Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-01 tnakamura PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 1, 2006 GLENN T. NAKAMURA (REZ 06- A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 000045) was called to order at 9:17 a.m.in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference ST Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with 1 Vice-Chairman Bill Graham presiding. PRESENT:Bill GrahamABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Fred Galdones Jeffrey McCall Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Allen Salavea Rene€Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager PhyllisFujimoto,StaffPlanner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 8 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: GLENN T. NAKAMURA (REZ 06-000045) a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 2.649 acresof land. b.Change of Zone from Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to Residential and Agricultural .5-acre (RA-.5a) for 2.649 acres of land. The property is located on the west side of AwaStreet, approximately 400 feet north of the nd Mamaki Street-Awa Street intersection, Panaewa House Lots 2 Series, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-56:23. GRAHAM:The second agenda item today is applicant Glenn Nakamura. This is for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 2.6 acres of land and a Zoning Change from Ag-3a to Residential and Agricultural .5-acre for the same property. Norman, would youcare to go ahead with the staff presentation? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The subject property is indicated by this red dot and it is situated within the Panaewa House Lots Subdivision in this general configuration. This is the Volcano Highway or Kanoelehua Avenue. This is going towards the Volcano direction; andthiswouldbeintheairportdirection. 1EXHIBIT A The subject property is located along the west side of Awa Street; and this would be Awa Street going towards the north/south direction. This would be in the north direction, this would be the south direction. It is situated approximately 600 feet from the Mamaki Street-Awa Street intersection at this particular location. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts. The lighter shaded areas are areas zoned for Agriculture 3 acres. We have some Agricultural 1-acre zoned lands; and these include the Nani Mau Gardens complex at this particular location. We also have the darker blue areas which are lands that are zoned for Agriculture 10 acres, and these are the Hawaiian Home Lots Subdivision. If you€ll note, there is an area that is bordered by this black line. These are lands, although they are zoned for Agriculture 3 acres they are currently within the State Land Use Agricultural District. Those lands were placed in the State Land Use Urban District back in 1969. The applicant is requesting that his property which is adjacent to the lands that are currently withintheStateLandUseUrbanDistricttoalsobeplacedwithintheStateLandUseUrban District. The intent is to come in for an Agricultural 3-acre to a Residential-Agricultural half acre zoning; and that would allow the applicant to create three lots. This would be one lot in the front and the two other lots would be in the back. These lots would be approximately 38,000 square feet in size and each of the existing landowners, siblings of the family, would maintain each lot. So there are three individuals that are owners of this property. There is currently a single-family dwelling on the front portion of the property and an existing shade. And I must remind you that since this is a change of zone, this subdivision plan is basically conceptual in nature. There are two accesses for, flag lots, one for the second lot in the rear and another for the back lot, the lot furthest to the rear; and based on subdivision review, those plans may have to be changed. So just to let you know that for any rezoning application these plans are generally conceptual in nature. As far as surrounding land uses, many of the lands in the area are used for Single Family Residential purposes. There are also numerous agricultural lands in the area. In fact, adjacent and to the north of the subject property is a property which is being intensively used as a nursery, at this location, at the corner of Lama and Awa Street. That particular property back in the early 1990s came in for a similar zone change. At that time the adjacent property owners, the Okadas, requested for half acre, RA half acre zoning. Both the Planning Director and Planning Commission had recommended approval of that rezoning. However, when it went to the County Council there were questions about fair share contribution. At that time there were not recommended fair share contribution for half acre sized lots. So at that time the Council had some concerns and requested that the applicant do a needs assessment study. Subsequently, the Okadas decided not to proceed with their zone change application. The Planning Director is recommending approval of this zone change with proposed conditions. We do also have the fair share contribution condition, as you will note in the materials sent to you. And we also included a new affordable housing condition. Based on the current proposal of creating three lots, the affordable housing condition would not be triggered. However, since 2EXHIBIT A there is a possible potential that the property could be subdivided into five lots this is why we included the condition regarding the affordable housing condition. Are there any questions? GRAHAM:Thank you, Norm. Commissioners, Rene€? SIRACUSA:Just a clarification on definitions. This parcel is zoned Ag-3 but it is 2.649 acres; therefore, it is nonconforming. Am I correct? HAYASHI:That€s correct. SIRACUSA:Thank you. GRAHAM:Questions from any other Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Norman,youseemtobealludingtothisbutit€shighlyunlikelythatPublic Works would approve multiple access points to Awa Street? HAYASHI:No, I€m not saying that. I€m saying that during the subdivision review process those things would be looked at; and at that time, we will receive comments from Department of Public Works as to whether they would agree to such a proposal where you have one, two flags, adjoining each other. WATANABE:Okay, thank you. GRAHAM:Norman, I have one question, also, just in case you would remember. When I looked at the State Land Use Classifications map, that area you have in black right there is kind of like a floating island of Urban; and it says in our write-up it went in the 69 boundary review. Do you have any idea why the State Land Use Commission chose to make that particular portion Urban? HAYASHI:I€m sorry I didn€t have a chance to research that, so I don€t have that answer for you. GRAHAM:Okay. For those here, I also want to just point out that because this is a Rezoning and a State Land Use application that we€re just making a recommendation to the County Council here today on this. And, also, if any of you who came in since the beginning wish to testify on this or any other issue, would you please come and sign a sheet up with our staff here, with Sharon, to let us know. All right, would the applicant for this application or the applicant€s representative please come forward. Could I swear both of you at this time. If you€d raise your right hand -. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the County Planning Commission here today? TESTIFIERS:I do. 3EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Thank you. Did you folks receive the two recommendations from the Planning Department regarding the Land Use Boundary Amendment and the Change of Zone applications and do you have any questions or comments to make on those? NISHIMURA:Yes, we did receive the recommendation. GRAHAM:Excuse me, Brian, I should ask you to give your name and address first. NISHIMURA:Brian Nishimura, 1174 Awiki Place, Hilo, Hawaii. We did receive the background and recommendation from the Planning Department and the applicant is willing and able to comply with the conditions of approval, recommended conditions of approval. GRAHAM:Would you care to make any presentation to the Commission? NISHIMURA:Ijustwantedto,onethingIwantedtorespondto,youhadaquestion about the Urban district boundary change in 1969. Actually, several of the property owners within that first increment got together and submitted a boundary amendment request back in the sixties. It was initially denied by the Land Use Commission. They subsequently appealed and they won the appeal in court. And, I guess, because of that, the State took care of it through the comprehensive review process and did change it to Urban. But it was initiated initially by the residents within that area. GRAHAM:Thank you for that background. Are you Mr. Nakamura? NAKAMURA:Yes. GRAHAM:Do you have any comments you€d like to make here today? NAKAMURA:No. GRAHAM:No, all right, thank you. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:I€m looking at your application for change of zone. And question 1(d) is Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots?‚ and you said No.‚ Further on it asks, you know, what your plans are. You say in your application that you want to subdivide and divide up the parcel so that you and your two sisters can share it. And I€m wondering what your plans are then if you don€t intent to build or -? I mean, you know, why do you want to subdivide if there are no plans for each of you to build houses and live in close proximity to each other on the parcel? GRAHAM:Would you state your name and address, please. NAKAMURA:My name is Glenn Nakamura, 450 Noe Street. GRAHAM:Thank you. Go ahead. 4EXHIBIT A NAKAMURA:Actually the plans to develop is, not develop, but it€s not to develop housing. It€s to -. SIRACUSA:Could you speak a little closer to the mike, please. I can€t hear you. NAKAMURA:It€s not todevelop any housing. It€s more to be able to pass the property on to, you know, my heirs. SIRACUSA:Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? Okay. And is there anyone from the public wishing to testify on this today? I might make a comment. Brian or Mr. Nakamura you could give your thought on this, but it less relates to, I€m just speaking as a , Commissioner, not as a Chairmanit less relates to the specifics of your application than the general history that I have on the Planning Commission and the applications we get. In South Kohala we typically get applications for similar sized lots for change to a land use boundary amendment, change for slightly higher density, as well as a rezoning change. And they€ve been coming at us for years and years because it€s an area that€s still in the Ag District in the State Land Use. And my concern here is that we have this whole area that€s all zoned uniformly Ag 3- acre; and once we start changing zoning on one then it seems like, you know, all the other parcel owners that would choose to do that or would like to do the same thing might be coming before us asking for a land use boundary amendment and a rezoning. And so, anyway, I just feel like this is precedent setting in my own mind, so I€m cautious with it. Brian, did you have any comments? NISHIMURA:Well, if you would note that area in the Urban District which was changed in 1969, I believe there has been only one application to change the zoning since it became, it was put into the Urban District. And so the concern that you€re raising I think is, I mean, it raises the possibility that that will occur. But what we have seen over the course of time since 1969 is that there has only been one application to increase the density within the area that was changed to Urban. So I think it€s highly dependent on the individual property owners and their desire to continue to utilize the property in its present form or whether that, you know, whether their stage in life would prompt them to seek a change. In this particular case, the original residents of the property, Mr. Nakamura€s parents, passed away. They were the ones that bought the property, they built the house there and they had three children; and after they passed away the property was passed on to the three children. And so for their particular family, you know, the desire to utilize the property in its present form or utilizing the property in its present zoning designation does not suit their needs the way they would, you know, like to have it subdivided. So I think each family or each property owner will make that decision or will look at that situation as it applies to them. And so I don€t see this necessarily being an immediate trigger to a whole mess of rezoning applications. GRAHAM:Thank you. Any -? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Are you ready to entertain a motion -? GRAHAM:If we have no further questions or discussion. SIRACUSA:So that we can have discussion? IWASHITA:I have a question. GRAHAM:CommissionerIwashita. 5EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Nakamura, the property is not being farmed today, right? NAKAMURA:No. IWASHITA:Was it farmed in the past? NAKAMURA:Not very heavily. IWASHITA:But it was farmed in the past, it was? NAKAMURA:Yeah. They tried to grow thing but they were having a lot of problems. It€s a real rocky area. IWASHITA:My uncle farmed back there too so I know about that. I had to pick up his macadamia nuts. Okay, thank you. GRAHAM:Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Watanabe, no? WATANABE:No, I don€t have a question for the applicant. I€m just a little leary, so my question is to Commissioner Siracusa. Are you looking to make a positive recommendation or a negative recommendation? GRAHAM:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:I€m willing to make a negative recommendation. But it doesn€t really much matter because if you guys all disagree then you can turn it down. At least it opens up the floor for discussion amongst us. GRAHAM:If we don€t have any further questions for the applicant, then I think I would like to have Commissioner Siracusa, she was on first, go ahead with her decision. Is that all right, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah. GRAHAM:Okay. Thank you. You all can stay there since we don€t have any public testimony today. But we€ll just go into our own deliberations and decision-making now. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment, Docket No. SLU 06- 00002, based on the following reasons: That the parcel is already non-conforming and this will be the first RA-5a zoning in the area and therefore comes under the category of spot zoning, which sets a bad precedent for the area. GRAHAM:Is there a second? IWASHITA:Second. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita seconded. Do we have any comment from the otherCommissioners? WATANABE:Iguesswe€reindiscussionperiodthennow. 6EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:We are in discussion period. WATANABE:I -. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Thank you. Personally I don€t see that much of an issue with this. Initially I thought maybe there should be a limit on the size that was possibly larger than the half acre, but then I think that€s also covered already in one of the conditions that the Director had placed, which is Condition D referring to restrictive covenants in the deeds of the proposed lots within the subject parcel. And I would also point out that this is directly adjacent to an area that the residents, as Brian testified, initiated a zoning change to Urban; and actually, that right apparently was upheld in Court relative to his testimony. So I don€t see where it€s that big a deal, especially since I think general knowledge is that the area is not really conducive to agriculture. GRAHAM:Thank you. Other Commissioners have anything to offer? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:For one thing, you know, when they say whether it€s rocky or whatever and not conducive to agriculture, there€s all sorts of agriculture. You can do a lot of agriculture in raised beds, you can do it on tables. For example, potted plants for export or orchid, you know, growth doesn€t require any kind of soil at all, really. So, to me, that€s not an argument. The point is also that there is nothing legally that would keep them back from holding it in common and passing it on to heirs even if they kept it as one parcel. And perhaps one of the attorneys in the room would care to comment on the possibility. But it seems to me that the reasoning to just, you know, to be able to pass it on to heirs, turning them down would not preclude that. GRAHAM:I understand. Any other Commissioners? WATANABE:Follow-up. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I think we have to recognize that it€s very difficult to get people to agree even if they are family. I think we€d like to think of a family unit as one really cohesive unit, and I€m not implying that the applicant€s family is not a cohesive unit. On the other hand, it is much simpler when you can make your decisions on your own rather than relying on other people to sway you in whichever direction. It€s, I think, a reasonable request. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for the record, I want to incorporate all of my prior concerns about the lack of a community development plan implemented in this area, and that, as you all know, it is my opinion that that should be the process that should be on-going before we consider any rezonings such as this. In particular, as to this application, as a body and as a Commissioner I view my role as looking at the big picture; and that is to say what is this area going to, you know, look like 20, 30, 40 years down the road and what impact is the request going to have on that. And, you know, as I mentioned, in passing earlier, you know, my uncle andmyaunt,mycousins,theyfarmedaparcelinthisarea.It€snoteasywork.Theyworked many,manyyears.It€sstillproductive,theirfarmingoperation.It€snotreallybeingworkedat muchnowbut,youknow,that€snottosayitcan€tbedone;andthefactthatit€s,anyfarmerwill 7EXHIBIT A tell you it€s not easy work. It€s probably why we don€t have, you know, a great flood of youngsters going into that area. But as a community and as our duty as Commissioners, we€re obligated tolook at the bigger picture. I understand, you know, the owner family€s perspective in terms of wanting to maximize what you can pass on your family down the road. But that, to me, is not the controlling factor. The controlling factor has to be what impact will the action of the Council ultimately have on this area in the long term. And I don€t see, Mr. Nishimura is right that, you know, I don€t think this is by itself is going to open a floodgate in the area. But the precedent will be set. If this is approved, the precedent will be set. Each applicant, whether it€s next year, or 5, or 10 years down the road, every single applicant can come in and say you did it before, now you€ve got to do it again. And we as a body, and the Council as a body, will be hardpresssed to say no, because the precedent will have been set. And, again, it is troubling to me that, you know, we consider these things basically on a one-by-one basis without regard, really, to the long-term effects of the action taken. And I say that to conclude, again, that I truly believe that the General Plan requirement for community development plan, they can all get together, if the community all gets together again, all the owners in this area gets together again, and says we want all our lands to be Ag-5, we want to change it all, and this is how we think it€s going to look in the future, that has a lot of weight to me, that would. But we don€t have anything like that. So, in balance, if you look at public policy and what we should be looking at as a public policy body in implementing the public policy embodied in the General Plan and what, hopefully soon community development plans, I cannot see approving this proposal basically in a vacuum and setting a precedent that will be hardpressed not to follow in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I have a question for the Director. You know, I guess this property fronts Awa Street and like I had mentioned earlier apparently it€s directly adjacent to an area that has been changed in the State Land Use to Urban. And I€m wondering if there are any provisions on how wide is the road and, you know, like would it be advisable assuming that something like this were to go through to put in some type of provisions for road widening easements in the event that 20, 30 years from now you may actually need to widen the road, so that we wouldn€t have to condemn the property or move the house because the setbacks weren€t right any more? YUEN:The short answer is that was not requested by Department of Public Works. The physical condition of the road is that it€s 20-foot wide pavement, 6-foot wide shoulders in a 50-foot wide right-of-way, which we deemed adequate for the requested rezone. And, as I said, the Public Works did not request any improvements or road widening for Awa Street. WATANABE:Follow-up? GRAHAM:You can follow-up. Please. WATANABE:So the 50-foot right-of-way already exists; and generally in most situations like an area of this size that would probably be sufficient? YUEN:Awa Street, well, it€s classified as a collector street for the area. It€s really sort of a minor collector because of the, it€s a cross-street for people in the area that they use. But, you know, most of the traffic, a lot of people go directly out to Kanoelehua, so it works with a50-footright-of-way.AsIsaid,wewouldlookatthemtotellusiftheywantedanythingmore. WATANABE:Thankyou. 8EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Any other comments from the other Commissioners? I might just rephrase a little bit what I was concerned about, about the precedent, and maybe ask the Planning Director to comment on that too so we get his feel since he did give a positive recommendation. I feel like this application is valuable to the landowner. And, in general, something that€s helpful to a landowner, we should try to support it if there are no negative sides to it. I mean that€s my general feeling as a Commissioner. Again, I€m speaking as a Commissioner not as a Chairman. When I look at like Mr. Nishimura€s comments about the State Land Use area that had already been moved to Urban next to it not having rezonings in that area since then is indicative of the fact we€re not going to get a lot of rezonings coming after this. It also seems to me it€s indicative of the fact that from a land use perspective there€s not really a need for more residential lots in that area. So I feel like, you know, we are sort of setting a precedent, but we don€t really have the public need shown in the past that this precedent will work to the public€s benefit. And, hence, I€m concerned about that precedent. And since Planning Director Yuen is certainly aware of all these things and he made a favorable recommendation, I€d like to hear his comments on that. YUEN:Sure, thanks for asking. The Commission is correct to look at this as potentially precedent setting, but you also have to keep that in perspective. Strictly on the matter, first of all, on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, which is the subject of motion right now, one factor in the Department€s favorable recommendation on the boundary amendment is that it is contiguous with the existing State Land Use Urban area. Now that wouldn€t be true for, you know, if you went in 1000 feet and you wanted a boundary amendment, then you don€t need that criteria any more, not to say that that means absolutely no. But the contiguity of this is, on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment side, is something that affects how you look at this because, and this is by the Statute itself, the State Land Use Statute. So then, well, what about within that existing Urban area, all those Ag-3 acre lots where there has not been any rezoning requests, or there has only be one rezoning request? Yes, you do have to look at the potential that if this went through favorably people would cite this as an example of acknowledgement that a greater density of half acre lots would be an acceptable use. I point out that the General Plan designation for the area is Low Density Urban which suggests that something like this half acre lot or even a smaller lot is consistent with the General Plan. As to whether another lot on another street would have, we would say, no, that -. You know, I don€t know what the other streets look like, if they have the width of Awa Street, the right-of- way, the pavement width, the shoulders, whether they have the available water supply, all those factors that are favorable. In this case, you know, may or may not be; but there is a, as far as this being consistent with an overall plan, we do have an overall plan; and that is the General Plan. And I wanted to say one thing about the term spot zoning that was used. First of all, as a technical matter, we€re still on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, we€re not on zoning. The State Land Use has, the contiguity is the similar idea here, and that you don€t just pick a spot out in the middle of Agriculture and change it to Urban. That€s a factor against it. But this is contiguous. But the phrase spot is zoning is something that has, that suggests something that, people misinterpret that phrase. Spot zoning means that you single out a particular piece of land for preferential treatment or differential treatment not based on an overall land use plan. So if this were a lot that was in the middle of an area that was designated, you know, Extensive Agriculture or Important Agriculture and you were singling out this one spot for rezoning, that would be a legitimate statement of the term spot zoning. But when you have a General Plan that has a map for the area and this is consistent with that map, this is not spot zoning. GRAHAM:Onefollow-upforMr.Yuen.WhenIlookattheGeneralPlanMap,the LUPAGMap,itseemedtojustsortofbarelyencompassthisareainsortofaroughboundary comingthroughandnotthatwholefullarea.But,again,weknowthattheGeneralPlanissortof 9EXHIBIT A a rough approximation. So, I guess, given what we see the LUPAG Map does show this in there, but it€s kind of a rough boundary and a little hard to know how much of the adjoining properties and other properties in the area really would fall within that LUPAG designation. Is that correct? YUEN:Do we have that LUPAG Map available here? I€m not sure exactly where the boundary is on the Low Density Urban. Generally speaking what you€re saying is correct, that the boundaries are not meant to be an exact line. And I also, you know, I would not say to you, and I don€t think I€ve ever said to you or the Council that the General Plan mandates that you rezone a certain property. It has to be consistent with the General Plan, so this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan. But there may site specific constraints that speak against rezoning, the road access may be bad, the flood plain -. So it looks like the General Plan Low Density ends at the extension of the Stainback Highway, which would be a bit farther out here. Okay, you€re correct that this is right at about the boundary of the Low Density Urban, and you€re also correct that we don€t take that as a line where we would try to project that line absolutely on the map and say you€re on one side of the line you€re in, you€re on the other side of the line you€re out. But getting back to what I was saying about the General Plan, the General Plan doesn€t mandate that you rezone a particular piece of property at a particular time. There may be, as I mentioned, starting to talk about site specific issues, it may be an area closer to the Urban area should be, you know, when you have an Urban area that is extended out from a center of a city you may say, well, we should be rezoning closer to the Urban area. These are all factors that have to be considered. So, my point though with the General Plan is that it is adopted as a policy that it€s not an area that we€re holding as an Agricultural use area. It is an area that has been shown or as a matter of overall general policy of the County would be Low Density Urban; and this is consistent with that, this present application is consistent with that. GRAHAM:Thank you. Brian, we€re really in a deliberation time here. So if there€s some real factual error you want to bring up please do it, but otherwise I€d prefer you didn€t make any testimony. NISHIMURA:All right GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: You know, during many meetings we€ve talked about work force housing. Most of the jobs I think we will agree are in Hilo, just like how on the West side most of the jobs are on the Kohala coast. And yet further out in the Puna area that€s the fastest growing area because it€s affordable, for one thing; and we have all these people traveling miles and miles and miles and we€re wondering why we have a traffic problem. And yet we have an area that agrees with both the General Plan and the State Land Use Plan to urbanize, and it€s much closer to commerce; and yet we€re questioning whether we should allow higher density here. I don€t see the logic. You know, if we€re going to talk about work force housing and bringing people closer to where their jobs are so that we don€t have to have 50 miles of road between their home and their work place and we don€t want all this traffic congestion, then we have to make housing available there. And if we€re unwilling to do that, then we€re going to have to create much larger freeways or deal with the traffic. So we have to make a choice, I think. GRAHAM:Let me ask Commissioner Galdones, since we haven€t heard from him yet. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would have to speak against the motion. And my reasoningbehindthatisIcanunderstandandIcanrelatetothesituationthattheapplicantis facedwithandwhathe€stryingtoaccomplishhere.Andlookingatthisapplication,itmeetsall thetestsrequiredforthereclassification.Idon€tsee,asstatedintherecommendationthere€sno 10EXHIBIT A violation and it conforms with the regulations set forth. And, also, I don€t see any public testimony speaking against the application set forth before the Commission. So, therefore, I would have to speak against the motion. GRAHAM:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah. I wanted to point out that although the General Plan considers this area to be Low Density Urban or suitable for Low Density Urban, the fact that none of the property owners in the area have come in for changes of zone and subdivision and have maintained the area in fairly large acreage says to me something about the desire of the community. While I appreciate Commissioner Watanabe€s concerns about Puna traffic and the need for housing and getting closer into Hilo, the fact of the matter is you have a really nice neighborhood in that area. It€s a nice quiet agricultural neighborhood, people live there, they farm. I have some friends who grow tropical rhododendronson tables under shadecloth and do very well with that. And to start breaking up will change the whole quality of the neighborhood; and I think that€s important, too. I don€t know if the people in this community knew about this coming up or not, I don€t know if there was any signage posted. But my feeling, knowing that neighborhood, is that this will just open up a can of worms for the future; and that€s why I€m going to stand by my motion to deny. WATANABE:Follow-up to that? GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Follow-up to that, okay, two Commissioners so far have stated that they take it that because there has only been one subsequent application for a change of zone that that implies that there€s no demand. You know, maybe it€s this process that is intimidating, cumbersome, viewed to be expensive and very time consuming that prohibits people even though the demand may exist. Do you see where I€m getting at? I don€t think we should just jump to the conclusion that because applications have not come in from individual lot owners that there is no demand. I think we have to also recognize that for many individual lot owners this process is quite intimidating, viewed to be expensive and very time consuming; and maybe that€s why it€s just, bah, humbug, I€m not going to do it. GRAHAM:Thank you. Any other Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of the absence of any applications for rezoning in the already urbanized Urban designated area, we can all speculate about why nothing has happened basically. But, you know, I think that if you€re a free market person, you know, it definitely tells you if there was a demand there would have been 1, 2, 3, 10, 20, a lot more applications within the already Urban designated area to have this kind of zoning changes made to increase the density. So I do regard that as an indicator, you know, that the market, especially in our most recent market, in terms of where land prices have gone in our community, that if that wasn€t motivator for any of these landowners to come in and subdivide and cash in on that, I don€t know what is. There really isn€t one, you know. So, to me, the lack of familiarity, or the cost, or whatever, the bad reputation of this process, that€s really not an argument that we should ignore the fact that nothing has really been done in the already Urban designated area. As far as, I cannot, and I know my fellow Commissioners already know, emphasize enough the point that we do not have a community development plan. The Director talked about the existence of the General Plan; but the General Plan everyone will agree, I hope, that it is a GeneralPlan,ithasbroaddesignations.Intermsofwhatisactuallygoingtohappenonthe groundinanyparticularneighborhoodinourcommunitytheGeneralPlansaystoimplementthis plan,thereshallbecommunitydevelopmentplansthatwillhavetheeffectoflaw.Weshouldbe 11EXHIBIT A doing that. The priority of the Department, and I know I€m not an employee of the Department, I€m not a trained planner, but it is my humble view that that€s really what should be done, that€s what needs to be done in order to avoid us really speculating. In any kind of, whatever action is taken here, especially if an approval is given, you know, it is, in my opinion, speculation going on about the precedential effects of such an act and an official act by this body or the Council. And so I would much rather have the community, in this case the Panaewa community, come in and say this is how we view, you know, if it€s as Commissioner Siracusa says the community says we want to maintain this Ag 3 lifestyle and that€s how we want it to be 30, 40, 50 years from now so let€s do it this way; or if the community says, you know, we want to turn this into a really nice subdivision, urban, curbs, gutters, make it a true urban subdivision, fine, they can do that. But it should be done at that level. And if we continue to do it this way, then all we have to look forward to is Kihei, Maui, Kapolei, Makakilo, Kapahulu, Hawaii Kai, all of that all approved by great urban planners; and, you know, you end up with all of the congestion and the traffic chaos that we hear about every morning on our tv shows. GRAHAM:All right, thank you. Commissioner Salavea, please. SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question for Corp. Counsel. Ivan, if we have a stalemate on the vote, it can go either way, approve, or against, or for the recommendation, does it go up to the Council as an unfavorable recommendation? Just clarification. TORIGOE:I€m sorry, I missed the question. But was this what happens if you can€t get five votes? SALAVEA:I€ll repeat it for you. If the Commission is unable to pass a favorable or unfavorable recommendation up to Corp. Council, does it go up as an unfavorable by default? TORIGOE:Your Rule 13 on State Land Use Boundary Amendments does not specify, unlike the rezoning rules, does not specify what happens if you€re unable to get five votes by a certain period of time. But for practical purposes if you€re not able to get five votes you really can€t go forward with the rezoning either. And the rezoning rules say that you€ve got a certain period of time in which to get five votes one way or the other. So basically if you end up not being able to move on this thing within the rezoning timefame, then what you end up with is a rezoning recommendation that€s a default negative. And under those circumstances, yeah, you know, you might as well just kind of piggyback the State Land Use Boundary Amendment say, you know, the rezoning is going up on a default negative, we€re not able to get five votes within that rezoning timeframe. And I would recommend that you just go ahead and vote to send it up with the entire record as a package, basically, as a default negative. SALAVEA:Thank you, Ivan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM:Commissioner Rho? RHO:I have a question for Norman, maybe you can answer. Nani Mau Gardens, is that, can you point that out to us on the map. HAYASHI:Nani Mau Gardens is at this general location. It is situated off of Makalika Street, the street over, next one over. And that was granted through a special permit, just for your information. GRAHAM:Okay.ThePlanningDirectorwouldliketomakeacommenthere.Please, Mr.Yuen? 12EXHIBIT A YUEN:Yes. Commissioner Iwashita had said twice that there shall be a community development plan, that that€s required by the General Plan. That€s not correct. The General Plan in the section on community development plan says it is not mandatory that there be a community development plan for each region. That€s what it says. And then as far as the priorities for a community development plan, it says that the need for a community development plan for a particular area should be assessed considering a number of factors, including how much is public infrastructure challenged by recent or anticipated growth and whether there are significant efforts to change the zoning and land use in the area. And because, and in applying those factors, I have targeted North and South Kona, Puna, and North and South Kohala as the areas that we€re proceeding forward with community development plans in our present budget cycle. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:The General Plan says, The General Plan sets forth broad goals, objectives, and policies, implementation, requires translating these broad statements to specific actions, systemically evaluating progress and active community participation.‚ My point really is that this body, although we had given notice and all of that, does not promote active community participation to the full extent possible. In this regard follow-up planning efforts will involve the preparation of community development plans, capital improvements program and an annual report. Community development plans are intended to be the forum for community input into managing growth and coordinating the delivery of government services to the community. You know, this talk about the traffic problems and all of that, right, well, our planning which started after World War II in earnest basically, you know, what was done way back then is the foundation for many of the problems we have today. The subdivisions out in Puna that were approved without any requirement for any kind of infrastructure other than bulldozing roads or swads of vacant, you know, swads down along these subdivisions that were called roads, you know, all of those things were approved under our prior process and today present us major problems in terms of infrastructure and, you know, what we€re complaining about today. That was called planning. And all I€m saying is that the implementation plan set forth in our General Plan basically says those words that I have. And the Director is right, there€s no shall‚ in here. It says will.‚ And the process that specifies how the community development plans get done, you know, basically rests upon initiation by the Council or the Director. And, you know, the Director has made a brief statement about the rationale for why we€re doing it in Kona and two places and in Puna now. But really, I guess, my perspective is that General Plans, Planning Commissions, County Councils making approval or changes on a case-by-case basis has not worked. It didn€t work on Maui, didn€t work on Oahu, it€s not working on Kauai, it€s not working here. We need a different process. In my view the General Plan setting out the process to do community development plans provide the process by which we maybe have a chance to avoid Kihe. GRAHAM:All right. We still have a motion on the table and we€re taking commentary from the Commissioners on how they feel. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have no objection to having a community development plan. I think every community should have one. So if there was a community development plan within each community it would take our job as Commissioners, for myself, it would make it so much easier. Unfortunately, there is none in this particular community. So, therefore, the question I ask myself, do we hold the applicant hostage to the lack of a community developmentplan?Isayno.Becausethecommunitywasnotaggressiveenoughororganized enoughtoputtogetheraplan,weshouldnotholdanyapplicanthostageiftheywanttobe 13EXHIBIT A aggressive enough to move forward in doing something with their lot, and in this particular case their subdivision, or this application for this property. Now lack of the community development plan, this is the forum for which the community is afforded the ability to speak for or against that; and our agenda is always publicized in the newspaper so many days ahead. I€m not so sure how many days ahead it is. But they know about it, they have not come out and spoken against the application. So for me as a Commissioner, lack of a community development plan and lack of any negative testimony from the public for this application, and like I say it meets all the criteria which is before us for an amendment, I find some difficulty in objecting to the application. If the community, if they would like to have a community development plan, the forum is there for them to do it. And because they haven€t done it, I don€t think we should hold the applicant hostage to it. He has met all the criteria. In fairness to him, I am willing to move forward with his application and speaking against the motion. GRAHAM:Any further comments from Commissioners? Well, I think we can pass it on to Mr. Hayashi and we can take a vote then. The motion was to send an unfavorable recommendation on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:No. HAYASHI:Chair Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion does not carry. The vote was three to four. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah,IhaveaproceduralissueforIvan.Ibelieveinpriorcaseswehave 90days,right? 14EXHIBIT A TORIGOE:Right. WATANABE:And we don€t have all the Commissioners here. There are two Commissioners that are absent from this particular meeting. Seeing as the vote was four to three, a very close vote, this would classify as something we could continue to the following meeting? TORIGOE:Yes. As I mentioned before, as far as the State Land Use Boundary Amendment rules it doesn€t really specify the timeframe. But the zoning rule does say that you have 90 days after receipt of the application for the Director to make a decision; and if you can€t get five votes one way or another then it goes up with a default negative recommendation. So, I don€t know, Norman, can you tell us where we are on the 90-day timeframe with respect to the rezoning? HAYASHI:The background report/recommendation was sent to the Planning th Commission on October 10, so that would be January. TORIGOE:Okay, so we still have quite a bit of time to work with this one. WATANABE:So this would be continued to the next Hilo meeting, is that right? TORIGOE:That is something that you could do. It does seem that you have kind of a split board at this point, highly unlikely you€d be able to get five votes one way or another for either of these. So if someone wants to move to continue it to the next meeting, then that is an option. GRAHAM:Mr. Torigoe, should we take a motion on the rezoning before we decide to continue or not to continue? TORIGOE:If you want to you can; but you can, I think you can just vote to continue both of them if you want also. GRAHAM:Okay. What€s your pleasure, Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Yeah, I would move to continue this to the next Hilo meeting. I realize we didn€t vote on the second issue, but it€s unlikely that any one of us would change our minds/positions at this time. I think we need, you know, a larger body to arrive at the minimum five to carry. GRAHAM:Okay, is there a second to that motion? RHO:Second. GRAHAM:CommissionerRhoseconds.Anydiscussiononthemotion? Mr.Hayashi,couldyoutakethevote,please. HAYASHI:ThemotionistocontinuetothenextHilomeeting.Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. 15EXHIBIT A HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Just for the record, it occurred to me, I don€t know if it was appropriate to get the input from the applicant as far as the continuance, if that was okay. GRAHAM:So you€re welcome to make any comment if you would on this, I presume, even though it seems like we€ve already disposed of the matter. NISHIMURA:Yes, the continuance is fine. GRAHAM:Thank you; and thank you for your patience listening to us airing all our laundry here, too. The discussion ended at 10:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 16EXHIBIT A