Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-01 tnakamura PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 1, 2006 GLENN T. NAKAMURA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 06-000045) was called to order at 9:05 a.m.in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. Kimo AlamedaWilliam R. Graham PRESENT: C. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Andrew Iwashita (from 9:10 a.m.) Jeffrey McCall Alvin Rho Allen Salavea QdmdlRhq`btr` Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 17 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 acres of 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 Awa Street, 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. ALAMEDA: Agenda Item No. 1, that’s Glenn Nakamura, rezoning 06-000045. It’s a continued hearing. Staff? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This application is also for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban; and it’s State Land Use 06-000012. st At the last meeting on November 1, the hearing on both applications were heard. There was a motion for an unfavorable recommendation on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. At EXHIBIT A 1 that time, both Commissioner Alameda and Commissioner McCall were not present at the meeting, both of you have received copies of the transcript and information. So do you want me to give you a brief orientation, or shall I dispense with it? It’s at your pleasure. ALAMEDA: Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: I’m fine. ALAMEDA: I’m fine. You can proceed. Thank you, Norman. HAYASHI: Okay, thank you. As I indicated, there was a motion for an unfavorable recommendation to the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. The motion for that unfavorable recommendation did not pass. The vote was three to four. The reason given for the motion for an unfavorable recommendation was that the lot was already nonconforming and that this would be a first rezoning or RA zoning which would constitute a spot zoning. The individuals that voted for the unfavorable motion was Commissioner Graham, Commissioner Iwashita, and Commissioner Siracusa. Those against the unfavorable recommendation were Commissioner Galdones, Commissioner Rho, Commissioner Salavea and Commissioner Watanabe. So at this time, this application has been continued to today for further action and deliberation by the Planning Commission. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Norman. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, will the applicant or his representative please come forward. NISHIMURA: Thank you. ALAMEDA: I’ll swear you in. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? NISHIMURA: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you. On my immediate right, could you please state your name and address for the record. NISHIMURA: Brian Nishimura, planning consultant for the applicant. The home address is 1174 Awiki Place, Hilo. ALAMEDA: Thanks, Brian. Name and address please. NAKAMURA: Glenn Nakamura, 416 Noe Street. ALAMEDA: Than you, Glenn. Do you have anything to add, Brian, to the discussion from the last time? (Commissioner Iwashita arrived at this time, 9:10 a.m.) EXHIBIT A 2 NISHIMURA: Yes. I’d like an opportunity address some of the concerns that were raised at the hearing in November; and if I may, I’d like to go up to the map. ALAMEDA: Sure. NISHIMURA: There has been a concern raised about precedent setting and what could happen to the area. I’d like to point out that this area outlined with the dash lines is already in the State Land Use Urban district. This is the subject property right here. The General Plan Low Density designation generally extends along Railroad Avenue and along the Volcano Highway; and I believe it terminates around Mamaki Street, which is around here. So this general area is all within in this General Plan Low Density Urban designation. The areas that you see to the south and to the east are all Agricultural designations on the General Plan. This is the State Agricultural park. These are Hawaiian Home Lands agricultural and residential leases. So the ability of these areas or these areas here to apply for the similar type of zoning or Urban designation would, they won’t have the same considerations because the General Plan designation, for one, is Important Agricultural Land and, secondly, you know, the proximity to the Urban district is not the same. All of these lots within the first phase of the Panaewa Residential Lot Subdivision were subdivided in 1957 by the State of Hawaii for Residential purposes. The second increment which includes my client’s property includes 25 lots here, it had the same description. It was for residential purposes. These people applied for State Land Use Urban designation in the late, I believe in 1966. They were initially denied, they appealed, and they won the appeal in a decision by the Third Circuit Court. And so I believe in 1969 or 1970 this area was put into the Urban district. So in terms of the character of the area and what has been established, I believe, you know, through the subdivision of the land by the State and its intended purpose, it was for residential use first. Because of its lot sizes ranging between 1.7 and 2.7 acres in size, there have been agricultural activities that have been conducted on those properties; but most I would describe them as supplemental agriculture and not the primary purpose of the property. I believe that the area is suitable for Urban and a higher density use. It does have all necessary infrastructure. It is served by County water. It has adequate roadways. And, like I said, the change for this property should not affect the State Agricultural Park lands or the other lands that are clearly intended for agricultural purposes. ALAMEDA: Questions, Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Brian, would you reiterate what types of soils are on this subject property so we can get a better feel for whether we’re paving over prime Agricultural? NISHIMURA: The soils of the project area are classified as being of the Papai Series which consists of well-drained, thin, extremely stony organic soils over A’a lava. The Agricultural Subclass rating for this soil is VIIs, nonirrigated, which indicates soils have very EXHIBIT A 3 severe limitations because of shallow, droughty or stony conditions that make them unsuited to cultivation and restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. The Land Study Bureau rating for the soil is a Class E which is very poor. WATANABE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Any other questions? Commissioner Iwashita, welcome. IWASHITA: Thank you. I apologize for being late this morning. Mr. Nishimura, would you agree with me that if we granted this application that essentially everyone along that blue line going east and west basically should be able to come in here and say, well, we’re all entitled to have it changed also? NISHIMURA: I believe the people within Panaewa Residential Lots Increment 1 and Increment 2 would probably be, should be considered similarly. IWASHITA: Let me clarify my question. My question references all properties that adjoin the southern boundary of the Urban area, which basically your client’s property is located, right? NISHIMURA: That’s correct; and -. IWASHITA: Okay. So with regard to all those property owners on the southern boundary of the Urban area, if this application is granted, all of those property owners on the southern boundary from east to west between essentially the highway and Railroad Avenue, all of those people basically should be entitled to coming here and say, well, you granted the Nakamura application so we should have the same treatment? NISHIMURA: Well, that’s not exactly correct. I think your statement would apply to the lots spanning this area. This is the County park; and this property is part, I believe, of the State Agricultural Park, so it would not, the second increment of the Panaewa Residential Lot Subdivision extends to where my finger is right now. And so your statement, I think, would apply to these lots here. IWASHITA: And then going south, how far down does the subdivision go? NISHIMURA: To Mamaki Street. IWASHITA: And further south is the Ag park? NISHIMURA: Right. IWASHITA: So essentially, I guess my concern would be that all of the owners in that block basically should be able to get the same treatment if we grant this one. EXHIBIT A 4 NISHIMURA: Well, again, the lots to the south of Mamaki Street I believe are not within the General Plan Low Density Urban designation. IWASHITA: But all of the lots north of Mamaki Street are, right? NISHIMURA: That’s correct. IWASHITA: Okay. So in terms of precedent then would you agree with me that all of those people between Mamaki Street and the southern boundary of that urban area would essentially be entitled to argue precedential treatment and get this similar change that we’re being asked to approve today? NISHIMURA: They would have the same factors; and I believe, yes, they could make a case. IWASHITA: Okay. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Siracusa, no? SIRACUSA: No. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: If I may, if you would entertain a motion, Mr. Chair? HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, before you do that, just a slight oversight on my part. We did receive a letter from Mr. and Mrs. William Kanuha. This is addressed to Brian Nishimura. Letters were sent to our office, and I believe they were circulated to you this morning. They’re adjoining property owners to the south of the subject property; and they indicated to the applicant’s consultant that they do not support the applications before you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Norman. If there are no further questions for the applicant or representative, I’ll ask them to be seated; and we can just kind of move to the next step. Are there any further questions? SIRACUSA: Are there any people from the public? ALAMEDA: To testify, no. SIRACUSA: Okay. And I was also wondering if the neighbors had given any reasons what their particular concerns were? HAYASHI: Well, the only letter we received was this letter from the Kanuhas; and I’ll read that into -. EXHIBIT A 5 SIRACUSA: No, I have that. I was just wondering if possibly you had been in a phone conversation with them. HAYASHI: No. SIRACUSA: Okay. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita, question for the applicant before we -? IWASHITA: I was just wondering if Mr. Nishimura has had any discussions with the Kanuhas relative to their letter? NISHIMURA: Not relative to their letter. We did talk to a member of the family while I was visiting the property and it was kind of like they saw us taking some pictures and came over and, you know, we had kind of a across-the-fence conversation. I did talk to one of the sons. Mr. Kanuha was a few feet away but he did not participate in the conversation; and we just explained what we were doing, we were, you know, in the process of applying for this application and we were going to request subdividing the property into three lots. IWASHITA: Are these Duane’s parents? NISHIMURA: I believe so, yes. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Any more questions for our applicant’s representative or applicant? Seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you, Brian. We don’t have any testimony from the public right now, so that moves us up to the next step in the process. Anybody would like to entertain a motion so we can go into discussion? SALAVEA: Mr. Chair, if I may? ALAMEDA: Sure, Commissioner Salavea SALAVEA: I’ll take the applications separately. In the matter of Glenn T. Nakamura, State Land Use Boundary Amendment application, (SLU 06-000012), I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council per the Planning Director’s recommendation. WATANABE: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Salavea, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Discussion? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I have quite a few concerns about this one; and some of them I voiced the last time. Regarding the issue of the suitability of the land for farming, a lot of the parcels in that EXHIBIT A 6 area are already in orchards. I’ve seen citrus orchards and macadamia nut orchards that I can recall off the top of my head. A lot of people who live in that area also have nurseries where they grow orchids and other tropicals, container culture (in pots).As a matter of fact, one of them is named Watanabe, Marge and Yoshi Watanabe. And so I don’t think that looking at the soil quality alone is going to tell you whether or not you can engage in farming on a parcel. That’s number one. Last time we were talking about the State Land Use Urban District right next door. And I noticed that although it has been quite a while since it has received that designation, no one has applied to subdivide any of those parcels. They are still good sized large conforming parcels. And so I think that should tell us something about the desire of the community to keep a certain size. Also, Commissioner Watanabe last time had said that, well, maybe people haven’t done that, gone through that process to subdivide because the process is intimidating; and I would like to differ with that because I believe that we would not have such long meetings here every time if the process was intimidating. People are always applying. And in that case if people are already in the State Land Use Urban District, it shouldn’t be an intimidating process at all. It should be, you know, pretty much of a slam dunk. So I think that basically what you’ve got here is a very old, very stable community; and it is a very quiet community. You do not find gangs of roaming teenagers, you know, committing vandalism. You do not have a whole lot of police reports coming in on domestics and things like that. The minute you start opening this up to subdividing it into smaller parcels, and then more and more smaller parcels, that’s when you start creating change in the community. And change is stressful, and then all the other stuff starts happening. So I don’t feel that we should set the precedent. Mr. Nakamura has other options available to him. For example, he and his siblings could continue to hold the property, you know, each one having, I think it’s three of them, a one-third share. They could hold it as tenants in common, and then each one could still pass on their one- third share to their heirs. That’s one possibility. One of the siblings could buy out the other two, and then that sibling would have the land to pass on, the other two would have the money to pass on. Or all three could sell to a completely separate third party and divvy up the money between them. So I think Mr. Nakamura has quite a few options available in terms of passing on this inheritance to the next generation. But I do not think it is fair to impact the whole character of a community, of an entire community, just for the convenience of one family. So my concern is that we’re looking at the greatest good for the most number of people. And on that basis, I’m going to very strongly object to this application. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Well, I think we’ve heard testimony that the revised General Plan already includes that second subdivision as part of Low Density Urban. So when you’re speaking to the greater good, I would assume that the General Plan is addressing the greater good. In addition, you know, I find this quite interesting that on one hand we’re arguing that history has shown that there is no demand because no one has come in or only one application has come in for a rezoning; and yet we’re also arguing that we’re concerned that once we set the precedent there will be a flood of applications coming in and everything will change in this neighborhood. The two don’t coincide together. It doesn’t make sense. You know, if you don’t have demand, then EXHIBIT A 7 you’re only going to have this one lot there. And if you do have demand, then it’s still within the General Plan and also adjoins the State’s Land Use. So I don’t really see a real issue with this. I mean it’s not as though this thing is going to sprawl all the way to Kau. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Any other comments before we move forward? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just speaking in favor of the motion, I think we need to think or look at this area as being both useful from an agricultural standpoint and also from a residential standpoint. Its location near Hilo and the center of commerce in the eastern side makes it very valuable for residents. If the land is used for multiple residences this will make it easier for people to, this will help with our housing shortage and make the commuting for people less difficult. If we continue to hold these lands near the center of economic activity where the jobs are, we encourage urban sprawl; and that sprawl is Hawaiian Paradise Park where you have a lot people living on large acreage but only one or two houses. And it doesn’t make sense when we have this land that is near Hilo but it’s not, in terms of soil quality, not the most productive. You know, you can go either way. Either way it should be okay. And we’re not talking about moving this land use into Commercial-Industrial. It’s for Residential use, which I see is just as valuable as using it for Agricultural purposes. And I think that’s my position and reason for moving for a favorable recommendation. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate and share Commissioner Salavea’s concern for our housing shortage, although my view is that this application really doesn’t address the real housing shortage, which is affordable housing. My impression is that if this subdivision goes through and we have these three, essentially, one-acre lots, that’s not going to impact at all on the affordable housing market. I mean, the lots alone probably would be close to, well, between $50,000 and $100,000, if not more, and you’re not going to deal with the impact of the affordable housing market with this kind of a development. I guess one of the suggestions has been that, you know, we’re really not going to set any kind of real precedent in this area, that we can only speculate about whether that’s going to happen; and that if you look historically, you know, nothing has really happened, even within the Urban area as far as subdivisions of these properties. To me that’s besides, it doesn’t really address the point. Because to me this process that we’re involved in and what’s important is that we analyze really what is the need; and as I stated earlier I don’t really see a need for this kind of subdivision right now in our community anywhere, really. And because, you know, if there really was a need for this and if you’re a market kind of person, the owners within the Urban area who can do this without coming before this body would have been doing the subdivisions, well, they would have to come before this body but they wouldn’t have to have a State Land Use change application. And, you know, that really to me is a key point in my process concern, is that if we look at the big picture, the General Plan, the State Land Use designations and all of that, what we’re being asked to do is change these, you know, a bigger picture to include this parcel of land, when essentially what we already have zoned and designated under the State Land Use designation and the General Plan is more than adequate really to address the community needs in EXHIBIT A 8 terms of what’s developable for affordable housing and all those things. So we’re being asked to make a change, an exception to the big picture that is already established.And I think that really raises for me a higher burden on the applicant to show a great need; and there really isn’t. The other point I wanted to raise is that the Kanuhas, who I understand are former Planning Director Duane Kanuha’s parents and are adjoining property owners, essentially are the only people in the community who have expressed their opinion about what should be done here; and it is in opposition to this request. So if we consider the only community input really on this, and I think we all should, that obviously argues against approving this subdivision. So basically for those process concerns and the fact that we would really establish a precedent, once this is done then for that area between Awa Street, that southern boundary of the Urban area and the southern portion of that subdivision or the existing subdivision, essentially we’ve opened the door; and it will be smooth sailing for any potential clients for Mr. Nishimura in the future, or any other consultant. So that is a real concern. There really is no need for doing this. The need expressed by the family is a legitimate concern that they have and they want to maximize what their parents have afforded them. But that really is not a proper basis for this, in my mind, for me to consider whether or not we want to make such a great change, and it would be a great change in the State Land Use boundary designations and the other changes we’re being asked to make. So, but for me primarily because the Kanuhas have objected and that’s the only input that we have, I’ll be opposing the motion. ALAMEDA: All right. Let me make sure everybody has a chance for round one at least. Commissioner McCall. MCCALL: Yeah, I figure I better weigh in on this. My concerns, I think, are primarily the proximity to the Hawaiian Homes Ag Park and the State Ag Park. My experience with this area is that it has been a long-time productive area for nursery and orchard crops. I think it makes a nice buffer between it and the State Ag Park; and I would be uncomfortable with rezoning it to, you know, regardless of the General Plan designation, I’d be just uncomfortable with rezoning it at this point in time. ALAMEDA: All right, thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Rho, you have anything to add? RHO: No. ALAMEDA: Okay. I don’t want to go to Round two, but Commissioner Siracusa, you had something just to -? SIRACUSA: Well, I just wanted to respond to Commissioner Watanabe when he referred to -. I don’t think I said there would be a flood of applications for subdivision. I don’t think I used that expression. I don’t think I expected it to happen all that quickly or in enough quantity to warrant calling it a flood. EXHIBIT A 9 I do think, however, that it would open up a pandora’s box ultimately, you know, in the long run, not only of more applications but of community deterioration and the kind of social ills that go along with it that are not present now in that community. And, you know, as they say if something is not broken don’t fix it. This community is working really well; and I think we should leave it alone. ALAMEDA: Any more comments? Seeing none, there’s a motion on the table made by Commissioner Salavea, and seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Staff? HAYASHI: Thank you. Again, the motion is to recommend approval as recommended by the Planning Director, and this would be for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries, five-three. EXHIBIT A 10 ALAMEDA: Thank you, Norman. SALAVEA: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA: If I may entertain a follow-up motion? ALAMEDA: Sure. SALAVEA: In the matter of Glenn T. Nakamura change of zone application (REZ 06- 000045), I move that a favorable recommendation for a change of zone request be forwarded to the County Council per the Planning Director’s recommendation. WATANABE: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Salavea, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Discussion? WATANABE: May I clarify -? ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: This motion would be inclusive of the revised conditions? SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Watanabe, yes. That would be inclusive of the modifications proposed to Letter K, Condition K. Thank you. ALAMEDA: So noted. Seeing no further discussion? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I just wanted to make it clear on the record and reiterate my concerns about, and this is hopefully for the benefit of the Council when they get this, about the lack of a Community Development Plan as required by the General Plan for this area and that we really, when we’re talking about making these kinds of change and speculating about what effects it might have, the existence of a General Plan, Community Development Plan, would be as far as I’m concerned almost dispositive of all the concerns that are being raised here today. So as you all know, that is always a concern of mine in these types of matters. And I just want to make it very clear that that is also part of my opposition. ALAMEDA: Okay, so noted. Staff? HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT A 11 WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Motion carries. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Thank you, Fellow Commissioners. Applicant and his representative, you will be informed in writing of this decision. The discussion ended at 9:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura East Hawai‘i Secretary EXHIBIT A 12