s my position that community development plans should be done on an island-wide basis all at once with the entire island community involved with it together so we can all plan what we want in our particular areas for the next 30, 40, 50, 60 years. You know, it has been done. We have the Downtown Hilo Vision 2051. You know, that’s to me a model. The only problem with that model is that it wasn’t made into law. It was passed, adopted by resolution by the Council, and not made an ordinance so it has the binding effect of law. We’ll be dealing with a project in that area later. But, you know, if we had a community development plan for this area then a lot of these issues that we’re trying to discuss here today really would be addressed by Mr. Kawachi and the other people in the community who are going to be directly affected by what goes on there in the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years on how it’s going to look like and what kind of roads and things are going to be going through there, hopefully where the train station is going to be, that kind of stuff. And so I think it needs to be done that way, but that’s a bigger picture view from my perspective. And so those would be the bases for my asking for a negative recommendation. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, normally I’m pretty hardheaded and I don’t usually back off what I say. But I must say that I have been swayed by the arguments from Commissioner Domingo; and he’s right. We’re micromanaging. You know, we’re trying to, an increase of 3 lots is not going to be a difference, and there can be changes made. This is not the final subdivision plot. And also what Commissioner Bowman said, there is certainly going to be less traffic from three lots than there would be from a pitch and putt golf course. So I will withdraw any objection I had to increasing the number of lots to 25. WATANABE: Are there any further comments? For the record, I’m glad you brought that up because those would have been my comments for this. So, with that, Mr. Darrow would you call for the vote; and this was, again, to forward a negative recommendation on the change of lots, lot numbers from 22 to 25. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. EXHIBIT A 22 DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass, seven to two. WATANABE: Okay, it would appear that another motion may be in order. WOODWARD: If I might. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I would move that we approve, with regard to REZ 792, or recommend that the County Council approve increasing the number of available lots from 22 to 25. RHO: Second. WATANABE: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Do we need any further discussion on this issue? No. Then, Mr. Darrow -. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you. In principle, and the principle I’m talking about is, you know, basically setting a precedent here. And I’m thinking right now that actually I probably should have asked for this to be done together. Because the reality of what we have here is an applicant who came in essentially for a time extension and to me basically as an afterthought or as part of the process is saying, well, since we’re doing this why don’t we change a more significant part of the ordinance. That’s what we’re doing. All right, if it wasn’t for the time extension, if it was EXHIBIT A 23 not for the time extension issue, right, the applicant would have to come in here separately and justify a request to increase the lot cap of 22. But for this time extension request this increase will not be here before us today, the way it has come up procedurally. Right? It’s just, well, let’s try it, no hurt, you know. And what we’re talking about is changing an ordinance that is 13 years old, almost 13 years old, a decision that was made back then for I would think good reasons, a cap placed on it. Because as noted earlier, if there was no cap the density would be doubled, essentially it would be doubled. All right. So what kind of a precedent or what principle are we allowing this increase? And to me if you’re going to increase it by 3 why not 30? You know, what’s the big deal? The principle to me is that there really is no justification for it. The golf course part of the proposal was taken out by the developer; and there was no request at that time to increase the cap. It was just taken out. It doesn’t work, which makes sense to me. Golf courses don’t make money, right? It’s sort of a bad idea to begin with, you know, in a small development like this. But, to me, the principle is the decision was made to cap it at 22, the owner/developer agreed to it at that time. There’s really no justification presented, none, absolutely none presented to increase at this time. The net effect is going to be that the, you know, yes, it appears this is going to pass, is that the developer is going to be able to make three times $100,000 maybe more, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 more, you know, on the project. Fine, that’s fine. I don’t have any problem about making money. But to me there are broader issues in terms of planning that we’re dealing with here and the principle about, you know, how this should be done. And we’re doing it, I want to choose my word correctly here, maybe it’s not politically correct, but it’s rather flippant the way this is being handled. And I just, you know, it doesn’t, everything on Oahu was done in a fair way. Right? And they got what they got. This whole process that we’re going through, everything was done in a fair way. Right? And they’ve got a mess to deal with in a fair way. Everything on Maui was done in a fair way, same thing; and they’ve got a mess to deal with in a fair way. We need to be principled about how this is done; and to me tagging along an increase of three lots, right, you know, on this time extension, is not a way to do it. That’s not the way to do it, so I’m going to vote against it. WATANABE: Ms. Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I just briefly want to add to what Commissioner Iwashita said. You know, he said, well, he’s asking for 3 lots, why not 30? What we’re doing in part is setting a precedent that he could come back later and just keep niggling at us with a few more lots here or a lot more lots there. There was a reason why it was set up. That area cannot handle that kind of density. And I believe that adding 3 lots, or 5, or whatever down the line, I don’t like setting that kind of a precedent. Because even if, each time you say, oh, but it’s only 3 lots -. But we have to look at the, we are told that we have to look at the cumulative impacts. Already with 40 units on the street, 22 more are already permitted, that’s like double again what’s there now. And then we’re going to start adding a little here and a little here, and I don’t think it’s going to work for that community; and I don’t think that’s planning. Thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have two comments in this regard. One is the original plan that was filed is 15 years old, at which time they were planning on 15 acres to be set aside EXHIBIT A 24 for this pitch and putt golf course. Well, because of financial considerations and a number of other considerations, that’s no longer on the table. And I certainly don’t fault the people for saying, and it gets back to this question that Commissioner Domingo raised, the question of fees. If you can get two things done at one time, why not do it? And you will save yourself another application fee, another trip before County Council. I have no problem with it at all. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I just want to comment, I think if I had probably sat on this Commission when this came up, I would vote against it. But, unfortunately, we were not on the Commission and it is a precedent setter. My other comment, I guess, is I believe, and maybe staff can verify this, that the present owner bought it with the 22 lots and the pitch and putt, and then changed, and then came in for the other three lots? Correct? WATANABE: Yes, correct. BOWMAN: Okay, so, I think a comment was made, you know, why didn’t he do it when they changed, you know, I just think that’s kind of a moot point right now because he is the new owner. I understand other Commissioners’ feelings; but I do think, unfortunately, the precedent has been set and, yeah, we do need to look at the density and further rezoning applications. Thanks. WATANABE: We have any further discussion on this issue? Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would think that the original application was submitted in good faith with well-planned intentions to develop that site and to provide what is there today; and I think he has done an excellent job in doing what he did. You know, it provides a place where people can go, as well as tourists can go, enjoy themselves. And I also believe that his intention to build a pitch and putt course was a good one, anticipating that it might bring people in and enjoy themselves, and in return making additional money to promote his business and to improve what he has at that place. But after many years down the road, you know, probably the new owner found that a pitch and putt is not appropriate or not a good one for this site because it may not be an attraction at this time and now golf is not as an attractive sport as it was before where everyone was clamoring for play at golf courses, where especially you find the tourists from Japan who is just enthralled with going to a golf course and playing golf. But, you know, that has changed. And now, as I also look at it, the Nani Mau Gardens at this time, you know, was purchased not too long ago. And I find that the owners of that, of Nani Mau Gardens are also involved with other businesses in town, and more specifically with Naniloa Surf Hotel, I don’t know what it’s called today. But, you know, he’s trying his best to provide employment for a number of people and he’s trying to improve the situation that exists there that would provide amenities and other needs for tourists who would come. And what we’re doing here in East Hawaii, especially in Hilo, we try to find a niche where we can attract visitors to come on this end of the island, rather than everyone going to the west side of the island. And I think we have a beautiful park here in Hilo, a beautiful part of the island that can attract people to come. And what they’re trying to do is to improve. I’m sure with this so-called additional money that he would get from this EXHIBIT A 25 development will be put into another business to improve it. You know, it’s something that this individual has done throughout the years. And I certainly feel that what we’re anticipating here is a good one; and probably if we’re setting it, it would be a precedent that would be for the good of the whole situation, you know. Precedents that we set in our lives are not always negative or bad for us. It proves to be positive and beneficial for us and others whom it applies to. And because of that I feel that I will strongly support this measure. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, I’d like to chime in my comments so that you’ll know where I’m headed too. I see some benefits to this in the fact that it will allow this individual to spread the cost over 3 additional lots and therefore make the housing, potentially make the housing, within that project a little more affordable. In addition, by increasing from 22 to 25 and assuming we’re going to retain the 20 percent fair housing requirement, it’s going to increase his housing requirement from 4 to 5, whereas typically we don’t approve it fractionally. That said, you know, we’ve done this kind of unconventionally, and we’ve addressed the number of units, and we’ve also addressed the time extension. But, you know, within the recommendation staff is also proposing other amendments which update the fair share values. And so after this vote I would hope that we would take a look at this entire document and approve it in its entirety or -. With that I think we can take the vote on just this, the proposal to recommend a favorable recommendation to the County Council on increasing the units from 22 to 25. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I’ll take the vote. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. EXHIBIT A 26 DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Nay. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes seven to two. WATANABE: Thank you. Can I indulge, I believe I’m correct in this. Right Mr. Director, Mr. Yuen? You know, we did so piecemeal. Technically, the motions that we did were just on the time extension and just the increase from 23 to 25. However, we do have other proposed amendments to this, such as Condition B which removes final subdivision approval and Condition F which updates, was it Condition F, yes, Condition F which updates the fees, which is typical of what we would do. And so I would prefer that we address this, now that we’ve got rid of the contentious issues, address this as a whole so that we can forward a full recommendation to the County Council. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we accept the Planning Director’s recommendations regarding REZ 792 in their entirety. WATANABE: Thank you. Do I have a second to that? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Domingo. Do we need any -? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I have an amendment. WATANABE: Okay, proposed amendment. IWASHITA: I move that the main motion be amended by deleting all the language after the first sentence in paragraph, Section 2(1)(A), 1(B), (B), in effect deleting the limit on the number of lots. WATANABE: I beg your pardon? IWASHITA: The effect would be deleting the limit on the number of lots. WATANABE: I believe the -. IWASHITA: First we need a second. EXHIBIT A 27 WATANABE: The revision in the language is the complete opposite, and so that would remove entirely any reference to any limitation on lots. And right now we have a live motion. It’s up to Mr. Woodward who made the motion and Commissioner Domingo -. IWASHITA: No, we need a second. WATANABE: I believe Mr. Domingo seconded it. IWASHITA: No, under the rules of procedure my motion to amend requires a second -. TORIGOE: He’s waiting for his second. WATANABE: Oh, oh. IWASHITA: Before it can be -. WATANABE: Okay, okay, I’m sorry. Okay, is there any second to removing the limit of lots? SIRACUSA: I would like to hear the original motion again. WATANABE: The original motion was to -. SIRACUSA: The one that Commissioner Woodward made. WATANABE: Was to send a favorable recommendation on the proposed recommendation from the Director, inclusive of all of the proposed amendments. We decided separately -. SIRACUSA: That’s the one we voted on already, right? WATANABE: No, we have not. SIRACUSA: This is another one? WATANABE: Here’s my point, Ms. Siracusa, there are more things that were proposed, more revisions to the amendment to Condition B of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-555, 55, excuse me, I had one extra 5. There were more things that were proposed to each, changed, yeah, than simply the number of lots and the extension of time. We focused in on only two issues simply because we felt they were contentious issues. We voted on those separately. However, that does not send any favorable recommendation for the other conditions that were included in the Director’s recommended changes. SIRACUSA: Okay, I understand now. I thought that -. WATANABE: So that’s the original -. EXHIBIT A 28 SIRACUSA: Usually we say, you know, inclusive of the Director’s recommendations -. WATANABE: Normally we do. SIRACUSA: But we didn’t do that this time, is that what you’re saying? WATANABE: You all, well, it was your suggestion, and then Mr. Iwashita seconded, and so the issue got split. Now that means we’re sending it up with no conditions, yeah. Rather than do that, I would prefer to send this up as a complete document. SIRACUSA: Got you. So now we’re doing -. WATANABE: Now Mr. Iwashita has said, well, if you already passed from 22 to 25, what’s the point, remove all conditions and make it 41, I don’t care. Right? And his motion needs a second. IWASHITA: I didn’t say the last part. WATANABE: I understand, but that was what was implied. SIRACUSA: Okay, well, I do care so I’m not going to second that amendment. WATANABE: Is there any second? Well, I guess that amendment dies then. Do we need any further discussion on this issue? IWASHITA: I do. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Yes. You know, to me, if the rationale is, you know, the developer should have the maximum opportunity to develop and do this project and the County at the same time will then have the maximum opportunity to collect impact fees, right, which I support, then that was the purpose of my proposed amendment. You know, I think that would be the thing to do. I understand everyone else’s concern and I really appreciated it. Thanks. WATANABE: Thank you. We have any further discussion? Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Just for clarification, the second for the motion was Commissioner Domingo, is that correct? WATANABE: That’s correct. DARROW: The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation for all conditions including the revised conditions by the Planning Director. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. EXHIBIT A 29 DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes eight to one. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. You’ll be notified in writing of the decision. The discussion ended at 10:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT A 30