[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]







                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      0 IlEq R VIE WAND ANALYSL5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      01@
                                                                                                                                                    -DEVE LOPAIENTAND TLUCDECISMNS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      FPV 0 Alf 1987 -.199
                                                                       C3-











                                                                            cl<
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ....... .....












                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

















                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .. ..... .. ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 . . ........












                                                                                          HD
                                                                                          211
                                                                                          .G8094
                                                                                          1994                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Bureau of Plann;jzg
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Guam Coastal Management Program.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           September I Q94












                          OXrE RVI EW AND ANALYS I S
                                     OF
                     DEVELOVINIENTAND TLUC DECISIONS
                              FROM. 1987 - 1.993























 0
         Funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean and Coastal
           Resource Management, and the Guam Coastal Management Program,
             Bureau of Planning, Government of Guam, &ough NOAA grant
 0                              #NA370Z0301


                                    Aga













                                                     MMODUCTION



                Prior to 1984, growth and development on Guam was at a slower pace than what we became
                accustomed to during the mid-'80s and early '90s. Limitations in the progress of the island's
                economy were attributed to high inflation rates, high interest rates, and high labor costs.
                However, by 1984, devaluation of the dollar against the yen, a decline in the prime interest
                rate, po tential government spending on infrastructure improvements, and projected
                hotel/tourist related investments signified potential growth.


                By mid-'84, Guam saw the beginning of an economic boom. Construction started on the
                Pacific -Star Hotel, an $8.7 million dollar contract was awarded to improve infrastructure along
                San Vitores Road in Tumon, Duty Free Shoppers, Inc. broke ground for its $5 million retail
                store, and many other construction projects began taking shape.


                For the next three years, tourism continued to grow, and continued to be Guam's largest
                private sector industry. Other factors contributing to the escalation in tourism included a rise
                in the value of Japanese yen against the dollar, expanded air services between Guam and Japan
                (Japan being the island's primary source of visitors), as well as an increased hotel inventory.
                The Dai-Ichi, Hilton, and Pacific Islands Club hotels all began major renovation and expansion
                projects totalling $35.3 million in value.


                While construction activities exceeded all expectations from 1984 to 1987, it became evident
                that tourism was beginning to reach its saturation point. Those in the industry began
                demanding additional hotel rooms to accommodate the rising numbers in visitor arrivals, and
                hotel developers were only more than willing to oblige. The Territorial Land Use
                Commission (TLUC), then known as the Territorial Planning Commission, began approving
                hotel and other tourist-related construction projects in an attempt to keep foreign investors

                                                              1







                interested in developing on Guam. The Commission was reacting to public statements by
                political and tourism industry leaders, which raised fears that investors would go elsewhere if
                projects were not approved quickly. However, as the TLUC approved these projects during
                this boom period mode of development, no forethought was given by the approving bodies to
                the island's capability to sustain such development, although those concerns were being raised
                by the infrastructure agencies. Expectedly, Guam began to feel the burden placed on its
                limited resources, i.e., land, infrastructure, and labor.


                From 1988 to 1990, tourism continued to contribute more to Guam's economy than any other
                pri vate sector industry, and an enormous volume of foreign investments continued to finance
                the construction boom. While the majority of off-island investment came from Japan, markets
                began opening up in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea. Visitor arrivals continued to rise;
                within this three year period 2,034,951 tourists vacationed on Guam. With hotel construction
                still at a peak  1989, hotel construction permits exceeded $104.5 million, and $131.5 million
                in 1990. (There were 2,594 construction permits valued at $374.3 million issued in 1989, and
                2,626 permits valued at $491.8 million issued in 1990.)


                Then, for the fir st time since 1978, visitor arrivals decreased by five percent to 737,260 in
                199 1. Guam experienced a 79 % hotel occupancy rate during the year, which was the lowest it
                has experienced in the previous ten years. Hotel permits decreased by 26 % for a value of
                $98.7 million. This was partly due to the Persian Gulf War which started in August of 1990,
                and partly as a reaction to a spate of disastrous storms (typhoons) which visited Guam over the
                next few years. Large scale or hotel-resort projects were being scaled down or put on
                indefinite hold, and new development projects were on the downswing. Reasons for this can
                be attributed to 1) the 1990 Tokyo Stock Market crash, 2) bankruptcy filings by companies
                with real estate holdings on Guam, and 3) tightening of capital by Japanese banks which were
                supposed to finance hotel, condominium, and golf resort projects on Guam.


 0              While 1991 may have marked the end of the "hotel boom", construction projects were still

                                                               2




 0








                being driven primarily by the visitor industry. Condominium construction permits continued
                rising, and were valued at $175.9 million in 1991 as compared to $14.8 million in 1990.
                (This can be attributed to the approval of these condominium projects in prior years.) More
                and more, local residents began expressing their discontent for uncontrolled tourism-related
                development, the rising cost of living, the enormously high cost of rental units, and the lack of
                affordable housing. Developers attempted to address the shortage of housing on Guam
                through the condominium market. Unfortunately, due to a lack of adequate marketing studies,
                and a duplication of mistakes made by developers in other parts of the country, what resulted
                was the approval of an excess of condominium structures. This over abundance of
                condominiums eventually lead to vacant units sitting idle while the demand for affordable
                housing continued to escalate.


                Supertyphoon Omar blasted its way through Guam on August 28, 1992, and cost the island
                over $200 million in damages. It was estimated that businesses suffered over $87 million in
                damages (hotel damages were estimated at $25 million), while the government incurred over
                $51 million in damages. After August, tourism declined due to the onslaught of additional
                typhoons (Brian, Elsie, Hunt and Gay), repeated power and water problems, Japan's economic
                recession, and competing tourist destinations with lower rates. Overall, construction permits
                issued for 1992 decreased 8% (2,338 in 1992, 2,535 in 1991), and decreased in value by 57%
                ($852.9 million in 1991, $362.6 million in 1992).


                While the construction industry began experiencing a slowdown due to Guam's sluggish
                economy, it did not necessarily mean the end of construction or development all together. In
                fact, permitted development-related activities increased by 30% with an estimated value of
                more than $431 million (3,244 permits were issued) in 1993. More importantly, development
                began addressing the needs of the island's residents. 925 single-family residential permits
                were issued worth $89,060,889.37 (some of this residential construction was for typhoon or
                earthquake related repairs). There was only one hotel permit, valued at $39,000,000.00,
                issued this year; no building permits were issued for condominium projects.

                                                              3











                                                          PURPOSE



                The objective of this study is to look at the land-use request, approval and development history
                of Guam during an unprecedented boom period, and if possible to identify shortcomings,
                strengths, and weaknesses in the review and permitting approval process. A timeframe of six
                years from January 1, 1987, through December 31, 1993, will serve as the review period. Six
                primary types of residential development reviewed and acted upon by the Territorial Land
                Use Commission (TLUQ will be analyzed. These uses are: apartments, condominiums,
                hotels, single family dwellings, subdivisions, and townhouses.


                The approval authority for most major or significant development projects on Guam rests with
                the Territorial Land Use Commission. All requests for zone variances, zone changes,
                conditional uses, development in hotel-resort zones, subdivisions and subdivision waivers,
                planned unit developments, and development within the territorial seashore reserve require
                TLUC approval. (When the Commission considers applications for development within the
                seashore reserve, it becomes the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission (TSPQ and is
                then required to apply the TSPC Rules and Regulations in its decision-making process.)


                Zone variances and zone changes are probably the most critical approvals granted by the
                TLUC in terms of land-use on Guam. The reason being that variances and changes of zone
                allow developers to deviate from what is permissible or what has been anticipated in terms of
                development types and densities, as dictated by the Zoning Laws of Guam. These requests
                require the greatest degree of change to long range planning goals already established (new
                roads, water and sewer lines, etc.), and impact greatest on community expectations.


                In granting variances, the TLUC is bound by certain requirements, and by law, cannot
                (read: should no   grant variances unless said requirements are met. These requirements

                include:


                                                               4








                         [a]     That the strict application of the provisions of the law would result in practical
                                 difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the intent of the law;
                         [b]     That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the
                                 property involved or to the intended use that do not apply to other properties in

                                 the same zone;
                         [c]     That the granting of variances will not be materially detrimental to the public*
                                 welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or
                                 neighborhood in which the property in located; and
                         [d]     That the granting of variances will not be contrary to the objectives of any part
                                 of the "Master Plan" adopted by the Commission or Legislature.



                 In changing zones, the Commission is required (per Attorney General's opinion) to
                 demonst  rate that [1] public necessity, [2] convenience, and [3] general welfare justify such

                 actions.



                 In reviewing the information presented in this paper, villages will be better able to anticipate
                 development of approved projects should investment funds once again become readily
                 available. Government agencies will be able to utilize the information to develop funding
                 requests, and to incorporate the "facts" of past approvals in the review of new requests, in
                 order to anticipate cumulative impacts.









 40





 0











                                                   1987 TLUC ACTIVITIES



                In 1987,1apartment structures were the primary type of development requested with thirty-five
                projects proposed throughout the island. More than 100 units were proposed in each of the
                following villages: Barrigada, Mongmong/Toto/Maite, Tumon, Yigo, and Chalan Pago. The
                TLUC approved 1078 units. Requests for height variances, and conditional use approvals
                within other than "R-2" zones, were the primary reasons for TLUC approval needs. Fourteen
                of the thirty-five requests were for variances to the height limitation. Of the fourteen height
                variances approved, eleven were for variances of three stories, 30 feet or less; two were for
                three stories, over 30 feet; and one for ten stories, 102 feet. Based on DRC positions
                (inadequate infrastructure, exceeds density, does not meet PUD requirements), one height
                variance (three stories, 30 feet) was disapproved.


                Including the one height variance request, eight applications were disapproved for a total of 79
                units. The other seven project applications disapproved included requests for conditional uses
                and zone changes. One apartment structure consisted of twenty units, with the remaining
                seven proposals made up of ten units each or less. Some of the requests denied by TLUC
                were for projects that: exceeded density requirements; overdeveloped the property; constituted
                spot zoning; had limited parking, limited landscaping, inadequate infrastructure; or lacked
                justification.


                Hotel projects were the second most proposed type of development in terms of total number of
                units (rather than overall number of projects) with a total of 1, 156 rooms approved by the
                TLUC. Of those approved hotel rooms, 95 % were proposed in Tamuning and Tumon. These
                approvals represented a more than 20% increase in hotel room inventory.


                Out of the six hotel projects approved in 1987, two can be considered "major". First, the
                eleven-story, 405 room Palace Hotel received its conditional use approval from the TLUC,

                                                               6








                and was proposed for Tamuning. The only condition to the hotel's approval was that the
                developer provide monthly progress reports to the TLUC in regard to sewer, water, parking,
                access,.and drainage concerns in the area. (Earlier in May of 1987, the Palace Hotel
                Corporation received its zone change approval from "R-2" (multi-family dwellings) to "H"
                (hotel-resort); the corporation applied for the zone change after receiving recommendations
                from the GCMP to do so to avoid having to apply for variances, i.e. height, parking, etc.)


                Second, the sixteen-story, 500 room Nikko Hotel was also approved under a conditional use
                permit within an "H" zone. The project needed a side yard setback variance from the required
                210' to 53'. Based on DRC recommendations, the Nikko received approval with the following
                conditions: the limestone forest on site be preserved; public access to the beach be provided;
                the developmentlimpact fee must be paid upon implementation by the government; connect to
                the Northern District Sewer Treatment Plant-Sewer Reversion Project upon completion;
                upgrade the roadway per Department of Public Works standards and conditions; and perform
                an archaeological survey prior to construction. Both the Palace ($69.3 million) and the Nikko
                ($90 million) hotels broke ground the following year.


                There were eight applications for individual single-family residential development submitted to
                the TLUC for review and approval in 1987; with a total of 182 units proposed for
                construction. Under the single family category, a large number of new, home units were
                permitted without the need for TLUC approval. Only those single family units requesting
                variances, or developed as subdivisions or planned unit developments, are required to be
                reviewed by all DRC agencies and TLUC.


                Of the 182 units approved, 172 units were part of a single PUD. This project consisted of a
                total of 469 units in Yona (both single family and townhouse units). The zone change request
                from "A" to "PUD" was originally disapproved by the TLUC due to concerns and objections
                raised by the public, the mayor of that village, and DRC members. These objections were
                based on inadequate water and sewer infrastructure facilities in the area; the fact that the soils

                                                             7




 10








                on the property were better suited for agricultural use; and the potential threat to endangered
                species living within theproject site. Three TLUC meetings, or six weeks later, TLUC
                agreed to   reconsider" their decision and entertain the application a second time based on new
                evidence  that was to be provided by the developer. The developer, however, merely contested
                the statements made by DRC representatives, i.e. Guam Environmental Protection Agency and
                Department of Agriculture), and offered to contribute $400,000 to help upgrade infrastructure
                facilities in the area. Based on this "new evidence", the TLUC approved the zone change
                application.


                The remaining ten units were approved for individuals planning to construct single family
                dwellings that did not meet all applicable zoning requirements. These home builders simply
                could not meet required setbacks or lot size, for example, and were required to obtain TLUC
                approval for their variances.



                More specifically, four variance requests for substandard lots were approved (one with
                conditions), two subdivision improvement variances were approved for a reduction in lot width
                and a reduction in easement, and one variance request for a substandard lot was disapproved.
                The basis of TLUC's disapproval on the one substandard lot request reflected DRC's concerns
                regarding a lack of justification for a substandard lot within an agricultural subdivision - no
                hardship on the property; and the fact that the property was located within the northern aquifer
                recharge area (Guam's primary water source) which would necessitate the property owner
                connecting to a sewerline. Interestingly, the four substandard lot requests were approved
                without any conditions whatsoever, and no justification was required on the applicants' part.
                Additionally, three of the four approved requests were also within the aquifer recharge area.


                There were several small to medium sized subdivision projects ranging from five units to
                seventy-one units, and one large subdivision consisting of 106 units, that were proposed in
                1987. With a total of 306 units approved, developers proposed most of the subdivision units
                for Yigo, Yona, and Dededo. (A subdivision is simply defined as any parcel of land

                                                                8








                subdivided into six or more lots. The subdivision of a lot that is part of an existing
                subdivision is termed "overparcelling". This is the case of the five unit/lot subdivision request

                mentioned above.)


                Subdivision projects must comply with Guam's subdivision laws, rules and regulations in
                addition to the zoning laws. Part of the review process requires that subdivision developers
                submit tentative and final subdivision plans to insure orderly growth, adequate infrastructure,
                and proper traffic circulation.


                The one subdivision project that was disapproved included a request to waive "full
                improvements" (i.e., concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks) as required by law. This was not an
                uncommon request, nor was it a request that was normally denied by the TLUC, justified or
                not. In'-this case, however, when the applicant did not provide any justification for the waiver
                of improvements, and simply stated that "other developers in the area did not have to provide
                full improvements", the Commission decided to disapprove it.


                There were six subdivision projects approved without any conditions; three of these fell under
                zone change requests which cannot be conditioned under current law (unless its a zone change
                to PUD), one was a final subdivision approval, and the last two were requests for subdivision

                variances.



                While there were only four projects involving townhouse units, a form of multi-family
                residential units; three out of the four were approved with a total of 553 units. A tentative
                subdivision approval request was approved for 240 units, with no conditions. 297 townhouse
                units were approved as part of a PUD (mentioned earlier), and finally sixteen units were
                approved under a variance application for a mix of townhouse and apartment units. Most of
                these units were planned for Tamuning and Yona as part of major subdivisions. The one
                lownhouse project that was disapproved by the TLUC consisted of 244 units, and was
                proposed for Yigo. It was rejected under a zone change request from "A" (rural) to "R-2"

                                                              9







                 (multi-family dwellings) primarily due to inconsistencies with the scales and drawings on the
                 conceptual plan. TLUC recommended that the applicant re-submit his proposal under a PUD
                 request. The applicant did this, and in 1988 received approval for 176 units and commercial
                 buildings.


                 It is appropriate at this time to follow the discussions on single family dwellings, subdivisions,
                 and townhouses, with a brief discussion on "Planned Unit Developments" (PUDs). A PUD
                 enables the unified or integrated development of a substantial land area with a combination of
                 uses and structures that are deemed compatible to one another. A PUD could be comprised of
                 a combination of any or all of the following uses: hotels, condominiums, townhouses, single
                 family dwellings or commercial buildings. When compiling the information on the various
                 uses of each proposed PUD, each use and its corresponding number of units is reflected under
                 the appr opriate use category for the purposes of this analysis. For example, under a proposed
                 PUD of 300 hotel rooms, 200 single family dwellings, and 100 townhouses, the units will be
                 tallied under the appropriate category. Note that single family dwelling units and townhouse
                 units are not categorized as subdivision units. The main reason for this is the need to indicate
                 each separate use proposed under a PUD, versus a solitary use - single family units - which
                 are normally associated with subdivisions.


                 The TLUC saw very little activity in terms of condominium requests compared to apartment or
                 hotel requests. A total of eighty-four units (two projects) were planned for Tamuning, and
                 twenty-six units (also two projects) were planned for Tumon. One height variance was
                 approved for three-stories, 30 feet. Typically, in 1987 and prior years, condominium
                 proposals were small scale (less than ten stories, less than 100 units), as opposed to "typical"
                 requests to follow in other years.


                 TLUC disapproved one condominium project with requests for a height and setback variances,
                 as well as a conditional use. The applicant had previously obtained approval from TLUC in
                 1980 for a twelve unit, four-story condominium (height variance for one floor). Apparently,


                                                                 10








                the applicant never built, and decided to request for an additional three floors (same number
                of units) seven years later. But in doing so, the project now required a setback variance due to
                the building height-setback ratio requirements under the Hotel-Resort Interim Rules and
                Regulations ("when a yard abuts a shoreline, building setbacks are increased by 35 feet for one
                story, and 75 feet for two stories, etc.) The Commission considered the size of the lot too
                small for a seven story structure and therefore, disapproved the request.


                TLUC's average disapproval rate for all six categories of development in 1987 was 16% (0%
                for hotels).














                                                                  TLUC - 1987

                                                            APPROVALS VS. DISAPPROVALS








                                low-
                                                                                  jr





                                SIX -
                                                                                  rn                                           UK

                                                                                         .7
                                4W

                                200 -                        pv



                                      APARTMENTS     CONDOMINIUMS      HOTELS      SINGLE FAMILY  SUBDIVISIONS   TOYMHOUSES
                                                                        PROPOSED USE


                                                                              DISAPPROVALS
                                                                              APPROVALS




















                                                                                   12














                                                      1987

                                     PERCENTAGES OF APPROVALS BY USE




                               CONDOMINIUMS 3.2%                     APARTMENTS 31.8%








                           HOTELS 34.2%




                                                                            TOWNHOUSES 16.3%




                                     SINGLE FAMILY 5.4%         SUBDIVISIONS 9.0%























                                                         13@











                                                 1988 TLUC ACTIVITIES



                For 1989, the total number of hotel projects doubled from 1987, and the number of rooms
                increased by almost 50%. All together, the TLUC approved twelve projects (nine new hotels
                and three major hotel expansions), totaling 2329 hotel rooms. Half of those projects were
                approved for Tumon alone with 1058 rooms (i.e., Reef Hotel, Guam Plaza, Hotel Leo Palace,
                and other unnamed hotel projects). One major hotel (Goodwind Development
                Corp. /Micronesia Mall Hotel, 450 rooms) was approved for Dededo, and another for
                Tainuning (Onward Agana Beach Hotel, 300 rooms).


                Conditional uses and zone variances were the most common request to the TLUC, with
                densityj height, and setback being the most common variance. Goodwind Development
                Corporation, for example, applied for a conditional use permit to revise its existing master
                plan in order to construct a 450-room hotel rather than apartments and condominiums as
                originally proposed. In addition to the conditional use, this applicant had also requested a
                height variance to construct the hotel fifteen stories over the six stories that were allowed by
                law in a "commercial zone" for a total of twenty-one floors, 220 feet in height (there are no
                other structures in this area over three stories). DRC objected to the requests for two main
                reasons: 1) the applicant required a setback variance as a result of the proposed height of 21
                floors, and had not applied for such (required setback increased to 315' on all sides); and 2)
                the applicant had not justified the granting of the height variance as required under the Zoning
                Law. Based on the proposed layout, the TLUC approved both the conditional use and height
                variance as requested by the applicant, and stated it was "good planning". No setback
                variance was required of the applicant by the TLUC.


                The Manenggon Hills development site is comprised of more than 1300 acres in Yona, a
                village with a total population of approximately 5,300. It received approval for 200 hotel
                rooms, 2150 condominium units, 850 executive dwellings - townhouses and single family

                                                            14







                units (units reflected in 1990 TLUC PUD amendment approval 1990 table), 21/2 golf courses
                and golf clubhouse (3rd largest in the world), an equestrian trail and horse stables, two
                baseball fields, an artificial lake, tennis club, water park and numerous swimming pools
                including an Olympic sized pool, and a 2000-seating capacity convention center. Additionally,
                a "central village" was proposed for the Manenggon development, and was to consist of
                shopping areas, restaurants, a chapel, medical center, theater, bowling alley, and a small (on-
                site) train and depot. During the course of construction of phase I, Manenggon moved ten
                million cubic yards of earth. Manenggon Hills led the way for several other large scale
                developments.


                1988 saw the beginning  of planned "resort" development. Although not the first of its kind
                ever to be proposed on Guam, the "Manenggon Hills Leo Palace Resort" zone change
                application (from "A" to TUD") was submitted to the Development Review Committee on
                September 15, 1988. Despite the fact that the DRC member agencies had grave concerns
                pertaining to the potential impacts due to the magnitude of the proposed project (i.e.,
                inadequate infrastructure or a lack thereof, impacts on endangered species within the area,
                possible effects of the project on the Ylig and Manenggon Rivers, the protection of historic or
                archaeological sites, access to and from the proposed development, and the lack of both an
                Environmental Impact Assessment and an Agricultural Impact Statement), six weeks later,
                TLUC approved the zone change request.


                1988 also appeared to be the beginning of another "phase" of development: large scale
                condominiums. While there were twenty-three apartment projects compared to seventeen
                condominium projects submitted for approval, TLUC approved 760 condominium units (an
                increase of 591 % from 1987) and only 455 apartment units (a decrease of 58 % from 1987).
                Most of this condominium development was proposed for the villages Tainuning and Tumon,
                with one project consisting of more than 100 units in Dededo. Conditional uses and zone
                variances were mostly requested of the TLUC, with density and height being the most
                frequently requested types of variances for condominium development this year.

                                                             15








                 This was a period of time when it was not uncommon for developers (of both condominiums
                 and hotels) to request variances for height, density, or setbacks, that were anywhere from 50%
                 to 100% or more, in excess of what was permissible by law. The arguments for approval
                 were not based on requirements of law, but a viewpoint of development based upon investor
                 needs, previous approvals (without cost/benefit analysis), unsupported statements as to
                 investment/retum needs or realities, and community capabilities and support as "proven" by
                 lack of outcry against. In other words, policy regarding community evolution was being
                 developed as a result of actions rather than before the action occurred, by a commission rather
                 than those elected to develop policy.


                 This was also a time when the two primary agencies responsible for water and sewer
                 infrastructure tried to impress upon the TLUC, the importance of staying within the limits of
                 the Tumon/Tamuning areas' existing sewer capacity. It eventually reached the point where
                 both agencies recommended against approving density variances until such time that the
                 "Sewer Reversal Project" was completed (1989). This project was intended to alleviate some
                 of the pressures on the sewer system which at the time was working beyond its intended
                 capacity. The agencies also felt a need for, and recommended that a study be conducted to
                 determine the to tal sewage collector. requirements for Tumon. This study would take into
                 consideration not only existing development and TLUC approved hotel/condominium projects,
                 but the development potential of all vacant properties within the Tumon area.


                 But even with the seriousness of the infrastructure situation at hand, TLUC continued to
                 approve development projects. Standard conditions imposed by the Commission, if any,
                 consisted of the following: that developers pay their "fair share" of development impact fee for
                 water and sewer infrastructure improvements upon implementation by the Government of
                 Guam; that landscaping be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner (Department of Land
                 Management) prior to the issuance of occupancy permits; that sign regulations be adhered to;
                 and in some instances, that proposed developments (condominiums or hotels) not exceed the
                 requirements for density by more than 50%. In regard to high-rise structures and height

                                                               16








                variances, the Commission always felt it better to approve high-rises than have two or three
                story buildings "sprawled out" from lot line to lot line, and not have any open space. The
                result of the " TLUC request to limit density increases to 50 % ", was a de-facto increase of
                permitted density without a legally adopted change to the law.


                In 1988 there were eleven single family dwelling project applications, for a total of 18 units.
                Six of those projects (total of 13 dwellings), with requests for zone variances (substandard lot
                sizes and lot widths) or subdivision waiver variances were disapproved. Only five single
                family dwelling units were approved.


                Subdivision development dropped from twelve to eight approved projects (a decrease of 32%)
                totaling only 152 units. Two projects received tentative subdivision approvals, one proposed
                for Mongmong (12 units), and the other for Toto (32 units). The largest subdivision project
                approved this year consisted of 94 units and was planned for the village of Yona. This
                project, however, was in its final review stage, as it received "final subdivision approval"

                from the TLUC.



                There were four townhouse projects submitted to the TLUC in 1988, the same number of
                projects as 1987. Although all four applications were approved, two with conditions,
                proposed townhouse development fell slightly with only 444 units being approved. One
                conditional use, one tentative subdivision approval, and two zone changes were granted. The
                majority of these units were proposed for Dededo and Yigo.


                With twenty-two apartment projects proposed, and seventeen of those projects approved, a
                need was still being demonstrated for this type of residential accommodation. The main
                reason for this being that a growing majority of the local population could not afford to
                purchase homes at the going market rate, which ranged anywhere from $225,000 to $400,000.
                There were seven conditional use permits, eleven zone variances (mostly for height), and three
                zone changes approved by the TLUC for apartment structures. The 485 approved units were

                                                              17








               planned throughout the island, from Yigo, to Yona, -to Agat. The three villages with the most
               approved units included Tumon, Dededo, and Barrigada.


               TLUC's average disapproval rate for 1988 increased slightly to 20%; while there were no
               hotel or townhouse projects disapproved, almost half or 46 % of the single family units were

               denied.



















































                                                             18














                                                                  TLUC - 1988

                                                           APPROVALS VS. DISAPPROVALS




                                2=








                                1500-




                                low-




                                soo-



                                      APARTMENTS    CONDOMINIUMS      W;ELS       SINGLE'FALAflLY SUBDMSIONS    TOVYNHOUSES
                                                                       PROPOSED USE


                                                                             DISAPPROVALS
                                                                             APPROVALS



















                                                                                   19














                                                         1988

                                        PERCENTAGES OF APPROVALS BY USE





                                                                     CONDOMINIUMS 18.3%





                                                                                  APARTMENTS 11.0%




                                                                                    SINGLE FAMILY 0. 1 %


                              HOTELS 56.2%                                         TOWNHOUSES, 10.7%

                                                                             SUDFVISIONS 3.7%

























                                                             20










                                                   1989 TLUC ACTMTEES



                Up fronf twenty-two projects in 1988, thirty-seven apartment projects went through the TLUC
                process in 1989. The total number of apartment units approved increased from 485 in 1988 to
                731 in 1989, an increase of 246 units or 34%. Six apartment projects consisting of 215 units,
                or 16 % of the apartment projects entertained by the TLUC were disapproved.


                Of the seventeen variance applications submitted for apartment projects, the most requested
                were variances to, the height law -- thirteen in all. A contributing factor for the significant
                number of height variances was due to the language of the zoning law; the law stated that the
                maximum height allowable in any zone was two stories, not to exceed 30 feet (except
                commercial zones within the New Agana lot and block system and hotel zones). Many
                apartment complex developers proposing to construct three story apartment complexes within
                the 30 foot height limit were required to obtain variances for the third floor. This type of
                request was often considered a formality, and rarely met with any opposition. (Because this
                had been an issue for many years, Bill No. 298 was signed into Public Law 21-14 in April of
                1991; this law basically amended the current height regulations to allow for structures in "A",
                "R-111, "R-211, "C", "M-1", and "M-2" zones to be built a height of three stories, 30 feet.)


                The need for TLUC approvals for condominium development proposals intensified in 1989.
                The total number of approved condominium units spiraled to 4,200 units, 3,440 units or
                452.63 % more than in 1988. Of the eighteen condominium project applications acted on by
                the TLUC, only one, (a twenty-six unit project) was disapproved. While the majority of
                approved units (2,222) were planned for the village of Ordot, 2,168 units were approved under
                one project. The villages of Tamuning, Mangilao, Tumon, and Inarajan were also locations
                where a good number of condominiums were proposed, each with 200 or more units.


                Again, while there were other TLUC requests such as conditional uses and zone changes,

                                                              21







                 height variances were the most requested type of change or deviation from the zoning
                 requirements. For the variance requests submitted for condominium projects located in
                 Tumon, a different set of height regulations applied - the "Hotel-Resort Zone Interim Rules
                 and Regulations". For multi-family uses, i.e., condominiums, on lots between 10,880 sq. feet
                 and 29,999 sq. feet in size, the maximum building height allowed is three stories (no limit in
                 total number of feet). For properties 29,999 sq. feet and over, the maximum building height
                 was determined by adding total lot width with total lot length, and then dividing by 10. As
                 available properties in Tumon became more and more scarce, they also became smaller. That
                 is why, in many cases, variances were required of many projects.


                 Hotel development requests also increased dramatically; the total number of approved hotel
                 rooms increased 192.7% (from 2,329 rooms in 1988 to 4,488 rooms in 1989). Of the sixteen
                 hotel projects proposed, only one (a twenty-five-room hotel), was disapproved by the
                 Commission. Among the projects approved, eight projects or 2,235 rooms (50% of the rooms
                 approved) were slated for Tunion. Most of the variances requested (i.e., height, density, and
                 setback) for the hotel projects in Tunion were the result of insufficient acreage for such
                 projects. The overdevelopment of properties in Tumon was directly related to the escalated
                 property values in this area, which accordingly, was linked to increased foreign investments
                 and development speculations. At one point in time, Tunion properties were advertised for
                 sale as high as $2500 per square meter, and developers tried to maximize their investments.


                 There were three approved "hotel-resort" developments and one "residential-industrial park",
                 which consisted of a variation of hotel rooms, condominiums, townhouses, subdivision units,
                 and golf courses. These projects were planned for Inarajan (Dandan Estates and Country
                 Club), Mangilao (Marbo Cave Resort), Tainuning (Matsuzato Guam Resort) and Ordot
                 (United Light Industrial Park and Pacific Garden). Developers of large scale, tourism related
                 projects, began moving into areas other than Tunion, the traditional tourist-hotel destination on
                 Guam, as Tumon reached its saturation point.



                                                               22








                 Generally being the first of its kind to be proposed on Guam, the residential-industrial park
                 merits a brief discussion. On 67.3 acres, the Hong Kong-based developers proposed to
                 constru .ct 2,168 units of low (6 stories) to highrise (28 stories) condominium units, a 100-
                 room, five story hotel, commercial facilities, clubhouse facilities, workers' housing (five
                 stories, 56 units), and e ighteen 20,000 sq. foot industrial park lots (total of nine acres).
                 Recreational amenities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, a lake/reservoir, and parks
                 were also proposed. The following are some of the goods that were proposed to be
                 manufactured or assembled on site: garments/clothing, furniture, leather goods, Chinese arts
                 and crafts, watches and clocks, toys, luggage, lacquer and porcelain ware, electronic goods,
                 sporting goods.


                 The project site was comprised of approximately 18% savanna (12 acres), 54% ravine forest
                 habitat  36 acres), 25 % wetlands (17 acres), and 3 % disturbed ground (less than two acres).
                 Needless to say, there were many critical concerns involved with this project. Among those
                 crucial issues was the need for water and sewer infrastructure upgrades in the area; the
                 mitigation of all 17 acres of wetlands that were proposed to be filled or altered; the protection
                 of significant historical artifacts or sites; traffic impacts; the projected increase in population
                 resulting from the development; the impacts on existing public facilities and services; and the
                 potential overdevelopment of the property.


                 Due to the lack of an adequate EIA, agricultural impact statement, wetland mitigation plan,
                 erosion control plan, and environmental protection plan, DRC member agencies had
                 recommended that the application be tabled or deferred back to the DRC until such time that
                 sufficient information was provided which adequately addressed the concerns raised by the
                 DRC. Regardless of these issues, the TLUC approved the zone change only two months after
                 the DRC had reviewed the application. While there were conditions to the approval, it was
                 TLUC practice to approve projects without supporting documents. It is noteworthy that this
                 project raised numerous questions by concerned residents that ultimately would be impacted by
                 the development of the project. It must also be noted that issues, such as the wetlands issue,

                                                                   23







                were not approved away, but would later be dealt with through other review and approval

                avenues.



                As a point of interest, the TLUC approved two large scale projects in the early to mid-'70s,
                however, due to an unstable financial situation at the time, these projects were never
                developed. One of these projects was "Marbo Cave Resort" and the other "Lonfit New
                Town", planned for the village of Asan (discussed in 1991 TLUC Activities). Both have
                subsequently been "revived" and as a result of the investment boom of the early '80s. Because
                the properties for each of the projects were designated as "planned unit developments" (which
                requires a mixture of uses to qualify), the developers were required to apply for amendments
                to the previously approved master plans with the TLUC. Otherwise, both projects could have
                conceivably proceeded upon obtaining building permits.


                In 1973, the original developers of Marbo Cave Resort were granted approval to develop 311
                acres of land into a vacation resort/residential community. Developers had proposed to
                construct 1,720 units of various residential dwellings (i.e., single family detached units and
                townhouses); 1,710 hotel rooms; shopping, restaurant, recreational and entertainment
                facilities, two sc hool/park sites; and a scenic lookout (on GovGuam property). In 1989, the
                new developers applied for an amendment to Marbo Cave's master plan, and proposed instead
                to develop a ten story 1,000-room hotel, a three story 200-room hotel, 434 condominium
                units, restaurant and shopping facilities, an 18-hole golf course, and the scenic overlook on
                GovGuam property. This being an amendment to an existing PUD, not much opposition was
                raised by DRC agencies. TLUC approved the changes with the condition that the developer
                improve access to the scenic overlook, develop the overlook facilities to include parking, and
                maintain the facility.


                There were twenty-one single-family projects submitted to the TLUC in 1989, eight more than
                the previous year. Of those submitted, TLUC disapproved 38% or eight of the projects.
                Although there were many projects proposed throughout the island, thirty-eight or 62 % of the

                                                             24







                units approved were planned for Dededo. TLUC approved a total of sixty-one units, and
                disapproved eight units. There were more applications for variances than any other TLUC
                permit or approval. On the one hand, five substandard lot variances, three setback variances,
                and one height variance were approved. On the other, five substandard lot variances, one lot
                width variance, and one density variance were disapproved. The reasoning behind any
                decision is difficult to ascertain, as TLUC approvals tend to be justified in broad generalities.


                TLUC approved five subdivision projects totalling 261 units. The largest subdivision
                approved this year consisted of 118 units (Forest Villa), and was planned for Mangilao. The
                TLUC approved the applicant's request for a zone change from " A " to " R- 1 ", and the DRC
                agencies generally had no objections as the applicant was proposing to install full
                improvements as well as recreational facilities. The remaining four projects were each less
                than 100 units, and were proposed for Dededo, Yigo, and Chalan Pago.


                The average TLUC disapproval rate for 1989 was 10.04%.





















                                                            25














                                                              TLUC - 1989

                                                       APPROVALS VS. DISAPPROVALS






                             4M




                             3M -




                             2000-




                             1000-
                                                                                     Apr
                                   APART MENTS   CONDOMMMS        HOTELS     SINGLE FMALY  SLIWII@SIONS          SES
                                                                   PROPOSED USE


                                                                        DISAPPROVALS
                                                                        APPROVALS



















                                                                             26














                                                      1989

                                     PERCENTAGES OF APPROVALS BY USE



                                    CONDOMINIUMS 41.5%








                                                                             APARTMENTS 7.2%



                                                                              TOWNHOUSES 3.8%


                                                                             SUBDIVISIONS 2.6%
                                                                            SINGLE FAMILY 0.6%





                                        HOTELS 44.3%





















                                                         27










                                                   1990 TLUC ACTIVITILES


                 With the- exception of condominium development, 1990 saw an overall decline in planned
                 projects. This was partly due to changes in the government review processes for development.
 0               The two key changes that occurred were the passage of Executive Orders 90-09 and 90-10.
                 These executive. orders were promulgated primarily in response to serious concerns both the
                 government and the general public had with the island's unprecedented development activity
                 that had been occurring during prior years.


                 It became increasingly apparent that along with all the potential development which had been
                 approved for construction by the TLUC, there would also be potential adverse impacts on the
                 envirom nent and the island community as a whole. Executive Order 90-09 was implemented
                 to ensure that the TLUC as well as the DRC (Development Review Committee) exercised
                 extreme care in the conduct of their activities, and that all laws and regulations governing land
                 and water use were followed to the letter. Fundamentally, Executive Order 90-09 was
                 effectuated to strengthen the review process, and close any gaps that previously hampered the
                 review agencies' abilities to conduct thorough evaluations. E.O. 90-09 guaranteed the
                 agencies a minimum of ninety days (or more if necessary) to review and submit application
                 position statements; there were cases when the DRC had a mere two weeks to submit written
                 comments or concerns. Additionally, DRC member agencies were now mandated to
                 determine unanimously, those applications which would be scheduled for TLUC meetings, and
                 when. This was to ensure that developers complied with the requirements of the agencies that
                 were necessary for proper reviews (EIAs, storm drainage or infrastructure plans,
                 archaeological studies, etc.).


                 Executive Order 90-10 was promulgated to address environment related concerns associated
                 with development impacts. Essentially, 90-10 required that an Environmental Impact
                 Assessment (EIA) be submitted to the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) prior

                                                             28








                 to the TLUC taking action on any zone change or variance application. Prior to Executive
                 Orders 90-09 and 90-10 being signed on May 25, 1990, TLUC would grant approval for
                 major projects in relatively short periods of time, without the benefit of valid environmental
                 assessments. Had the TLUC required the developers of the Manenggon Hills Resort to
                 provide an environmental impact assessment acceptable to the reviewing agencies prior to
                 granting its initial zone change approval, tens-of-millions of dollars in "after-the-fact" studies
                 and fines could have been saved by the developer. Manenggon paid a hefty price - $1.3
                 million (the largest fine in U.S. history) - for unauthorized filling of wetlands, and it was
                 estimated that more than $100 million in redesign and other costs were incurred by the
                 developer as a result of actions which may have been avoided.


                 The adjustments that had to be made by the DRC and TLUC, together with the requirement
                 for an EIA had expectedly slowed down the review process. This was critical at a time when
                 the public perceived development to be at an uncontrollable level, while developers perceived
                 the approval process as too slow, complex and expensive. Proposed developments throughout
                 the island began to bring about opposition and concern from local residents. One prime
                 example was the billion dollar "Taotao Resort" project. This 982 acre resort was to consist of
                 four hotel structures, 4200 condominium units, three golf courses, shopping areas, and many
                 other facilities. It was being planned for the village of Malojlcj, Inarajan, primarily a rural
                 village. Due to the lack of infrastructure and concerns for potential adverse impacts to the
                 surrounding community and environment, residents spoke out strongly against the project.
                 After one public hearing and many objections, Taotao Resort went no further. (Another factor
                 that may be contributed to the failure of this project was a possible past connection between
                 the developer and the Yakuza. The FBI was requested to investigate any possible criminal

                 records.)



                 As alluded to earlier, planned condominium development projects continued to increase in
                 1990. Rising by 22%, there were 3485 condominium units approved by the TLUC. Included
                 in these applications were requests for six zone changes, six zone variances, two conditional

                                                                 29







                 uses, one wetland permit and one tentative subdivision approval. The zone change requests
                 involved three changes from either "A" or "R-1" to "R-2" and one from "A" to "H"; and two
                 amendments to PUD properties. No condominium       project applications were disapproved.


                 It was around this time that the government agencies, as members of the DRC, began
                 requesting developers of projects involving hotel and condominium uses to produce marketing
                 studies as part of the review process.. While the overall economic conditions on Guam were
                 still considered very healthy, concerns and questions were raised as to the whether the local
                 community's needs were being met with all the on-going construction of condominium (and
                 hotel) projects. Condominium projects on Guam were primarily visitor (tourist) oriented, and
                 although developers made attempts at targeting at least 20% of the local market in many cases,
                 the average to upper-level income households could not afford to invest in many of the units
                 being offered. Additionally, condominiums were not the traditional choice of first time home
                 buyers as were single family dwellings.


                 There were only five hotel projects approved by the TLUC in 1990 as compared to fifteen
                 projects in 1989, this was a 67% decrease in project submittals. (The primary factor
                 contributing to this decline in hotel submittals can be directly attributed to the transition that
                 had to be made by both developers and government agencies from the old review process to
                 the new process under E.O.s 90-09 and 90-10.) The total number of approved rooms came to
                 1,855 (only 41 % of what was approved the prior year); no hotel projects were disapproved.

                 There were three zone change applications approved for hotel projects, however, two of these
                 applications were not for new projects. These two zone change requests were to amend
                 previously approved planned unit developments. The first amendment was to an existing
                 eighteen hole golf course and country club in Dededo (Hatsuho International Country Club)
                 which included approximately fifty hotel rooms. The requested amendment was to allow the
                 construction of an additional fifteen hotel rooms, twelve townhouses, and another nine holes of
                 golf. The second approved PUD amendment was for the Manenggon Hills Resort. This

                                                             30








                 application, which also included applications for a wetland permit, and tentative subdivision
                 approval, was submitted after the initial wetland issues concerning the development were

                 resolved.



                 The third zone change request (from "A" to "H") was for a new hotel/condominium
                 development. Planned for an area in Harmon, immediately adjacent to Tumon on one side and
                 Puntan Dos Amantes (Two Lover's Point) on the other, "Faifai Beach Resort" was proposed to
                 have 1,100 hotel rooms (23 stories), approximately 59% of the total number of rooms
                 approved in 1990, as well as 400 condominium units (21 stories). Because Puntan Dos
                 Amantes is a historically symbolic site as well as one of the most economically important
                 landmarks on Guam, there were great concerns with the impacts to the site as a result of the
                 proposed Faifai Resort. Agencies noted the general lack of information provided by the
                 applicant regarding critical issues involving archaeological resources, habitats, wildlife, and
                 the physical characteristics of the property (i.e. pristine limestone forests). The need to
                 review an adequate environmental impact assessment and/or statement prior to the approval of
                 the zone change was also emphasized. Yet, once again, the TLUC granted its approval with
                 the standard attitude that "environmental studies can always come later". Because this
                 application was submitted to the TLUC prior to the implementation Executive Orders 90-09
                 and 90-10, it cleared the DRC/TLUC process within two months.


                 There were only twelve apartment projects requiring TLUC actionin 1990 compared to the
                 thirty-seven'projects submitted in 1989. Accordingly, the total number of approved units
                 declined 74 % for a total of only 190 units (731 units were approved in 1989). Four of the
                 twelve apartment projects (33 %) submitted this year were disapproved. Included in those
                 requests that received approval were three conditional use permits, one zone change from "R-
                 I " to " R-2 ", and variance requests for height (6), parking (2) and density (1). Four of the
                 height requests were for apartment structures three stories, 30 feet (variance for third floor).
                 The last two height requests were for structures more than 50% over required height limits.
                 Both parking variances were granted to reduce the size of parking stalls, the standard size

                                                                 31








                being 9 feet by 20 feet. The one approved density variance permitted 19% more than the total
                number of allowable units. About 83 % of the approved apartment units were planned for the
                villages of Tamuning and Tumon.


                Of the four applications denied by TLUC, requests included two zone changes from " R- 1 " to
                "R-2 ", and one zone variance each for height (26.3 % over allowable height), density (53.8 %
                over allowable density), and use (multi-family use in a single family zone). A total of 232
                units were disapproved, 18% more than were approved.


                There were nine applications submitted under the "single family dwelling" category in 1990.
                All seven applications were approved, five with conditions. Approved requests included one
                conditional use permit, two subdivision variances (one deletion and one reduction of
                easement), and four variances (three for substandard lots and one setback request). Of the 68
                approved single family units, 61 units were part of two separate planned unit developments
                (PUDs): Manenggon Hills (50 units) and Riverside Pago Estates (11 units). The reason these
                units were categorized as single family units and not subdivision units is that PUDs are
                normally reviewed for the mixture or variety of uses, and are not considered a single use
                development such as "subdivisions".. This is not to say, however, that approved PUDs are not
                required to go through the tentative subdivision approval process. The main difference
                between subdivision projects (primarily made up of single family units) and PUDs, is that a
                PUD developer must first obtain that particular designation under an approved detailed master
                plan (such plan must illustrate a compatible mixture of uses and a 70% open space/30%
                development ratio).



                There was only one subdivision project submitted to and approved by the TLUC under a
                tentative subdivision application. A total of seven units were proposed for the village of
                Mongniong.


                There were a significant amount of townhouses approved in 1990 compared to the previous

                                                             32








               year primarily because of the Manenggon Hills Resort in which 800 such units were proposed.
               All in all, there were four projects that TLUC approved, two with conditions. The requests
               .included three zone changes (one new PUD and two amended PUDs), and one tentative
               subdivision approval. Each townhouse proposal was part of a multi-use development.







































                                                            33














                                                             TLUC - 1990

                                                       APPROVALS VS. DISAPPROVALS



                              3=












                          D ism-



                              low-






                                0
                                    APARTMENM    CONDOMIMUMS     HOTELS     GWGLE FAMILY  SUBDIVISIONS TOWNH"ES
                                                                  PROPOSED USE


                                                                        DISAPPROVALS
                                                                       APPROVALS



















                                                                           34














                                                      1990

                                     PERCENTAGES OF APPROVALS BY USE





                                  CONDOMINIUMS 53.4%







                                                                            APARTMENTS 2.9%




                       SINGLE FAMILY 1.0%                                  TOWNHOUSES 14.1%


                                                                      SUBDIVISIONS 0.1%
                                          HOTELS 28.4%

























                                                         35











                                                    1991 TLUC ACTMTEES



                 Although there was a marginal decline of three percent in the total number of approved
                 condominium. units (3,369) from 1990 to 1991, condominiums were still the most proposed
                 type of development submitted to the TLUC for approval. Approved applications included
                 two zone variances (two requests each for density and height), five zone changes (three new
                 PUDs, one amended PUD, and one "R-2" zone), and one seashore clearance permit.


                 The largest condominium project was approved by the Commission under a zone change from
                 "R-l"/"R-2"toPUD. Planned for the area known as Fadian, Mangilao, this project involved
                 three 23 story towers totalling 1,436 units, a shopping center, restaurants, and recreational
                 facilities (tennis courts, swimming pools). One of the main concerns with the project was the
                 need or "public necessity" for the proposed condominiums. The applicant had not been able to
                 provide supporting data or demonstrate that the people of Guam - local residents - needed or
                 could afford the proposed units. Not only would this development drastically alter the
                 character of the area which is primarily undeveloped, but would result in escalated land
                 values, thus causing a further impediment to affordable housing for Guam residents.


                 Columbus Development Corporation requested an amendment to its PUD (previously approved
                 in 1978) in the village of Asan. "Lonfit Newtown" was proposed to consist of 1,275
                 condominium units (second largest condominium project proposed this year); 200 hotel rooms;
                 800 single family units; 3,971 townhouse units (the largest and the only townhouse
                 development proposed this year); and an 18-hole golf course. The original PUD consisted of

                 791 acres of land, and was amended to 960 acres. The most visible difference between the

                 approved PUD and the amended PUD is the golf course.


                 Concerns that were raised included the need for adequate water sources, the depletion of
                 existing water sources, protection of historical artifacts, erosion impacts to the Lonfit and Pago

                                                                36







                 Rivers, as well as Pago Bay and the reefs beyond the bay, and potential negative social or
                 economic impacts to the residents of Guam. The developers maintained that the Lonfit project
                 will be developed to provide housing for the residents of Guam, and not to satisfy the demand
                 for resort housing from off-island investors. Per 1990 figures, single family homes were to
                 range from $180,000 to $275,000, and condominiums were to range from $120,000 to
                 $250,000. Overall density was decreased by 30% from the original PUD. With the except       ion
                 of the Guam Environmental Protection Agency, which did not accept the EIA at the time, the
                 DRC agencies generally did not have strong objections to the request, however, conditions to
                 address the above mentioned concerns were recommended to the Commission. The TLUC
                 approved the application with conditions pertaining to required progress reports, subdivision
                 plans, parking, and conditions imposed by the DRC agencies.


                 Of the nine applications submitted under the condominium category, only two applications for
                 zone variances (one parking, one setback, and two height requests) which included 160 units
                 (planned for Agana Heights an Dededo) were denied.


                 There were sevenhotel proposals submitted to TLUC, two more than in 1990. All seven
                 projects were approved, totalling 1,211 rooms; this however, was a 35 % drop in the overall
                 number of approved rooms.


                 The largest hotel structure consisted of 380 rooms (12 floors), and was approved under a PUD
                 which included 314 condominiums units (5 - 9 floors) and other hotel-resort amenities.
                 Proposed for the village of Agat, on a lot approximately 35 acres, the "Taelayac Hagat
                 Resort" (Nomura Agat Resort) was the largest hotel project proposed for the Agat area since
                 the 70-room "Inn On the Bay" hotel was approved and constructed.


                 Similarly, a second hotel-resort project was proposed and approved for an 11.21 acre Agat site
                 in 1991. "Agat Hilltop Gardens" is to consist of 224 hotel rooms and 196 condominium units
                 (structures ranging from 5 - 25 floors), and other amenities such as restaurants, shops, a bank,

                                                              37








                 tennis courts and a swimming pool.


                 "Employment opportunities, infrastructure improvements, public access to amenities (shops,
                 restaurants, etc.), and the need to increase the hotel room inventory" were given as reasons or
                 justification for the approval of the zone changes for both projects. The majority of the DRC
                 agencies did not oppose these projects, however, numerous conditions were recommended to
                 address specific concerns.


                 While there was a sharp increase of 842 single family units approved in 1991, this is easily
                 explained by the 800 single family units approved under the Lonfit Newtown PUD which was
                 discussed earlier. Twenty-one of the remaining forty-two units were proposed by individuals
                 wanting to develop their single family lots. The last twenty-one units were proposed by the
                 developers of a previously approved 18-hole golf course in Talofofo. There were four zone
                 changes from "A" to "R-1 " and one PUD amendment, zone variances for two substandard lots
                 and a reduction in lot width, a conditional use, and a waiver of improvements request
                 approved by the Commission. There was only one proposal for a single family unit
                 disapproved under a substandard lot request.


                 There were only two subdivision projects reviewed by the TLUC this year; both projects were
                 approved. The first was a 108 unit subdivision planned for Dededo, the second a 10 unit
                 subdivision planned for Ordot. Requests were submitted for a tentative subdivision approval
                 and a zone change to " R- 1 "; neither project drew any opposition for the reviewing agencies.


                 The total number of apartment units increased slightly by 30.4%, or 83 units. Overall, there
                 were seven projects submitted to the TLUC (five less than 1990); of the seven, two
                 applications were disapproved (only five units). Of those units approved, 50 were proposed
                 for Dededo, 127 for Tumon, and 96 for Yigo.




                                                                38














                                                           TLUC - 1991

                                                     APPROVALS VS. DISAPPROVALS




                            4=


                            3=


                            3= -




                                                                 :744
                            mm-


                            Ism


                            1009)-


                              sm-
                                                 ---- ---------


                                  APARTMENTS CONDOMINRMS       MOTES      SINGLE PAULY  SUBDIVISIONS TOWNHOUSES
                                                                PROPOSED USE

                                                                0 DISAPPROVALS
                                                                F-] APPROVALS













                                                                           39




 0














                                                      1991

                                     PERCENTAGES OF APPROVALS BY USE




                                                              APARTMENTS 2.8%

                                                                       HOTELS 12.4%

                        CONDOMINIUMS 34.4%


                                                                             SINGLE FAMILY 8.Wo








                         SUBDIVISIONS 1.2%




                                                                TOWNHOUSES 40.6%






















                                                          ,to










                                                 1992 TLUC ACTMTEES


                1992 saw' a major slow down in TLUC activity related to the six categories or uses in this
                study. An important factor that must be pointed out is the date in which an application is
                reviewed or entertained by the Development Review Committee and the date that same
                application is acted upon by the TLUC. From 1987 to 1989, applications for development
                (both large and small projects) would clear the entire DRC/TLUC review and action process
                within the same year (usually in two to three months). However, the changes in the review
                processes (Executive Orders 90-09 and 90-10), resulted in an end to the relatively quick
                review process that developers had adapted to. Changes in the overall economy, both on-
                island and abroad also had some impact on the number of development proposals submitted
                each year. And finally, the applicants themselves were requesting that their applications be
                put in abeyance, primarily as a result of the Japanese recession and the beginning of
                understanding that the inventory of approvals exceeded realistic needs.


                Of the twelve requests entertained by the Commission in 1992, one request was reviewed by
                the DRC in 1990, nine in 1991, and two in 1992. The average review period for these twelve
                applications took approximatel y eight months. Only one request out of the twelve was
                disapproved by the TLUC; this was for a 28 unit apartment complex. The Commission had
                disapproved a prior zone change request for the same use (apartments) on the same lot. Both
                applications were disapproved based on inadequate justification.


                Approved projects included two apartment structures totalling 28 units; one 28-room hotel;
                three requests for single family dwellings totalling 25 units; one townhouse development
                consisting of 35 units; and four subdivision projects totalling 393 units.


                This appeared to be a good year for subdivision development, which also indicates that
                developers were beginning to pay attention to the needs of the residents of Guam. Looking at

                                                            41







                the numerous condominiums and hotels that have been approved, many of which have yet to
                be constructed,. was seen as a welcome change that the requests were primarily for housing
                projects that were not geared toward tourist usage or targeted at affluent off-island investors.








































                                                             42














                                                                          TLUC - 1992

                                                                  APPROVALS VS. DISAPPROVALS




                                   4W


                                   350


                                   3W-


                                   zo-                                                                             -


                                   2W -


                                   ISO-


                                   100-






                                          APMTMEMM        CONDOMINILMS        HOTELS        SINGLE FAPALY    SUBDIVISIONS    TCNW*MSES
                                                                               PROPOSED USE


                                                                                       DISAPPROVALS
                                                                                      APPROVALS

















                                                                                           451@














                                                      1992

                                     PERCENTAGES OF APPROVALS BY USE






                           SUBDIVISIONS 77.2%









                                                                              TOWNHOUSES 6.9%



                                                                           SINGLE FAMILY 4.9%

                                                                       HOTELS 5.5%
                                                                 APARTMENTS 5.5%























                                                         44:











                                                   1993 TLUC ACTIVITEES



                 In 1993,` there was a modest increase in TLUC activity in terins of overall units approved.
                 Approved apartment units increased by 86.3 %, condominiums 100 %, hotel rooms 97          and
                 townhouses 78.6%, as compared to 1992 figures. Albeit, single family dwelling and
                 subdivision units decreased by 56% and 79.8%, respectively. TLUC approvals apparently

                 shifted back towards condominiums and hotels.



                 Nonetheless, it's important to note -once again, that many of the project requests approved this
                 period were initiated prior to 1993. TLUC approved a total of four conditional use requests,
                 six zone variances, six zone changes, one subdivision variance, and four tentative subdivision
                 approvals. There were only five new project applications that were both submitted in 1993
                 and approved in 1993.


                 Although it may appear that development in general has started to look up, weakened
                 economic conditions in Japan continued to affect the hotel/tourism industry, which in turn
                 affected the construction industry. With Japanese investments down, and their inability to
                 finance projects, the Japanese placed several major projects on hold indefinitely. This
                 included projects already begun, for which activity has been halted altogether, and projects
                 which have been redesigned for phased development.


                 Approved for a second time in 1993, the 27 story, 446-room Guam AB (Asahi Beer) Hotel
                 proposed for Tumon, was previously granted approval in 1992 for its height, setback, density,
                 conditional use, and seashore clearance requests. However, due to a court action that was
                 filed against the TLUC based on "insufficient public notice", the Superior Court of Guam
                 ordered the TLUC to vacate its original approval. Additionally, another civil action was heard
                 in court involving an easement situated between the hotel property and a neighboring property.
                 The dispute was whether or not this easement was a public or private easement; the easement


                                                               45







                 was determined to be a public ingress/egress, and the Court decision was in favor of the hotel
                 developer. Because TLUC's original approval had been vacated, the Commission simply re-
                 heard the hotel application and approved it once again.


                 The largest condominium project proposed and approved this year consisted of 252 units, but
                 also included ten single family dwellings. This project was approved under a zone change
                 from "A" and "R-2" to PUD, and is slated for the village of Asan. Representatives from
                 Yoko Investment Co., Ltd. had met with staff of the Bureau of Planning to discuss the
                 justification for the proposed project named "Okso' Taguac". The end result was an
                 understanding that at least ten condominium units would be sold at the cost of $150,000 as
                 opposed to the market price of $350,000. This agreement was supported by the developer's
                 desire to demonstrate its willingness to contribute to affordable housing on Guam. The Bureau
                 felt that the developer's commitment to the housing situation on island satisfied the
                 requirements for the granting of a zone change, and therefore, recommended approval based
                 on such. Despite the developer being responsive to the idea of providing a few affordable
                 condominium units, the TLUC in approving the project, failed to condition the zone change
                 request to hold the developer accountable for these units. There were only two other
                 condomi'niuni project applications approved during this period; a 27 unit project planned for
                 Dededo and a 56 units project proposed for Tainuning.


                 Under the apartment, townhouse, subdivision, and single family use categories, there were a
                 total of ten project applications approved by TLUC. Cumulatively, approved units totalled
                 458. The approved units were planned for the following areas: 204 apartment units -
                 Barrigada, and Tumon; I I single family units - Asan, and Yom; 79 subdivision units -
                 Barrigada, and Yigo; 164 townhouse units - Barrigada, Chalan Pago, and Dededo. Under
                 these four use categories, the TLUC approved one conditional use, one height variance, zone
                 changes to "R-2" and PUD, one subdivision variance, and four tentative subdivision
                 approvals.



                                                            46








                Of all the applications acted on by the Commission in 1993, only one was disapproved: a zone
                change request from "A" to "C", with a proposal to construct a 78-room, "businessman's"
                hotel in the village of Barrigada. This application had been previously approved by the
                TLUC, however, the zoning designation that was approved was "LC" or "limited
                commercial"'. Basically what this meant was that the developer entered into a contractual
                agreement with the Department of Land Management to limit its commercial uses on the
                project site. The Attorney General's office rendered an opinion on this matter which stated
                two things: 1) that Guam's Zoning Law did not authorize the use of contract zoning, and 2)
                that the TLUC could not arbitrarily take it upon itself to approve a zone that was not requested
                by the applicant. . Thus, the Attorney General's position on the matter, invalidated the TLUC's
                original approval. During the meeting in which the zone change application was being acted
                on, the project was unable to garner enough votes for approval. The zone change from "A" to
                 C  was disapproved by a 4 to I vote.



























                                                             47














                                                 TLUC - 1993

                                            APPROVALS VS. DISAPPROVALS




                        12M



                        low -



                        MO-
                    Po
                    z






                        2W-


                            AP"NM CWDC@IMUMS        W@"      SMLE FAMLY SUODMSKM   TOWNHOUSES
                                                     PROPOSED USE


                                                          DISAPPROVALS
                                                         APPROVALS




















                                                            48














                                                       1993

                                      PERCENTAGES OF APPROVALS BY USE





                                                                 CONDOMINIUMS 19.30/6





                                                                              APARTMENTS 11.7%








                                                                               TOWNHOUSES 9.4%

                             HOTELS 54.4%

                                                                           SUBDIVISIONS 4.5%
                                                                        SINGLE FAMILY 0.6%

























                                                          49-










                                                 ANALYSIS OF ACTIONS


                The numbers of approvals vs. disapprovals during the period reviewed for this report, would
                seem to indicate a predication for approval based on little or no supporting documentation for
                such action. That may well be the case, but several factors must first be understood before
                responses to TLUC decision-making can be offered.


                   History of D'evelopment


                First, it is important to understand the thirty year history of economic development on Guam.
                Prior to 1962, the Department of Defense maintained a Security Restriction on Guam. All
                travel to and from the island, even by native residents, had to be approved by the U.S. Navy.
                No outside investment was allowed to enter Guam, unless it directly benefited the Navy. (If
                such investment did or did not benefit the people of Guam was of no consequence in the
                decision-making). As a result, the people of Guam were made dependent wards of a military
                machine which viewed them as impediments to national defense. Guam's civilian economy
                was stagnant, and tourism was non@existent.


                In 1962 the Presidentially appointed Governor of Guam, Win. Daniels, (the brother of then
                Texas Governor Daniels and close political friend of Vice-President Lyndon Johnson), was
                temporarily detained upon entering Guam. As a result of Governor Daniel's associations,
                President Kennedy lifted the Security Restriction, and the potential for development of a
                civilian economy followed.


                The first tourist hotel, the Guam Hilton, opened in 1969, and that year marked the beginning
                of Guam's development economy. While a land-use master plan had been adopted in 1966, it
                did not foresee the kinds of success or pressures Guam would deal with over the next two
                decades. Those first hotels, (the Hilton was followed quickly by the Continental and Tokyu

                                                            50







                Hotels), did conform to the master plan. These were low rise hotels (six stories and less),
                with no more than a few hundred rooms. It took considerable time to begin selling Guam as a
                destination, and the low intensities called for in the 1966 master plan were easy to abide by.

                In the mid 1970s, just as Guam thought a boom period was about to begin, a world wide
                recession began, which resulted in tremendous losses to investors and speculators on Guam.
                Further development slowed to a crawl, and the 1966 master plan could still be
                accommodated.


                1984 is generally seen as the beginning of the Boom years, with the approval of the Pacific
                Star Hotel. The deluge of development applications, however, began in 1987.


                + Interpretation


                Prior to the boom years, which began in earnest in the 1980s, the standard of living on Guam
                was generally low, taken from a national perspective. New cars were rare, homes were
                expensive, and therefore small, and Guam's youth left the island to find work in the United
                States.



                When investors, primarily from Japan, offered development, the restrictions of the 1966
                master plan were forgotten. The United States was in recession again, and unemployment
                there was high. On Guam, however, the quality of life was improving at a rapid pace.
                Unemployment sank beneath the 2 % mark; the government now had money for new roads,
                .better water, power, telephone, sewers; new home construction began, with the size and
                quality of those homes improving exponentially with the economy; and more importantly,
                Guam's children began to return to the island as opportunities increased.


                Because the value of the Japanese Yen was so extraordinarily inflated when invested outside of
                Japan, the impacts of its infusion into small island economies was tremendous. Investors did

                                                            51







                 not negotiate land prices but instead paid whatever was asked. Partially, this can be attributed
                 to the fact that land was badly undervalued because of the lack of economic activities in the
                 past. As land values rose, the desire to increase densities of developments to gain a greater
                 per square meter profit drove the increase in variance requests. As variance requests were
                 approved and greater density of uses allowed, the value of land rose. This cycle was good for
                 speculators and owners of properties being sought, but resulted in a greater inability for first
                 time home buyers to afford home lots.


                 Developers were getting what they wanted, but for the first time in its history, Guam was
                 benefitting from outsider actions. TLUC was not about to "kill the goose", which was how
                 the body politic began to view strict compliance to the zoning law. The review agencies
                 exerted little influence when compared to areas with normal and long term economic histories,
                 but they exerted enormous influence when viewed against the backdrop of Guam's history.


                 Guam's environmental guardians have been able to temper the impacts of rapid and large-scale
                 development through extraordinary effort. The worst environmental degradation on Guam is
                 not a result of TLUC decision-making, or private sector development, but lack of control over
                 military actions. The lack of respect shown the environment has placed Guam at the top of
                 "superfund" listings. Waste oils were disposed through wells over Guam's sole source aquifer
                 system. World War II ordinance was buried throughout the island. 50 gallon drums of toxic
                 and hazardous wastes were bulldozed over clifftines onto private properties, or hidden in
                 forested areas and forgotten.


                 While the numbers of approvals, and the ways in which they were approved during the review
                 period, cannot be justified, the impacts of those approvals cannot yet be categorized as
                 environmentally harmful. More than 20,000 hotel rooms which were approved during this
                 period, remain on the drawing board. Most of the condominium units and super-scale
                 development approved in this period remain on the drawing board. The frenzy which
                 accompanied the 1980s boom period for hotel and tourism related development has come to an

                                                             52







                end. Forces over which Guam had no control, the deliberate actions by the U.S. to devalue
                the dollar against the Japanese Yen in the early 1980s (in order to address the imbalance of
                .trade), created the Opportunities for Guam's boom. Forces over which Guam had no control,
                the recession in Japan, brought that boom to an end.


                Viewed against'this backdrop, the decision-making by TLUC was a reaction to opportunities
                offered. Holistic decision-making was not yet an understood need. The community did,
                however, begin to see that need, which found voice in Executive Orders 90-09 and 90-10, as
                well as in the pursuit of an updated land-use master plan.


                The agencies certainly learned lessons in dealing with development during this period. The
                slow down, which began in 1991 shows signs of disappearing, but the next development era is
                taking different form. Shopping center and commercial complex development is being
                introduced to Guam in large scale ways. The process for approvals will change with adoption
                of I Tano-Ta, and Guam's environmental agencies are better equipped to anticipate areas of
 0              concern.


                In 1970, the world's largest McDonalds restaurant opened on Guam. In 1992 the world's
 0              third largest golf clubhouse opened on Guam. In 1995, the world's largest K-Mart will open
                on Guam. This 212 square mile island, isolated in the Western Pacific, has become the target
                for yet more development.
 0              TLUC decision making between 1987 and 1993 was a response to opportunity. Guam did not
                lead development, development led Guam. Any understanding of TLUC decisions, and DRC
                capabilities must begin with that foundation of knowledge.
 0






 0

                                                            53



 0








                    Anticipations


                The Government of Guam and the people of Guam have talked openly and seriously over the
                past two or three years, of the boom experience and its impacts. Corrections to the system in
                order to give controls back to the island (as opposed to outside developers), will be made.
                TLUC decision-making will change, in great part because the public perceives the lack of
                control they had during this period.


                While pressures were put on Guam's ability to service a rapidly growing community, very
                little in terms of measurable, environmental degradation occurred. It is understood that much
                of that was simply serendipitous. If all the approved proposals had been built, it is likely that
                the impacts would have been magnitudes greater.


                The lessons of this period are reflected in the goals of I Tano'-Ta. Communities are willing,
                and to great extent ready, to take a more active role in determining the scale and direction of
 41             development. As a protector of the holistic community, TLUC did not display much ability to
                make decisions based on inclusion of environmental considerations. That failure was tempered
                by safety stops built into the system in the permitting process.















                                                             54








                        + Summary


                        To sum up the TLUC's activities during this six year period, the TLUC entertained 355
                        requests, for a total of 37,566 units (all uses combined). On the average, the Commission
                        approved 86 % of the requests (applications) or 95 % of all the units submitted for their review
                        (within the parameters of this study). Of all the requests submitted, single family dwellings
                        and apartments had the highest disapproval rates of 25 % and 23 %, respectively, while hotels
                        had the lowest at 4%. Of all the units proposed, apartments had the highest disapproval rate
                        of 19      while hotels had the lowest at 1



                                                  TLUC APPROVALMISAPPROVAL RATES FOR 1987 - 1993

                                                               APTS          CONDOS          HOTELS         SNG FMLY          SUBDVS         TWNHSES
                        TOTAL REQUESTS                           118              64              54              64              33             22
                        TOTAL UNITS                            3653            12,499          12,116           1217            1354             6727
                        REQUESTS APPROVED                      77%              91%             96%             75%             88%              91%
                        REQUESTS DISAPPROVED                   23%               9%              4%             25%             12%              9%
                        UNITS APPROVED                         81%              98%             99%             98%             97%              96%
                        UNITS DISAPPROVED.                     19%               2%             1 %             2%              3%               4%
























                                                                                      55














                                                         TLUC ACTIONS

                                                                       1987-1993




                              114M



                              12M



                              lom -



                              am -



                              ww-


                              4= -




                                     AIPAR@MENTS  CONDOPANILIFAS   H06        SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS  TOWNHOLMS
                                                                    PROPOSED USE

                                                                   0 DISAPPROVALS
                                                                   E] APPROVALS













                                                                              56














                                                                                    APPROVED UNITS

                                                                                                                   1987-1993
                                              1%00   . ........................   -    ...............................   I............................    ........................................................




                                              4=1    . ............................................              -   .................................    ......  ... ...    I .....................................




                                              3=     . ............................................              ...........                      ... .........          .........................   I ...............
                                         z



                                         0
                                              2000   . ...........................         .............         .............         .............       .........     -    ......................................
                                         R



                                              low -                           ... ....     .............         .............                                   .... ............. ................
                                                  0-                                                                                                                                    m-A
                                                               1987                   1                      1089                  19W                    1991                   1992                   im
                                                                                                                                  YEAR


                                                                                                                 PROPOSED USES
                                                                                                                 El      APARTMENTS
                                                                                                                         CONDOMINIUMS
                                                                                                                         HorrELS
                                                                                                                         SINGLE FAMILY
                                                                                                                         SUBDIVISIONS
                                                                                                                         TOWNHOUSES
























                                                                                                                             57











                                                     ZONE CHANGES



                From 1987 to 1993, the Territorial Land Use Commission approved 66 zone changes,
                im pacting over 100 lots, relative to the six primary uses (apartments, condominiums, hotels,
                single family dwellings, subdivisions, and townhouses) being considered in this analysis. (A
                total of 98 zone changes were approved for this time period inclusive of all uses.)


                In comparison,'the 19th, 21st, and 22nd Guam Legislatures (from 1989 to June, 1994) passed
                21 rezoning laws impacting 884 lots. (Information on the specific uses for the affected lots
                were usually not provided in the laws.)


                Reasons given for the popularity in legislative rezonings include perceptions of:
                       1)     lengthy TLUC process;
                       2)     costs involved with the TLUC process (contracting of consultants);
                       3)     requirements under the TLUC process;
                       4)     bureaucracy involved with the TLUC process; and
                       5)     guaranteed approval through the legislature.


                Under current the zoning laws, zone changes permitted through the TLUC process cannot be
                conditioned except in the case of a PUD. Therefore, to foster proper planning, the uses or
                developments for which zone changes are required, should be compatible with existing
                communities. To ensure compatibility of uses would also provide for the stability and
                predictability of growing communities, a right to which every community is entitled.
                .Furthermore, in approving zone changes, there should be a demonstration of "community"
                benefits, and should not be based on what the developer has to gain.


                While it may be true that the TLUC process is far from perfect, this process does have its
                merits. Not only does the TLUC process afford DRC agencies the opportunity to review and

                                                            58








                 analyze projects, but this process requires that all landowners within a 500 foot radius of
                 proposed project sites be notified of upcoming public hearings.


                 Legislative rezonings on the other hand, do not promote proper planning, do not ensure
                 community needs are going to be met, and do not provide for adequate public input.
                 Legislative rezonings merely respond to individualistic impulses, promote escalating land
                 values through speculation, burden the public with added infrastructure costs, and defy any
                 and all planning efforts undertaken by the government.


































                                                              59









                             APPROVALS/TYPES OF USES BY VILLAGE, FROM 1987 - 1993


                 The following is an attempt to illustrate what patterns, if any, exist in the TLUC process in
                 regard to the six types of uses in this study, and the villages in which they are approved.
                 Note: Only those villages in which 200 or more units were approved for each use are listed
                 below. For the complete inventory of approved and disapproved uses, see Tables I and 2
                 following this section.


                 0 Apartments:          Barrigada, Chalan Pago, Dededo, Harmon, Mongmong/Toto/Maite
                                        (MTM), Tamuning, Tumon, Yigo


                 0 Condominiums:        Agat, Asan, Dededo, Harmon, Inarajan, Mangilao, Ordot, Tainuning,
                                        Tumon, Yona


                 o Hotels:              Agana, Agat, Asan, Dededo, Hannon, Inarajan, Mangilao, Tainuning,
                                        Tumon, Yona



                 o Single Family:       Asan, Yona


                 0 Subdivisions:        Dededo, Yigo


                 0 Townhouses:          Asan, Dededo, Tamuning, Yigo, Yona


                 Over the six year period (1987 - 1993), hotels and condominiums were the most approved type
                 of use, with five percent more condominiums than hotel rooms overall. While Tumon is
                 considered Guam's primary tourist area (commonly known as "hotel-row"), and both Tumon
                 and Tamuning are known for having more than their share of condominium units, developers
                 have shifted from northern Guam to other areas of the island due to the saturation of these two


                                                                60








                villages. (According to the 1990 Census conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the Tumon-
                Tainuning areas have a combined area of six square miles and a population density of 2,779
                people per square mile.)


                Mega-resorts have been approved for areas in both central and southern Guam such as
                Mangilao, Ordot, Asan, and Yona. Aimed at the more affluent off-island investors, as well as
                local residents, these resorts vary from project to project and may include "executive" type
                single family dwellings or townhouses in addition to the usual hotel or condominium
                accommodations. Golf courses, which require massive land areas, play vital roles in a few of
                the planned resorts. Thus, the areas planned for these resorts in the aforementioned villages
                are characteristically rural or undeveloped.


                Note: The figures used in this study were extracted from TLUC applications and compiled in a
                database. From this database, tables (Appendix A) were developed to illustrate the following:
                proposed uses, number of units approved and disapproved, and types of requests submitted for
                TLUC approval. Under each use category, i.e., apartments, hotel, condominiums, etc., the
                first figure listed generally represents the number of proposals for each use. It should be
                noted, however, that in some a few cases, this figure may be slightly greater than the actual
                number of project applications submitted for each use.



                The reason for this is that there are two basic types of development applications (aside from
                the types of uses): "single use developments" (only one use proposed) and "multi-use
                developments" (two or more uses proposed). For the purposes of this analysis, each use
                proposed under a multi-use development package is recorded or tallied. Essentially, each use
                under a multi-use development is viewed as a separate proposal. Likewise, this system is used
                to record TLUC requests. For example, if a multi-use development proposal of hotel rooms,
                condominium units, and townhouses requires a conditional use, zone variance, and seashore
                clearance, each TLUC requirement is registered under each use.



                                                             61











                                                                                                APPROVED USES BY VILLAGE, 198i-1993


                                                    APARTMENTS                      CONDOMINIUMS                           HOTELS                         SINGLE FAMILY                        SUBDIVISIONS                       TOWNHOUSES
                                             REQUESTS             UNITS         REQUESTS                 UNITS     REQUESTS             UNITS          REQUESTS                UNITS      REQUESTS             UNITS          REQUESTS             UNITS
         AGANA                                      1             15                   0                 0                1             440                   0                0                 0             0                    0              0
         AGANA HEIGHTS                              0             0                    0                 0                0             0                     0                0                 0             0                    0              0
         AGAT                                       3             72                   2                 5110             4             692                   1                4                 2             15                   0              0
         ASAN                                       0             0                    3                 1575             1             200                   2                6110              0             0                    1              3971
         BARRIGADA                                  8             459                  1                 98               1             66                    6                14                5             142                  3              72
         CHALAN PAGO                                4             218                  1                 92               0             0                     3                16                1             5                    3              160
         DEDEDO                                     7             226                  3                 214              3             515                   12               56                5             264                  5              384
         HARMON                                     4             255                  1                 400              5             1655                  1                1                 0             0                    1              60
         INARAJAN                                   0             0                    1                 200              1             200                   2                2                 0             0                    1              122
         MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE                        10            349                  1                 28               0             0                     1                10                3             51                   0              0
         MANGILAO                                   0             0                    3                 2088             2             1228                  4                6                 1             118                  0              0
         MERIZO                                     3             43                   0                 0                0             0                     1                1                 1             7                    0              0
         ORDOT                                      1             6                    4                 2252             1             100                   0                0                 1             10                   0              0
         PITI                                       1             6                    1                 48               0             0                     2                2                 0             0                    0              0
         SANTA RITA                                 0             0                    0                 0                0             0                     1                1                 0             0                    0              0
         SINAJANA                                   2             96                   1                 46               0             0                     1                2                 1             6                    0              0
         TALOFOFO                                   0             0                    0                 0                1             40                    2                22                0             0                    0              0
         TAMUNING                                   19            311                  18                1877             7             1261                  1                1                 0             0                    3              416
         TUMON                                      20            585                  16                681              23            5157                  2                2                 0             0                    0              0
         YIGO                                       8             318                  0                 0                0             0                     3                3                 8             604                  2              211
         YONA                                       0             0                    1                 2150             2             459                   5                244               1             94                   2              1097
         UMATAC                                     0             0                    0                 0                0             0                     0                0                 0             0                    0              0
         TOTAL                                      91            2959                 57                12259            52            12013                 50               1197              29            1316                 21             6473









                                                                                                                            -TABLEl-












                                                                             DISAPPROVED USES BY VILLAGE, 1 gi7 - 1993


                                          APARTMENTS                 CONDOMINIUMS                    HOTELS                   SINGLE FAMILY                 SUBDIVISIONS                 TOWNHOUSES
                                     REQUESTS       UNITS        REQUESTS       UNITS         REQUESTS       UNITS         REQUESTS       UNITS         REQUESTS       UNITS         REQUESTS       UNITS
       AGANA                              0           a               0             0              .0          0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       AGANA HEIGHTS                      1           4               1             130            0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       AGAT                               1           4               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       ASAN                               0           0               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       BARRIGADA                          5           61              0             0              1           78               2            4               1             11             0             0
       CHALAN PAGO                        1           156             0             0              0           0                0            0               1             5              0             0
       DEDEDO                             3           34              1             30             0           0                6            6               1             5              1             10
       HARMON                             1           2               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       INARAJAN                           0           0               @o            0              0           0                1            1               0             0              0             0
       MONGMONGfrOTO/MAITE                1           54              0             0              0           0                1            1               0             0              0             0
       MANGILAO                           3           127             0             0              0           0                2            5               1             17             0             0
       MERIZO,                            0           0               0             0                          0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       ORDOT                              0           0               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       PITI                               1           6               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       SANTA RITA                         0           0               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       SINAJANA                           0           0               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       TALOFOFO                           0           0               0             0              0           0                1            1               0             0              0             0
       TAMUNING                           3           30              0             0              1           25               1            2               0             0              0             0
       TUMON                              4           126             4             so             0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       YIGO                               1           32              0             0              0           0                2            3               0             0              1             244
       YONA                               2           58              0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       UMATAC                             0           0               0             0              0           0                0            0               0             0              0             0
       TOTAL                              27          694             6             240            2           103              16           23              4             38             2             254







                                                                                                   -TABLE 2-










                                            BUILDING PERMITS, 1987 - 1988


                Due to the extensive research time required for the collection of appropriate building permit
                data, information for two years, 1987 and 1988, was extracted from a database complied by
                the Department of Public Works. The following information is provided:


                1987 TLUC Actions:
                       TLUC approved 61 development applications.
                       Of the 61 projects, 45 (74%) received building permits; building permit records were
                       not found (in 1987-1993 records) for the remaining 16 (26%) projects.
                       The average time span from TLUC approval to building permit issuance for projects
                       approved by the TLUC in 1987 was 17 months (time frame ranged from 1 month to 6
                       years). 14 projects were permitted within 1-6 months, 7 projects within 7-12 months,
                       7 projects within 13-18 months, and 17 projects within 19 months or longer.
                       The table below illustrates the total number of units permitted by Departments of
                       Public Works versus the total number of units approved in 1987 by TLUC.


                 ISSUED:        APTS        CONDOS       HOTELS      SNG FMLY      SUBDVS      TWNHSES
                BLDPMTS          575          308          1154          8           289           240
                 TLUC            1078          110         1156         182          306          553



                       Permitted projects with deviations from TLUC approvals:
                       4     Same number of units: 31

                       -4    Less units: 6

                       4     More units: 3
                       -4    Number of units not provided to TLUC & permitted: 3 (343 units)
                       -4    Complete change in use: 2


                                                           64









                  1988 TLUC Actions:
                 0       TLUC approved 51 development applications.
                 .0      Of the 57 projects, 35 (61 %) received building permits, building permit records were
                         not found (in 1987-1993 records) for the remaining 22 (39%) projects.
                         The average time span from TLUC approval to building permit issuance for projects
                         approved by the TLUC in 1988 was 151/2months (time frame ranged from I month to
                         41/2 years). 10 projects were permitted within 1-6 months, 10 projects within 7-12
                         months, 3 projects within 13-18 months, and 12 projects within 19 months or longer.
                         The table below illustrates the total number of units permitted by Department of Public
                         Works versus the total number of units approved in 1988 by TLUC.



                   ISSUED:          APTS        CONDOS         HOTELS       SNG RVILY      SUBDVS        TWNHSES
                  BLDPMTS            208           587           1252            2            139            208

                   TLUC              455           760           2329            5            152            444



                         Permitted projects with deviations from TLUC approvals:
                                Same number of units: 27

                         -4     Less units: 6

                         4      More units: 2

                         -4     Complete change in use: 4


                         For the 38 projects that did not receive building permits, there could be a number of
                         reasons for this, including no real intention on the applicant's part to actually build
                         (speculation).









                                                                 65


















                 APPENDIX A













                                                                                        lu

                                                      APARTMENTS       CONDOMINIUMS           HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY         SUBDIVISIONS         TOWNHOUSES
                 NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                        35                 5                  6-                 8                    10                    4

                 APPROVALS                                   8                  3

                 APPROVALS W/CONDITIONS                      19                 1                  4
                 ,NO. OF UNITS APPROVED                      1078               110             1156                  182                  306                  553
                                                                                                                                                                         411
                                                  J
                     APPROVED REQUESTS FOR:          APARTMENTS        CONDOMINIUMS           HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS          TOWNHOUS  ,E,S

                 CONDITIONAL USES                            16                 0                  3

                 ZONE VARIANCES                              18                 2                  4

                 ZONE CHANGES                                5                  1

                 SEASHORE CLEARANCES                         0                  0

                 SWIVS                                       0                  1

                 WETLAND PERMITS                             0                  0
                 TNT.IFNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                                                                                                                         0
                                                             0                  0                  0                  0                    2



                 TYPES OF VARIANCES APPROVED:
                                                    DENSITY-1,         HEIGHT-1,         HEIGHT-1,           SUBSTANDARD          SUBSTANDARD LOT-      HEIGHT-1
                                                    HEIGHT-14,         SETBACK-1         PARKING-2,          LOT-4
                                                    PARKING-1,                           SETBACK-2
                                                    SETBACK-2




                 NO. OF PROJECTS W/BUILDIN                   19                 4                  6
                 PERMITS:















                          VILLAGE                 APARTMENTS    CONDOMINIUMS         HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY      SUBDIVISIONS*     TOWNHOUSES

               AGANA                              1      15


               AGANA HTS.

               AGAT                               1      64                                                              1         6

               ASAN

               BARRIGADA                          4      186                                          1       4          2         57
               CHALAN PAGO                        1      102                                                                                1        16
               DEDEDO                             1      62                        1       50         3       4          1         45

               HARMON                             1      28


               INARAJAN


               MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE                3      185


               MANGILAO

               MERIZO                             1      31                                                              1         7

               ORDOT


               PITI


               SANTA RITA

               SINAJANA                           1      12                                                              1         6

               TALOFOFO

               TAMUNING                           4      93      2       84        2      413                                               1       240
               TUMON                              7      154     2       26        3      693

               YIGO                               2      146                                          1       1          3        185
               YONA                                                                                   2      173
             JUMATAC




























                                                   APARTMENTS          CONDOMINIUMS            HOTELS          SINGLE FAMILY        SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES


                  NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                  35                      5                 6                    8                   10                  4


                  DISAPPROVALS                        8/23%                 1/20%                 0                 1/13%               1/10%               1/25%

                  NO. OF UNITS DISAPPROVED              79                      12       1        0                    1                   5                 244

                                                                                                               Ni . .... . ... ....
                                                            Z
                                                                                                                                     7-

                     NO. OF REQUESTS FOR:          APARTMENTS          CONDOMINIUMS            HOTELS          SINGLE FAMILY        SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                  CONDITIONAL USES                      2                       1                 0                    0                   0                   0


                  ZONE VARIANCES                        4                       1                 0                    1                   0                   0


                  ZONE CHANGES                          2                       0                 0                    0                   0                   1


                  SEASHORE PERMITS                      0                       0                 0                    0                   0                   0


                  swivs                                 0                       0                 0                    0                   1                   0


                  WETLAND PERMITS                       0                       0                 0                    0                   0                   0


                  TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.               0                       0                 0                    0                   0                   0





                  REMARKS:                      VARIANCES:            VARIANCES:                              VARIANCE:
                                               HEIGHT-1, SETBACK-    HEIGHT-1, SETBACK-                       SUBSTANDARD
                                               2, USE-1              I                                        LOT
















                                                                                            PROV,
                         VILLAGE              APARTMENTS       CONDOMINIUMS          HO ELS        SINGLE FAMILY      SUBDIVISIONS      TOWNHOUSES
                AGANA                              I                                    I                I                                    I
                AGANA HTS.                              4


                AGAT


                ASAN


                BARRIGADA                               8

                CHALAN PAGO                                                                                            1        5

                DEDEDO                        2         28

                HARMON


                INARAJAN


                MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE


                MANGILAO


                MERIZO


                ORDOT


                Pill


                SANTA RITA


                SINAJANA


                TALOFOFO


                TAMUNING                     2          19

                TUMON                        2         20       1        12
                YIGO                                                                                                                    1       244

                YONA


                UMATAC
                                                    --- -------


















                                                                                          MV 7,

                                                     APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS             HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS            TOWNHOUSES
                    NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                     23                    17                   12                    11                    8                      4

                    APPROVALS                                4                     5                    3                     3                     3                      2
                    APPROVALS W/CONDS                        13                    10                   9                     2                     2                      2

                    NO. OF UNITS APPROVED                    455                   760               2329                     5                     152                    444

                                                                                                                                              J;

                    APPROVED REQUESTS FOR:           APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS             HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY           SUBDIVISIONS            TOWNHOUSES
                    CONDITIONAL USES                         7                     8                    10                    1                     0                      1
                    ZONE VARIANCES                           11                    12                   10                    3                     0                      0

                    ZONE CHANGES                             2                     1                    1                     0                     1                      2
                    SEASHORE CLEARANCES                      0                     0                    0                     0                     0                      0
                    SWIVS                                    0                     0                    0                     3                     2                      0
                    WETLAND PERMITS                          0                     0                    0                     0                     0                      0

                    TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                  0                     0                    0                     0                     3                      1

                                                                                                                                 Rel
                                                                                                                                                    UA
                    TYPES OF VARIANCES            DENSITY -1,           DENSITY-7,            DENSITY-6,           USE-1,
                    APPROVED:                     HEIGHT-9,             HEIGHT-11,            HEIGHT-6,            SUBSTANDARD
                                                  SETBACK-1,            PARKING-2,            PARKING-2,           LOT-1,LOT
                                                  EXTENSION OF          SETBACK-2             SETBACK-7, LOT       WIDTH-1
                                                  ZONE-2                                      SIZE-1



                    NO. OF PROJECTS                          8                     12                   7                     2                     4                      2
                    W/BUILDING PERMITS:


















                                                                                                AP
                                                                 KEV                         T&    TRO
                                                                                     PK@
                           VILLAGE               APARTMENTS       CONDOMINIUMS           HOTELS          SINGLE FAMILY        SI  DIVISIONS         TOWNHOUSES

                  AGANA


                  AGANA HEIGHTS

                  AGAT                           1          4                           1        70                                      9

                  ASAN

                  BARRIGADA                      1          75                          1        66                                                 1         16
                  CHALAN PAGO                    1          12
                  DEDEDO                         1          99      1        141        1       450                                                 1        192
                  HARMON                                                                2        385                                                1         60

                  INARAJAN

                  MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE            2          66                                                                2         44

                  MANGILAO


                  MERIZO


                  ORDOT                          1          6

                  PITI                           1          6

                  SANTA RITA

                  SINAJANA                                          1        46

                  TALOFOFO

                  TAMUNING                       5          69      6        402        1       300

                  TUMON                          2          108     7        171        6       1058
                  YIGO,                          1          10                                                                1         5           1        176
                  YONA                                                                                                                  94

                  UMATAC



























                                                                                                                                    "0
                                                                                                       TROV
                                                                                                                                               W,
                                    -06,

                                                    APARTMENTS          CONDOMINIUMS              HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS            TOWNHOUSES
                   NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                    22                    17                    12                   11                     8                      4
                   DISAPPROVALS (#/%)                   6/27%                2/12%                     0                 6155%                 3/38%                      0
                   NO. OF UNITS DISAPPROVED                135                   42                    0                    13'                    33                     0


                      NO. OF REQUESTS FOR:          APARTMENTS          CONDOMINIUMS              HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS           TOWNHOUSES
                   CONDITIONAL USES                        2                     0                     0                    1                      0                      0
                   ZONE VARIANCES                          3                     1                     0                    5                      0                      0
                   ZONE CHANGES                            2                     1                     0                    0                      1                      0
                   SEASHORE PERMITS                        0                     0                     0                    0                      0                      0
                   swivs                                   0                     0                     0                    3                      2
                   WETLAND PERMITS                         0                     0                     0                    0                      0                      0
                   TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                 0                     0                     0                    0                      2                      0






                                                                                                                  WIDTH-2


















                                                           RE
                                                                                                             EL
                                                                                                              S@ 'S,
                        VILLAGE              APARTMENTS      CONDOMINIUMS          HOTELS         SINGLE FAMILY      SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                AGANA


                AGANA HTS.


                AGAT                         1        4


                ASAN

                BARRIGADA                    1        4                                             1        3        1

                CHALANPAGO

                DEDEDO                                                                              1        1        1

                HARMON

                INARAJAN                                                                            I        I

                MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE          1      54

                MANGILAO                                                                            1        4        1        17

                MERIZO


                ORDOT


                PITT


                SANTA RITA


                SINAJANA


                TALOFOFO

                TAMUNING                     I      I 1                                             1        2

                TUMON                                         2        42

                YIGO                         1      32                                              1        2
                E















































                YONA                         1      30


                UMATAC


























                                                        N-K
                                                                                     4989--

                                                         APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS                HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS            TOWNHOUSES


                     NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                      37                       19                       16                 21                     5                      5


                     APPROVALS                                 to                       1                        8                  5                      2                      0

                     APPROVALS W/CONDS                         21           1           17                       7                  8                      3                      5

                     NO. OF UNITS APPROVED                     731                    4200                  4488                    61                   261                    386
                                                                                                                 "Wal


                      APPROVED REQUESTS FOR:             APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS                HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS            TOWNHOUSES

                     CONDITIONAL USES                          17                       7                        9                  1                      0                      1


                     ZONE VARIANCES                            17                       13                       10                 9                      1                      2


                     ZONE CHANGES                              8                        5                        4                  2                      1                      2


                     SEASHORE CLEARANCES                       0                        0                        1 *                0                      0                      0


                     SWIVS                                     0                        0                        1                  1                      2                      0

                     WETLAND PERMITS                           0                        0                        0                  1                      0          1           0

                     TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                   0                        0                        0                  1                      3



                                                                                                  @@i,           MA"',

                     TYPES OF VARIANCES               DENSITY-3, HEIGHT-      DENSITY-3,            DENSITY-7,            HEIGHT-1,             SETBACK-1                HEIGHT-2
                     APPROVED:                        13, PARKING-1,          HEIGHT-12,            HEIGHT-9,             SETBACK-3,
                                                      SETBACK-5, USE-1,       PARKING-2,            SETBACK-9,            SUBSTANDARD
                                                      DELETION OF             SETBACK-4             PARKING-2, LOT        LOT-5
                                                      EASEMENT-1                                    SIZE-1, USE-1
                                                                                                    (*PROPOSED
                                                                                                    DREDGING)















                                                                                                                                               Wi
                                                                                                               GE
                                                                          Ts",
                          VILLAGE                APARTMENTS      CONDOMINIUMS          HOTELS         SINGLE FAMILY        SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES
                 AGANA                                                                         440

                 AGANA HEIGHTS


                 AGAT                            1         4

                 ASAN

                 BARRIGADA                       2         18                                            1        6                            1        26
                 CHALAN PAGO                     2         104                                                             1        5
                 DEDEDO                          3         15                                            4        38       2        46         2        94
                 HARMON                          2         218                        1        66        1        1
                 INARAJAN                                           1      200        1        200       1        1                            1        122
                 MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE             3         67       1      28                            1        10
                 MANGILAO                                           1      434        1       1200       1        1        1       118

                 MERIZO                                    4

                 ORDOT                                              3     2222        1        loo

                 PITI                                                                                    I        I

                 SANTA RITA

                 SINAJANA                        1         84                                            1        2
                 TALOFOFO                                                                                I        I
                 TAMUNING                        7         81       6      928        2       247                                              1        144
                 TUMON                           6         82       5                 8       2235
                 YIGO                            3         54                                                                      92

                 YONA


                 UMATAC


















                                                                                   .8
                                                                                                               ,ROVW
                                                                                                               -P
                                                                                           @L              LP

                                                       APARTMENTS            CONDOMINIUMS                 HOTELS              SINGLE FAMILY           SUBDIVISIONS         TOWNHOUSES

                    NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                      37                      17                       16                      21                   6                      .5

                    DISAPPROVALS (#/ %)                    6/16%                    1/6%                       1/6%                 8/38%                   0                  1/20%

                    NO. OF UNITS DISAPPROVED                  215                     26                       25                      8                    0                      10


                          ..... . .. .. . .
                                                                            91,
                          Tl-1@17 mll,@,'@
                                                                                                                                                          m       kin,
                       NO. OF REQUESTS FOR:            APARTMENTS            CONDOMINIUMS                 HOTELS              SINGLE FAMILY           SUBDIVISIONS         TOWNHOUSES

                    CONDITIONAL USES                          0                       1                        1                       1                    0                      0


                    ZONE VARIANCES                            4                       1                        1                       6                    0                      0


                    ZONE CHANGES                              3                       0                        0                       0                    0                      1


                    SEASHORE CLEARANCES                       0                       0                        0                       0                    0                      0


                    SWIVS                                     0                       0                        0                       1                    0                      0


                    WETLAND PERMITS                           0                       0                        0                       0                    0                      0


                    TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                   0                       0                        0                       0                    0                      0
                                                                                 %X


                                                                                                                    t.,@ RAN,
                                                                                               ;"Wx


                    REMARKS:                        VARIANCES:             VARIANCE: DENSITY-        VARIANCE:              VARIANCES:
                                                    DENSITY-1, USE-3       I                         SETBACK-1              SUBSTANDARD LOT-
                                                                                                                            5, LOT WIDTH-1,
                                                                                                                            DENSITY-1





















                                                                f
                                                                                   i'DISAIT

                       VILLAGE            APARTMENTS      CONDOMINIUMS          HOTELS          SINGLE FAMILY     SUBDIVISIONS     TOWNHOUSES

               AGANA


               AGANA HTS.


               AGAT


               ASAN


               BARRIGADA                  3       49


               CHALAN PAGO                1       156

               DEDEDO                                                                            3        3                       1        10

               HARMON


               INARAJAN


               MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE


               MANGILAO                   1       4


               MERIZO


               ORDOT


               PITI


               SANTA RITA


               SINAJANA


               TALOFOFO


               TAMUNING                                                                25

               TUMON                      1       6        1        26

               YIGO


               YONA
             l[UMATAC



















                                                                                   T
                                                                                          Af
                                                                                     LU
                                                                                                                                   er
                                                                              990

                                                  APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS           HOTELS         SINGLE FAMILY         SUBDIVISIONS         TOWNHOUSES
                  NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                    12                  11                  5                  9                    1                    4
                  APPROVALS                               1                   5                   0                  4                    0                    2
                  APPROVALS W/CONDS                       7                   6                   5                  5                    1                    2
                  NO. OF UNITS APPROVED                   190              3485                 1855                 68                   7                    920
                                  nl

                                                                                                                     -v
                                                        6,

                   APPROVED REQUESTS FOR:         APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS           HOTELS         SINGLE FAMILY         SUBDIVISIONS         TOWNHOUSES
                  CONDITIONAL USES                        3                   2                   2                  1                    0                    0
                  ZONE VARIANCES                          6                   6                   1                  4                    0                    0
                  ZONE CHANGES                            1                   6                   3                  1                    0                    3
                  SEASHORE CLEARANCES                     0                   0                   0                  0                    0                    0
                  SWIVS                                   0                   0                   1                  4                    0                    0
                  WETLAND PERMITS                         0                   1                   1        1         1                    0                    1
                  TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                 0                   1                   1                  2                    1                    2


                  TYPES OF VARIANCES            DENSITY-1,           HEIGHT-5,            HEIGHT-1,         SETBACK-1,
                  APPROVED:                     HEIGHT-6,            SETBACK-2,          SETBACK-1          SUBSTANDARD
                                                PARKING-2            PARKING-1                              LOTS-3





















                                                                                                                                     0,
                                                                                               %;,51,111:-,,@ -W      "; . . ... ............ ... .
                                                                                                                                    12
                                                                                                              GE
                                                            :NO, VAMOUF&S,&NO ''OF UNITS                           w
                                                                                                     "EL
                          VILLAGE               APARTMENTS       CONDOMINIUMS          HOTELS         SINGLE FAMILY       SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                 AGANA


                 AGANA HEIGHTS


                 AGAT


                 ASAN                                              1       48

                 BARRIGADA                                         1       98                           1        1
                 CHALAN PAGO                                       1       92                           2        12                           1       76
                 DEDEDO                                                               1        15       1        1                            1        12

                 HARMON                         1         9        1       400        1      1100

                 INARAJAN

                 MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE            1        15                                                               1         7
                 MANGILAO                                          1       218                          1        1

                 MERIZO                         1         8

                 ORDOT                                                     30,

                 PITI


                 SANTA RITA


                 SINAJANA


                 TALOFOFO

                 TAMUNING                       3        68        2       353        1      250                                              1       32
                 TUMON                          2        90        2       96         1      290        1        1

                 YIGO                                                                                   I        I
                 YONA                                              1       2150       1      200        1       50                            1
               IUMATAC


























                                                                                                                                     "A
                                                                                                 Ap,


                                                     APARTMENTS         CONDOMINIUMS           HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY        SUBDIVISIONS          TOWNHOUSES


                   NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                       12               11                  5                   9                     1                    1

                   DISAPPROVALS (#/%)                     4/33%                0                   0                   0                     0                    0

                   NO. OF UNITS DISAPPROVED                232                 o                   0                   0                     0                    0



                                                              jn

                       NO. OF REQUESTS FOR:          APARTMENTS         CONDOMINIUMS           HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY        SUBDIVISIONS          TOWNHOUSES

                   CONDITIONAL USES                           0                0                   0                   0                     0                    0


                   ZONE VARIANCES                             2                0                   0                   0                     0                    0


                   ZONE CHANGES                               2                0                   0                   0                     0                    0


                   SEASHORE CLEARANCES                        0                0                   0                   0                     0                    0


                   SWIVS                                      0                0                   0                   0                     0                    0

                   WETLAND PERMITS               1            0       1        0                   0                   0                     0                    0

                   TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                    0                0                   0                   0                     0                    0

                                                                                                              mg




                   REMARKS:                         VARIANCES:
                                                    DENSITY-1,
                                                   HEIGHT-1, USE-1




















                                                                               W


                       VILLAGE           APARTMENTS     CONDOMINIUMS      HOTELS       SINGLE FAMILY   SUBDIVISIONS     TOWNHOUSES
                                                                 7-
               AGANA


               AGANA HTS.


               AGAT


               ASAN


               BARRIGADA


               CHALAN PAGO


               DEDEDO                     1       6


               HARMON


               INARAJAN


               MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE


               MANGILAO                   1      120

               MERIZO


               ORDOT


               PITI                       1       6

               SANTA RITA


               SINAJANA


               TALOFOFO


               TAMUNING


               TUMON                      1      100


               YIGO


               YONA
             IUMATAC



























                                                                                          7W

                                                     APARTMENTS          CONDOMINIUMS             140TELS          SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS          TOWNHOUSES

                    NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                   7                      9                    7                     10                   2                    1


                    APPROVALS                              3                      5                    2                     3                    1                    0


                    APPROVALS W/CONDS                      2                      2                    5                                          1                    1


                    NO. OF UNITS APPROVED                 273                  3369                 1211                   842                  118                  3971




                     APPROVED REQUESTS FOR:          APARTMENTS          CONDOMINIUMS             HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS          TOWNHOUSES

                    CONDITIONAL USES                       3                      0                    4                     1                    0                    0


                    ZONE VARIANCES                         3                      2                    3                     3                    0                    0


                    ZONE CHANGES                           2                      5                    3                     5                    1                    1


                    SEASHORE CLEARANCES                    0                      1                    1                     0                    0                    0


                    SWIVS                                  0                      0                    0                     1                    0                    0
                    WETLAND PERMITS                        0                      0        -1          0                     0                    0                    0
                    TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                0                      0                    0                     0                    1                    0
                                                                                                                             "54ip,


                    TYPES OF VARIANCES             HEIGHT-2,            DENSITY-2,            DENSITY-1,          SUBSTANDARD
                    APPROVED:                       PARKING-1,          HEIGHT-2              HEIGHT-1,           LOT-2, LOT WIDTH-
                                                    SETBACK-1                                 SETBACK-1           I





















                                                                                                        .. .. .... .
                                                                   -A
                                                                                    g
                                                                         @UWSI
                                                                                   KOVEDMr,vu,1A
                                                               INIUMS      HOTELS       SINGLE FAMILY    SUBDIVISIONS     TOWNHOUSES



               AGANA HEIGHTS

               AGAT                                      2       510      2      604
               ASAN                                      1       1275     1      200     1       800                      1      3971
               BARRIGADA                                                                 2       2

               CHALAN PAGO                                                               1       4
               DEDEDO                    2      50       1       46                      3       12       1       108
               HARMON                                                     1      104

               INARAJAN


               MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE

               MANGILAO                                  1       1436                            3

               MERIZO

               ORDOT                                                                                              10

               PITI                                      1       48

               SANTA RITA


               SINAJANA

               TALOFOFO                                                   1      40      1       21

               TAMUNING                                  1       54

               TUMON                     2      127                      2       263

               YIGO                      1      96
               AG@A@














               YONA


               UMATAC



























                                                    APARTMENTS         CONDOMINIUMS             HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES


                   NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                    7                   9                   7                       10                  2                     1


                   DISAPPROVALS                         2129%               2125%                  0                   1/10%                   0                     0


                   NO. OF UNITS DISAPPROVED                5                  160                  0                                           0                     0

                                                                                            'j"
                                                                                                                                                            "0
                                                                                                   7 @0 "'o"
                                                                                                                                                                Ar
                                                                                                                                    k

                      NO. OF REQUESTS FOR:          APARTMENTS         CONDOMINIUMS             HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                   CONDITIONAL USES                        0                   0                   0                       0                   0                     0


                   ZONE VARIANCES                          2                   2                   0                       1                   0                     0


                   ZONE CHANGES                            0                   0                   0                       0                   0                     0


                   SEASHORE CLEARANCES                     0                   0                   0                       0                   0                     0


                   swivs                                   0                   0                   0                       0                   0                     0


                   WETLAND PERMITS                         0                   0                   0                       0                   0                     0


                   TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.

                     Al,

                                                                                                                           -.nq-
                                                          A

                   REMARKS:                       VARIANCES:           VARIANCES:                                VARIANCE:
                                                  HEIGHT-1, USE-1      HEIGHT-2,                                SUBSTANDARD
                                                                       PARKING-1,                               LOT-1
                                                                       SETBACK-1






















                     VILLAGE          APARTMENTS    CONDOMINIUMS       HOTELS       SINGLE FAMILY   SU13DIVISIONS  TOWNHOUSES


              AGANA


              AGANA HTS.                              1     130


              AGAT


              ASAN


              BARRIGADA


              CHALANPAGO


              DEDEDO                                  1      30


              HARMON                          2


              INARAJAN


              MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE


              MANGILAO                        3


              MERIZO


              ORDOT


              PITI


              SANTA RITA


              SINAJANA


              TALOFOFO


              TAMUNING


              TUMON


              YlGO


              YONA


              UMATAC














                                                                                                       VIV,
                                                                                 9  T
                                                                                      it


                                                  APARTMENTS         CONDOMINIUMS            HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                   NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                   3                  0                   1                     3                    4                     1

                   APPROVALS                              0                  0                   0                     0                    0                     1

                   APPROVALS W/CONDS                      2                  0                   1                     3                    4                     0

                   NO. OF UNITS APPROVED                  28                 0                   28                    25                  393                    35

                                                          ....... . .

                                                              "Al

                   APPROVED REQUESTS FOR:         APARTMENTS         CONDOMINIUMS            HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY          SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                   CONDITIONAL USES                       2                  0                   1                     1                    0                     0

                   ZONE VARIANCES                         1                  0                   0                     2                    0                     0

                   ZONE CHANGES                           0                  0                   0                     1                    2                     1

                   SEASHORE CLEARANCES                    0                  0                   0                     0                    0                     0

                   SWIVS                                  0                  0                   0                     1                    0                     0

                   WETLAND PERMITS                        0                  0                   0                     0                    0                     0

                   TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                0                  0                   0                     0                    2                     0
                                                                                                        W,
                                                                                                                                    lA"VP


                   TYPES OF VARIANCES           HEIGHT-1,                                                   SUBSTANDARD LOT-1,
                   APPROVED:                    SETBACK-1                                                    SETBACK-1

















                                                                                                                                          Nz";
                                                                  @?J @@F
                                                                                                                                     g"
                                                                                                                        A

                         VILLAGE             APARTMENTS       CONDOMINIUMS          HOTELS         SINGLE FAMILY         SUBDIVISIONS      TOWNHOUSES


                 AGANA


                 AGANA HEIGHTS


                 AGAT                                                                                         4


                 ASAN


                 BARRIGADA                                                                                               1       39


                 CHALAN PAGO


                 DEDEDO                                                                                       1          1       65


                 HARMON


                 INARAJAN


                 MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE          1        16


                 MANGILAO                                                         1       28


                 MERIZO


                 ORDOT


                 PITI


                 SANTA RITA


                 SINAIANA


                 TALOFOFO,


                 TAMUNING


                 TUMON


                 Y]GO                         1        12                                                                2       289       1        35

                 YONA                                                                               1         20
                [UMATAC                                                       L




























                                                                                                                      n e'lll',Ka@-



                                                       APARTMENTS            CONDOMINIUMS                HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY         SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                    NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                       3                     0                       1                    3                     4                    1

                    DISAPPROVALS (#/-/.)                   1/33%                     0                       0                    0                     0                    0
                    NO. OF UNITS DISAPPROVED      1            28        1           0            1          0         1          0                     0          1         0

                                                                                                                       N
                                                                                                                        '4,4@



                       NO. OF REQUESTS FOR:            APARTMENTS            CONDOMINIUMS                HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY         SUBDIVISIONS        TOWNHOUSES

                    CONDITIONAL USES                           0                     0                       0                    0                     0                    0

                    ZONE VARIANCES                             0                     0                       0                    0                     0                    0

                    ZONE CHANGES                               1                     0                       0                    0                     0                    0

                    SEASHORE CLEARANCES                        0                     0                       0                    0                     0                    0

                    swivs                                      0                     0                       0                    0                     0                    0

                    WETLAND PERMITS                            0                     0                       0         1          0                     0                    0

                    TNT.IFNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                    0                     0                       0                    0                     0                    0

                                                                                                                          e,@@f 3--




                    REMARKS:
                                            N-@


                                                                                                                                                                               J@s












                                                                          i9l
                                                                             -ftOK
                                                                         ,uNirr
                                                                                                                               z
                                      A

                       VILLAGE            APARTMENTS       CONDOMINIUMS         HOTELS        SINGLE FAMILY    SUBDIVISIONS    TOWN   USES

               AGANA


               AGANA HTS.


               AGAT


               ASAN


               BARRIGADA


               CHALAN PAGO


               DEDEDO


               HARMON


               INARAJAN


               MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE


               MANGILAO


               MERIZO


               ORDOT


               PITI


               SANTA RITA


               SINAJANA


               TALOFOFO


               TAMUNING


               TUMON


               YIGO


               YONA                        1       28


               UMATAC



























                                                APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS            HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY       SUBDIVISIONS       TOWNHOUSES


                 NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                 2                     3                    7                   2                 3                   3


                 APPROVALS                            0                     2                    1                   1                 0                   2


                 APPROVALS W/CONDS                    2                     1                    5                   1                 3                   1


                 NO. OF UNITS APPROVED              204                   335                  946                   11                79                 164

                                                                                                           rp


                  APPROVED REQUESTS FOR:        APARTMENTS           CONDOMINIUMS            HOTELS           SINGLE FAMILY       SUBDIVISIONS       TOWNHOUSES,

                 CONDITIONAL USES                     1                     0                    3                   0                 0                   0


                 ZONE VARIANCES                       1                     2                    3                   0                 0                   0


                 ZONE CHANGES                         I                     I                    I                   1                 0                   2


                 SEASHORE CLEARANCES                  0                     0                    1                   0                 0                   0


                 swivs                                0                     0                    0                   1                 0                   0

                 WETLAND PERMITS                      0                     0                    0                   0        1        0                   0

                 TNT.IFNL. SUBDV. APPRV.              0                     0                    0                   0                 3                   1

                               IN
                                                                                                         "Ni

                 TYPES OF VARIANCES         HEIGHT-1              HEIGHT-2              DENSITY-3, HEIGHT-
                 APPROVED:                                                              2, SETBACK-3












                                                                 Ek"
                                                      NO.


                      VILLAGE            APARTMENTS       CONDOMINIUMS          HOTELS        SINGLE FAMILY    SUBDIVISIONS    TOWNHOUSES


               AGANA


               AGANA HEIGHTS


               AGAT                                                           1       18


               ASAN                                         1        252                       1       to


               BARRIGADA                 1       180                                                           2       46       1      30


               CHALANPAGO                                                                                                       1      68


               DEDEDO                                       1        27                                                         1      66


               HARMON


               WARAJAN


               MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE


               MANGILAO


               MERIZO


               ORDOT


               PITI


               SANTA RITA


               SINAJANA


               TALOFOFO


               TAMUNING                                     1        56       1       51


               TUMON                     1       24                           3       618

               YIGO                                    1                                                       1       33

               YONA                                                           1       259      1


               UMATAC



                                           0                 .0                 0
















                                                                                                                                                                     TOWNHOUSES
                    NO. OF DEV. PROJECTS                        2                        3                       7                    2                  3                  3
                    DISAPPROVALS (#/O/o)                        0                        0                    1/14%                   0                  0                  0
                    NO. OF UNITS DISAPPROVED                    0                        0                       78                   0                  0                  0


                                                                                                          K
                                                                                                            'N
                                                                                                           ,117
                       NO. OF REQUESTS FOR:             APARTMENTS               CONDOMINIUMS               HOTELS            SINGLE FAMILY       SUBDIVISIONS      TOWNHOUSES
                    CONDITIONAL USES                            0                        0                       0                    0                  0                  0
                    ZONE VARIANCES                              0                        0                       0                    0                  0                  0
                    ZONE CHANGES                                0                        0                       1                    0                  0                  0
                    SEASHORE CLEARANCES                         0                        0                       0                    0                  0                  0
                    swivs                                       0                        0                       0                    0                  0                  0
                    WETLAND PERMITS                             0                        0                       0                    0                  0                  0
                    TNT./FNL. SUBDV. APPRV.                     0                        0                       0                    0                  0                  0


                                                                                                                  14,

                    REMARKS:




















                                                                                               fu

                                                                                       QV,,EUfBY,-Wl
                             5 @-Ai,
                                                                            F-6P1$AffR
                                                 '91@",Ws       Tp                                  "AGk"
                       VILLAGE             APARTMENTS        CONDOMINIUMS         HOTELS       SINGLE FAMILY  SUBD VISIONS  TOWNHOUSES

               AGANA


               AGANA HTS.


               AGAT


               ASAN


               BARRIGADA                                                        1       78

               CHALAN PAGO


               DEDEDO


               HARMON


               INARMAN


               MONGMONG/TOTO/MAITE


               MANGILAO


               MERIZO


               ORDOT


               PITI


               SANTA RITA


               SINAJANA


               TALOFOFO


               TAMUNING


               TUMON


               YIGO


               YONA


               UMATAC
























                                                                                       I III
                                                                        3 6668 14108 5581