Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-01 Windward Transcript Graphic Images WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 1, 2012 GRAPHIC IMAGES HAWAI‘I, INC. A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (formerly FINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD. and TRI-ELECTRIC, INC.) AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 99 116 (REZ 840) was called to order at 10:25 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Wallace Ishibashi, Stephen Ono and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) And nine people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: GRAPHIC IMAGES HAWAI‘I, INC. (formerly FINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD. and TRI-ELECTRIC, INC.) AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 99 116 (REZ 840) Request to amend Conditions C, H and I of Ordinance No. 99 116, which amended Ordinance No. 96- 159, which rezoned approximately 7.402 acres from the Single-Family Residential–10,000 square feet (RS-10) district to the Neighborhood Commercial–7,500 square feet (CN-7.5) zoning district. The amendment to conditions relates to a 5-year time extension to secure final subdivision approval, timing of installing drainage improvements, and timing of installing roadway improvements along Kahaopea Street. The properties are located on the southeast side of the intersection of Kanoelehua Avenue (State Highway 11) and East Kahaopea Street, Waiākea Homestead House Lots, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMKERN: 2-2-044: 003, 031, 032, 035 and 037. KERN: Application No. 8, Graphic Images Hawai‘i, Inc. (formerly Finance Holdings, Ltd. and Tri- Electric, Inc.), amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No.99 116 (REZ 840), request to amend Conditions C, H and I of Ordinance No. 99 116, which amended Ordinance No. 96-159, on TMK: 2-2-044: 003, 031, 032, 035 and 037. With that, Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You’ll recall that this item was considered at your last Planning Commission hearing. And the Commission decided to defer a decision on the application so that the applicant and his attorney, as well as Ms. Song and her clients, could discuss whether or not it was appropriate to proceed with processing the amendment request for just the four properties owned by st the applicant, even though all five properties were included in the original rezone. On February 21, st actually before February 21 Mr. Yeh, Ms. Song and both the Planning Department and Commission 1 EXHIBIT E Corporation Counsels met to discuss this and came up with a solution, and then Mr. Yeh submitted a st letter on February 21 which you should have. So as part of that solution the Planning Director would like to suggest a change or revision to the Ordinance. You should have a yellow sheet that I just passed out to you. You’ll see that the heading on the Ordinance refers to all five properties, because those were all covered under the original rezone. And then if you read Section 2 it says the “The following amendments to Ordinance No. 99 116 shall apply only to TMKs 31, 32, 35 and 37.” So you’ll notice that Lot 3 would not be affected by any recommendation and bill that you forward up to the County Council. What this does is it allows the applicant to proceed with their request for their property, but it preserves the rights and entitlements for the owner of Lot 3 so that if a successor/trustee is ever identified they have those preserved rights in place for their property. So if the Commission is comfortable with proceeding with this application, with the proposed revision to the Ordinance, I can either answer questions or I can do another presentation to refresh your memory on the property. KERN: Okay, any questions for staff regarding this? Does anyone desire to go through a more formal presentation? Looks like not. Thank you, Maija. What we’ll do is maybe give each, the applicant and the testifier’s representative, Sandy, a quick chance to go over kind of how it was worked out; and then we’ll move into the formal process. So we’ll start with the applicant’s representative. YEH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Basically staff, Maija, did a great job in summarizing what the context of the discussion was. What we did is we did provide that letter to the Commission just so you can understand some of the legal context pursuant to which this proposed condition has now been circulated. So I didn’t want to go further than that cause I think we just wanted to provide the Commission with some background on what the ordinance and the statutes allow the Commission to do, so it felt had a certain comfortable level, so to speak, with what has now been proposed by staff. So from a procedural perspective we’re fine with what has been submitted. KERN: Okay. A little housekeeping here. I’ll swear you in real quick. YEH: Oh, thank you. Sorry. KERN: Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? YEH: Yes, and I did so far also. KERN: I bet you did. Thank you very much. Great. And then I’ll call you back up when we actually get to the formal application. Sandy, would you like to, a chance to come to speak to that? This is kind of separate than the public testimony side of it which I have at the beginning of the meeting. I’ll limit it to three minutes, being that I thought there would be a lot more testimony with the lengthy agenda that we have. So this is just talking about the process in which -. Do you swear to tell the -? 2 EXHIBIT E SONG: Do you want me sworn in? KERN: I certainly do. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? SONG: I do. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sandra Song, and I represent Russell Doi who is a beneficiary of the Margaret Hirose Trust. We did have a meeting and I did receive a copy of Mr. Yeh’s letter from the Planning Department, not from Mr. Yeh. But I respectfully submit that we still object to this petition. And I understand what the Commission’s, what the Corporation Counsel’s position is and your attorney’s position is. But it’s still our position that since this change of zone involved all these parcels it just cannot go through. And I understand, I understand your attorney’s position. But in my, as I see this it’s no different than when you have land that has title that is encumbered and you have to do a quiet title in court. There is a problem; and I think that technical problem with the landownership prevents this application from going through. But it’s the Commission’s decision as to how they want to proceed. KERN: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for either applicant or testifier? Not at this point, okay. So, Amy, would you like to comment. And I’m going to swear you in too. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? Your other right hand. SELF: Yes, yes. Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self. What -? KERN: Your other right hand. SELF: Sorry about that. KERN: Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? SELF: Yes. I guess it’s the first time I’ve ever been sworn in. We did meet and at the table everyone was in agreement with the solution we came up with. But I guess things have changed since that time. But I just want to explain to the Commission what the Planning Director’s position is. It’s that we couldn’t take the TMK off the title of the zoning because that zoning is the zoning for all five properties. So you cannot, you know, we’re not downzoning the property, their property, Parcel 3. It’s, so the only other way we could do this to satisfy the issue of not getting all the signatures, in other words not getting consent from all the property owners, was to indicate in the ordinance that the amended conditions, the conditions that you’re amending, do not affect Parcel 3. It only affects the other four parcels. So by doing that, cause none of these conditions do affect Parcel 3. And you’re not rezoning. These properties, all five properties have already been rezoned. So all you’re doing is simply changing some of the conditions of the rezone ordinance which do not in any way affect Parcel 3. So with that being said, there’s no reason why this cannot go forward from the Commission up to the Council, because you’re not changing anything for Parcel 3. If you were doing something that was changing, like if any of the conditions actually affected Parcel 3 that you’re changing, then my, I would be saying, no, we need consent from all the property owners. But since that’s not happening and you’re not rezoning the property without a property owner’s consent, there’s no reason why this 3 EXHIBIT E shouldn’t go forward. So that’s the solution we came up with, was to make it explicitly stated in the ordinance that these amended conditions only apply to the four parcels and not to Parcel 3. KERN: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: So that question that all the signatures have not signed on to it is not relevant to what we’re contemplating acting upon? SELF: In my opinion no because you’re not rezoning anything. But all five properties have already been rezoned. The only thing that’s happening is that you are amending some of the conditions of that rezoned ordinance, but none of those affect the property that, the subject property, the Parcel 3. So if it was something you were, if it was an action that was going to be taken that would affect that property, my opinion would be, yes, you need the consent of that owner. But that’s not what’s going on. The conditions are not, the conditions that are being amended are only affecting those four parcels and not Parcel 3. DOMINGO: Because the original ordinance reflects upon all the properties, in the most extreme case scenario if this is challenged, can the County defend its position by, as to what you elaborated upon? SELF: Well, any legislative act is presumed by the Courts to be valid until otherwise proven. So even if it were to be challenged in Court, there would be a presumption that it’s a valid act, a valid legislative act. And then the Appellants would have the difficult burden of proof to show that they were somehow arbitrary or capricious in the legislative act that they took, which is a difficult burden. It’s a high burden of proof. DOMINGO: Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. What I would like to do is have staff give us just maybe a summary presentation, cause there are two different things here that we’re dealing with. One is the amendment to the conditions and, secondly, the time extensions which are all part of the same application but separate. Maybe you could just refresh us on the nature of the requested amendments to the conditions and the time extension. Thank you. COTTLE: Sure. Let me go ahead and direct your attention to the screen. I’ll just quickly refresh you on the location of the property. The subject properties are outlined in black; and they’re shown in pink which is the CN, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning. You have Kahaopea Street running east and west at the top of the property. And then you have the highway running north and south along the western boundary of the property. This is the General Plan designation, which is Low Density Urban for the property. An aerial photo, the properties are in this area here. And then the applicant’s requests: So the first request is for a time extension, a 5-year time extension to secure final subdivision approval. The second request is to delay the installation of drainage improvements to final plan approval or certificate of occupancy. Currently the drainage improvements are required before subdivision approval. And then the third request is to delay the installation of improvements to the property’s Kahaopea Street frontage, that would be curb, gutter and sidewalk 4 EXHIBIT E improvements. And they’re requesting to delay those to certificate of occupancy. And currently those improvements are required at subdivision approval. And did you want the full presentation? KERN: No. And then you guys have your recommendation based, for those? COTTLE: Yes. So the recommendation, basically the Director is supporting the applicant’s request for the time extension to secure final subdivision approval. That would be an additional five years that they have to secure subdivision approval. However, the Director is not supporting the applicant’s request to delay the installation of the drainage and roadway improvements until after subdivision. And the reason for that is when this property was originally rezoned back in 1996, one of the conditions called for a master plan so that all four parcels would be developed with a comprehensive plan, and drainage and roadway improvements would be considered all at once. The best way to do that is to have those improvements done at final, prior to final subdivision approval. If that’s not done, what will often happen is an owner will get approval to do subdivision, the lots are split, and then you have multiple new landowners potentially having to install these drainage and roadway improvements. So it’s not done as comprehensively. So the Director feels it’s more appropriate to keep the conditions as is. Those, both conditions were recommended by the Department of Public Works. This time when Public Works reviewed the application, they didn’t provide any comments; and we’re assuming that’s because they are hoping that the conditions stays as is, which is what they originally recommended. KERN: Okay. Thank you, Maija. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, do you want to add anything else? COTTLE: No. KERN: Okay. Thank you. No questions. So now we’ll have the applicant or the representative please come forward. You’re going to be speaking today? HIGASHI: Yes. KERN: Okay, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? Could you use your mike. HIGASHI: I do. KERN: Very good. So if you do, just give us your name and area you represent. HIGASHI: Roland Higashi. I’m president of Graphic Images Hawaii. KERN: Very good. You guys have received the background report and recommendation. Are there any comments you’d like to make at this time? 5 EXHIBIT E YEH: Yes, just briefly. What we tried to do was to try to first explain the fact that in this context what the applicant/developer is proposing to do is not to add any additional lots to what’s there now. There are four lots which the applicant owns. There probably would be some adjustment of lot lines in a consolidation and resubdivision which doesn’t increase the number of lots. So the concern was, you know, given the language of the condition that has been proposed, the term subdivision could include even a consolidation/resubdivision that doesn’t encompass the addition of any lots which normally then does trigger improvements. What we did circulate the last time, and I’m not sure the Commissioners got it, is we did circulate a draft revision to the conditions that the Department has proposed that basically said that if any portion of any of this property does get developed, either in the context of plan approval or certificate of occupancy where you actually have a use going on, it really should be at that time that the required drainage improvements and/or traffic or road improvements would then get triggered, just to kind of avoid this kind of consolidation/resubdivision context that is actually being proposed. You know, we’re looking basically, from what I understand, you know, road improvements of about half a million dollars alone. So if this consolidation/resubdivision were to trigger that, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Because when you try to get financing, get lenders involved, you first need to adjust your lot lines. Then the security is placed on that property to do the financing. To me so long as you can’t really actually physically develop the property when you get plan approval or certificate of occupancy you’re really not implicating any public health, welfare concerns. So this situation is a little bit different given the, you know, how this particular development is intended to proceed. So even in the context that staff mentioned about, you know, having multiple owners which is unlikely in the first place, even one owner of the lot couldn’t proceed forward with developing until those improvements were put in. So there, from the way that we’ve tried to propose the condition when you develop any portion, then it triggers this requirement. So that’s the limited comment we have. Otherwise, all the other conditions and proposed conditions that the Planning Staff has submitted are entirely acceptable. If you take a look at the Planning Department’s recommendations they incorporate provisions of the flood control code requirement that all drainage be dealt with on site. There is not going to be actually any development within the flood plain. They’re going to stay out of that area. There was a site plan that was submitted also that basically verifies that. The developer doesn’t want to be dealing with flood plain issues, trust me. It would, implicates all kinds of issues. So that’s basically where we’re at. KERN: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant/representative? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Not the representative, but I’d like to ask a few questions to the staff afterwards. KERN: I’d like to maybe ask the Planning Director briefly how do you feel about a lot consolidation and resubdivide where there’s no additional lots being created? Is that different outside the intention of your recommendation or is it still in alignment? LEITHEAD TODD: The basic concern is development of the land incrementally. So if there were some type of a condition that the improvements had to be done before any one of the lots could be developed I think we could live with that. But the concern is that having separate lots and then one 6 EXHIBIT E being developed and not triggering the improvements, we don’t want any construction occurring unless the improvements are in place. KERN: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Brother Chair. I’m kind of disappointed you guys couldn’t reach any type of agreement with that other lot. But in regards to the flooding or the improvements there, cause I lived right below, Pilipaa Street is right below the hill. That’s where I was raised. And we had a lot of flooding in the earlier days. So you guys proposing that you’re not in agreement with developing or any type of condition in regards to the drainage, until you come in and get permits to do the subdivision? That’s the only time? YEH: Not really. I mean what we’re saying is if we’re not touching the land and it stays as it is, then it shouldn’t trigger anything. And if you’re just doing a paper consolidation/resubdivision of the same number of lots, that’s an example of not really touching the land before any plan approval or certificate of occupancy is issued. And I think perhaps in the drainage context, before you get plan approval even, not even going so far as certificate of occupancy, once you’ve got these lots laid out, financing in place, you come in with your development plan or master plan and you’re then ready to come in - yes, before you get that plan approval to do any development, that’s when those drainage improvements have to be put in. So that’s what we’re suggesting in this point, yeah. ISHIBASHI: Yeah, cause I remember being raised down there. Pilipaa was flooded all the time in our back yard. So we were concerned with the drainage and the flooding. Thank you. YEH: Right. And then whatever work occurs on the property, it has to deal with drainage issues at that time. So that’s the purpose of that. KERN: Thank you. Any other questions? And so, I’ve got a question. So Condition H as you have it underlined right now, you’re saying that that is in accordance with what you’re saying that you can do, a lot consolidation/resubdivide, but there cannot be any development occurring until those are taken care of. Is that right? YEH: Correct, correct. KERN: We’re going to take a five-minute recess to review some of this; and then we’ll get right back to it and start off where we stopped. YEH: Thank you. KERN: Thank you, five-minute recess. RECESSED – The Chair called a recess at 10:45 a.m. RECONVENED – The Chair reconvened the meeting at 11:00 a.m. 7 EXHIBIT E KERN: Okay, calling the Windward Planning Commission back to order. Okay, so here we are. Has any, you want to comment on -? YEH: Oh, yeah. Thank you, thank you. I think the context certainly has been, is something that we can have a consensus on about the fact that, you know, really from a real practical standpoint until you really develop the property you’re really not implicating any public health safety issues. And I think the Planning Director did agree with that concept. However, however, I think in order to kind of keep things as simple as possible maybe we can deal with that issue at the Council level, but -. So we’re willing to go with what the Planning Director or Planning Department has recommended as conditions, as they stand in the Planning Director’s recommendation as has been provided. Okay? KERN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions then? Any other comments? YEH: Did you want to say something? HIGASHI: I’d just like to point out that in this project it’s in escrow. We have a developer who’s ready to go. So pending approval we’ll proceed with the designing highway plans. The reason for the length it took us is we finally got approval from the Department of Highways to have an access to right in; and the staff has been working with us and understanding our dilemma. We finally got that approval. Our developer is ready to go, we’re ready to create jobs in the construction. We’re ready to create jobs on a long-term basis. The developer is from mainland, they’re well financed. And it’s something that I just want to remind you that it’s not something that we’re going to sit on for another five years. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant/representative? Commissioner Au. AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question. Thank you guys for coming up and, you know, agreeing with our Director. A question, how will this -? Whatever the outcome is today with that parcel, I understand it’s like a sliver of parcel, what’s, I’m assuming it’s all going to change, the whole development is going to change. Or if it is, maybe if you can kind of talk about that, I mean, you know, depending what happens. Because it seems like from your proposed site plan, you know, you’ve got an entrance that will go right through that sliver of property, if I’m not mistaken. YEH: Now, maybe I’m not quite following. But when you talk about the sliver of property you’re talking about that Parcel 3 that had been discussed before, that road parcel? AU: Yes. And, you know, maybe it’s a little bit premature to talk about it right now. But, you know, I just want to just get a feel from the applicant what, how is the development going to be changed? Because based off of the site plan, I’m looking at Figure 2, Site Plan, it was in from the background report, that thick binder we have -. YEH: Yes, yes. AU: You know, I just want to get an idea of what could happen and what would happen if whatever happens today. 8 EXHIBIT E YEH: Okay, if you take a look at that site plan, it’s actually, it’s a preliminary site plan with that in mind. But that’s figure 2. It’s part of the TIAR. And if you’re looking at it now you’ll see on the right side of the page what’s called Parcel -. KERN: The long low rectangle on the area, parcel, right on the right? YEH: Yes. That you’ll see is really not part of the development. So it’s really not included. At one point in time the applicant and developer had inquired of the then surviving trustee whether there was an interest in selling that parcel. For whatever reason Ms. Song who was representing them at the time indicated there was no desire to sell the property. So as a result of that the design components then excluded that parcel from the development plan. So that’s why we’re saying there really is no affect on that parcel, and nothing is being requested in the way of changing that parcel itself. So it’s not included in the development plans at all. AU: Okay, thank you. YEH: Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. You all may have a seat. Moving on to public testimony, we’re waiting to get our timer in place. But I’ll call you all up to start with and swear you in. So Stephanie Salazar, Russell Doi, and Sandra Song, will you please come forward. I’ll swear you in. And at the very beginning of the meeting I did limit public testimony to three minutes, as I’ve stated earlier. So we will have a timer in place; and when that goes off I’ll ask you to please finish your testimony. And I’ll get you all to raise your right hand so I’ll swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? SONG: Yes. SALAZAR: Yes. DOI: Yeah. KERN: Okay, very good. And before you begin, we’ll wait till the timer is ready to go. Just give us your name and area you represent or address, whatever you feel most comfortable with. DARROW: Okay. KERN: Okay, we’ll start with Stephanie Salazar. SALAZAR: Good morning. My name is Stephanie Salazar. I’m a former county employee, still a news reporter (part-time) and work for Diana Van De Car. So I tell you that so that you will know that I’m familiar with facts, half truths, and legal ethics. I’ve lived next to the subject property, the Hirose Nursery, for 24 years; and I object to the approval. I was here last month. And this is a complex case. The developer has had ample time to make the improvements, and I fear he will come back in five 9 EXHIBIT E years and again ask for changes. I object to the request for approval to develop without any drainage and street improvements. Why? Because the subject land has lots of flood areas and low areas. The bottom of Kahaopea Street where Awapuhi goes in where he wants to make a new access has flooded. The back of the Doi property has flooded. There’s a big culvert under the highway below there. And let me give you an example of the flooding. The area right below on your site plan where that parcel is, he shows on his site map, the Roadway 3 that he says has not occurred, there’s a parcel right there. I had a couple of billy goats about ten years ago and I tethered one in that area. And I was out shopping with my daughter and it started to thunder and storm and rain, and I said we better go check on that goat. I tied him to an old Ford Bronco. And there was thunder and lightning, and the goat was in the Bronco and the water was up to his shoulders. And my daughter and I had to wade into the area up to our necks to untie the goat and walk him out. We never know when it’s going to rain heavily to cause the flooding. This rain in the past few days has not caused flooding. So I don’t know what the issues are. In the letter I submitted before the February Planning Commission I explained more my objections to the road as it was also an issue. The Lot 3, I believe the staff is wrong. It is still owned by the Margaret Hirose Trust since 1980. She died in ’81. Mr. Yeh’s letter of recently said that Parcel 3 was owned by Tri-Electric or Willy Hirose at the time of the initial application; and that’s wrong. He never was the trustee of that. So that ordinance, I don’t know if that was even correct because I don’t think that Margaret Hirose Trust was in the initial application. I’d like to ask the Planning Department in the future or now to require certified copies of land ownership or current title for each, from each of the applicants. Awapuhi Street floods. And as far as developer’s rights, I believe that Roland has a right to do what he wants with the land; but if this won’t work it won’t work. I think it would be great area for an urban park or even a dog park. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. Russell Doi? DOI: No, she going, yeah? KERN: We can change that. That’s fine. So just give us your name and area you represent, or address if you prefer; and you’ve got three minutes. SONG: Sure, sure. My name is Sandra Song and I’m representing Russell Doi. And I was asked to speak today. I spoke on that, the other issue on the land ownership before and I won’t address that. I just want to be very brief. When the applicant submits, we do something in Hilo that’s different on the location of property. If people want to know where this building is they say it’s the old JC Penney building. If it’s something in Hilo Shopping Center, they say the old Sears. All right, the applicant when they submitted the application, when they submitted the request for this extension said this property was the old Hirose Nursery property. And there is a lot of significance to the old Hirose Nursery property. And I just want to provide some background to the Commission and why this is so important to Russell Doi. In 1930 Russell’s grandfather brought the first orchids into the State of Hawaii. And as you may know the orchid industry is an important industry in the State of Hawaii today. The first cut flowers were shipped from Hawaii in 1942 and within the next eight years Hawaii became the world’s leading 10 EXHIBIT E commercial orchid growing industry, all due to Mr. Hirose. And today the industry produces more than $21,000,000 to this State and over half of that comes from the Big Island. Again, that started at Hirose Nursery. Hirose Nursery was originally downtown. And then we had the tidal wave in 1960; and in 1960 they moved to where they are right now. So to Russell who’s a beneficiary of the trust, it’s really important that this property is treated right. He’s concerned about flooding, he’s concerned about, that this property will not be developed correctly. And so you heard Russell being very emotional at the last hearing and he’s going to have some other things to say about it. But I ask this Commission to consider this aspect in making a decision on the application. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you very much. Just give us your name and area you represent and you may begin. DOI: Yeah, my name Russell Doi. And I live at the Hirose, kind of long now, must be about 40 something years, I think. And I see all the changes over there. Never had Hawaiian Home, only bushes, no more KTA, nothing. And then now Roland when buy the land, they like do any kind on the land. But he own the land, but plenty thing they do no good. They dump the old hospital over there and they still get rebar in the cement yet; and I think not supposed to get all that. And Planning Department they no do nothing. Because he changed the elevation in the land, the water run through our land now, and I grumble to him. But nobody do nothing that he do illegal filling, and the grading wrong. And I tell Myra and I got to go to Public Works? Why that’s my job for grumble Public Works? This guy develop illegal, and then I live there all my life and no can do nothing. Something wrong with the law. But you guys got to decide if he like go make any kind of changes, supposed to be right way, not any kind way that just because he know Randy Kuruhara, and that’s Billy’s campaign co-chairman, they can do anything they like. If I neva had Sandy you guys walk all over me and pass on everything. But thanks to Sandy you guys got to u’m right, you know. And I when get jam up neck because of this land. And Nakamoto guys unethical, who is Roland’s own lawyer, and they make any kind. They change the power of attorney. My sister call the cops and then my neck when get jam up. And then now County get one Federal law suit because I called for help after the cop did this to me. And all the lawyer they used -. And Janice Kaneshiro, she was my aunty but now she the secretary for Nakamoto, and then they pull all this power of attorney thing when my mother dying because they know I never like sell the land. And I when turn down the $3,000,000 in five seconds when they when offer because these guys no good. You know what I mean? They only like make money if they can. They no even care. He destroy everything my grandmother when plant. No more nothing left. He no more respect. Thank you. And I sorry I talk about, but I no can help -. KERN: Understood, understood. Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. You all may have a seat. Is there anyone else signed up from the public to testify? I’m willing to entertain a motion. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, could I have staff come up so I can ask them some questions before we entertain any motions? KERN: Yeah, and if we feel inclined to take an executive session we can do that as well, if we’d like to. So it’s an option. 11 EXHIBIT E DOMINGO: Okay. KERN: But you want to ask -? DOMINGO: Yeah, I just want to ask staff -. You know, with the proposed zoning a Neighborhood Commercial–7.5 square feet district, there are a lot of uses that can be used for that property. And the proposed ordinance does not restrict them from any uses; and that’s one of my concerns. It’s whatever uses they decide to, regardless of what the type of design of the buildings or the configuration of the buildings may be, they can increase the density of the use of those lots. Am I right? COTTLE: That’s true. DOMINGO: Yeah, no matter what the limit may be. So, in other words, there’s no way that you can limit the amount of traffic that will be generated by those uses, unless when they come in with their plans. And upon plan approval they should then establish or create a number of lots according to the use of that, with those particular lots. Right? COTTLE: Yes. DOMINGO: So there’s no use -. Okay, that’s one of the major questions that I had with regards to limiting of the density and use of that property. Thank you. COTTLE: There’s currently no limit on specific uses that can be developed on the property. Any use that’s a permitted use under CN zoning would be allowed. DOMINGO: Could you mention, off hand, some of the uses that can be used that may entail an increase in density? COTTLE: Sure. Some uses would be a gas station, convenience store, any type of like personal service establishments like a laundromat or offices. Another example would be even single family residential could be developed on the property. So there’s a wide range of uses. DOMINGO: Can apartments be established on those properties? COTTLE: Yes, as long as it meets the density requirements for the zoning. DOMINGO: Okay. Thank you. COTTLE: You’re welcome. KERN: Thank you. Since we have staff up there, any questions for staff from anybody else? Seeing none, thank you. So I’m willing to entertain a motion. Anyone? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? 12 EXHIBIT E KERN: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I move for the Planning Director’s recommendation -. KERN: Did you move for a favorable recommendation? DOMINGO: Yes, a favorable recommendation to be sent to the Council based on the Planning Director’s recommendations. KERN: With said conditions? DOMINGO: Yes. KERN: Okay. Is there a second, anyone? MOSES: I second. KERN: Okay. Discussion? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? KERN: Yes. DOMINGO: You know, I haven’t assumed or taken a position in the past with respect to opposing any kind of a development. But I’ve taken strong positions in prior employment with the County with regards to having -- infrastructures put in so that in the event, in this particular case -- infrastructures put in so that it can address additional traffic and flooding; and those are the major concerns. And I think the present County Council also -- I think, by having adopted a concurrence bill along the same principles -- is making sure that infrastructures are put in before the land is used, or the uses intended for those lands are in before anything happens. And I think to go ahead and delete the condition would, I would say, put the families and the residents below, who live below there, in jeopardy of having, being affected negatively by the development. KERN: Thank you. Any other discussion? Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted to try and bring this application into perspective. This is a time extension request, essentially. And so when these come forward, you know, we’re looking at the fact that do we treat this like we treat every other time extension request that comes in? And generally speaking we recognize that we routinely give time extensions because of the changing economy. In this case, part of the difficulty was getting the State DOT to agree on access. And frequently it’s conditions that are beyond the control of the applicant who came in for the original rezoning request. So at looking at this I’m not necessarily looking at the specific uses of the property. I’m looking at whether in treating this like other applications if there are similar circumstances that have necessitated the time extension, if it’s the economy changed, if they couldn’t get, it took a long time to work out, and let me tell you it takes a long time to get responses from State DOT. So if all of those types of 13 EXHIBIT E conditions are similar to the reasons why we have granted time extensions to other rezonings then our recommendation is going to be consistent with what we have done with other applications. And that is basically what’s going on with this one. This is consistent with how we have treated other applications for time extensions. KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Any other comments? Commissioner Ono? ONO: No, pass. KERN: Any other discussion? Land use, challenging. You know, sometimes it’s an easy win-win, sometimes it’s a lose-lose, sometimes it’s a win-lose. You know, this being that it is already entitled for this and it is a time extension, it’s harder to say no to. I feel for the Doi family. I, you know, I definitely feel for Stephanie. And this is challenging. I think it’s what we’re going to see more of as time goes on and growth occurs and it starts, you know, kind of expanding outward more. People that were, you know, once living in somewhat of a more urban residential area are going to see the growth start to occur and encroach upon them. I don’t know how we make that always a win-win. But being that this is a, you know, time extension, the conditions are there, infrastructure, safety needs to be put into place. And we would hope that everybody would move forward in a manner which was in accordance with all laws and was, you know, taken care of -- drainage as it is the County Code -- and everything gets done in the proper form. It’s hard for me to say no to that even though I really do feel for the people that are affected in that area. So land use, challenging. Commissioner Au? AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I support my Fellow Commissioners. This application is very appropriate. Although, you know, I’d like to remind us Commissioners, you know, we are on this Commission and we do represent our districts and we do represent our community. So, you know, there’s a reason why we were each chosen to be here. And, you know, I just to make comment on that. KERN: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hirose Nursery was one of my favorite playgrounds when I was growing up. I moved in, Hirose, Hawaiian Home back in ’65 I lived in Panaewa. The first increment, the first houses in Hawaiian Homes I moved there. So that was one of my favorite playgrounds. The place was beautiful. So I really appreciate the comments made about Hirose Nursery. I used to go there and drink sodas over there. So it was one favorite spot on mine growing up riding a bike. So it was back in the sixties, that’s a long time ago. And the changes inevitably will change again; and it’s changing again right before my eyes in Panaewa with all the shopping center. Before it was all bushes, just like what Russell said. And I appreciate the history and remembering the great place Hirose Nursery was. But, yeah, I get a hard time supporting this, but I will, I will support this. And I just feel for the Doi family, I feel for them. And I appreciate trying to work things out but cannot. So, but I will be supporting this, this motion. Thank you. KERN: Thank you, Commissioner Ishibashi. Any other discussion? Seeing none, Maija, take the vote. 14 EXHIBIT E COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify the motion. So it is to send a favorable recommendation for Condition C, and then an unfavorable recommendation for Conditions H and I, as recommended by the Planning Director? Is that correct, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes. COTTLE: And Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Yes. COTTLE: Okay. I’ll take the vote. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. LEITHEAD TODD: I -. KERN: Pause. Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Sorry. I want to clarify, is it with the language that eliminates Lot 3? COTTLE: Thank you. KERN: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: That means I should amend, amend that motion to reflect that elimination of Lot 3? KERN: Yes. You’re doing that? DOMINGO: I would so do that. But is there any specific wording that should be inserted before we act on that? COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo, I think I gave you a yellow form. DOMINGO: Okay. COTTLE: That is what the Planning Director is recommending. DOMINGO: Yes. COTTLE: So if you agree with that -. 15 EXHIBIT E DOMINGO: Yes, I agree with that. COTTLE: Okay. KERN: Based on the Planning Director’s recommendation? DOMINGO: Yes. KERN: And the second? MOSES: Second. YEH: Mr. Chair, just briefly, just -? KERN: Sure. Since we’re in time-out mode anyway, come on up. YEH: I think earlier on the record we did indicate that we were not objecting to the Planning Department’s proposed conditions. So I think it’s a little fuzzy for the motion to indicate an unfavorable recommendation on Conditions H and, I think, I that had been recommended by the Planning Department. So I think it’s just more consistency to indicate that there is a favorable recommendation based on the Planning Department’s proposed conditions. So I just wanted to kind of see if we could work through that, cause otherwise this is a bit confusing. KERN: Thanks. How do you feel about amending it to that, or do you want to comment on that, Madam Director? Does that make sense? Cause I kind of felt it a little fuzzy as well. Oh, do you want to address that? TORIGOE: Yes. KERN: Corporation Counsel Ivan Torigoe is going to address the motion. TORIGOE: Okay. Yeah, the way that you normally do these recommendations is you follow what, you know, basically if your intention is to follow what the Planning Director has recommended then you basically, you know, state the motion the way the Planning Director has stated it. And in this case that is a favorable recommendation for the request to amend Condition C, and then an unfavorable recommendation on the request to amend Conditions H and I, along with the additional amendments that were presented today on the yellow sheet. And I think the record reflects that the applicants have stated that for purposes of moving things along at this stage they’re basically not going to stage a strong objection to the Director’s recommendations at this point. But they’ve also stated on the record that they plan to take it up again at Council, I believe. And so I think the record reflects that and it’s not discounting, you know, what the applicants have stated on the record here. So I think basically you can make that motion, again, to send a favorable recommendation to the request to amend Condition C and then an unfavorable recommendation to the request to amend the Conditions H and I, along with the amendments that were presented by staff today. 16 EXHIBIT E KERN: Which is the current motion that we have in place now, correct? COTTLE: Correct. KERN: Okay. So I guess we can move forward now, now that we’ve got clarity. ONO: I need a clarification. KERN: Yes, Commissioner Ono. ONO: How can we submit a favorable recommendation and have items that are not favorable? LEITHEAD TODD: Well, what you have is an application, and they ask you for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on it. And we do a recommendation that says 1, 2 and 3 are okay and we recommend approval; but 4 and 5 we don’t agree with so we recommend that the application which asks for those amendments that that portion of the application have an unfavorable recommendation. Because the application as it comes in asks for several different actions. And so what we’re saying is on some of them we’re saying okay and on the other two we’re saying not okay. And that’s basically what the recommendation from the Department is. And that goes up to the Council so that in the event that there’s a discussion about changing those specific requests regarding drainage and stuff at the Council there is a record that both the Department as well as the Commission agreed that those amendments should not be made. KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Commissioner Ono. ONO: I’m still puzzled. The total proposal is that we send a favorable recommendation. As an example, on these two we’re saying we’re not comfortable with it. How can we send a recommendation of approval when there are, in this example, conditions that are not satisfactory to the Commission? LEITHEAD TODD: So, basically the recommendation is written up and then we attach the draft of how it’s supposed to look. The draft doesn’t have the amendments that they asked for in H and I; and that’s what gets incorporated into the bill. But the recommendation has to reflect that if you asked for five different things and we’re only recommending that the first three be approved, but you have to address the application as they come in. So if there was an application that requested all of these different changes, you have to respond to each one. And so that’s why sometimes you have what looks like a strange thing we’re recommending it but we’re not recommending it. What we’re saying is we’re okay with certain requests and a couple of the others we think should remain as is, and specifically those requirements for the improvements to drainage. KERN: Does that make sense, Commissioner Ono, to you? ONO: No. How do you -? KERN: Well, I mean, basically those conditions are already in there. The applicant was requesting an amendment to that so it’s not, the original conditions still exists. 17 EXHIBIT E ONO: Okay. KERN: And we’re just saying that they’re asking for that change, no. But the first, you know, with the time extension, yes. ONO: Okay, thank you. KERN: No problem. Maija, oh, Commissioner Au. AU: I have a question. KERN: Okay, fire away. AU: It’s something that I’d like to clarify. You know, when we started Ms. Song mentioned that, she mentioned something that we cannot do. And I, you know, I could be wrong but the original application was for five lots. Okay, so now we’re dropping it down to four lots. So now is this a whole new application or are we on the same application? Because I know, I do understand it is an amendment, we’re going to take out that one lot, okay. But is it a new application, or is it the same application? But I do, like I said I do understand it’s an amendment. Maybe you can clarify that. KERN: Anybody, Maija, you want to clarify that? COTTLE: I can try to address that. So the request was for covering the five lots, because that’s what the original rezone ordinance covered. The Planning Director with this revised bill is stating that her recommendation is for these changes, which is the favorable time extension; and other conditions that go along with that would only apply to the four lots that Mr. Higashi owns. So if this is, if the vote is, if the motion passes, what would happen is we would send up a cover letter to the County Council that says that the Planning Commission at their hearing voted to forward a favorable recommendation for Condition C, unfavorable for Conditions H and I. We would forward this first page as the first page of the bill which shows that it only applies to the four parcels, as well as the conditions that are recommended in the orange or in the goldenrod. And so just to point out Condition C, if you read Condition C of the goldenrod, it says “Final subdivision approval of the proposed consolidation and resubdivision of the subject property shall be secured within five years from the effective date of this amended ordinance.” So that time extension request is reflected in Condition C. That’s giving them five more years. Then you’ll see Conditions H and I have not been amended because the Director is not supporting that amendment. Is that clear? Does that help? ONO: Okay. KERN: Amy Self, do you want to -? SELF: I think I can add some more explanation. This is, okay, I think the applicant, my understanding is the applicant, the original application did not include five properties. It only included the four properties. But when you’re going to amend an ordinance that already exists, you cannot change the 18 EXHIBIT E title of the ordinance. The original title of this rezone ordinance included all five properties. They all got rezoned at the same time cause it was originally one property. And so you cannot, you cannot take one of those properties out of the title of that ordinance, cause you’re not downzoning a property. So they’re all still under the same rezone ordinance. However, the amendments to the conditions that you’re doing right now do not affect that one parcel, the Parcel 3, because they’re not developing Parcel 3. So the conditions are only as they apply to the four parcels that they’re developing. If you just, you know how a rezone ordinance or an ordinance in itself looks when it passes? That’s what this is. You’re just amending something that has already been passed previously. And so you can’t change the original title of the ordinance, cause otherwise if you left that Parcel 3 out of the title, it wouldn’t have a zoning any more. So you don’t want it to lose its zoning. But at the same time you want to make certain that these conditions are not affecting Parcel 3. That was just to clarify that the conditions are only as to the parcels that are going to be developed. And that’s all that was applied for to begin with. I hope that helps. KERN: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yeah, but what about the ownership of Parcel 3? SELF: Well, there’s nothing that’s being done to Parcel 3. There’s, none of the amendments to the conditions affect Parcel 3. So now if later on they get a trustee for the Trust who can sign on behalf of the Trust and they want to do something to Parcel 3, then the same process would apply to Parcel 3. They would apply for whatever changes they want. If they wanted to, let’s say they wanted to change the zoning of their property, then they would apply for change of zoning. I guess they’d have to then amend this zoning so that it would reflect that they all have the same zoning. DOMINGO: I recall an earlier conversation that they had approval of the ownership of Parcel 3 in the original, time of the original rezoning. Am I right? SELF: That I couldn’t, I don’t know. SONG: No. SELF: I don’t know if the applicant or Sandy -. SONG: No, it was never -. Somehow it was amended. SELF: Oh, it was amended originally? SONG: It was amended. DOMINGO: I don’t know -. I heard some kind of conversation that they had approval of, concurrence from the owner of Parcel 3. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, -. 19 EXHIBIT E KERN: Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Back in 1991 the original ordinance was done by Tri-Electric, right? SONG: They didn’t own the property at the time. LEITHEAD TODD: They didn’t? SONG: No. NOMURA: Please use the microphone. KERN: Sandy, you want to come up and grab the mike? SONG: The Margaret Hirose Trust was created in 1980 or 1981, and the property was transferred in ’81 to the Hirose Trust. Tri-Electric never owned that property. I don’t, I think it was just a glitch; and the property owner never signed off on it. When there was an amendment to this ordinance back in the early nineties or late, late nineties, Helen Hirose -. DOI: Doi. SONG: Doi who was then the trustee did consent to the amendment. So, but after that Florence Doi who became the trustee was never asked to sign this present amendment. She was, as Mr. Yeh indicated, asked if she wanted to sell the property which she turned down. KERN: Thank you. Any other questions while Sandy is up here? Seeing none, thanks. Any other questions for Corporation Counsel Amy Self? Seeing none, do we have any other questions for anyone? DOMINGO: No. KERN: Okay, so we’re right back to where we were with a motion on the floor, and seconded. And I think two votes already had been made. Is that right? COTTLE: That’s correct. KERN: And so we’ll just move on forward from there. Wasn’t there two votes made? COTTLE: Yes, Commissioner Domingo and Commissioner Moses voted aye. DOMINGO: Do I have to restate the motion to include this here. MOSES: It was already on there. KERN: I think, I’m pretty sure that that was already done. 20 EXHIBIT E DOMINGO: That was done, okay. KERN: Yeah. But thanks for checking in on that. COTTLE: Commissioner Au? AU: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye, COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes six-zero. KERN: You’ll be notified in writing. YEH: Thank you very much for your patience and sorry to make it so complicated. The discussion ended at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 21 EXHIBIT E