Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-04 THILO HILLSIDE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 4, 2008 HILO HILLSIDE CORPORATION A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 738) was called to order at 1:58 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda C. 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, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And five people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HILO HILLSIDE CORPORATION (REZ 738) Amendment to Condition C (time to secure Final Subdivision Approval) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 93-36, which rezoned 153.479 acres of land from Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a), Agricultural 10-acre (A-10a) and Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to Residential and Agricultural 1- acre (RA-1a) district. The property is located mauka (southwest) of the Sunrise Estates st Subdivision, Increment I, Kukuau 1, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-8: portions of 14 and 26. WATANABE: We’re on Agenda Item No. 4. This would be the applicant Hilo Hillside Corporation (REZ 738). This is for a time to secure final subdivision approval. With that I’ll turn it over to Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could direct the attention of the Planning Commission to our board in the back. This applicant in this case, Hilo Hillside Corporation, is requesting a 5-year time extension to Condition C which is the time to secure final subdivision approval. This is for Change of Zone Ordinance 93-36 which originally rezoned, it’s actually 171, 171 acres approximately from Agricultural 20-acre, Agricultural 10-acre, and Agricultural 3-acre to a Residential/Agricultural 1-acre zoned district. The area of this application is identified, outlined in black. This is on the south side of the new Puainako Extension. In this particular area you have Sunrise Estates Subdivision, you have the Mohouli Extension on the upper portion of the map, Komohana Street. So this area is quite large, identified in brown which is the RA 1-acre zoning. The applicant is proposing to create a subdivision of 140 lots out EXHIBIT B 1 of the zoning. They are asking for a 5-year time extension to be able to receive final subdivision approval. They have submitted for tentative subdivision approval. This is Condition C as it states in the condition at this time. This is the proposed subdivision layout. Again, approximately you have 140 lots and you can see the Puainako Extension running through a portion of the north side of the property. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. Several conditions of approval have been either amended or added to reflect our current language; and some of these conditions are specific to this particular application, mainly the conditions having to do with certain payments that have to be made by this applicant. Are there any questions? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I’m looking at the February 29, 2008 letter from the Department of Water Supply in which they say “We reiterate that water for the proposed subdivision will not be available until the construction of the off-site improvements are completed and accepted by the Department of Water Supply.” Does that mean off-site improvements done by the Department of Water Supply or by the applicant? DARROW; The Condition B addresses this issue, Condition B within the ordinance. And it says that “The applicant shall pay installation and facility charges as required by the Department of Water Supply, including payment of the entire pro-rata share for the off-site improvements.” So this will be the responsibility of the applicant to either bond these improvements or to have them done. SIRACUSA: I had noticed that. However, I was also wondering if there was some kind of a timeline. Do we know how long it will take for those off-site improvements to be effectuated? DARROW: I’m not sure on that. If we could ask the applicant, if we could defer that for the applicant. SIRACUSA: Okay. Cause I’m wondering if five years is too much or not enough or, you know, related to that, because obviously you can’t put in houses without water. So-. WATANABE: Yeah, I’m sure they wouldn’t get final approval without it anyway. Okay, do we have any further questions for staff? With that, may I call up the applicant, please. RHO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Excuse me, give me a second. Yes, Mr. Rho. EXHIBIT B 2 RHO: Just a short question on the Condition, I guess it’s E, that starts with a line out and then it ends with “The applicant shall pay $175,000 and then an additional $60,000 prior to final subdivision approval.” I wanted to know how that figure was determined. WATANABE: I think Mr. Yuen might be able to respond to your question. Would you care to respond, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Well, only partially. This goes back to a discussion in roughly 1995; and at that time the Department of Public Works and the applicant met, actually the predecessor in title, met and decided that rather than the construction of these signals that these payments should be made; and that was agreed to. And at least as far as we know, at least as far as we have been able to determine so far the payments were not made. So we’re simply implementing what was agreed to in that letter. And I don’t know, you know, I can’t tell you what the basis for the actual dollar amount was. RHO: So that agreement for $175,000 and for $60,000 is binding? YUEN: Yes. It’s also a condition of the tentative subdivision approval. There was this agreement made in 1995. RHO: I guess I’m trying to look for some way of changing the figures. And let me just explain why it caught my attention. This thing, this application has been going on since 1993 I think, but I’m not positive. And from what I read, I mean, it seemed like the applicant has good reasons for the delay. But if they actually pay the $175,000 and the $60,000 today and then wait, not purposely, but let’s say purposely, wait until four years have elapsed because of other concerns that they have as applicants and as developers, I’m almost positive that that cost of the traffic light and whatever this is going to pay for is going to go up. So now you’re telling me that the agreement was made in 1995. We’re now in 2008, so I would wonder whether or not, whoever can tell us, can tell me, that $175,000 and $60,000 will cover the cost to install whatever by within the next five years. YUEN: Well, if I can -. Let me put this in another context. Jeff, could you put the location map on the -? DARROW: Sure. YUEN: And when, gee, this doesn’t go down to the intersection of Kukuau and Komohana, right? You can’t scroll this down? DARROW: No, sorry. YUEN: This is the slide as it is, okay. DARROW: Yeah, it just misses it. YUEN: Well, when this rezoning was originally approved Puainako Street wasn’t in. Actually Mohouli Street wasn’t in either but that’s sort of beside the point. And the access to EXHIBIT B 3 the subdivision was going to be through Sunrise Ridge and Sunrise Estates, up Kukuau Street, up to the site. All right? And currently, and nobody knew that Puainako Street, Puainako Street was on the books but nobody knew that the extension was actually going to done or completed. So the requirement for the improvement to the intersection made sense in terms of the access in 1993. It really is hard to justify that as a zoning condition in 2008 when the access to the site is to come from Puainako Street. However, there was this agreement in 1995 which is a requirement of the tentative subdivision approval; and hence we just carried this requirement into the rezoning ordinance when we were cleaning up the rezoning ordinance. We took out the requirement of building these signals at Komohana and Kukuau where they are not really even going to take access anymore, but I kept the dollar amount. And so it’s not, so that’s the explanation. I know it’s a long explanation. I don’t know that it’s important or critical to say that the dollar figure to do the job was “x” in 1995 and so it should be raised up to something more today. This is just to implement that agreement that was made. RHO: So let me just make sure that I’m clear on this. So that $175,000 and the $60,000 are not set in stone? YUEN: They are conditions, well, they are proposed conditions of the rezoning ordinance. They are written into the tentative subdivision approval. So currently to get final subdivision approval that money has to be paid. RHO: I understand that. But if I as a Commissioner decided today to raise that to $200,000 and $100,000, could that be possible? YUEN: Well, any time the Commission or the Council or the Planning Department makes a zoning requirement we have to have a connection, and this is a general law, or sometimes called a nexus, between that requirement and an impact caused by the development. So you can’t just pluck a figure, you know, out of the air and say pay this as a condition of rezoning, or some project that we would like the applicant to do. We have to be able to tie that into some difficulty or some impact that they’re causing. So you couldn’t just arbitrarily, you know, pick a figure. So in this case, as I said, the only reason why we are carrying this forward -. We felt that, yes, we should drop the Kukuau-Komohana signal from the rezoning condition because they’re really not contributing to traffic at that signal with using Puainako Street as their current access, but we would carry forward that payment of the dollar amount because that was an agreement that was made in the mid-1990s. RHO: Okay, I have issues with what you just said, but I won’t dwell on that because this is not a question. But I do have a question. When you look at Item E, the parts that are lined out were approved by this Commission. Now they’re coming back and they want the underlined, $175,000 and $60,000, to be in place of the lined out -? YUEN: Right. RHO: I guess I’m having difficulty, so maybe you can help me with this. How is it possible for somebody to change the condition without coming back to this body? I mean I can see we don’t want the traffic signal at whatever and whatever and whatever as spelled out, cause that was based in 1993 on the plan at that point. But, you know, things changed; and that’s EXHIBIT B 4 fine. But then somebody then inserts $175,000 and $60,000 based on 1995’s prices, I would guess, but I don’t know that as a fact cause I don’t know how that’s determined, the actual dollar amount. And in 2008 you’re asking me to approve it as written when I know that in a year or two and probably right now if I tried to ask whoever can tell us how much it costs, this figure is no longer valid today and in the future. That’s just my guess, I don’t know that as a fact. So, does that make any sense to you? YUEN: Well, we are asking the ordinance be changed from the statement in the zoning ordinance that the applicant, you know, install these traffic signals at Kukuau and Komohana. RHO: But you just told me that, but you indicated to me that I can’t or we can’t change the cost. WATANABE: Not without a reason. YUEN: No, I said that you have to have, there has to be a justifiable reason to do so. And unfortunately because, if it were simply that there was going to be a payment in lieu of doing the signal and we were starting from scratch, yeah, we could probably do that. But right now all we’re doing, you know, as I look at it from the standpoint of the Department, is I’m implementing an agreement that was made in around 1995 and then incorporated into the tentative subdivision approval at around 1995. And to be consistent with that, we are asking that ultimately the Council delete the portion that calls for the signal and substitute the agreed upon figure that was done in 1995. RHO: So can I assume, and this is my last question and I’ll shut up. Can I assume that from now on whenever a developer comes in and we want or somebody wants them to do a traffic signal, for instance, that we’re going to quote them a price and put that price on the condition? YUEN: No. And, you know my own view of the better way to have proceeded with this, frankly, is that if the administration and the developer agreed in 1995 that the signal, that rather than putting in the signal they should pay money, that that should have been an amendment to the ordinance. I do think that that’s true. However, you know, here we are, and today we are asking for that amendment to the ordinance. RHO: And can I just add “and collected at the time that agreement was made,” so that the County can draw interest on that money. WATANABE: Good. Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: I guess if you look at the history of this ordinance and the reason that they’ve come and they haven’t been able to fulfill the requirement for the plan approval, it’s real exceptional. And it was not of their plan or their desire to just wait and later on come up for a plan approval. They couldn’t do anything because the County themselves didn’t know where the alignment would be and, you know, it would then prohibit them from making any plans whatsoever. And I think once the decision as to where the alignment would be and if it was EXHIBIT B 5 decided thereupon that it will be that way, then they could go ahead and go through the plan approval process. But they didn’t have the time; so I think that’s the reason why they’re coming before us and asking for an extension of that time to fulfill that requirement. And I think we must bear in mind that it’s something that they had no control; and, in fact, the County, it was in the County’s hands at that time. WATANABE: I think Mr. Rho has conceded that though. So I -. DOMINGO: I think some of the improvements as stated in the original ordinance have been already done by the County, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Well, the Mohouli-Komohana signals the County installed. DOMINGO: Yeah, it’s there already. YUEN: The Kukuau-Komohana signals were not installed. DOMINGO: Okay. WATANABE: Okay. Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Back to Commissioner Rho’s concerns, since the part here under Condition E that talks about the $175,000 is underscored and was not mentioned in the deleted part of that condition, it would appear that that’s a new figure that has come before us. And I’m wondering if that was something that Public Works, for example, had informed the Planning Department of what the avoided cost would be today or what the cost would have been back then. WATANABE: It’s my understanding and Mr. Yuen can correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that it was recorded or documented back in 1995. SIRACUSA: Cause I don’t see it here. WATANABE: I understand. May I continue, back in ’95 in a separate document for the subdivision approval. So all they’re doing is incorporating that into this cause they said, in Mr. Yuen’s mind, it’s one agreement, the ordinance as well as the subdivision approval. And so what has happened is they said we no longer need a stop light there because they’re not having access there but we’re not willing to remove the $175,000 and the $60,000. I might point out that we do regularly make adjustments to pricing, especially when it comes to affordable housing requirements; and this would be, I believe, under Condition I. I believe that’s all new, yeah, updated amounts? Mr. Yuen? YUEN: The fair share has been updated amounts, yes. And the affordable housing condition has changed to be the standard current language. SIRACUSA: Okay. EXHIBIT B 6 WATANABE: Okay, so -. And that would take it up, actually doubles it, wouldn’t it, because the affordable housing used to be 10 percent I believe, yeah? YUEN: Yes, that’s right. There would be a more stringent affordable housing condition with this rezoning time extension. WATANABE: So in that regard some adjustments are made. Now do we have any further questions for staff? SIRACUSA: No. WATANABE: No. Okay, thank you. May I call up the applicant then. LEE: My name is James -. WATANABE: Okay, may I swear you in first, please. LEE: Oh, yes, sure. WATANABE: So could you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? LEE: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Okay, and for the record would you state your full name and address, please. LEE: My name is James Lee. My address is 900 Fort Street, Room 955, Honolulu, Hawaii. I’m here representing Hilo Hillside Corporation in -. SIRACUSA: Please speak into the mike. LEE: I’m representing Hilo Hillside Corporation and we’re here to extend our zoning ordinance or requesting an amendment to Condition C of the Change of Zone Ordinance. And our problem was basically not ours at fault and neither the County’s, but in 2004 the State approached the County to condemn approximately 3 acres of our land. They asked us for a meeting in December. We attended the meeting. We bought the property in 2002 and we were ready to for subdivision approval. When the County and the State asked us if we would work with them for the condemnation we said we would. And the County and us were whipsawed by the State changing, continually making changes. Until this day we still don’t have the condemnation resolved. And, you know, we have everything secured. We have approval for 35 water meters with the Department of Water, but we’ve told them that we’ll wait until, you know, we won’t push it too hard with them until we know where we are with the State. And that’s what has been holding this project. We are hoping we can resolve our issues quickly, but we need this extension for the subdivision. EXHIBIT B 7 WATANABE: Okay. Well, you’ve heard the applicant’s explanation. Do we have any questions for the applicant from any of the Commissioners? Yes, Mr. Rho. RHO: I’m sure that you heard our discussion about Item E. LEE: Yes. RHO: Can you talk to that point. LEE: I was called yesterday afternoon in Honolulu that there’s a question about Item E. We purchased the property from Hawaiian Electric in 2002. You know, in all of our closing documents as you would in the purchase of your house you have a statement there that the seller has completed all the conditions and restrictions and requirements in the zoning and everything else. So when I got the call I immediately called Hawaiian Electric telling them I’m going to be here and I sure would appreciate the documentation showing that they resolved this issue with the County back in 1995 or thereafter. Unfortunately everybody I worked with retired, nobody’s there. So we’re trying our best to resolve this issue. We know it’s a concern, but, you know, we went on the premise that everything was resolved when we bought the property in 2002. Hawaiian Electric is, you know, a very large company. And whatever happens, if it wasn’t paid, we’ll pay it. But, you know, our people are saying, you know, Hawaiian Electric should have paid this when it was a requirement. So we’re trying to work with Mr. Yuen’s Department right now and Hawaiian Electric to resolve this. Because that’s the last thing I want to do, is have this thing hung up on something like this. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: Yeah, I’d like to say we don’t absolutely know it wasn’t paid. We’ve been trying to track this down ourselves. But on the County’s side we haven’t been able to find any documentation that the payment was made. So it’s, and, you know, in looking through the files of this application, this letter comes up, this agreement to make this payment; and we don’t have any documentation that it happened. So we’re putting it into the conditions of the ordinance. If it turns out that it was paid, then we’ll drop it as a condition of the ordinance. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Any further-. Oh, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Forgive me if this was said and I somehow overlooked it. But did we ask the applicant if he had a chance to look over the recommendation and conditions; and if those were okay with him? WATANABE: Not yet. We’re still stuck on our $175,000 and $60,000. SIRACUSA: Okay. WATANABE: Follow-up, Mr. Rho, cause it was your question. EXHIBIT B 8 RHO: Okay, you probably know more about this than I do, so, I guess -. But I really want to ask if whether or not you representing the developer, do you know whether or not the developer would be willing to change the wording so that it would be pay for the design and installation of traffic signals, dala, dala, dala, and not have a dollar figure there? LEE: Well, I don’t think I have that authority, Mr. Rho. And this thing came up yesterday afternoon and we -. RHO: Right. LEE: You know, I don’t have any kind of authority to do that. You know, there are many people involved in the project so -. RHO: Well, do you think that they would have major objections to that? LEE: Well, let me explain it this way, Mr. Rho. In 2004 we had an estimate of construction cost from Isemoto Construction here in Hilo; and the total construction cost at that time was a little bit less than $10 million. And just before December of 2007, we went out and sought estimates from several, several construction firms; and Isemoto again was the lowest bidder. But their bid is now $13 million, which is like $22,000 per lot more. Now I know that’s not your concern. But this is what I’m trying to put into context. We’ve worked with the County to make this project a Hawaii island resident project. We have conditions, we worked with the Planning Department to have conditions in our sales contract. In 2004, you know, the price of real estate was rising exponentially, so we agreed to put in the sales contract that for the first six months you had to be a Hawaii island resident, you had to show that you live here, you had to own the lot for at least three years, and after three years you either had to build or you had to determine who you’re going to sell it to, and it had to be a Hawaii island resident. We worked that out with the Planning Department and everything else. And that was, you know, that was something that I really fought for. It was very difficult to convince other people. But we wanted to make sure that this was a Hawaii island project. And to go from, you know, to increase our prices because of this delay on the condemnation by $20,000 plus has put a crimp in my, you know, in my enthusiasm because it’s just one thing after another. So to answer that question I think I’m going to be voted down if I were to ask if I could change anything. We’re trying to determine if, you know, according to our attorneys this was already paid. And according to Mr. Yuen’s office they don’t have any record of it. And so the only solution I can come up with something like this is whatever the number they come up with we’ll agree to pay that. And I got that late last night that let’s agree to pay that if we find that it wasn’t paid. So now if I go back and try to change the wording, I think I’m going to be, I’m going to have a difficult time doing that. WATANABE: Do you have any follow-up to that? RHO: No. WATANABE: No. May I add a bit, and this is in response to the question you had earlier with regard to how we would handle conditions such as this.And it has been my experience EXHIBIT B 9 that, you know, when we have a proposed subdivision and we ask the various departments to make comments, and the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation is one of them, and they say, oh, you should have signalization at certain intersections, I do not ever recall us putting in a dollar figure for that. Instead, what we do is say you will signalize this intersection; and typically they put this catchall wording that it’s not limited to this channelization or whatever else, and meeting with the approval of the Department of Transportation and leave it at that. I really believe that. If you recall we used to have a lot of pay in lieu of as an earlier practice that has for the most part been discontinued, yeah. And I’m trying to respond to, you know, your secondary question, yeah. I don’t know anything about this in particular. Okay, so now with that, Mr. Woodward, it looks like you have a question. WOODWARD: Well, yeah. I had a question, or comment more than anything else. It would seem to me that if there was money owed prior to subdivision development that that should have been disclosed to you at the time that you bought the land from Helco. And if Helco or the realtor involved didn’t disclose it, then they are liable. LEE: Correct. WOODWARD: So -. LEE: You know, that’s what’s coming at me on the other side, you know. And I’m saying well, I’m going to appear in front of you, I would like to make a positive statement and not say, well, I’m going to look at this guy. But I did receive approval to say that if I can meet with Mr.Yuen’s office in the next week or so and we resolve it, if it hasn’t been paid we’ll pay it. WATANABE: Okay, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Well, have you asked Helco if they could locate the record of payment, or cancelled check, or something like that? LEE: Yeah. Unfortunately all the people that I worked with in 2002 have retired. I guess I’m dating myself, Ms. Siracusa. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions? Okay, then I have one. Have you received the conditions and have you had an opportunity to review the conditions -? LEE: Yes. WATANABE: As revised? LEE: Well, I was given enough time this morning. WATANABE: Yeah, unplanned, yeah. LEE: But I would like to ask, and it’s not a requirement, I just would like the Planning Commission to consider the fair share of the improvements and everything. We EXHIBIT B 10 understand that, and I’m looking at this and I can understand all of these requirements. But the $4,900 for the roadway, we are taking so much more, you know, I don’t know how to explain this. But we had, we know what people in Hawaii County can live with in a reasonable lot. And adding all of these, these last four years, adding all of these extra numbers on, costs on the project, these lots are going to be, you know, these lots are going to be near $250,000. And we were prepared to, when we were working with the Planning Department, you know, we were going to be in the $210,000 to $215,000 range. But with all of these added expenses, this is all to help the County we were trying to make it for.We were trying to make this subdivision for the people of the County, I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. And I just wanted some kind of consideration if you would be kind enough to reconsider the $4,929 per lot for the road and traffic improvements. Now that’s the only thing I can ask for. WATANABE: Everything else is fine? LEE: Everything else we’re willing to work with and comply with, and do whatever it is to continue this thing on. WATANABE: I don’t see anyone popping up to make comments. But, you know, with all due respect it’s my view that it’s rather difficult to make an exception on that. I understand the predicament you’re in and I understand what you’re trying to do, and I applaud what you’re trying to do. But, you know, to make an exception on a particular item such as this I think it’s a little difficult, kind of precedent setting. LEE: Oh, thank you for at least listening to me. I appreciate it. WATANABE: Let’s see, yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: These figures are determined by a specific formula that’s mandated by the rules, Director Yuen? I mean how do you get to, you know, the figures there like 46 cents, 56 cents, that sort of thing? I assume there’s some formula. YUEN: The fair share contribution was originally an off-shoot of a study that was done to determine impact fees in the late 1980s. The impact fee ordinance was never adopted. But without adopting the overall ordinance the Council began including fair share amounts based upon the study that was done into rezonings starting in the early 1990s and has, this has been a consistent practice ever since. The amounts have been updated based on consumer price index increases ever since. And so that’s how the actual numbers come about. WATANABE: Yes, so from that standpoint it would seem that it’s a fair assessment or at least consistent with the practice. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Then, thank you for appearing. You may be seated. Well, do we need to have any further discussion on this? So is someone prepared to make a motion? TORIGOE: How about public testimony? EXHIBIT B 11 WATANABE: Oh, excuse me, no. For the record, I do not have anyone signed up for public testimony on this, and it doesn’t seem like anyone is acknowledging it. And so -. Yes, Mr. Domingo, do you have -? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. DOMINGO: In the matter of the Hilo Hillside Corporation and Resolution 738, I move for its adoption and that will be the Condition C for the final subdivision approval with all the pertinent changes contained in the recommendation by the Department. SIRACUSA: Second. WATANABE: Okay, so this is forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council, yeah? DOMINGO: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, we have a motion that is live. Do we need any further discussion on this? RHO: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Rho. RHO: I’ll be very brief. I have no issue with Hilo Hillside LLC whatsoever. My issue is with whoever agreed to those two figures of $175,000 and the $60,000. And my personal feeling is that if this goes through they’ll figure out who’s to pay and, you know, that kind of stuff, whether it’s Helco that has to pay or unfortunately they have to pay. But that still doesn’t get rid of this feeling like, well, why me as a Commission approve these conditions and then have somebody, whoever somebody is, change the condition and then come to us with a condition already agreed to basically. It doesn’t make any sense to me. And I’m not here or I don’t want to say that I want to hold this up just for that point.But I think that point is a key point. And if I can actually read this thing, and I didn’t, I read this thing really like on the fly. After lunch I sat down, looked at this thing again, and spotted that. And in the discussion somebody else looked at that. Yesterday they had a discussion and yesterday they sent the applicant scurrying around for an answer. I mean I don’t know what the solution is but at this point I’m willing, this is like biting my nose in spite of myself, but I would be willing to eliminate the $175,000 and the $60,000 because of their good graces for trying to do a development reportedly, he’s reporting, that’s going to help people in Hawaii. Can’t reduce the $5,000 for infrastructure or whatever, the $5,099, and whatever cents, you can’t reduce that. Reduce the $175,000 and the $60,000. That’s pennies. WATANABE: Okay, I think I can appreciate where you’re coming from here. You’re concerned about the principal of it, not so much the money, yeah? EXHIBIT B 12 RHO: It’s not the money, it’s not Hillside. It’s the way this thing is being done. It has nothing to do with Hillside, probably has nothing to do with Helco either. But don’t ask me to come to these meetings, pass this recommendation and then somebody some place a year from now changes it. They could have come in 1995 here to ask the Commission to change it; and yes we’re talking pennies. So it’s the principal of it and not the money. So can I make an amendment or suggest an amendment? WATANABE: You have to ask the maker of the motion, yeah, if it would be considered a friendly amendment, yeah. TORIGOE: Or move to amend. WATANABE: Or move to amend RHO: Okay, I move to amend the motion to strike Condition E completely and then realphabetize the rest. So F would become E, G would become F, and so on. WATANABE: Do we have a second to that? WOODWARD: It doesn’t have to be acted upon by a person that made the original motion? WATANABE: No. WOODWARD: No. Okay, well, I’ll second it. WATANABE: Okay, so the motion has now been amended -. TORIGOE: There’s a motion to amend. WATANABE: Oh, there’s a motion to amend. WOODWARD: We’ve got to vote on that. WATANABE: Yeah, yeah, excuse me. DOMINGO: A discussion on the motion? WATANABE: On the amendment? DOMINGO: Yes, on the motion to amend the main motion. WATANABE: Okay, right. DOMINGO: You know, apparently the Planning Director is totally aware of this. And when you speak of initiating any kind of assessment in the form of monies, and as indicated, there certainly should be a nexus and a connection with the amount of money we’re assessing a EXHIBIT B 13 developer and the reasons for it and if it is in fact an appropriate one, which would be with the development occurring, with the development. And, you know, this time I give the Planning Director a lot of credence and respect for him inserting this in the amendment; and this might be probably rare because I often times have been at odds with his actions and recommendations. But I totally support his recommendation to the ordinance, that’s why I will not vote for the amendment. WATANABE: Any further comments or discussion on the proposal to amend? SIRACUSA: As the seconder of the original motion -. I can see where, you know, during this time that this developer has been held up because of all the negotiations regarding the condemnation and everything, so prices for everything have gone up in the last ten years. And I can see where that could pose a considerable hardship. So I would really, I have nothing terribly for or against the motion to amend. But I would like to hear Director Yuen’s feelings about that before I decide. WATANABE: Okay. YUEN: Well, it is, I’d prefer it the way it is. The condition, it is still part of the tentative subdivision approval that these payments be made. And if we’re getting into, it’s really a complicated question as to what, if you’ll note there are several different things that happened as a result of Mohouli and Puainako being built by the County. If you’ll notice there’s another thing we struck out, which was that in H. This gets a little complicated, but one of the things that, one of the conditions of the original ordinance was that they build the section of Mohouli Street from Kukuau Street. I think you need to go back to the, can you show the section of Mohouli Street from Kukuau Street to the boundary of what’s call the -. DARROW: Here? YUEN: No, Mohouli Street. Okay, you see that short section of Mohouli Street? Let’s see, it says there, in the event -. If you look at Condition H, what it says is that they were supposed to build that section of Mohouli Street, but only if the section from there to Ainako Avenue which is off the map was built by the Ponahawai golf course, which was a planned development at that time; and if that didn’t happen they were supposed to pay $300,000. Well, in the meantime Mohouli Street got built by the County so the whole thing is moot. So we struck out the whole, you know, thing about paying $300,000 on that. And if I’m not mistaken that was not paid, right? Mr. Lee, do you know anything about paying $300,000? LEE: No. That was another shock when your office called me on that. YUEN: Yeah, but, you know, it’s a moot. We just struck that out because the County built Mohouli Street. Well, they were fortunate in that aspect; and then they never had to pay that $300,000. So it gets to be this very complicated picture as to what is really fair in terms of what happened here. But at any rate simply because there was this agreement to pay these sums and the fact that the tentative subdivision approval has it as a condition, we would like to, as we said, to strike out the requirements for the specific improvements that had to be made, but require the payment that was agreed upon. EXHIBIT B 14 WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Rho. RHO: If that $300,000 was changed to $150,000 I would have a question about it. Circumstances have changed over the last however many years, ten years, that’s just a guess. So I can see H, and the reason for H, and the deletion for H. I mean I have no problem with that. You’re bringing this back to the Commission and you’re asking that it be struck, those lined out lines, and in its place you want to include no lots have direct access to Puainako Street. That’s fine. That’s not a problem. I don’t see that as a problem at all. But in the other case somebody made a decision without the Commission’s blessing. Now how is that possible? I need an explanation for that. And I’m not going to get it if I sit here and vote to allow this development’s extension or the amendment to whatever condition they’re asking for. And, again, it’s not a personal thing against Hillside. So to make the point, I’m asking that you delete the $175,000 and delete the $60,000. If it’s already paid, it’s paid. We can’t do anything about it. But if it isn’t paid, Hillside wouldn’t have to pay it. The County is so rich that we can make these kinds of agreements and then after the fact come to the Commission and ask that the Commission rubberstamp this. I think, I’m hoping that you got my message. So that amendment is like a last resort effort to get a clear explanation. You know what I also really want to know is how much is it going to cost today to put in that traffic light and whatever else was going to be paid for by that $175,000 and that $60,000 in today’s cost. But we don’t have anybody to ask that of. WATANABE: Okay, any further discussion on the motion to amend the main motion? Okay, Mr. Darrow, can I ask the question then, this would be on the motion to amend, right? DARROW: I believe that would be the process. If we could consult with our attorney. So we’ll be dealing with the motion to amend the previous, the original motion of approval to delete Condition E and realphabetize the remaining conditions. Is that correct? TORIGOE: Yes. WATANABE: Right. DARROW: With that, I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. EXHIBIT B 15 DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: I don’t want to delay this any further. Aye. DARROW: The motion passes to amend the original motion five to one. Now we need to -. WATANABE: I’m sorry, otherwise we’ll just -. DARROW: Now we need to do the original motion, is this correct? WATANABE: Yes. Okay, so now we have an amended motion which would state exactly, I guess, what we voted on just to amend two. Do we want to have any discussion on that? DOMINGO: Will you state the motion, state the motion. WATANABE: The new motion is to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council to approve the time extension with all of the changes that are proposed by the Planning Director, except that we would eliminate Condition E -- which has been now reduced, was proposed to be reduced to just include the amounts that were in lieu and agreed upon during 1995 -- and realphabetize from Condition F to the end. So in essence it’s the same motion that you had proposed earlier without Condition E. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I? WATANABE: Sure. DOMINGO: You know, this condition was supposed to address a very important matter in regards to the planning and design of the installation of traffic lights. Now if we take this out and the project does go forward, who’s going to build the lights to ensure the safety for those who travel there? Nobody would do that. WATANABE: I think that the point, Mr. Domingo, was that previously access would have been to, what was the name of the road, Kukuau Street, and that’s where the proposed traffic light was supposed to be installed. Now that the extension on Puainako has been built, access will not be gained through Kukuau. So there is no need for that particular traffic light. There’s a bit of confusion because the $175,000 as well as the $60,000 that was mentioned in Condition E was in a separate agreement that, as I understand it, was a preliminary subdivision agreement and not documented in this. Whereas Mr. Rho had no problem with what was Condition H and removing the $300,000, as well as all of the entire, pretty much the entire condition, yeah. So that’s where the confusion came in. EXHIBIT B 16 DOMINGO: So for all intents and purpose then originally before we even consider this bill this amount shouldn’t have been in there because we do not have any need for it, in essence? WATANABE: We’re not going to, some day for some other reason they may signalize that intersection. But it won’t be because of any effect that this proposed subdivision will have on traffic there. So from an impact standpoint it has now been determined that the access has been changed and so there is no impact to the Kukuau intersection. DOMINGO: You know, I beg to differ with that. Because as we look at development per se and with the Mohouli and Puainako being built then certainly the concentration and the direction of development certainly will take place there. And the cumulative effect, and perhaps not because of this development, there will be a need for additional safety measures in that particular area. What we’re doing here, what we plan to do here is take the money away intended for the purpose to address safety with regards to the traffic. We’re taking away the money and then later on the County will assume the burden of finding the money to ensure that there’s safety in that particular area. And it’s not only because of this development because we’re looking at the cumulative development that’s taking place and the additional development to happen there. You know, certainly there will be a need for the safety measures. So that’s why I take a very serious position on this. And I certainly know that because when the Council at that time approved this measure they were concerned about the safety of the traffic out there because the developments were going in that particular direction. So, you know, to that I just say I will not vote for this motion. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: If I might address that issue. If you look at Section I which talks about the fair share contributions, each of their 140 proposed lots is going to have to pay essentially $5,000 to support road and traffic improvements. So in a sense if you say, well, the $175,000 and $60,000 were for traffic improvements and then we’re billing each lot $5,000, that sounds a little like double dipping to me. WATANABE: That’s on page 6, Mr. Domingo. Okay, do we have any further comments on this? Yes. SIRACUSA: Well, I was going to say exactly what Commissioner Woodward said; and he took the words right out of my mouth. WOODWARD: Sorry, I’ll put it back. SIRACUSA: No problem. WATANABE: Mr. Rho. EXHIBIT B 17 RHO: I agree with what was just said by all three Commissioners. And Commissioner Domingo’s comments are right on target. But I really want to emphasize to him as well as the rest of the Commissioners that my reasoning or my thinking behind making the amendment to the motion which passed was to point out this discrepancy between what the Commission does and what it’s responsible for or not responsible for. And I haven’t heard yet in the last hour, I don’t know how long we’ve been on this thing, I haven’t heard yet anybody say, well, let me explain how this actually works. Like I guess I want to be told you come to this meeting, you make the decision, but we can change it along the way. I don’t think they’re going to say that to us, but they might. And that point I think will be driven home unfortunately to the expense of Mr. Domingo’s concerns which is traffic and safety. That, I mean, it hit home, his comments hit home for me. But I think the more important issue at this point in time is how we make decisions or not make decisions. WATANABE: Okay. How about the roll call? DARROW: Okay, the motion before us is to approve, the original motion was to approve as recommended by the Planning Director with the motion to amend the motion. The motion is now an amended motion, including the deletion of Condition E. So this is for approval with the deletion of Condition E and realphabetizing all remaining conditions. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to one. EXHIBIT B 18 WATANABE: Okay, so you got a little more than you expected, yeah, or at least so far. Remember it’s just a recommendation. LEE: Yes, but thank you very much. WATANABE: Okay, you’ll receive word of the decision in writing. The discussion ended at 3:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT B 19