Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-17 DLNR 05-002 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT June 17, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (REZ 05-002) was called to order at 11:15 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai€i, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: Hannah Springer Jeffrey McCallC. Kimo Alameda Rene Siracusa AndrewIwashita Allen Salavea William R. Graham Rodney H. Watanabe Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 17 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (REZ 05- 002) Application for a Change of Zone from Open (O) to the Industrial-Commercial Mixed one- acre (MCX-1a) district for approximately 1.32 acres of land located approximately 1,200 feet northwest of the junction between the Kawaihae Road and the Akoni Pule Highway at Kawaihae, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-1-3:15. GALDONES:Will the Hawai i County Planning Commission be back in order. Commissioners as indicated earlier this morning agenda item number 2 will be continued and we will be moving on to agenda item number 3. The application is State Department of Land and Natural Resources, REZ 05-002. This is an application for a change of zone from Open (O) to the Industrial-Commercial Mixed one-acre (MCX-1a) district for approximately 1.32 acres of land located approximately 1,200 feet northwest of the junction between the Kawaihae Road and the Akoni Pule Highway at Kawaihae, South Kohala. Norman. HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the Commission, the subject property is indicated by this orange shaded, orange dot on this overall location map. This particular area which is shaded in gray is the Kawaihae Harbor area. This is the Kawaihae Road coming from Waimea and this would be the intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway leading towards Kona and Akoni Pule Highway which goes to Kohala. The colors on the map indicate the EXHIBIT B 1 various zoning districts and as I indicated the gray shaded areas are zoned for general industrial. The blue area, darker blue areas are areas that are zoned agricultural 40 acres. We have open zoning in this darker shaded green. We also have, this would be the Mauna Kea Resort area where we have resort zoning, multiple residential, single-family residential. The Applicant intends to rezone the property into a mixed commercial industrial zoning 1-acre for the 1.3-acre property and that would be this particular property, which is situated along the makai side of Akoni Pule Highway. Surrounding the subject property are lands owned by the, well actually its government land which is a, an Executive Order was issued to the County of Hawai i and this would be this 4+ acre area which wraps around the subject property. Immediately to the north of the property is the Kawaihae lighthouse property. So this is actually a shoreline property except for this portion here, which is owned by the County by Executive Order. The Applicant is requesting the zone change in order to offer long term leases or lease to, by public auction to any individual or individuals. At this particular time the specific uses are unknown and when the Applicant issues those leases to the, to an individual then the individual will have tocomeinforaseparateSpecialManagementAreaUsePermitapplicationsincethepropertyis situated within the SMA. The land is currently vacant. There are kiawe trees as well as buffalo grass. Prior to 1959 the property was used as a temporary cattle-holding pen for, by Parker Ranch for shipping to the cattle out of this, the Kawaihae Harbor area. The again, the adjacent shoreline property is owned by the County by Executive Order and a portion of that property is being utilized by Kawaihae Canoe Club. The Kawaihae Canoe Club in the review of the draft environmental assessment did indicate that they had no objections to the proposal by the State. The General Plan for this particular area is Industrial and again the property is within the SMA. Since the property is State owned they had to comply with Chapter 343 which was to do an environmental assessment as I indicated and they did publish that environmental assessment back in December of 2004 in the OEQC Bulletin. Water to the property is available and wastewater would be by individual wastewater system as approved by the Department of Health. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the request with proposed conditions. Are there any questions at this time? GALDONES:Commissioner any question of Norman? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Norm do you know the, Kawaihae, the boat launch facility is that on this, the County parcel thats in front or is that over on the natural zoned-? HAYASHI:The boat launching area? MCCALL:Yeah. HAYASHI:I believe its on the State property, which is indicated by this gray and that would be south of the subject property. MCCALL:Okay thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT B 2 SIRACUSA:I was wondering if its standard procedure for when an EIS or an EA is done for something like this that we not be copied on that? HAYASHI:Thats not a normal procedure as far as the reviewing agency. The Planning Department is a reviewing agency and we did provide I believe yeah we did provide comments on this Environmental Assessment. SIRACUSA:No I meant that the Commissioners never received copies of the EA. Is that standard procedure then? YUEN:Its in there. Its supposed to be in there. Right? Its in my set. Maybe we omitted it from your set, Im sorry if we did. SIRACUSA:Sorry, sir I had missed the title page on that. I read through the whole thingwithoutnoticingthattitlepage.Imsorry. GALDONES:Noproblem. HAYASHI:ImsorryImisunderstoodyourquestion. GALDONES:TherebeingnofurtherquestionsofNormanwilltheapplicantorits representative please step forward. All right Mr. Nishimura. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai i County Planning Commission? NISHIMURA:I do. GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your residence address? NISHIMURA:Brian Nishimura. 1174 Awiki Place, Hilo, Hawai i, 96720. GALDONES:Mr. Nishimura have you received a copy of the background report and the recommendation and do you have any comments to them? NISHIMURA:Yes I have and the Applicant has also reviewed the background and recommendation, proposed conditions and has indicated a willingness to comply with all of the stated conditions. With me here today is Keith Chun from the Department of Land and Natural Resources and he will also be available to answer any question that you may have. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Nishimura. Commissioners any question of Mr. Nishimura? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:This might be a question better for Mr. Chun I dont know but I guess its as part of the environmental, finding of no significant impact that you did with Environmental Assessment under the alternatives on page 18, the no action alternative. The last sentence in the first paragraph Ill just quote says, ‚It should also be noted that the DLNR as trustee of public EXHIBIT B 3 lands owes a fiduciary duty to the trust beneficiaries in its managementof public lands. The proposed rezoning is in furtherance of DLNRs efforts to put its lands to the highest and bestuse and maximize revenues for the trust.ƒ So I guess without trying to parse the words you know like Bill Clinton or something. It sort of sounds like the DLNR is saying that our best use for public duty for the public benefit of the people of the State of Hawai i is to maximize the revenues from our lands which feels to me is a little bit amiss if thats the case but Im probably reading more into it than what was intended so I wish youd comment on that statement a little bit please. GALDONES:Mr. Chun will you be responding to this? CHUN:Yes I will. GALDONES:Could I have you sworn in then? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? Couldyoupleaseraiseyourrighthand?Doyouswearoraffirmtotellthetruthonthismatter now before the Hawai i County Planning Commission? CHUN:I do. GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your residence address? CHUN:Keith Chun. 3432 Oahu Avenue, Honolulu, 96822. GALDONES:You may proceed. CHUN:Okay. I think as the manager of the public trust, similar to maybe a lot of the other trust that you know. Theres a lot of missions we have public resources which we manage. We also have I guess a duty as well as to maximize use of the land or generate revenues to help support some of the other functions. You know if you look at some of the other trusts for example Kamehameha School Bishop Estate you know they invest their funds, use their lands to generate revenues to support some of their other programs and this is one of ours. GALDONES:Commissioners any further questions of the applicants? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just you know since Im familiar with the area since I live out that part of the island you know its all kind of kiawe growth there now. I remember when the old feed lots were around that area and its the road is relatively close to the ocean there. Theres not a long distance and I know the canoe clubs activities are down below. Anyway, it struck me, as first impression was that its very inappropriate place for an industrial zone or a commercial zone. That stuff that would be better on the mauka side. But then again I see the letter in support from the Kawaihae Canoe Club which is the most impacted public people down there. Im just wondering if the other public bodies, public interest bodies like the boating club, then like surfers down there were they contacted were they part of any discussions that you had with the community before when you brought these plans forth? EXHIBIT B 4 NISHIMURA:The Environmental Assessment and the requestfor comments were directed specifically to the Kawaihae Canoe Club. We didnt identify any other specific group. We did receive an inquiry from someone on the Fisheries Counciland a draft environmental assessment was transmitted to that individual for his review and no comments came in subsequent to his reviewing the environmental assessment. The only other I guess public body dealing with recreational resources was Department of Parks and Recreation and they didnt indicate any objections to the application. GRAHAM:Was there ever a public meeting advertised and held down in the Kawaihae area where the interested people around there could come and hear the States plans? NISHIMURA:No there wasnt any public meeting. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:This is let me start make a little statement and then Ill turn it into a question.WearerecommendingapprovalofthisandIrevieweditandIsignedoffonthe recommendation for approval. I do have some misgivings about this application from the state and that has to do with the fact that this is currently its an open area along a shoreline. Its not exactly shoreline; its very close to the shoreline. If this rezoning went through actually it would be by far the closest to shoreline property to be rezoned in the current administration. I cant think of any other properties that you would consider shoreline or close to shoreline that have been rezoned to a higher use in the current County administration. It is next to a sandy beach. You have, theres a are EOd for County recreational use next to it. Im just wondering if the potential gains to the State from leasing this out outweigh the fact that you have a-. We have the government busily spending money now to acquire coastal lands in many areas along both in this County and in the State and general public policy in trying to keep open space along the shoreline. How do you weigh, Id like to hear your weighing of the States interest here in potentially leasing this out as a revenue generating facility versus just keeping it as it is in open space. CHUN:Well I think one of the new functions weve taken on at DLNR and then in part to support not only the State in general but DLNRs mission with its public resources is to identify lands with revenue generating potential. This is one that we did. We acknowledge it is near the shoreline but through our Hilo office I think we effectuated the set aside to the canoe club or the County to maintain all of the immediate shoreline area and I believe useable area. Its a little difficult for us at times to deal with some of these things because we unlike a regular developer or proper owner we are subject to public land laws which means the property has to go out for auction. So we get demands or questions or inquiries from interested parties and yet we can never really be assured that thats going to be the ultimate user, which does put us in a little catch 22. You know were here with you trying to discuss certain things and we cant tell you what will be built. All I can say is were trying to do the best we can with the processes we are. We think that some of the mechanisms that are in place will help for example you know the set aside and in addition that when the auction is held number 1 if there really is no demand for the EXHIBIT B 5 property or the people that have expressed demand decide they cant make it happenthe property wont go. Second when they do, if the auction is held we get a successful bidder they will be before you again for an SMA to address impacts to that coastal area. YUEN:Well that is true that this isnt the end of the story and that even if you I presume you have to award it at auction and then thewinning party would then submit an SMA application. There would be some, they would, youd have to put probably some kind of clause that they can surrender the lease if they dont get the SMA permit application. Its my, I know that theres a reference somewhere in the application to a restaurant being interested in this. And there are, theres some, certainly there are more and less compatible kinds of developments that could take place here but youre going to be constrained to award it to the highest responsible bidder at auction and then when it does come, if and when it does come for SMA permit and we have a range of things that we can look at in the SMA and within the MCX zone which is one of the broadest as far as what is allowed then I can imagine there are some kinds of uses that would notbeoffensivetothecurrentpublicuseofthebeachareathereandthecanoeclubs.And theres some that might really be problematic. Is there any, the State has any ability at all to specify a range of uses in a commercial lease. I should know this having been there but I dont know that we ever really dealt with this as a question. CHUN:Normally, well like again this is a new function for us to try and actively go and market some of our properties. And to date we have not tried to limit just because it would limit potential lessees. Again we think that as far as the rezoning its in place its consistent with the General Plan. As far as impacts to the shoreline and what have you that will be your purview during the SMA. And youre right, successful bidder we give them a window to go and get the SMA and if they cant, actually we never enter into the lease. You know so we give them a timeframe to go and process and obtain an SMA. Usually well ask them to submit within an X amount of months, obtain it within you know a year or what have you. And if they cant everybody walks away. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, your Appendix A in the EA, permitted uses in the MCX zoned district and my question I guess is of the Director at this point. If this means that these are uses that dont have to require an SMA permit because theyre already permitted? YUEN:No, all of these. If it werent any, these are the things that you could do if it werent in the SMA. Any applicant wanting to do really any significant development on the site would have to get, still have to get an SMA permit for any of these uses to go ahead with the project. You would have to tie back you know again wed be like we were in the previous application. If we wanted to deny the SMA permit or to put conditions on it that would, those conditions or that denial would have to be tied to something in the SMA law that you are allowed to consider. Like if there were some kind of industrial facility that there was a potential for pollution that could be denied on that grounds. But it wouldnt, it isnt although there is this other step I dont want us to just say well and I dont want the Commissioners or the Council on this when they come to look at this to think we have unfettered discretion and like it dont like it, yes, no, when the SMA permit comes in. EXHIBIT B 6 SIRACUSA:So, in that case if we approve this then any of thosepermitted uses would have to apply for an SMA permit and then our hands would be tied. We could only look at the SMA pertinent issues and not other side issues as we were discussing in the previous case. YUEN:Thats correct. Well, I dont want to say your hands are tied either but you are limited to the SMA permit issue. Yes, you- it wouldnt be a categorical rejection of any of these possible uses that are in the MCX zone. GALDONES:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you. I just want toclarify your earlier statement that or maybe its my misunderstanding of your earlier statement. Am I to? My understanding now is that as far as rezoning this property this is the only way you can do it? Cause Im thinking actually from our perspectiveandtheconcernsthatarebeingexpressednowwewouldyouknowIwouldmuch rather have a specific kind of project on the table that conceptually anyway right that were looking at in terms of doing the rezoning application. Because in that you know in this process in the rezoning process right then we have the most control as it were in terms of you know addressing the concerns of what type of development this is going to be. Whether or not you know its compatible in the area. Whether or not the zoning thats being requested is really the one we want to do. So I guess Im asking you know why cant you do it that way? CHUN:Well, two of them, one is I think we get a bigger bang for our buck as far as return on the property if we offer out rezoned property. Second I really think that during in the actual rezoning process itself you know Id always been led to understand that when you rezone the property youre looking at all potential impacts including all potential uses. In other words I could come to you with the one guy that says hes going to build you know a 500 square foot restaurant and then 5 years from now its torn down its rezoned and all of this thing is open for him as well. You know so, as far as analyzing the impact of that immediate or proposed use I dont think you would- I would hope you wouldnt limit it to only that in the rezoning right? Cause once it gets, if it is zoned to MCX doesnt it make it available to all? GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I see where Commissioner Iwashitas coming from and Im really feeling like were being asked to approve a pig in the poke here and I dont feel comfortable with that. GALDONES:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Cause you know normally I guess, Ive only been doing this for a little while but what Ive seen you know. Kamehameha Schools have come before us with rezoning requests and it you know. We see plans we see you know basically a specific project that were looking at in the process and you know. We have another item on our agenda basically similar kind of situation so it is just a general concern really that you know. Coming in without any specific kind of proposal and there are a multitude of different kind of uses that are allowed in the zoning change that youre asking for. And sure rezoning is something you know an upgrade EXHIBIT B 7 in zoning obviously makes the property worth more. But I think as a general proposition I agree with the Directors concern that you know from the States, from the perspective of the government and the State and the proper use of thelandthat we really ought to be looking at why are we changing it. Or you know why arent we using it for a more general public use you know. Makea park or whatever right? That kind of thing. YUEN:If I could just make a couple of statements here. Although its true that very often and particularly private rezonings that have come before us, the applicant presents a specific project. They may say that they want a commercial zone and they plan to do an office building. Its, the Commission should always remember that unless special conditions are put on you rezone the property, the plan changes they can still go in and do the full range of uses that are allowed under the zoning. Thats in fact the theory behind zoning is that you make a decision that these uses are okay on that particular piece of property and you go ahead and approve that. Otherwise you, I dont anyplace that has this but you could theoretically have a landusesystemwhereyouapprovedeveryprojectandifyouhaveanofficebuildingyouneedto come before a body like this to change it to a commercial store or something like that. The SMA system, you know here in the SMA it is like that. So there is that level of control for this later but this would have a range of uses thats possible. One other question I wanted to make, I wasnt sure and I didnt, I dont know, I didnt realize this before but I want to make sure now Im understanding it right that the set aside of the 4 acres was done in conjunction with this. This was fairly recent the EO? NISHIMURA:Thats correct. YUEN:So, so the DLNR did make a decision that the bulk of the property they would set aside for recreational use but they wanted to hold this parcel and offer it out for a commercial, the possibility of commercial venture. NISHIMURA:Thats correct. There was in fact a consolidation and re-subdivision action, which reconfigured the properties and the end result being that this 1.32-acre parcel was separated out and the remaining balance was kept for the recreational purposes. And, I was going to elaborate a bit on the response to your initial question that at the time that the discussion about the Executive Order was taking place the needs for the Kawaihae Canoe Club were of specific concern. And, they made sure that the area necessary to take care of those needs and the area that could be conveyed to the County was set aside you know specifically for that purpose and any other recreational use that the County wanted to pursue. This area kept by the State to develop for potential commercial or industrial use was done so recognizing the existing general plan designation of industrial. And so that went into the decision making process in their minds in terms of pursuing the rezoning action. You know the question of you know whether its appropriate or not was really looked at from the standpoint of okay weve made a decision regarding a portion of this property to be kept open and set aside for recreational use. Is there any potential value in the remaining portion of the property? And because of the General Plan Industrial designation it was decided that there was this value and they wanted to pursue that. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT B 8 WATANABE:Could you tell me exactly how close is the closest point to the shoreline? Well, you know approximately lets put it thatway? NISHIMURA:Well, the closest point is that, the point jutting out in the, near the middle of the property. And if you were to just scaleit off on that map its 50 feet. However to be honest with you if you were to go on the site and if a certified shoreline survey were to be done today I doubt that it would be that far. I mean its, its going to be closer than 50 feet. There is however you know I would say there is sufficient land that, in front of the property that there will always be an ability to traverse that area and to cross the entire width of the frontage of that property on the remaining County land. GALDONES:Any further discussion? Any further questions? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Ihaveonemorequestionyouindicatedthattherewasapproximately4- acres that was designated for public recreation that adjoins this parcel. NISHIMURA:Yes. WATANABE:Does that also front this beach that was referred to? NISHIMURA:Yes. WATANABE:And so- NISHIMURA:It includes the beach. WATANABE:Okay, thank you. GALDONES:There being no further questions I do not have anyone from the public signing up for, to testify on this subject matter. That being the case. Mr. Yuen in light of your statement that you had made earlier is it still your recommendation that the Planning Commission give it a favorable recommendation and forward to the County Council? YUEN:Ill stick with the recommendation with the understanding that we can look at this again at the SMA stage. On the question of balance I do appreciate the fact that the State set aside the bulk of this parcel for long, permanent, at least long term for public recreation, recreational use. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners as indicated by the recommendation from the Planning Director that the Planning Commission give it a favorable recommendation to the County Council. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I have one follow-up question. I guess my understanding is that the request for this MCX including industrial use is based upon reference to the General Plan designation in that area. EXHIBIT B 9 NISHIMURA:Thats correct. IWASHITA:What? My simple view of this is that if youre surrounding this area, this 1-acre with 4-acres of basically a park it doesnt, an industrial use in my mind doesnt really seem appropriate. And so Im thinking more along the lines of a commercial or commercial village kind of zoning change that would have you know. You can have restaurants and shops and more uses that are more in my mind related to that kind of a park recreational are. Cause thats all youre going to have in that area right? NISHIMURA:Well, the uses that you just eluded to are allowed in the MCX zone. IWASHITA:What Im concerned about is allowing also industrial use and which I dont think is you know. Off hand I dont think its really compatible with the park use. CHUN:You know I think youre right and actually the site itself you know the topographyandthelocationorwhathaveyou.Youknowasapracticalmattertheinquiries weve gotten have been from commercial people but I dont it even extends to the as far as I know of a strip mall type of thing. Its more of a stand-alone type of stuff. So I think you know while it may have a whole list in Exhibit A of a bunch of stuff and then industrial as a practical matter we have not fielded inquiries for a lot of this type of use or any actually. IWASHITA:So my, I guess my suggestion or my thought is that it would be more appropriate to be like CV, Commercial Village kind of zoning. And that would incorporate pretty much the types of uses that you know all of these shops or restaurants or you can make a little. Things like that where itd be you know, we all think would be compatible and not have the possibility of an industrial use if somebody came along and said oh this is industrial I want to make a base yard for my business. YUEN:If I could comment on that. What makes this difficult is that there are only, there are only so many cubbyholes in the zoning code and the General Plan. Because this would be industrial in the General Plan we, the Department would not support a CV zoning which would be. We would look at the CV zoning as going into medium density areas in the General Plan or urban expansion areas. So really to do a commercial, their option is the MCX zone. And as far as what is this in the General Plan, the Kawaihae area by the harbor is, there are 2 designations in the General Plan. Theres a band of open along the shoreline like there is all around the island. And then theres ending in Kawaihae, then theres industrial behind that band. The band has a width but its always been the interpretation that the width is not something you nd can scale off. In other words you cant say well its a 32 of an inch wide and that translates to 300-feet in the General Plan. So, the site itself would be compatible with being called either openorindustrialintheGeneralPlanbutnothingelse,therearenootherpossibilities.Theone thing that we have, we have had rezonings where we have excluded some uses as being incompatible.That,wehavedonethatinthepast.Itsnotthekindofthingyounormallywant to do but we have done it. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT B 10 SIRACUSA:I have some concerns that when you, when you have industrial generally you have big steel buildings and theyre ugly. And they dont, they have, theres a lot of cement and they dont usually do much in the way of landscaping and I think that that is incompatible with open space and park areas. And I dont know how we can get around this. We just adopted this General Plan but of course that doesnt mean we all like every bit of it does it? GRAHAM:I certainly from what Ive heard so far feel like I could not support this rezoning. One thing that caught my eye when I was reading the material last night was kind of right at the beginning of the application made by the Planning, made to the Planning Department which is only like 3 or 4 pages into our background. Question number 4 says if youve performed any study which would demonstrate a need for the proposed building and please elaborate on your findings. And the last sentence in the response sort of says to take advantage of the propertys proximity to the ocean and spectacular views of the South Kohala coastline. Andthatswhenreferencedforusingitasaleaseoutforarestaurant.Sotomeitfeelslikewell, we got spectacular views, which the public kind of likes. Weve got proximity to the ocean and what were going to do is were going to lease that out to somebody to have a restaurant so that when people pay to eat there they get those but its going to cut away those views from the rest of the public. And the benefits going to be added revenue to the State. And it just feels to me that the views and the open space are much more important to the public in general at this point in time than you know that some extra revenue will come from leasing out a restaurant site. I also when the Director was mentioning the conjunction of the set aside of the 4-acres along with this rezoning request, it sort of tickles my ear a little bit. I dont know what Manny Veincents reasons were for supporting this project but I sort of feel like well maybe he was in a little situation where he felt like we could get our particular piece of ground where were using our canoe club kind of guaranteed by going along with this rezoning. And, I dont know when you look at the, where the road goes up there, this is the land is all up. The canoe club is right down, right close to sea level. It feels to me that theyre looking at a situation that theyre going to have some kind of development looking right over them. I dont know I feel like I could support this is in fact you did have a public meeting down there and the different stake holders like the boating group and the surfing group and the canoe group all knew what was coming forth and they said that was okay with them then I would surely go along with it. But failing that I cant see supporting it. GALDONES:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, has there been any, I just I dont know particularly in the Kawaihae area is there a shortage of industrial-commercial zoned property or is there stuff waiting to be leased? Is the State, is all the State properties leased in the Kawaihae, in the harbor area? NISHIMURA:The State property is limited primarily to the harbor, harbor-related area. There are vacant industrial zoned lands owned by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands not by the State of Hawai i. And my understanding is part of the development constraint on some of the DHHL lands is the lack of adequate water for those parcels. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT B 11 WATANABE:I have a question, they keep referring to topography. Is the topography so steep that it would indeed limit the type of industrial uses that might occur there? NISHIMURA:No the property itself is not unusual in terms of topography. GALDONES:Any further questions? Commissioners are we prepared for a motion? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I would make a motion that the Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council with regard to rezoning application 05-002 by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. IWASHITA:Second. GALDONES:It was moved by Commissioner Graham and seconded by Commissioner IwashitathattheStateDepartmentofLandandNaturalResourcesChangeofZoneapplication REZ 05-002 be given an unfavorable recommendation and be forwarded to the County Council. Further discussion? Commissioner Salavea? Seeing none, Norman. HAYASHI:This is a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? EXHIBIT B 12 GALDONES:No. HAYASHI:Motion does not pass, the motion was 4 ayes for an unfavorable recommendation and 3 nos. GALDONES:Norman procedurally where does this go right now? It still, it still is forwarded to the County Council without a recommendation? HAYASHI:It could be forwarded to the County Council or you can ask the Applicant whether they would like to have it deferred until you have a more-. YUEN:Are they up against their timeframe? Are they up against the timeframe? HAYASHI:Pardon? YUEN:Wherearetheyatinthetimeframebecausetheycanonly-.Itstayswith the Planning Commission until there is a favorable recommendation or an unfavorable recommendation by 5 votes for I believe 120 days. HAYASHI:I believe its the Planning Director sends the application to the Planning Commission within 120 days. The application first came in and was completed and accepted on th March 17, 2005 so July 17 would have been 120 days. YUEN:Yes, what I- after- let me not just do this off-, could you bring me the Chapter 25 for a second so I can just double-check this? This is the question of whether this is deferred now or whether you have the option of taking it to the County Council with a negative recommendation. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? YUEN:The question is when did they receive it, when did the Commission receive it from us? HAYASHI:Technically the Commission received it today. YUEN:Yes,theCommissionhas90daysafterreceiptoftheapplicationfromthe Director unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant to transmit the proposed change of ordinancetogetherwithitsrecommendationstotheCouncil.TheCommissionshallrecommend approval at whole or in part or with or without modifications or rejection. If the Commission doesntactwithin90daysthepetitionshallbe-theapplicationshallbeconsideredan unfavorable recommendation by the Commission and the application shall be transmitted to the Councilwithsuchrecommendation.Soitremainsherefor90daysuntil,andwouldbeputback on the agenda. After 90 days if the Commission, because this is not a denial, this vote is an unfavorablerecommendationbutitsnotaconclusiveaction.Afterthattimeperiodthe EXHIBIT B 13 applicant has it since so it doesnt- but its not going to stay down here forever. After that time period the applicant has the opportunity to send it back up, send it up to the Council. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question for the Director as well as the Applicant. However unusual it may be to place restrictions on the zoning change is that some way that we might be able to come to agreement on this particular parcel? YUEN:Its a possibility we- in doing so we would have to, we would have to state reasons for it. I mean it would, there would have to be some finding that theres a, there are special conditions on this property that make it suitable for some uses that normally are allowed in the MCX zone but not for others. So we have done that I believe when, to give an example we did a commercial rezoning in Volcano where the idea was that we, was to allow more commercialexpansion,abusinessexpansioninVolcano.Butitwasntasuitablelocationfora multi-family dwelling because of lack of water system in the area. So we, normally you rezone to multi- to commercial and multi-family or even single family dwellings are permitted use in that zone so we did put a condition on that that you couldnt do that. So WATANABE:I brought that up because it seems as though theres an informal meeting of the minds as far as what would be allowable in that area. And if the Applicant and the County are in agreement in that way maybe you all can work that out within that 90 day period and you might be able to get a favorable recommendation. YUEN:If thats something that- we can explore that with the Applicant. And if the Commission, if the Commissioners would give an idea of the kinds of things they dont want to see then right now then I think that would help us in trying to do that. WATANABE:Well personally I think Im more concerned about you know like something really heavy industrial. I dont really particularly have a problem with the restaurant per say although it might be income producing because I think although it would be income producing the State would benefit, indirectly the County and all of us would benefit also. Also I dont see that much of a problem with the shoreline issue because they are providing what amounts to about 70 some odd 80% of that parcel for public recreation in which also has access to the shoreline so. I guess as long as you dont have some kind of obtrusive industrial type of commercial activity going on there. GALDONES:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you Mr. Chair. Is the suggestion being made or procedure that the Applicant is amenable to or not? CHUN:Well again Im looking at the list you know this isnt the MCX zone is not something that really has heavy industrial uses. By the same token were open to discussion again were seeking the Commissions favorable recommendation so if there are certain types of uses that you see in the zoning that really stick out and we can look at that. EXHIBIT B 14 IWASHITA:I guess the other concern I had was is the 90 days sufficient time because in looking at the statute it appears a longer period of time can be applicable if the Applicant agrees to a longer period of time. YUEN:I think if we were going this route on the Department side we could certainly get it back on the agenda with someuses knocked out and for the consideration of the Commission. Again it would be helpful if the Commissioners who are opposed to it, if they were amenable to a favorable recommendation with some kinds of reduction in uses would give us a hint on what youd like to see out because this would be an effort to try to get a favorable recommendation from the Commission. The Department did make in the end a favorable recommendation. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I would be willing to do that right now actually. Looking at the permitted usesnumbers1,5,9,14,23,24,34,41and47aretheonesthatIwouldliketoseedeleted simply because of the- I just feel that those are inappropriate for park and beach areas especially that type of architecture that they require. YUEN:Well take that into consideration in working with the Applicant and bringing this back to the Commission. Is there any other comments the Commissioners would like to make at the present time? GALDONES:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Maybe just to make sure so I guess our options at this point are as a Commission our option is to defer this until the next meeting when we can come to a majority decision on whats going on. And I believe the other option is that the Applicant could decide to just take it on to the Council on his own is that correct? YUEN:I think they have to wait 90 days before taking it to Council on their own. GALDONES:Okay any other guidance that the Commission would like to give the Director and the Applicants in trying to have this be accepted by the Commission? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Well the only guidance with me would be if you guys would schedule some kind of a public meeting down in the Kawaihae area. GALDONES:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Ill give you my list of uses that I think should not be included. 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 41, 42, 47 and 48 basically on the same concerns expressed by Commissioner Siracusa. EXHIBIT B 15 GALDONES:Any other comments? Hearing none then Mr. Nishimura you will be informed in writing of todays actions. NISHIMURA:Thank you. This discussion ended at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Sanemitsu, West Hawai€i Secretary EXHIBIT B 16