Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-20 TSamson PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 21, 2006 SAMSON LLC (ORDINANCE NO. 95 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of 118) and (ORDINANCE NO. 90 010) was called to order at 11:00 a.m. at the King nd Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with 2 Vice- Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. Kimo Alameda PRESENT:Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. William R. Graham Jeffrey McCall Fred GaldonesRene’ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Allen Salavea Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SAMSON LLC (ORDINANCE NO. 95 118) Request for time extensions to Condition D (Final Plan Approval) and Condition E (Commence Construction) of Ordinance No. 95 118, which rezoned lands from Unplanned (U) and Double- Family Residential – 3,750 square feet (RD-.3.75) to Multiple-Family Residential – 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) and Village Commercial – 7,500 square feet (CV-7.5), respectively. The area involved is located along the north side of Hualalai Road and adjacent to the Aloha Kona thth Subdivision, Hienaloli 4 and 5, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK:7-5-10:portion of 13 (formerly 7-5-23:63). APPLICANT: SAMSON LLC (ORDINANCE NO. 90 010) Request for time extensions to Condition B (Final Plan Approval) and Condition C (Commence Construction) of Ordinance No. 90 010, which rezoned 45,411 square feet of land from a Multiple-Family Residential – 2,000 square feet (RM-2) to a Village Commercial – 7,500 square feet (CV-7.5) district. The property is located along the north side of Hualalai Road, adjacent to thth the Aloha Kona Subdivision, Hienaloli 5 and 6, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-10:portion of 13 (formerly 7-5-23:64 and 67). WATANABE:Second agenda item is Samson LLC, Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-118, amendment to Conditions D and E. Mr. Hayashi? EXHIBIT B 1 HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Since Item Nos. 2 and 3 are related, for background purposes, I would like to consolidate the background, if it’s okay with the Commission. WATANABE:I don’t see any objection to that. HAYASHI:And as far as the action, that would be taken separately by the Planning Commission. WATANABE:Agreed. HAYASHI:Okay, first of all, the subject property is located by this orange dot and is situated along the north side of Hualalai Road. This would be Hualalai Road hooking up with the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This is Kuakini Highway running towards Keauhou; and this particular roadway is Alii Drive. So the property is indicated at this particular location. There are two ordinances involved. First is Ordinance No. 95-118 which was adopted in April 1992. And that was to rezone the northern portion of the property; and that would be in this general configuration from an Unplanned zoned district to a Multiple Residential-2.5 zoned district, as well as 2.2 acres from RD or Residential Duplex-3,750 square feet to Village Commercial-7.5. The original intent at that time was to construct a Commercial and Multiple Family Residential project on the back portion or the northern side of the property in this general configuration. The other ordinance, Ordinance No. 90-010, involves 45,000 plus square feet of land and that is in this general configuration. And the request was to rezone the property from Multiple Family Residential-2,000 square foot to a Village Commercial-7,500 square foot zoned district. And basically that was to construct an office building. Since that time, the property was sold or turned over a number of occasions and Samson LLC recently purchased the property back in February of 2005. They intend to construct a 146- Multiple Residential unit project consisting of ten buildings two to three stories in height. There are two conditions that reflected time performance for both ordinances. For Ordinance No. 95-118, Condition D stated that they had to secure final plan approval within a period of time; and also Condition E of Ordinance No. 95-118 stated that construction had to commence by a period of time. Ordinance No. 90-010 also had similar conditions. Condition B indicated they had to secure final plan approval by a specified time and Condition C was to commence construction again by a specified time. The Planning Director, after reviewing the proposals to amend these conditions felt that since these ordinances were adopted back in 1990 and since development plans have changed, and have recommended approval of new conditions or revised conditions as submitted to all of you. So based on that we are recommending approval of the amendment to Ordinance No. 95-118 and Ordinance No. 90-010 with new conditions. And we recently submitted to you the green sheet, and these were the latest changes to the initially proposed conditions. And Condition D EXHIBIT B 2 recommended that a future road widening strip along the Hualalai Road project frontage as determined by the Department of Public Works shall be subdivided and dedicated to the County within two years from the effective date of this amendment. This particular condition was recommended by the representative from the Department of Public Works, although they wanted a shorter period of time in which the future road widening setback had to be subdivided and dedicated. And also Condition E, we made changes to the last sentence, and this would be the amended condition, “The applicant shall construct and dedicate to the County upon request by the Department of Public Works the additional improved street right-of-way at no cost to the County prior to a receipt of a certificate of occupancy.” And, finally, the new Condition M or revised Condition N regarding fair share contribution reflects new figures based on the revised consumer price index. So there are slight changes to the amounts for each of the categories, as well as the total amount contribution per unit. Are there any questions? WATANABE:Fellow Commissioners, any questions for the staff? Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:Norman, what we’re really doing is recommending. But if these were not granted what position is the applicant left in as far as his project or what he can do with the land? HAYASHI:Well, yours would be a recommendation to the County Council, so if the Commission recommends not to approve these revisions or amendments to conditions, then that will still go up to the County Council. GRAHAM:Right. But my question is if we recommend the County Council not approve them, and if the County Council were to follow our recommendation, what would be the status of the applicant at that point? YUEN:The project is then in a limbo situation because the rezoning ordinance is no longer valid. If the County Council were to reject the time extension, that would mean that they don’t think that the property should stay in the current zoning. And if they didn’t give an indication of what they wanted to happen, then I would ask them, the Council, for some direction as to what they wanted the property rezoned to. So the effect of not extending the time under the current rezoning, the only reason not to do that is you don’t like the zoning as it stands. It has to be zoned something. So if the Council doesn’t think it should be zoned RM, for example, or CV, they should give some direction. If they think it should be zoned Single Family Residential, they don’t want to extend the time to allow an apartment or a project to be done, or a commercial project to be done because they think it should be Single Family Residential, then that should be part of their decision. And then I would initiate a rezoning at that point to whatever the direction was from the Council. WATANABE:Follow-up? GRAHAM:Yeah. Chris, kind of what I’m thinking is generally when we have time extension to rezoning ordinances, we pretty much go along with them in our recommendations. And my personal feeling has always been if at some prior period of time either the Planning Commission or the Council looked at the situation and decided this was the appropriate zoning or appropriate whatever, then if the situation remains sort of the same, even if I kind of disagreed with them, I feel like the other guys made the decision, I ought to honor their decision. So I feel it’s appropriate for me to extend it, and not try to question even though I personally may not EXHIBIT B 3 agree with it. But in Kona here, we have a situation where back in 1990 and 1995 we didn’t have the highway problems we have now, we didn’t have the infrastructure issues. So it’s like I’m thinking, well, maybe it’s appropriate to look at this rezoning now on whether it’s appropriate in the same way we were just saying because the situation in which it’s found is quite different than it was when the original zoning ordinance went in. Could you comment on that? YUEN:Well, we don’t look at a time extension the same -. You look at it as, to start off with as it does have the zoning. The purpose behind having these time limits though is so that if the project is not developed and the overall situation has changed, if there has been some significant change that would cause you to re-evaluate the wisdom of the zoning, that is the opportunity to do that. So to give some other kinds of examples, if the General Plan changed for the area, there was a big flood and it was learned that this property is affected by the floodway, those kinds of situations could lead you to re-evaluate it. So it’s not an automatic that the time gets extended, there is a reason for it. And if you as a member of the Commission feel that the situation is so different that you would not vote for it, maybe you wouldn’t have voted for it in the first place but now you’re looking at it, you say that you feel that whatever led them, that the conditions have changed enough to call for a different take on it, you can vote, in your case you’d be voting to recommend a denial. You can do that. We looked at it and still regard it as an area where we would like to see housing built in Kailua-Kona, and so are favoring the time extension. GRAHAM:Thank you. WATANABE:Any other questions for staff? HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, just for your information there is this white colored sheet with proposed conditions and this was submitted by the applicant. So I guess the applicant will address the changes that they would like to see. WATANABE:Thank you. Seeing that there are no other questions for staff, may I call the applicants up. Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? LIM:I do. WATANABE:Would you state your name and address for the record, please. LIM:I’m Steven Lim from Carlsmith in Hilo. With me to my right is Mr. Erik Leuteneker who is chief financial officer for Betzel Brothers Construction. Betzel is a related company to Samson LLC, the developer of the project. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission. This project, as Mr. Graham was bringing up, had been zoned quite a while ago, I think at least 15 years. I was looking at the correspondence in the file and I might have been working on this thing for 15 years also for the various developers. Essentially this is an urban core built-out EXHIBIT B 4 project that has been zoned; and I think the policy decision has been made to have development for Multiple Family and Village Commercial in this area. It’s right in the core of Kailua-Kona where the General Plan says you should do the development. So I think the policy decision is the right way to go. What we’re dealing with are, and these remarks I guess will apply to both the time extensions for Ordinance No. 95-118 and Ordinance No. 90-010.They’re basically two rezoning ordinances which cover that whole project area. The entire project area is about 6 ½ acres and the mauka portion, which is the handle of what I call the hatchet, is Multi-Family zoned and the makai portion is Village Commercial zoned. What was proposed in about the early nineties, I believe and some of you may remember, the County was looking around to do a County office building to try to consolidate the office operations for the County; and this project was one of the frontrunners for the request for a proposal process that went through at that time. They subsequently decided not to do the County Building, at least at this site. And so the developer started then to proceed with the development of the Multi-Family on the mauka and the Commercial on the makai. They’ve expended significant sums in terms of purchasing easements for a sewer easement. So the sewer line runs from, I guess the makai blade portion of the hatchet down through the auto dealership in the makai direction, down to Kuakini Highway. So the sewer connection and other improvements were made off-site and the existing Single Family dwelling that was on the site was demolished and the site graded to some extent. So in partial answer to Commissioner Graham’s question about what happens if you say no, you know, our position legally would be that we’ve had the zoning for in excess of 15 years, the development on the project had progressed, we commenced construction and expended significant sums. So we would have, I think, at least some argument that we had vested some of our zoning rights. I think what the net effect of what the Planning Director has done in his proposed conditions of approval, because these were relatively old zoning ordinances, is to essentially address some of your questions in terms of the impacts to the community. We’ve conceded with the Planning Director that we would accept the imposition of the new modern conditions which require fair share contributions for roads, parks, police, fire, and all those things that usually come along with the rezonings. And I think that that was significantly more than was originally proposed. The Planning Director has given you on the green sheet his amendments to the proposed conditions; and our proposed conditions that you just received in the white, we have underlined the proposed additions. The project proposal is along Hualalai Road just above the Regency and the Condition E where we have underlined ½, this is to clarify that this applicant would be responsible for ½ of the collector street improvements along the entire frontage of Hualalai Road, and that the owner on the other side of the street would be responsible for their ½. We have two more additions, the other ones are at Condition P, which is your fair share contribution. The underlined portions are intended to allow the applicant to get credit against the road and traffic improvements for the right-of-way, and the improvements for the left-turn pockets, and the intersection improvements along Hualalai Road, which is, as I understand, fairly standard, and also credit for the flood, access road and control gates that are being required as part of the conditions from the Planning Director in Condition F. Those are intended to allow the Department of Public Works to adequately access the drainage way that’s just to the mauka of the project. EXHIBIT B 5 Then the last proposed change would be to Condition P which is in addition to recognize that all past fair share contributions for affordable housing for this project would be credited against the assessments required for housing in Condition P. Historically what had happened is, as indicated, the prior project had proceeded with development, we had arranged for the parks assessment to be calculated out with the Department of Parks and Recreation, we reached a number; and what happened was the developer paid approximately $50,000, which was 50 percent of the approximate $100,000 fee, for 48 of the multi-family units. So we’d be asking for that credit to be applied against the, for the 48 units that were initially approved. So what would happen is the second 50 percent of about $50,000 would be paid by Samson upon receipt of the, before the certificate of occupancy I believe on those 48 units, which would be the first phase. The affordable housing credit arises from the applicant’s prior proceedings before the County Council and the Office of Housing and Community Development in which they received the approval to pay the in-lieu fees for affordable housing for a total of 48 units. So that’s why they are asking for credit for satisfaction of that requirement for the 48 units. We understand that the additional 96 units which are now being proposed would be subject to the current fair share contributions and affordable housing assessments that you currently see today. The 146 multiple family units are intended for sale to the middle market level. Betzel Brothers has a lot of experience in Maui and elsewhere developing this type of product in terms of what we sometimes call workforce housing or housing for the middle market, rather than doing high- end multi-family projects like you might see along the Kona coast here. So we would ask that the Planning Commission support our request for time extensions for Conditions D and E under Ord. No. 95-118 and Conditions B and C for Ord. No. 90 010 to allow the project to restart and commence. Thank you very much. WATANABE:Before I ask the Commissioners if they have any questions, since the applicant has proposed some rather significant changes to the conditions, I’d like to ask the Director for his comments, in particular I’d like to have your comments on the credits that were paid. I understand that they actually put real money down, close to $51,000, I guess. But I’m wondering if that would suffice to satisfy the initial 48 units, especially in light of the increased fair share contributions we’ve been asking for recently. YUEN:Well, right; and I’m not sure what the basis was for the $1,000 a unit. When was that, that was actually paid? LIM:Which is park fees? YUEN:The parks. LIM:Yes, we have correspondence from Department of Parks and Recreation approving our methodology, the calculation of the in-lieu monetary fee as $101,814.62. They used to do a calculation in those days based upon an assessed valuation and a square foot value for the park assessments; and so essentially what happened is an agreement was reached with respect to the first 48 units. So we paid for 24 units and the next 24 units we’ll pay the second half of the approximately $50,000 when the first increment comes up. The rest of the 96 units would be assessed under the current park contribution fee in the Condition P. EXHIBIT B 6 YUEN:The amounts paid should definitely be credited. But my recommendation is the amounts due are calculated according to the current fair share contribution schedule. So the amounts paid will not cover the units that they were paid for. LIM:It’s our understanding based upon the correspondence that the County had agreed to that scenario; and we’re willing to follow through with that. YUEN:Well, this is a time extension. LIM:That’s correct. YUEN:As a condition of the time extension I would say, even projects, for example, that did not have fair share assessments on them when the original zoning went through, they’ve been adding that as a zoning requirement on the time extension. So that’s to create a uniform requirement for projects that are essentially being reauthorized. So, of course, it’s fair to credit the sums actually paid; but to say that you remain at the level of assessment that was calculated 10 or 15 years ago, I would not agree to that. LIM:Can we agree to having 24 of the units being paid for the park assessment at least? We have, you know, letters from the County saying this is the number and you paid $50,000 up front and $50,000 later, so we would at least like to get credit for 24 units. YUEN:I don’t recommend that. I think it should be, you’re getting a time extension and it should be reassessed accordingly to the current standard. LIMEven though there are agreements, letters from the County? YUEN:You’re getting the time extension. WATANABE:Okay, now that we have clarification on the staff’s position as to whether there’s -. YUEN:And then I also, the affordable housing, do you have a copy of the resolution? LIM:I don’t think I have it with me but it was Resolution No. 90 from the County Housing Agency. So I think that’s consistent with the current practice. It’s that if we had gone to the Council to authorize the payment of in-lieu fees, and we did for 48 units and we paid that, I think we should be satisfied for the 48 units at least. YUEN:I’d have to see the terms of the Council Resolution authorizing the payment of in-lieu fees. I’m not inclined to accept that, again, for the same reason that this is a time extension. If this were a project that did not need a time extension and you had covered the units by paying the in-lieu fee, we would honor that according to the ordinance that was passed in 2005; but this is a time extension. But before I make my own final recommendation on that, I would like to see what the resolution says. WATANABE:Mr. Graham? EXHIBIT B 7 GRAHAM:So just clarification from the Planning Director, I think what I’m hearing is that the applicant is saying certain amounts were paid to cover what was due because of a certain number of units; and so now he wants those units to be considered paid for not subject to the current. But what you’re saying is whatever was paid as a monetary value or whatever does apply but it doesn’t cover that number of units as it originally was intended for. Those units still have to meet the current conditions. Is that correct? YUEN:Right, for both of these, both for the parks and for the affordable housing. Actually what I take it is the affordable housing was not actually paid, right? LIM:It was paid. YUEN:It was paid? LIM:Yes. YUEN:When was that? LIM:As of June 6, 1994 the Office of Housing and Community Development wrote a letter to the Planning Department saying that “Hualalai Properties has delivered an in- lieu payment to the County of Hawaii in the amount of $37,600 to the Office of Housing and Community Development by way of the County Planning Department. This payment represents a second 50 percent installment and fulfillment of its affordable housing requirement stated in the change of zone ordinance.” YUEN:Okay, well, you’re correct in stating that is the point of disagreement. I would like to see the records of what happened with the County Resolution on the payment of the housing before I make a final decision on that, on what I’d recommend on that. GRAHAM:But if we were to go along with what you’re recommending, I would presume that payments that were made 10 or 15 years ago should have some appreciation value due to the use of the money for 10 or 15 years by whatever is the appropriate calculation, rather than just saying that money then is the same amount of money now. Is that correct, should there be an interest accrued to them so that in fact the $50,000 payment back then is representing $80,000 now or $100,000 now, whatever it is? Does that come into play? WATANABE:Good point. YUEN:Well, it sounds fair. I just don’t know as a matter of consistent application whether that has been done, you know, partial payment at one point in time being then given an interest added to that to cover the payment later. GRAHAM:Okay. WATANABE:Mr. Iwashita? EXHIBIT B 8 IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess, to me, what would be important is how the funds are used. If the funds are paid and used to provide affordable housing at the time, then it’s gone. The reason for the payment is an in-lieu of actually providing the affordable housing; and even if the project doesn’t go forward if the way the monies are actually used, you know, is that in fact when it’s paid it’s put into a fund which helps the County provide affordable housing, then it’s done. I don’t see an argument that there should be an interest kind of benefit just because the project doesn’t go forward. Maybe I don’t understand how it works. But if in fact the money is used, then it’s gone. WATANABE:Okay. These might be discussion items though, so maybe we should contain the current discussion to any questions for the applicant. Are there any question for the applicant? IWASHITA:Just a clarification on procedure. I guess the Director is wanting to review the resolution. What is it going to take for that to happen? We’re going to do that today or at some other time? He wants to review the resolution -. LIM:Well, for purposes of moving the project forward, we’re willing to live with the Director’s proposed conditions; and then we would then negotiate that with him at a later date on the credits and how we would address that. WATANABE:Is that acceptable to everyone? Any objections? YUEN:I have a couple of questions and a comment on a couple of other things on the applicant’s proposed conditions that they submitted today. One being this E, where instead of saying the applicant shall realign and provide ½, instead of saying as our condition did, that the applicant shall realign and provide collector street improvements to the entire project frontage along Hualalai Road, you propose inserting the term “½.” So the applicant shall realign and provide ½ of the collector street improvements to the entire project frontage along Hualalai Road. Now unfortunately we just got this a couple of days ago and sent it to Department of Public Works. We didn’t get a comment back from Department of -? HAYASHI:Ki is on vacation so no response was received. YUEN:All right. In your mind physically, on the ground, what would the difference be between what Public Works had and what you have? LIM:Maybe the concept is that, we understand the policy of the County on these rezonings, is that you would require the developer on our side of the street to take responsibility for developing Hualalai Road on our side, the 50 percent on our side; and the property owner on the other side of Hualalaui Road would develop the 50 percent on their side. I don’t know if that’s the best way to say it, but that’s the idea that we’re trying to convey. We did not want to be responsible for doing the entire Hualalai Road frontage for both properties. YUEN:Well, I don’t know, certainly sitting here I’m not going to recommend agreeing to that; and I don’t know if I would accept that as an over-all policy statement. You know, I don’t know who is on the other, what’s on the other side of the street? And do we have the zoning on that? EXHIBIT B 9 LIM:The Kona Hale Alii Change of Zone Ord. 05-74 is across the street. YUEN:Oh, 05-74. LIM:That’s correct. YUEN:Norman, do you know if they have any kind of condition on road widening? LIM:They have a similar condition, “Applicant shall realign and provide full improvements to the entire frontage along Hualalai Road consisting of but not limited to right-of- way and pavement widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk,” etc., etc., “The widening area to be dedicated to the County shall, if required by DPW, allow for realignment and improvements required by Ord. 95-118 or successor ordinance,” which is one of the ones that we’re talking abut here, “The required widening area shall not exceed the equivalent of a 5-foot width along the entire frontage which is approximately ½ the difference between the existing right-of-way width and 60 feet.” So it’s pretty much a mirror of what we have to do; I just wanted to make it clear that if they don’t proceed and do their half that we don’t have to do the whole Hualalai Road widening. YUEN:I would disagree. The Hualalai Road needs to be improved to serve projects of the density such as being proposed here; and so I would keep it in as a condition. If both developments proceed we should have some kind of allocation to the two of them. But certainly absent any agreement to this by the DPW I wouldn’t recommend that the Department -. The Department’s recommendation is not to accept the change. Okay, then going to Condition P, the last sentence, “Any and all past fair share contributions made for the proposed project shall be credited,” did you have anything in mind beyond the parks fee? LIM:No. YUEN:Okay. Just to make a comment for the Commission and the applicant to explain my position on the crediting of improvements by the developer against the fair share assessments, or the in-lieu credits. It has been my position that in-lieu credits should be limited to improvements made by the developer, which have a benefit to the general public and are not strictly necessary for the project in question. I would not recommend this as stated because, to give just one example, I would not credit the left-turn storage lane into the property. That’s an improvement that’s necessary for the safety of people turning into the project. If you didn’t have the project you wouldn’t need a left-turn lane there, is the way I would put it. Generally, widening a road, straightening out curves, that sort of improvements which benefits people traveling on Hualalai Road in general would qualify. I’m really not prepared, without really looking at the plans, to be able to spell out what would qualify. So, again, as I say, I would not agree to the statement here as worded by the applicant. WATANABE:Any further questions for the applicant? No further questions? Oh, excuse me. Commissioner Salavea? EXHIBIT B 10 SALAVEA:Yes. I have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to know what range, if you can provide us this information, what cost range you expect these units to be sold at, ballpark is fine. I just want to get a sense of the customer base you’re trying to -. I know you said it’s for the worker type, but -. LEUTENEKER:We anticipate these to come at a price based on market what we’re seeing right now for worker housing, averaging the low $400,000 range. SALAVEA:Thank you. WATANABE:Okay, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA:Mr. Director, as a clarification, your last comments were addressed to the language on page 3 of the proposed changes by the applicant? YUEN:Correct, yes. IWASHITA:Okay, thank you WATANABE:Mr. Lim, for clarification purposes, you know, we summarized and joined both Agenda Item 2 and Agenda Item 3 together. And as far as the conditions like that are concerned, do you have any other comments for Item 3? Is it my understanding that we’ve already discussed everything you have of concern for both Items 2 and 3? LIM:That is correct. My understanding is the proposed conditions of approval by the Director are similar and they address both ordinances, so those would satisfy our concerns. WATANABE:Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. Then if there are no other questions by the Commissioners, you may be seated as we have one testifier. And I’d like to call up Mr. Tyler. Mr. Tyler. TYLER:Good morning again. Mr. Chairman, I’ll be very brief. I have just one comment. There was a request, I think I heard correctly, from the applicant’s attorney regarding the Director granting certain credits for in-lieu improvements. And I just wanted to note for the record that the process of I believe it’s Chapter 25 regarding approval of in-lieu projects require Council approval. And this is not something -. The Director makes a recommendation; it used to be that the Director had that authority. But now the authority is with the Council; and that is not a resolution, that is in the ordinance. Thank you. WATANABE:Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Tyler? Seeing none, thanks. Seeing as there are no other testifiers, I guess I’ll open this up to the Commissioners for discussion. I guess it’s procedural that we call you back up, although I guess I’ll have to ask you to sit down when we’re ready to make a motion. Okay, any further comments from the applicant? Mr. Lim? LIM:No other comments, other than to thank you for your time and ask for your support. EXHIBIT B 11 WATANABE:Thank you. SALAVEA:I’m ready to make a motion, Mr. Chair, if appropriate. WATANABE:Okay, go ahead, Mr. Salavea. SALAVEA:All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for the time extension to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-118 and 90-010. WATANABE:Excuse me, Mr. Salavea. Maybe we should, you know, to make it less confusing just take one at a time, although I know we did discuss both of them jointly. Maybe as far as the motion is concerned, we would be better off if we just took one ordinance at a time. SALAVEA:Sure. So I’ll start from the beginning. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the request for time extensions to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 95-118, and I’m not sure which conditions reference to -. WATANABE:That would be D, E and N, according to the staff. SALAVEA:As submitted on the green form dated July 18, 2006. IWASHITA:Second. WATANABE:Second by Mr. Iwashita. Any further discussion on the motion? RHO:Yeah, I actually have a question. We’re approving the green but the -? WATANABE:The one that was submitted by the developer -. RHO:Is not going to be considered, right? WATANABE:Well, we have discussion now. So if there’s something that you feel that might be added or amended to the proposed conditions on the green sheet, we can discuss that now. RHO:Right. But his motion basically is talking only about the green sheet? WATANABE:Only about the green, exactly. And I believe we’ve heard testimony from the Director that much of what was proposed as far as changes are concerned by the, at least substantive changes by the applicant, the Director himself did not quite agree to, whether it be ½ of the road widening or the credits. At the same time, I think the applicant’s attorney agreed that they would abide by the conditions for the housing credits and get into further negotiations as they are able to review the resolutions that was passed by the Council in 1994, I believe it was. RHO:Okay, thank you. EXHIBIT B 12 WATANABE:Any other discussion? Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to be clear, the motion is to amend Ordinance 95-118 with the conditions as proposed by the Planning Director? WATANABE:That’s correct. HAYASHI:With that, Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Yes. HAYASHI:Chair Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. WATANABE:Thank you. Mr. Salavea? SALAVEA:All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the request for time extension Ordinance No. 90-010 with the amended Conditions D, E and N as recommended by the Planning Director. WATANABE:Is there a second? IWASHITA:Second. WATANABE:It has been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Salavea? EXHIBIT B 13 SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Yes. HAYASHI:Chair Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. WATANABE:Thank you. You will be informed in writing. The discussion ended at 11:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT B 14