Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-02 HearingTranscript - Harry and Sandra Freitas _REZ 14-185_ WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 2, 2015 HARRY AND SANDRA FREITAS (REZ A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 14-185) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Raylene Moses. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Belinda Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), William Brilhante (Assistant Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director, from 9:10 a.m.), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance. HARRY AND SANDRA FREITAS APPLICANTS: (REZ 14-185) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural–20 acres (A-20a) to an Agricultural–5 acres (A-5a) zoning district for 50 acres of land. The property is located at 18-4233 North Pszyk Road, ‛Ōla‛a Reservation Lots, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-8-005:133. MIYASATO: First item on our agenda today, Harry and Sandra Freitas. Oh sorry. Sorry, I missed Maija, she was hiding behind the podium. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. Also, welcome Belinda. Thank you for helping us out this morning, our Corporation Counsel. If I can direct your attention to our presentation this morning. Our first applicants are Harry and Sandra Freitas. They are requesting a change of zone. The location of the subject application is within the Puna District of Hawai‛i, more specifically, we’re looking in the Mountain View area. Just for reference, this white line running diagonal through the middle of the map is Volcano Highway or Highway 11. This particular area is focused in Mountain View. The subject property is identified with a black outline. The State Land Use for the property is Agriculture. This is the light green on the map. You’ll also notice pink which identifies the Urban areas, and blue which represents Conservation along the highway. 1 EXHIBIT A This is our General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. The subject property is identified as Important Agricultural Lands. This is a zoomed in photo of our County zoning map. The subject property, again, is identified with a black outline. And for reference, we have Volcano Highway running in the middle of the map, and the location of the Mountain View town center. The dark green on the map represents Agricultural – 20 acres. The light green represents Agricultural - 5 acres. This is an aerial photo. Just for reference, the access road to the property from Volcano Highway is Pszyk Road. I hope I’m pronouncing that accurately. The Applicants are provided access through an easement on the adjoining property, and again, the subject property is identified with a black outline. Currently, there is one dwelling located on the property. The Applicants are requesting a change of zone from Agricultural – 20 acres to an Agricultural – 5 acre zoning district for 50 acres of land to subdivide the property into six lots, and provide an inheritance and legacy for their children. Water needs are proposed to be met through privately owned catchment systems for the proposed 6-lot subdivision if the change of zone request is approved. The Planning Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the Hawai‛i County Council for the following reasons. The proposed request does not meet the minimum water concurrency requirements as required by law. The proposed request does not conform to the goals, objectives, and actions of the Puna Community Development Plan. And lastly, the proposed request does not conform to, among others, the stated goals and policies of the land use and land use agricultural General Plan elements. We’re gonna briefly discuss number 1. Number 2 and number 3 are discussed in more detail in the Recommendation. The proposed request does not meet the minimum water concurrency requirements as required by law. In 2007, the Hawai‛i County Council had initiated an ordinance called concurrency to require that each zoning meet certain standards. Within that law, they were meeting standards for roadways and traffic as well as water. Since then, there’s been additional areas added to the concurrency law including requirements for Civil Defense sirens. When, when they were proposing this ordinance, the Council found that it was desirable to have standard expectations for water supply for, for change of zone actions. So, Section 25-2-46, Subsection m of the Zoning Code states a change of zone application shall not be granted unless. I wanted to bring your attention to the word “shall.” So that word is a strong word used in, in law, which mandates us that we have to follow this. It’s not should or may. The Department, number 1, the Department of Water Supply has determined that it can meet the water requirements of the project and issue water commitments using its existing system or number 2, specific improvements to the existing public water system or private water system equivalent to the requirements of the Department of Water Supply will be provided to meet the water needs of 2 EXHIBIT A the project and conditions of zonings, delay occupancy until the improvements are actually constructed. When we look at number 1, the, the nearest public water system is approximately 8/10ths of a mile away from the property located near the highway. To be able to have the Applicant construct the improvements to bring the water system up to the property is unfeasible. When we look at number 2, it says specific improvements to the existing public water system, which we spoke about, unfeasible, or a private water system equivalent to the requirements of Department of Water Supply. We’ve—staff has met with the Department of Water Supply on numerous occasions to identify what these requirements are of the Department of Water Supply that are equivalent to a public system. We’ve been informed which is stated within the Recommendation that this consists of two wells of equal capacity, transmission water lines, and then off-site, 100,000 gallon concrete reservoir located 100 feet above the highest elevation of the subject property, which actually means that it has to be located off-site at a higher elevation for gravity flow. Obviously, when you’re looking at this option, this is also unfeasible. So, again, as stated, when we look at an application, we need to see if, if this applies to the change of zone request. The Planning Department, I would say, if not on a daily basis, many times during the week, we receive inquiries, similar inquiries, about changing the zoning of a property without these specific requirements. We—our standard response is that you can submit an application, but by law, we will, be not supporting that change of zone going up to Council. Just to go on further, the implications that would result if concurrency requirements were deemed satisfied through private water catchment systems, it would be an unwarranted precedent that would set, that would allow any property owner, County-wide, to rezone their property into smaller lots and/or higher densities without the need for adequate support of public water system infrastructure. For example, in this general area of Mountain View, there are over 1,000 basically contiguous acre zoned Ag-20 consisting of 25- to 50-acre lots that could potentially come in for similar change of zone if private water catchment systems were allowed to meet minimum water requirements for the change of zone. The, what—what I believe is happening at this time is there’s more discussion regarding this, this area. Obviously, many areas around the Island do not have adequate public water systems, so what, what—what is happening currently, is there’s discussions going on with, with people regarding the possibility of allowing change of zones maybe with various degrees of standards that may be created by the water supply instead of one specific standard that is unreasonable for most everyone to meet. Even developers would have a hard time meeting that. Or, again, we look to counsel for direction on this, because again, we’re mandated by law that if, if these requirements aren’t met, we need to forward an unfavorable recommendation. As mentioned, we go into greater detail regarding these issues in the Recommendation. 3 EXHIBIT A For the reasons stated above, the Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawai‛i County Council. That concludes our presentation. I’m ready to answer any questions if you have any. MIYASATO: Commission, Commissioner Ikeda. IKEDA: Mr. Darrow, is the adjacent property zoned five acres? DARROW: Let’s go back to the—sorry about that. Okay, this is the County zoning map. All of the, a majority, if not all, there’s a few change of zones that occurred within town as well as this blue portion, parcel, that’s located on the right side of the map. The remainder of the properties that you see on this map consist of existing zoning. So, the light green, which is on the border of this, of the Applicant’s property, is zoned Agricultural – 5 acres. The Applicant is requesting a similar allowance be given to them to be able to sub their--subdivide their property through a variance process. If you noticed that, these Agricultural – 5 acre lots, some of them consist of six lots, and that was a—an allowance granted to them through the Subdivision Code that if you have existing zoning, you can apply for a variance for up to six lots for water requirements, and so that’s what they’ve done. These people had existing Agricultural – 5 acre zoning. In regards to the darker color, the lots again are all this, all similar at 50 acres. Their zoning of Agricultural – 2 acre [sic] 20 acres only allows the Applicants to subdivide into two lots. IKEDA: Okay. DARROW: And you’ll notice, it’s hard to see but there are a number of these lots that have been subdivided to 25 acres. IKEDA: Okay, thank you. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions for staff? I have one, Jeff. You know, as a follow up to that, for this variance, is it up to six lots, or can they do ten. DARROW: For a water variance under the Subdivision Code with existing zoning, it only allows up to six lots in the Agricultural District. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. No other questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Could the Applicant or representative please come forward? HEAUKULANI: Mr. Chair? While the Applicant, counselor come forward, I just wanted to make a disclosure on the record. I do not have a conflict in this case, though I know both of the Applicants professionally. I appear before Judge Freitas regularly, and have litigated cases against Mrs. Freitas, but that professional relationship won’t have anything, impact on my decisions in this matter. 4 EXHIBIT A MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. Good morning, could you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‛i County Planning Commission? HONG/FREITAS/LEE LOY: Yes. MIYASATO: Thank you. Do you have a presentation or a statement? HONG: Yes, good morning Mr. Chairman, Planning Director, and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ted Hong. Sitting to my right is Harry Freitas, and to his right is Sue Lee Loy from my office. I’d like to briefly go over a few points this morning. I think what you have before you is a, a concrete example of an unintended consequence of the concurrency law. The intent was to divide the property into six parcels over six acres of—for his family, to live and conduct, or continue agricultural practices. But, under the concurrency law, what’s going to happen is the requirements gonna be that he has to put in a 50-foot right-of-way, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, fire hydrants, and connect to the County water supply, which when I talked to Kurt Inaba from the Water Department, said that even if my client, Harry Freitas, was actually Bill Gates in disguise and had all the money that Bill Gates had and could afford to connect to the County Water Supply or the County line along the highway, they would not let him do that. So, the suggestion that Jeff highlights that this is an option is really not an option, and is kind of ironic. The other alternative would be to build two 100,000-gallon tanks above my client’s property to service the property. And, why that it is an unintended consequence because what’s really going to happen, or the result of this, is despite the fact that this property is in a part of our Island which gets over 200 inches of water per year, for catchment purposes, you’re actually impeding, discouraging agriculture instead of promoting it. You’re actually encouraging large, wealthy property owners to buy up these lots so they can build their McMansions and exclude local families from doing agriculture. You as, as we all know, the dynamic is changing in terms of this Island where you have a lot of families because of their age, the parents pass away and they’re trying to give their property to their kids, and the kids try to subdivide it between the people and the property, they can’t do that because of this concurrency law. And, it is an intended consequence. So, what you have before you is a negative recommendation, and we understand that the Commission has to follow the law, and I’m not here suggesting that you shouldn’t follow the law. But, we only ask that in your recommendation to the County Council, you include a plea, a suggestion, that the Council revisit, redefine—or refine—the concurrency law, to meet the needs of local agriculture property owners who want to keep the property in ag and with their families. And, you see this unfortunately along the Hāmākua Coast, where you see non-resident people, who have a lot of money buying large properties and going to keep them that way for their private estates. That shouldn’t happen, and I don’t think anybody here wants that to happen in other parts of our Island. But, that again, is an unintended consequence. I think the purpose and intent of the concurrency law was a good one. It addressed these issues where you’d have these 5 EXHIBIT A kind of rogue developers out in Kona developing property without any water, but again one size doesn’t fit all. And, you have this problem now before you, so we understand and we’re not asking you to ignore your duties and responsibilities. Follow the law. We understand this is going to be a negative recommendation, but please, we ask you to consider including language in your recommendation that the Council needs to revisit this issue to refine it. Oh, I only note one more thing. On Page 5 of the Recommendation by the Planning Department, it does reference in bold letters at the top, first paragraph, the proposed change does not conform to the goals, objectives, actions of the Puna CDP. I just note in our Exhibit 10 is a letter from the Puna CDP people saying that it does, as far as they’re concerned, it does conform, so, with that, Harry, do you want to say anything about the project? FREITAS: I’m good. HONG: Sue? LEE LOY: I do. I did want to expand a little bit on Commissioner Ikeda’s request for additional information on adjacent properties. Yes, the adjacent property is zoned Ag-5, so we feel strongly that we’re actually being consistent with what’s already existing up in the area. And then to follow up on Myles’ request, we went for six lots based on Mr. Freitas’ family. It wasn’t because we were looking at how does this fit. We went for what he wanted. And then when we submitted our subdivision, our conceptual subdivision plan, we took into consideration the existing cane haul roads that are on his property, so when you look at his subdivision, our conceptual subdivision plan, they’re not five-acre lots. They’re between six and about 12 acres, so each lot is different. It, it was meant to fit the existing topography and existing roads, or cane haul roads in the area. So, I just want to kind of share that information, but like Mr. Hong said, we, we think the situation is ripe—that we revisit the concurrency law. We have a lot of ag land here, Hāmākua, Kohala. It’s, it’s time that we think about how that will impact our farmers, so thank you. MIYASATO: Thank you. HONG: If the Commission has any questions, Mr. Chairman, we’ll be happy to entertain them. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? IKEDA: I have a question. MIYASATO: Commissioner Ikeda. IKEDA: You know the, your—your easement, from what I gather it’s only 45 feet, but I think the minimum standard is 50 feet of easement or right-of-way. Can you guys get that and you know because you guys five, five feet short, I think. Because from the information I got, it’s only 45 feet— 6 EXHIBIT A LEE LOY: --yah— IKEDA: --and you need to meet the 50 feet. LEE LOY: --right, and we’ve already had preliminary discussions with the adjacent property owner, but what’s challenging is to go and get that type of agreement when we don’t even know if we’re gonna get the zone change. So, we don’t mind including that as a condition of approval or even a covenant against, you know, subdivision that those things need to be met prior to occupancy. And, I know Mr. Darrow expanded on that section. There’s some language within the concurrency law under that option to, that we could delay occupancy for, you know, certain things to be met, and we’d be willing to work with staff and even members of the County Council to look at refining that to make sure certain covenants were in place so that the properties couldn’t be transferred, to meet those types of requirements, but, more specifically, look at refining the water and how that’s—they only have one, one example of how to meet water, and I think, I think there’s some smart people out there who could tell you that 200 inches of water is more than enough for a single family resident. IKEDA: Now, can I ask you some stupid questions? FREITAS: Sure. IKEDA: Okay, you have a residence there? FREITAS: Yes, sir. IKEDA: And, how big is your water catchment? FREITAS: I have two water catchments on my property. One is 13,000 feet [sic], that’s right next to my house. I’m sorry, 13,000 gallons right next to my house, that I use for my residence. I have another 13,000 gallon tank on the top of my property which I use to water my cows— IKEDA: Okay— FREITAS: --just so you know also, Mr. Ikeda, when I purchased this property back in 2000, the easement was 15 feet. I purchased the property right before the temple that owns the property that has the ease—that has the easement purchased. My road, the cane road, is not within the 15- foot easement, so what I did, was I talked to the temple people, and I asked them if I could move my easement, instead of zero to 15, to 15 to 30, thinking that my cane road was in the 15 to 30- foot easement. They said sure, so I went and checked it. I was wrong. It’s in the 30 to 45 foot. So, what I did was I called the temple back up, and I said can I move it there? And, they said, well, what are we going to do with the other 30 feet? I said, I really don’t know. I’m just using the road. They said why don’t you just take the whole easement. Take the whole 45 feet, because, you know, the temple doesn’t really do much on that property. I don’t know if they do it for investing purposes or what, but I think, I’m not going to have a very difficult time convincing them to give me five more feet, when they’ve been kind enough to give me 45. 7 EXHIBIT A IKEDA: Okay, I’ve got another stupid question. Have you ever run out of water? FREITAS: You know, I did that once, and that was this, I believe it was in February, and to be honest with you, I didn’t really run out of my water, my wife kind of panicked. My catchment was still half full, and my wife went oh my god, I have no water, cause we have never, ever had our catchment half full, and the longest in the 12-14 years we’ve been there now, so when it got to that point, she kind of freaked out, and she had water brought in, but it never—that’s the lowest I’ve ever had my water get. IKEDA: Okay, now that’s, it’s kind of trying to figure things out because—a, that’s it. MIYASATO: Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions? Director, you have any comments on the concurrency law or the Puna CDP? KANUHA: Unfortunately, the concurrency law, you know, is what it is. What I can share with you is that I’ve been in discussions with Water Supply on this, issues real similar to this, yeah. And, their posi—you know, because, what our recommendation is based on is on how they respond to applications that come into our office, and in this case, for rezoning. And, because of the concurrency requirement, their response has always been that, you know, either they can’t provide water or they have no plans--and/or they have no plans to extend their system to service the proposed rezoning application. They make no commentary with regard to catchment systems even though, you know, one could interpret that a private system which can provide water to support the, the land use component, could serve that purpose. Nevertheless, you know, the strict reading of the law says that, that private system has to again meet what their standards is which a—you know, kind of gets outside of, of this particular realm. My understanding, though, is that based on what the concurrency requirement is, that’s the only position they can take, although they really—it’s similar to, if we look at how we would assess this if it was just a subdivision for a straight number of lots, what Water Supply will do is, is they again won’t take a position on catchment systems especially in terms of approving the specifications, you know, how much water, what the components are of the system is. But, I, I believe there’s some thinking going on within the Department that as long as the area doesn’t get to a density which would require additional fire protection services, off the record, they would have no objections to catchment systems. But, their official commentary would be as they’ve stated for this, this application. So, I think it’s an interesting, it’s an interesting situation. What the Applicants have proposed, you know, if you support the Department’s recommendation, and again it’s only a recommendation, and whatever action you take would be another recommendation to the Council, right? The Council would have a, would have the final say on this. 8 EXHIBIT A I think if we expanded the thought process on that a little more, if rezonings were be to, were to be considered using catchment systems, then what we would do is analyze the rezoning, very similarly, very similar to that of how we would analyze a subdivision, okay? We look at how much rainfall there is, what the minimum catchment requirements would be, you know, provided they, they meet those kind of criteria. But then, we would also look at the land use implications of this particular, of the particular application, and in this particular case, you know, if, if it looks like by supporting a rezoning in an area that abuts the kind of zoning they’re asking for, five acres, but nevertheless is still in a, a substantial block of Ag-20 zoning, with you know lots that are big enough that could create additional requests for these kinds of zonings, then we would make our recommendation to the Commission based on those kinds of variables, okay. That’s not to say that because the concurrency requirement is a, is legislative, you know, it was enacted by the Council. That’s not to say that at the end of the day, the Council should be the one to determine whether or not particular areas like this should be opened up through the use of catchment systems for the rezoning aspect of it. You know, again, staff has indicated, and I think you all know that if it was a straight subdivision, without water, you know then catch, private catchment systems would be, would be the way, you know that’s what we’ve been approving, therefore—so that’s, you know just some commentary on that. With regard to the Puna CDP, I know the action committee has provided a recommendation but that recommendation in, in my mind, was more in regards to consistency with agricult—the agricultural component, rather than you know the land use aspects. MIYASATO: Thank you. HENKEL: Mr. Chair? MIYASATO: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: I don’t have a problem other than that, you know, that catchment system is a private system, and, and you know I don’t have a problem with concurrency, but it’s the requirements of Department of Water Supply that I think are unfeasible because with filtration technology these days, a catchment system can actually deliver higher quality water than the County system. I don’t drink County water. I run it through a filtration system before I drink it because it’s got chlorine in it. You know, with ultraviolet and sediment filtration and stuff, the catchment can be very high. I, I think that, you know, they’re meeting concurrency. They have a private system of catchment, but it’s the requirements that are unreasonable set by the Department of Water Supply. That’s my feeling. MIYASATO: Thank you, Commissioner. Any further comments? HONG: Mr. Chairman, if I could jump in. I mean, I agree with Mr. Henkel’s statement, and I think that, and even the Planning Director’s concerns, and I think this is an opportunity for some clarification of the concurrency law. And, I think that, I see this happening in terms of my 9 EXHIBIT A practice where you have these older families trying to pass on properties, and they’re trying to something with it, too. I think that if the Commission sends a negative recommendation to the Council with, you know, stating some of their concerns about the clarification needed to the concurrency law, you’ll be ahead of that curve. You’ll be ahead of that process to where, to the point where then all of a sudden in the five years, we’re really, this is really going to be an issue. So, hopefully, this can by the opportunity for the Commission to identify concerns and the need for clarification from the Council before this problem really starts to get bad. MIYASATO: Thank you. If no further comments or questions, thank you, you can have a seat. HONG: Thank you. FREITAS: Thank you. MIYASATO: We have no one signed up for public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify on this application? If not, can I have a motion to close public testimony. IKEDA: Move to close public testimony. HENKEL: Second. MIYASATO: All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. MIYASATO: Any opposed? I call a close to the public testimony. Commissioners, any discussion on this matter. If not, I’ll accept a motion. IKEDA: Chairman Miyasato, I’d like to make a motion. Move to, move to approve document REZ 14-185, Change of Zone from an Agricultural – 20 acres to Agricultural – 5 acres zoning district for 50 acres of land for six lots based on the following reasons. One, there seems to be ample rainfall, you know 180 to 200 inches per year, and not too long ago we also approved a subdivision for water catchment. Also, the adjacent properties are zoned Ag-5 acres, so I think it’s—I already see it coming, and you know the, also the Puna CDP action committee support the rezoning, and I believe the, the action committee has the authority to, I think that’s the reason for the action committee to uphold the Puna CDP, and to change things to see that it fits the community. That’s all I have for now. MIYASATO: Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second? HENKEL: Second. MIYASATO: Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Ikeda, second by Commissioner Henkel. Do I have any discussion on the motion? If not, you can call the roll. 10 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Before we call the roll, if I could get clarification. It’s my understanding that you’re requesting a favorable recommendation? IKEDA: That is correct. DARROW: For a six-lot— IKEDA: --right, subdivision. DARROW: --subdivision, okay. Are you—at this point the Planning Department has not provided any conditions. IKEDA: I know that, but from what I gather, the, the Planning Director has concerns, and it seems to these, certain conditions but I think we could put it in that subject to Planning Director’s conditions. DARROW: One more clarification. Commissioner Ikeda, that, the rec—the request is for a, a Change of Zone from Agricultural to 20 acres to Agricultural – 5 acres. So, the approval, the favorable recommendation is for the, the Change of Zone to be approved with Agricultural – 5 acre for a total of six lots? IKEDA: That is correct— DARROW: --okay— IKEDA: --because that’s all they requested. DARROW: --Okay, and then, you’re requesting that the Planning Department prepare conditions to go along with— IKEDA: --with, that is correct— DARROW: --the favorable, okay. If I could ask—Commissioner, why don’t we, if a--if I could just ask for a small time. Thank you. MIYASATO: I’d like to call a five-minute recess. Chairman Miyasato called a recess at 9:40 a.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:47 a.m. MIYASATO: Call the meeting back to order. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the floor right now, we have a motion by Commissioner Ikeda and seconded by Commissioner Henkel to send a favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request for a total of six lots. The Planning, at this time, the Planning Department does not have conditions prepared. We’re asking that before the 11 EXHIBIT A roll be taken, that we defer this until our next Windward Planning Commission, so that we can provide the Commission and the Applicants with conditions of approval that can be forwarded along with the recommendation. IKEDA: Okay. Do we have to withdraw our motions? DARROW: I believe it can remain. HENKEL: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Can we go forward with the recommendation and make our own conditions rather than wait on the Planning Department, legally? MIYASATO: What do you recommend? HENKEL: We’ll just say the Council re-visit the requirements by Department of Water Supply about catchment or private systems. MIYASATO: But that, that was with a neg—that was with a negative recommendation. HALL: Is that—you guys waiting for a question from him? MIYASATO: Okay, Commissioner Henkel, do you have a question? Do you have a-- HENKEL: Well, I’m just, this is a question I guess for Corp Counsel. Can we make a recommendation for approval to Council and ask them to revisit the requirements set by the Department of Water Supply for a—the water systems to include catchment and filtration. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I think what, what Commissioner Henkel is requesting—is this along the lines of what the Applicant had requested because— HENKEL: --yes— KANUHA: --yeah, bec— HENKEL: --I mean instead of waiting a month if can just move this forward— KANUHA: --right, but, but their request was assuming that the Commission would support a negative recommendation, so the negative recommendation would go up with this strong requirement to reconsider the concurrency requirements. What I sense the Commission wants to do is provide a favorable recommendation. HENKEL: That’s the motion, yeah. KANUHA: Right, in which case what we’re looking for is procedurally a way to recognize that that’s the way the Commission wants to go, but still give the Department the opportunity to provide you with a, a series of, with a favorable recommendation— 12 EXHIBIT A HENKEL: --with the certain amounts-- KANUHA: --yeah, with, with the standard conditions, and we may also recommend conditions with regard to things we do similarly with variances, you know, that it be restricted to certain number of lots, the conveyance has to be recorded certainly, things of that nature, so when that comes back you know then again, you’ll have an opportunity to, to participate in that. HENKEL: Okay, that answers my question— HONG: Mr. Chairman, if I may? MIYASATO: Yeah, okay. HONG: I think the Planning Director’s comments or suggestions are valid. I think another alternative also is to approve the motion on the floor and that doesn’t preclude the Planning Department from submitting recommendations to the County Council when that comes before the Council, so it’s six of one-half dozen or the other. So, my point is, you could delay it for another month so we could work out conditions which we’re more than amenable to with the Planning Department or alternatively, you can approve it now, let us follow that track in the Planning Department, and we can still work on conditions that we’d be submitting to the County Council. LEE LOY: Chairman? I’m sorry— MIYASATO: Go ahead. LEE LOY: If we follow along this process with a favorable recommendation, at the Planning Committee level over at the County Council, they’ll be other opportunities to hammer out more of this stuff, and I do sense that the Commission is getting that there is a need for some type of framework where identifying the water requirements, we’re looking at adjacent properties, we’re looking at rainfall, so there, there already is some outline and some framework and then you know, I would want the Planning Director to really weigh in on what this all takes, and you know, we’ll follow this track, but we also feel strongly that there’s opportunities to get a lot more input through this process. HALL: Everything was, it’s closed, you have, but what might be better is if everything just gets deferred, you know? MIYASATO: Okay. HALL: I mean, there’s a motion. Nobody made a motion to defer. I think the, I think the Department has asked for a deferral but nobody on the Commission has made a motion to defer yet, so move to defer, get a second for a deferral and then work it out. 13 EXHIBIT A MIYASATO: Okay, thank you for your comments. Commission, the Department is requesting a deferral with the motion on the floor. If we decide not to defer, for the record and just to set a precedence for future applications, I think we need to state findings regarding compliance and concurrency, how we justify that. So, I would like to entertain—the motion for deferral or some findings for compliance. IKEDA: Okay, I’ll move to defer. HEAUKULANI: Second. IKEDA: Okay, motion for deferral by Commissioner Ikeda, seconded by Commissioner Heaukulani. Any discussion on the deferral? KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? MIYASATO: Go ahead. KANUHA: And I think for the record, this is also recognizing that there is a motion and a second although that hasn’t been executed for a favorable recommendation on this petition. Is that part of the understanding for the deferral? MIYASATO: Deferral is for the, deferral on action, yeah? On the vote, yeah? With the standing motion. You can call the roll on the deferral. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. 14 EXHIBIT A The discussion ended at 9:57 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 15 EXHIBIT A