Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0953.000 2004-2006 JMtY~ ~•!y1 HKaetsu arry Kim Dixie Mayor Managing Director Barbara Kossow t~ Deputy Managing Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawai'i 967204252 • (808) 9615211 • Fax (808) 9616553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 (808) 329-5226 Fax (808) 326-5663 c^i June 20, 2006 5 (V aim Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council r County of Hawai'i 25 Aupuni Street - Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Higa and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000039) Applicant: Alice Adee, M.D. Request: RS-10 to RCX-20 Tax Map Key: 2-2-25:18 Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000034) Applicant: Hirayama Brothers Electric, Inc. Request: RS-10 to CN-20 Tax Map Key: 2-2-34:13 Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000035) Applicant: Ivan Mochida Request: RS-10 to RM-2.5 Tax Map Key: 2-2-36:102 103 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawai'i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. Sincerely, (,.Harry Kim r Mayor Comm No. Ref. To: Enclosures Ref. Date ' cc: Planning Department L V15 1 U/ IC? 7 •••h•Oi•M'+ County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Sheet, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 June 20, 2006 Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council c County of Hawaii = N 25 Aupuni Street sa Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Higa and Council Members: -a cn Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000035) Applicant: Ivan Mochida Request: RS-10 to RM-2.5 Tax Man Key: 2-2-36:102, 103 The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on June 2, 2006, considered the Change of Zone application filed by Ivan Mochida for approximately 67,500 square feet of land from a Single Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple Family Residential-2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district. The properties are located on the western side of Laukapu Street between Lanikaula Street and Leilani Street, Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Initially, the request also included the Aburamen property identified by TMK: 2-2-36:60. However, since the current General Plan Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) designates the Aburamen property as Industrial, that property was withdrawn from the request. A motion was made to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. There were four votes in favor of the motion and three against. Therefore, the motion did not pass. No other motions were made. The four to three vote constitutes a "no action" by the Planning Commission because of the lack of the five affirmative votes required by Hawaii County Charter, Section 13-4(I). Under Section 25-2-42(d)(3) and Planning Commission Rules 11-3(b)(2), the Planning Commission's non- action constitutes an unfavorable recommendation. The application is being forwarded to you with this unfavorable recommendation, along with a copy of the hearing transcripts. The Planning Director's favorable recommendation, along with a draft bill and proposed conditions are also attached for your consideration. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer p" Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Norman Hayashi of the Planning Department at 961-8288. Sincerely, o Al da, Chairman Planm ommission LmochidaO I PC cc: Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Department of Land and Natural Resources Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu Mr. Ivan Mochida Mr. Sidney Fuke BModudaRFZ.dw4/26/06 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT IVAN MOCRIDA and LES ABURAMEN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 06-000035) IVAN MOCRIDA and LES ABURAMEN have submitted an application for a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) for approximately 90,400 square feet of land. The properties are located on both sides of Laukapu Street between Lanikaula Street and Leilani Street, Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-36: 60, 102 and 103. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Request/Project Description: Change of zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) to allow a the development of a 34-unit townhouse. The townhouse is proposed to be constructed on three parcels, two of which are contiguous on the western side of Laukapu Street, and one parcel on the eastern side of Laukapu Street directly across from one of the two parcels on Laukapu Street. According to the applicant, at least 20% of the units will be directed at the affordable level, while the remaining would be sold at market prices. The project includes: • Five (5) two-story structures approximately 25 feet in height. • Eight (8) 2-bedroom units; twenty-one (21) 3-bedroom units; and five (5) 4-bedroom units (actual mix of units may vary depending on market demand). • Two (2) covered parking stalls per unit for a total of 68 stalls plus an additional ten (10) off-street parking may be provided for the proposed development. • Single driveway access for both sites. • Extensive landscaping along the front and rear boundaries of both sites. (Exhibit I - Change of Zone application) 2. Revised project description: After the application was submitted, the applicants requested a deferral of action on the property located on the east side of Laupaku Street C-953 (Bill 305) (TMK: 2-2-36: 60) until such time that the General Plan LUPAG designation is amended from Industrial to Medium Density Urban. This area is currently under review for redesignation from Industrial to Medium Density Urban. Should the General Plan amendment be approved by the County Council, the Planning Director will resume rezoning of the property. As such, the project now includes only TMK: 2-2-36: 102 & 103 on the west side of Laukapu Street. Proposed are four (4) two-story structures approximately 25 feet in height. (Exhibit 2 - April 24, 2006 letter from applicant) 3. Timetable: Commencement of construction is proposed by early 2007, with occupancy by the end of 2007. 4. Cost of development: $8,000,000.00 5. Landowner: Ivan S. Mochida Trust and Yaeko Aburamen Trust. OTHER INFORMATION 6. Proposed RM zoning: • Height limit - 120 feet in the City of Hilo, 45 feet elsewhere. • Setback - front and rear, 20 feet; side yards 8 feet for a one-story building, plus an additional two feet for each additional story. • Landscaping - required on a minimum of 20% of the total land area of any building site, exclusive of parking areas. • Other regulations - more than one main building on any building site allowed; distance between main buildings on the same building site shall be at least 15 feet; submittal of plans for plan approval. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 7. State Land Use Designation: Urban. 8. General Plan LUPAG Map: Medium Density Urban for parcels 102 and 103 (Mochida properties located on the west side of Laukapu Street), and Industrial for parcel 60 (Aburamen property located on the east side of Laukapu Street). A General Plan Amendment would be required to allow the proposed use on parcel 60. The Planning Director is initiating an amendment to the General Plan land use designation for the project area, among others, from Industrial to Medium Density Urban (refer to applicants' -2- Figure 7 - Waiakea Houselots proposed General Plan amendment map dated October 20, 2005). Until such time that the General Plan amendment is approved by the County Council, the requested zone change would be inconsistent with the current General Plan LUPAG designation of Industrial for parcel 60. 9. County Zoning: RS-10. 10. Hilo Community Development Plan: The Hilo Community Development Plan adopted by Resolution No. 1 on May 21, 1975 designates this area as RS-10. 11. Coastal Zone Management, HRS, Chapter 205A: The entire State of Hawaii lies within the Coastal Zone Management area. 12. Special Management Area: The SMA is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program regulated by the County. The project site is not proximate to the shoreline and not located in the SMA. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA 13. Subject Properties: The project site consists of three parcels, two (parcels 102 and 103) on the west side of Laukapu Street, and one (parcel 60) east of and across the street from parcel 102 on Laukapu Street. Parcels 102 and 103 are contiguous to each other, and consists of approximately 67,500 square feet in size. Parcel 60 is approximately 22,900 square feet in size. There is a single-family dwelling and garage structure on the large site (parcels 102 and 103) which is currently being used for storage. With the exception of the dwelling, the site has been cleared and graveled. Parcel 60, the smaller site, is also improved with a single-family dwelling currently rented on a monthly basis. This parcel is fully improved and landscaped. 14. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The land uses in the area are a mix of residential and commercial uses. Surrounding properties are zoned RS-10 and immediately adjacent properties are in residential uses. There is a medical office on the northwest comer of Laukapu and Lanikaula Streets, approximately 300 feet from the project area. At the southeastern corner of the intersection, there is a commercialAight industrial complex. -3- 15. U.S.D.A. Soil Type: Keaukaha extremely stony muck, 6 to 20 percent slopes (rKFD). The Keaukaha Series consists of well drained, thin organic soils over pahoehoe lava bedrock. 16. Land Study Bureau's Productivity Rating: Unclassified. 17. Noise Impacts: Existing ambient noise includes airport/aviation use and traffic. Short- term noise impacts associated with the project are temporary, and all applicable State rules governing construction noise abatement will be observed. Site work will be limited to weekday daylight hours. 18. Air Quality: The proposed project will not directly impact air quality in the area. Fugitive dust during construction can be mitigated by compliance with the regulations of the Department of Health. 19. FIRM: Zone "Y', an area outside of the 500-year flood plain. 20. Coastal Hazards: The property is not an oceanfront parcel, and will not affect, or be affected by shoreline processes. 21. Recreational Resources: The proposed development will not reduce the size of the coastline or other areas used for public recreational uses. 22. Scenic Resources: The project will not affect the line-of-sight towards the ocean or the mountains. 23. Flora/Fauna: As the project site has been improved and is located within an urban environment close to commercial, industrial and residential uses, no professional surveys were conducted of the site. The applicants believe that there are no rare or endangered floral or faunal resources within or proximate to the project site. 24. Archaeological/Historical Resources: No professional surveys were conducted of the site, due to the history of extensive disturbance. By letter dated February 3, 2006, the applicants have requested a "no effect" letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division. 25. Cultural or Native Gathering Rights: There is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site, nor existence of any known valued cultural, historical or native resources in the area. -4- 26. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the properties. 27. Traffic: The applicants state that "the impacts of this project should not be overly significant." PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 28. Access: Access to the project site will be from Laukapu Street, a County roadway with a right-of-way of 40 feet and 20-foot wide pavement with grassed shoulders. 29. Water: Water is available to the project area. 30. Wastewater: The project will connect to the existing sewer line fronting the site. 31. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers. 32. Essential Utilities and Services: Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. County fire stations, police and emergency medical services are available to the properties. AGENCIES' AND ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS 33. Department of Public Works: Exhibit 3 - March 14, 2006 memo 34. Police Department: Exhibit 4 - February 21, 2006 memo 35. Fire Department: Exhibit 5 - February 17, 2006 memo 36. Civil Defense Agency: Exhibit 6 - March 14, 2006 memo 37. Department of Water Supply: Exhibit 7 - March 15, 2006 memo 38. Department of Environmental Management: Exhibit 8 - February 14, 2006 memo 39.. Office of Housing and Community Development: Exhibit 9 - February 27, 2006 memo 40. Department of Health: Exhibit 10 - February 16, 2006 memo AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 41. Department of Parks and Recreation, DLNR Land and Historic Preservation Division APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS 42. Exhibit 11- March 3, 2006 and April 6, 2006 letters PUBLIC COMMENTS 43. Exhibit 12 - March 15, 2006 letter from Lloyd and Patricia Nekoba -5- 44. Exhibit 13 - March 19, 2006 fax memorandum from Pat Grossman 45. Exhibit 14 - March 15, 2006 letter from Victoria Saito Abe, Clyde T. Abe, Miriam Saito Hamakawa, Patricia Saito Toyama, and Lillian Saito Oak APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 46. Exhibit 15 - April 11, 2006 letter -6- 2D06 FEB 8 Pm ? 'Z vV'UI'v I y APPLICATION FOR COUNTY REZONING (RS-10 to RM-2.5) IVAN MOCHIDA and LES ABURAMEN Waiakea Houselots, South Hilo, Hawaii TMK: (3) 2-2-36: 60,102,103 Prepared For: Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant EXHIBIT February 2006 ~ CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Ivan Mochida and Les A" -en APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: ATE: January30, 2006 ADDRESS: c/o Ivan Mochida Contracting 77 Kukila Street Hilo, HI 96720 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: Not Applicabler PHONE:(BuS.) (808) 934-9757 (Res) (Fax)(808) 934-9759 LANDOWNER(S): Ivan Mochida Tr. (INE 2-2-3& 102, 103) Ya Aburamen Tr (TMK: 2-2-36: 60 LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): u . D ~11Ib anuary 30, 2006 (May be by lett ep LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: Mochida - same as applicant; burn en -183 W-1-- St, Hilo, HI REQUEST: Rs-10 TO RM-2.5 (Existing zoning) (Proposed Zoning) TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-36: 60, 102, 103 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 740 Laukapu Street (TMK: 2-2-36:102,103) and 737 Laupaku St. (TMK: 2-2- 36: 60) SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 90,400 square feet (2.075+ acre) ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE: (Bus.) (808) 969-1522 (Res,) (Fax) (808) 969-7996 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney M. Fuke COPIES: Ivan Mochida (See Instructions on Reverse Side) ATTACHMENT Residential Rezoning PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1, If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? No if yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to question 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? b. Into what lot sizes? C. if your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? if yes, please answer the following questions: on how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lots Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans No b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? No t• Sell or lease the land to someone who has ne plans? No d. Keep it? Yes e. other (please state) f• If.you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate, on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also, include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the `subject land to another party. 3. Do Ym think that your request and your further plans for-the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes How? This project will increase the overall moderate income housing market in this area. 4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes If so, what kind? One dwelling converted into a storage building and one single family dwelling that is being rented. what do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? Demolish them due in part to their age. -2- 5. Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? No If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. 6. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. 7• Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvement? No If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes 8• What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? yes NQ a. Schools x b. Roads R C. Sewer x d. Drainage x e, police Protection % -3- Yes Nn f. Fire Protection x g, Recreational Facilities x h. Public Utilities x 1. other x For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. Please refer to planning and environmental report. Signature: "4.4~ Address: 77 K a Street Hilo, HI Telephone: 808 934-9757 Date: January 30, 2006 6337A/50A -4- P.D. 5/84 COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICATION FOR COUNTY REZONING (RS-10a to RM-2.5) IVAN MOCHIDA & LES ABURAMEN WAIAKEA HOUSE LOTS, FIRST SERIES, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII TAX MAP KEY: (3) 2-2-36: 60,102,103 I. INTRODUCTION The applicants, Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen, owners of the subject properties, intend to develop the subject site into a 34-unit townhouse project on 2.075+ acres or 90,400 square feet of land. At least twenty (20) percent of the units would be directed at the affordable level, while the remaining would be sold at market prices. The subject site straddles Laukapu Street in the House Lots area of the City of Hilo. Two contiguous parcels (TMK: 2-2-36:102 and 103), consisting of a combined area of 1.54+ acres or 67,500 square feet, are situated on the west side of Laukapu Street. The remaining parcel, identified by TMK: 2-2-36: 60 and consisting of .525+ acres or 22,900 square feet, is located directly opposite of parcel 102. To effectuate this project, the applicants are requesting that the site be rezoned from the Single family Residential (RS-10) to Multiple-family Residential (RM-2.5) district. II. PROJECT LOCATION As described earlier, the subject site straddles Laukapu Street and is located in the First Series of the Waiakea House Lots area of the City of Hilo. The site consists of three parcels, which are identified by TMK: 2-2- 36: 60, 102, and 103. Parcels 102 and 103 are situated west of Laukapu Street, while the remaining parcel is located directly across and east of parcel 102. More specifically, the site is located midway between Leilani and Lanikaula Streets. There is a medical office located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of Laukapu and Lanikaula Streets, approximately 300 feet south of the proposed site. At the southeastern comer of this same intersection, there is a commercial/light industrial complex. (Figures 1 and 2) 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Proiect Concept and Components The applicant is proposing to develop a 34-unit townhouse project i Yahuol My Yahool MOR Make Yahool Your home page jAHdQ1 LOCALNew User? Son Uo Maps Travel should take you placed Stall your journey. Hill * Map for: 740 Laukapu St Hilo, HI 96720-4433 Save Driving Directions: T Here -From Here ® Em Mao j ® MY7~l. Printable ersi j® ail I,iak tg this Mag om n 1st.3city567s[ate910J/A'" zoom Hpplf I pau l._..'="'~`` t€ ut a ea u y ~k~*"T +~s '/"\WarlDa Rf Pa I ~ Hrve - Y gam? ' ''~3'~~leYaYG !~Ydla $t - y L tanl SUb ect ngyt J . Site E Lan - u!a -d _ If- II"ani t F E~ `~e~y 1 t.h4r6oied a ekau!la St .p m Kukila St r ~ f try\r Ra AfHllai s u 3 P nt? ~y } / Y1000ft p~~~' \ ~ti {ham ® 20DS Y~ an! Inc U Figure X n N E N uQ , 1 =N. Sub* Site I ~?07~ I' ®-To- I I. 079 ,J ~ ~ I C I<»d I Ij I ``tr'-''y(ee;8 ' L y ' r•b Y ! 0 `o IT ! V^ ~a i V f O .•w r9 r. oDVt YO O •O~• Z ' -r J~.rC?Y {!'"'^~••+:w «..,~,~'w.... t ~..,.ar.9 O °'[,aL.., in i o yv O tfre.[/ ^ r~ Wro' N ~ ` ~,.w ,Iw,,. >D O Yrs•,. L6'{-iai~.."°~ _ ~ h ~}l^2Q,}` II{ •j ga , O d.es•av~~~ ,•vr >.yr «•v:ra ~9>-Ny. 4 ~ ~ gS~rE4 1 ¢gY ,33p 2tYa e e. JnNJAY •7 l7/+!y t..N `4' G1a'O 1 r i ! lib t ®u' y r. 0 ~ ~ i ~N V.~p.af\•,e~ IYA y9' ~Y 1• ` f '1.~..,r'° .e?., r/ `ry "`nary - Af" Y t f yD ~o .Yy ®[ry ~...y> O a..-•r z:z 4k k i K11f Ya y ©tlFM.FIr.Lgy MY'^~H~ ,1 iaesar ~ ND W ~~^rryg ~M •Wr~ , sg yN( rlai D wr• c..-a. .1 ~ IF ®lux:° V .~il`~",(rn© 2 A. 2 ~ ~ }rwY.>r C ~ Dve Q t ~ i9 O v~W • y' ®yDp Y. >v Ov«u"m®+..., t w„ a~ ~ i p o !~F[]~€^<t[ I 4'• x~°.Y...,. >n oo~~g O ~•a••>a r(.mv - p L+ r1 ~ ei ~lw t~i~~ 1~,--ti . »(".r ~.r"'"-~ -w,,.-c. ; , :1• 3 Fr. rn3..~.>'O O 'rrv as ~ C b ~-w: / 7 ~ Oggq{{ ~,JJ `r~Ynry- r, ar'.'~e ~ ° `e a ` Q A! D ! A N:IQ Qf a'vv a`i [wx~>o e~J~i1~ D'~YNYgJJ~y r•t : ~ i~ Qf7 nLY>. _ Figure 2 ,lh lY ]d Sx~{p; i ~fe i 'a } t - ~ y 4',:u ~ yi Q ! k t 3 h • c,Q `I ~ °aQ E tir< ~ - which would help address the affordable to moderate-income housing needs of the community. As proposed, the 34-unit project would tentatively be housed in five (5), two-story structures. (Figures 3-6) The structures would be approximately 25 feet in height, which would be considerably less than the 35-foot height limit of the existing Single-family Residential (RS-10) zone. The units would vary between 2, 3, and 4 bedrooms. As proposed, there would be eight (8), 2-bedroom units; twenty-one (21), 3- bedroom units; and five (5), 4-bedroom units. The actual mix of units, however, may vary from the proposed plans to respond to market demand and related considerations as the project nears construction. Each unit would have 2 covered parking stalls for a total of 68 parking stalls. While not shown on the proposed site plan, there would also be adequate space for 2 more stalls behind the garaged stalls, which could be used for guest parking. Additionally, there would be at least 6 additional off-street parking at the end of the driveways for the larger or western site, and 2 more for the eastern site. Extensive landscaping is proposed for the project, particularly at the rear and front boundaries of both sites. For both sites, the proposed front yard setback is 25 feet, which allows for a 5-foot future road widening along Laukapu Street. The setback at the rear is proposed to be 20 feet. The side yards for the larger or western site would be a minimum of 10 feet. The smaller or eastern site would have a 10-foot setback at the northern edge and 20+ feet along the southern boundary. A single-driveway access is proposed to serve each of the sites. B. Project Timetable and Cost The applicants intend to secure the balance of the required permits and begin making the appropriate improvements immediately upon securing all development permits. Hopefully, this can be done by early next year, with occupancy by the end of 2007. The applicants estimate the cost of the proposed on-site and related improvements to be in excess of $8 million. IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. State Land Use 2 - to r r~ ~ ~f.. .P ys ?yy , i ~ v ~ li + ~n ~ M Ono ~ . +r nI ~z ltl m ; , + v .7 2 IRg- in p ~ m i s 9+l trp ' . x 1 • i- 2 I z MORN m m O ~I z / ¦ yy a{: Ted ,.;i k 4 t gyp, ss LAUKAPU VILLAS #$a~~ 737, 740, 764 IAUKAPU AVENUE, NkO HAWAII n 1 a TMI(- 137 2 - 2 - 36 • 102, 103 and 60 ;i w u _ li.l e _ Figure 3 - f a Im v VIII Pg I LAUKAPU AVENUE °i y ~ TW a l l 3 y i a u a 1 qJ l fig w LAUKAPU VILLAS 737, 740, 784 LAUKAPU AVENUE, H0.0 HAWAB n R TMK, (3) 2 - 2 - 38 -102,103 and 80 Bi re 4 j;11 ij _ 1 1 I 1 RPg g s z @s i;Z ; p s Q I eD a c = ~ r 1 "Ids i ur 3 ia s s - e € ~ ~ ms s s Imu > ~S I a a a a Z 9 I- ' II 1 I ~ iI '7 LM II 1 . 1 i 1 1 a M4 Ka eh pY4 b LAUKAPU AVENUE lit M1 Mr 1 Mr MY M'f MV I h Mr My Mr MIY Mr My My Mr 1 I I: :I I' wu 32 p4 q< M< I I I I fl, 'l p PRMtl Nn~ R MmCw9e>W~ f~ O e MIN x 4 LAUKAPU VILLAS as 797, 740, 754 LAUKAPU AVENUE, HILO HAWAII h TMK- (9)2-2-98-102,1nd 60 S I~ Figure ~ $ j;1i - ixo.:y: rvpsalai,\uaa xd~ xm\d»\.neeb\aA+s va (wn uv q...}ay ue.. q m - m:xs . - 3u . ,Z CC 0 0$ 3~ 9 0 r , I m q 5 ~ m Y A .O a v _ 8 I 4 A R xo'-C u'-V sf-Y £ z 4m ~ m r , tt,1x Z co Z $j~ a~ tt gm g m o D A a r n'-r O O m m of tt 8 m'-o' xs•-0' ss'-0' r-r y I,e}tl Xm~ flr NuM,lO~wl{4w 8 e LAUKAPU VILLAS a 737, 740, 764 LAUKAPU AVENUE, HILO HAWAII N @ TMK• 131 2 - 2 - 36 • 102, 103 and 80 -Figure 6 The subject property is designated Urban. As such, a boundary amendment to cover the requested RM-2.5 zone is not required. B. County General Plan The County General Plan (Section 14-7 - Land Use - Overview) states that "The land use pattern is a broad flexible design intended to uide the direction and quality of future developments in a coordinated and rational manner. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map indicates the general location of various land use in relation to each other." (emphasis added). As such, it is clear that the LUPAG map is a broad brush map and was not intended to be specifically measurable, as with the case of a zoning map. Given that background, it can be interpreted that the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map designates the site Medium Density. This guide map is suggesting that this general area to be appropriate for Medium Density uses. Accordingly, a General Plan amendment to the LUPAG map would also not be required. It should be noted that the Planning Director-initiated interim amendments include some changes to the House Lot area. One of the changes suggests the expansion of the Medium Density area east of the subject area. (Figure 7) It should be noted that with the advance computer graphics system, the LUPAG map has made properties specifically measurable. Thus, some measure of admonition needs to be exercised in the use and interpretation of the LUPAG map, lest it functions more as a zoning rather than a LUPAG map. This appropriate thought process of the General Plan LUPAG map was made in the determination of an Industrial, rather than Medium Density designation on the LUPAG map for a property located on the northwestern comer of Kanoelehua Avenue and Kuawa Street. Had the "zoning" map approach being used, that property could not have been interpreted Industrial. A similar thought process here could conclude that this site is Medium Density and not Industrial. Relative to the Medium Density designation, the General Plan allows consideration for "Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions (3-story commercial,• residential - up to 35 units per acre." The requested zoning and planned uses would be consistent with this designation. 3 Print Date : October 20. 2005 N Waiakea Houselots W E LEGEND g W Conservation High Density Urban Industrial Medium Density Urban Industrial to Medium Open Area Density Urban B-5 ® Proposed High Density Urban Proposed Medium Density Urban Medium Density Urban to High Density Urban B-6 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Miles S. Hilo - 4 Rowe 7 C. Hilo Community Development Plan The Community Development Plan (CDP) attempts to further define the General Plan and serves as a guide for decision-makers. It was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1975, over 25 years ago. Although reviewed by the County Council, the CDP was never adopted. The CDP's Land Use Concept map identifies a RS-10 designation for this area. Although the proposed use is denser, the residential concept of this project is still being retained. Notwithstanding the technical inconsistency, however, it should be noted that since the Hilo CDP was prepared, the General Plan has been amended three (3) times, and much has occurred in the way of development in Hilo and its outlying areas. Accordingly, some of the planning assumptions reflected in the CDP are obsolete. An updated CDP would be timely. Absent the availability of a relevant intermediary planning document, one must rely only on the General Plan LUPAG map and policies. In the end, the General Plan is more critical, as the County Charter requires all zone changes to be consistent with it. C. County Zoning The County zoning of the requested area is Single-family Residential (RS-10). If the Multiple-family Residential (RM-2.5) request were approved, all related land use and development codes such as Plan Approval, parking, landscaping, fire, ADA, and the like would be complied with by the applicants. D. Other Permitting Considerations The site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required. However, as noted earlier, other construction-related permits would still be required. These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Plan Approval, grading permit, building permit, Department of Health clearances, UIC, and the like. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. General Description This rezoning request involves a project that consists of 2 non- 4 contiguous sites. The project is bisected by Laukapu Street. The site on the western side of Laukapu Street consists of 67,500 square feet. It is rectangular in shape, with a width of 300 feet and a depth of 225 feet. The other site is also rectangular in shape, with a width of 100 feet and a depth of 229 feet. That parcel, located on the eastern side of Laukapu Street, consists of 22,900 square feet. The larger site has a single-family dwelling structure that is currently being used for storage by one of the applicants. Although there is a small lawn, for the most part the site is cleared and graveled. The smaller site has a single-family residence that is currently being rented on a month to month basis. The landscaping on that site is typical of this area, being fully improved with a lawn and a scattering of flowering and ornamental plants and trees. B. Climate, Soil and Topography According to the State Commission on Water Resource Management, the nearest rain gauge in this area is the Hilo Airport. The rainfall data of this gauge notes that over the past 37 years, the annual median rainfall for this area was 131.1 inches. The wetter months tend to occur between October through April. The average daily temperature ranges from a minimum of 61 degrees to a maximum of 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind patterns are generally trade winds (easterly) during the day and westerly or mountain winds during the evenings. The elevation of the subject site is approximately twenty (20) feet above mean sea level. It is fairly flat. There are no perceptible topographic or geologic constraints on the subject site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service) Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating designates this site Keaukaha Series (rKFD), which is extremely rocky muck, well drained, thin organic soils overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard slight. Because the site is part of a built up urban area, the University of Hawaii Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating map does not classify this site and immediate surrounding areas. Likewise, the site is not classed under the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system. 5 Thus, the State's classification system does not recognize this site as being agriculturally important. C. Natural Hazards 1. Drainage The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the subject site Zone X, areas outside of 500-year flood. There are no existing drainage ways on the site. Nonetheless, as there will be an added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, there may be an issue relating to potential increased run-off. In that event, drywell(s) or similar type of accommodations will be implemented, subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works and State Department of Health via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit process. As required by the County, all added surface water will be contained on site and not directed to any of the adjoining properties. With the proposed on-site drainage improvements, and since none of the proposed improvements will occur within any Floodway (AE) designated area, all potential drainage and/or flooding issues could be reasonably addressed and mitigated. 2. Tsunami Hazard Although the elevation of the site is about 20 feet, given its distance from the nearest shoreline (1± miles), it is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Thus, there should be little or no threat from high waves. 3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the subject site as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, on a scale of ascending risk, 9 to 1. This designation applies to all of Hilo. There is very little that can be done to protect structures and improvements on the site from lava flows. Relative to protection of life, however, this would be achieved through the evacuation routes and warning systems provided by the County Civil Defense agency. 6 The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4, according to the County Building Code. As such, all structures built on the site will have to meet with the more restrictive seismic hazard structural requirements of the Building Code. D. Fauna Resources Although there was no professional survey conducted of the faunal resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that rare or endangered faunal resources are likely to be found within or proximate to the subject site. This is due to the already developed state of the subject area and its immediate surrounding area. Nonetheless, due to the semi-developed state of this area, the faunal resources should be somewhat typical of other developed areas. One may thus find bird species such as the Spotted Dove, Japanese White-eye, House Finch, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other animals like rats and mongoose are also common. None of these are endangered animals. As such, it is unlikely that the development of this property would cause any adverse faunal impacts. E. Flora Resources Due to the residential use of a portion of the site and the recent clearing of the other, there was no commissioned botanical survey. The remaining vegetation on the smaller site, however, consists of the ti-leaf plant, plumeria tree, money tree, and the like. These native plants are prevalent in this area and other disturbed habitats in Hawaii. None of the native or introduced plants were considered threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. F. Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Resources Likewise, no commissioned archaeological survey of the site was made. The recent clearing of one of the sites and the continued residential use of the other make it less likely to find any archaeological features on either of those sites. Nonetheless, during the course of constructing this project, should any unanticipated archaeological features or sites be uncovered, work will cease and the applicants will immediately notify the Planning Department. 7 G. Valued Cultural Resources The recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina" decisions require decision-makers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site and the impact of this project to these resources and practices. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline. As such, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Furthermore, the plants found on the site are all introduced. As such, the vegetation should neither be endangered nor threatened. One of the applicants, having lived on one of the site for over 40 years, commented to the author that he has not observed any native Hawaiians gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site. As such, it would appear very unlikely that the site would serve such purpose today and/or in the recent past. Nonetheless, if legitimate claims are made, the applicants will make the appropriate access accommodations. Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have any potential adverse impacts relating to native Hawaiian cultural and historical resources and/or practices. H. Water and Coastal Resources The subject site is located over a mile from the coastline. As such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of drainage systems from the site should not be significant. Being a non-coastal property, no coastal access will be affected. The proposed development will connect to the County's sewer line that fronts Laukapu Street. Thus, this should further reduce potential adverse groundwater or nearshore water impacts resulting from this project. Further as noted earlier, prior to the installation or use of any drywells on the site to address on-site drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC permit from the State will be taken. At that time, impacts to water and coastal resources will be carefully examined. 8 I. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust The existing background ambient noise level in this area is wind, foliage, birds, and the like. However, the significant manmade noise is influenced by the traffic associated along both Laukapu Street and Lanikaula Street. With the traffic, the noise level is moderately high, averaging more than 50 Ldn. To mitigate this noise to the project, the applicant plans to install appropriate landscaping along that portion of the property that fronts Laukapu Street and within the project itself. There will also be short-term noise impacts during the construction phase. To mitigate this impact, the development of this project - particularly the site work - will be limited to daylight hours and on weekdays. Contractors will also be required to comply with established State Department of Health guidelines and standards relating to noise and emission controls. The proposed development should not generate any direct air uaf impacts. As the project itself is not expected to have uses that generate adverse air pollutants, the only discernible air quality impact would be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site. While the added traffic will have an impact to the ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. This is due in part to the higher EPA standards for vehicular air emissions and the prevailing tradewinds. All of the required parking area within the project site will be paved with an all-weather, dust free surface. Landscaping will also be required as part of the Plan Approval requirement. As such, with the exception of minimal construction dust in the beginning, long term dust generated by the project should be insignificant. J. Scenic and Visual Considerations In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or areas listed as scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as a scenic site. However, there were a few examples cited in the Hilo area. The most notable is the backdrop of Mauna Kea and the Hilo Bay. The proposed development would not have any visual impacts on Mauna Kea or Hilo Bay. The view of Mauna Kea in this area is somewhat visible from Laukapu and Lanikaula Streets. However, the view of Mauna Kea from Laukapu Street fronting the site is not visible. Furthermore, given the height of the proposed structure 9 (less than 30 feet) and the height of the mountain, whatever views that may exist along Laukapu and Lanikaula Streets would not be impeded. The view of Hilo Bay is not visible from this area. Thus, with the planned height of the structures and the location of the site in relation to the views of the significant landmarks, the visual impact should not be overly pronounced, if any. VL SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS A. Sufrounding Land Uses The general surrounding land uses in this area are a mixture of low to moderately dense residential and commercial/industrial uses. There are single-family residences immediately adjacent to the north and south of the subject sites. However, there are commercial and light-industrial uses within 500 feet of the subject site at the intersection of Laukapu and Lanikaula Streets. These uses include a medical office on the north side of Lanikaula Street, and a small light industrial/commercial complex on the south side. As is evident on the zoning map, the House Lots area is gradually transforming from an exclusively single-family residential community to a mixture of commercial and residential uses of varying density. In that regard, the requested zoning would be consistent with the evolving mixture of commercial and residential land use pattern in this area. Because this area is in an area of transition, certain measures are needed to allow for this orderly transition. In that regard, the applicants have proposed a project that reflects a residential character. This is proposed to be achieved through the height (less than 30 feet) of the structures, landscaping, and pedestrian improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk) fronting the site. B. Economic Impacts The requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact, as it would provide short-term employment opportunities for those in the construction and related industries. The nature of this project (housing) does not have any direct long- term economic impact. However, it does have an indirect impact by 10 providing the needed social infrastructure - housing - to support developments in East Hawaii. In a sense, this type of project would be analogous to a school, which supports the needs of a growing community. A multiple-family residential zoning would also increase the tax revenues to the County, as opposed to the current single-family residential zoning. However, there could be some real property tax consequences for the single-family residentially- zoned properties adjacent and/or proximate to this area. As the assessed valuation of the subject property rises due to the higher residential use, there could be some fallout to neighboring properties. However, homeowners and/or landowners intent on keeping their property for single-family residential uses would have the option of dedicating their land for those uses. C. Agricultural Impacts The project site has not been used for agricultural purposes for probably over 50 years. None of the surrounding areas appear to have been used agriculturally in the recent past, having been used primarily for residential and other urban type of use. Given the above, the agricultural impacts resulting from this rezoning should be negligible, if at all. VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS A. Road and Traffic Access to the project site will be from Laukapu Street. This street has a right-of-way of 40 feet with a pavement width of 20 feet. The applicants intend to set aside a 5-foot strip fronting the project site to allow for the future widening of Laukapu Street. Furthermore, curb, gutter, and sidewalks will be installed fronting the project site. While there will be additional impacts to the road system in this area, the impact of this 34-unit project should not be overly significant. Laukapu Street is one of several north - south streets in this area. The other streets are Kalanikoa, Hinano, Manono, and Mililani. Manono Street is the dominant cross street and cross-town in this area, as it connects directly to other major cross streets (Kawili, Kekuanaoa, and Kamehameha). Understandably, the traffic lights in this area are at Manono Street. The others north/south streets, including Laukapu Street, provide some cross-street function and II limited cross-town functions. Accordingly, they are less heavily traveled. Accordingly, the traffic impact of this 34-unit residential project on Laukapu Street should not be overly significant. B. Water Water will be secured from the County water line fronting the subject site along Laukapu Street. There are also fire hydrants along this street. C. Wastewater There is a County sewer line fronting the subject site. The project will have its wastewater system connected to this line. D. Solid Waste Solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers who will dispose of the refuse at an approved County landfill, which for the moment would be at the Hilo landfill. There are plans to have the life of this landfill extended. During the course of preparing the land for this project, the applicants intend to retain as much of the material on the property. This should thus minimize disposal at approved disposal sites. This and other waste reduction methods will be employed during the construction phase to minimize disposal. E. Other Government Services As this area is already part of an urban area, it already has access to a number of services. All of the required police, fire, and related services are available. Police protective services are provided from the main station along Kapiolani Street, located less than 3 miles from the site. Within 3 miles of the site, there are 3 fire stations - Waiakea, Central, and Kawailani. Emergency medical and paramedical services are also provided from these stations. The Hilo Medical Center is located approximately 3 miles from the site. This facility is one of 5 licensed hospitals on the island. This residential project is intended to address the low and moderate housing needs of the community. As such, while it is not necessarily growth inducing, it will have school-aged occupants. In that regard, it is noted that the site is proximate to the Waiakea and 12 Hilo High school complexes, both of which are K-12. There is also the Kapiolani Elementary School located within 2 miles of the subject side. There are also a number of public parks within a 2-mile radius. Given the project location, no extension of government services would be required. Further, the existing facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the demand expected from this project F. Other Utilities All other utilities such as telephone and electrical services are available to the site. VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS A. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Lona-Term Productivity The short-term use of the site would probably be the same as the current use, which is residential and storage. These uses will continue until construction begins, which will hopefully be before the end of this year. This project should not result in any significantly adverse short or long-term impacts that cannot be properly mitigated. There will be direct and indirect economic benefits resulting from the construction and implementation of this project. There will be construction jobs created in the short-term. By providing needed housing, this project will have an indirect long-term benefit to the island's economy. Relatedly, the project will generate increased tax revenues that can supplement the State and County's fiscal resources. This project will provide needed housing in an area that would be proximate to places of employment and shopping. The required physical infrastructure - if needed - will be implemented by the applicants to mitigate potential impacts of this project. B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The area of the requested rezoning has already been extensively disturbed. As such, the commitment of natural or other resources (such as botanical and avifaunal) would not appear to be significant. 13 There are no known burials or archaeological sites recommended for preservation on the subject site. Nevertheless, in the event there are inadvertent finds, they will be treated pursuant to acceptable practices and policies of the State. C. Mitigative Measures The applicants intend to provide any required off and on-site infrastructure in conjunction with the development of this project. These will include on-site drainage system, landscaping, water, and wastewater improvements. All of these will be done in conjunction with the permitting and permit implementation phases of this project. Off-site pedestrian-related improvements fronting the project site will also be provided by the applicants. There are no known archaeological features within the project site. Should there be any inadvertent discoveries during any phase of this project, the Planning Department will be noted and appropriate mitigation will be taken before work is resumed. Landscaping will also be incorporated within the project site, as well as along the boundaries. The landscaping would be consistent with the Planning Department's landscaping rules. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 1. No Project Under the status quo alternative, the site would remain in its present single-family residential and storage uses. Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its highest and best use, as envisioned by the General Plan. Relatedly, the opportunity to help the area's housing needs would be loss. 2. Development Based on Existina RS-70 Zoning Under this alternative, the area of the requested zoning could be developed into a maximum of 8 single-family residences. This scenario, however, would neither result in any affordable housing, nor any off-site pedestrian improvements in this area. 3. Alternative Residential Densities Other options could include a higher density single-family or multiple-family residential project, both of which were 14 evaluated by the applicants. The higher density - such as a 90 unit project (RM-1) -was dismissed due to the applicants desire to find something a bit more compatible with the area. A RS-7.5 zoning resulting in 12-15 units were also considered. However, given the infrastructure cost to do the subdivision and the need to pay impact fee and comply with the County's affordable housing policy, the applicants did not feel that that project would be feasible. 4. Evaluation of Alternatives Leaving the property in its current state would not maximize the use of the land and fulfill the housing needs of this area. As noted earlier, although the land could be subdivided based on its existing zoning, the number of needed residential lots or units would be limited. Developing the site into a denser residential project were also evaluated and dismissed. A RM-1 zoning, while financially possible, was felt to be less visually compatible with the neighborhood and create more of a stark impact to an area in transition. A higher single-family residential zoning (RS-7.5) was felt to be financially somewhat unfeasible, given the need to address County impact fee and affordable housing, while having to make all of the subdivision improvements. The requested 34-unit project was felt to have met the above objectives - providing an orderly transition while being somewhat financially feasible. At the same time, this project would be consistent with the County LUPAG map and fulfill other community objectives, such as the need for affordable housing in areas proximate to places of employment and where infrastructure is ready available. In view of the aforementioned, it is felt that none of the alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the requested RM-2.5 zoning alternative. UL REGULATORY ANALYSIS - County and State Land Use Policies A. General Plan LUPAG Map The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive 15 development of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County. As discussed in Chapter IV-13 of this report, the LUPAG map designates the site Medium Density, a designation that allows the requested RM-2.5 zoning. As noted Accordingly, this request would be consistent with the LUPAG map. B. General Plan Policies The requested zoning would also be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Housing and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow: Housing Goals • Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. • Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice • Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people • Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock • Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee-simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals. Policies • Increase rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality, cost, amenity, style and size of housing, especially for low and moderate income households. Land Use Element (Multiple-Residential) Goals • To provide for multiple residential developments that 16 maximizes convenience for its occupants. • To provide for suitable living environments which accommodate the physical, social and economic needs of the island residents. Policies • Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwellings increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. Standards • Areas shall be protected from incompatible uses by transition zones. • Provide adequate access to arterial streets, shopping facilities, schools, employment centers, and other services. • Development shall not be permitted in natural hazard areas unless proper on-site improvements are provided. • Development shall be located in areas where public utilities can be economically provided at a level of adequate to meet the demand for the concentrated service. • Recreational area and/or facilities shall be considered in multiple residential development. Discussion The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan document. For one, it may provide limited short-term economic opportunities largely through the construction of any improvements required for the residential development. Relatedly, longer-term opportunities could be created largely in providing the social support (housing) needed to sustain a strong economy. Furthermore, the project should add sustained revenues to the County and State coffers. The project intends to be energy conscious through the use and/or 17 encouragement of solar energy and design features to take advantage of wind patterns. Maintaining and improving the quality of the environment is important to the success of this project. The General Plan identifies five (5) areas of environmental concerns - air pollution, water quality, soil pollution, solid waste disposal, and noise pollution. As proposed, the project would not be violative of any of those objectives. Aside from vehicular transmission, air pollution associated with the project should be negligible. All wastewater systems would be disposed off in the County's system along Laukapu Street. This should be sufficient to address any potential groundwater or coastal water impacts. If required, a solid waste management plan could be prepared and implemented. Being a residential project, it should not be a noisy one. Any noise-generating facility - such as air conditioners - would be carefully placed to minimize their noise impacts to adjoining properties. The site is not proximate to any floodway. Nonetheless due to project generated water, a drainage system will be designed in a manner to protect the property as well as to minimize the volume of surface runoff generated by this development. The site does not have any archaeological sites. However, work will cease if unanticipated archaeological remains are discovered during the construction phase of this project. Work will resume only after proper clearances from the State and/or County have been received. Being fully disturbed and within an urban environment, the prospects of the site serving as a habitat for rare or endangered plant or animal fife appear remote. As this is a residential project, it will directly fulfill the goals and objectives - as noted above - of the housing element Specifically, the more pertinent goals are: • Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County • Maintain a housing supply which allows a variety of choice • Improve and maintain the quality and affordability of the existing housing stock 18 • Seek sufficient production of affordable rental and fee-simple housing in the County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and individuals The Plan also emphasizes that developments be mindful of an area's natural beauty. In this situation, the project will be developed in a manner where it blends with the existing terrain and enhances the natural environment through the introduction of landscaping. Although the project site is nearly 2 miles from the ocean, it is also separated by other developments from the ocean. As such, the usual coastal resources concern would not be pronounced. There will be no interference with shoreline access. Then, too, by hooking up into the County's wastewater system, impacts to the coastal water should be minimized. There will be little impact to public facilities. Improvements to Laukapu Street fronting the project site will be made, including a curb, gutter and sidewalk section. The water system to the project is already available. All on-site improvements will be constructed by the applicant. Schools and other public facilities are also located proximate to the site, most of them being less than 3 miles away. Finally, in terms of the Land Use element (including the multiple residential), the pertinent goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan note the following: • Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County • The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment • Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need • The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment 19 e In view of the foregoing goals and policies, it is noted that the requested zoning would be consistent with the Medium Density designation of the LUPAG map. It would also be generally compatible with the surrounding area. There are single-family residential and commercial/industrial zonings and uses within % mile from the subject site As the site is within an urban area, there is no Land Study Bureau or ALISH classification. As such, the agricultural or natural resources impact should be negligible, if at all. The property has no topographic or geologic problems that would render the land unusable for the proposed subdivision and activity. C. Zoning If the request were approved, the site would be developed into a multiple-family residential complex. All structures and improvements would be developed consistent with the Zoning Code. No variances from the Code are anticipated. D. Hawaii State Plan Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, outlines the long-range goals and policies of the Hawaii State Plan. Said Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the growth and future long-range development of the State. Pursuant to said requirement, a discussion of the pertinent policies and goals and the project's relationship follows: Goals • A strong, viable economy characterized by stability, diversity, and growth that enables the fulfillment of the needs and expectations of Hawaii's present and future generations • A desired physical environment characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable and natural systems, and uniqueness that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people • Physical, social and economic well-being for individuals and families that nourishes a sense of community responsibility and caring of participation in family life. 20 Discussion The proposed project would achieve these goals. It would provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities for current and future residents of the island; contribute to the island's overall tax base and hence, increase both State and County revenues; and complement and support other economic uses and in turn, contribute to the stability, diversity, and growth of local and regional economies. This short-term employment opportunity would come without adversely affecting the environment. There is no known wildlife or plant life listed as either endangered or threatened on the subject site. Then, too, there are no known significant archaeological features on the site that need to be preserved. Any other inadvertent finds will be addressed pursuant to the requirements of the State DLNR-HPD. Impacts to the surrounding areas would also not be significantly adverse. All required infrastructures will be in place by the applicants and/or other developers prior to occupancy of any portion of the project. These include traffic improvements, and the wastewater and water system. Furthermore, the provision and/or retention of natural landscaped buffers around the perimeter of and selected portions within the project site would also help mitigate any adverse visual and noise impacts to existing and potential neighboring residential properties. G. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Proaram The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program are outlined in Chapter 205a, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The principal goal is to assure the protection and maintenance of the State's coastal resources. Although the entire State falls within the CZM area, the permitting process is geared for those areas proximate to the coast and identified by the County as the Special Management Area. Nonetheless, a general review of a project's consistency to the CZM policies - regardless of its location - must still be made. In that regard, please note the following: The proposed project will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. (Please refer to discussions in Chapters V, VI, and VII). Any effect that may result will be 21 minimized to the extent practicable and will be clearly outweighed by public interest. • The proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the CZM program. Specifically: • there would be no impact to the area's recreational resources. This is not a shoreline property; • the site does not have any known historical resources. Any inadvertent finds will be addressed pursuant to the requirements of the State DLNR-HPD. • the project will not affect any scenic and open space resources; • the coastal ecosystem will not be impacted; • the project will help stabilize employment opportunities by providing the needed housing, and hence furthering the economic uses of the site; • the site is more than 2 miles from the shoreline, and thus there would be no coastal hazard or beach erosion or marine resource impacts; and • public participation will be achieved through the hearings on this request. • The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan and other appropriate regulatory tools, such as the Zoning Code. 22 ` SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant p 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 i- M 7 ~j • Planning • Vadance • Zoning M29 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 - Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Land Use Permits FLiii~i _ • E-mail: sidfuke@verizon.net Emimnmamal Repans i',-i';.. b ..~-,.e~CN•1. iw- April 24, 2006 -L)L Y` r)->34~~F1f! Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Rezoning Request (REZ 06-000035) Ivan Mochida and Lea Aburamen Waiakea House Lots, South Hilo. HI. TMK: 2-2-36: 60.102.103 This is to confirm my discussion with Ms. Phyllis Fujimoto of your staff regarding the subject matter. Your office has interpreted parcel 60 to be designated "Industrial" on the General Plan LUPAG map. The requested multiple-family (RM-2.5) zoning would hence not be consistent with that designation. Although your package of interim General Plan LUPAG amendments recommends this parcel for Medium Density Urban, you have been advised that it would not be appropriate to initiate such a zone change until the amendment is approved by the Council. This matter was discussed with the applicants. The applicants understand the situation and, therefore, respectfully request the deferral of only parcel 60 from further consideration, pending the outcome of your proposed interim amendments to the General Plan. Should the LUPAG map not be changed, then, the remaining portion of this application will be withdrawn. However, if it were amended, we would respectfully request your continued processing of the rezoning of this parcel. Please also note that with or without parcel 60, there should be no change to the project concept or its construction timetable. Thank you very much for your consideration on this matter. SEP 1~ S Y M. FURS Planning Consultant Copy - Ivan Mochida via FAX EXHIBIT 013822 ~~DS)fl8 ~y P~ ' S8 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII PL N,,'; ~ HILO, HAWAII CvUI~I 1' ur Hf;~/ U NT r~ DATE: March 14, 2006 &&"W4&W TO: Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director FROM: - Department of Public Works SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 06-000035) Applicants: Ivan Mochida & Les Aburamen Request: RS-10 to RM-2.5 Tax Map Keys: 2-2-36: 060, 102, & 103 We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated February 14, 2006 and offer the following comments for your consideration. We do not sanction the specific plans submitted with the application as they may be subject to change given specific code and regulatory requirements. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works (DPW). The subject parcels are in an area designated as Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain (may include areas with unknown flood or drainage hazards). The Zoning Map (Ordinance No. 187) classifies Laukapu Street as a collector. It has an existing right-of-way width of 40 feet. We recommend improvements to the entire frontages along Laukapu Street consisting of, but not limited to, pavement widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, and any required utility relocation, meeting with the approval of the DPW. m The improvements shall be located within the future road widening setback as established by the Planning Department. K Streetlights and traffic control devices shall be installed as required by the Traffic Division, UJ Department of Public Works. The applicants shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. Questions may be referred to Kelly Gomes of our Engineering Division at ext. 8327. ^ ~~rtv w M7w' Har Kim Lawrence K. Mahuna h ay or 1 6 FEB Am in 3~{ Police Chief PLAT^lld i`;;; FM :NT Harry S. Kubojiri aiC1U*flY (,;;--{AWAII Deputy Police Chief County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-8869 February 21, 2006 TO HRISTOPH-kRJ. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR hi. FROM : J MES M. DAY7SSISTANT POLICE CHIEF, AREA I OPERATIONS SUBJECT : CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 06-000035) APPLICANT: IVAN MOCHIDA & LES ABURAMEN REQUEST: RS-10 TO RM-2.5 TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-36:60,102,103 Staff, upon reviewing the provided documents and visiting the proposed site, does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. LW/Ili EXHIBIT 0 11. 3 "t. Al "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" Harry Kim (({{((~~pp FEB ` Darryl J. Oliveira Mayor 2UVU ICU 2 Z f 1 f Z Fire Chief Desmond K. Wary PLAN["J`,1',:; WE CvUN i Y OF iiAWRlI Deputy Fire Chief County of 7"abiail FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street a Suite 103 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808)961-8297 • Fax (808) 961-8296 February 17, 2006 TO: CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 06-000035) APPLICANT: IVAN MOCHIDA & LES ABURAMENT REQUEST: RS-10 to RM-2.5 TAX MAP KEY 2-2-36:60,102,103 In regards to the above-mentioned Change of Zone application, the following shall be in accordance: Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads "Sec. 10.207. (a) GeneraL Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the fast story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. "2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). EXHIBIT ~Pfficoo Hawaii Comity is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Christopher J. Yuen February 17, 2006 Page 2 "3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire-fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief. " (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. "(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. "(j) Grade. The gradient for afire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief." (15%) Christopher J. Yuen February 17, 2006 Page 3 "(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301(c): "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. "Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207. YL OLIVEIRA ire Chief JCP:Ipc +tv •r Troy M. Kindred Harry Kim '069 APR 20 PM ? ? 29 " Administrator Mayor F~f ri`~.li-.;'„ Lanny T. Nakano V A/117 T Assistant Administrator CVUiJTY ` V t`1.-lAVNI OcaunfiJJ o nfunii CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY 920 Ululani Street • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-3958 (808) 935-0031 • Fax (808) 935-6460 TO: Christopher Yuen, Director, Department of Planning Attention: Norman Hayashi FROM: Troy Kindred, Administrator -\Z_ DATE: March 14, 2006 SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000035) Applicant: Ivan Mochida & Les Aburamen Request: RS-10 to RM-2.5 =fax Map Key: 2-2-036:060, 102, 103 We have reviewed the above application in regards to hazards and wish to transmit the following comments: • The Applicant needs to develop an Emergency Plan that addresses all hazards, including hurricane, fire, and man-caused disasters. • The Applicant should consider redesigning the project to include another property exit. The present building and parking lot design would hinder emergency vehicles from accessing units and conducting fire suppression operations. • This area is prone to flooding during periods of heavy rains. The Applicant needs to clearly demonstrate that the surface runoff generated by the development does not compound the flooding problems. If you have any questions, please call me at 935-0031 ©:.3654 EXHIBIT Hawai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer O7 WAIfRJ 2CD6 N 23 R9 13 0-1 041. GepF 4.1 PL.''vf~!:Jii i a r-;r..T~. ENT 3; DEPARTMEk4FTi ITF W,,4'rg,,4VA'PPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII yf~Gf NAW,\\•ap 345 KEKUANAO'A STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • FAX (808) 961-6657 March 15, 2006 TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 06-000035) REQUEST: RS-10 TO RM-2.5 APPLICANTS - IVAN MOCHIDA AND LES ABURAMEN TAX MAP KEY 2-2-036:060,102, AND 103 We have reviewed the subject application for the proposed Change of Zone and have the following comments. Based on the prevailing water situation in the area, water can be made available from the 6-inch waterline along Laukapu Street. Pursuant to the Department's Rules and Regulations, a water commitment may be issued for 31 additional units for the proposed 34-unit townhouse project. The required water commitment deposit is $150.00 for each additional unit for a total of $4,650.00. Remittance of $4,650.00 from the applicant is requested as soon as possible so that a water commitment may be formally issued. The commitment will be in writing with specific conditions and effective dates stated. Please keep in mind that this letter shall not be construed as a water commitment. In other words, unless a water commitment is officially effected, water availability is subject to change depending on the water situation. For the applicant's information, should the subject change of zone be approved the development will be subject to the following requirements: 1. Construct the necessary water system improvements, which shall include, but not be limited to, service laterals that will accommodate an appropriate sized meter to each lot and to cut and plug the existing services. 2. Remittance of the prevailing facilities charge balance, which is subject to change, of $170,500.00. This is due and payable upon completion of the construction of the water system improvements and prior to water being granted. EXHIBIT The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. to file A complaml 01 diScrunination. Dante USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W. Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 202509420 Oi call(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD( Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Page 2 March 15, 2006 3. Comply with all other applicable policies and requirements of the Department's Rules and Regulations. Noncompliance may be cause for voiding this water commitment, at which time availability will be subject to change in accordance with the prevailing water system conditions, policies, and Rules and Regulations. Should there be any questions, please call Ms. Shari Komata of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 252. Sincerely yours, Milton D. Pavao, P.E. Manager SHK:sco copy - Mr. Sidney Fuke Mr. Ivan Mochida a~ ` JN(YJOi II7~~ Barbara Har OR 3 AM in 05 Bell Mayor ` Director PU1i~C'~:.1--~..-, i~~i',t\t iTMENT •ra of N~~ Nelson Ho C06 ' Y 0r [-V\WAJl Deputy Director C60unfv ofcKaluaff DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 210 a Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 (808) 9614083 a Fax (808) 961-8086 MEMORANDUM Date : February 14, 2006 To : CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Plannigg Illrector From: BARBARA BELL, DirectoP Subject: Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000035) Applicant: Ivan Mochida & Les Aburamen Request: RS-10 to RM-2.5 TMK: 2-2-36:60,102,103 We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following recommendations: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: WASTEWATER COMMENTS: ( ),No comments ( Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Require Council Resolution to approve sewer extension in accordance with Section 21-26.1 of the Hawaii County Code. Complete D.E.M. Sewer Extension Application. ( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Other: TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMENTS: ? SOLID WASTE COMMENTS: ( ) No comments (~C) Commercial operations, State and Federal agencies, religious entities and non-profit organizations may not use transfer stations for disposal. Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be responsibly reused to its fullest extent. (X) Ample room should be provided for implementation of a recycling program. (--,k) Greenwaste may be transported to the green waste sites located at the Kailua and Hilo transfer stations, or other suitable diversion programs. Construction and demolition waste is prohibited at all County Transfer Stations. ( ) Submit Solid Waste Management Plan in accordance with attached guidelines. ( ) Existing Solid Waste Management Plan is to be followed. Provide update to the department on current status. ( ) Other: cc: SWD,WWD,TSS EXHIBIT 8009 011566 OMYY OI ,,,k r Harry Kim 40 FEB 27 Edwin S. Taira Mavor Housing Adminisn'amr M.' =~-`SENT OF CvUNTY C)j HAWAI (COUIItp Of 3~4W4,, OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 50 wailuka Drive . Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-2464 V/TT (808) 961-8379 . FAX (808) 961-8685 February 27, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Yuen, Director Planning Department FROM: Edwin S. Taira jr- .4" ~.Housing Administrator SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000035) Request: Single Family Residential (RS-10) to Multiple Family Residential (RM-2.5) Applicant: Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen Tax Map Key: 2-2-036:050, 102, 103 Affordable housing conditions, pursuant to Hawaii County Code, Chapter 11, Housing, are applicable to the request. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. EXHIBIT_ 1049paam 9 EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY 'HAWAI' I COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROVIDER AND EMPLOYER' SEi~ h~ v B9g qLINDA LINGLE CHIVOME LEINAALA FLIKINO, M.D. GOVERNOR Q 9 g DIRECTOR OF HEALTH 206 FEB 22 ll~ _ 33 J ~GUi~iY" vF Hr1VUAii STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2006 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Larry K. Shiro Acting District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000035) Applicant: Ivan Mochida & Les Aburamen Request: RS-10 to RM-2.5 Tax Map Key: 2-2-36:60,102,103 The applicant would need to meet the requirements of our Department of Health Air Pollution Rules, Chapter 60. 1, Title 11, State of Hawaii for fugitive dust control. If there is need to discuss these requirements, please contact our Clean Air Branch staff at Ph. 933-0401. Underground Injection Systems (Ph. 586-4258) which receive wastewater or storm runoffs from the proposed development need to address the requirements of Chapter 23, Hawaii State Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, "Underground Injection Control." As a demolition and renovation activity, the Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 61, National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Asbestos NESHAP Revision; Final Rule, November 20, 1990, requires the owner/operator to inspect the affected areas to determine whether asbestos is present. Under the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Response Act (ASHARA), all persons who conduct inspections (i.e. perform sampling and assessment of suspected asbestos-containing material) in schools or public and commercial buildings must have an active Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response (AHERA) certificate-of-training from an accredited training provider. Under NESHAP's regulation, the owner/operator would be required to file with the Department of Health, Noise, Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Branch, an Asbestos Demolition/Renovation notification 10 working days prior to demolition of each building or the disturbance of regulated EXHIBIT Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 February 16, 2006 asbestos-containing material. All regulated quantities and types of asbestos-containing materials would be subject to emission controls, proper collection, containerizing, and disposal at a permitted landfill. Under a renovation project, if the amount of friable or non-friable material rendered friable is less than 160 square feet, the project would not be subject to the NESHAP requirements. However, the persons who conduct activities related to abatement and/or disturbances to friable material greater than three square feet or three linear feet, must have an active AHERA certificate of training from an accredited provider for that specific discipline (i.e., project designer, abatement supervisor and worker). If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Noise, Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Branch at (808) 586-5800. The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of the subject document on February 15, 2006. The CWB has reviewed the limited information contained in the subject document and offers the following comments: In accordance with HAP, Sections 11-55-04 and 11-55-34.05, the Director of Health may require the submittal of an individual permit application or a Notice of Intent (NOI) for general permit coverage authorized under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). a. An application for an NPDES individual permit is to be submitted at least 180 days before the commencement of the respective activities. The NPDES application forms may also be picked up at our office or downloaded from our website at http://www.liawaii. gov/health/environmental/water/cleanwater/forms/indi v- index.html. b. An NOI to be covered by an NPDES general permit is to be submitted at least 30 days before the commencement of the respective activity. A separate NOI is needed for coverage under each NPDES general permit. The NOI forms may be picked up at our office or downloaded from our website at: http://www.hawaii. gov/health/environmental/water/cleanwater/forms/genl- index.html. i. Storm water associated with industrial activities, as defined in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 122.26(b)(14)(i) through 122.26(b)(14)(ix) and 122.26(b)(14)(xi). [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix B] Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 February 16, 2006 ii. Construction activities, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that result in the disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre of total land area. The total land area includes a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules under a larger common plan of development or sale. An NPDES permit is required before the commencement of the construction activities. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix C] iii. Discharges of treated effluent from leaking underground storage tank remedial activities. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix D] iv. Discharges of once through cooling water less than one (1) million gallons per day. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix E] V. Discharges of hydrotesting water. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix F] vi. Discharges of construction dewatering effluent. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix G] vii. Discharges of treated effluent from petroleum bulk stations and terminals. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix H] viii. Discharges of treated effluent from well drilling activities. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix I] ix. Discharges of treated effluent from recycled water distribution systems. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix J] X. Discharges of storm water from a small municipal separate storm sewer system. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix K] xi. Discharges of circulation water from decorative ponds or tanks. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix L] Hawaii Revised Statutes, Subsection 342D-50(a) requires that "[n]o person, including any public body, shall discharge any water pollutants into state waters, or cause or allow any water pollutant to enter state waters except in compliance with this chapter, rules adopted pursuant to this chapter, or a permit or variance issued by the director." Christopher J. Yuen Page 4 February 16, 2006 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Alec Wong, Supervisor of the Engineering Section, CWB, at (808) 586-4309. Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control." a. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules. b. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. C. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at 933-0917. W ORD:REZ06-000035.my SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant map 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 1 lffq 6 PM 1? 19 • Planning • Variance • Zoning • Enviro SuMvision • Land Use Permits Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 ~ p 1p • Environmental Reports E-mail: sidtuke@verizon.net PAENT COUNT`,' OF HAWA I March 3, 2006 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Rezoning Request (REZ 06-000035) Ivan Moehida and Les Abummen Wainkea House Lots, South Hilo, HI. TMK: 2-2.36: 60,102,103 Thank you for providing me with agency comments to date regarding the subject application. We note that the Police Department did not anticipate any significant traffic or public safety concerns. Relative to the Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD), the applicant is aware of the affordable housing requirement. As such, it intends to satisfy this requirement on-site. Should the rezoning be approved, a specific affordable housing program will be submitted to the Housing Agency and/or OHCD, as the case may be, for its review and approval. We trust that the above adequately addresses the comments. If not or if there are additional comments or questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sia~erel SIDNEY M. kU M Planning Consultant Copy - Ivan Mochida w/ enclosures via FAX EXHIBIT 01:1G42 SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant Monte 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 t p r itfd I y. 31 • Planning - Variance - Zmirg j Telephone: (808) 969-1522 - Fax: (808) 969-7996 - Subdivision - Land Use Permits P'L4,N VR t_j ~"r -J MENT-Environmental Reports April 6, 2006 COUN lY U NA~'VAJI Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWATI 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Rezoning Request (REZ 06-000035) Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen Waiakea House Lots, South Hilo, HI, TMK: 2-2-36: 60,102,103 Thank you for providing me with additional agency and public comments to date regarding the subject application. Relative to the comments of the Department of Public Works, please note the following: 1. As noted, the subject site is designated Zone X, areas outside of the 500- year floodplain) on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Nonetheless, there will be additional drainage resulting from the development of this project. Accordingly, the applicant will develop and implement a drainage plan in conjunction with the building permit process. The plan will conform to appropriate County requirements, which include containing all development-generated runoff on-site. 2. Access to Laukapu Street will be limited to a single location for both sites, as reflected in the preliminary site plan. The access improvements will be constructed in accordance with Chapter 22, County Streets, Hawaaz i County Code). 3. The applicant is aware, as with other rezonings in this area, that curb, gutter, and sidewalks have been required along the frontage of the affected property. In that sense, coupled with the interest to make this area more pedestrian friendly, the applicant intends to comply with said requirement meeting with the approval of the DPW - Engineering Division in conjunction with the development of this project. These will also include the installation of the appropriate streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the DPW - Traffic Division. The applicant acknowledges that a 5-foot wide strip fronting the subject properties will be relinquished to accommodate these improvements. EXHIBIT Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director April 6, 2006 Page 2 As noted and/or required by the Deoartment of Environmental Mang the project will connect to the County sewer line fronting Laukapu Street. Relative to solid waste, the larger mauka properties have already been cleared. There is a single-family dwelling on the smaller makai portion, however. In clearing this site, much of the . material (particularly the plant material) will be ground, compacted, and reused as fill for the property. Some will have to be disposed off at a County authorized landfill. Finally, the Department of Water Sum) noted that water could be made available from an existing 6-inch line along Laukapu Street. The other requirements, such as payment of the required water commitment and facilities charge, service laterals, and the like, will be complied with during the subsequent permitting and/or construction phases of this project. To date, I also received a copy of three public letters on this application. I will provide a separate response to these concerns. We trust that the above adequately addresses the comments. If not or if there are additional comments or questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. ncTU SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy - Ivan Mochida w/ enclosures via FAX March 15, 2006 Lloyd & Patricia Nekoba 729 Laukapu Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Council Chairperson, Stacy Higa: There is a proposed plan to build a 34-Unit townhouse complex on the 700 block of Laukapu Street, Hilo, Hawaii. We believe this a poor and shortsighted use of the property without consideration of the environmental and infrastructure impact of the existing property and surrounding neighborhood. The proposal describes a 34-unit townhouse complex, which calls for ten affordable units across the street from a 24 unit complex. The plan is for 2/3 bedroom units. Conceivably, at a conservative estimate, one might calculate at least 68 cars per two adults in a unit. The area does not have sidewalks and adequate drainage capability. Currently, water already pools at each end of the block between Lanikaula and Leilani Streets with no plans in the near future to improve drainage in the Waiakea Houselots area in which Laukapu is located. The problems the construction of this townhouse would create are listed in part below: • Severe traffic problems of anticipated additional 70-90 cars; • Unsafe conditions for pedestrians and auto traffic; • Unsafe conditions for pedestrians and auto traffic on narrow streets bordering Manono Street to Kanoelehua.highway; • Unsafe conditions at the busy intersections on Leilani (unstriped street crossing to the county dump) and Kekuanoa Street (access to the airport). • increased noise levels; • Unacceptable population density level for this area. An informal neighborhood survey indicates that at least 75% of other nearby residents are not in favor of multiple unit construction. This a single family residential area. The Council must consider a larger perspective as well, which is critical to all Waiakea Houselots. That is, WHAT IS THE MASTER PLAN FOR WAIAKEA HOUSELOTS? What other improvements is the County prepared to include if it allows permission for such `overbuilding' and increased density? Designated as a mixed use properties, it behooves the Council to provide a future planning document to keep its citizen members aware of plans for improvement and EXHIBIT t'' growth. This should not be a piecemeal, jigsaw effort, and not `spot' zoning for the community or neighborhood, here or anywhere in the greater Hilo proper. Permitting the construction of this proposed townhouse complex will be a glaring example of poor planning and lack of vision on the part of the Council. Your due consideration of the proposed permit request to consider the impact on the Waiakea Houselots area in general and Laukapu Street specifically, is appreciated. In all good conscience, you must do your homework and ask serious questions about the reasonableness of the proposed townhouse project. dSincerely, t. Lloyd and Patncia Nekoba Cc: Hawaii County Council Members Hawaii County Planning Commission From: Hugh R. Grossman To: Hawaii County Planning Dept Date: 3/191106 Time: 16:32:51 Page 1 of 1 Fax To Hawaii County Manning tlepartalkM 3119/2006 961-8742 1., 1. -_WvM Page 1/1 From Pat Grossman < pgrossma@hawaii.edu > 732 and 728 Kalanikoa Street, Hilo, HI 96720 Subject Questions About Rezoning Request (RS-10 to RM-2.5) Applicants: Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen TMK: 2-2-36: 60, 102, 103 Good morning, Just wondering if the density of this proposed project is too high for the location. (1) Approximately 136 individuals will be added to the neighborhood if all 34 units are completed as planned. (2) The units will be in the middle of the block, not at the end of the street (Lanikaula) where the added noise and additional traffic might be better accommodated. Since the proposed apartment structures will be in the middle of the block, and bounded by private residences, is it possible for the Planning Department to require the developers to put up a six-foot chain link fence around the perimeters to mitigate egress by children and pets? If these units will be sold in fee, are the developers responsible/required to state their policies about the use and storage of pesticides and herbicides on the properties to each of the buyers? Will this information be made available to the public? If the developers will retain ownership and rent the properties, will a resident manager be hired? Will this information be made available to the public? If these concerns/questions should to be sent to another department, please let me know. Thanks. EXHIBIT ().IZ ,73 3 2906 MAR 21 ^m 2 18 March 15, 2006 Mr. Stacy Higa, Council Chairperson CCUN fY Or I-it A/AII Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 209 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Higa: The first time we became aware of this rezoning application by Ivon Mochida and Leslie Aburamen, TMK (3) 2-2-36-102,103,60 from single family dwelling to medium density multi family dwelling was when we saw a sign on each of the properties on March 6.,2006. Historically, like the many houses in the houselots area, the property and house at 757 Laukapu Street have been in our family for over 75 years and we still consider it home since we were all raised in the Houselots community and still maintain the property and house and frequently return to stay in the house. One of us even has plans to return to Hilo to retire and live peacefully on the property since it has always been an area of convenience and more importantly, a quiet and tranquil place of single family dwellings. We have been able to live in this lifestyle in the past and feel we still have a right to continue to live like this as it was intended to be from the beginning which is from the 1930's. We as property owners at 747 and 757 Laukapu Street are extremely disappointed that this development on the 700th block of Laukapu might soon take place. We are not against urbanization and progress and are aware of the housing shortage on the Island. We are against this type of development in the Waiakea Houselots neighborhood and have the following concerns: 1. Flooding - A very real and major concern because we are presently and have been since the late 1990's personally experiencing flooding on our property at 757 Laukapu Street. This flooding problem began only after the development at the corner of Lanikaula and Laukapu Street where there is more concrete and sidewalks in only certain areas and less natural soil to absorb the water. This results in surface water run-off originating from the corner of Lanikaula and Laukapu Streets, flowing down Laukapu Street and then onto our driveway which is the 'lowest" point along the way. This water then accumulates on the side of our house which is 3 feet below grade and most recently rises to a dangerously close level to the steps leading to the basement. If it reaches our basement which is a living quarters the area will completely flood, also. Although we have communicated with officials from the County Public Works Department, beginning in 1999, making them aware of this problem, the County has yet to provide and install better drainage to alleviate this flooding which has worsened over the years due to poor road drainage. We are extremely fearful that this problem will compound if the development across our houses occurs which will result again in more concrete and sidewalks (only in the area fronting the development) with less natural grass to absorb water run-off since the Waiakea Houselots, according to Bruce McClure of the Public Works Department, is known to have lots of underground layers of rocks with little soil to support good drainage. 2. Lack of proper Infrastructure - In particular the narrow roads. The roads might be better paved than our "growing up" days but it is still as narrow as it was in the 1950's. The addition of higher density units will result in a drastic increase in people and cars leading to street parking problems and traffic congestion on the 700 block of Laukapu Street which is already a heavily used thoroughfare to and from the EXHIBIT ®122^41 industrial area ( E.Kuwili Street). The roads adjacent to Laukapu are also very narrow. The increase in traffic on such narrow roads with grassy shoulders present an extremely hazardous condition for vehicles as well as pedestrians as many of the old folks still use the streets to take their daily walks, just as we do whenever we are back. 3. Pollution - The development will certainly change our peaceful neighborhood to one of more noise and air pollution seven days a week, 24 hours a day. 4. Security - Anytime density increases in a small area such as this type of older neighborhood, safety issues are of major concern. Given the dark streets at night and the mixture of higher density with single family dwellers who are mainly elderly, the potential for the health and safety of the surrounding areas are at risk. 5. Spot zoning - This spot zoning will only serve the interest of the developers at the expense of the neighborhood. This would result in property being less desirable due to the possible flooding from water run off, unsafe conditions due to heavier traffic, increase in noise in an otherwise tranquil neighborhood and poor infrastructure that definitely cannot withstand such an increase in population. In light of all of these concerns we are requesting to see the Master Plan for the area. If there is one, it still has not been presented to our community and should have been open to discussion before these changes were put into place. Having a vision on what might need to be accomplished or change in the future is one thing but taking a step back and looking at the history and what presently exists in the area should be of greater priority. Please, first and foremost consider the impact of these drastic changes on the lives and property of what is presently there. We are against this re-zoning and look to you to support our position. We have to live and face these problems on a daily basis and do not feel that we should be burdened with the above just for the profits of a developer who will not be living in the area. Sincerely, Victoria Saito Abe and Clyde T. Abe Miriam Saito Hamakawa Patria~ Sait Toyama LiLi 'a ak CC: Hart' Kim, Mayor of the County of Hawaii Christopher Yuen, Planning Director, County of Hawaii Hawaii County Planning Commission Members of the Hawaii County Council e - N SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 L • Subdivision -dance • Zoning Subdi • vision • Land Use Permits Telephone: 808 969-1522 • Fax: 808 969-7996 E-mail: sidfuke@verizon.net coU Y O HAWAII April 11, 2006 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Rezoning Request (REZ 06-000035) Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen Waiakea House Lots, South Hilo, HI, TMK: 2-2-36: 60,102,103 Thank you for providing me with a copy of written public comments (Abe, et al; Grossman; and Nekoba) to date regarding the subject application. We would like to use this means to respond to the comments. In sum, the concerns appear to focus around infrastructure (drainage and roadway); quality of life (security, noise, and density); and the need for a master plan. Before responding to the concerns, however, I believe it is important to note that these island-born and raised applicants are not "developers" in the traditional sense of the term. One is a long-time local contractor specializing in residential construction, and the other is an insurance agent who grew up in one of the dwellings. As responsible members of this community, they recognize a glaring need for mid-range priced housing. To that end, these friends elected to pool their resources to develop a townhouse project similar to a project along Kukuau Street. As they saw it, such a project would be more affordable than a conventional single-family residential development and yet, with its 2-story scale, still be in keeping with the residential character of the area. It is with that in mind that they sought to do a townhouse instead of a more dense condominium or apartment complex. Relative to the public concerns and on the matter of drainage, please note the following: • As noted in my letter of April 6 responding to the Department of Public Works' comments, the site is not in a floodway. It is designated Zone "X", areas outside of the 500-year storm. • According to County policy, all project-generated water must be contained on-site. This will be accomplished initially through the development and approval of a drainage master plan and its subsequent implementation during the construction of the project. EXHIBIT L l Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director April 11, 2006 Page 2 • It is the applicant's understanding that the developer of the office at the comer of Laukapu and Lanikaula Streets was obligated to provide curb, gutters, and sidewalk fronting the property. To date, that has not been done. If the improvements were in place - like what the applicants plan to do with their property frontages it is conceivable that much of the road-related drainage issue should be mitigated. Relative to traffic, • Access to Laukapu Street will be limited to a single location for both sites, as reflected in the preliminary site plan. The access improvements will be constructed in accordance with Chapter 22, County Streets, Hawaii County Code). Coupled with the fact that Laukapu Street is relatively straight, the sight distance should not be impaired. Conflicts with vehicular ingress and egress at these driveways should thus not be significant, if at all. • The applicants intend to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the entire frontages of the subject site. Furthermore, they will install the appropriate streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the DPW - Traffic Division, in this area. The sidewalks and improved lighting should make this area safer for pedestrians. • Admittedly, this project will introduce more traffic into this area. However, as with the current condition, a significant portion of the traffic is attributable to its cross-street function. With or without this project, cross-street traffic will continue. It is maintained, however, that with the above improvements plus the setting aside of an additional 5-foot wide strip fronting the subject properties to accommodate the sidewalk and related improvements, overall safety should be improved, at least for this portion of Laukapu Street. On the "quality of life" issues, with or without this project, there will be changes that will have an impact to this area For example and as noted above, the use of this street as a cross-street will affect the number and type of vehicles traveling through this area. This street "connectivity" facilitates vehicular movements in Hilo. Ironically, street connectivity results in some measure of diminished quality of life, as evidenced by many residents who continue to object to through streets within their subdivision. Admittedly, there will be more vehicles in this area because of this project. However, the drivers will be residents, residents who will be more mindful of its neighbors than drivers using Laukapu Street as a cross street. Additionally, there will be some measure of roadway and pedestrian related improvements planned by the applicants fronting the project site. r Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director April 11, 2006 Page 3 To create a greater sense of community, the applicants deliberately planned a townhouse (with homeownership) instead of a rental project, where occupancy turnover is potentially much higher. This sense of home ownership plus the planned streetlights and related improvements should hopefully foster rather than diminish the creation of a stronger community in this area. And a strong community breeds personal security. Furthermore, instead of proceeding with a much denser project as may be considered appropriate by the General Plan (35 units per acre), the applicants felt that a reduced density of 16 units per acre would be more compatible with the surrounding area It should be noted that the Pacific townhouse located at Kukuau Street is surrounded by a variety of single-family residential homes. This broad mixture of residential land uses was the concept envisioned by the applicants. Admittedly, while there is a Community Development Plan (CDP) for Hilo, it is certainly outdated, having been adopted over 30 years ago based on the 1971General Plan. While an updated CDP would be helpful in a decision-making, it does not preclude decision-makers from making a decision, unless the County Council establishes a rezoning moratorium. The General Plan is essentially a policy document with a land use guide map component. It is not a plan reliant exclusively on a map. It is thus from this policy planning approach that the applicants believe that their request fulfills the General Plan, particularly the land use and housing policies. A fuller discussion of this project's relationship to the General Plan policies is contained in their application. We trust that the above adequately addresses the comments. If not or if there are additional comments or questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerel, aY M.FUKE Planning Consultant Copy - Ivan Mochida w/ enclosures via FAX RMmh1daREZ.&c-0/26/06 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IVAN MOCHIDA and LES ABURAMEN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 06-000035) Upon careful review of the request against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation of the Change of Zone request for TMK: 2-2-36: 102 and 103 be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this recommendation based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicants originally requested a change of zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) to allow a the development of a 34-unit townhouse. The townhouse was proposed to be constructed on three parcels, two of which are contiguous on the western side of Laukapu Street (TMK: 2-2-36: 102 & 103) and one parcel on the eastern side of Laukapu Street (TMK: 2-2-36: 60) directly across from one of the two parcels on Laukapu Street. At least 20% of the units were proposed at the affordable level, while the remaining units would be sold at market prices. The project included: • Five (5) two-story structures approximately 25 feet in height. • Eight (8) 2-bedroom units; twenty-one (21) 3-bedroom units; and five (5) 4- bedroom units (actual mix of units may vary depending on market demand). • Two (2) covered parking stalls per unit for a total of 68 stalls plus an additional ten (10) off-street parking may be provided for the development. • Single driveway access for both sites. • Extensive landscaping, particularly at the front and rear boundaries of both sites Commencement of construction was proposed by early 2007, with occupancy by the end of 2007, at a cost of $8,000,000.00. After the application was submitted, the applicants requested a deferral of action on the property located on the east side of Laupaku Street (TMK: 2-2-36: 60) until such time that the General Plan LUPAG designation is amended from Industrial to Medium Density Urban. This area is currently under review for redesignation from Industrial to Medium Density Urban. Should the General Plan amendment be approved by the County Council, the Planning Director will resume rezoning of this property. As such, the project now includes only TMK: 2-2-36: 102 & 103 on the west side of Laukapu Street. Proposed are four (4) two-story structures approximately 25 feet in height. In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The Change of Zone request from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square foot (RS-10) to a Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square foot (RM-2.5) zoned district will conform to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Economic and Land Use Elements. The General Plan is intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. The overall goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. Land use is one of the principal focal points of public concern and policy. The Land Use element provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. The request conforms to the goals, policies and standards of the Land Use - Multiple Residential element of the General Plan which state, "appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the need for multiple residential development increases." The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the County. The project area is designated Medium -2- Density Urban for parcels 102 and 103 (west side of Laukapu Street) and industrial for parcel 60 (east side of Laukapu Street) on the LUPAG Map. The Planning Director is initiating an amendment to the General Plan land use designation for the project area, among others. Until such time that the General Plan amendment is approved by the County Council, the requested zone change would be inconsistent with the current General Plan LUPAG designation of Industrial for parcel 60. As such, the applicants have requested a deferral of action on parcel 60 until the General Plan amendment is approved by the County Council. The State Land Use designation for the subject property is Urban. The property is unclassified by the Land Study Bureau's Productivity Rating. The Hilo Community Development Plan (CDP), adopted in 1975, suggests the retention of residential uses in this area. Land uses in the immediate area include a mix of residential and commercial uses. Surrounding properties are zoned RS-10, and immediately adjacent properties are in residential use. There is a medical office on the northwest corner of Laukapu and Lanikaula Streets, approximately 300 feet from the project area. At the southeastern corner of the intersection, there is a commercial/light industrial complex. The proposed change of zone would complement the existing land uses in this area and will provide for an orderly development of the area. However, to keep the proposed development more compatible with the existing single-family dwellings in the area, a condition will be included to restrict the height of the proposed structures to 35 feet. In addition, although the Zoning Code requires 1.25 parking spaces per unit, the Planning Director is requiring two (2) parking spaces per unit to prevent an overflow of vehicles onto Laukapu Street, which is narrow and has no official on-street parking spaces, and will burden neighboring homeowners. The properties are relatively level and currently improved with single-family dwellings. The project site consists of three parcels, two (parcels 102 and 103) on the west side of Laukapu Street, and one (parcel 60) east of and across the street from parcel 102 on Laukapu Street. Parcels 102 and 103 are contiguous to each other, and is approximately 67,500 square feet in size. Parcel 60 is approximately 22,900 square feet in size. There is a single-family dwelling on the large site (parcels 102 and 103) which is -3. currently being used for storage. With the exception of the dwelling, the site has been cleared and graveled. Parcel 60, the smaller site, is also improved with a single-family dwelling currently rented on a monthly basis. This parcel is fully improved and landscaped. All utilities and services are available to the site. Access to the project site is proposed from Laukapu Street, a County roadway with an approximately 20-foot wide pavement with grassed shoulders with a 40-foot right-of-way. There is a section of sidewalk fronting a commercial/industrial complex approximately 500 feet west of the property at the comer of Lanikaula and Laukapu Streets. As part of the rezoning approval, this property was required to set aside a 5-foot road widening strip along Lanikaula Street. The applicants have stated that if required, sidewalks will be constructed in front of the project site. According to the applicants, the proposed project will have some traffic impacts. The Department of Public Works has recommended that the applicants provide full improvements to the entire frontages along Laukapu Street consisting of, but not limited to, pavement widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements, and any required utility relocation. As the County waterline fronts Laukapu Street, water is available to the site. The project will connect to the County's sewer line. Solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers. If required, a Solid Waste Management Plan shall be prepared. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The property has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be rectified or which would render the land unusable. The project site is located within Zone "Y', area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. All development generated storm run-off shall be disposed of on-site and not allowed onto adjacent properties or roadways. By letter dated February 3, 2004, the applicants have requested a "no effect" letter from the DLNR-HPD. No professional surveys were conducted of the site. The applicants have stated that should any archaeological features or sites be discovered during the development of this project, work will immediately cease and the applicants will notify the Planning Department. No professional flora or fauna surveys were -4- conducted of the site. The applicants do not believe that rare or endangered floral or faunal resources are on the site. The properties are located in an urban setting close to existing residential and commercial uses and improved with single-family dwellings. The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The properties are not located in the Special Management Area. The project site is not proximate to the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. According to the applicants, no valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist on the property and there is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area. Therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from Single-Family Residential (RS-10) to a Multiple-Family (RM-2.5) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the general public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. -5- CModtidaREZAW-4126/06 IVAN MOCHIDA and LES ABURAMEN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 06-000035) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The applicant(s), its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. The required water commitment payment shall be submitted to the Department of Water Supply in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this ordinance. C. Construction shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance. Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in accordance with Chapter 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans to mitigate any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). D. The height of the structures shall not exceed 35 feet. E. Off-street parking shall be provided, calculated at two (2) parking spaces per unit. F. A five-foot future road widening strip along the Laukapu Street frontage shall be subdivided and dedicated to the County within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance. G. Access to the property from Laukapu Street shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. H. All driveway connections to Laukapu Street shall conform to Chapter 22, Streets and Sidewalks, of the Hawaii County Code. I. Provide full improvements to the entire frontage of Laukapu Street consisting of, but not limited to, pavement widening with concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, drainage improvements and any required utility relocation, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The improvements shall be located within a five-foot road widening strip along the Laukapu Street frontage and be dedicated to the County of Hawaii prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. J. The project shall connect to the County sewer system. K. Streetlights and traffic control devices shall be installed as required by the Traffic Division, Department of Public Works. L. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. Any drainage improvements shall be constructed, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. M. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. N. All earthwork activity shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. 0. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resources - State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR-BPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. P. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. Q. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, -2- Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. This requirement shall be approved by the Administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development prior to final plan approval for any new residential structures. R. The applicants shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the properties with respect to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads. The fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. The fair share contribution for each lot shall be based on the actual number of residential units developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective date of this ordinance, based on the percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a maximum combined value of $6,411.25 per multiple family residential unit ($9,991.20 per single family residential unit). The total amount shall be determined with the actual number of units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit (single family residential units) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $3,162.49 per multiple family residential unit ($4,817.93 per single family residential unit) to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $99.95 per multiple family residential unit ($232.42 per single family residential unit) to the County to support police facilities; 3. $307.46 per multiple family residential unit ($459.06 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $137.04 per multiple family residential unit ($200.98 per single family residential unit) to the County to support solid waste facilities; and -3- 5. $2,704.31 per multiple family residential unit ($4,280.82 per single family residential unit) to the County to support road and traffic improvements. In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council. S. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. T. An annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of enactment of the ordinance. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the status of the development and the extent tot which the conditions of approval have been satisfied. This condition shall remain in effect until all of the conditions of approval have been complied with and the Planning Director acknowledges that further reports are not required. U. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning -4- Department shall submit the applicant's request to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. -5- RS 10 RSI10 N LL~ ' RS-f0 RS-10 MCX-20 SING E-FAMI Y Rs-pa RESIDEN IAL (RS- 0) TO LE-FAM LY °s RESIDE TIAL R -2.5 & S R -to ML-20 RS-t0 67,5 RS 10 0 SQ. R 10 LEILANI ST RS 10 RS-10 RS-10 RS- 0 RS 10 R 10 ML-20 x z a z O N ti r C R -f0 ML-20 RS-10 c N y RS- 0 R -10 MCX-20 3.143.00 S 10061 0 F "HALAL` RS-10 ML-20 MCX-20 RS-10 R$ 0 RS 10 R f0 R -10 E LANIKAULA ST 10 R - RS-10 0 ML-10 ML-20 RS-10 MCX-20 ML-10 PR 10 ML40 230 115 0 230 460 690 920 1,1O~t AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-10) TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII MK: 2-2-036102 & 103 Date: April 25, 200 EXHIBIT "A" (Ivan Mochida & Les Aburamen:1197) .I••",I FM 9 14,9 Lawrence J. Balberde 729 Hinano Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: 808-960-7970 June 6, 2006 Planning Commission Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: TMK 3rd 2-2-036-103 754 Laukapu Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 1 have been informed that the above property is owned by Mr. Ivan Mochida who would like to rezone his property for a multi-family use. I am the owner of a property (729 Hinano Street) adjacent to Mr. Mochida's property. I am writing to you to support this request. As you know, there is a tremendous shortage of affordable housing on this island. We would all like to own a single family dwelling. However, with prices being very high, it is difficult for younger working families to purchase a single family dwelling on their own lot. For many of these families, the only way they can get into the housing market is by the purchase and improvement of a multi-family dwelling unit. Unless prices fall dramatically, this is the only hope for these young families. This area is centrally located in the main urban area of Hilo. Although it is very understandable for some property owners to wish for things to remain unchanged in the area, the reality is that this area was always very, very, close to industrial and commercial activity and more and more of these non-residential uses are being developed. In summary, this is the kind of rezoning that will help young working families. It will have an immediate positive impact. Sin ly, Lawren . Balberde PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT June 2, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application filed by IVAN MOCHIDA AND LES ABURAMEN (REZ 06-000035) was called to order at 1:46 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Bill Graham Jeffrey McCall Rodney Watanabe Fred Galdones Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene' Siracusa Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 8 people from the public in attendance APPLICANTS: IVAN MOCHIDA AND LES ABURAMEN (REZ 06-000035) Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple- Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district for approximately 90,400 square feet of land. The properties are located on both sides of Laukapu Street between Lanikaula Street and Leilani Street, Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-36: 60, 102 and 103. ALAMEDA: Final agenda item is Item No. 5, Applicants: Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen. This is Rezoning 06-000035, Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district for approximately 90,400 square feet of land. When staff is ready, you may proceed. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as a matter of orientation, the subject property is indicated by this red dot. It is situated along Laukapu Street at this particular location. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts and the yellow areas are currently zoned Single Family Residential. We do have Industrial zoning at this particular location, some Industrial/Commercial uses here; and we also have some Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial land use designations in this general location. This is the Big Island Candies' property. As previously indicated at the last meeting on May 5th, the applicant is proposing to do a 34-unit townhouse development on both sides of Laukapu Street. This particular property which is the Aburamen property is being deferred since the current General I Plan is Industrial. So the only area under consideration for rezoning at this particular time would be the Mochida property consisting of two lots. At the May 5`h meeting, there was a motion to send a favorable recommendation on this particular request. The motion did not carry. There were four aye votes for an unfavorable recommendation and one no vote. This matter is being brought before you again for discussion/deliberation. ALAMEDA: Norman, can you share that, what was the roll call the last time? HAYASHI: Okay, those voting for the unfavorable recommendation were Commissioner Iwashita, Commissioner Galdones, Commissioner Graham, Chair Alameda; and the sole no vote was by Commissioner Salavea. ALAMEDA: Thank you. This is a round two again. Fellow Commissioners, any additional questions that you might have regarding this? Any more information we might need? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Norman, do we have two more meetings on this or just this one? HAYASHI: This would be the last meeting. WATANABE: Thank you. HAYASHI: Will the applicant or his representative please come forward. Mr. Fuke, all right, we swore you in, got your address already. Again, anything to add or take away regarding this application? FUKE: Well, first of all, I'd like to acknowledge the absence of the owner. He had a prior commitment on Kauai so, you know, he's not here today. Essentially, if I can just kind of summarize, as you mentioned, you know, Mr. Chair, this is the second round so I don't want to go into detail. But, in summary, the property is like about an acre and a half because we're focusing only on Mr. Mochida's property. And, you know, one alternative that he has is that given the size of his property he could do a 6-lot subdivision and create like 12 rental homes on the ohana basis without paying any impact fee, satisfying affordable housing requirement. What he's proposing to do, on the other hand, is to basically double the density and try to create like about 25 townhouse units on the property; and in so doing having to be responsible for impact fee, and having a 20 percent affordable housing requirement and more critically fostering home ownership at a more affordable level, rather than having 12 rental units on the property. I do understand that there are concerns relative to infrastructure, drainage, traffic. As we pointed out at the last time I think like on the drainage issue there are already appropriate mitigative measures that can be taken or will be taken by the applicant and further enhanced or required by the County, if the County accepts the staff's proposed recommendation relating to curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting the property. There will be ample on-site parking, because these are all townhouses, a project, basically you have to look at like a typical residence where you would have two covered garage parking stalls and the possibility of having two additional stalls right in the back on the, tandem style in the back of the units. Unlike this other project and partially, you 2 know, this is a residential project. This is not a commercial project. It's not like, I would not characterizes this as what Commissioner Iwashita did on the other one. This is not like the Kihei type of project. It's a residential project. It's not a commercial, it's not an industrial. And with that, I'll just leave it up to questions or comments by the Commissioners. ALAMEDA: How about questions? Comments we'll save it for our discussion. Any questions for our applicant? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Fuke, for that. Could you elaborate for me, again, the alternative that you had spoken in your testimony? FUKE: In the beginning? SALAVEA: Yeah. FUKE: See, the property is roughly about, he has about 67,000 square feet of land. And with 67,500 square feet of land, given the RS-10 zoning, then, you know, he could just do a straight 6-lot subdivision. And you do a 6-lot subdivision under the existing Code then it is possible to put up one basic and one ohana unit. So essentially you would have like 12 units, single family or duplexes units, on the 6 lots. Obviously, they're going to have to be rented, much more than fee simple, I mean, unless person owns one lot and decides to live in one and rent the other one. And so what I was suggesting here is as opposed to taking that route, he's proposing to construct 25 town homes which would essentially amount to doubling what he is currently capable of doing. But in so doing he would have to obligate himself by having an affordable housing requirement through the zone change and paying an impact fee and also fostering the notion of home ownership. Whereas, on the traditional rental approach then you won't be able to do that. And I think that by having home ownership it creates a greater sense of community rather than a transient condition created by rentals. SALAVEA: So as I understand then under the alternative he wouldn't be obligated at all towards providing affordable housing? FUKE: There's no affordable housing requirement. And the Director can correct but as I understand no affordable housing requirement and no impact fee requirement. SALAVEA: Director Yuen? YUEN: Right. If you develop under existing zoning, no affordable housing requirement, no impact fee, no fair share. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Salavea, follow-up? SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Director. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, I'm thinking, for one thing, that, of course, you would also have half of the density if he developed the lots as six separate lots even with ohana; and so the density in 3 that community is a very important issue according to a lot of the letters that we got from people opposing this project. I also note a bit of elitism in the idea that the minute you rent to somebody they're transients and therefore they don't have a sense of community and therefore, you know, with all the implications, oh, they're going to trash the place because they're only renting, they don't have a vested interest in it. I think that's a very unfair kind of preassumption that you're making about the kind of people that are going to rent. We do have a really strong need on this island for rental units, especially for middle income, low and middle income. And this is being all geared towards upper income. I don't see that there's much of a need for upper income housing as there is for lower. And I understand that a developer wants to maximize the amount of money he's getting out of it, but that's not what our kuleana is here to decide. I'm sorry, I should be asking a question and I'm not. I should have saved that for discussion. I apologize. ALAMEDA: But you picked up on that, that's good. SIRACUSA: I just couldn't keep my mouth shut. ALAMEDA: We're getting better, we're getting better. The subawareness is the first step to recognizing SIRACUSA: It's catching. I'm sitting next to Commissioner Iwashita. ALAMEDA: So I'm glad we're at this stage now. We're getting better at this. YUEN: I'm going to you hire next time I really have problems. SALAVEA: I have a question for Director Yuen. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA: Regarding the General Plan and, maybe, Mr. Hayashi if you could help me with this also. It's my understanding that the Medium Density land use designation is developed through the General Plan process. HAYASHI: That's correct. SALAVEA: And through the General Plan Process community input towards what is the community's desire for that particular area is taken into account and incorporated into the General Plan, as well as the Land Use Pattern? HAYASHI: That's correct. That process is available to the general public, as well as residents of the area, when we come up for any kind of revision to the General Plan or development of the General Plan land use for that area. SALAVEA: And so notice for the community's participation in that process is also given out prior to the meeting so that as much community input can be given at that particular time? 4 HAYASHI: Yes. As far as the General Plan Amendment Process, we don't necessarily notify all of the landowners; however, there is a process where we do have public meetings, which were conducted by the Planning Department. We also had public hearings by the Planning Commission, workshops, and subsequently Commission's review of the proposed changes, as well as the County Council hearing process. SALAVEA: All right. And given that process, is there an alternative for the community to give input into redesignating the area in terms of going from Medium to Low, Low to Medium? HAYASHI: That process is available by commenting on the proposals by the Planning Director when we initially go out for notifying the public that the Planning Director will be reviewing the General Plan. We do publicize that people can or the general public can propose changes or recommend changes to the Planning Director. SALAVEA: All right. Thank you, Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA: Thank you. We do have testimony on this matter. So I'd like to ask the applicant to be seated at this time. I want to call up a Kelly Kent and Miriam Hamakawa. Please have a seat up forward. I'll have to swear both of you in at this time. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you. I guess we can start on my far right. Will you please state your name and address for the record. KENT: My name is Kelly Kent. I reside at 165 East Kawili Street, Houselots, Hilo, Hawaii. ALAMEDA: Thanks for coming today. KENT: Yeah, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Siracusa, and Members of the Planning Commission. ALAMEDA: You can proceed with your testimony and then we'll move to Ms. Hamakawa after. Ms. Kent, go ahead. KENT: Okay. My beginning started, I have been here for a long time. My beginning started when my grandfather moved to Hawaii in 1900, married my grandmother Yukie Matsuura from the original Kapoho town. So I've been here a little while, or at least my family has been. SIRACUSA: You can move your microphone closer to you. KENT: Thank you. I'm nervous. 5 ALAMEDA: No problem. We're just as nervous. So, go ahead. KENT: Okay. I would like to show support of Mr. Mochida's project in the Houselots area. He's not looking at putting in a commercial structure. He's looking at putting in residential. I'm a parent and independent business person, I've been a law enforcement officer with the State of Hawaii for 15 years, and I'm a property owner in the Houselots area. Ms. Siracusa, yes, the homeless are living in abandoned homes in the Houselots area, and that was brought to my attention very recently. I've seen the transition of the Houselots area from the original family to rentals, to rebuilding residentials, through allowing commercial industrial uses of the area. I consider myself becoming now one of the older or second generation in the Houselots area. I got to know the first generation. I'm not giving away my age. The population increased in Hawaii from 03 to 04 by 2.7 percent. My son recently moved back from Las Vegas to Oahu to Hilo, lived in a townhouse in Honolulu, and has to live with relatives here now because he can't afford the $500,000 to $600,000 for a residential home. By building a project such as this, it will allow the young kids to move back to this area, and further their lives here, as opposed to having to stay away forjobs and housing. Our population in Hilo is now 41,000 and climbing. I feel that Mr. Mochida is not wasting this property but making an excellent use of the property in providing residential. He's a responsible member of our community, a responsible contractor and has always shown himself to be responsible to the County and its various agencies. A townhouse is a low density structure as opposed to an apartment which applications in some of the areas have brought in larger apartment units. I think Mr. Yuen had given examples of potential apartment buildings and their various densities. The maintenance costs in a townhouse are shared. The infrastructure is shared, and there are several other things that make a townhouse more feasible than trying to go out and buy a regular single family dwelling. So with that I would ask the Commission to please consider Mr. Mochida's application and move favorably on it. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Ms. Kent. We appreciate your testimony today. Any questions? It was very good, very articulate. Thank you. You may be seated. Ms. Hamakawa, could you please state your name and address for the record. HAMAKAWA: Hello. ALAMEDA: Hello. HAMAKAWA: My name is Miriam, Miriam Y. Hamakawa, and I live at 1143 Puhau Street in Hilo. ALAMEDA: Okay. HAMAKAWA: I also own, am part-owner of the, property at 757 Laukapu Street in Houselots. 6 ALAMEDA: Okay, you can proceed. Go ahead. HAMAKAWA: I want to personally appear before you, the Hawaii County Planning Commission, to ask you to support us. We who have lived in the area and still own property in the neighborhood are strongly opposed to this rezoning from Single Family Dwelling RS-10 to Medium Density Multiple Family Dwelling RM-2.5 which is located directly across from our property. So that is my point. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mrs. Hamakawa. Wait, maybe we'll have questions. Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Could you please point on the map where your property is in relationship to the applicant's property, on the smaller map, on the map on your right-hand side. No, the end one. HAMAKAWA: Oh, this SIRACUSA: No, the end one. HAMAKAWA: Okay, we're right across from this. SIRACUSA: So you're directly across from that one. And are you directly adjacent to the Aburamen? HAMAKAWA: Well, it's about two house away from our property. SIRACUSA: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa, for helping us locate her house, Mrs. Hamakawa. We have any questions for Mrs. Hamakawa as she speeds out towards the back? Thank you so much for coming today. We appreciate your being here. HAMAKAWA: Thank you for your attention. ALAMEDA: Yes. All right, will the applicant, his representative return. Mr. Fuke, you've heard testimony from actually two sides of the coin. Do you have any additional comments? FUKE: No. At this point in time, no. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners, what's your pleasure? We could have a little more discussion if you'd like. WATANABE: May I make a suggestion? ALAMEDA: Sure, Commissioner Watanabe. 7 WATANABE: I obviously wasn't at the last meeting when the vote was taken. And in light of all of the discussion over affordable housing, I was wondering if my Fellow Commissioners who voted against this would share their reasoning behind it. It seems like it's an opportunity to actually provide affordable housing. I'm not sure that affordable housing can be developed in this economic environment in the same single family type of dwelling that we, you know, pretty much have become accustomed to. Cause let's face it, the land cost has gone up, construction cost has gone up. We can talk about affordable housing; but unless we look into multi-unit housing I don't know that it will ever be affordable. So are we saying we want affordable housing but only if it's single family dwelling with 15,000 square feet; and it's impossible to attain? I'm not trying to be critical of how they voted the last time. I'm just wondering if they would share their reasoning. ALAMEDA: Sure. Let's be brief. Let's share a little bit and kind of bring Commissioner Watanabe up to speed on perhaps why Fellow Commissioners who voted against, maybe why that affordable housing perspective wasn't the overall perspective in your vote. Who would like to share? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you. My concern and I believe the shared concern of the others that voted in favor of a non-favorable recommendation was primarily based on, if you look at the record from the last meeting, you know, the Houselots community almost unanimously testified against the project, mainly for infrastructure concerns and current problems that exists that essentially this project alone cannot address, you know, in terms of the flooding and so forth that occurs now and that this project can only do certain things that front this property and it's not going to be able to mitigate the larger problems that we were presented the last time. So that I think was the main concern that was addressed by the votes for an unfavorable recommendation. And the record that we saw, and it's part of the record here, includes all of those pictures by Mr. Nekoba that showed different levels of flooding and so forth that, I guess, existed essentially at the time because that was during the raining time that we were having and not this sunny clear weather now that we're having. So that was primarily the, I think, the basis of an unfavorable recommendation. And I do, you know, we all want to promote affordable housing, I think; but in this particular case because of those circumstances, that's why the unfavorable recommendation was voted on. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would pretty much act on the same thing that Commissioner Iwashita had said. But on the other hand, also, I would like commend the applicants, Mr. Mochida and Mr. Aburamen, to try to promote affordable housing, provide affordable housing. Because all of us know how other real estate market is at right now at this point in time, and providing this affordable housing would help. Unfortunately, the location, I had a problem with the location of where they're going to be putting this project. The street in itself when we had viewed some of the pictures that were presented by Mr. Nekoba who had testified at our last meeting, there is not much room to improve the street so that it would allow or handle the density that this project was going to be providing. And so I see that as an adverse impact on the environment and also the ecology because of its location. So I had some difficulty in approving this application. If it was located in a much more desirable location and allowed, to be able to density that it was going to provide I would have supported this project. But it was primarily the location. 8 ALAMEDA: The location. Thank you, Commissioner Galdones, for sharing that. I can speak. You know the affordable housing argument is a real strong one for me. And I had a real hard time denying this application, simply because I'm at the age where many of my peers are pretty much looking for a house, and some of them have to move away for that. And the disconnect with family and all, it kind of tears me apart. I don't like to see families dislocated because they cannot find a home to live in there and where they were raised. So it was tough for me. But then I see the ladies in the back and I hear their testimony this time and the last time, and this is really their community, too, and they spoke pretty sincerely on it; and it kind of tore at my heart as well. So I kind of went with that. And I do feel that the density in that area would increase, double. And it's tough, that was a tough place. So not so much the Community Plan issue for me. It's the density issue and the testimony that's kind of leaning me towards the "no," so just to let you know, Commissioner Watanabe. Other thoughts? Anything else? You need more clarification? WATANABE: Yeah, I have a question for the Director. ALAMEDA: Sure. WATANABE: You know, flooding is a safety concern so I don't think you can just overlook that easily. And I realize when you're putting up a rather large structure and two parking stalls per units, you're going to have a lot of impermeable surface. I also recognize that apparently the elevation here is somewheres around 20 feet above sea level. But I'm still wondering is there any way to mitigate against potential additional flooding through drywells, etc., in the parking area that, you know, would be part of Public Works' oversight? YUEN: Well, in the end, they would have to comply with Public Works' storm drainage standards. Basically they would be required to accommodate what Public Works calls a 10-year one hour stone on site into drywells. What I'm bearing from the neighborhood is there's ponding under the existing conditions, ponding on their properties. I'm not clear exactly if it's runoff from the street or what, but the area is poorly drained and that they have some kind of a pending condition. I mean if it were strictly that issue we could work on some enhanced drainage condition, you know, that they would work on something beyond what they generate on site. But I'm not sure what the solution is because I'm not sure what is causing the current problem. . ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe, for stirring up the discussion. I appreciate that. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: To continue the discussion on drainage, as I understand it with the current situation with the single family home there or whatever, where there is no requirement right now for disposing of runoff on site, it seems to me that if we allowed this we would actually be improving the situation by they'd have to engineer it and control any runoff with drywells or something, that the situation as far as pending should be improved. 9 YUEN: Well, that's hard to say; and the reason is that you have an existing ground surface that's What's there now? Has it been cleared? It's an open area, right? So what you have is whether there was some grass planted or some grave. And I'm not sure what the percolation characteristics are there now, but they're better than asphalt and they're better than a roof, you know. So how much runoff you're getting from, so the first question is, you know, how much runoff are you getting from the current bare ground condition. If you did either this project or you did a subdivision, there'd be an engineering study that would estimate increased runoff; and then that has to be accommodated on site up to a certain level. Whether that would end up being less flowing off site than the current condition, I can't validate that, because I don't know how much is percolating through the existing bare ground that's there. ALAMEDA: Follow-up? MCCALL: My point is that the current situation now with bare ground, it appears there's a ponding issue. And at least anything that is done there would, in my opinion, probably improve the situation because they'll have an engineer coming in and most probably drywells or something would be implemented to help with the pending. ALAMEDA: Okay, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Follow-up on that. This is Flood Zone X so apparently this is not a low- lying area although it's more than likely a very level area that is very close to sea level. So I'm thinking that by your description of ponding we're not so much talking about flood waters per se as just major puddling of water on properties. YUEN: I don't know anything more than really the photographs that we've seen and the description that we've had. It's not mapped as a floodway under FEMA Mapping. There are places that flood, you know, that are not mapped under FEMA Floodway. So we don't take it strictly, you know, that's not end of story, they're making it up, nothing happens. But I use the term ponding because that seemed to be more what they're showing rather than There is a flood type zone that refers to pending, I think that's AO or something, but rather than The vision of flooding is like, to me, you have water flowing across your property. It does seem like the homes are in a low-lying area and water runs into the low point and creates this pending around the neighbors' homes. ALAMEDA: Any follow-up questions? Anything that we missed before we go into voting? SIRACUSA: I'll make a motion. ALAMEDA: Sure, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: On the matter of Change of Zone Application REZ 06-000035, I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application based on the following reasons: Number one, the very strong opposition from the community. Number 2, the density that I feel the current infrastructure cannot handle. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Motion made by Commissioner Siracusa. 10 IWASHITA: Second. ALAMEDA: Seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is for an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council based on the reasons that: One, there is a strong opposition from the community; and, secondly, the infrastructure cannot handle the proposed density. With that I'll call the roll call. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner McCall? MCCALL: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Nay. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda. ALAMEDA: Aye with reservations. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, there are four aye votes and three no votes. Motion does not pass. ALAMEDA: All right. And what's the follow-up, the next step? HAYASHI: Since the time limitation will expire, we will be sending this application to the County Council stating that the Planning Commission was not able to reach consensus on this application. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. HAYASHI: Unless the Director has some other comment? 11 YUEN: Yeah, we'll explain what the vote was; but it does constitute an unfavorable recommendation. HAYASHI: Oh yes, I stand corrected. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita, question? IWASHITA: Just point of information. ALAMEDA: Okay. IWASHITA: Will it be clear on the record to the Council that, I guess, presumably had Commissioner Graham been here today, I guess, his vote cumulatively would have constituted the fifth vote? HAYASHI: I don't think we can do that since he's not here to vote. IWASHITA: Okay. Well, I was just wondering if both votes are going to be, the Council is going to be informed of both votes instead of just this last one. HAYASHI: We'll be sending up today's vote to the County Council. IWASHITA: So they won't be aware of the last vote where it was also four? HAYASHI: Oh, we'll be sending the record to them, including the hearing transcript from the previous meeting, so IWASHITA: Okay. So if they knew what to look for they could figure it out? HAYASHI: Yeah. ALAMEDA: Any other comments? Thank you. FUKE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Fuke, I appreciate your time today. And the public, thank you very much for coming. The discussion ended at 11:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, c~G.a,-,,,,~ V)-\ • \ ` u-y~ Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 12 KEEP H=LO=H=LO 1. PETITIONS 2. EARL ANZAI'S LETTER 3. STREET INFORMATION 4. PICTURE INDEX 5. PICTURES WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name gS' nat re Address Phone No. 2 klelcd~i.~ 2 rf z~ C/ cluq 3 ~filct ~f~L~v Co 21 OZ/i xr S D3Y3 4 vv S"7 Q 9'?o-~vi 5 G 7 S< a. ,ti v n f4~ : 9 lei /c G ~S 43ss9~i 10 1LILL101v pn.csu, a q6-7';t-0 ~f6+-3S2~ 11 M C~,ac cc. ~=ti ~u~.~ (e6t Gt lan: Sf 441- 8724 12If IQ " . ~l l Qh All 13 14C 15 ole. q1-720 16 f ra Mav4oe 14 c772o 935-8328 'Its LA 5L. 17 11~10 '>0 1 18 AC4 l~~n 44- 7 ~ 7 935-~44 mu sT 4 {~cLts 3ia Sak wry 20 C/r WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. . a <q ~l 9~3 2~~3 2 ]sS Iwu .JVI ~1 i Go l i tW7 9w -ql,:5-7 4 5 ~ li~ ~ (4+a+~ ~,Y•fit, '75G «i ivi,"tuna ~ 1 IV~~ a 6 -7b kUt,; kvu Sf c16[-0ISD 9 ~i '1 ~ ~ ~ u a3.~ - q a 11 7~ el- q~1-~272- c 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO A BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. /C ~/guu 9~9-iv2l /~l/~ I-fGlsj Z 11-2 1 ff! ~O / / , Zb a~,-cam-off ~bt-sa VoLS03 z cl 2 1 ~to~ z o tin X61-~~`I 3 V LL, 11 n 1y l~ev~(ao t 4 ate 1 c-N- ~Z' S 5 fnjAJ~Ajpti eaWAv% Nr `mil X579 { a 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. 11 1 G~Se~cv D. v)(s ~ S )P.nla 1 e Ce Leo (i - G 79J&/_/ o. ~o s5 2 e P hp~ N1 q6~-5978 tc2I cl t-to n'L loo 3 vp4-4N 0 u ct'L ' (-h o 016-1-w 9 SCi • 2Aa IS(q W-o,ld 4 OuGON 6 ~6~LO 454-3en~ 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 LAW OFFICES OF EARL I. ANZAI ATTORNEY AT LAW 345 QUEEN STREET, SECOND FLOOR TELEPHONE (808) 521-3336 HONOLULU, HAWAil 96813 FAX (808) 566-0347 May 2, 2006 Lloyd Nekoba 729 Laukapu St. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Lloyd: I look forward to assisting you in keeping Hilo, Hilo. Please be assured that we will proceed, as we always do, with as much effort as possible. Even though we expect no compensation it will not affect our view of the importance of your case. Please do not hesitate to contact me. I know you are the type of person who does not want to be a bother but you must set that aside and keep us informed. As I told you, I fully expect Michael Green to assist if it becomes necessary. We have been working together since the late 80's and this will be no different. Very truly yours, EARL I. ANZAI EIA:ll Street width: Leilani Street Kalanikoa to Laukapu 18' wide Laukapu Street to Hinano Street 18' wide Leilani Street: Kalanikoa Street to Kanolehua Highway 20' wide Kalanikoa Street: Lanikaula Street to Leilani Street 22' wide Kalanikoa Street: Lanikaula Street to Kawili Street (dead end) 16' wide Laukapu Steet: Lanikaula Street to Kekuanaoa Street 20' wide Al 720 Laukapu St. (Janice Higa) 728 Laukapu St.(Esther Kekuna) A2 728 Laukapu St.(Esther Kekuna) A3 Laukapu St. from Leilani St. (Looking in the Puna direction) A4 740 Laukapu St. and 754 Laukapu St. Proposed project site. 728 Laukapu St. Esther Kekuna'a boundary and fence next to proposed project site. A5,A6,A7 740 & 754 Laukapu St.(Ivan Mochida) Proposed project site. A8 740 Laukapu St. fronting project site. (Looking in the Puna direction) A9 740 Laukapu St. Water in front of proposed project site. A10 754 Laukapu St. (Vacant house) 758 Laukapu St. (Yabe's house) All 729 Laukapu St. (Nekoba's house) Across from 24 unit project site next to proposed 10 affordable units. A12 737 Laukapu St. (Aburamen's house) Across from 24 unit project site and site of proposed 10 affordable units. A13 737 Laukapu St. Driveway with water. Across from 24 unit project site. A14 747 Laukapu St. (Abe's house) Driveway with water. Across from 24 unit proposed site. A15 747 Laukapu St. Water on property. Across from 24 unit project site. A16 747 Laukapu St. Water on property. Across from 24 unit project site. A17 767 Laukapu St. (Hirayama's house) Water on property. A18 767 Laukapu St. and 781 Laukapu St. (Lance Abe"s house) Water on property. A19 781 Laukapu St. and 780 Laukapu St. (Dr. Lee-Ching's office) Water on property. Laukapu St. (Looking in the Puna direction) A20 780 Laukapu St. Water on driveway. A21 780 Laukapu St. Water on driveway. A22 767 Laukapu St. looking from 780 Laukapu St. Water on driveway. A23 767 Laukapu St. Water in front of property. A24 767 Laukapu St. Looking at proposed project site. Water in front of property. Lrr' BI Laukapu St. looking towards Hamakua from Lanikaula St. Laukapu St. Width 20' B2 781 Laukapu St. Water on roadside. Laukapu St. 20' wide. B3 767 Laukapu St. B4 729 Laukapu St. B5 Laukapu St. looking towards Hamakua from Leilani St. B6 667 Laukapu St. B7 630 Laukapu St. looking towards Puna from Kekuanaoa St. C1 Leilani St. from Laukapu St. looking towards Kalanikoa St.(Makai) 4/14/06 Leilani St. Width 18' C2 Leilani St. from Laukapu St. looking towards Kalanikoa St.(Makai)4/14/06 C3 Leilani St. from Laukapu St. looking towards Kalanikoa St.(Makai)4/30/06 C4 Leilani St. from Kalanikoa St.(Mauka)4/14/06 D1 Kalanikoa St. from Lanikaula St.4/30/06 Kalanikoa St. Width 22' E1 Mohouli St. New office building. Curbing in front of building. Looking Makai E2 Mohouli St. Curbing in front of building. Looking Makai E3 Mohouli St. Curbing in front of building. Looking Mauka E4 Mohouli St. Looking Mauka from newly built curbing. F1 Kumukoa St. Looking Mauka. Kukuau townhouses on right. Wide street, sidewalk, and drainage F2 Kumukoa St. Looking Makai. Kukuau townhouses on left. Wide street, sidewalk, and drainage. GI Kukuau St. Looking Mauka. Kukuau townhouse on left. Wide street, sidewalk, and drainage. G2 Kukuau St. Looking Mauka. G3 Kukuau St. Looking Makai G4 Kukuau St. Looking Makai '`rte Ifni b 17 i i ' t r 4ft w y5 t~'Ay jp.{ i ye ~ l SBbR `~3y `w~~ 4.' r ~3' 'v. ~:f: t ~ ~ I - d~R?3: 1~ ~'t a~: S r' t £"s'^&>?Yi d. MM~5~~~~e . rN3 ~4 ~~'r X si ~r j V' F ~M ' ~ 4. {€I. x _~F~i.V~ `ww-.~ 1 I ~ W 4 f ~ ~ ~ ~ i ;ti 1 t ~ t E1 t <<<>. e=`- 'a Y E I I 1 1 I t 1 '1j 1 ~`{y 1Vy i 1 1 1 s `i { f-0 pi } t ~N n} _m ti... ~i t ' ~ i r+ 4' x lr.-- ,a V `a. } . ','4 , ~ ~ ' _ i(:& . .~e~ irrc r .4: E r s ti,t x ,i ai n A 1 .i ~ i w° d3 *r • rE 1~~ key .p h~, yrt, e , _ , Y ~ ff4>>1' G . . f W y r r 4 k ~ , r,. , ~:4;' k .i _i ~j Ate', tr.;. ~ z e#: f~. Y ;J "i> t~: i A ~ZY ~e j'} I{ rl j `j 5 '1 y` E FI l~i R1 '.A i 4~ 1~ 'r'C. v a . ~:L: s 't ~ . i~+ ~ 1 . # d4 r 4 r »Y t :lip T w: r~, 7 ~Y'r 5~ n l y X!'~ W n M a ~ ~1 j t~ .Yi ip ~5~~ d~ A`'• ~ ~ 1 .,.,.iti n s 4 r 1 i3 ~ { ~ c~ . x~ .f +f P- i~ , 3 ~ 4 ' s p ~ ~ ~ p. {t,. ~n• ~1~; 3 + , ti °~r ~ ~ " t~ :r k a ' / li 3 I ' ~ r- _ .1+~ 4 l i f rtw ~ ~ t re A k Y „r rr 1 W y.. 8 ~ n i ~ + .~•9 ~ t .x ~ ~ Y ~ `~ra~~ 11 Q rA. _ 'Aku ~i~ N S' i a ` h` .l r- x II Z \ r~: 1 u l :A1 Y ~ l A ~I t S i y~/ i i 4 /1 / 1/({i~ ~ ~ is ~ ' ~ ~ e>. ~ I is * 0.~''- I i t i f ~ i i s T- «,w 3Cd' k ~ ~ yy i t4be~~- :ed ~ ~ l~ a ~ T', a: p . N u S`~-. . . 4 1 ~ V 3 ~ ~ ~ S i ~ a. „ ° ~ ~a~ r n' fir.:'' ` s~-~.',~.'. i i 3.' W' T' ,i / ja a i. - III r ~ _ <; r J- J 1 ~ A y~ s iy 1 t r• 4 .s M , ~4 5 i~ { ~ ~ ~ N~ t let s i / y~ ~i i/, ~ i ' t- - W y4r' i' f c Y i 1 i t i I r f r. ~Ilr I i ` . ! ` '"91 h fir' 1 i ~ , ?:a;'x' es., 1`,.°~, k a ~ '.y , R r ~1, i~ ~ 4 ~Cr ~l ` n 'i~ ~ C a~ ..+j a~ T a ~E T q'R- t: a e i L y f` ,m~ J L ~sgi F .1 , P,~:~ ke 4 X 3 r i f~±; 1 f •F. a ~'m q: i r:'~ q _ by a x V { q ~ ~~1 3 i i i 'Not ft i a a I 3. a~. \ Y VV4 ` i Iy~ 3 :t yet op rti f 1 tea. r. t 1~~-. ~ i I ~ i { + ~ A Gb E ~ F Y yy~ AWn- .d ~ti ~ ~ r; ~ S I r rt?o r,T F S 3# M1 t T~g ~qy} VF+ 2 y J :a p l V S M1II I I M. ' r.G i ~i A r' ",;n / , 4'4.. } re ~i r`' 4' ~t*~ i { 1, a ~h p, ~ti,- j3. 'e3ery -M1 ~yJe v }`i 9„ \ ?R dk5 i \ M-1 n.:x . r' -AAM r i21 i i M r ~ ~ st ; ~~a ar t w~ ~ I ~~t~ 1- ~ ' n V ,J 1 V .1: '1 r WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. 2 dh~ K~~a a 07 , cc~ua ` ~o q37,VO 3 &&7h ~q~ i ~ o 7d ~a~ a 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. n kc Abp ~ ~v ~ ~ ~9 2 `l._,\V1c,n 00\1- _ - ~0 4t Z -tam 3 --el-r 96 7a a 1. 15 -7 3o-u LcLpu- 5t, 4 a l ^ i' 0-70 ~Ci ~c moo- I o 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 AWE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. 1 f/ w a- a wo.- ; l l q 6 :zo S~,z 6 MAsn,zU /i L uHav 2 ~1A,,nac,4vvA . a~_ t/ i~ . i~z i671o fS9 8bz6 evu v 372 ~ SY Tanx+yo F 37z /WIAut s C 4 Na Am ; Qf!/ ~/l1c 0/o N, 96 »-o 11047 Alit-W, 5 Q7n/L/ RaUlClci~~K Uw/+ ~(l[1GG/v- ~1ily, X11 G73o 959-&87~ l3~ /77Clraoa Zorn 6 tpleAr-o 11,4MAK4vV4 e ~ds~ina/ewkv~ i~/o th 9i, p-0 3s ~Sa 7 % g ashi `/?7 K~C Tom( 6h~ fRil d _ jd 736 -Z56 CP 1~~ S 9 ~lieYt `to-it!sh _A&4j Wo 141 /o?2v y~ f~36 Pi crux 10 LAA K -Tilor9-en ~ , a !o a n gCSY- 7 5,f1 11 Su aa~o i~eW.d~-, i 96 7l~ Y6~-665 12 13 14 15 16 17 1R 19 20 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. 1 0 '1 & ~ akw /h a 2 -r1?441Z //JE 6)'</ 3 r~ o S 6D~- 4 SRS°t OsO `Dr 2 5 /karre, ~U ~es aucD - - 6 D e 'ZFtro fEt o 14ii a7~ x Lj3v I 9 > - / tim << S t ore o~ s ~a~ Ys'~6& 10 e 11 s .q./ tr 6 '..13 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address n Phone No. zq4r ;I awl "1 14; / Z6 ! a shpt ~J ST, 2 "A-c--F, 4)-nn /J L (o azb_a S~ 74 37:5 ( 7a {fnohu.~~ar . rt 4 I 6 ~O /d3f~ac ds/ ' "7'S ex~.~sa 9 Set,-, o tnva~ef o o t 7 o s-r G, 10 CLLCW Y/~M/JU e~4! ux~ i aw A(, 7>f- ! -X3 t 3 X ADD b3 la 1161 S...F _ q 11 i Q R GS oGu`e'` c°lu- v v 59 <~n2Ea tb-L 12 ~//E 1~/>7eNn e v.~~ 4s ~~r 1v 1d : 4~ `f S4 -T3/~j 13 G 73J-3,S zv 14 llaC (aat+steln !tom `~Giz.ci G~. -3~to 15 ctrc rn o • B ros 16 - J-1 L lgllikQUl~ SI 17 tl'~rt.iriCm (jatirs z 151 kna9n5,~ ~'3, q79' 6040 k FeEcmet•) rLO y; 20 19 20. i oL;r c xlr _ L= 7 ~a ?p fl J <i F s . WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD 34 TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE 700 BLOCK OF LAUKAPU STREET, HILO, HAWAII Printed Name Signature Address Phone No. 1 2 e 12t - 6 ki- 3 4 is is a a_ JJ `G '6 /;1, 9j j-- ~r'?f L~ L, fu ix 6~0 '7 A4~e ego! r -09 -~..Y g l' ~STf- l_ 10 c{ LS g6't4a-:lp 7 r life /p bec 12 (SW if( n/t~?a' 11-40. All qo -/240 `Jr AeC94-,6v&e' ~R Q5~%9 13 Yr1y.,~~cc~.4 44'(o , iii 6 rah ra T- 14 Onl /L+/c'!LI Q 7c4 S~.1 iN (r,5 4~ ~ + ~bFgig c) 7-0 Lk) 15 14, (U 16 9 (S~g3 --1; 17 ~4wtu Ce)r ~ o .ZO 1 r' Ec~ lU P ~ - l > Sh;n u f~ 1 s n /z 19 4 9Y5- a uc 7 20 T,4 4R ^ir~~~ f3 4 CAS ~ y 4 r { yi9 Su~4 t`!13 V 1 A ~ r5i R T _ °~Y a y ~api r IV ~ . k y X t ;Y .g"Y.L "ffi 3+ e k 1~ ~ iY t jNL ux- L ~rv5~ T `TFa S 4+l ~ Y 4 # w L +1 ~ r s-. V1 Y r Ln t1 11 0 ti f ~ 5 y.a N!F. 1 t T ~1 a~ i f a J1 ~r~ 1 1 K 'J( X*f + z a r t ~ r ~J Y 1 : I NOW 8 4~;> . F o i l E i 4 p~]. 5` u 4 P ~ f C v ,z e PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 5, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application filed by IVAN MOCHIDA AND LES ABURAMEN (REZ 06-000035) was called to order at 1:46 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Bill Graham Rodney Watanabe Fred Galdones Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene' Siracusa (Left at 2:10 p.m.) Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 25 people from the public in attendance APPLICANTS: IVAN MOCHIDA AND LES ABURAMEN (REZ 06-000035) Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple- Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district for approximately 90,400 square feet of land. The properties are located on both sides of Laukapu Street between Lanikaula Street and Leilani Street, Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-36: 60, 102 and 103. ALAMEDA: Application No. 6, this is a Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen, this is a rezoning (REZ 06-000035). This is a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district for approximately 90,400 square feet of land. Staff? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Referring to the overall location map, the subject property is indicated by this red dot. It is situated on the west side of Laukapu Street. This particular roadway is Lanikaula Street going towards Kanoelehua Avenue; and this is Kilauea Avenue. There are three properties involved. There are two properties on the west side of Laukapu Street; and those two properties are owned by Ivan Mochida. It consists of approximately 60,000 square feet. And across the street there is a 23,000 square-foot property which is owned by Les Aburamen or the Aburamen family. And the applicants initially came in together to do a project consisting of 34 townhouse units. Now I'll go back to the proposal later. However just to give you an indication as to what the zoning for the area is, all of the yellow- shaded areas are the Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot zoned district. The gray areas 1 are Industrial zoned lands. We also have Neighborhood Commercial zoning which is this pink- shaded areas. And, again, we have other Commercial areas like the Big Island Candies which is the brown shaded areas. Apartment zoned lands are closer towards the Hilo Shopping Center area; and those are indicated by these brown-shaded colors. Now we received a letter from the applicant's representative indicating that they would like to defer the processing of the Aburamen property; and that would be the property that is on the east side of Laukapu Street. And the reason for that is that particular property, the General Plan designation is still Industrial. However there is a pending General Plan Amendment as part of the Planning Director's initiation that would change the General Plan designation for the areas along the east side of Laukapu Street from Industrial to Medium Density Urban; and that includes the Aburamen property. They're requesting that the rezoning for that portion of the property be deferred until the General Plan for that has been approved or adopted by the County Council. So basically I'll discuss the total project. We will be recommending that the Mochida property, which is General Planned for Medium Density Urban development, be recommended for approval with conditions and that the Aburamen property be deferred until a later date until such time that the General Plan for that area is changed. Okay, going to the overall site map, and there are two site maps. Basically the lower map shows the various apartment units and the type of, how the apartment units would be laid out. This basically gives you an overview as to what the structures would look like from the top. Now, again, as a matter of orientation, this is Laukapu Street. It bisects both the Aburamen property, and that's particular property, and the Mochida property. The intent is to develop a townhouse project on all of these three lots. Currently on the Mochida property there is an existing single-family dwelling which was vacated. There is also a large storage shed on the property. And on the Aburamen's property there is an existing single-family dwelling that is being rented on a monthly basis, based on what was submitted by the applicant. On the Aburamen's property, the proposal is to construct a two-story 25-foot high building that would accommodate 9 units. The Mochida property would have four buildings that would be either one or two stories in height. And the proposal would be to have 25 units with a breakdown of 8 two-bedroom units, 21 three-bedroom units, and 5 four-bedroom units. As I indicated the height of the building would not exceed, according to their proposal, 25 feet. The height under the current zoning of Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet is 35 feet. Under the proposed zoning, which is Multiple-Residential, the height limit of the building would be 45 feet. According to the applicant, excuse me, 20 percent of the units would be affordable units with the remainder of the units to be sold at market price. The proposal is also to provide two parking stalls per unit and 10 additional parking stalls. The Zoning Code requirement for an apartment unit would be 1 parking stall per unit. So they will be exceeding the minimum parking requirement as required by the Zoning Code. There will be a single access to the project site. For the mauka property which is, again, the Mochida property or the property on the west side, there will be a single access here. There will also be a single access on the Aburamen side of the property. The estimated construction timetable would be to commence construction in early 2007. And the cost of development would be approximately $8,000,000. As I indicated earlier, the General Plan designation for the Mochida property is, excuse me, Medium Density Urban 2 development which may allow Multiple-Family Residential uses. And the Aburamen property is designated for Industrial, although it's proposed to be reclassified or redesignated to Medium Density Urban development under the Planning Director's proposal, which we'll discuss later this afternoon. The Hilo CDP which was, again, adopted back in 1975, the CDP designation for this area is Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet. Surrounding land uses include basically residential structures along both sides of Laukapu Street. There is a doctor's office that was granted at the corner of Laukapu Street and Lanikaula Street at this particular location. That's Dr. Lee Ching's medical facility. There is also this particular area, diagonally across from Dr. Lee Ching's office, which was rezoned to Limited Industrial, and that also houses some Commercial as well as Limited Industrial uses. As I indicated access would be from Laukapu Street which currently has a right-of-way width of 40 feet with an 18- to 20-foot pavement with grass shoulders. Laukapu Street is proposed to be widened to a 50-foot right-of-way; therefore, that would affect 5 feet along both sides of the property. Water is available and sewer disposal would be to hook up into the County's sewage treatment system. The Department of Public Works did comment regarding the improvements to the roadway frontage; and basically they indicated that they would like to see drainage improvements as well as curb, gutter, sidewalks and pavement improvement in accordance with their requirements. DPW also stated that runoff shall be disposed of on site and not directed toward adjacent properties. We received several letters that were made part of your packet earlier. And these letters were from Pat Grossman, adjoining property owner; Lloyd and Patricia Nekoba also on an adjoining property on the north side of the Aburamen property; and a letter that was signed by Victoria and Clyde Abe, Miriam Hamakawa, Patricia Toyama, Lillian Oak. These individuals are related to the Saito family; and they own properties adjacent and to the south of the Aburamen property. We also received today letters from Thomas Hirano supporting the request and also written testimony from Patricia Saito-Toyama, a Clyde Abe expressing their concerns regarding the change of zone request. We also received a petition that was handed to me by Lloyd Nekoba, and I believe all of you have a copy. Unfortunately, there were only five copies that were with colored pictures so you may have to share those. The ones we reproduced are black and white. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the request with conditions. Condition D, and I'll highlight some of the conditions. Condition D states that the height limit shall be no more than 35 feet; and this is based on what the current Single-Family Residential zoned district states. The Condition E states there will be a minimum of two parking stalls per unit. Condition I, full improvements to Laukapu Street including but not limited to pavement widening with curbs, gutters and sidewalks; and drainage improvements shall be provided meeting with the approval of Department of Public Works. They also need to hook up to the County sewer system, that is Condition J. Condition L, as recommended by the Department of Public Works relating to drainage, would have to be conformed to. Condition Q we have our standard affordable housing condition. Condition R, that is a standard fair share housing condition that we include for rezonings such as this. 3 We are making one change; and I'll go back to Condition D. The condition states that the maximum height limit shall be 35 feet. However, since the height limitation in the Multiple- Residential zoned district is Excuse me, I'm getting crossed signals here so I need to call for a one-minute recess, if possible. ALAMEDA: Any objections to a recess from the Commissioners so they can get back on track? Seeing none, let's take a two-minute recess. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 2:00 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 2:02 p.m. ALAMEDA: Hawaii County Planning Commission now back in order. Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. As far as Condition D as proposed, initially recommended, there's no change to it. So the height limit would be 35 feet as we had initially proposed. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Hayashi? SALAVEA: Yes. ALAMEDA: Mr. Salavea? SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, no revisions to any of the conditions as stated in the recommendation? HAYASHI: That is correct, there are no changes. SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. ALAMEDA: Other questions? Will the applicant or its representative please come forward. FUKE: Good afternoon. ALAMEDA: Good afternoon. I know you've already been sworn in but, I guess, for the record could you please state your name and address. FUKE: Sure. Sidney Fuke, planning consultant. With me today are the applicants, actually applicant, Ivan Mochida. Mr. Aburamen is also in the audience. But if there are any questions, you know, directed to the subject application which is confined to Mr. Mochida's property, then he's prepared to answer them. Specifically, just to amplify on some of the staff's back ground report and your written presentation, I'd just kind of like wanted to put things a little bit more into a little bit different focus. I may be repeating myself because a lot of the information that were shared relative to the 4 Hirayama application generally, you know, would be applicable here. So I'll try to be very brief relative to that. Specifically, you know, the property now, what the Commissioners are considering is a 1.54 acre property, roughly 67,400 square foot area. The thought by the applicant, Mr. Mochida who's a contractor, was to do a townhouse type of project specifically designed to help address the housing needs, you know, not necessarily only in Hilo but for the whole island, but in this particular instance for the Hilo area. And it's not intended to be like a rental project or a low- and moderate-income housing project. There is obviously going to be, if the project is approved, it's going to be saddled with a 20 percent affordable housing requirement which he's prepared to honor and fulfill. But his initial plan was, you know, the quick and dirty way out of this, you know, from a contractor's standpoint is that you've got 67,000 square feet of land and just using existing zoning, you know, create a 6-lot subdivision and put up two homes on each of them, you know, like on ohana. But what that does not do, of course, is that it does not foster a sense of home ownership which is what he wanted to create like, you know, which a townhouse would provide that kind of opportunity, a sense of home ownership. And I think that's kind of very critical because when you have a sense of home ownership as opposed to straight-on rental, you know, you create a greater sense of cohesiveness within the community as opposed to having a lot of transients living within that area. And a lot of it is motivated by his discussions with Mr. Aburamen who grew up and lived in a home for a good number of his years and which, you know, he felt that based on like how this area has gradually been transitioned out from long-term residents to rentals to a variety of different type of commercial and industrial uses. And that's kind of like the genesis behind this whole program. The project if it gets approved and gets developed, tentatively, you know, is expected to be marketed at about $325,000 to $400,000 per unit, so you're not really looking at a very low-end type. It's a relatively moderate to moderately high end, you know, something comparable, maybe a little bit better than the Pacific townhouse project off of Kukuau Street. Specifically, the original plan called for a 34-unit project. But now because the Aburamen's property is not included, basically you're looking at a, the proposal is like a 25-unit project. The Planning Director has recommended, and which we think it only makes good sense his recommendation is to require a minimum of two parking stalls per unit as opposed to the conventional requirement which is 1.25. What has been proposed right now, however, is like basically each unit would have access to four stalls. Cause, you know, you would have two covered parking stalls and in the back of the parking area, I mean, the parking stalls of course obviously you would have that theater style parking right in the back of that for guests. In addition to that like there's like ample room at both ends of the proposed cul-de-sacs within the project to provide for additional guest parking if it's needed. Your staff pointed out some of the infrastructure issues. Like water is available. They're going to hook up to the County sewer system; and the Public Works has recommended and the Planning Director also recommended that they set aside additional right-of-way within their property and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk. And I think that, you know, as I responded to the other application regarding the drainage system as part of the permit approval process the applicant is going to have to develop two separate sets of drainage plans, one, specifically as it relates to the project itself, they have to, as required by the County Public Works Department's requirements, they have to develop a drainage plan that contains all of the project-generated water on the site. And, likewise, they have to develop a construction plan for the sidewalk 5 improvement which would then basically channel the water all into one particular area and have it drained fronting the property. You will note in your background report that the Fire Department and the Police Department both commented on the application; and I don't believe that they had raised any significant concerns or issues relative to the project. In short, I think that as it relates to the other application, you know, relating to the Houselots area, I think there was some comments made by some of the Commissioners relating to the need for housing. And I think this represents one classic example where you could have added density and provide responsible infrastructure associated with that project and, you know, meet a very definite need within the City of Hilo. If Mr. Mochida were to proceed just based on the existing zoning and do a 6-lot subdivision and do an ohana unit on each, you not only would foreclose the opportunity of home ownership, but what I think would happen is that, you know, you foreclose the opportunity for affordable housing requirement, you foreclose an opportunity also for off-site infrastructure improvements. And I know there are some concerns raised by neighboring property owners. So rather than get into that, I think if the Commission would indulge me I would just assume step back, hear the concerns, and would like an opportunity at the end to respond. ALAMEDA: Very well. But, first, any questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Just before I run off here ALAMEDA: Sure. SIRACUSA: I see throughout the background report, it refers to the fact that you're going to be selling these units; and yet in the regulatory analysis under General Plan policies you say increase rental opportunities and choices. And that started confusing me. Are you going to rent these units or are you going to sell them? Page 16, near the bottom FUKE: Oh, okay. That's a very good point. That section basically is a recitation of the General Plan. It's not something that I had SIRACUSA: Yeah but you were pulling out, "Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow," and then you chose that particular one to put in; and it has to do with rentals. FUKE: Well, that wasn't the intent. Because I think the pertinent provision comes under beginning page 17 when there was a discussion of the overall General Plan policies relating to the land use component and how they try to interface with the policies. SIRACUSA: Oh, so, but to be perfectly clear we are talking about selling these units? FUKE: That is correct. SIRACUSA: These are not rental units? FUKE: That is correct. 6 SIRACUSA: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. I know you have an engagement to attend or to go to. SIRACUSA: Well, I would love to stay and vote but I can't do it. So ALAMEDA: Okay, well, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. We still have a quorum, which means we'll continue. Other questions, fellow Commissioners? All right, seeing none, you may be seated. We do have testimony. Will Mr. Clyde Abe, Patricia Toyama, Lloyd Nekoba, please come forward. (Commissioner Siracusa left the meeting at this time, 2:10 p.m.) TOYAMA: Good afternoon. I'm here to speak on behalf of my husband who was here this morning but had another commitment. Is that okay if I read off what he had meant to say? ALAMEDA: Sure. Let me swear you in first. And then let me ask staff, does she need to sign up officially with you or ABE: Victoria Abe. DARROW: It's okay. ALAMEDA: Okay. How about you raise your right hand, all of you. ABE: Oh. ALAMEDA: One time, first. I'll swear you guys in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. ALAMEDA: All right. Okay, very good. Maybe we can start off ABE: Can I speak first? ALAMEDA: Do you want to start off first? ABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Can you state your name and address for the record? ABE: Victoria Abe. ALAMEDA: Okay, address. 7 ABE: It's 747 Laukapu Street ALAMEDA: Okay, go ahead, you may proceed. ABE: And 1829 Kualono Street, Honolulu. ALAMEDA: All right, Ms. Abe. ABE: Okay. My husband and I are the property owners of 747 Laukapu Street. My question is how will this rezoning affect us? Tremendously, since our property is not only directly across this 34 unit proposal but also targeted to be right next to it. We purchased the property in 1980 with the knowledge and understanding that it was zoned as a Single Family Dwelling but would, in the future, transition to Light Industrial. We, for most of the 26 years experienced a financial loss on this property but never wavered into trying to rezone it just for the profits. In fact the price we purchased it for reflected Single Family Dwelling with zoning to change to Light Industrial in the future. Although we do not live on the Laukapu property, we have always felt a deep sense of respect for not only the history of the Houselots Community but also for the residents who live in the neighborhood. This is why although spot zoning would have certainly benefited us financially we knew it would have been detrimental to the residents and other owners in the area. We have been willing to allow our property to remain as it was originally intended to be which is Single Family Dwelling and possibly develop in the future when the proper infrastructure allowed it to be zoned Light Industrial. We are very much against this proposal for rezoning to Medium Density and Multi-Family dwelling which will allow 34 units to be built in the middle of the block on a very narrow road. This is also clearly counter to the original zoning intent of Single Family Dwelling to Light Industrial. We were shocked that these changes could possibly occur without any input, communication, nor regard for the majority of the homeowners and residents. This spot zoning will result in a hodgepodge type of neighborhood which possesses infrastructure that can only support the Single Family Dwelling zoning. Allowing this spot zoning change which will result in a 34-unit development in this Houselots area will adversely affect the living quarters and conditions of the people who presently live in the community. First and foremost we ask you, the Hawaii Planning Commission to guide and ensure us that deliberate planning takes place in terms of infrastructure such as wider roads, sidewalks, storm drainage and traffic lights, and any other health and safety issues that will allow the present residents and owners some order and, most of all, safety in our day to day lives. Any kind of premature spot zoning in our Houselots neighborhood to anything other than single family dwelling must be preceded by the installation of the proper infrastructure. Also of great concern is the fact that the Master or General Plan was never communicated nor shared with those of us who are most affected by any kind of zoning changes such as, in this case, could be Industrial to Medium Density Multi-Family dwelling. We look to a Master Plan as the conduit that coordinates and guides the area so everything works for all and not piecemeal 8 - everyone, especially the people, should have input and basically agree to the intent of this development plan. We are against this rezoning from Single Family dwelling to Medium Density Multi-Family dwelling and ask you to support us. We are hopeful that you the Planning Commission will give consideration and priority to the residents and owners who have invested their homes and livelihood in remaining in this neighborhood. The proposed change will cause extreme hardship, emotional distress, and result in adverse and irrevocable changes if the proposed development goes through. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Ms. Abe. Any questions for our testifier? Seeing none, you may be seated. ABE: Oh, may I stay here? ALAMEDA: You can. TOYAMA: She's part of mine. ALAMEDA: Okay. State your name and address. TOYAMA: Okay, Patricia Toyama, 757 Laukapu Street (Hilo), and 7251 Alakoko Street (Honolulu). ALAMEDA: Okay, you may proceed. TOYAMA: My sisters and I own the property and house at 757 Laukapu Street which has been in our family for over 75 years. Our house is directly across the proposed rezoning for a Medium Density housing project being discussed today. We were raised in the Houselots community and still consider it home. The Houselots area was a quiet tranquil place of Single Family dwellings when we were growing up, and we feel it should remain an area of Single Family dwellings. We are extremely disappointed with this proposal to rezone the property across the street, from Single Family dwelling (RS-10) to Medium Density Multiple Family dwelling (RM-2.5). We are not against urbanization and progress and are aware of the housing shortage on the island, but we are against this type of development in the Waiakea Houselots neighborhood, and have several concerns. Contrary to the Environmental Impact Statement, flooding is a very real and major concern because we are presently and have been since the late 1990's experiencing flooding on our property at 757 Laukapu Street. This flooding problem began only after the development at the corner of Lanikaula and Laukapu Street, compounded by the increase in height of the asphalt/concrete of Laukapu Street. Surface water runoff originating from the corner of Lanikaula and Laukapu Streets, flows down Laukapu Street and then into our driveway which is the lowest point along the way. In times of heavy rainfall this water then accumulates on the side of our house and rises to a level dangerously close to the steps leading to the basement where we have living quarters which are 3 feet below grade. We've communicated our concern 9 about this problem with officials from the County Public Works Department beginning April 1999, and are extremely fearful that this problem will escalate if the proposed development is allowed to occur, resulting again in more concrete and sidewalks with less natural vegetation and ground to absorb water runoff. We feel that Houselots, and Laukapu Street in particular, lacks the proper infrastructure to support a project of the size proposed. The roads are narrow, with one lane in each direction. The proposed land density will result in a drastic increase in people and cars, leading to street parking problems and traffic congestion on the 700 block of Laukapu Street which is already a heavily used thoroughfare to and from the industrial area. This will undoubtedly be compounded by construction of 8.5 units per %z acre. Now two parking stalls are provided for each of the 35 units, according to the plan, but there is a potential for an increase of 102 cars or more, with no parking available for 34 additional cars except on the street. This would have an adverse effect not only on the 700 block of Laukapu Street, but the surrounding blocks. Today 3 to 4 bedroom single family dwellings frequently have 3 to 4 cars, which can be parked on their property with 2 cars in the 2-car garage and 2 cars tandem in their driveway. When there are multiple family dwellings that provide parking for 2 cars/unit, the extra cars end up parked in the street, causing massive parking problems, as we've seen in the Salt Lake area in Honolulu. Now Paragraph 3 page 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement states "Adequate space for 2 more stalls behind the garaged stalls could be used for guest parking". Now while I realize that Figure 4 of the proposal may not be drawn to scale, the drawing shows 2 cars passing each other comfortably on the property. However, there is not adequate space for 2 more stalls behind the garaged stalls. If the drawing is drawn to correct scale, then the statement is wrong. The so-called transitional area at the makai end of Houselots, which has apartments and commercial developments, exhibits parking problems and congestion, with cars parked on the street. We don't want this to spread to the rest of Houselots. Houselots is a convenient area to live, and with the proper infrastructure, such as wider roads, sidewalks, traffic lights to control traffic congestion, it provides a safer environment for all who live and/or visit the area, and storm drains to control flooding, I envision a rejuvenated Houselots area of mostly single family dwellings occupied by families who would prefer the convenience of living 5 minutes to town versus a 30-minute commute. The present single family dwellings of %z acre lots, such as ours, may have to give way to a denser configuration, but 34 units on 2 acres or 8.5 units per %z acre is a density which would irrevocably change the character of the neighborhood, increasing air and noise pollution and major safety issues for the residents. Figure 7 of the Impact Statement exhibits piecemeal zoning designations in the Waiakea Houselots area, and shows the need for an integrated larger plan for the area. Spot zoning will only serve the interest of the developers, commercial and light industrial enterprises, with complete disregard for the neighborhood. Please consider the impact of these drastic changes on the lives and property of what is presently there. We are against this rezoning and look to you to support our position. 10 In support of our flooding problem, I have some pictures that I'd like to share with you that shows the water. ALAMEDA: Let me ask our Corp. Counsel, let me check first. She would like to show that to the Fellow Commissioners. So for the record we're going to pass this around. TOYAMA: Can I explain that though? Is that - do you have an idea? ALAMEDA: Actually once you give testimony you cannot backtrack. So unless L. NEKOBA: Just give them, give them all the pictures so they can see. TOYAMA: Can I just give this to you? Oh, okay, we don't want to interrupt. ALAMEDA: Okay, let me see. Let me check with my counsel, that's why we have a counsel. Corp. Counsel, can this be integrated into public record? TORIGOE: Well, basically, you have an obligation to allow people to provide data and testimony in written form. You know, it doesn't really require you to receive pictures, but I don't think you're precluded from doing so. If it's part of the testimony I don't see any problem with it. ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners, do you have any objections to including this as part of the public record? Okay, seeing none, we will include it as part of the public record. Does it come with an explanation, each of these, or can we just look at it and you kind of just maybe summarize what we're seeing, because there are a lot of pictures. TOYAMA: Okay, I can summarize it. Well, there are five pictures. Okay, one of them, the first one, Figure A ALAMEDA: Why don't you show it to us as you present. TOYAMA: Okay. ALAMEDA: And also could you kind of highlight briefly what each one does in a succinct manner so that we can move forward with the testimony. TOYAMA: Okay, this is Figure A which shows - this corner is actually across the street, this shows part of the Mochida property. And this shows our driveway which is flooded with water. Actually it looks like a lake. ALAMEDA: Okay. TOYAMA: That's the water runoff from the street. Now this shows the side of, the front side of our house where the water has accumulated covering the sidewalk. 11 This is another shot of that same area, except that you can see it goes further back into the property. ALAMEDA: Okay. TOYAMA: This again is further back into the property where you can see the water has accumulated. ALAMEDA: All right. TOYAMA: This particular shot shows the back of our property with the water going up the sidewalk in the back. And you can see that these windows are part of our living quarters. Now the stairs that lead down into our sub-basement are right here. So that if the water keeps accumulating and going up further, we're afraid that that water will go into our basement eventually. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right. Seeing those pictures, any questions, Fellow Commissioners, for Mrs. Toyama? SALAVEA: Yeah. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In reference to the pictures, how often does your house flood like that? TOYAMA: Whenever there's a heavy rainfall. It used to be that, you know, it used to drain quite quickly. Now it doesn't drain very quickly. Any time you have a heavy rainfall it accumulates. SALAVEA: Two times a year, three times, any estimate? TOYAMA: Well, you live in Hilo, how many times does it rain heavily? SALAVEA: Quite often. TOYAMA: Right. SALAVEA: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Any other questions? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I'd like to ask Norman a question relative to what the testimony was about. The concern was about a high density, one of your concerns was about a high density maybe in terms of in one spot in this more open single family area. Norman, do we have other multi-family townhouse-like projects situated, you know, within a few blocks of this, or is this going to really be the first one in this whole area? 12 HAYASHI: For this section of Waiakea Houselots, this would be the first one. However, there are apartment buildings, for instance, like, that would be in this particular area, in close proximity to where Don's Grill is. There are some apartment complexes there. And there are a few also along the mauka portion or the east side of the Waiakea Houselots Subdivision. ALAMEDA: Other questions for the two testifiers? Go ahead, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you. It rained today. Do you think your driveway is flooded today? TOYAMA: Probably. IWASHITA: So like today, okay. Let's see, this area was, I believe, was part of the area that was upgraded from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban in last year's General Plan Amendment. Okay, my question to you is, actually to both of you ladies, did either of you, were either of you aware that that upgrade in the General Plan designation was made? TOYAMA: We were not. IWASHITA: If you were aware, if you had been aware and had also been aware that because of that change that this kind of development could occur, would you have made some input? TOYAMA: We would have voiced our opinion. You know, Mr. Fuke went over the history of what had occurred. Well, a number of years ago in the early 1990's my mother was one who testified for single family dwellings. IWASHITA: That's when it was downzoned to the Low Density Urban. TOYAMA: Right. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Other questions? Seeing none, you both may be seated. Mr. Nekoba, could you please state your name and address for the record. NEKOBA: Yes. My name is Lloyd Nekoba. I live part-time at 729 Laukapu. ALAMEDA: Okay. You can proceed with your testimony. NEKOBA: Yes, thank you. First of all before I forget, I wanted to be sure that, and I saw Councilman Jacobson outside, the first time I've met him, but I really appreciate his, I don't know, he passed the ordinance I think about putting those signs up. Because believe me when you come home one day and see 34 units coming next to you, you know, it's a shock. So, anyway, I want to thank him because I think that's a good law; and now people will know a development is coming. At least you can do something about it, anyway. ALAMEDA: Okay. 13 NEKOBA: I don't have any written testimony. I'm from Pepeekeo and they're from Hilo, Waiakea. I grew up in Pepeekeo. ALAMEDA: Okay. NEKOBA: Anyway, I have this handout. I didn't have enough, so hopefully you guys can share it. If you go to, I'm going to the petitions. We have petitions here; and I had it divided up by people who live in the area. And if you go down you can see where it Hinano Street and Laukapu Street is. So that's why there's a lot of space. If you look at it, there are people who, we left the space because these are only people living in the area. And there are other people on the list that are just Hilo residents that we had sign. But at this point it was no need in trying to get, you know, as many signatures. We just wanted to concentrate on the area where the project is coming. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right NEKOBA: Okay, and if you turn I have a friend of mine Earl Anzai who's, we foresee if we have to fight this thing, he'll get pro bono attorney for us. Then if we go to 1-A, I have an index, 1-A, you folks have the 1-A? Okay, the house on the right is, states it's Janis Higa. The next house over is Esther Kunia; and also John Kahiapo; and they were here. I don't know if you folks saw them, but they had to leave. She has something else so she was going to testify. So for the record, I'd like, because this is like we were supposed to be at 10, yeah? It's what, 2:30, so-. Okay? ALAMEDA: Yeah. All right. NEKOBA: And the idea behind these pictures is to show you what the neighborhood looks like. Okay? I'm song I don't have for the audience, but ALAMEDA: No problem. Where are we at now? What picture are we on now? NEKOBA: A-2. Okay, that's, again, the Kekuna's residence. Then A-3 if you're looking down from Leilani Street, if you look down Laukapu Street you can see how narrow that street is. It's not a wide street at all, with telephone poles right on the edge. The next picture A-4 is the project site. That warehouse has been taken down. And the next picture A-S is the empty lot right next to the Kekunas. And the next one again is a picture of the lot. The next one again is too; and then you can see a house on the left side. That's Mrs. Yabe's house; and she has been there for, oh, I don't know how many years, but she has been there for a long time. And she signed the petition. The next picture is just to show you again how narrow Laukapu Street is. I mean it's just a narrow street. 14 The next picture is right in front of the site where you can see the water ponding right in front there. And a lot of the water, you know, it goes down. But with cement there and houses there, it's going to create a different situation. The next one again is the same thing. The next picture, A-11, is my wife's house, not mine, my wife's house. But the next lot was where the 9 units were going to be, but they took that out. So Then the next picture, A-13, I used to be a school teacher so I'm trying to do it so people can follow. I cannot follow it, but maybe you guys can. Anyway, the A-13 is the Abe's house; and you can see there's ponding way at the bottom. And the next house is the same, except from a different shot. A-15 is in front of the Abe's residence where you can see there's water there. And, I, you know, every time I look at this thing, l guess people just park on there. But if you look at it, almost a quarter of your car would be on the street if you parked there. The next one again is the Abe's house; and I'm just trying to show the water and the situation where the wall is there, too. The next is another house that I missed taking the picture of but the house after that is the Hirayama's house and the Abe's house below, another Abe. They're not related. And that's Lanikaula Street already. That's A-17. Then A-18 is, again, another shot of the Hirayama's and the Lance Abe's house. A-19 is, you can see Dr. Lee Ching's house on the right. And, again, you can see how narrow the street is. The next is a shot of Dr. Lee Ching's office. The next is the water pooling right in front of the house, as you can see. This is the same, I think what happens is it pools here and then it goes to the Abe's residence. A-22 is looking across from Dr. Lee Ching's. A-23 is looking from the Hirayama's looking at the project. The project is where you see that house. And the next one is a similar shot. Then the B series, what I did was I took Laukapu Street coming from Puna, just to show if you look down the street how narrow the street is. 15 And the next shot, B-2, is the same thing. B-3, again, you can see the water but B-4, again, is the narrow street. B-5 is now from Leilani Street. So the street doesn't widen. It just stays the same. B-6 just shows, well, I guess it's the mailman. I couldn't figure what happened there, but I think it's the mailman that goes in and delivers mails. And B-7 is pretty obvious when you see that bus coming down. You can't pass the bus unless you're off the side of the road. Okay? Then C-I is Leilani Street, which is the dump road; and so a lot of people come to that area because they can go straight through to the dump. And you can see there's water ponding there. Again, there's another shot on the right-hand of the street. And the top C-3 is the same thing. I don't know why I keep taking it, but anyway, I C-4 is again Laukapu now looking mauka, from Laukapu Street. Again, you can see how narrow that road is. And C-5 is the same thing going the opposite way. D-I I just tried to show you Lanikaula Street and Kalanikoa. And Kalanikoa as you can see is a little wider than Laukapu. I mean there's a difference, I think it's two feet wider. Then E-I is an example of, I was told that what they were going to do, they were going to pave the front of the project. And this is how ridiculous it looks like. But this is on Mohouli Street. I don't know if you folks were the ones that passed it or whatever, but there's a curbing just in front of the project. The rest of the houses don't have any curbing. And E-2 you can see the same thing. E-3 again, it's the same, you know, area. But the curbing is just that. Nothing else has been done to the area. And E-4 is the same thing. Then F-I in the write-up there was a comparison, the Kukuau townhouse. Well, this is Kumukoa Street as part of the project, the project is on the right. Look how wide that street is. F-2, again, looking down; and you can see the townhouses are on the left. You can see how wide that street is. G-1 is the front part of the project. 16 And G-2 again is the same shot looking up. G-3 is going down. And G-4 is again going down. And when I went up there, there was a lady working in the yard and I asked her, you know, when they built this thing in front of you, what did you guys do? And she said it was a dairy farm. So, you know, there's nothing, it's good she said because somebody built something, you know. But there was a dairy farm. Well, we're not dealing with a dairy farm. We're dealing with people living in the area. I've got to catch my breath. I'm talking too much. ALAMEDA: Oh, you came prepared. All right. NEKOBA: I just don't want to miss the point, you know. ALAMEDA: Yeah, we've never seen about 50 pictures in two minutes. That's pretty good. NEKOBA: Well, you know, I was going to do a powerpoint but it's a little too high class. So I figured I'd come and do pictures. ALAMEDA: Okay. NEKOBA: Anyway, I don't know, maybe I can just answer questions. But, as you know, we're against it, we have petitions here and we intend to be here to fight this project. And, you know, that's America, you know. This is what it's about. You come to a hearing, you talk to people. People are not comfortable coming to talk to a body like you folks. Even I'm not comfortable. But, you know, when you've got to do it, you've got to do it. My, as closing, I put T Tito (phonetic), Hilo because I think that's what it's all about. If you guys let the thing just keep going that's what's going to happen. It's going to be Honolulu. And you can go Honolulu if you want to live in Honolulu. Okay? Anyway, I'll entertain questions. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Nekoba. I appreciate your future-like presentation. It was very good. Any questions? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you. Mr. Nekoba, I want to ask you a similar question as I did the ladies. Were you aware about the proposal to change the zoning of this general area from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban last year? NEKOBA: No. And I don't think we got IWASHITA: And if you had known at the time that the effect of changing it from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban would be to allow this kind of project to go forward, would you have come forward at that time to express any concerns? 17 NEKOBA: Yes, I would. The unfortunate thing is, first, I can understand, it's not easy to inform people. You know, because people don't read the mail, whatever it is. But the other part is, you know, the public themselves have to be educated. Cause when you're talking about multi density, you know, who knows what these things are? I mean, I have no idea what it is. But when I look at Hilo and I see like Puuco and I see, you know, I mean, places that already had that, well, let's keep it there or do something over there; but don't go in a residential area. And not because I live there, believe me. It's just that, you know, it's not Hilo. That's as simple as I can make it. But, yes, I would have; and if it comes up now again, I will. In fact, I will try to push our Councilman who lives across the street from me to do this development thing. They should. I mean, it will make it easier for you folks, it'll make it easy for the Director. ALAMEDA: Other questions? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: I just have a couple of quick things. First, I don't know how effective it is but the rules of the rezoning is that a project like this, whatever extra flooding issues result from it, they're supposed to handle it on the project site. So presumably if the rules all follow the practice and it works, it shouldn't get any worse flooding than what you get right now as a result of the project. I don't know in practice whether it works the way it's supposed to; but that's the rules and what's what they have to design to follow. NEKOBA: Yeah, I can understand that. But, you know, just looking at the amount of water that comes in that area now you're going to cement the whole area practically, I mean, I presume there will be some grass, and the roofline, all those buildings, I mean, where is the water going to go? And they said, well, they're going to dig those whatever, French drains or whatever, but, you know, there's water not too far down. We're at sea level there. So I don't know. GRAHAM: Okay, thanks. And the other thing I was going to bring up is referring more to the letter of March 15`h, we have from Lloyd and Patricia Abe from like a land use thing. The one thing that you signaled out in your letter is what is the master plan for Waiakea House Lots. And I think what you're saying is, at least the way I'm reading it, is that this is intended to be a mixed use area so that we might have apartments, we might have townhouses, we might have some Commercial. But I'm going to kind of ask the Planning Director this one, is there any plan or is it just the issue of like whoever comes in first for the townhouse, wherever they happen to have a piece of property that they want to do it, that's where it goes. And if somebody comes in for something else and that's what they want to do, that's where it goes. And it does seem a little, I mean, it does seem to me like that's certainly not the best way because you're just kind of following the dog kind of, you know what I mean, as opposed to having any plan that it would be nice to mix some in this kind of a way and have these located here or something. We don't have any plan like that, right? We're just going to take what happens in the density, and the zoning, and the General Plan that we have set for this area? We're just going to take what gets presented to us, where it gets presented? YUEN: There's nothing more specific than the General Plan though. And so the individual decisions about the lots would be made at a rezoning level like this. There's no overall plan that would say one lot becomes this and the next lot becomes that. GRAHAM: Thank you. 18 NEKOBA: Mr. Iwashita, you asked about the Community Development Plan, that's the first time I heard about it, you know, in this hearing; and it seems like that is what should be happening. Now if there's a way to do that, I think the public can be made aware of it so that, you know I mean, you want me to write a letter, I don't write letters, my wife writes the letters. But, anyway, we can get this thing, you know, moving, because I think it will be for everybody, including the developer. I'm not against the developers, you know. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita, question for our testifier? IWASHITA: Like I said earlier, everybody contact your counsel person and tell them this needs to be done; and, you know, I mean, that is what needs to be done. You know, the Department has very limited resources and what they have is being used on the West side right now, because that's where the perception of the problems, you know, the more critical problems are. But contact your Councilperson. And they have money now so they cannot tell you don't have money. NEKOBA: Can I just have a clarification on those - they had some stipulations before the project; and one was the curbing. Was it to be the whole street? YUEN: No, just the frontage, just the frontage of these three lots. NEKOBA: Just the frontage. Well, yeah, that's why I showed the picture. But I thought maybe, you know, they changed it. So, okay. ALAMEDA: I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. You may be seated. All right we have two additional testifiers. Let's call up Thomas Hirano and Tim Young. Please come forward. All right. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: All right, thank you. We can start off on my far left. Could you please state your name and address for the record. HIRANO: Thomas Hirano. ALAMEDA: Address? HIRANO: It's 708 Kanoelehua Avenue. ALAMEDA: Okay, Mr. Hirano, you can proceed with your testimony. HIRANO: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my family and I own properties in the Waiakea Houselots area. One of these is along Kalanikoa and Leilani Streets, less than 2 blocks from Mr. Mochida's and Mr. Aburamen's proposed townhouse project. Given its proximity to our properties and as active members of our community, we do have an understandable interest in the outcome of this project. 19 There is an extreme shortage of affordable homes. Projects like this help provide alternative forms of housing. Many can no longer live in the traditional American dream of a single-family residence on a large lot; but we can still help them fulfill the dream of a home through the creation of smaller lots, condos, and townhouses. These types of homes all provide needed housing alternatives and help strengthen the social fabric of our overall community. The Waiakea Houselots area is a good location for such a mixture of homes. At one point in time, this used to be a vibrant community. However, as families grew older, many have moved out of this area and chose to either sell or rent their homes. Today, while there are still homeowners, there are many rentals and increasing commercial and industrial uses. These changes, if planned well, should help make the Houselots area more of a cohesive community where people can work and live. One of the things I would like to see is more home ownership in this area. Projects like this help achieve that vision. Home ownership creates a greater sense of belonging and breeds a sense of caring. This is what we need to help make this area function more as a community. At the same time, certain basic infrastructure should be addressed. In this case, the applicants will be required to construct sidewalks fronting the property. This is good as it will make walking a bit safer. Others may say, well, the entire street should have sidewalks. Yes, it should, but it isn't fair to make that the sole responsibility of these applicants. Even we, as lot owners, don't want to pay for that cost fronting our properties for the community good. I think they are doing their share and more. And maybe we should step up and do our part, too, for with or without this project the conditions will still remain the same. There have been concerns over drainage. However, it is my understanding that any additional drainage created by this project will have to be contained on the property. With the sidewalk and drywells they will have to construct fronting their properties, there should not be any water ponding on the road fronting their properties. Yes, I am supportive of this project. It is needed for the overall community; it is needed to help make Waiakea Houselots a more vibrant, stable, and caring community. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Hirano. Questions? Seeing none, you may be seated. Can you please state your name and address for the record. YOUNG: Good afternoon, My name is Tim Young, PO Box 1473, Hilo. I have an interest in property at 500 Lanikaula Street. This has been passed on through our family from my grandparents to currently my brother and sisters and myself. And we have interest in other properties. I'm the one that's basically consolidating the interest so I can move to develop, because my sisters and my brothers have no interest in moving home because there's no opportunities for the occupations that they currently are involved in in Hilo. And in my hana butta days when we grew up in the summer months, children for jobs they went to Lanai and Molokai to pick pineapples. The girls worked in a cannery in Honolulu. When I was in high school Harry Kim was a counselor. And as we moved towards graduation, we had to realize we're going to be packing our bags. And either we go to Viet Nam with the draft or we're going to college. And our group of friends said, okay, guys, we go to college because we'd like to see, 20 and we made a pact that we're going to come home and we're going to try to provide more opportunities for youth that grew up in Hilo than existed for us in our days. There were no Walmarts, no McDonalds, no Burger Kings, no Star Bucks, no Borders. I remember when the Prince Kuhio Plaza was proposed. Hilo was in an uproar. People said it was going to be the death of Downtown; and we had a family business that was Downtown at that time. And, nevertheless, Prince Kuhio Plaza came, Downtown survived. And I think Hilo is better for Prince Kuhio Plaza being here. And then all of a sudden the evil monster Walmart was coming to Hilo. And then everybody again was in an uproar, oh, no, it's going to be the death of small businesses in Hilo. But businesses transitioned, Walmart came, and I think Hilo is better for Walmart being here. I think together as a community we have met the challenge and we succeeded in providing more opportunities for the people that are living here today. But we still need more and there's more that needs to be done. I think we have met the challenge of opportunities but we have fallen back on the mission as a community to provide adequate housing for this community. There are businesses in Hilo. And in order for our community to grow and in order for businesses to prosper, you've got to be able to provide housing for the employees. The University is growing, the Hilo Medical Center is growing, the John A. Burns School of Medicine is interested in a program of internship in Hilo. One of their concerns is housing. And I think it's beholding upon us that we address these issues. The last nuclear facility built in the United States was about 25 years ago. The last oil refinery constructed in the United States was over a decade ago. The last townhouse project in Hilo was somewhere between 10 and 25 years ago in Hilo. And look at that today. It's a very desirable project and it's at a very desirable location to reside. I have seen Hilo changed and I realize change is inevitable. And there are more opportunities that still need to be made way for so our classmates, so our friends, so our bothers and sisters can come home and enjoy opportunities and find housing opportunities. Housing and jobs go hand in hand. There are a few things that are certain in life; and among them death and taxes; and now a shortage of housing in Hilo. And I urge you to positively support this proposal and others like it that should be put forth before you. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Young? Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate it. Will the applicant or its representative please come forward. Mr. Fuke? There were five testifiers and you heard the various opinions. You care to comment? FUKE: Sure. Mr. Chairman, this is like one of the, from a personal standpoint, a little bit more the tougher applications that I've had to handle for a number of reasons. Like one is that I think that when you, you know, we always try to, like anyway from my perspective, when you look at applications you always try to put myself in the other person's shoes, especially if there are complaints; and then hopefully you try to arrive at a win-win kind of situation. 21 In this particular situation, the nature of the project is such that you don't have the supporters, the usual supporters that would come out for like "an affordable housing or housing project," because they're not here. Unlike, you know, if you have a request for like a Charter School or a church or whatever, you have the members like coming up and you have a lot of supporters in that regards as opposed to like a housing project. But you do have neighbors who express concerns and you try to arrive at hopefully like a win-win situation; but you're kind of like, it's very difficult. The other one is that, you know, I just noted that of the two testifiers I'm somewhat indirectly related to them. Mr. Hirano is my wife's cousin and he spoke for it. Vicky Abe is my wife's, it's all on my wife's side, my wife's sister's in-law. And so I know them personally; and I've got a job to do. But having said that, I think that in listening to the substantive type of comments, you know, like there's the issue about the General Plan, I mean, you know, it was in Medium Density, it went down back to Low Density, and then back again up to Medium Density. But make no mistake about it, this property is on the Medium Density side. It's the Abe-Saito side that's in the Industrial area. But not withstanding that, you know, from the General Plan standpoint, it's Medium Density. And as I was indicating earlier, you know, it's like calling for like a mixed type of use. You know, the question, however, is like as what Mr. Nekoba was pointing out, like maybe apartments should be or multiple family units should all be confined in one area; and he mentioned like that, you know, to Puueo. But when you think about it, like, well, is this where you want, like have all the apartments all confined to one area like in Puueo, or for that matter on the Hoolulu Park side of the Houselots area, or do you want to have more like a mixture of use? And, you know, I've traveled, I have been fortunate enough to travel; and I've gone to Japan like a number of times. And I find it so interesting that community because you have a mixture of uses, and they all get along. You have high rises, you have single family homes, and you have multiple family homes, you have commercial, you have industrial; and they all function as a community. And I think that's what I think is the intent behind the mixed zoning kind of concept; and you have a Medium Density that provides you with that kind of an opportunity to, you know, to capitalize on that kind of an opportunity. True, you know, there are some substantive issues. As I mentioned earlier, like from the density perspective Mr. Mochida could do a 6-lot subdivision, and do 12 units on the property, and not paying an impact fee, not doing an affordable housing, you know that kind of stuff. But it doesn't foster a true sense of community within that area. I mean that's kind of like from his perspective which I also share too. There are some environmental or infrastructure kind of questions like, you know, on the traffic. And, true, there are discussions about like, you know, if you look at the parking situation and apartments down at the Hoolulu Park end and most of those apartments were constructed prior to the current Zoning Code that we have, so everybody was just kind of doing the minimum, one stall for each apartment unit. What the Planning Department is suggesting here, which we agree, you know, given the car culture that we are in right now, a minimum of two parking stalls, and plus the two back-up areas. I realize what one of the, Ricky's sister was talking about, about like the plan may be not being really reflective of, you know, if you do it by scale what could happen in that area. But, in fact, we do have scaled plans that show that if the plans are approved as being proposed, you not only have two covered stalls, but in the back of that you have a minimum of 18 to 20 feet to allow for tandem parking in that area. 22 It's kind of ironic to, like when you talk about, you know, like the Commission has dealt with a lot of applications in the Kona area. And they talk about connectivities, and people don't want connectivities in Kona especially, they talk about trying to introduce traffic calming, you know, whether it's the roundabout or putting speed humps and all that kind of stuff. And, you know, ironically this is more of a residential than it is not a residential area. And perhaps some of the traffic issues associated in the area may be not so much locally generated traffic as much as having a lot of these cross streets serve as a through streets by people traveling from Lanikaula going to Kekuanaoa or whatever have you. And I think it's typical. But I think to some extent what limits a person from possibly utilizing this as opposed to going on Manono Street, for example, is that if you're crossing town and, you know, Kekuanaoa Street is your problem, so you know, you try to hit the traffic limits, and that's at Manono Street; and so Manono is probably a little bit more heavily traveled. On the issue of the flooding, it's regrettable, I can appreciate and understand what the Saitos and Abes were talking about. And I think that Mr. Nekoba was pointing out to some pictures about the flooding at the corner of Lanikaula and Laukapu Streets. But if memory serves me correctly, and perhaps the staff can correct me on that, but when the use permit was issued for that particular medical facility, there was a requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalk in that area. And whether it was deferred or for some reason deleted, I'm not really aware; or if it's not true then I would stand corrected. But, you know, in conjunction with all developments as the Commissioners know, there are usually like the attendant responsibility to take care of the basic necessities especially fronting your property. Mr. Nekoba talked about the Pacific Townhouse Project; and that is true. If you look at Kukuau Street and you go on that Kumukoa Street, yeah, it's wide street and all that stuff. But when RSM came to do that development, that was their entire property that they had to do curb, gutter, sidewalk and for the full improvements. But if you get beyond that point, and you're heading makai, you'll find that Kukuau Street begins to narrow. So what we're saying over here is that like, and to some extent what Mr. Hirano indicated, is that yes, if government is not going to do it and developers are going to do it, and the individual homeowners do not want to make some improvements, that through development you allow for piecemeal type of infrastructure improvements. And, hopefully, at some point in time there will be a full level of improvements done. I do recall also that photo shown by Mr. Nekoba on Mohouli Street. It may look funny right now. But at some point in time when Mr. Ahuna's property begins to develop at the far end and those intervening parcels develop, then you will find curb, gutter and sidewalk stretching from Dr. Camacho's building all the way down to Kinoole Street. ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners, there's a lot in front of us at this time. We've heard testimony from five individuals. We also heard a response from Mr. Fuke regarding some of the concerns. What are your guys' thoughts? Discussion? Or any questions first for our applicant before he sits? All right seeing none, you can be seated. All right, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: This is kind of hard for me. Basically I have been supporting the sort of mixed use concept here in Waiakea and all. And I think with the Planning Director's particular restrictions as far as the height limitation and as far as the extra parking spaces, he has really 23 mitigated some of what could be problematic around a townhouse project. But I'm still left with the feeling that this is kind of, you know, the first in that area; and it has kind of parachuted in at that one place. And the neighbors are not happy with it. So, I don't know, I don't feel like I have any precedent I need to follow on it; and I'm just uncomfortable with just accepting it because it conforms. But if it's at a particular location that it's not well received, I guess, I'm not so inclined to support it as I would be on the general concept of something that is well planned like this in that area. ALAMEDA: All right, Commissioner Graham. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: I appreciate the public testimony and everyone who came forward today to provide us information about your community and the history. It's very valuable for the Commission to receive that information. And I want to encourage everything to continue to do that because it does help us in forming our opinions albeit it may differ from Commissioner to Commissioner. But it still does help the individual come up with or make a decision, especially in these applications where there seems to be a recurring issue between growth and maintaining status quo. I myself I want to say that I want to support local contractors and developers in providing housing options to local people in Hilo. And I want to qualify that with, as a first-time home buyer, the options in Hilo, Kcaau areas are, the Hilo-Puna area are very limited at the moment. And the more options we can provide to first time home buyers looking to locate near the Hilo area where they work, they play, their family members live, I think is of value and great importance. Because we don't want to be caught up in maintaining our urban areas or urban core at the status quo and forcing people to move out into the rural areas, 30 minutes, one hour, hour and a half out of town because that's the only affordable area to live in. I think developments such as this kind of present us with a different option than from what's traditional buying a lot in Hilo, getting together $300,000 to $400,000 and then building your home and having a $3500 mortgage per month. I think something like this is, although it does clash with the history and the overall look of the surrounding community, we still need to look at how we can provide our young families or local families, professionals coming up trying to live and work in Hilo with options. And that's my, you know, this is a tough issue; and that's where my gut feeling is taking me, and I feel strongly that we need to support a project like this. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you. I agree with all the sentiments and feelings Commissioner Salavea expressed about the need to really address our housing shortage, you know, throughout the spectrum of all our housing needs. I really think that it's a significant enough problem for our community that there is no way that this body or the Council is going to be able to deal with it in an effective manner that will result in a solution or any where near a solution if we try go about it in a, I hate to use the word spot zoning, but, you know, basically in this opportunistic kind of way that these kind of proposals come to this body and to the County Council. What's really needed is a broadbased community effort to address the housing and all the other needs that we have in our community in a comprehensive manner, which is a Community Development Plan. And that really needs to be done; and that's about the only effective way, frankly I can see that our housing crisis can be addressed. Otherwise, it's really on a helter skelter, well, maybe this will work or not kind of basis. And we will never, I'll say the word, we'll never resolve it if we keep doing it this way. And so in my mind that's, the housing shortage is not really the moving factor to me in addressing whether we should approve this project. And, you know, I 24 know both applicants relatively at different levels and I really support the intent of what they're doing or trying to do. But the process as I see it is one with, you know, I would hope that they would continue on beyond the boundaries of their project and look at the entire Houselots neighborhood, the entire Hilo community, and also help support the Community Development Plan process. And in the end, in my mind, by doing so, when we have a real clear picture of where the development is going to go, then the development dollars will be there. You know, I'm told and I agree that developers want as clear a line as possible with as minimal number of approval processes to go through. And if we do a clear enough, specific enough Community Development Plan that says this is where the development is going to occur, then it will happen. The way we have it now, it's just helter skelter; and we will end up with nothing better than LA, Honolulu, Kihei, if we keep going down this road. I'm part of the process and trying to be a voice to try and change it; and so as the rest of the body knows here, to be consistent, I will be voting against this project. ALAMEDA: Other Commissioners would like to voice their thoughts on this particular agenda item? Well, we have five Commission Members, that makes a quorum. We could entertain a motion at this time either way. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the planning application for Change of Zone Docket No. REZ 06-000035 based on the Planning Director's recommendation and proposed conditions. ALAMEDA: Do I hear a second? Seeing none, motion dies. Is there another motion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes, I'll make one. I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for change of zone Docket No. REZ 06- 000035 based on the following reasons and conditions: Basically those which I stated in the record previously heretofore. And if counsel tells me I need to restate them, I will. Thank you. GALDONES: Second that motion. ALAMEDA: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Iwashita, seconded by Commissioner Galdones, to forward an unfavorable recommendation regarding this application. Discussion? GALDONES: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: Sure. Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: In viewing this application, as a Commissioner I just do not want to exercise my right of authority and not give any consideration to the public. I'm looking for a win-win situation. Unfortunately in this particular case I do not see a win-win situation. And it was easy for me to just say that I can go along with the recommendation because I'm not going to live in the community, the community that has to deal with this situation. And voicing the concerns that they had, I do not see that being mitigated. I had some difficulty in supporting a favorable recommendation. And as I stated earlier a lack of a Community Development Plan, I'm guided by the voice of the community; and in this particular case they have voiced some 25 opposition to it. And because that is, I would encourage the rest of my colleagues to vote in support of the motion. ALAMEDA: Okay, other discussion? I'd like to share something, too, regarding the Community Development Plan. You know, I think there's a, I agree along those lines that the Community should be more involved in planning for their own development. However, I think there might be a misconception that a Community Development Process will ensure win-win all the way around. I as a facilitator in many different places with different types of people from different types of efforts and initiatives realize that even a Community Development Plan Process will not ensure community consensus. It is very difficult in any community to reach consensus regarding these issues. I think Commissioner Salavea brings up a real good point that would probably split this community. And I think Commissioner Galdones and Commissioner Iwashita brings up another good point that would probably split this community. But the notion of, you know, we need a community plan kind of, with the perception that, oh, that will in itself bring community consensus is an illusion from my own facilitation of such processes. Nonetheless, trying to make that effort I think is, it is a worthy concept. But to just state it as if it will be the solution is not accurate in my own experience. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any experience, okay? My strong feelings about it, in part, arise from my moving around this state and having seen how things have gone and seeing really a need for doing something different. I mean if we keep doing what we're doing, we're going to deserve what we get. All right? And so my state of mind is such that anything is better than what is out there right now, absolutely. You've got to try something else. Right? Otherwise, you fit the definition of insanity. We keep doing the same thing over and over again, and we're going to expect something different from Kihei, something different from Kapolei, something different from LA; and that is insanity. That's like my golf game. I keep going out there and doing the same thing, expecting the scores to get better. It ain't happening. So I appreciate the Chair's point that, you know, there ain't no guarantees. I agree. There ain't no guarantees. But I would like to share one example, I guess. About a year ago or so, plus or minus, I was present at a meeting at Kalanianaole School cafeteria by the Rural South Hilo something, I forget exactly what it was called, but they brought down a fella by the name of Mr. Aimes, I don't remember his first name, a consultant kind of person apparently something like what you described, who facilitated together with a bunch of other professionals, I guess, up in Flagstaff, Arizona, what I would call a Community Development Plan Process which took a couple of years. In the end they essentially had an agreement in the community, the entire Flagstaff community. I don't know how many people live there. I've driven through there couple of times. But basically they agreed this is where the development is going to take place, this is where development is not going to take place, this is where the housing is going to be, where the commercial development is going to be, where the college is going to be, how big the college is going to be. They drew all the lines on the map; and when they went to their Council to get it approved, there was not one ounce of opposition. As far as housing, the housing community from those that service the homeless all the way up to the high end developers, they all agreed this is how we're going to do it, this is where the housing is going to be, and this is how the housing will get done. I don't know if it has actually been done, but they agreed. And, you know, that's one example. 26 And, to me, you know, every month Houselots, right? Now that the General Plan has been changed to Medium Density, every month we get one of these. And, you know, I just, tome the writing is on the wall, right? We just keep going down this road, and what we're doing is called entitlements. Once the entitlement is granted, you're locked in. And we do this for another two, three, four, five years, there it goes, we just got a strip mall. Look at these plans. These plans for the commercial development on Manono Street was mostly a parking lot. And the community wants a parking lot, fine, they can have it. Right? We can have it. But we have choices. We don't have to do it that way; and that's what a Community Development Plan process allows us to do, a chance anyway. We might not agree. ALAMEDA: All right. Other thoughts? Okay, motion is on the floor to send an unfavorable recommendation. Seeing no further discussion, staff? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council for the reasons previously stated on the record and, additionally, some of the reasons that Mr. Galdones has stated. With that, I'll call the roll call vote. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Nay. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion does not carry. ALAMEDA: All right, you'll be informed in writing. Oh, does this come back? HAYASHI: That goes back on your agenda. ALAMEDA: All right. So on the next Hilo meeting or HAYASHI: Yes, it will be on the next Hilo meeting. 27 ALAMEDA: Okay. So you will be notified. Thank you for your patience. The discussion ended at 3:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _L~e,,,w„ ) . A _ Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 28