HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-21 TSeascape-development
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
APRIL 21, 2006
SEASCAPE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
A regularly advertised hearing on the application of
(ORDINANCE NO. 04-106)
was called to order at 9:25 a.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott
Hotel, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda
presiding.
PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED:
William R. GrahamJeffrey McCall
Rodney H. Watanabe
Andrew Iwashita
Fred Galdones
Christopher Yuen, Planning Director
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: SEASCAPE DEVELOPMENT,LLC (ORDINANCE NO. 04-106)
Amendment to Condition H (construction of Kakahiaka Street extension) as required in
Ordinance No. 04-106, which rezoned 10.001 acres of land from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to
a Multiple Family Residential 4,000 square feet (RM-4) district. The property is located on the
south side of Kona Palisade Subdivision, approximately 1,200 feet south of the Kaiminani Drive
st
KakahiakaStreetintersection,Ooma1, North Kona, Hawaii TMK: 7-3-10: portion of 3.
ALAMEDA:First on the agenda is SeascapeDevelopment. This is an amendment to
Condition H, construction of Kakahiaka Street extension as required in the Ordinance No. 04-
106, which rezoned 10.001 acres of land from an Agricultural 5-acre to a Multi-Family
Residential 4,000 square feet district. Mr. Darrow?
DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning members of the Planning
Commission. If I can direct your attention to our location map. The area of this application, this
request is in North Kona, more specifically were looking at the area here the airport identified
here in gray. We also have the Kohanaiki project in this area. The red line thats running in a
north-south direction is Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Were looking more specifically in this
area, which is the Kona Palisades Subdivision and the area of the application is identified in a
blue dot. The applicant Seascape Development LLC is requesting an amendment to Condition H
of Ordinance 04-106, which previously amended the property from Agricultural 5-acres to
Multiple Family 4,000 square feet. Condition H required the applicant to construct the extension
EXHIBIT A
1
of Kakahiaka Street from the Lokahi Subdivision through the property to the southside of the
property. If we can refer to their submitted site plan. Thiswould be the Lokahi Makai and the
Lokahi Mauka Subdivision. Kona Palisades would be identified in this area and we have
Kaiminani Drive travelling from the east-west direction. From Kakahiaka Street they would
travel through the Lokahi Subdivisions and then through their property to the southsideof their
property. The applicantsare required to improve the extension to be a 50-foot wide street with
curbs, gutters and sidewalks along one side. Theyre requesting in this amendment request to be
able to construct to the driveway access of their project and to defer the remainder of the
construction until such time that theres either development on the south property, which is
owned by the State or if there happens to be a connection that comes across, a road connection,
which would be at the discretion of the Director. If I could refer to the rewording of the
submitted condition. Were actually looking at the condition, the new Condition G. What weve
done in the amended ordinances, weve deleted Condition E because Condition E required that
final subdivision approval be secured within 5 years and the applicant has already received final
subdivisionapprovalandthisisthelayoutofthatprevioussubdivision.Thishasbecomea
separate TMK at this point and the road itself is a separate roadway lot. So we are withdrawing
or dropping that condition and re-alphabetizing conditions after that. So the new condition that
were looking at to amend is Condition G. And if I could read that itll state that, The applicant
shall construct the extension of Kakahiaka Street through the subject property, and this is the
new added portion, to the driveway entrance of any development of the area covered by this
rezoning ordinance as a 50-foot wide street to dedicable standards with concrete curb, gutter and
sidewalk improvements along one side of the road. The applicant shall construct the required
improvements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and dedicate them to the
County upon request. Also added is, The remainder of Road Lot 5 to the southern boundary of
the property shall be set aside as a future road reserve, along with any necessary construction
easements and improved to dedicable standards by the applicant, successors or assigns, when the
Planning Director determines that this road will serve a useful function. When required by the
Director the road shall be constructed in the manner specified by the Department of Public
Works and shall be on an alignment meeting with the approval of the Planning Director in
consultation with the Department of Public Works. Also added is, The obligation to build the
road shall be secured by a covenant running with the land recorded against at least one of the
parcels created by Subdivision No. 02-000051, or the applicant may build the road or bond its
construction. The Planning Department has received 2 letters, one from Barbara Scott and one
from Richard Fucik, those hopefully have been passed out to the Commissioners. The Planning
Director has recommended that this request be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council with a
favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions?
ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners any questions for Staff? Commissioner
Watanabe?
WATANABE:Darrow, could you explain to us exactly how much longer I mean that the
length of road, Im not certain how long that length is.
DARROW:If we refer to this area, this is the proposed layout of the project that
Seascape Development is planning on developing. The property is identified in this area. Ive
outlined the roadway lot that runs along the eastside of the parcel and it will be improved
EXHIBIT A
2
approximately halfway of the parcel. And theyre asking to defer improvement along
approximately 3 to 400 feet of the, from the driveway entrance to the southside of the property.
So, its approximately 3 to 400 feet in length.
WATANABE:Follow up.
ALAMEDA:Follow up?
WATANABE:And to the south of that there-
DARROW:At this point-.
WATANABE:-theres State land but-.
DARROW:Correct.
WATANABE:-butnodevelopmentsoitwouldleadtonowhere?
DARROW:Yes.Atthispointitsundevelopedanditsunclearwhattheintentionsof
the State are with that particular piece of property.
WATANABE:Okay thank you.
ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners? Questions for Mr. Darrow? Mr. Graham?
GRAHAM:Jeff since we havent been there or seen it this section where they want to
postpone improvement is it physically on the ground any different than the section that they will
be improving up to their driveway entrance? Are there any different obstacles or different
conditions to building a road there compared to the rest of the road?
DARROW:In regards from-, are you speaking in regards to the property to the-?
GRAHAM:No Im just speaking about it in regards to the road is it-? I mean since
were only looking at it on paper it looks like they just gotta keep doing what they were doing as
they get there but maybe theres other things on the ground that we dont know about. So I was
just asking are there any other issues with that section of the road?
DARROW:It, it- yeah it doesnt appear that the issue is any sort of obstacle. It
appears that the applicant is requesting this because-. And its not even a, it appears not to be a
cost factor but more a liability issue in regards to maintenance and security. Apparently these
types of dead end roads turn up to be security problems with people parking. But if the
applicant, Im not familiar with the actual physical layout. Its my understanding at this point
theyre in grading, so theyre grading this whole particular area. And theyre in for building
permits but I dont believe that theres any sort of physical limitation on the ground thats
preventing them from doing this.
EXHIBIT A
3
GRAHAM:Thank you.
ALAMEDA:Commissioners other questions for Mr. Darrow while hes up there?
Seeing none, will the applicant or his representative please come forward? Could I swear the
both of you in at this time? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
APPLICANTS:I do.
ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record
and you can, I can go forward from there.
DICKLER:My name is Alan Dickler. Address is 75-5742 Kuakini Highway.
FUKE:GoodmorningCommissioners,mynameisSidneyFuke.ImaPlanning
Consultant. My address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii.
ALAMEDA:Okay. All right Mr. Fuke did you get a chance, you and the applicant get
a chance to see the Recommendations made by the Department?
FUKE: Sure, we reviewed it together with Mr. Dickler and he found the
conditions, the recommended conditions to be acceptable. Id like to just kind of share with the
Commissioners partially like some of the background behind the project and in addition to that
the response to some of the questions that were raised earlier.
ALAMEDA:Sure.
FUKE:The project was approved, was given entitlement zoning and Land Use
Commissions approval in the year 2004 and it was designed to be and still continues to be a
100% affordable housing project. One hundred percent in the sense that 140, and it would be
directed to a 140% or less of median income and theyre on target to meet that goal and of which
75% would have to be owner occupied. These are all stipulated in the, the ordinance approving
the subject project. As the Staff had indicated the project is well on its way. The grading has
been done the grading permit has been issued. The building permit has been processed and
hopefully within the next couple of weeks the permit should be issued in which case then the
project would get started and hopefully be completed in an 18-month timeframe you know from
the time it starts and that was the original goal. The reason for the applicants making this request
is not you know solely driven by cost. I mean cost certainly is a factor but its more driven by
other factors like what your Staff had pointed out. Like you know when you have like a dead-
end road which eventually is going to be converted in its entirety to the County then it becomes
like a haven for illicit activities. You know whether its for drug trafficking or people just park
their junk cars and all that stuff and it provides a certain amount of security concerns for the
residence of that area. And so what were suggesting is that not necessarily to eliminate this
requirement because I think that having this requirement is very appropriate because it fulfills the
notion of connectivity and just helps out the overall traffic situation. Its more a question of like
when should it be constructed. And so with the way that your Director has structured a condition
EXHIBIT A
4
it will be done you know should there ever become a need to having it completed. Id like to
also note that there are, as the Staff had pointed out, there are 3 other parcels that were part of
this subdivision and which at some point in time are going to go in for entitlement. And so if at
some point in time this Commission or the Director or the Council decide when they consider
that particular lot for development then this issue of the roadway will again be revisited. But
notwithstanding that if nothing happens to the 3 remaining parcels there is this obligation on the
part of the developer to complete the road when the County deems it appropriate.
ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners youve heard Mr. Fukes comments and
explanations regarding the application. Any questions for him? Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM:Good morning Sidney. The obvious question that springs forth was
wasnt too long ago that this came before the Commission and to the Council so is anything
changed or you know why did it-, why is it presented the way it was before and now you want it
differentthatsall?
FUKE:Sure.Ithinkthatyouknowlikewhentherequestfirstcameitwas
partially the recommendation for having the roadway completed you know I think was a
recommendation based on the Planning Departments position because theyre doing the studies
to figure out like connectivity and theres always this interest of connectivity. The applicant
obviously you know can accept that. However like, you know generally what happens is that
after you go through the development phases then you look at each condition and then you begin
to realize like oh maybe this condition was not really like how we had intended it to be. And
thats the reason why you know I think as they were going through the development phase and
they realized like where the driveway was going to be and the kind of potential problems it was
going to be creating you know for the residents of that area, the future residents of that area, then
they thought it might be better to not construct it. You know you had asked earlier
Commissioner Graham about the roadway condition in that area, its pretty uniform and as a
matter of fact in conferring with Mr. Dickler this morning they have construction plans prepared
for the entire stretch. So its not so much a question of they want to wiggle out of this condition
its more like is it appropriate now given the situation that you have these people that are going
to be living in that area youre going to have potential for this stretch 3 to 400 feet that can, its
not going to be utilized and create potential safety and maintenance and liability concerns for not
only the developer but also for the County.
ALAMEDA:Follow up Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM:Thank you.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:In the papers that we have the Police Department response to the request is
basically to oppose it. And the recommendation from the Police Department is that the road be
built and that an additional requirement be imposed to establish barricades of some sort to
prevent vehicles from going beyond the Seascape project until the time, such time that the
EXHIBIT A
5
connectivity is established and then the road can be opened. That seems reasonable to me. Is
that something that the developer can accomplish?
FUKE:True, you could establish like interim barriers. I think there are 2 things,
one is that whether theres still going to be a need for that road. You know at least like in
conjunction with this project or at least until such time that there is a need for it beyond this you
know this property. So theres a question of like the need factor. I think the other thing to bear
in mind is that this road is you know is intended to be dedicated to the County so the County is
going to have to assume the maintenance and the liability responsibility. True [you could] you
could put up like an interim barrier but we all know how, even no matter how, you know if you
create this kind of barrier it still would be accessibleby foot, by foot traffic. It still would be a
natural haven for like a receptacle, a public receptacle area and once you have you know people
dumping rubbish in that area then it kind of like snow balls and then whose responsibility does it
fall upon? It doesnt necessarily only fall upon the developer and the homeowners in there but
the Countys going to also have to maintain it. So, you know again I think the critical thing that
were trying to emphasize is that true there is some cost measure implication but its not, the
request is not driven entirely by cost. Its driven by like more the practicality of having it
extended at this point in time.
ALAMEDA:Follow up Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:Thank you. My question was whether or not the developer will be willing
to put up the barricade? You know whatever form I guess Department of Public Works would
determine would be appropriate in order to address this access and these kind of concerns. I, you
knowfranklyasfarasconnectivityandallofthosekindofconcernsthatsnevergoingtogo
away. Thats, I mean, our part of, my view of what this Commission is about and what the
Planning is supposed to be is that we need to impose these kinds of conditions so that we will
have connectivity and the road will be used. Its not you know its a matter of our basically
imposing or implementing the public policy to have roads that work right and not what we have
today. So, you know I, to me thats not the issue. The issue is this concern that has been brought
up by this application and the Police Departments recommendation seems reasonable to me.
Obviously upon dedication youre right the County will, you know if theres trash dumped in the
area or anything like that, that would have to happen. Pedestrian traffic to me is only going to be
from the people who are there. This place is so isolated theres nobody going to be walking off
Queen K coming up to this place to try and do a drug deal you know everything would have to
be in vehicles. So, the barricade seems like a very plausible solution and Id like to know if the
developer would be willing to work with Department of Public Works to do that?
FUKE:Well, if ultimately that becomes the condition then thats something that
theyll have to do. You know you raise a very good point in the sense that connectivity is, is like
at this point in time a very sacred principal you know in, for this area and even for the whole
island. But the question is like first of all, two things, one is like whether its appropriate at this
point in time and secondly whether the developer is trying to escape that requirement. And the
answer to the second question is that no hes not trying to escape that requirement because at
some point in time if theres a need for that connection the developer has that obligation to make
that connection. And when you do the connection, that connection would have to be constructed
EXHIBIT A
6
pursuant to whatever the standards that may be applicable at that point in time by the Department
of Public Works. And you know that connection could be 20 years from now or maybe 5 years
from now and whatever the prevailing standard is the construction plans would have to be
prepared and approved in pursuant to approved Public Works standard. So I think the critical
thing is to understand that this is not an effort to, on the part of the developer to eliminate or to
escape this requirement. Its just to, you know just to see like what is reasonable given the
situation that they have right now.
ALAMEDA:Follow up Mr. Iwashita?
IWASHITA:No.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director you had a comment?
YUEN:IjustwantedtosaythattheDepartmentsupportsthispartiallybecausewe
do have a way of implementing the construction in the future. It would be pretty typical of us in
a subdivision to make them build out to the property line rather to make them build the stub out
to the property line. These same issues come up. And typically if there is a concern about it
being a problem area because of a cul-de-sac we would-, you could have this temporary barrier.
But in a typical subdivision the subdivider will be gone and theres no real way of assuring that
the road will be built out to the end. In this case we do have a property owner who owns several
lots and potentially develop the lots in the immediate area. The other factor here is that this is a
100% affordable project and we are trying to work with people in that, who are doing affordable
housing to try to avoid loading unnecessary cost on the project.
ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Im good.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, Commissioner Graham? Your thoughts? Any
questions for Mr. Fuke or the applicant? Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:I guess given the Directors comments I have a question of the developer
and that is if this is denied are you not going to do the project?
DICKLER:Thank you Commissioners. No if this is denied we are moving forward
with the project. I was misquoted in the paper when they said that we werent going to go
forward. But I would like to thank Mr. Yuen. This is part of the issue here is that you asked, one
of the Commissioners asked earlier whats changed, I think it was Mr. Graham asked whats
changed since the original application. The original application called for 40% affordability and
were doing 100% affordability. The original application included a, not a County standard
roadway to this property and we went for the process of the subdivision it was required to put the
full right-of-way in. So were doing that. Its 2000 feet were already putting of roadway on an
affordable project it translates; it does come down to cost as a factor. And as Mr. Yuen said
were trying to maintain our cost, we have cost increases every single day, we cannot raise the
price that were charging for these and it goes into the product. We are the first developer in
EXHIBIT A
7
over 10 years to have built, actually built affordable housing within our subdivision at Lokahi
and we are the first developer to build a 100% affordable project in the North Kona area in I
think also over 10 or 15 years. So we have made the commitment to build affordable housing.
We will build this project Mr. Iwashita either way but we are looking to control our costs.
ALAMEDA:Any further questions Commissioners for our applicant? Commissioner
Watanabe?
WATANABE:Its my understanding that you own several parcels, what about 3 of them
that are makai, mauka excuse me of this particular project? Is that correct?
DICKLER:Two mauka and one north of it (inaudible).
WATANABE:Okay thank you.
ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners any questions for our applicant or Mr. Fuke or our
staff?ForthepublicforthoseofyouwhomayhavewalkedinlateIseenotestifiersheretoday
but never too late so if theres any testifiers whod like to testify on this particular agenda item
please do so by approaching our staff. If none, that brings it back to fellow Commissioners.
Whats your pleasure on this particular agenda item? Discussion? Go ahead Commissioner
Graham and then Commissioner Iwashita.
GRAHAM:I just have to say you know I accept the sincerity of the applicant. You
know that they are in fact responding to the concern-. They are responding to the situation as
they portray it and that and their intentions and all. And I guess the biggest pill for me to
swallow though would be what will in fact happen in the future. Like Mr. Fuke said it could be 5
years from now or 20 years from now. If I really felt that past history and my understanding of
how things work was such that if some time in the future it really became appropriate to build
this road for use that I was sure that within 90 days somebody would have that road built and the
way it would be and theres no real loss to the public you know I would feel a lot better about
supporting what youre asking here because it does have reasonableness. But given that we
dont know whos going to be owning the property. We dont know whose going to be the
Planning Director. We dont know whether there could be litigation about this map. It just feels
like there a huge risk to this whole thing running into some kind of a hassle and not really
coming about at the appropriate time. Im sure willing to hear anything the Planning Director
may have to say in response to that.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director do you want to respond or? Okay.
YUEN:I guess the gist of your comments are some skepticism about the diligence
of the Planning Department in the future. The act that would trigger this road being necessary
would be the State wanting to develop the property immediately adjacent. So, you would have a
public agency that would be-, there would be some public interest and some public agency
urging the County to make this road get built by the private side if and when the State wanted to
move forward. So its not strictly a question of the County being able to sit in a room with a
couple of private developers and let them off the hook with nobody noticing. And finally, the
EXHIBIT A
8
very worse case scenario is that the State or some other government agency would have to build
this 3 or 400 feet of road if and when the State wanted to develop the adjacent property. Thats
if everybody fell asleep at the wheel and let this go. So given the-. And I appreciate Mr.
Dicklers candid answer and not trying to hold this as a negotiating point in the building of this
project. But the fact of the matter is that any affordable project in West Hawaii is going to be
done on small margins at best. Small profit margins at best. And we are trying to encourage
people to do affordable housing. So if we see a way to help them cut their cost and a reasonable
way where we can still protect the public interest were certainly willing to take the chance that
the Planning Department is not sufficiently vigilant in 10 to 15 years time. In the end the
community gets the government that it deserves. Community is, its a little up to the community
to, people to watch this kind of thing. There are always instances where something was missed.
We can point, and those become sometimes-public embarrassments. We can point and certainly
you can point to situations in the past where a developer was supposed to do something and
somebody missed it. We can also point to 10 times or 20 times where the developer was
supposedtodosomethingandthePlanningDepartmentwasontheballandmadethemdoit.
So, this will be a condition of the zoning ordinance. It will be a covenant in the deed. If and
when theres a public project its hard for me to see that nobody would notice that there was this
condition floating out there that the property, that the adjacent private property owner has to
build the road has to build this 3 or 400 feet connector road. So, I do feel quite comfortable that
it would be enforced in the future.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham follow up? No? Well go to Commissioner
Iwashita and then Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:So, just so I get a clear understanding here. The way this language is
written its the intent that whichever property-. Theres going to be some other piece of property
that is going to be encumbered by a covenant running with the land which requires the building
of this road at some time in the future. Whos going to determine whether or not that property is
presently of sufficient value in a-? I guess Im not clear on the, if the developer, if whoever the
owner is at the time does not comply then what is going to be the process by which the County
can enforce this obligation? In other words you know I dont see a real clear legal path if its just
a covenant as far as selling, forcing the sale of the property or you know, in order to get the
money to get it done. And what conditions would have to be met by the County before such a
sale could occur? Its not real clear to me how thats going to be set up and whether its going to
be you know any, as Commissioner Graham indicated a relatively efficient process so that the
road could be built you know in, within a reasonable time to facilitate whatever future
development were talking about.
ALAMEDA:Director can you respond to that?
YUEN:The other parcels that are involved are 15-acre parcels. The value of those
properties I have no doubt exceeds the cost of building this 3 or 400 feet of road. As a covenant,
if the covenant is entered and then some day later the landowner refuses then the County would
have to bring suit against the landowner to enforce the covenant. The property itself would be
the security. Then the County would have won the suit and say won monetary damages
equivalent to the cost of building a road. The property itself would be the security and
EXHIBIT A
9
judgement could be entered against the property and it could be foreclosed as any other asset of
the owner at the time.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe follow-up? I mean Commissioner Iwashita
follow-up?
IWASHITA:Yes I guess I would like something more specific along the lines of what
the Director stated because you know if its just these words that were looking at then various
legal arguments can be made about-, you know on behalf of the owner at the time to forestall a
sale and those kind of things and you know basically efforts to buy time to put it off. But if
theres a clear security interest in order to enforce this and clear language that foreclosure which
is not a word used in any of this language is the remedy that the County can use to get a court
order to sell the property to get the money, to build the project. And the other problems going to
be at the time what is the amount youre going to foreclose on you know? Because thats a
matterofestimateunlessthecosthasactuallybeenincurred.Andifthecosthasactuallybeen
incurred that means that some probable public entity the County or the State would have actually
had to spend the money to prove to the court that you know its a million dollars or twenty
million dollars or whatever it is to have built this road and thats what we get to collect against
this property. Other than that its speculative. So you know how do you-, its just the way its
written now its you know (inaudible) legal arguments that can be, can take years and years and
years to litigate and the road is not going to be built or if it is its going to be at government cost.
YUEN:When we write a condition like this and put it in the ordinance theres
going to be a follow-up legal document that will be prepared by or reviewed by Corporation
Counsel to fulfill the intent of this and I wouldnt try to sit here in a Planning Commission
meeting and work all that out. Thats something, theyll have to come up with this covenant as a
condition and Corp Counsel will review it to make sure that it does what we need to do which is
provide security against default on this road obligation. And its not something that we would
try to put the text of in the rezoning ordinance. And I can cite you, there are many conditions if
you look at any rezoning ordinance there are many conditions that are stated in a general way
and will require some kind, theyll require, its very common, theyll require a follow-up
document that is reviewed by Corporation Counsel. Its not practical to try to have to draft out
the language of the covenant before hand or at Planning Commission meeting.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? Floor? Now go ahead.
WATANABE:My question would be for the Director. Id like to point out at the site
map, looks like that parcel to the south, which we say is the State property. Thats a rather
significant parcel yeah with no roadways coming from Queen K up to that parcel at the current
time. Which would mean that access, you know if the State wanted to develop that property
access to that property, the cheapest way to get to that property would be to have that additional
3 to 400 feet that were talking about right now completed. So I think to some degree that sort of
insures that that portion of the road would be completed at some point if its going to connect to
anything. Cause right now even if we completed it, it would connect to nothing. Isnt that the
gist of what were talking about?
EXHIBIT A
10
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director?
YUEN:Well thats right. The State property does go all the way to Queen
Kaahumanu. Thats a large lot that the State owns. How the State would want to handle that
really depends on how they develop the property. I know that there are no current plans by the
State to do a development there. Having Seascape build in fact extends Kakahiaka Street almost
to the boundary of the State property and at least makes the potential for building-, this makes a
potential for having access to a State property thats immediately adjacent. Actually without
Kakahiaka Street being built the State propertyhas no access for a long way from either side.
And if the State wanted to develop up from Queen Kaahumanu then naturally they would have to
build their own road going up from Kaahumanu but its a long way from the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway to this elevation.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe follow up?
WATANABE:Im trying to be real careful about this cause I know the rules say that we
shouldnttestifyasCommissionersbutyouknowIlivein-,sincewereindiscussionIhopethis
is appropriate.
ALAMEDA:This is okay. Go ahead.
WATANABE:Okay. I live in Kona Vistas and as you know Lako Street was stubbed out
in Kona Vistas and we did have significant problems with trash being dumped there, drug sales
going on, you know people having sex there, everything, all kinds of things were going on. And,
since the development started to occur where Lako Street is being extended much of that has
kind of cleared up except that it moved towards our Rec. Center. And the real issue with this is
you know the response time from the police is sufficiently long that they never ever catch
anyone. Which means that you know the neighborhood gets involved in this, in trying to police
their own area and its sort of a risk. So in my mind when youre looking at 3 to 400 feet that
leads to nowhere and saying that well complete that road and then put a barrier so that they cant
go in, use that additional 3 to 400 feet kind of doesnt make sense. I at the same time though
share the other Commissioners concerns that there be sufficient language that were assured that
the developer is not let off the hook. And to a great extent I think by what the Director indicated
as far as the parcels in question that would be encumbered being you know like 15 acres or so it
would seem that thats significant collateral for 3 or 400 feet of road.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones?
GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. The concerns that I have pretty much is in line with
what Commissioner Watanabe had spoken about. Mr. Fuke had mentioned the reasons why they
would like to waiver the requirement to develop that portion of the road is a real problem. I was
looking at the police comments also on the report and I was hoping to see something that says
its along the lines of safety and something thats criminal that would be occurring and their
recommendation would be along those lines. But reading their report it just states that its the
staff opinion that the practice of deferring connector road construction does not work and sets a
negative precedence. And I think what they are trying to say here is the same problem that the
EXHIBIT A
11
community has always been expressing to the Planning Commission which is the infrastructure,
the road infrastructure is not keeping up with the development that is going on in this area.
However, in this situation here the reason that they are asking for a waiver of developing that
was more for a safety reason and a maintenance reason and all these illegal activities which is
more realistic and practical as you compare it to the police report. But also on the other hand, I
also express the same concerns like Commissioner Watanabe and I guess the rest of the
Commissioners also expressing the same is that to be assured that in the future that the applicant
or the successors or assigns will be obligated to developing that road. Now in the condition, the
new Condition G it speaks of its going to be dedicated to the County and Im of the assumption
that although, and if Im wrong Id like to be corrected. Im of the assumption although its
going to be dedicated to the County that the applicant, the successor or the assign will still be
held liable or obligated to build the road if required by the Planning Director. The other thing Id
like to address is the last sentence in the new Condition G. Im not quite certain what that is
trying to say. It speaks of the obligation to build a road shall be secured by a covenant running
withthelandrecordedagainstatleastoneoftheparcelscreatedbySubdivisionnumberandit
gives a number or the applicant may build the road or bond its construction. Im not quite
certain what its trying to tell us. If this is going to help secure or obligate the applicant, the
successor or the assigns that the road shall be built then Im all for it but Im not quite so sure if
that is what that sentence is trying to say and I dont know if somebody will be able to help me
with this.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director?
YUEN:I can take that. Yes that is what the condition is trying to say. The
Subdivision 02-00051 creates 4 lots of roughly 15 acres. So the lot, if this went through then
there would be a follow-up document that would be recorded against one of those lots and
requiring the construction of this road upon request of the Planning Director. And then the last
part gives the applicant the option, you can devoid that, you can just go ahead and build the road
or you can bond its construction. And again the bond is something that the full language isnt
here, there would be something that would be reviewed by Corporation Counsel for its legal
sufficiency.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Just for clarification Mr. Director? The parcels or parcel that you are
referring to would be most likely parcels that are mauka of this subdivision that are like 15-acres
and also owned by the applicant?
YUEN:Theres-, I dont know if we have a good map showing it but theres I
think theres 2-? Well I think theres one more mauka of this and then theres 2 on either side of
Kakahiaka between this property and the current Lokahi makai development.
WATANABE:Yeah I guess the real concern was you know when I first read this was
almost like-, cause I did, I wasnt privy to the fact that they owned other parcels adjoining this.
Was that oh we would put a covenant that was secured by say an affordable lot and since thats
not the case I feel pretty comfortable.
EXHIBIT A
12
YUEN:Right its not secured by in say the subdivision of Seascape in the
individual lots. In fact Seascape itself will be developed as a condominium. It could be secured
against Seascape as a whole in which case its an obligation of the condominium. I dont know
that thats what would happen because that complicates Seascape but it would not be-. If they
did Seascape as an individual, as individual lots for example we, that would require another
subdivision so it wouldnt comply with the terms of this ordinance to take one of the lots, one
small lot within Seascape and burden that lot. It would have to be one of these 15-acre lots that
are created by this subdivision referenced here.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe follow-up?
WATANABE:Just as a follow-up I would prefer that the one TMK for Seascape not be
encumbered because were saying that thats supposed to be affordable housing and then youre
placingtheburdenonyouknowtheownersofaffordablehousingtocomplete3or400feetof
road. I would prefer that it be on a separate parcel also owned by the applicant that you know of
sufficient value that we wouldnt have to be concerned about whether it be completed or not.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director?
YUEN:I think we should ask the applicant for comment on that. The Department
doesnt have any objection but it would be a different lot other than Seascape.
ALAMEDA:Sure this would be a good time for the applicant to not just comment on
that but comment on other comments that weve shared. Now is your time.
DICKLER:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Number one in direct response to Mr.
Watanabes question it was always, it was the intent or we understood the intent was to secure it
against one of the other 3 parcels, the 10 or 15 acre parcels not the Seascape Condo. And as Mr.
Yuen said that it would be too complicated to do it against that, the present project, the condo
project as it stands. Mr. Fuke wants to make comment also.
FUKE:I think that this dialogue is very healthy because I think that whats
happened and the more you get into it and looking at the languages that theres a concern about-.
Its true maybe you know the overall intent is fine but are there enough assurances that the road
would be completed because the Planning Director, current Planning Director would probably be
very vigilant about it but the question is what happens like 15 or 20 years from now. And also I
think Commissioner Iwashita also brought up the point about like what happens, you know what
is the process you know by which you encumber a property and you know have the road
constructed? What Id like to suggest is you know taking into account all thats been said is
probably like an added language in that area which will generally read along this line. And,
cause Im assuming that Director Yuen will be here for another 3 to 6 months but it would read
something like this. A draft of the covenant providing the assurance and process for completion
of this road shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval within 3 months
after the effective date of this ordinance or after this amendment prior to its recordation. So in
other words like you know the Director is fully aware of like all of the discourse thats
EXHIBIT A
13
happening and I think the Commissioners want to get some assurance that you know whatever
gets recorded its not like a (inaudible) type of recordation where the owner of maybe lot 1 or lot
2 thats going to be encumbered with thiscan easily run away from that condition. So you want
to put the Department in a position to review it so that you can guarantee that you know the
process is such that the road will be completed and then whoever buys the property or retains
ownership to the property would know that this is an encumbrance that runs with the land.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? Director? Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:Im not real clear first on where these other 3, 15-acre parcels are.
FUKE:If I can direct you to the Planning Department Exhibit Number 2 in their
Background Report.
IWASHITA:Number?
FUKE:PlanningDepartmentExhibit2.Soareweliterallyonthesamepage?
IWASHITA:Thisisa10-acre,10-acre,14.583acresanda12.892-acre?
FUKE:Correctyeahandthenthe,wheretheproposeddevelopmentisscheduled
to be would be on lot number 2.
IWASHITA:The 10.001 acres?
FUKE:That is correct and so the developers already obligated you know to
construct the extension of Kakahiaka Street all the way through roughly like one half of or
maybe two thirds of lot number 2. You know a rough stretch of about approximately 2,000 feet.
And so the remaining area that does not get, as proposed, would not be constructed at this point
in time would be a stretch of 2 or 300 feet. And so one of the parcels would be encumbered with
that condition and that could conceivably be lots number 1, 4 and 3 but more than likely lot
number 1 because its adjacent to the area of the roadway.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:Yes, thank you. My other-. I have a suggestion Id like to know if the
developer would be, or Id like the developers comments on it. That is, I would suggest adding
in order to make it clear and I know I dont want, we dont want to put too much specificity in
here. But for the purposes of having a very clear process to secure this road being built in the
future my suggestion is that we would add the following language in the last sentence of the new
proposed paragraph G, after the reference to subdivision number 02-000051 and the comma,
including the granting of a security interest in the amount equal to the current cost for the County
of Hawaii to build and then the remainder of road lot, a proper reference to this section of the
road as determined by the Department of, the Director of the Department of Public Works and
said amount to be increased on an annual basis of 3%. And in my mind then that language
would make it clear on present dollars what the cost would be for the County to have to build
EXHIBIT A
14
this road. Because I think if the developer doesnt build the road that the reality is the Countys
going to have to build it and so it should be at the Countys cost. And it provides a security
interest, which is clearly foreclose-able by the County and have a specific amount that a court
can assess in the foreclosure sales amount payable to the County. And then there wont be any
issue as far as what is an appropriate amount and so forth. If foreclosure and I think you know
its appropriate that foreclosure as the prior discussion indicated that foreclosure is the best
remedy for the County. And in order to make it an effective remedy then a specific amount
needs to be established. So in the process of going through this then what I envision is that the
County will have a lien interest a security interest for a very specific dollar amount which it can
foreclose on in the future whether its 5 years from now or 20 years from now. That would be an
amount adequate to cover the cost for the County to build the road.
ALAMEDA:Any response Mr. Fuke? Applicant?
DICKLER:IappreciatewhatMr.Iwashitaistryingtodoandwouldhesitantlyagree
to it. I think that the language that the Director put in with respect to the applicant may build the
road or bond this construction has to be in there because as we go forward on development, I
need the flexibility with lenders to remove that covenant as long as other provisions are
provided. But as far, you know our intention is to build the road. Our intention is to build out
future projects when theyre approved on this parcel so that I dont have any objection to that.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:Thank you Mr. Chair. Just to make it clear I did not intend to delete the
words or the applicant may a build the road or bond its construction. That would remain.
ALAMEDA:Okay. Other Commissioners before we move into a potential motion,
either way? Were still in discussion. Commissioner Watanabe and then Mr. Director.
YUEN:You know if I could just comment on that. I dont have any objection to
it, I dont think it changes what we have in there already. The only thing that it changes is that
you would do a construction cost estimate now and increase it by 3% a year instead of there
being an estimate at the point of time where theres a legal dispute. I dont think it-. Thats the
only difference.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita follow up?
IWASHITA:The reason Im recommending this is that I think its best that the parties
agree to a specific-, that both sides agree to a specific number and so in the future theres no
basis to argue about what the number should be. And I think the court in the future in a
foreclosure case which is an equitable proceeding in which the court must protect the interest of
both parties that legal issues can be raised on what number it should be and so forth. So, and
what the intent of the parties was in making this agreement if a specific number is not reached
like you know the arguments going to be the Countys going to say well it has to be County cost
and the Developers going to say no its the Developer cost. And those kind of arguments you
know are potentially out there in the future and what Im trying to do by making this suggested
EXHIBIT A
15
language change is to make it clear up front that both parties agree on a number and will
basically be you know compelled. If inflation is 6% you know from now on the County takes a
loss. If its 1% you know the develop-, if it actually comes to foreclosure thats just how it
works out but its best if its clear up front what the numbers are and what the number is and that
way theres one less thing to argue about in the future. Actually, if its done this way theres
really nothing to argue about in the future. Its a straight foreclosure process, the court has a
specific number and theres really nothing to it. Its only a question of whether or not that road
was built or not and if it wasnt then the foreclosure will be had.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:I kind of share the Directors concerns and you know if youre coming up
with a number now and some adjusted inflation figure what if inflation exceeds that figure?
What I would suggest you do is just essentially do what we are, the Director has suggested
exceptidentifylot1asthespecificlotthatyouwouldplacetheencumbranceon.Andsothen
anytime lot 1 is developed or at the direct-, I believe the Director has discretion. The developer
would be required to complete the 3 or 400 feet of road. I think that would be sufficient because
it seems lot 1 is approximately 10 acres? And were still talking only 3 or 400 feet of road. And
it would probably be in the best interest of whoever decides to develop lot 1 to complete that
road anyway. So I think that would be sufficient and we wouldnt, I really dont envision us
arguing about that in the long run.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita response?
IWASHITA:I have no problem changing the reference to the adjustment of the amount
to be an amount, whatever the appropriate reference to the inflation index is, thats established
by the Federal government. And you know that number is established on an annual basis and we
can use that as the increase so that it tracks actual inflation.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director?
YUEN:You know the more I think about this I think its better to set the amount
when the road has to be built. What will happen if the County has to build the road then its the
Countys cost. If the judgement is that somebody has to build the road then the private
landowner then says well I would rather build it because my cost is going to be less than the
Countys then they would build it. What were-, by setting a cost now and building in an
inflation factor we open ourselves to the possibility that the inflation factor for building a road
may be quite different than consumer price index. The cost of building roads at any particular
time really varies. For example, its quite expensive now because the contractors by and large
are very busy. So, it doesnt, whereas the consumer price index is, rises because its a basket of
goods that rises at a gradual rate. The actual construction costs-, the costs of the construction
sector tend to vary wildly. So, if Im you know-. I think what were, what Id like to say is
whats happening here is were having a debate on levels of detail that are really, should be done
at an administrative level and not at the level of the Commission. But if Im forced to enter into
this debate over cost estimate now or cost estimate later I think its much better to have it later.
If the cost of defaulting-. If you build in the cost now and theres this consumer price index cost
EXHIBIT A
16
adjustment over time and the private landowner at that time, say 20 years in the future, sees that
its much cheaper to just surrender, just to pay the dollar amount thats built into this because it
is less than the cost of building a road, theyll do that.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Iwashita follow up?
IWASHITA:I can go along with the Directors desire to have the cost established at the
time the issue arises as long as theres a clear agreement as to the process to do that and in my
mind that would be that the parties agree that the amount would be the Countys cost as
determined by the Director of the Department of Public Works or whatever the person is called
at the time. And that its-, the sole-, and that person has the sole authority to do that so that
theres really no basis to argue or appeal or take to arbitration or any way to dispute the amount.
You know its clear that the developer now and the owner in the future would be bound by the
Directors decision as to what that cost is.
ALAMEDA:Very good. Other Commissioners? Mr. Director?
FUKE:Mr. Chairman?
ALAMEDA:Mr. Fuke?
FUKE:I think that you know in light of whats happened, if you go back again to
like what I was kind of suggesting that if you submit a draft of the covenant you know to the
Planning Director within 3 months of the effective date of this amendment and then that draft
would reflect you know would provide, make provisions for the assurances number one and the
process by which this roadway would be completed. And that assurance and the process would
be as determined by the Planning Director upon consultation with the Department of Public
Works. And I think that without getting into you know the very specifics at this stage I think in
concept it would pretty much like accomplish what I believe the Commission you know is, wish
to accomplish.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director?
YUEN:Im fine with Mr. Fukes language. Im also fine with a language saying
that if theres a dispute over the cost of the constructing the road the cost shall be the lowest,
shall be determined as the-. I would ask for the Commissions indulgence in preparing the exact
language to be sent to the Council between the time of the motion and the Council receiving the
ordinance but the gist of it would be the lowest qualifying bidder. And that would mean that
there would be, that you would have a construction, you would actually have a construction bid.
If the parties disputed it and the job-, the parties dispute the cost then the County has to do it then
it bids out the job and the landowner is responsible for paying the cost of the lowest qualifying
bid. What the, the difficulty Im having in wording this is Im not, I dont have at the tip of my
tongue or somewhere in my brain the proper language that describes (inaudible) the lowest
qualifying bid. But when you go through a Public Works bid process they, and then they are
required to take the lowest bidder, I dont remember the right language for that but thats the gist
of it.
EXHIBIT A
17
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM:I agree with the Planning Directors sense that were really micro-
managing something here is maybe not appropriate. And I guess after listening to all of this I
dont feel like I can kind of jump ship and say yeah if youre ready just write Ill go along with
it. I feel like you know Commissioner Iwashita said we do have this letter from the Police
Department that maybe you know if this is not granted the applicant could go to the Police
Department and say well they do have the condition we need to build this. We will put up the
barricades as you indicate and we expect that youll give us the cooperation and we feel theres
no public nuisance and problems here and let it go at that. I just dont see a way out of the basic
issue of what will happen years in the future by us writing whole bunch of verbiage now. So I
just cannot support it even though I have good feeling for the intentions.
ALAMEDA:FellowCommissionersasyoutakenoticetheresonly5ofusandhearing
the comments from Commissioner Graham we can continue this discussion or we could move
forward via motion. Whats your pleasure? Corp Counsel any comment?
TORIGOE:Thank you. Mr. Chairman I just-. One last try at this. One way of adding
something to try and satisfy some of the concerns about security would be to throw (inaudible) at
the end of the proposed amendments to Condition G. Something like, the covenants shall
include an obligation to allow the County to foreclose upon the property to satisfy cost of
building the road under public procure and procedures as may be determined by the Director of
Public Works, that sort of thing.
ALAMEDA:Commissioners any response to that? Seeing none?
WATANABE:Mr. Graham is the one that-?
ALAMEDA:Mr. Graham would you care to respond? You dont need to if you dont
want to.
GRAHAM:Im sure the Council is going to deal with this however they deal with it
and I dont have anything.
ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you Commissioner Graham. Fellow Commissioners?
Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:I move that a favorable recommendation be submitted to the Council for
amendment to Condition H as further amended during these discussions for Change of Zone
Ordinance 04-106, REZ 1047.
ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe. Is there a second?
GALDONES:Second.
EXHIBIT A
18
ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:Just clarification. Does Commissioner Watanabes motion include the
language just suggested by Corp Counsel as an amendment or is it just based on the straight
unamended proposed conditions?
WATANABE:As amended by Corp Counsel.
IWASHITA:Thank you.
ALAMEDA:Any further discussion? All right Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:This is just a procedural concern. It appears to me that you know given
wherewearetodayandtheopinionsexpressedbytheCommissionersthatatbestwerereally
not going to have a decision this afternoon. So, I dont want to try and predict the future but if
that appears to be the case then I guess consideration should be made to whether the applicant
wants to have the matter continued so that the Commission can hear it at another time when there
are more members here.
ALAMEDA:I think weve had a little discussion on this previous. I dont know if our
Commission all of our Commission members feel comfortable giving the applicant an
opportunity. Commissioner Graham?
GRAHAM:I just was thinking, like I, you know I cant feel good supporting it but I
sure dont want to hold it up since a decisions going to be made at the Council anyway. And I
remember at a prior meeting the Planning Director suggested something about-, and this was in
regard to the Subdivision Code that we could sort of send it forward to the Council with just a
record of our vote, which you know I didnt support in that instance but I would certainly support
that in this instance if we wanted to do something like that then move it forward. In other words
if we cant give a- because of not having a big quorum here, if we cant give a clean vote on it
Im certainly willing to pass it up to the Council with the vote that we have if thats suitable to
the, to our Counsel here Mr. Torigoe, if he feels like thats appropriate?
ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe any comment?
TORIGOE:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Well basically under the zoning code 25-, lets
see where is it? 25-2-44B, it says the changes or alterations of conditions are processed in the
same manner as a zone change. And then the zone change, and theres a 90-day window you
know and weve been talking about you know when we feel like its the obligation of the
Commission to wrestle with these matters within that 90-day window to see if something
intelligent can be sent up to the County Council rather than just kind of default and say that we
cant make a decision. And I dont know where we are in the 90-day window now. Maybe Staff
can enlighten us on that. But basically if it fails, if you fail to take any action today and were
still within the 90-day window you know it could still reappear on the agenda.
EXHIBIT A
19
ALAMEDA:Staff? Mr. Hayashi?
HAYASHI:Im sorry I dont have the information as to when we exactly sent it over
to the Planning Commission. I would assume that, you have that? Okay the background
recommendations was mailed to the Planning Commission on April 6, so that would be the date
that the 90-day starts from.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe?
TORIGOE:Okay. So we still got, lets see what is this, today is-, not even a month
has elapsed yet so you got at least another couple of months. So this would appear, I mean it
would come up on the agenda again normally right?
HAYASHI:Yes.
TORIGOE:Okay.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Director?
YUEN:If I could just clarify what my suggestion was on the Subdivision Code,
whichisalittledifferentthanwhatwehavehere.OntheSubdivisionCodewehadapackageof
amendments to the Code. There were Commissioners who had some reservations about
individual items on them. But my suggestion was if the Commission could vote a favorable
recommendation but that the text of the letter that went to the Council would indicate
reservations about particular items within the matter. Its difficult for me to say that the
Commission-. I would like to see this matter move up to the Council. We have a favorable
recommendation from the Planning Department. Weve taken the position that when the
Commission is split that we are trying to get a favorable or unfavorable recommendation from
the Commission on the merits. There is this timeframe for the Commission to act in which we
can try to do this. So if the Commission actually has a split vote then it has to reappear on the
Commissions agenda. I couldnt really recommend for this one saying that the Commission,
please Commission vote it up to the Council but just express some reservations about not having
them build Kakahiaka Street to the end because thats the essence of the amendment. So and as
far as the question about deferring, there really wouldnt-. In a situation like this you might, the
Commission might as well vote. Because, rather than just trying to feel everybody out and then
deciding well youre not going to have the votes because you never know how somebodys
going to vote until they vote. And the result of a 4 to 1 vote would be that this matter is deferred
to the next agenda. I dont-, Ill make one last pitch and hope that the Commission recognizes
the urgency or affordable housing and our desire to help this project move forward. And I think
Ill leave it at that. I couldnt say that, I just wanted, I broke in here just to explain what I see is
the difference between the situation on the subdivision code and the kind of action the
Commission is taking today.
ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners I concur with the Director. I encourage us to move
forward with the vote. Is there any objection? Commissioner Iwashita?
EXHIBIT A
20
IWASHITA:No objection I have a request though.
ALAMEDA:Sure.
IWASHITA:Id like to ask Corp Counsel to reiterate the condition.
ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe?
TORIGOE:Sure, I was just suggesting to add on the following to the new Condition
G. The covenant shall include an obligation to allow the County to foreclose upon the
encumbered property to satisfy costs of building the road under public procure and procedures as
maybe determined by the Department of Public Works.
ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita follow up?
IWASHITA:I guess if you change may to shall then they may, itll be clear that the
Directorsdecisionwouldbecontrollingasbetweentheparties.
TORIGOE:Sure.
ALAMEDA:Sonoted.
WATANABE:Ill accept it as a friendly amendment.
ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Watanabe.
WATANABE:May to shall.
ALAMEDA:Any other follow up? Were moving towards the vote. Theres a motion
made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Commissioner
Graham?
GRAHAM:Could I just invite a comment from Mr. Fuke since he seems like he might
have something in mind.
ALAMEDA:Sure. Thank you Mr. Fuke?
FUKE:Well in light of the urgency in having some decision you know formally
passed on to the County Council Im just wondering whether as a procedure or alternative and
maybe this is a question to the Planning Director whether this item could be deferred to your
next meeting which would be in Hilo or continued rather you know to your next meeting in
Hilo? At which time you know alternative languages could be prepared for the you know review
of the Planning Commission.
YUEN:Does the agenda-, do we have time to put it on the agenda for the next
Hilo meeting?
EXHIBIT A
21
HAYASHI:I think we still have time. We need to do an addendum to the agenda that
has to be published probably first thing Monday.
YUEN:Well were anticipating a vote here but if the Commission, I think, I dont
see a problem. I mean weve had a hearing on this side of the island without any public
testimony so to have it continued for a decision-. Rather than continued for a decision I still
would request that the Commission vote. I thought of, I hope the Commission will indulge in
lobbying this for a second. But the reason I, we had many situations in Planning and Zoning
where there are obligations that have to be fulfilled at a later date. We try to secure those as best
we can but there really is no way around that. You know you could go through many, many
actions and there are many things that require some kind of follow-up and that theres some kind
of check point for that. My point in talking about the worse case scenario was that if you had a
worse case scenario and the kind of thing where you feel that you absolutely must have
somethingdonenomatterwhatthenyoureallytrytowrapitupasbestyoucanandhaveit,have
the assurances. Im comfortable with this that the major way that I can see this fouling up is in
the future is that somebody makes a mistake. Well thats, thats part of life. I mean thats
something you will always live with. So, Im sorry to-, Im going to shut up now. Its really the
time for the Commission to make a decision.
ALAMEDA:Also Id like to-, thank you Mr. Director but my two cents of it is as well
is that given the unpredictable nature of the composition of our Commission in the future Im
still leaning towards the vote cause theres no guarantee that our maker of the motion and the
second Commissioner will be there. So, Im still leaning towards a vote. Again if theres no
objections or if any further discussion from our fellow Commissioners Id like to move forward.
Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:Just for the record I want to say that I fully support affordable housing and
efforts that youre making to-. This is (inaudible) developer to meet a very high community
need and we all recognize that. I also want to note in the record that we do have letters from
members of the public that expressed concern about deferring the building of this road, which
was an original condition of the approval of the project. All that being said I think in the end my
concerns about the specificity and the ease, relative ease of implementing any default in the
future have been addressed. So with those comments I indicate my support of the motion.
ALAMEDA:Further discussion? Moving forward with the vote. Staff?
DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chair. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Aye.
DARROW:Commissioner Galdones?
GALDONES:Aye.
DARROW:Commissioner Graham?
EXHIBIT A
22
GRAHAM:No.
DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita?
IWASHITA:Aye with the reservations stated earlier.
DARROW:And Mr. Chair?
ALAMEDA:Aye.
DARROW:The motion does not pass 4 to 1.
ALAMEDA:Thank you for your time. Youll be informed in writing. See you again.
Seeingthattheresnodecision.Thiswillcomeupontheagendaagain.Doesanybodyhaveany
comments on that? Seeing none.
This discussion ended at 10:49 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary
EXHIBIT A
23