Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-06 TSONOMURA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 6, 2008 SONOMURA RENTALS, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 08-000081) was called to order at 9:18 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. PRESENT: Rell Woodward ABSENT & EXCUSED: Rodney Watanabe C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And approximately 16 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: SONOMURA RENTALS, LLC (REZ 08-000081) a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 6.3 acres of land. b. Change of zone from Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to Residential and Agricultural .5 acre (RA-.5a) for 6.3 acres of land. The property is located along the west side of Awa Street approximately 1,300 feet north of the Awa Street – Makalika Street intersection, Panaewa Farm Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-48:10 and 120. WOODWARD: Let’s begin with Item Agenda No. 1. The applicant is Sonomura Rentals. They’re applying for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 6.3 acres of land, as well as a Change of Zone from Agricultural to 3-acre to Residential and Agricultural .5 acre for the same parcels. Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning everyone. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning. COTTLE: Okay. The first application is a State Land Use Boundary Amendment to reclassify 6.3 acres from Agricultural to Urban, and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 3-acres to Residential and Agricultural .5 acre. The property is located in the South Hilo District. It’s outlined in red on this slide. And just to orient you, the Kanoelehua Highway heading out of town towards Volcano is on the left side of the slide; and the property is located between East Palai Street to the North and Makalika Street to the South. It’s zoned Agricultural 3 acres; and most of the other properties on the slide are also zoned Agricultural at different densities. The area in the left top corner is zoned Residential. This slide is a little bit dark but it gives you an idea of the density of the land use around the subject property; and the property is outlined in red. There is a Waiakea Uka Flood Canal on the north edge of the property and the Nani Mau botanical garden and restaurant is a little bit south of the project off of Awa Street. The applicant submitted a preliminary subdivision plan that shows their intent to subdivide the property into 12 lots if the applicant’s request is approved; and these are some photographs of the site. There was a previous subdivision for the property and a rezone that allowed the applicant to subdivide the property into four lots. And when they did that they had to create an access road, a private access road, into the property; and it’s blocked off so that people can’t go into it now. But this is looking into the property from Awa Street. And this view is looking north, up Awa Street with the private road to the left. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment as well as the Change of Zone. Are there any questions? WOODWARD: Any questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: I have a question. RA lots in Hilo or thereabouts, how prevalent are they, RA-.5? COTTLE: I’m not sure about in Hilo in general. But just south of this property, let me go back, so just off of this slide, off of Awa Road here about three lots off of the slide is another RA lot; and I believe it’s a 3-acre lot. BOWMAN: RA-.5? COTTLE: RA half acre, yes. BOWMAN: Okay. And that’s RS? COTTLE: This is RS-10 in yellow, RS-15 in brown, and the green areas are Ag-1, the dark blue areas are Ag -10, and this area here are Farm Ag-3 acres. BOWMAN: Thank you. COTTLE: You’re welcome. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo? 2 DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the RA boundary amendment, what would be the permitted uses under that designation? COTTLE: Under RA? DOMINGO: Yes. COTTLE: That’s a good question. Let me defer to Norman. HAYASHI: Within the RA zoned district you can have residential uses as well as farming activities. DOMINGO: So that would be Rural Ag or Residential Ag? HAYASHI: Yeah, basically it’s a Rural Ag, Residential Ag, correct. DOMINGO: So it’s a mix? HAYASHI: Yeah, it’s a transition area. It’s a mix of Residential and Agricultural uses. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Any further questions? All right, if we could have the applicant and his representatives come up to the table. We’ll swear you in and get your testimony. Good morning. First I’ll swear you in. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? NISHIMURA: I do. WOODWARD: Okay. If you’ll use the microphone and then first give us your name and address for the record. NISHIMURA: Brian Nishimura, 1174 Awiki Place in Hilo is my residential address. WOODWARD: Okay, you may begin your testimony. NISHIMURA: Okay, first of all, I’d like to indicate that the owner of the property is not here today, he had to be away. But he has reviewed the proposed recommendation from the Planning Director and will be able to comply with all of the proposed conditions of approval. I don’t know if it’s appropriate at this time but I know that there have been several letters of opposition that have come to the Planning Commission. And for the ones that I’m aware of I’d like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues that have been raised in those letters. One issue or one question that has been raised is regarding the potential for ohana houses which the letters indicate could mean as much as 24 homes to be constructed on the 12 proposed lots. I’d like to point out that the Planning Department is recommending a condition which would require a restrictive deed covenant on each lot prohibiting the construction of a second dwelling or condominium of these proposed lots. Another concern that has been raised is that the zone 3 changes would drastically increase the people, cars and noise into the neighborhood. Again, I’d like to point out that the primary access to the project area from State Highway 11 is Makalika Street which is utilized by Nani Mau Gardens, which is a tourist attraction. It is a facility serving food and drinks for private parties as well as community events. I believe it also is considered a restaurant and that, you know, the traffic involved in those activities already are introducing a tremendous amount of vehicles, people and noise into the community. Another point that was made was they would like to see the preservation of agricultural land. And I believe that the preservation of agricultural land is important and it is reflected in the goals of both the State and County land use policies and, as such, the conversions of such lands are not taken lightly. You know, it needs to be carefully reviewed, and there needs to be certain policies that are addressed before that can happen. I’d like to point out that the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designation for this property is Low Density Urban. It is not Agriculture. The County General Plan Land Use Map has identified other areas for Agricultural preservation. And over 386,000 acres are identified as important agricultural land; and these lands are the ones that have the, I guess, highest level of protection anticipated in this land use planning process. In addition to the Important Agricultural Land there are an additional 661,000 acres identified as Extensive Agricultural Land. Again, the subject property is not designated in either one of these categories. In other words, our County General Plan has designated this area for future Urban development. This does not mean that the existing agricultural uses in the area cannot continue. They can continue for as long as the owners of the property wish to pursue that activity; and they should be allowed to do so. Nevertheless as property owners decide that they no longer wish to pursue agricultural use on their property the General Plan designation is an indication that Low Density Urban uses would be appropriate. This designation is not merely just a color on the map. It represents the commitment of government to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate these uses. In this particular location the roads, the water, drainage improvements have already been made. They represent a tremendous investment on the part of government in getting this land or making this land ready and available for higher density uses. And I think that the proposed project would make a more efficient use of these resources while maintaining a level of density to be compatible with the existing uses of the area. That’s all I have to say. WOODWARD: Any of the Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Nishimura? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you. Mr. Nishimura, one of the requirements is that improvements be made to the entire length of Awa Street. You folks concur with that? NISHIMURA: That’s correct. The Department of Public Works has requested that Awa Street be improved, as well as the private road that is currently there would also have to be improved, basically, up to County dedicable standards. And the applicant is willing to do it. DOMINGO: What’s that length of that portion of the street? NISHIMURA: The Awa Street portion is about, my rough guess is little less than 500 feet; and the private roadway length is a little more than 500 feet. DOMINGO: Thank you. 4 WOODWARD: Any other questions? BOWMAN: I have a question -. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: A concern, I guess; and I concur I think with -. This is precedent setting as far as rezoning in this area. And I know that the Department Transportation, you know, to quote them, “We have observed a trend in this piecemeal or ‘spot’ type of zoning change and land use boundary amendment applications in various areas in the county,” etc. etc. and just, you know, what the “cumulative impacts” would be. So that would be my concern for this. The other thing is that there is in your background that it would be more lots available near schools. Now I know there is a school presently at Nani Mau Gardens, is that correct, the Connections High School? NISHIMURA: I’m not sure. BOWMAN: I believe that they’re housed there. So I was wondering when you mean near schools and central commercial areas if you were referring to that or -? NISHIMURA: No. I was referring to the public schools which would be, the closest public school would be Waiakea Waena Elementary School. BOWMAN: Connections is a public charter school. So, just, I don’t know what their enrollment is. Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can remember correctly the minutes from the previous meeting, I think the nearing property owners, one concern was the size, you know, the .5 acre; and I think they mentioned, you know, the consideration of a one acre. Has that been a consideration for your applicant instead of a .5 or 1 acre instead? NISHIMURA: Well, one of the things that went into their consideration was that there was a previous .5 acre zoning that was allowed on Awa Street recently and they felt that that being the case this request would be similar and would be appropriate. ALAMEDA: So that’s the precedent setting that I think Commissioner Bowman had mentioned. Okay. WOODWARD: Commissioner Housel. HOUSEL: I had a question. The adjacent properties, which ones are being actively farmed currently? 5 NISHIMURA: I’m not certain. You know, I know that there are people that are growing macadamia nuts. And based on communications from some of the other surrounding property owners, there may be livestock on some of the adjacent properties. HOUSEL: Okay. Reading the letter from William D. Branco he says he farms his property which borders these lots. Are you familiar with his land and what he does with this land? NISHMURA: I have visited the general area but I’ve not observed anything specific. HOUSEL: Okay. Obviously he’s concerned about the, you know, this change impacting his operations. You know, do you have an explanation or a response to that? NISHIMURA: Well, I believe that, you know, nothing that this project does would prevent him from continuing to do what he does. I guess he’s raising concerns on the possibility of more people being there that you may encounter, I guess, complaints from these new neighbors that come in. However, he would have the right to continue doing what he’s doing. I mean he would not be prevented from continuing his existing activities. HOUSEL: Well, it seems part of his concern is also like Commissioner Bowman pointed out, that this will set a precedent in that area and that there could be more development -. NISHIMURA: Well, like I said I believe that, you know, the County’s long-range plan for the area is Low Density Urban, which would include Single Family Residential uses. I believe that we’re in a period of transition. Many of these lots previously were 10 acres in size. They were subsequently rezoned down to 3 acres, including the adjacent property. So they have gotten smaller. And the trend is for it to get even smaller because of the Low Density Urban designation. And, as I indicated, I believe that the investment in roads, water and drainage improvements in the area would mean that I think it would be a more efficient use of government funds to increase the density to accommodate more people. HOUEL: I see. Okay, thank you very much. WOODWARD: Any further questions? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Brian. NISHIMURA: Good morning. IWASHITA: One of the concerns raised in this letter from Mr. Branco is, I guess he’s questioning the need for this project, given the current inventory and the current, well, and now even the current market conditions. So can you address that issue? NISHIMURA: Well, I think that generally the thought is that by creating smaller lots it becomes more affordable to a larger number of people. Also, as part of this requirement the applicant will have to comply with the County affordable housing requirement; and in this particular situation it would be a 20 percent requirement. And in selling vacant residential lots in 6 order to comply, it would have to be affordable to those families earning less than 80 percent of the median. And I think that in a small way it does increase opportunities for affordable housing. IWASHITA: But as far as the basic concern raised, and that is that there is sufficient residential inventory now that there’s really no need now or in the foreseeable future for additional residential lots. You don’t have any contrary information? NISHIMURA: Well, you know, the planning process and the subdivision process is a very long process. And so the initial inquiry by the owner about pursuing a rezoning came to me over a year ago. It’s going to take another year to complete or to go through the subdivision process if this application is approved. And so, you know, it’s hard to predict when, or the timing of what the market situation will be when the lots are actually available. IWASHITA: Another follow-up, Mr. Chair. The subdivision that’s already approved almost across the street, I guess, from this property, that has not been developed, right? NISHIMURA: Which one are you referring to? The one in the yellow? IWASHITA: Well, maybe I’m mistaken. There is, is there not, the property associated with Nani Mau Gardens Subdivision, the one that we did the additional lots, we got through the additional lots for nothing. Maybe staff can help. HAYASHI: Are you referring to the Nani Mau Properties where they rezoned the property for residential use, for one-acre sized lots, is that your question? IWASHITA: The property that we considered that, we added, like was it two or three lots on the time extension. HAYASHI: That would be in this light green shaded area. IWASHITA: Right. That subdivision has not been developed, right? HAYASHI: They recently got the approval for a time extension about six months ago. I guess they’re in the process right now to develop that area. IWASHITA: Okay. But, in fact, it has not been developed and they asked for an extension? HAYASHI: I don’t know whether they had submitted their subdivision application or not. IWASHITA: Okay. So, I guess, well, that’s fine. I just wanted that clarified on the record that there already is an approved subdivision that has not been developed and a time extension granted. For what, another five years we granted them to complete? HAYASHI: I believe that’s the amount of time we afforded them. IWASHITA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 WOODWARD: Is that it? Any further questions? HOUSEL: If I could ask, just to confirm. What was the size of the lots that were approved in that subdivision that’s in the green? HAYASHI: That was one acre in size. HOUSEL: One acre in size. HAYASHI: Yes. HOUSEL: Okay. WOODWARD: All right, well, thank you, Mr. Nishimura. You may be seated. We have two members of the public who have signed up to testify. If they could approach the bench here, Buddy Azevedo and Greg Branco. AZEVEDO: I’m here to testify -. WOODWARD: Okay. Wait, just one second. First I need to swear you in. If you’ll both raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? AZEVEDO: Yeah. BRANCO: Yeah. WOODWARD: All right. Now we’ll give you, we only have two testifiers but we’d like to limit this to five minutes each. And then we’ll have time for the Commissioners to ask question of you before we start our deliberations. So who would like to go first? AZEVEDO: I’ll go. WOODWARD: Sir, okay. If you’ll speak into the microphone and state your name and address for the record. AZEVEDO: Well, I’m here to testify in favor of the rezoning. My reason for it, nobody will farm three acres -. WOODWARD: Excuse me, sir. AZEVEDO: What’s that? WOODWARD: Could you give us your name and address, name and address for the record. AZEVEDO: Sonomura. Oh, you want my name? 8 WOODWARD: Your name, yes, sir. AZEVEDO: Buddy Azevedo. WOODWARD: Okay. And your address, address? AZEVEDO: It’s 2916A Ainaola. WOODWARD: Okay. Thank you. Now you may continue. AZEVEDO: That’s all you want to know? WOODWARD: That’s all I want to know. AZEVEDO: Well, I’m here to testify in favor of the subdivision. My reason for that is three acres is not affordable to the ordinary people already, for one. For two, nobody farms down there. The only way you can do a three-acre farming is make a piggery and you’ll get the whole people against you. Okay, as far as I’m concerned, when you go down to half an acre you still got a lot of elbow room, you still can do your own home farming. You know, and it’s not, no money affecting me, no nothing. I’m just talking about affordable. And I’m not doing this as a favor for nobody. I’m just doing this out of my own, my own intention. Then you take 3-acres now. How many people can afford that? If they break them down into six half acre lots, I mean, you got six different guys that got a chance to do it and the price is within range. And, again, you know, farming on three acres in Panaewa, you got nothing but rock. Hawaiian Homes is dropping their zoning down which was ten before. They’re bringing them right down. And eventually it’s going to be an acre because nobody can make a go farming down there. If this was Waimea you can truck farm on three acres, oh, you’re a multi-millionaire. But you’ve got no dirt, you know. So my reason for in favor of this subdivision is to make it where as I say .5 acre. You still got elbow room, you still can do little farming on your place. You want to raise couple of animals you can do it. Three acres you can do the same thing. But who can afford three acres? As far as I’m concerned population increases every day, land don’t. So eventually everything is going to be, you know -. Where you can, make it so everybody can afford. That’s my primary reason. Okay, that’s all I’ve got to say. WOODWARD: Thank you, sir. Any questions? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Azevedo, what about one acre? AZEVEDO: What’s that? ALAMEDA: What about one acre? What’s your thoughts on having it instead of .5 acre how about one acre? AZAEVEDO: As far as I’m concerned half acre and one acre zoning is just about same, the only difference is the square feet. One acre is 43,560. You know half acre is about 22,000. So what you can do on half you can do on one.But I’m looking at the money thing, the affordable part. You buy one acre, say, $100,000, you can buy half acre for $50,000 or $60,000. 9 So it comes down to what everybody can purchase, affordable. You know, it doesn’t make any difference as far as I’m concerned. The only thing is square footage difference, that’s all. WOODWARD: Any further questions? Okay, thank you, Mr. Azevedo. You may be stated. And Mr. Branco. BRANCO: Hi, my name is Greg Branco. My physical address is 136 Hoaka Road; and I have a farm at 133 Awa Street. I’m here to, I’m not in favor of half acre lots. I’m one of five children. We border this proposed subdivision here. My parents subdivided into five lots for five of us children; and they were awarded that in 1958. Originally Panaewa Farm Lots were all 20 acre parcels, 20-acre parcels in 1958. And my dad was raising mac nuts, and we were all raised on that property there. Fifteen years ago they subdivided into three acres. My sister folks made a home, my other brother has a residence there. Currently we have livestock, pasture use, and macadamia nuts. And on my property that I was awarded I have a plant rental business -- and I currently have my daughter, you know, going school -- ag, agriculture, and we sort of farm. You know, we were raising a piggery, we had pigs for home use. And, you know, my daughter folks, you know, were looking later on as using the land. It’s not intended to sell or anything. We’re there to stay, you know. Eventually, you know, my kids will make a home, whatever. But, anyway, we farm. I spray. I take care of my plants, you know. I use the mist blower. Currently right now I have a, I have a shade house adjoining my parents’ home, which is adjoining this property here. And, you know, I use caution. I mean, you know, now days with anything we plant, we spray and stuff, you know, and just the effect of having 12 lots, half acre lots -. Now originally it was three acres. And all of a sudden next to adjoining us we’re going to have 12 half acre lots? I mean what’s going to happen to our farm? I mean originally Ag business, you know, spraying, raising animals. And all this, I mean we’re going to have people’s back yards against us, you know. It’s like, wow, this is ag land. I still believe it shouldn’t be three acres, not even one acre.You know, I still think that should be over -. The canal borders the other subject property and then that’s small lots, just like off Palai Street. That’s small subdivisions. But I believe Panaewa Farm Lots should still be farm lots, regardless. It’s going to hamper our way of life there. And I think it’s too premature. To have half acre lots in a big area like that I think it’s uncalled for. That’s all I have to say. WOODWARD: Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Branco? DOMINGO: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you. Mr. Branco, as you do farming on your lots, you mentioned that you spray and, I guess, you spray the chemicals and poison, herbicides. You’ve got any harsh reactions from your neighbor, the surrounding neighbors? BRANCO: No. DOMINGO: None, huh? BRANCO: No, no, no. 10 DOMINGO: Okay. Very good. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: If someone could show us where your lots are. Are they just abutting right below? BRANCO: Yeah. You see where that triangle? BOWMAN: Right BRANCO: Okay, those are five lots there BOWMAN: Okay. And those are yours? BRANCO: Yes. My property is the second to the last one there. But my shade house is on the first property, right on Awa. That’s where my parents own that, right off of, right there -. BOWMAN: And your shade house abuts the other -? BRANCO: It’s right there, yeah. You can see the shade house if you pass by today. And the next lot is my sister’s. They have a home there also. But that whole area is pasture. That whole area adjoining from the Awa Street there all the way back, that’s all pasture; and they’re currently using it for the cattle in there. BOWMAN: And the other lots are actively being -? BRANCO: Farming macadamia nuts. BOWMAN: Okay. And the other lots aside from your family lots are actively being used for agriculture or for -? BRANCO: For, well, for livestock. BOWMAN: Livestock. BRANCO: And there’s another residence at the last lot, the other triangle way in the back, right there. That’s my brother’s home. That home, my sister has a home on the second lot, and my parents have the original home in the front. BOWMAN: But this, you know, subdividing this property will not prohibit you from carrying on your agricultural endeavors because you still have the agricultural zoning. BRANCO: We still have the agricultural zoning, yes. So, you know, right against us, as they say we’re going to have homeowners. That’s like six lots in the back of us and -. I think it will hamper our, you know, we’ve got to use consideration for everything, you know. That’s a lot of people. That’s a lot of people there.I mean I think it would hamper, definitely hamper, 11 hamper our activities. Raising piggery, you know, what if the kids want to raise pigs or something like that? Oh, the smell. We have to listen to complaints all the time. That’s like, wow, this is farm land, you know. You know, dogs -. BOWMAN: But you’re allowed to do it. BRANCO: We’re allowed to do it, yeah, we can do it. Yeah. BOWMAN: Yes. BRANCO: We can raise chickens right there, roosters. But we have to be considerate, you know, I mean, sometimes. But, anyway, I’m just looking at the whole picture. BOWMAN: Thank you. BRANCO: Sure. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Branco, for coming today. Just to summarize the differences in the testimony, just so I make sure I’ve got it correct, Mr. Azevedo suggested that he would be for the project because of its affordability to residents who are looking for a property to live. And so his testimony suggested that he didn’t mind it being half an acre or one acre, and in fact half acre would give enough elbow room, he said, to do both. Your testimony is suggesting that, you know, you’ve been living there for a long time for generations back, you’ve got family there, you’ve got livestock, chickens, you spray. I mean you basically have a farm lot; and you’re concerned about, you know, neighbors, many of them. They could be complaining about the spray, the livestock, this and this, and you’d just like kind of want to prevent the whole thing cause it will put a damper on how you live and the quality of life that you guys grew up with. Is that correct? BRANCO: Correct. ALAMEDA: So, you know, the last time you mentioned, I think it was maybe Ms. Azevedo that mentioned, your sister mentioned the idea of possibly one acre as a compromise. But what I’m hearing you say is that even one acre is kind of too much already? BRANCO: Yeah. ALAMEDA: Okay, got ‘um. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, Mr. Branco, with the laws that we have governing the land uses, you have an agricultural parcel right now and in the event 12 this application is approved and you start building homes then, as mentioned, you know, that doesn’t prevent you from farming. And as you indicated if you want to go into a, having a piggery, in the most worst case scenario a piggery, or you decide to raise 100 roosters in the back yard nearest to the development, you can do it. You know, there is nothing that would prohibit you from doing it because it is zoned agriculture. And I think if it does go through then those who sell the properties, the realtors, have to make it known to the buyers that this is what they’re buying into, it’s adjoining an agricultural parcel, and that already there are certainly agricultural activities on there, you know, which might be of nuisance to them because they’re not farmers. And in the event you decide to change the use of, not the use but the function of the land and do some other things that would then involved spraying of chemicals and herbicides and whatever, you know, they have to know what they’re buying into and they have to, they need to accept that. There is no recourse for them to really coming back and petition that you stop that use because it’s agricultural. And I just want to let you know about, you know, the different kinds of scenarios that you’ll be facing in the event that this develop, those people who buy into it will be facing. Thank you. WOODWARD: Any further questions or comments? HOUSEL: I had one question. This land area, the two lots that we’re talking about and also your land, is it relatively level? BRANCO: It’s -. HOUSEL: Is there a slope? BRANCO: Yes. HOUSEL: Okay, which way does it slope? BRANCO: It slopes downhill. There’s a big -. WOODWARD: Excuse me, if you could use the microphone, please. BRANCO: Those two lots where the proposed subdivision is going to be are lower than the property that we own there. There’s a big -. HOUSEL: Okay. How steep is the slope? BRANCO: Oh, it’s a hill. There’s a picture. You had some photographs earlier on that, on the roadway, Awa. HOUSEL: Has there been any problem with flooding or runoff from your land to theirs? BRANCO: Currently, no, no flooding problems. HOUSEL: Okay. Now where are the pig sheds? 13 BRANCO: Right now, there’s, it’s just livestock right now. We had a piggery on the existing property there but when we made the fence, we subdivided the lot, we tore it down. HOUSEL: Okay. BRANCO: We had a piggery for like, you know, 25 years, with a dog kennel and all those things. But right now, there’s nothing right now. There’s no piggery right now. HOUSEL: Okay, okay. BRANCO: Livestock there is. But there’s a lot of wild pigs in there, all over the place. But, anyway, but, you know, still got mac nuts and things, but -. HOUSEL: Is there any problem of, since your land is higher than theirs, is there any problem of runoff from your land to theirs? BRANCO: No. HOUSEL No, okay. Thank you. BRANCO: Sure. WOODWARD: Anything further? BOWMAN: I just have one comment. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman BOWMAN: You know, I live in Kohala and we’re faced with the same problems, people moving in, and they don’t like the chickens, and they don’t like the pigs, and it happens. And, you know, looking at what the LUPAG and, you know, what the General Plan says for this area, you know, change will take place. But I think like the other Commissioner said if the buyers are aware, you can go and do, you know, whatever your agriculture, whatever is allowed in your district. So just be assured of that. Thank you. WOODWARD: Any body else? Last call. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you. Just to clarify it, the property that’s involved in this case, that’s not being used today? There’s no use made of the property that’s subject to this application? BRANCO: There’s no activity on the proposed subdivision? IWASHITA: Right. 14 BRANCO: No, we don’t see anything going on there. IWASHITA: Was there ever any activity? Was it ever used for ag? BRANCO: The previous owner, Mr. Nagano, used to raise Christmas trees on the property. IWASHITA: And that was how long ago? BRANCO: Sixties. They probably sold it in the early seventies, I think it was. And then it was used for a landscape company or, well, like a plant nursery after Nagano sold that. He was raising Christmas trees, as I say. And then it was, there’s a home there that’s still standing there, the original home; and after that a landscaper had it, had his business there. And ever since then it was vacated, the home was being rented out. But as far as the original 20 acres it’s downsized to 14 acres because of the canal that was built. So there’s a canal on that property that runs there. So from 20 acres that parcel went down to 14 acres. And that’s, the owner had sold that before that. IWASHITA: And, you know, couple of times during the questioning here it has been mentioned that the designation on the General Plan for your land as well as this land is Medium Density Urban. Medium or Low? WOODWARD: Low. IWASHITA: Low Density Urban, which is not Agriculture. Okay? Were you aware of that, that your land is, on the General Plan, not designated for agricultural use? BRANCO: Yes. Ever since Nani Mau got involved with the Panaewa Farm Lots, that’s when a lot of things have changed. So we’re aware of that, especially when my parents subdivided their 20-acre parcel. IWASHITA: So, I guess my concern is that, or the concern I’d like you to address is whether or not, you know, basically because we’re looking at it, I live just below Kulana Foods. So, you know, in the old days, hanabatta days, I guess, there were no houses up there, right? And only since the tidal wave did they convert that ag land, now it’s all houses. So, you know, basically what’s being suggested today is, you know, is that because of the LUPAG designation that 30 years from now Panaewa Farm Lots is going to look like Waiakea House Lots, right? That’s what we’re talking about. And what you’re saying is you don’t want that –? BRANCO: I don’t. No, I don’t. IWASHITA: You think they should stay Ag. So -. BRANCO: But I do, like it’s going to happen. I mean, you know, but I just want to put the brakes on, you know. 15 IWASHITA: Okay. And Commissioner Domingo suggested to you that, you know, there’s disclosure and all these other things, there are things that are going to come up. One of the things that I want to make you aware of and suggest is that these community development plans that have been going on for Puna and Kona and Kohala and so forth, that that really needs to be done for Panaewa forest, and for Hilo and Hamakua, those areas that haven’t been done yet; and they’re going to start Kau pretty soon. So, I don’t know, are you concerned enough about these kinds of things that you would participate in that process to see -? BRANCO: Yes, yes, yes, definitely. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: All right. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Branco, you may be seated. Any discussion, Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: For a motion? WOODWARD: You’re ready to make a motion, go for it. IWASHITA: Well, my motion would be that with regard to application REZ 08-000081, are we doing this separately? WOODWARD: Mr. Torigoe, do we have two separate motions? TORIGOE: Yeah, usually you do the State Land Use first. IWASHITA: So the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agriculture to Urban for 6.3 acres of land, that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the County Council. WOODWARD: Do we have a second? ALAMEDA: Second. WOODWARD: Now I’ll get things in the right order. Any discussion? IWASHITA: Yes. Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you. Beyond the community development plan issue that I raised just now, I’m really concerned, you know -.Having come from the Hawaii Conference of Planning Officials the other month on Maui, most of the discussion was about peak oil and really focusing on the fact that we as an island community are, you know, subject to -- I mean $140 a barrel of oil went down, now went under $65 a barrel, whatever -- the unpredictability of the oil market and what’s going to happen just, you know -. Well, it was emphasized how vulnerable we are. And that if it goes up to 150, you know, go back up to that kind of a level, that you know, we’re expletively deleted, really, economically and all kinds of ways. And so the focus 16 that I brought back from that is that, you know, for any kind of consideration of expanding the Urban core, which is basically what we’re talking about, that we really have to consider what the impact of this is. And, you know, Mr. Nishimura talked about existing infrastructure and, yes, there is existing infrastructure. But it’s, frankly, very limited. There are no sewers there. You know, there’s really no public transportation to this area. I don’t think there’s any plan for this area in the near future. It’s not really accessible by public transportation. And if we as an island community are going to protect ourselves and do the best for developing our future in a way where we can reduce or come close to eliminating the need for oil and using, you know, what our newly elected president is talking about, you know, focusing on alternative energy and so forth, then we cannot continue down this road. You know, I recognize that under the General Plan this is Low Density Urban, you know, but that was -.To me, right now, that’s historical. But also undisputed in the record is under the existing community development plan, which is not law, was adopted in 1975, this area is still designated as Agricultural.So there’s a conflict in our planning documents, sort of a technicality. But, to me, the reality is that we really need to focus on what our actions will do and how it will impact the future, whether it’s going to be a preferred one where we get off our oil habit or not; and that is a primary consideration for me. I really don’t see a need for this now or in the foreseeable future. And once we get the community development plans going it may end up that we, you know, when the community gets involved in the process, that we’ll determine that we really don’t need this type of subdivision in the future. So that’s the basis for my opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can feel and understand the sentiments expressed by the Commissioner and I also understand the feelings of Mr. Branco. I look at it in a larger context, the fact that with the increase of population and many people moving here in the islands and with the scarcity of developable properties, the demand increases and the prices of the land increase tremendously. And what’s happening is our local people here on the Big Island can hardly afford any of those properties for themselves. What we find here is people who have properties would like to make them available for those people who’d like to do agricultural activities; and for someone living in a rural atmosphere a half acre parcel would be ideal for them. There are conditions in the ordinance which would entail the development of improvements of the streets, which would certainly address the increase in traffic. But it seems like that is not the issue right now. The issue is that the activities that would probably take place by the neighbors; and as I indicated, you know, if at the present time Mr. Branco here wants to do agriculture that does not preclude him or stop him from doing agriculture, he can just go along as he has been doing for all these years. And if in the event the others who come in with no intent of doing agriculture and just owning a half acre lot and do some perhaps raising flowers or doing a vegetable garden, then they can do so.And if Mr. Branco decides to go into a piggery or raise roosters he can also do it because under the Agricultural designation that does not stop him from doing it. But if neighbors who come there with the sole intent of just buying a big property and relaxing and thinking they’re buying a residential property, and that laws governing residential/rural uses applies to them then they’re mistaken because what precludes that is it’s all agricultural land. And those who are doing legitimate and bonafide agricultural activities are those people who are entitled to these agricultural lands, and not just residential property owners. And that’s the way I look at it. 17 In changing the boundary amendment it would permit the applicant to develop smaller lots; and it would provide for, hopefully, people who live in the area in Hilo who can afford to buy those lands to buy into it, and it would provide for the local people who live here. And on the other hand in the future if Mr. Branco decides to sell his 3-acre parcels and even before selling it he decides to subdivide it for him and his siblings, subdivide it, you know, they can sell it for a price much more higher than what acre parcels have been sold for. And from an economic standpoint it’s to his advantage that he will have this in his reserve that he can rely on to meet the expenses of the day in the future. And that’s why, you know, I speak against the motion. I think that the State Land Use Boundary application is appropriate in this case. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: Boy, I really sit on a fence here. Maybe there was a reason I was late. When I just was coming in I heard the recent, on the radio, about land prices and home sales; and home sales have decreased 50 percent from last year at this time, and condos I think 100 percent. And as Commissioner Domingo said, there are lots of people coming. Well, I question, you know, the influx of people with the economic state of the world and our country. So, with that being said, I don’t know how profitable this subdivision will be.But on the other hand if the owner is willing to put out the money and, you know, do this, that’s the other side of the coin. So I maybe want to hear from other Commissioners who favor this, maybe some others; and I hear Mr. Iwashita’s concern, and I have that concern too. So maybe a little bit more discussion will help me make that decision. WOODWARD: Commissioners? Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Sure. I think Mr. Branco’s testimony pretty much captured for me, you know, the idea that, yeah, it’s allowed, chickens, roosters, pigs. But he’s trying to prevent the inevitable, which is complaints from the neighbors, and what you’ve mentioned, Commissioner Bowman, the precedence that’s being set and has been set already. So when I asked the applicant’s representative why .5 acre and why not one acre, you know, the answer was, well, because previously we approved a .5 acre. And so you see how the precedence works from previous to now? And so I’m just a little bit concerned about, you know, kind of along the lines that Mr. Branco has mentioned that there might some precedent setting here. And it’s not just, you know, one neighbor. I mean it sounds like one neighbor but it’s one neighbor who owns basically five properties. So if there were more neighbors then you’d probably have more testimony. So, you know, I mean it just seems to me that the testimony that I’ve heard from Mr. Branco is sufficient, it’s valid, it convinced me that maybe this is not the right time for such a development, and it will be a big imposition, and it will change his quality of life as a farmer. So that’s why I’ll vote in favor of the motion. WOODWARD: Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just couple of points. One is the point of spot zoning raised by the Department of Transportation; and I know technically the definition, spot zoning is argued that, well, since the LUPAG is Low Density Urban that any change of zone is not really spot zoning. To me that begs the question. And if you look at the map clearly, you know, we’re going to, this whole idea of precedent and starting down the road to this development, that’s, I think, pretty much a given. The other point is that, you know, as far as 18 this applicant actually doing this, there’s no guarantee the applicant is going to do the subdivision and will have these additional lots on the market in two years or so. You know, the other subdivision has already been approved and on the books for years, and years, and years, came in a few months ago for a five-year extension and its subdivision plan has not been submitted or approved as far as I know. So, you know, there is already, if you’re looking at providing for a need, right, the entitlement for doing a subdivision in this area is already there and that developer has not done anything. To me that speaks loads. So what we’re really looking at is granting this owner entitlement. And once we do that, if it goes up and it passes Council, then the reality is the owner has increased the value of the property by putting in whatever the cost of going through this process is, and is able to turn around and sell it to someone else for a profit without actually doing the development, and without actually providing the alleged benefit that this development would have. So I think we have to take it with a grain of salt the professed actual benefit to the community of this. The immediate benefit will be granting the owner and applicant an entitlement which at that moment opposite of buying a new car and driving it off the lot, as soon as it’s granted it’s going to increase the value of this property without another dime being spent. So I really think that from my perspective in terms of my role on the Commission it’s to look at the big picture -- and really the big picture is there really is no demonstrative need now because of, you know, the market conditions and our recession; and it’s going to take years, really, before we can, you know, recover from where we are right now economically – and it’s that this should not be done now. In the meantime we should do the community development plans and see really how the community wants this developed and address the really bigger issues for the community. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Yes. I have a question. Commissioner Kimo brought up that potentially if this subdivided and there are ag lands directly adjacent to it that there may be friction between the new owners and the existing owners of the adjacent land wanting to continue their agriculture. And I wanted to ask Mr. Torigoe if he could help me understand what the current Hawaii law is regarding disclosure to the new potential landowners of adjacent ag property and the reduction of, you know, possible friction there. TORIGOE: Thank you. Commissioner Housel, I’m not an expert on the disclosure requirements but I don’t know that you need to necessarily disclose the surrounding zoning. Now that’s something that you would do normally in due diligence. HOUSEL: Well, then I’d like to ask our Director Yuen would that be appropriate to add as a condition that they disclose that? YUEN: It can be required as a condition, yes. I’m not sure what the disclosure requirements are but there is legal protection under the Right-To-Farm Act from complaints. So it doesn’t protect you from having a complaint made and having a government agency come out and look at your establishment which sometimes, in itself, shakes up the farmer and has caused problems. But it does generate, protect farming activities. HOUSEL: Right. Well, I’m concerned about the potential buyers that may not understand what that means if they want to buy that property and find out later that they didn’t understand it. 19 YUEN: Yes, and Mr. Hayashi just gave me a draft of one of, an LUC condition that was put on a recent LUC reclassification; and that basically said that “The applicant shall notify all prospective purchasers of the proposed lots that farming operations and practices on adjacent or continuous land in the State Land Use District are protected under HRS, Chapter 165, the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. This notice shall be included in any disclosure required for the sale or transfer of all or any portion of the proposed lots.” So that is a condition that the LUC has put in. HOUSEL: Good, good. That answers my question. WOODWARD: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: The problem with that requirement is it only applies to the applicant. Once the lots are sold and you have individual owners and they start selling, then that, I heard that condition wouldn’t apply to the subsequent owners. So, and to me the reality is that, you know, even today when we get Kona winds I smell Kulana Foods; and I know there’s nothing I can do about it. But, you know, what we’re being asked to do is to allow basically a mixed use at this point on the claim of the Low Density Urban designation. Right? And to me that’s not enough. And really the bigger concern is is this really, you know, given the fact that we’re going to do sometime hopefully soon do community development planning for this area and in that process, you know, get the community involved and really let them decide how this is going to go down -- whether it’s really going to remain Low Density Urban or if they’re going to push to get it back to ag -- let the community decide that and what is best for our community. This is, you know, it really enhances to me the fact that what we’re being asked to do is what the Department of Transportation says, on a piece-meal basis. Right? One by one we’re going to get basically this Urban creep; and, frankly, I don’t like creeps. WOODWARD: Any further comments? All right, I guess we’re ready for a vote. Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? 20 HOUSEL: I want to clarify the motion. Is it to give it a negative referral? Is that correct -? COTTLE: That’s correct. HOUSEL: Okay. Then my vote is no. COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: No. COTTLE: And Chair Woodward? WOODWARD: No. COTTLE: That’s four to three. And that does not pass. WOODWARD: Yes, it does not. COTTLE: Thank you. WOODWARD: I’ll ask Mr. Torigoe. I know there’s a time limit. We have to have five votes one way or the other to send a recommendation. And since this is a State Land Use Boundary Amendment there is a time limit that we have to, if we want to reconsider this. So maybe you call fill us in a little bit on that. TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Basically there is nothing in your rules that specifically speaks to the time limit on State Land Use Boundary Amendments; but the accompanying rezoning request does have a 90-day time limit from the time that the application is received by the Commission from the Director. And I guess I would ask the staff to inform us whether that 90-day time limit has been reached yet or if this can be easily continued to the next meeting. And you can discuss this, but if it looks like you basically don’t have five votes one way or the other then it would make sense to just defer both of these items until the next meeting. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, sir. ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe, what about the possibility of just moving it up as a no, you know, like some kind of recommendation that we basically didn’t get the five to the County Council? TORIGOE: Well, we discussed this before that since you have this 90-day time limit that the intent of the law basically seems to be that you go ahead and take the 90 days to try and get some kind of recommendation. And then after that then it goes up on a default negative, unless the applicant really wants it to hang around longer. 21 WOODWARD: All right. I think it might be appropriate if somebody would like to move to defer both of these items. TORIGOE: Do we have a date? th COTTLE: We could hear this on the December 5 agenda, at the December meeting. We have one more month. WOODWARD: All right, okay. Let me ask the representative if that’s acceptable to him. NISHIMURA: Yes. WOODWARD: He says yes. Okay, do I hear a motion? BOWMAN: I move that we defer the State Land Use Boundary Amendment th application SLU 08-000020, Change of Zone application REZ 08-000081 to the December 5 meeting. ALAMEDA: Second. Discussion. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, one question. WOODWARD: Yes, sir. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know, in view of the fact that we had taken action on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment application and it was defeated, well, there was no majority vote on that, would it be proper then to consider discussion on that at the next Planning Commission meeting? WOODWARD: Discuss, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Discuss? DOMINGO: To consider it at the next Planning Commission meeting. th WOODWARD: That’s what the motion is, the December 5 meeting. DOMINGO: Yeah, but what implications would today’s action have on our intent to consider it at the next meeting because we’re saying we defer action on it until the next meeting. But in actuality we’re taking final decision on the State Land Use Boundary application today. And it’s -. TORIGOE: No. Actually in order to make your negative recommendation you would have to have five votes; and that did not happen. But the defeat of the motion to make a negative recommendation does not mean that, you know, you’re making a positive recommendation. You know, you would need to have five votes one way or the other. And so the defeat of today’s motion basically is a nonaction. DOMINGO: It’s a nonaction, okay. 22 TORIGOE: Yeah, it still leaves the floor open for you to make either motion again, and pass it at the next meeting DOMINGO: So there’s still life then, huh? TORIGOE: That’s correct. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: And so just to, for my own understanding – so then the only thing, at the next meeting two things would have to happen for this to have a majority vote either way. One is Commissioners change their mind, right, from now till then; or, two, we just have more Commissioners that somehow make it a five to four, or five to three, or majority vote. So that’s the two things that could change the potential of this application either way. So that’s what the next meeting is going to tell us, pretty much? WOODWARD: Yes. ALAMEDA: Okay. WOODWARD: Any other comments, questions? Okay, Maija. COTTLE: Thank you. Commissioner Alameda, did you second the motion? ALAMEDA: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye COTTLE: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. 23 COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. COTTLE: And Chair Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, motion passes to defer. WOODWARD: All right. The discussion ended at 10:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary 24