Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0718.000 2012-2014 ;/-•J�SYOih.. �_ 1 ,' Walter K.M.Lau ",�Lb�4: Managing Director•William P.Kenoi •:AV.'t!.,,'�t• Mayor _.= Randall M.Kurohara .�i••: . •:, Deputy Managing Director County of Hawaii Office of the Mayor 25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Me Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 (808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440 February 25, 2014 N C� y1 J Yoshimoto, Council Chair __ and Members of the County Council t"J ___ County of Hawai`i "' 25 Aupuni Street ,1 Hilo,HI 96720 .;: Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members: State Land Use Boundary Amendment(SLU 13-000039) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application(REZ 13-000171) Request: A-la to CV-20 Applicant: Jerry Souza Tax Map Key: 1-5-007:061 Change of Zone(REZ 898,Docket No. 98-000006) Applicant: Waterfall Entertainment, Inc. Request: Time Extension to Conditions B (Water Commitment Payment)and C (Complete Construction)of Ordinance No. 06 144 . Tax Map Key: 2-2-037:029 • Change of Zone Application(REZ 13-000167) Applicant: Vincent T. C. Tai Request: RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 Tax Map Key: 2-4-028:009 As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a),Hawai`i County Charter,transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. t VW William P. Kenoi Comm. No. 7/$ Mayor Ref.To PG Ref. Date, FEB 2 7 1U14 Enclosures cc: Planning Department <at bt� County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. a._ OF k County of Hawaii WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 FEB 2 5 z014 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 J Yoshimoto, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 13-000167) Applicant: Vincent T. C. Tai Request: RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 Tax Map Key: 2-4-028:009 The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on February 6, 2014, recommended for your approval the proposed legislative bill for a Change of Zone from a Multiple-Family Residential —2,500 square feet(RM-2.5) to a Multiple-Family Residential— 1,500 square feet (RM-1.5) zoning district for approximately 3.292 acres of land. The subject property is located at the end of Hualalai Street,just west of the Hualalai Street/Hale Nani Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawai`i. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the request: The applicant is requesting a change of zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 in order develop an affordable housing project known as"Hualalai Court" consisting of 88 affordable housing units, of which 50 will be one-bedroom units approximately 580 square feet in size, 36 will be two-bedroom units approximately 760 sq ft in size, and 2 will be three-bedroom units approximately 850 sq ft in size. The development would also include common recreation/play areas, a communal vegetable garden, and on-site parking and landscaping in accordance with the zoning code. The applicant estimates infrastructure improvements (i.e. driveways, utility connections) will take approximately Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 4 months and cost $900,000 to construct. Due to the uncertainty of financing and market conditions, the time schedule and cost to construct the proposed project are unknown at this time. The change of zone request from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 will conform to, among others, the Land Use and Housing elements of the General Plan. 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 be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide(LUPAG) Map, which establishes the basic urban and non- urban form for areas within the county, designates the subject property as Medium Density Urban which allows for single-family and multiple-family residential uses with an overall density of up to 35 units per acre as well as village and neighborhood commercial uses. The applicant's proposal to develop 88 residential units on approximately 3.292 acres would be below the maximum density of 35 units per acre allowed with the Medium Density Urban designation. The proposed development will support the goals of the Housing element for the South Hilo district by providing housing for those individuals that prefer not to live in or cannot afford single-family dwellings, such as low and moderate income earners, college students and the elderly. Much of the multiple-family housing stock that exists in Hilo is aging and in need of repair or renovation. Additionally, the request supports the goals and policies of the Land Use element in that the proposed project is located in close proximity to services in downtown Hilo and adequate infrastructure is available to serve the project. The subject property is located in an urban area, in close proximity to other residential uses including multiple-family residences such as the Lanakila Homes Public Housing project which is located on lands to the south zoned RD-3.75. The adjacent properties to the north were recently rezoned to RM-1.5. The County Police Department Headquarters complex and St. Joseph's School are located nearby on Kapi`olani Street. A minor increase in traffic and noise in the area will occur due to the proposed project; however these impacts are reasonable to expect in an urban area and can be reduced through on-site landscaping and adherence to State laws relating to construction noise. A Revised and Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), prepared in April 2013, determined that the proposed project will not change the acceptable levels of The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 service at the Kapi`olani Street/Hualalai Street intersection. A condition of approval will require the applicant provide adequate landscaping to mitigate any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties. Based on the above, a change of zoning to the RM-1.5 district classification is appropriate in this area and the request is consistent with the General Plan. All essential utilities and services are available to the site. Access to the property is from Hualalai Street, which is a County owned and maintained roadway with a right-of way width of 60 feet. The applicant will construct a 32-foot wide asphalt paved driveway aligned with Hualalai Street. A condition of approval will require that any driveway connection to Hualalai Street conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawai`i County Code. According to the Department of Water Supply(DWS), water can be made available to the property via an existing 8-inch waterline within Kapi`olani Street by extending approximately 260 lineal feet of 8-inch waterline to the subject property. The proposed request would also require the installation of a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly within five feet of the existing or additional water meters. Conditions of approval will be included to address the Department of Water Supply's requirements. A County sewer line is located along Hualalai Street. The Department of Environmental Management has indicated that the applicant will be required to provide a sewer study prior to connection to the County sewer line. A condition of approval will require that the applicant provide a sewer study, construct any required upgrades to the existing sewer system in Hualalai Street, and connect to the existing County sewer line prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Solid waste will be disposed of by commercial haulers or individual homeowners into an approved landfill. 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 "X", an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a drainage study to the Department of Public Works and construct any required drainage improvements. Additionally, all development generated storm run-off will be disposed of on-site and not allowed onto adjacent properties or roadways. The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 Electrical and telephone services can be made available to the property. Police services are located nearby on Kapi`olani Street. Fire services are located in downtown Hilo. Medical services are available at Hilo Medical Center. Nearby parks include Lincoln Park and Mohouli Park. Private and public schools are in close proximity to the property. The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The subject property is located over half a mile from the shoreline and is not in the Special Management Area. Thus, the property will not be affected by coastal hazards and beach erosion. There are no identified recreational resources, historic resources, public access to the shoreline or mountain areas, scenic and open space preserves, coastal ecosystems, marine resources or other natural and environmental resources on the subject property. In view of the Hawai`i State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai 0 Ka Aina"decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: • Investigation of valued resources: An archaeological survey was not conducted because the property has previously been graded and is developed with a single- family dwelling. A flora and fauna survey of the property was conducted by Geometrician Associates, LLC in June 2009. • The valued cultural,historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The flora and fauna survey found no rare, threatened, or endangered floral or faunal species on the property,but recommended against removing or disturbing any vegetation during the months of June and July in order to avoid impacts to any roosting endangered Hawaiian hoary bats, which are difficult to detect. • Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The property does not abut the shoreline, therefore Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights is not an issue. Native plants may be destroyed by ground alteration. There is no evidence that the flora in the area are particularly desired or used for cultural practices. • Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There is no evidence that traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised on the property; therefore no action is necessary to protect these rights. A condition of approval will be included to require the applicant to notify the DLNR-SHPD should any The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 unidentified sites or remains be encountered, and proceed only upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR-SHPD. Based on the above findings, approval of the Change of Zone request from a Multiple-Family Residential-2,500 sq. ft (RM-2.5) to a Multiple-Family Residential- 1,500 sq. ft (RM-1.5)zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the public. For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map) of Chapter 25, Zoning Code, of the Hawai`i County Code is transmitted. We have enclosed various correspondence by and between the applicant and members of the surrounding community as they attempted to identify, understand, and resolve concerns regarding the proposed Change of Zone. We are enclosing copies of the staff Background, Planning Director's Recommendation, transcripts of the February 6, 2014, and October 3, 2013 meetings, and the Powerpoint presentation for your information. Sincerely, %L € /Z Wallace A. Ishibashi, ., Chairman Windward Planning Commission Lvincenttairezl3-000167wpc2 Enclosures cc: Mr. Vincent Tai Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Department of Land &Natural Resources-HPD William Brilhante, Esq., Corporation Counsel BTai-RM 1.5REZ.doc-8/19/13 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT VINCENT T.C. TAI CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION(REZ 13-167) VINCENT T.C.TAI has submitted an application for a Change of Zone from a Multiple-Family Residential—2,500 square feet(RM-2.5)to a Multiple-Family Residential— 1,500 square feet(RM-1.5)zoned district for approximately 3.292 acres of land. The subject property is located at the end of Hualalai Street,just west of the Hualalai Street/Hale Nani Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo,Hawai`i, TMK: 2-4-028:009. PROPOSED ACTION 1. Request: Change of zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 for approximately 3.292 acres of land. With the current RM-2.5 zoning, the subject 3.292-acre property can be developed with a maximum of 57 residential units. Whereas, with the proposed RM-1.5 zoning, a maximum of 95 residential units could be developed on the subject property. It should also be noted that Hawai`i County Code Chapter 11 (Affordable Housing), Section 11-8 allows a 10%density bonus for a project that fulfills its affordable housing requirement by constructing affordable dwelling units for sale or rent,which in this case would allow a maximum of 104 residential units to be developed on the subject property. According to the Zoning Code,the purpose of the Multiple-Family Residential district is to provide for medium and high density residential use. It covers areas with full community facilities and services. It may occupy transition areas between commercial or industrial areas and other districts of less intense land use. Requirements for establishing a land use in the RM district, including a list of the variety of permitted land uses, are shown in Section 25-5-30 to 38 of the Zoning Code. (Planning Department(P.D.)Exhibit 1- Zoning Code Requirements for Multiple-Family Residential District) 2. Proposed Development: The applicant is requesting a change of zone in order to develop an affordable housing project known as "Hualalai Court"consisting of 88 affordable housing units, of which 50 will be one-bedroom units approximately 580 square feet in size, 36 will be two-bedroom units approximately 760 sq ft in size, and 2 Attachment to: Comm. 718 Bill 214 will be three-bedroom units approximately 850 sq ft in size. The development would also include common recreation/play areas, a communal vegetable garden, and on-site parking and landscaping in accordance with the zoning code. The applicant estimates infrastructure improvements (i.e. driveways,utility connections)will take approximately 4 months and cost$900,000 to construct. Due to the uncertainty of financing and market conditions, the time schedule and cost to construct the proposed project are unknown at this time. (P.D.Exhibit 2- Change of Zone Application) 3. Landowner: Vincent T.C. Tai. BACKGROUND 4. Change of Zone Ordinance 10 109: In 2009 the applicant successfully rezoned the subject property from Single-Family Residential—7,500 sq ft(RS-7.5)to RM-2.5. At that time the applicant planned to develop 57 to 62 two-story attached townhouses. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 5. State Land Use Designation: Urban. 6. County Zoning: Multiple-Family Residential—2,500 square feet(RM-2.5). 7. General Plan LUPAG Map: Medium Density Urban, which allows a maximum residential density of 35 units per acre(115 for the subject property). 8. Hilo Community Development Plan(CDP): The Hilo Community Development Plan adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1 on May 21, 1975 identifies the area as RS/RM/PUD. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA 9. Subject Property: The subject property is relatively flat and has previously been graded. It is improved with a one-story single-family dwelling,detached carport, and swimming pool located on the far northwest end of the property. These structures would be removed upon approval of the change of zone request and development of the property. 10. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: Adjacent properties are zoned RS-7.5 and RM-1.5 and are in single-family residential use or vacant. The Hualalai Subdivision, consisting of single-family dwellings is located immediately to the south of the subject property. Higher density double-family and multiple-family residential uses, including Lanakila Homes Public Housing are located further south on lands zoned RD-3.75. The County -2- Police Depai tment Headquarters complex and St. Joseph's School are located nearby on Kapi`olani Street. The adjacent properties to the north were rezoned in 2009 to RM-1.5 in order to develop a four-story, 100-unit residential complex, which has not yet been developed. 11. Flood Zone: Zone "X", an area determined by FEMA to be outside the 500-year flood plain. 12. FloraUFaunal Resources: A flora and faunal survey of the property was conducted by Geometrician Associates, LLC in June 2009. The survey found no rare, threatened or endangered floral or faunal species on the property,but recommended against removing or disturbing vegetation during the months of June and July in order to avoid impacts to any roosting endangered Hawaiian hoary bats, which are difficult to detect. 13. Historical/Archaeologic&Cultural Resources: The property has previously been grubbed and graded; therefore it is unlikely that any historic resources remain on the site. In a letter dated May 9, 2013 the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) State Historic Preservation Division determined that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed project because urbanization has altered the land. There are no known cultural resources on the property. 14. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the property. 15. Scenic Resources: The property sits at an elevation of about 90 feet above sea level and is relatively flat. There are no scenic views from the property. 16. Traffic: A Revised and Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR)was prepared in April 2013 by Witcher Engineering LLP to determine the impacts of developing an 88- unit affordable housing project(included in P.D. Exhibit 2). The report determined that the proposed project will not change the acceptable levels of service at the Kapi`olani Street/Hualalai Street intersection. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 17. Access: Access is from Hualalai Street, a two-lane County owned and maintained roadway with a pavement width of 32 feet within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to construct a 32-foot wide asphalt paved driveway aligned with Hualalai Street. Nearby Hale Nani Street is also a County roadway within a 40 foot wide -3- right-of-way. 18. Water: County water is available from an existing 8-inch waterline within Kapi`olani Street approximately 260 feet from the property. 19. Wastewater System: The project will connect to the County sewer system. 20. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be disposed of at an authorized landfill by commercial haulers or individual homeowners. 21: Essential Utilities and Services: Telephone and electrical services are available to the property. Police and fire services are available nearby in downtown Hilo. Medical services are available at Hilo Medical Center. Nearby parks include Lincoln Park and Mohouli Park. Private and public schools are in close proximity to the property. AGENCIES' AND ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS 22. Department of Public Works: P.D.Exhibit 3—July 3,2013 memo 23. Department of Water Supply: P.D. Exhibit 4—July 9,2013 and January 11, 2010 memos 24. Department of Environmental Management: P.D. Exhibit 5—July 2,2013 and June 19,2013 memos 25. Police Department: P.D. Exhibit 6—June 26,2013 memo 26. Fire Department: P.D. Exhibit 7—June 20,2013 memo 27. Department of Health: P.D. Exhibit 8—July 11,2013 memo 28. Office of Housing and Community Development: P.D. Exhibit 9—July 2,2013 memo AGENCIES -NO RESPONSES 29. HELCO, Department of Parks and Recreation,Real Property Tax Office. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS 30. P.D. Exhibit 10: Letter from Witcher Engineering LLP dated July 11, 2013 in response to DPW comments PUBLIC COMMENTS 31. None at the time of this writing. -4- § 25-5-30 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE Division 3.RM,Multiple-Family Residential Districts. Section 25-5-30.Purpose and applicability. The RM(multiple-family residential) district provides for medium and high density residential use. It covers areas with full community facilities and services. It may occupy transition areas between commercial or industrial areas and other districts of less intense land use. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-31.Designation and density of RM districts. (a) Each RM(multiple-family residential) district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "RM"followed by a number which indicates the required land area, in thousands of square feet, for each dwelling unit or for each separate rentable unit in the case of boarding, rooming, or lodging houses, fraternity or sorority houses. (b) In case any of the permitted uses have dormitories,two beds shall be equivalent to one separate rentable unit for purposes related to the required land area in the RM district. (c) The maximum density designation in the RM district shall be .75 or seven hundred fifty square feet of land area per dwelling unit or separate rentable unit. (d) In the RM district the following density designations shall be used: .75, 1, 1.5,2,2.5, 3, 3.5,4 and upward in 0.5 increments. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-32.Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the RM district: (1) Adult day care homes. (2) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7. (3) Boarding facilities,rooming, or lodging houses. (4) Cemeteries and mausoleums,as permitted under chapter 6,article 1 of this Code. (5) Commercial or personal service uses, on a small scale, as approved by the director,provided that the total gross floor area does not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet and a maximum of five employees. (6) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (7) Crop production. (8) Dwellings,double-family or duplex. (9) Dwellings,multiple-family. (10) Dwellings, single-family. (11) Family child care homes. (12) Group living facilities. (13) Home occupations, as pemnitted under section 25-4-13. (14) Meeting facilities. (15) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (16) Neighborhood parks,playgrounds,tennis courts, swimming pools, and similar neighborhood recreational areas and uses. (17) Public uses and structures, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (18) Temporary real estate offices, as permitted under section 25-4-8. Planning Dept. Exhibit I § 25-5-32 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE (19) Time share units situated in any of the following: (A) Areas designated as resort under the general plan land use pattern allocation guide (LUPAG)map. (B) Areas determined by the director to be within resort areas identified by the general plan land use element, except for retreat resort areas. (C) Areas determined for such use by the council,by resolution. (20) Utility substations, as permitted under section 25-4-11. (b) In addition to those uses permitted under subsection(a)above,the following uses may be permitted in the RM district,provided that a use permit is issued for each use: (1) Care homes. (2) Churches,temples and synagogues. (3) Crematoriums. (4) Day care centers. (5) Golf courses and related golf course uses,including golf driving ranges, golf maintenance buildings and golf club houses. (6) Hospitals, sanitariums, old age, convalescent,nursing and rest homes. (7) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities. (8) Mortuaries. (9) Schools. (10) Telecommunication antennas and towers. (11) Yacht harbors and boating facilities. (c) Buildings and uses normally considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the RM district. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-33.Height limit. (a) In areas in the County outside of the City of Hilo,the height limit in the RM district shall be forty- five feet. (b) In the City of Hilo,the height limit in the RM district shall be one hundred twenty feet. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160,sec.2;ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-34.Minimum building site area. The minimum building site in the RM district shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-35.Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the RM district shall have a minimum average width of sixty feet. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) Section 25-5-36.Minimum yards. Minimum yards in the RM district shall be as follows: (1) Front and rear yards,twenty feet; and (2) Side yards, eight feet for a one-story building,plus an additional two feet for each additional story. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.) § 25-5-37 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE Section 25-5-37.Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided on a minimum of twenty percent of the total land area of any building site in the RM district, except for lots containing only one single-family dwelling and accessory buildings. Parking areas shall not be included within the area required for landscaping on any building site. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999,Am. 2005, Ord.No. 05-155, sec. 4.) Section 25-5-38. Other regulations. (a) There may be more than one main building on any building site in the RM district. (b) Distance between main buildings on the same building site in the RM district shall be at least fifteen feet. (c) Plan approval shall be required for all new buildings and additions to existing buildings in the RM district, except for construction of one single-family dwelling and any accessory buildings per lot. (d) Exceptions to the regulations for the RM district regarding heights,building site areas,building site average widths and yards,may be approved by the director within a planned unit development. (1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999,Am. 2005, Ord.No. 05-155, sec. 5.) • CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or Iegibly print the requested information) 'PLICANT: VIN r, C. TAI 'PLICANT'S SIGNATURE: >DRESS: a I. ' ' C7 C' ,D_ -�-- are O H f 'fo�2L T APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: T PRINCIPAL(S)INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: )NE:(Bus.) (Res.) (Fax) 4DOWNER(S): 1DOWNER SIGNATURE(S): TDO (Maybe by letter) DATE: WNER(S)ADDRESS: !VEST: - 2 .5 TO — I • S (Existing zoning) MAP KEY: ?J 4 2 - 0 °Posed Zoning) 3ET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , ' u • , , 1 rJ OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: Z , VT: `J N/ Aar ' ' Pt-t • 1" RESS: PHONE:(Bus.) (3778(Res.) indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. NAL: �(N I TT '� �• COPIES: o'N (See Instructions on Reverse Side) Planning Dept. • Exhibit 2 ATTACHMENT Residential Rezoning PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1. If your rpquest is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change zone? N 0 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 proaiminary approval? d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? If yes, please answer the following questions: An 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? b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? c. Sell- or lease the land to someone who has no plans? d. Keep it? 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 you think that your request and your further plans for the alleviate the local housing situation? `rs. How? --rktv ittaj POI l i,tL ' P o ju i ,Oc, OXI IVY f F-c I/6 fr D U/NM MIT* ( A Pri3l,0 Nv U' 1N f K.615ZU I P ME1Sr . 4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? If so, what kind? AN 1 ,-2-&-t2 J r- ` c tVtAA r / A 5711FA.P.001I5 C (7°IzT AK? A ✓ )IMMIN1 1 fi oot , What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? KsmoVE P .I yTmi 1 (N (A#11211\1 T+ ''wlivw\(Nt t f:7'470 • -2- 5. Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activitity? If so IN 0 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? If so, please describe the problem, 7. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area improvement? a NQ If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? 8. What sort of governmental assistance o do you feel will be needed in the subject area developed? Yes No a. Schools b. Roads C. Sewer N0 d. Drainage e. Police Protection NI • -3- Yes No f. Fire Protection. g. Recreational Facilities N h. Public Utilities i. Other WA T5•1 : For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. G• 612471/44/VCl w rrrt e o unit y '7 ?T- or w Vtt�vivtrrrr"t. AA AN ft1 MVO f'R rjE-f Ol`t . Fr? 1 1t■fl74 z' si 1 N 9i PctAP TI o N . (Zc t tqser5 W rift- r WAet" -5 u 19PIA/ �1cfVR GONNEr0 1aN - Signature: '0% 4/ / Address: 210'r KOVNPTDp7f.,- lit3uottAa4_ Telephone: e00 - dTA-t ffl /6024/ Date: Ju it?i 5 , Zo t, m4_ 6337A/5tlA VINCENT T.C.TAI, AIA, ARCHITECT May 17, 2013 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 364 HUALALAI STREET, HILO, HAWAII TMK: 3-2-4-28:09 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION Background and County Environmental Report A. SUBJECT REQUEST 1. Detail of proposed use/development: a. Project description: The subject property is located in downtown Hilo on Hualalai Street near Kapiolani Street. The current address is 364 Hualalai Street and TMK is 2-4-28:09. The 3.292-acre almost flat parcel is currently improved with a single family home of about 1,200SF of living area, a detached garage, a swimming pool, and paved driveway. The existing zoning classification is RM-2.5. This Change of Zone application involves changing the entire parcel to zoning classification RM-1.5 which will allow one dwelling for every 1,500 SF of land area or approximately 95 to 105 new dwellings depending on the number of affordable housing units in compliance with County of Hawaii's affordable housing requirements to be included in the project. b. Statement of objectives and reasons for request: 1. The objective is to develop affordable multi-family units permitted under zoning classification RM-1.5 in accordance with the County's affordable housing policies and guidelines established by the County of Hawaii's Office of Housing and Community Development. 2. In recent years, there were new laws in place or in the making in many States and local jurisdictions in order to curb urban sprawl and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While there are many strategies being devised and pursued, among the most obvious ones are those related to housing development, land uses that allow people to reduce travel distance from home to work and improvement of public transit. Local zoning and environmental rules are changed to allow infill, higher density land use and smaller lots in city centers. The subject parcel is a city center infill property ideally suitable for higher density and smaller dwelling/lot development. 3. There are existing RM-1.5 and higher density zoned properties adjacent or near the subject property. The proposed project's density after rezoning is compatible with those of the neighboring properties. 4. It is a known fact that the value of homes in Hilo is comparatively lower than those in other cities in the State of Hawaii while the construction cost of new homes is just as expensive. For this reason, the value of developable land or parcels needs to be adjusted substantially lower in order to make economic sense to build new affordable or market rate housing in Hilo. One reasonable approach to resolve this issue is to allow smaller dwellings/lots or higher density development in or near the city's center. c. Land area: approximately 3.292 acres (143,400 SF) d. Proposed development: A planned development to be named "Hualalai Court' consists of 88 affordable housing units, of which 50 are 580 SF one-bedroom units, 36 are 760 SF two-bedroom units, and 2 are 850 SF three-bedroom units. The landscaped area consists of approximately 75,000 SF or 52% of the total land area. There will be communal recreation areas and vegetable gardens in various parts of the site. e. The infrastructure improvement to construct the driveways and utilities will take about 4 months at an estimated cost of about$900,000. Due to the uncertainty of the financing 1 and market conditions, the time schedule and the cost to build out the project are unknown at this time. The applicant at present is considering various options, such as to build the affordable housing units only, and sell off or joint venture with another developer to build the infrastructure and the entire project. f. Membership size/number of employees and clientele are not applicable with residential rezoning. g. Parking will conform to requirement under the zoning classification: RM-1.5 zoning requires 1.25 parking spaces for each residential unit. The applicant intends to provide sufficient parking to comply or exceed with the requirement. h. Since the project is located in downtown Hilo, the traffic impact will be insignificant due to the established street patterns and close proximity to places of shopping and work. The use of automobiles may be reduced as residents may choose to walk or bike. The impact from changing the zoning from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 is considered negligible. The existing proposed project under RM-2.5 consists of 59 dwelling units of which 47 are market-rate two and three bedroom townhouses plus 12 affordable units with total of 70,400 SF of living area and 115 bedrooms. The proposed project under RM-1.5 consists of 88 affordable units with total of 58,400 SF of living area and 128 bedrooms. Due to the smaller floor plates of the affordable units, there are 12,000 SF less total living area than the previous one while there are only 13 more bedroom counts. The proposed project's vehicular entry to the property will be a 32' wide driveway that aligns with Hualalai Street which is also 32'wide. Witcher Engineering LLP prepared a Revised and updated Traffic Impact Analysis dated April, 2013 which concluded this project has very little impact on the neighborhood, and the intersection of Kapiolani and Hualalai Street has no change in levels of service. The proposed site plan includes a 15-feet wide landscaped area between two groups of buildings which can be changed to accommodate a 12-feet wide emergency exit way (if required by the Hawaii County Council)to be connected to the adjacent property to the north owned by Mr. Giampaolo Boschette. i. Other related information: None j. The proposed off-site infrastructure work will include but not limited to connection to existing utility lines in Hualalai Street. The proposed on-site infrastructure work will include but not limited to construction of roadways, parking stalls, and all necessary utility provisions. B. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE/COUNTY PLANS 2. State Land Use designation: Urban District 3. Project is not in the SMA, and not contrary to Chapter 205A, Coast Zone Management's objectives. (1) Recreational resources; The subject property is not located along the coastline. The objective to provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public is not applicable. (2) Historic resources; The Department of Land and Natural Resources had determined there is no historic properties will be affected by this project. There are no known natural and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the subject property that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. 2 (3) Scenic and open space resources; Scenic or coastal resources: The subject property is not a natural beauty site under the General Plan and is not located along the coastline. The proposed development will not impact any scenic and coastal resources. (4) Coastal ecosystems;The subject property is not located along the coastline. The objective to protect valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems is not applicable. (5) Economic uses; The proposed development will not have significant impact on the economic resources of the area. It will increase slightly in the supply of medium-priced single family homes and affordable rental units in downtown Hilo. The construction of the project and the management and maintenance of the property after completion shall provide short and long term jobs for local residents. (6) Coastal hazards; The subject property is almost flat and not located along the coastline and not near a stream. The storm water will be handled by an on-site drainage system that consists of a series of drywells and there will be no off-site runoff. (7) Managing development; The subject property is not located along the coastline. The objective to improve the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards is not applicable. (8) Public participation; The subject property is not located along the coastline. The objective to stimulate public awareness, education, and participation in coastal management is not applicable. (9) Beach protection; The subject property is not located along the coastline. The objective to protect beaches for public use and recreation is not applicable. (10) Marine resources; The subject property is not located along the coastline. The objective to promote the protection, use, and development of marine and coastal resources to assure their sustainability is not applicable. 4. Applicable goals/policies and objectives of the General Plan: a. Applicable Goals: • (1) Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of Hawaii. (2) Attain a diversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of the County. (3) Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choices. (4) Create viable communities with affordable housing and suitable living environments. (5) 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. (6) Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital status, ethnic background, and income. (7) Make affordable housing available in reasonable proximity to employment centers. (8) Encourage and expand home ownership opportunities for residents. (9) To provide for multiple residential developments that maximize convenience for its occupants. (10)To maximize choices of multi-family residential lots and/or housing for residents of the County. (11) To ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to multi-family residential zoned areas. (12)To provide multi-family residential areas conveniently located to public and private services, shopping, University of Hawaii, other community activities and convenient access to employment centers that takes natural beauty into consideration. (13)To enhance the overall quality of life in our residential communities. b. Applicable Policies: (1) Encourage a volume of construction and rehabilitation of housing sufficient to meet growth needs and correct existing deficiencies. 3 (2) Encourage corporations and nonprofit organizations to participate in Federal, • State and private programs to provide new and rehabilitated housing for low and moderate income families. (3) Support the construction of housing for minimum wage and agricultural workers. (4) Increase rental opportunities and choices in terms of quality, cost, amenity, style and size of housing, especially for low and moderate income households. (5) Investigate the use of the County's taxing powers as a possible means to increase the supply of affordable housing. (6) Work with, encourage and support private sector efforts in the provision of affordable housing. (7) Vacant lands in urban areas and urban expansion areas should be made available for residential uses before additional agricultural lands are converted into residential uses. (8) Aid and encourage the development of a wide variety of housing to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix. (9) Appropriately zoned lands shall be allocated as the demand for multiple residential dwelling increases. These areas shall be allocated with respect to places of employment, shopping facilities, educational, recreational and cultural facilities, and public facilities and utilities. (10) Incorporate reasonable flexibility in applicable codes and ordinances to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix. (11) Encourage flexibility in the design of residential sites, buildings and related facilities to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix and innovative means of meeting the market requirements. (12) Applicable codes and ordinances shall be reviewed and amended as necessary to include consideration for urban design, and aesthetic quality through landscaping, open space, and buffer areas. (13) Support the rezoning of those multiple residentially zoned lands that are used for other purposes to a more appropriate zoning designation. (14) Require developers to provide basic infrastructure necessary for development. (15) To assure the orderly use of single-family residential zoned areas and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning, which would be based on performance requirements. This is to assure that a certain percentage of buildings will be constructed. (16) Encourage innovative uses of land with respect to geologic and topographic conditions through the use of residential cluster and planned unit developments. (17) Encourage and coordinate with the State in providing fee simple and leasehold single-family residential lots to the residents through State and/or County Housing Programs. (18) Incorporate reasonable flexibility in codes and ordinances to achieve a diversity of socio-economic housing mix and to permit aesthetic balance between single-family residential structures and open spaces. (19) Re-evaluate existing undeveloped single-family residential zoned areas and reallocate zoned lands in appropriate locations. (20) Designate and allocate single-family residential zoned lands at varying densities for future use in accordance with the needs of the communities and the stated goals, policies, and standards 5. General Plan designation (LUPAG Map): Medium density urban 6. Zoning: The current zoning of the property is RM-2.5. 7. Community Development Plan: RS/RM/PUD. 8. Special Management Area: Subject property is not within SMA. C. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROPERTYAND SURROUNDING AREA 9. Subject property description: The subject property is located in downtown Hilo on Hualalai Street near Kapiolani Street. The 3.292-acre of land is almost flat. The property 4 is improved with a one-story family home of about 1.200 SF of living area with a separate parking structure and a swimming pool located at the far northwest end of the property. All these existing improvements will be removed prior to commencement of construction. 10. Lava Hazard Zone: No. 3 11. The distance from the coast line is approximately 0.7 miles. 12. ALISH designation: No designation. Source: Mr. Earl Yamamoto, Planner with Department of Agriculture 13. U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Services Soil Service Report soil type: rKFD 14. Land Study Bureau soil rating: There is no rating for the subject property because it is within an urban area. 15. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation: 'X'—outside 500-year flood zone. Source: Mr. Carter Romero, Engineering Department, DPW. 16. There is no existing natural water courses, drainage way or improvement. The storm water will be handled by an on-site drainage system that consists of a series of drywells or combined with the use of porous paving materials for the parking and landscaped areas that allow rainwater to percolate through the pavement's surface back to the ground. There will be no off-site runoff. 17. Air quality: There no specific concern or adverse effect on air quality due to the subject project. Source: Ed Yamamoto of Department of Environmental Management Noise quality: The property is currently exposed to the usual city ambient noise, such as traffic, birds,wind, and occasional aircraft. Although there will be a slight increase in traffic resulting from the rezoning(refer to Section 1(h)for bedroom count), the subject project will not have significant impacts on noise. All activities during construction will comply with DOH's Chapter 11-46, HAR, Community Noise Control. Water quality: The subject project will not have an adverse effect on water quality.Water system will be connected to County's 8-inch line at intersection of Hualalai and Kapiolani Street. Additional water runoff due to the subject project will be disposed within the property and will not be discharged onto adjacent properties and roadways. 18. Existing archaeological, cultural or historic sites on National Register or Hawaii Register: Letter from the Historic Preservation Division of State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources dated May 9, 2013 indicates no historic properties will be affected resulting from the propose development. 19. Existing floral/faunal resources: Mr. Ron Terry of Geometrician Associates, LLC was engaged to conduct a survey and prepare a report. It was determined that the flora consisted almost entirely of introduced species and that no rare, threatened or endangered plant species were present. Development of the property would not have any adverse impacts in terms of the conservation of native plants. Furthermore, the non-native vegetation coupled with the urban and developed nature of the property indicates that it is unlikely to provide habitat for most native terrestrial or aquatic vertebrates, or for any for any rare, threatened or endangered invertebrates. In order to avoid impacts the Hawaiian hoary bat, a listed endangered species, it was recommend that no major vegetation clearing occur during the months of June and July. Furthermore, in order to avoid impact to threatened and endangered seabirds, the development will adhere strictly to the Hawaii County Lighting Ordinance, which requires lighting to be shielded so that it does not shine upward. 20. Scenic or coastal resources: The subject property is not a natural beauty site under the General Plan and the proposed development will not impact any scenic and coastal resources. 21. There were no known traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights that are exercised in the subject property. 22. The project is a private development. There is no public access within the property. 23. The proposed development will not have any significant impacts on the social settlement pattern in this area. The property is located in downtown Hilo with established social pattern. The proposed residential units will most likely conform with medium market pricing comparable to similar developments nearby. 24: The proposed development will not have significant impact on the economic resources of the area. It will increase the supply of affordable rental units in downtown Hilo. 25. Land Values: Approximately$400,000 to $600,000 per acre 5 26. Land use: General Plan designation-Medium Density Urban Residential. The adjacent properties are mainly residential developments with a mixture of educational (St. Joseph School) and governmental (Police station) uses nearby. The proposed zoning of RM-1.5 accommodates about 95 residential units or density of 28.8 units per acre which is consistent with and below this General Plan designation that allows a density not to exceed 35 units per acre. 27: Zoning; Existing zoning is RM-2.5. The proposed change of zoning will be RM-1.5. The properties in the neighborhood are generally low to medium density residential zoning classifications. There are existing higher density zoned properties near or surrounding the subject property. For example, the properties to the northeast(TMK: 2-4-025-049) is zoned RM-1.0, properties east(St. Joseph School)and south (south of Hale Nani Street) of the subject property are zoned RD-3.75. The adjacent properties(TMKs: 3-2-4- 025:048, 053 and 080), are zoned RM-1.5. The immediate neighboring properties to the west and south are mainly zoned RS-7.5. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 28. Description of access: The property access driveway is from the west end of Hualalai Street before it turns south to Hale Nani Street. The entrance to the property will be served by 32-ft wide new asphaltic paved driveway aligned with Hualalai Street which is also a 32-ft wide paved road. 29. Availability of water: Source: Mr. Milton D. Pavao, Manager of County of Hawaii Department of Water Supply. There is water available from an existing 8"waterline at the intersection of Kapiolani and Hualalai Streets. 30. Sewage disposal: There is an existing 8"sewage line on Hualalai Street that turns onto Hale Nani Street with a manhole in front of and approximately 30-feet from the subject property. The applicant will work with the governing agencies to provide lateral connection to the existing system. 31. Solid waste: To be disposed at the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill. Disposal will be serviced by the individual homeowners or contract with private companies. 32. Police and Fire protection: Hawaii County Police Department's headquarters is on Kapiolani Street. Fire station is on Kinoole Street, about half a mile from the subject property 32. Schools: Within half a mile radius; Chiefess Kapiolani School, Greenwich University, Haiti Christian School, Hilo High, Hilo Intermediate, Hilo Union Elementary, St. Joseph Schools, University of Hawaii, Waiakea High School 33. Parks:Within half a mile radius; Lincoln Park, Mooheau Park, Mohouli Park, University Heights Park, Keikiland Playground, Waiolama Field. 34. Other utilities and services: Electricity by Hawaii Electric Light Company. Telephone by Hawaiian Telcom. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS 35. Relationship between local short term uses of environment and maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity: The proposed development is beneficial to the community since it conforms to the short and long term goals and policies under the General Plan. The project will produce more infill affordable rate housing which will result in curbing urban sprawl and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed change of zoning classification is in conformity with the zoning for the surrounding properties which is generally residential in nature. 36. Mitigative measures: The proposed development will have no significant or adverse impacts on the environment and no mitigation measures are needed. During construction phase, all activities will comply with provisions of DOH, HAR. 37. Alternatives to the proposed development: Alternative 1: Keep the existing improvements and no new development. Alternative 2: Development to conform to existing zoning classification of RM-2.5. There is an existing 6 development plan under this zoning to build 47 market-rate townhouses and 12 affordable units. 38. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be involved if prepared action implemented: The proposed development will cause the use of fuel, water, and electricity in varying degrees during construction phase and after completion of construction. However, the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources are insignificant within the city and regional contexts, and being offset by the benefits offered by the production of more infill housing. This project will also employ certain alternative energy saving schemes such as solar water heaters, architectural design to provide natural ventilation, recycling rain water for irrigation and water-saving bath fixtures. 7 • Q co v a m � >. o — c o 'U Z lea.i}S eIOOU!N O a9'4'oA, . /2,,,:i -4 r a,% .*%.*%•%.%'...%%N.. ...,.... a, vs .a — v 4aaa}s !upinIfl :i3 nc r Sat !3 oo M .y o is a 1- N 00 N U C, '-I— •IS pm090UOd O} �o• 4.9aJ4S IUogoldpN} ' }S llno4oyl 04— s- -t CD Q' N 0 Q I A , 0 -1-- •• hp a) H 0,0 To L. L. } c 0 c z Q i'4.1000110 N —400 0 a •a ~ 4aaa4s o1odod > U 4- Q) U 0 \--\ • • C Q FU FFl .F e 4 E 60:8Z-t,-Z:)IWl i"I iii OZL96 IIVMVH`OIIH e u¢ a I 3 133a1S IVIV1VfH b9S ! Z 4 laflOO IVIViVflH i i I ! a o 12°o a�7 71 1 'i gg g Psp,4o•gi, _ \is)I I) I ...7--- i MPYI C _ I.- I N `5 I , Y t A ff a as or�s� Z LLI . 1 Mgt 0 , ,.. i W C M V 0, 1 ig 4 6 I' i i A / #47," o. x :15. IIIF'cl 11- k 1241 ��`. ♦,� ♦♦♦ if a Z WO♦♦ ♦♦♦ w in m g DA :'� ♦ Ps i ♦ti ♦ i Ce pd j w ouy ndn�ndn8 1 4� /4*4 0, *A_„lir( ...:44,...:. L.I in .k,-.A, 740 "::::.::::::::::4. eL .c... ce 4:104* .::1.:if zrww\ 0 :, Ns, :.:::;:;:: CL r.—_ 0 4Iit,48 , 4V /4710 ...::i1::::;.', *4.4 4‘' t '',► . a oc Q 0 IL \ 44 444, off/ _ a3 Ct cL N. , 4` �' a i WILLIAM J.AILA.JR. O F 4 NEIL ABERCAOM$IE 1" $x I'1;i P;?r t ^# T /' ��..........� CHAIRPERSON 4/y; BOARU OF LAND AND NATS'RAL EFSOURCES " GOVERNOR OF HAWAII r• i. 4, i �,���.•r�\939�'ti7 COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT XESTHER KJA`AINA end FIRST DEPUTY and , Y ■ WILLIAM M.TAM c?filigk M Z JUN —6 .P 00 DEPUTY DIRECTOR-WATER 1�`�. AQUAnC RESOURCES 4 , ,. �`?�••.. _, .'' BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION �]0 PGEJ Td"' NON W TE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION V AU OF C ESO ASTAL L NAGEMFM CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION CONSERVATION AIN RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ANDR`WILDLIFE }3N a DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES II FORESTRY PRESERVATION RAHOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION • 601 Kamokila Boulevard,Suite 555 STATE PARES Kapolei,HI 96806 May 9,2013 Vincent T.C.Tai,AIA LOG NO:2013.2006 2184 Round Top Drive DOC NO: 1303 SN09 Honolulu,Hawai`i 96812 Archaeology Dear Mr.Tai SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review— Request for Comment on a Change of Zone Application for Iiaulalai Court WaiRkea Ahupua`a,South Hilo District,Island of Hawaii TMK:(3)2-4-028:009 Thank you for the opportunity to review this application that was received by our office on April 16, 2013. According to the request,the aforementioned 3.317 acre parcel is currently zoned RM-2.5. The application indicates the land owner requests that entire parcel be rezoned as RM-1.5.The application indicates that the parcel has been in residential use for more than 20 years.All extant structures are less than 50 years old. In 2009, SHPD reviewed a change in zone application for the proposed Hualalai Court and determined that no historic properties would be affected, due to the extent of modem development(Log 2009.2481, Doc. 0906MD35 and Log 2009.4012,Doc 0910TD31).These prior reviews by our office determined that the area has seen significant residential development over the past twenty-years. We have received no new information since 2009 that would cause us to revise or modify this determination.We therefore believe that the proposed change of zone would result in no historic properties affected. Please contact Sean Naleimaile at(808) 933-7651 or Sean.P.Naleimaile©Hawaii.gov if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Aloha, • Theresa K.Donham Archaeology Branch Chief 085643 REVISED AND UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED APARTMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX NEAR KAPIOLANI STREET & HUALALAI STREET HILO, HAWAII TMK (3)2-4-028:009 APRIL,2013 PREPARED FOR: TAI ARCHITECTURE cc- L''?`N ED Y PPC'1. 3 :NAL 3C LfC :� 4 '�'y D4 --- PREPARED BY: WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP P.O.Box 348 Holualoa, HI 96725 (808)334-0322 (808)324-0327 Fax TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 IL EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 III. TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 Table 1 Peak Hour Traffic Counts for Hualalai Street&Kapiolani Street 1 IV. LEVELS OF SERVICE 2 V. PROJECTED TRAFFIC 3 A. Methodology 3 B. Trip Generation 3 Table 2 Trip Generation 3 Table 3 Trip Distribution and Assignment 4 Table 4 Levels of Service 4 VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Location Map,Tax Map Key Map and Proposed Layout of Hualalai Court APPENDIX B Level of Service Criteria APPENDIX C Level of Service—Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street (Computer Printout) • Existing Conditions AM and PM Peak Traffic • Build-out Conditions AM and PM Peak Traffic APPENDIX D Traffic Movement Diagrams-Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street • Existing Conditions AM and PM Peak Traffic • Future Conditions AM and PM Peak Traffic Page 1 of 1 REVISED AND UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX NEAR INTERSECTION OF KAPIOLANI STREET&HUALALAI STREET HILO,HAWAII TMK(3)2-4-028:009 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our client wishes to develop a 88-unit affordable apartment project on the referenced parcel called Hualalai Court,with a mix of 1-,2-and 3-bedroom units. This property is located to the west of Kapiolani Street by about a block. The project will be served by the westward extension of Hualalai Street. This project generates less than 50 peak hour trips in the AM peak hour and slightly more than 50 in the PM. It can be shown,however,how it does meet the concurrency threshold as established by Hawaii County. Therefore,no extrapolation of data is necessary for five,ten and twenty years. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The area consists of a mixed residential and school(St.Joseph's Catholic School)and is very near the police station. The intersection of Hualalai Street and Kapiolani Street is a two-way stop intersection. III. TRAFFIC VOLUMES In April,2013 traffic counts were taken at the intersection of Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street. The peak hours at that time were determined to be 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and 3:45 PM to 4:45 PM. The AM volume was determined to be 635 vph(vehicles per hour),and the PM volume was determined to by 595 vph. TABLE 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR HUALALAI STREET AND KAPIOLANI STREET AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Direction 2009 2013 2009 2013 Eastbound Left 9 9 7 7 Eastbound Through 27 29 27 24 Eastbound Right 7 4 6 8 Page 1 of 5 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Direction 2009 2013 2009 2013 Westbound Left 36 29 83 71 Westbound Through 13 18 37 33 Westbound Right 90 67 91 96 Northbound Left 4 2 6 4 Northbound Through 159 157 80 105 Northbound Right 74 69 29 30 Southbound Left 140 112 71 62 Southbound Through 137 138 128 149 Southbound Right 7 1 5 6 Total 703 635 570 595 IV. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service is defined as"a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream; generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver,traffic interruptions,comfort and convenience,and safety." There are six levels of operational conditions defined as follows: Level of Service A Little or no traffic delays Level of Service B Short traffic delays Level of Service C Average traffic delays Level of Service D Long traffic delays Level of Service E Very long traffic delays Level of Service F Extreme traffic delays Levels of service were determined for the various turning movements for the intersection of Ka'iminani Street and Kakahiaka Street for the existing conditions. Calculations were performed in accordance with the analysis laid out in the Highway Capacity Manual.Special Report 209. 2"d Edition of the Transportation Research Board. 1992 and the Highway Capacity software from the Federal Highway Administration and McTrans, University of Florida, Gainesville, FA. Page 2 of 5 V. PROJECTED TRAFFIC A. Methodology The trip generation methodology used in this report is based upon applications developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)and published in"Trip Generation", 8'Edition,2011. Trip generations have been developed for a variety of land uses (or facility types) which correlated trips with dwelling units, area, population,vehicle ownership;and intensity of use. Each facility type has a catalog number for identification purposes. The land use codes are shown below. B. Trip Generation As stated previously, the project consists of 88 low-rise apartments. The land use code is 221. TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION Facility Land Use Units Trip %Enter % Exit Enter Exit Code Generation AM Apartment 221 88 0.46 21 I 79 9 37 PM Apartment 221 88 0.58* 65 35 33 18 *For the PM peak hour,the trip generator is 0.58. With 88 units this will produce 51 trips. This is just over the threshold(50)of the County concurrency requirement in Chapter 25,Section 25-2-46. However,if the AM and PM peak traffic generated are averaged,the trips generated would be 46 per hour. The ITE manual shows a range of values and an average rate. For the PM trip generation,the average rate is 0.58. The range of values is 0.38 to 0.93. If a trip generator of 0.56 is used for the PM,49 trips are generated. Assuming this reasoning,the concurrency requirement is met. Traffic distribution is based upon a ratio of additional traffic to the original for each turning movement. The following table shows this relationship. It is assumed that all entering and exiting traffic uses the intersection of Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street. Page 3 of 5 TABLE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT AM PM Direction Exist Build out Exist Build out Eastbound Left 9 16 7 10 Eastbound Through 29 51 24 35 Eastbound Right 4 7 8 12 Westbound Left 29 29 71 71 Westbound Through 18 26 33 58 Westbound Right 67 67 96 96 Northbound Left 2 3 4 7 Northbound Through 157 157 105 105 Northbound Right 69 69 30 30 Southbound Left 112 112 62 62 Southbound Through 138 138 149 149 Southbound Right 1 1 6 11 From the above information, levels of service were performed. This done for the present condition and build out. The following table shows the levels of service TABLE 4 LEVELS OF SERVICE AM PM Direction Exist Build out Exist Build out Eastbound Left C C B B Eastbound Through C C B B Eastbound Right C C B B Westbound Left C C B B Westbound Through C C B B Westbound Right A A A A Northbound Left A A A A Northbound Through A A A A Page 4 of 5 AM PM Direction Exist Build out Exist Build out Northbound Right A A A A Southbound Left A A A A Southbound Through A A A A Southbound Right A A A A Westbound Approach Delay 12.1 12,6 11.7 12.6 Westbound Approach LOS B B B B Eastbound Approach Delay 15.2 16.3 12.3 12.8 Eastbound Approach LOS C C B B From the above it can be seen that there is no change in the levels of service and only a slight increase in the approach delays. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project has very little impact on the neighborhood. The intersection of Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street has no change in levels of service, All approach delay changes are less than one second—not noticeable to the driver or public in general. It should be noted that all levels of service remain the same with the buildout. In fact,all levels of service remain the same as in the original report of October,2010. No intersection improvements are needed at this time. Therefore we recommend that the project go forward. Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX A LOCATION MAP, TAX MAP KEY MAP and PROPOSED LAYOUT OF PROJECT • H HAI W,OA iic ✓, NORTH KOH• A j S ' J HONOKM KAWAHAE WAWA /0 SOUTH I, KOHALA / l / , 0 /NORTH HILO 0 HAMAKUA f' / / ) NORTH KONA / SOUTH HILO 1+10 KAILVA / j '• LOCATION ,e' 1111111161w 1 / E \ . " " "- ' \ •OUTH/ PUNA KONA 1 `� / KAU k I ...--- ll • 0 /-'- NMLEHU Vi WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP LOCATION MAP P.O.Box 348 Consulting Civil Engineers Holualoa,HI 96725 Construction Managers (808)334-0322 .:i.--,.__ i.._......... ill I, -4331g .4 l ' 1 1 .. ___ '---.„ L. .1C 37GGIVe,"/ •''-- i ' .t - ---. " , —.---, , ______I. it g ,icki :: • -____ i, "Ar:a ,,,, , ' --:' 1--- Oa _ay.:, .:. 8 ' evc, ...0.0 .--."" ... 1 IV ,e3C7GI i II ,.,Li vancre r1aIrfril N' ill 1 . Al „,„ Li • IQ r, ....—_'. '•":2; , 31---. ' ''' ; )f 2 : 0 C. •C kl. 19 '1 'ff./. \ , i 4 0 I ' ifti % 1° •I' *.% • —a ..1 I. ; -—— "1 1 1 i , t 4- :: 'i , r _re l'e.r-Ai, 1 p i 1.,,,,,,,,,,,I. ii 1 . •- 41 Is',41 A 4 1 k i le, -, ---___ ,, -0---- - i 1 ,! i , , i ' i ' I L 14 I 1 :L41 3 ,.., 4 ® 4_ ..4\ 4 I 4 li I., "y.,1 ■ — -——*———-——.e • '.v--12 I ...., t . . 1 i silo 1 \-‘ I 1 ; 1 0 ill 1 \ *4 4. 'i ' ''' - "*k. 0 .... ‘,•Al i,' i 2z" 114VWV % a i i....)1 . li t t' -1 i i t . -1 .__ 1,(, \\ 731, ti i - --1--!-, 1 of I. 3 4 1.: - . • .•../N(.1 q ...., ,„„ ____ _ , ...., t: ,..-''); Ili ''.1.(11:, t. 1.....n. } 1 __,... .....,„r.., -s L.1 ______t_ ---- .... .. .1____4„4.'. -.I. -, t• / J - , ... * r I e 3 .0 1 11 I'--.--. " 't - r r 0 3! g Is, 1 i ., \t ; i'I1t.•t,.7:1.,:, t t• ,1 K i t, ,,:, A,-. z t 0 0 •-• 1 ; l'' Int neltutmlrat Z„z.,,.. / I a'r::,"4 'f,t',,'' t. i 1 1.1: 4 ; l :4,1 ; : '..* •'. '"ti: , i ! ,t .. .' I<.,,' lik, ', ''' ;} --— I t ; • i.' • N . : NNt. ' '4'• .-- '—i—) i - v.:‘,.-.; iss___.) 4: fi g t ! ..",,... .1 ;• E / - 1 1 I 1 t t••• ,1 :-. •-____,0,_! ,,l . i 1 ,g6 Z ■ I , ..ro _ _ __._ ......G 0/0dOe -:.. '`F ',?' ''S' .0! -::..:' 'F: •i: ',,,i: ',..', I ,...--- -... ts ... Lga, '', 0„ 74 0. 1,...1 ,ti. A..... ._A: , I ' 0. , _. . i ''',••,,,..,\"--—— — 4 c L,...,,,,,,,t.."-• , 4 • ,•••. t ..- ----- V•,,,, 4' 1 I ,.. { ' ....41........... t '——'' ;;;,-,.::•7..•;.;-. .. ' ,ora•....0 . ...:i 7•''''1,;:".F,.i.',.::4-i a DCYttoPoRN,PAODNAII 1 :1.1.45711.7 I'-. AI A iMa All UNITS + :5 110 u: . �' d.. 1 Pane Arn•8.202 Ann r ye �o /.� Load Atom fMaNnP a'.. t 1 ,��'y,* ' F1ead Zones x 1�' V� ♦ rml IIaP Km 2-4-211:A _ � �� , 1 ♦♦, 1i1�`,,t11111 ."4 .♦ b� type u IbeB,n/tear legal u unlh /`±'IVI� 4• re u anasm/baN rola u IN. ti' ♦ . ;. ♦ Type 12 JbWrm/teem fetal 2 win An.+•..••• 10 400 Yoa ` �� ' ♦ Typo D,Ibeirm/tba0+AIo 8 untie t '7SR.T �� � 1111, ,,�` ♦ ; Total u untie / N,,..,..*, 44 4,7, #4*42*/* 4‘ NS- 4K4■V.• # '9*.'.94^% 1- a: r :14-1'. U � �I� r; i•♦ TAUMN.e....* ft/ _g b _ ;, < .4 I �I �� ■ 1.011 • ito,•+00 a Ir wan "r ..,.~rte iAt yabp la✓Id —M HUALALAI COURT—PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 88 AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 fie"' APPENDIX B LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA AVERAGE TOTAL LEVEL OF EXPECTED DELAY TO DELAY (Seconds/Vehicle) SERVICE MINOR STREET TRAFFIC z 5 A Little or no delay 5.1 to 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 20.0 C Average traffic delays 20.1 to 30.0 D Long traffic delays 30.1 to 45.0 E Very long traffic delays >45 F Extreme traffic delays Appendix B APPENDIX C LEVEL OF SERVICE KAPIOLANI STREET & HUALALAI STREET SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AM & PM PEAK HOUR Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BEW Intersection 2 WAY STOP Agency/Co, VINCENT TAI Jurisdiction HAWAII CO Date Performed 4/22/13 Analysis Year 2013 Analysis Time Period AM PEAK EX Project Description HUALALA!COURT JOB#593-01-10 HCHKAM2013 EastiWest Street: HUALALAI North/South Street: KAPIOLANI Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 2 157 69 112 138 1 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 2 157 69 112 138 1 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 _ -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 9 29 4 29 18 67 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 9 29 4 29 18 67 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (veh/h) 2 112 47 67 42 C(m)(veh/h) 1457 1354 385 855 395 /c 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.11 95% queue length 0.00 0.27 0.42 0.25 0.36 Control Delay(s/veh) 15 7.9 15.6 9.6 15.2 LOS A A C A C pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 12.1 15.2 pproach LOS -- -- B C Copyright CO 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+'h+ Version 5.8 Generated: 4/22/2013 3:21 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\Witcher Engr LLP\Local Settings\Temp\u2k1C7.tmp 4/22/2013 • • Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BEW Intersection 2 WAY STOP Agency/Co. TA!VINCENT Jurisdiction HAWAII CO Date Performed 4/22/13 Analysis Year 2013 Analysis Time Period PM PEAKEX Project Description HUALALI_COURT JOB#570-01-08 HCKHPM2013 East/West Street: HUALALAI North/South Street: KAPIOLANI Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 4 105 30 62 149 6 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i ourly Flow Rate,HFR 4 105 30 62 149 6 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - _ -- 0 _ - — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 7 24 8 71 33 96 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ourty Flow Rate,HFR 7 24 8 71 33 96 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (veh/h) 4 62 104 96 39 C(m)(veh/h) 1438 1462 505 937 531 /c 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.10 0.07 95%queue length 0,01 0.13 0.78 0,34 0.24 Control Delay(s/veh) 7,5 7.6 14.0 9.3 12.3 LOS A A B A B pproach Delay(s/veh) -- — 11.7 12.3 pproach LOS -- -- B B Copyright®2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+mr4 Version 5.6 Generated: 4/22/2013 3:25 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\Witcher Engr LLP\Local Settings\Temp\u2k1CD.tmp 4/22/2013 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BEW Intersection 2 WAY STOP Agency/Co. VINCENT TA! Jurisdiction HAWAII CO Date Performed 4/22/13 Analysis Year 2018 Analysis Time Period AM PEAKSyr Project Description HUALALAI COURT JOB#593-01-10 HCHKAM2018 astlWest Street: HUALALAI North/South Street: KAPIOLAN! Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 3 157 69 112 138 1 -eak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 3 157 69 112 138 1 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- _ 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 16 51 7 29 26 67 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ourly Flow Rate,HFR 16 51 7 29 26 67 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service •pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R _ LTR (veh/h) 3 112 55 67 74 C(m)(veh/h) 1457 1354 372 855 392 lc a 00 0.08 0,15 0.08 0.19 95%queue length 0.01 0.27 0,52 0.25 0,70 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.9 16.4 9.6 16.3 LOS A A C A C •pproach Delay(slveh) -- -- 12.6 16.3 •pproach LOS -- -- B C Copyright®2010 University or Florida,All Rights Reserved hICS+TM Version 6.6 Generated: 4/23/2013 1:63 PM file;//C:\Documents and Settings\Witcher Engr LLP\Local Settings\Temp\u2k92.tmp 4/23/2013 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BEW intersection 2 WAY STOP Agency/Co. TA!VINCENT Jurisdiction HAWAII CO Date Performed 4/22/13 Analysis Year 244-3 20 /8 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK5yr 'roject Description HUALALI COURT JOB#570-01-08 NCKHPM2018 East/West Street: HUALALAI North/South Street: KAPIOLANI Intersection Orientation: North-South 'Study Period(hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments ajor Street Northbound Southbound ovement ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 7 105 30 62 149 11 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 7 105 30 62 149 11 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 0 -- - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal _ 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 10 35 12 71 58 96 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 10 35 12 71 58 96 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 onfiguration LTR LT _ R Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service •pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (veh/h) 7 62 129 96 57 (m)(veh/h) 1432 1462 489 937 520 to 0.00 0.04 0.26 0.10 0.11 95%queue length 0.01 0.13 1.07 0.34 0.37 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.6 15.0 9.3 12.8 LOS A A 8 A B pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 12.6 12.8 pproach LOS -- -- B B Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+Trn Version 5.6 Generated: 4/23/2013 1:52 PM file://C:\Documents and Settings\Witcher Engr LLP\Local Settings\Temp1u2k98.tmp 4/23/2013 APPENDIX D TRAFFIC MOVEMENT DIAGRAMS KAPIOLANI STREET & HUALALAI STREET SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AM & PM PEAK HOURS • Proposed Affordable Apartment Complex Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street Traffic Movement - Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM 251 233 1 138 112 9 157 67 4 F- LU 1- cn 1 67 21 1g inpv 18 114 2 29 HUALALAI R STREET 9 112 42 29 29 210 4 69 5 0 4 138 29 2 157 69 171 228 * WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP JN 593-02-13 4113/13 P 0 Box 3448 Consulting Civil Engineers Hanka.Howell 98725 (808)3340322 Construction Managers Proposed Affordable Apartment Complex Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street Traffic Movement - Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour 3:45 PM to 4:45 PM 217 208 6 149 62 7 105 96 H w w ...7/2 6 .---- — 96 43 33 -.,_ _ _ _ X 33 200 ry _ 71 HUALALAI 1► ?��! STREET________ 6 39 24 : ) h16 E 5 0 ai 8 149 71 4 105 30 228 139 lak WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP JN 593-02-13 4113/13 P09ox348 Consulting Civil Engineers t8 a 96'25 Construction Managers Proposed Affordable Apartment Complex Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street Traffic Movement Buildout Conditions AM Peak Hour 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM 251 240 Iraklion rol".91 1 138 112 16 157 67 1 --• 67 30 26 ----_-- - 26 132 .i _ _ .,. __ _ 29 HUALALAi STREET 16 — "'`. � --- - 112 74 51 - -- 51 232 7 69 z g 0 0 7 138 29 3 157 69 174 229 WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP JN 593-02-13 4/13113 P_O Box 348 Consufting Civil Engineers (808)334-0322 96'25 Construction Managers Proposed Affordable Apartment Complex Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street Traffic Movement - Buildout Conditions PM Peak Hour 3:45 PM to 4:45 PM 222 211 11 149 62 10 105 96 w w CC I- CO 11 96 76 58 58 225 71__ _. __ �" HUALALAI STREET 10 62 57 35 , 35 127 12 30 /7----- :(1.- 12 149 71 7 105 30 232 142 JN 593-02-13 4102 WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP 4/13/13 P.0 Box 31�ad887z5 Consulting Civil Engineers M8)334.0O322 Construction Managers M ANNINO DEPARTMENT crIli rt'Yr.r ; = r1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2013 JUL -5 PM Li: 51 COUNTY OF HAWAII H I LO, HAWAII DATE: July 3, 2013 NeMendiedrifit TO: Duane Kanuha, Planning Director FROM: Department of Public Works, Engineering Division '�'' g 9 SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 13-000167) Applicant: Vincent T. C. Tai Request: RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 Planning Dept. Tax Map Key: 2-4-28: 009 Exhibit 3 We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated June 17, 2013 and offer the following comments for your consideration. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not 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. The subject parcel is 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. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. Hualalai and Hale Nani Streets, fronting the subject property, are owned and maintained by the County of Hawaii. The Hualalai Street right-of-way is 60 feet wide and the Hale Nani Street right-of-way is 40 feet wide. The Revised and Updated Traffic Impact Analysis, dated April 2013, by Witcher Engineering LLP was reviewed, and commented on, by the Traffic Division May 20, 2013. To date, the comments have not been addressed. Install streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the Traffic Division, Department of Public Works. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. SCANNED Questions may be referred to Kelly Gomes at ext. 8327. tT iV County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer BY'tT of„WATfR.SGAe Qto i '< '19 49i �' DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII --4"),F... . ��?P 345 KEKUANAO`A STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720 HAVW, TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • FAX (808) 961-8657 July 9, 2013 TO: Mr. Duane Kanuha, Director Planning Department w` --, . FROM: Quirino Antonio,Jr., Manager-Chief Engineer — SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION APPLICATION (REZ 13-000167) w ::- APPLICANT–VINCENT T. C. TAI d = ;z REQUEST: RM-2.5 TO RM-1.5 TAX MAP KEY 2-4-028:009 We have reviewed the current application and our comments and conditions are essentially the same as those that were detailed in our January 11, 2010, letter to the Planning Department regarding the subject parcel for the previous Change of Zone request(REZ 09-000114) from RS-7.5 to RM-2.5. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Lawrence Beck of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 260. Sincerely yours, Quiri Antonio, Jr., P.E. Mana r-Chief Engineer LB:dfg , copy - Mr. Vincent T. C. Tai SCANNED Planning Dept. . . .Water, Our Most Precious Resource . . . Ka Wai.A pane . . . Exhibit 14 The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. ito, ,• „__ • • 19 49 •moo DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAI`1 G PAP' 'ofHAWp�, 345 KEKUANAO`A STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • FAX (808) 961-8657 January 11, 2010 TO: Ms. BJ Leithead Todd, Planning Director Planning Department - t— FROM: Milton D.Pavao,Manager SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION(REZ 09-000114) APPLICANT—VINCENT T.C. TAI REQUEST: RS-7.5 to RM-2.5 TAX MAP KEY 2-4-028:009 `9 We have reviewed the subject application and have the following comments and conditions. Water can be made available from an existing 8-inch waterline within Kapi`olani Street approximately 260 feet from the subject parcel. For your information, we have no record of any existing services assigned to the subject parcel, although the applicant indicates that there is an existing single family dwelling with a swimming pool on the site. The Department has no objection to the proposed change of zone application subject to the applicant understanding and accepting the following conditions: 1. Prior to effecting a water commitment for the proposed development,the Department requires that the applicant provide an exact breakdown of the total number of units to be developed. In addition to the breakdown of units,the Department also requests that maximum daily water usage calculations, prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii,be submitted showing the estimated daily water demand for landscape irrigation,recreational areas,and swimming pool. The water usage calculations should also show the estimated peak flow for the development in gallons per minute. Upon receipt and approval of the above information,the Department will determine the water commitment deposit due,facilities charges to be paid(subject to change), and the appropriate service lateral and meter size required for the project. 2. The applicant will be required to extend approximately 260 lineal feet of 8-inch waterline from the existing 8-inch waterline within Kapi'olani Street to front the property. The 8-inch waterline is required for both domestic water service and fire protection. 3. The proposed project will require the installation of a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly within five(5)feet of the meter on private property. The installation of the backflow prevention assembly must be inspected and approved by the Department before water service can be activated. 4. Subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road right-of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development,the applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the Department's affected water system facilities, should they be necessary. -----� SCANNED 0\60.033 . . .Water, Our Most Precious Resource. . . 7(a Wai pane . . . By: The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. a a. r A • I Ms. BJ Leithead-Todd,Planning Director Page 2 January 11,2010 Should there be any questions,you may contact Mr. Finn McCall of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070,extension 255. Sincerely yours, Milton D. Pavao, P.E. Manager FM:dfg copy- Mr. Vincent T. C. Tai \ ..�;' '-A l G DE' NE1LJtheadTodd William P.Kenoi + �'II..., c+' ✓"�� ; Mayor t 11, Director Walter K.M.Lau �rf~• �, 2013 dt1. t p i y i 4: p Managing Director County of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Hilo,Hawai'i 96720 (808)961-8083•Fax(808)961-8086 http://co.hawaii.hi.us/directory/dir envmng.htm MEMORANDUM Date : July 2,2013 To : DUANE KANUHA,Planning Director From: BJ LEITHEAD TODD,Director br-i Subject: Change of Zone Application(REZ 13-000167) Planning Dept. Applicant: Vincent T.C.Tai Exhibit 5 Request: RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 TMK: 2-4-028:009 The Wastewater Division has reviewed the subject application and offers the following recommendations (please note Solid Waste Division comments will be submitted separately): DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: WASTEWATER COMMENTS: (Contact Wastewater Division for details.) ( ) 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 Hawai'i County Code.Complete 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. (X) Check or line out as applicable: [ ] If required by the Director of the Department of Environmental Management("Director of DEM"), [X] applicant shall conduct a sewer study in accordance with the then applicable wastewater system design standards prior to approval to connect to the County sewer system. Applicant shall provide such sewer line or other facility improvements as the Director of DEM may reasonably require,which the sewer study may indicate are advisable for mitigation of impacts of the proposed project. Contact Wastewater Division Chief for details. ( ) Other: • SCANNED �p � tip Q± County of Hawai`i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. BY' JUL William P.Kenoi ;+��c� �/, •' !'r�' t t? eithead Todd _ _� i!r: 4. Director Mayor �j r�yy�❑}# tt!!� Walter K.M.Lau pF ........... 9 Managing Director (Ila1ZU of •n�ut't DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 (808)961-8083 Fax(808)961-8086 http://co.hawaii.hi.usidirectory/dir envmng.htm MEMORANDUM Date : June 19,2013 To : DUANE KANUHA,Planning Director From: BJ LEITHEAD TODD,Director j7/:r1 Subject: Change of Zone Application(REZ 13-000167) Applicant: Vincent T.C.Tai Request:RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 TMK: 2-4-028:009 The Solid Waste Division has reviewed the subject application and offers the following recommendations (Please note Wastewater Division's comments will submitted separately): DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: ( ) Wastewater Division had no comment as this area is not a sewered and there are no immediate plans for sewering of the area. ( ) Other SOLID WASTE COMMENTS: (Contact Solid Waste Division for details.) ( No comments ) 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. ) Ample and equal room should be provided for rubbish and recycling. ()( ) Green waste may be transported to the green waste sites located at the Kailua and Hilo transfer stations,or other suitable diversion programs. (X ) Construction and demolition waste is prohibited at all County Transfer Stations. (x ) 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: County of Hawai`i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. 0 8 6 2 4 0 p '• William P.Kenoi :.; � ;!�• BJ Leithead Todd •Mayor =- •^t Director Walter K.M.Lau :•..W......... Managing Director CIt znft of c ai to'i DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 (808)961-8083 •Fax(808)961-8086 http://co.hawaii.hi.us/directory/dir envmng.htm June 18,2013 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Guidelines INTENT AND PURPOSE This is to establish guidelines for reviewing solid waste management plans,for which special conditions are placed on developments.The solid waste management plan will be used to:(1) promotes and implement recycling and recycling programs,(2)predict the waste generated by the proposed development to anticipate the loading on County solid waste management facilities,and(3)predict the additional vehicular traffic being generated because of waste and recycling transfers.A qualified consultant shall prepare a suitable solid waste management plan for review by the Department of Environmental Management. REPORT The Solid Waste Management Plan will contain the following: 1. Description of the project and the potential waste it may be generating: i.e.analysis of anticipated waste volume and composition.This includes waste generated during the construction and operational or maintenance phases. Waste types shall include(but not be limited to): A. Organics(including food waste and green wastes); B. Construction and Demolition; C. Paper(including cardboard); D. Metal(including ferrous and non-ferrous metals); E. Plastic; F. Special(including ash,sludge,treated medical,bulky items,tires); G. Household Hazardous(including paint,vehicle fluids,oil,batteries);and H. Glass. 2. Indicate onsite source separation facilities by waste type;i.e.source separation bins of glass,metal,plastic,cardboard,aluminum,etc.Provide ample and equal space for rubbish and recycling. 3. Identification and location of the proposed waste reduction,waste re-use,recycling facility or disposal site and associated transportation methods for the various components of the development's waste management system,including the number of vehicle movements and associated routes that will be used to transport the waste and recycled materials. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. • Solid Waste Management Plan Guidelines Page 2 of 2 4. The report will include identification of any impacts to County-operated waste management facilities,and the appropriate mitigation measures that will be implemented by the development to minimize these impacts. 5. Analysis will be based on the highest potential use or zoning of the development. REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS 1. A solid waste management plan will be prepared for all commercial developments,as defined under the policies of the Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division. 2. The Department of Environmental Management will require the developer to provide or resolve all recommendations and mitigation measures as outlined in the solid waste management plan;besides any conditions placed on the applicant herein. 3. A State of Hawai`i licensed engineer will draft and certify in writing the solid waste management plan as complying with applicable Federal, State and County of Hawai'i solid waste laws,regulations,and administrative rules. Should you require additional information,please contact Greg Goodale, Solid Waste Division Chief,at(808)961-8515. CONCUR: /e,f BJ Leithead Todd DIRECTOR County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. gin-7 N��...rilliam P.Kena y �i _ Harry S.Kubojiri Ma or FUNNI G DEPAR t MENT ail' ` Police Chief Mayor COUNTY OF HAWAII I+: '� 4. 2013 JUN 27 Paul K.Ferreira Deputy Police Chief County of Hawai'i POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapi`olani Street • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-3998 (808)935-3311 • Fax(808)961-2389 June 26, 2013 TO : DUANE NUHA, PLA NING DIRECTOR FROM : HEN . TAVARES, J SSISTANT POLICE CHIEF ARE I PERATIO S SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 13-000167) APPLICANT: VINCENT T. C. TAI REQUEST: RM-2.5 TO RM 1.5 TMK: 2-4-028:009 Staff, upon reviewing the provided documents, does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Captain Richard Sherlock, Commander of the South Hilo District, at (808) 961-2214. RS:Ili 130410 SCANNE 1i Planning Dept. JUN 2 8 2013 Exhibit 6 Byrj r "Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" William P.Ke (� r n#a .4 2 .c Darren J. Rosario #lletNN ' } 0- r .E; T 1, f Mayor re :: ✓ Fire Chief Renwick J.Victorino or•► Deputy Fire Chief 2013 JUN 21 PM 2: 08 County. of atuai`i • HAWAI'I FIRE DEPARTMENT • 25 Aupuni Street • Room 2501• Hilo,Hawaii 96720 (808)932-2900 • Fax(808)932-2928 June 20,2013 • TO: DUANE KANUHA, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DARREN J. ROSARIO, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 13-000167) APPLICANT: VINCENT T.C. TAI REQUEST: RM-2.5 TO RM-1.5 TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-028:009 In regards to the above-mentioned Change of Zone application, the following shall be in accordance: NFPA 1, UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 2006 EDITION Note: NFPA 1, Hawaii State Fire Code with County amendments. County amendments are identified with a preceding "C—" of the reference code. Chapter 18 Fire Department Access and Water Supply 18.1 General. Fire department access and water supplies shall comply with this chapter. For-o"c-cupancies of an especially hazardous nature;or where special"hazards exist-hi addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, or areas where there is an inadequate fire flow, or inadequate fire hydrant spacing, and the AHJ may require additional safeguards including, but not limited to, additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard involved. 18.1.1 Plans. 18.1.1.1 Fire Apparatus Access. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 18.1.1.2 Fire Hydrant Systems. Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. ;= SCANNER., �; ►' Planning Dept. Exhibit 7 #82t1 Ci).°E.TID `,r'By: I Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 2 C� 18.1.1.2.1 Fire Hydrant use and Restrictions.No unauthorized person shall use or operate any Fire hydrant unless such person first secures permission or a permit from the owner or representative of the department, or company that owns or governs that water supply or system. Exception: Fire Department personnel conducting firefighting operations, hydrant testing, and/or maintenance, and the flushing and acceptance of hydrants witnessed by Fire Prevention Bureau personnel. 18.2 Fire Department Access. 18.2.1 Fire department access and fire department access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Section 18.2. 18.2.2* Access to Structures or Areas. 18.2.2.1 Access Box(es). The AHJ shall have the authority to require an access box(es) to be installed in an accessible location where access to or within a structure or area is difficult because of security. 18.2.2.2 Access to Gated Subdivisions or Developments. The AHJ shall have the authority to require fire department access be provided to gated subdivisions or developments through the use of an approved device or system. 18.2.2.3 Access Maintenance. The owner or occupant of a structure or area, with required fire department access as specified in 18.2.2.1 or 18.2.2.2, shall notify the AHJ when the access is modified in a manner that could prevent fire department access. 18.2.3 Fire Department Access Roads. (*may be referred as FDAR) 18.2.3.1 Required Access. 18.2.3.1.1 Approved fire department access roads shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or relocated. 18.2.3.1.2 Fire Department access roads shall consist of roadways, fire lanes, parking lots lanes, or a combination thereof. 18.2.3.1.3* When not more than two one- and two-family dwellings or private garages, carports, sheds, agricultural buildings, and detached buildings or structures 400ft2 (37 m2) or less are present, the requirements of 18.2.3.1 through 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be modified by the AHJ. Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 3 18.2.3.1.4 When fire department access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades, or other similar conditions, the AHJ shall be authorized to require additional fire protection features. 18.2.3.2 Access to Building. 18.2.3.2.1 A fire department access road shall extend to within in 50 ft(15 m) of at least one exterior door that can be opened from the outside that provides access to the interior of the building. Exception: 1 and 2 single-family dwellings. 18.2.3.2.1.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13,NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in 18.2.3.2.1 shall be permitted to be increased to 300 feet. 18.2.3.2.2 Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft (46 m) from fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 18.2.3.2.2.1 When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13,NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in 18.2.3.2.2 shall be permitted to be increased to 450 ft(137 m). 18.2.3.3 Multiple Access Roads. More than one fire department access road shall be provided when it is determined by the AHJ that access by a single road could be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. 18.2.3.4 Specifications. 18.2.3.4.1 Dimensions. C-, 18.2.3.4.1.1 FDAR shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20ft with an approved turn around area if the FDAR exceeds 150 feet. Exception: FDAR for one and two family dwellings shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 15 feet, with an area of not less than 20 feet wide within 150 feet of the structure being protected. An approved turn around area shall be provided if the FDAR exceeds 250 feet. C- 18.2.3.4.1.2 FDAR shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less then 13ft 6 in. C- 18.2.3.4.1.2.1 Vertical clearances may be increased or reduced by the AHJ, provided such increase or reduction does not impair access by the fire apparatus, and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating such approved changes. Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 4 18.2.3.4.1.2.2 Vertical clearances shall be increased when vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to accommodate fire apparatus. C— 18.2.3.4.2 Surface. Fire department access roads and bridges shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads (25 Tons) of the fire apparatus. Such FDAR and shall be comprised of an all-weather driving surface. 18.2.3.4.3 Turning Radius. C- 18.2.3.4.3.1 Fire department access roads shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 30 feet, and a minimum outside turning radius of 60 feet. 18.2.3.4.3.2 Turns in fire department access road shall maintain the minimum road width. 18.2.3.4.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft (46 m) in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around. 18.2.3.4.5 Bridges. 18.2.3.4.5.1 When a bridge is required to be used as part of a fire department access road, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with county requirements. 18.2.3.4.5.2 The bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. 18.2.3.4.5.3 Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges where required by the AHJ. 18.2 3.4.6 Grade. C-18.2.3.4.6.1 The maximum gradient of a Fire department access road shall not exceed 12 percent for unpaved surfaces and 15 percent for paved surfaces. In areas of the FDAR where a Fire apparatus would connect to a Fire hydrant or Fire Department Connection, the maximum gradient of such area(s) shall not exceed 10 percent. 18.2.3.4.6.2* The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire department access road shall not exceed 1 ft drop in 20 ft (0.3 m drop in 6 m) or the design limitations of the fire apparatus of the fire department, and shall be subject to approval by the AHJ. Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 5 18.2.3.4.6.3 Fire department access roads connecting to roadways shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least 2 ft (0.61 m)beyond each edge of the fire lane. 18.2.3.4.7 Traffic Calming Devices. The design and use of traffic calming devices shall be approved the AHJ. 18.2.3.5 Marking of Fire Apparatus Access Road. 18.2.3.5.1 Where required by the AHJ, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained to identify fire department access roads or to prohibit the obstruction thereof of both. 18.2.3.5.2 A marked fire apparatus access road shall also be known as a fire lane. 18.2.4* Obstruction and Control of Fire Department Access Road. 18.2.4.1 General. 18.2.4.1.1 The required width of a fire department access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parking of vehicles. 18.2.4.1.2 Minimum required widths and clearances established under 18.2.3.4 shall be maintained at all times. 18.2.4.1.3* Facilities and structures shall be maintained in a manner that does not impair or impede accessibility for fire department operations. 18.2.4.1.4 Entrances to fire departments access roads that have been closed with gates and barriers in accordance with 18 2.4.2.1 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles. 18.2.4.2 Closure of Accessways. 18.2.4.2.1 The AHJ shall be authorized to require the installation and maintenance of gates or other approved barricades across roads, trails, or other accessways not including public streets, alleys, or highways. 18.2.4.2.2 Where required, gates and barricades shall be secured in an approved manner. Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 6 18.2.4.2.3 Roads, trails, and other accessways that have been closed and obstructed in the manner prescribed by 18.2.4.2.1 shall not be trespassed upon or used unless authorized by the owner and the AHJ. 18.2.4.2.4 Public officers acting within their scope of duty shall be permitted to access restricted property identified in 18.2.4.2.1. 18.2.4.2.5 Locks, gates, doors,barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, tags, or seals that have been installed by the fire department or by its order or under its control shall not be removed, unlocked, destroyed, tampered with, or otherwise vandalized in any manner. 18.3 Water Supplies and Fire Hydrants 18.3.1* A water supply approved by the county, capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are hereafter constructed, or moved into or within the county. When any portion of the facility or building is in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a water supply on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on- site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided when required by the AHJ. For on-site fire hydrant requirements see section 18.3.3. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When facilities or buildings, or portions thereof, are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of section 18.3.1 may be modified by the AHJ. 2. When water supply requirements cannot be installed due to topography or other conditions, the AHJ may require additional fire protection as specified in section 18.3.2 as amended in the code. 3. When there are not more than two dwellings, or two private garage, carports, sheds and agricultural. Occupancies, the requirements of section 18.3.1 may be modified by AHJ. 18.3.2*Where no adequate or reliable water distribution system exists, approved reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, fire department tanker shuttles, or other approved systems capable of providing the required fire flow shall be permitted. 18.3.3*The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be provided on a fire apparatus access road on the site of the premises or both, in accordance with the appropriate county water requirements. 18.3.4 Fire Hydrants and connections to other approved water supplies shall be accessible to the fire department. Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 7 18.3.5 Private water supply systems shall be tested and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25 or county requirements as determined by the AHJ. 18.3.6 Where required by the AHJ, fire hydrants subject to vehicular damage shall be protected unless located within a public right of way. 18.3.7 The AHJ shall be notified whenever any fire hydrant is placed out of service or returned to service. Owners of private property required to have hydrants shall maintain hydrant records of approval, testing, and maintenance, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. Records shall be made available for review by the AHJ upon request. C- 18.3.8 Minimum water supply for buildings that do not meet the minimum County water standards: Buildings up to 2000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 3,000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Buildings 2001- 3000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 6,000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Buildings, 3001- 6000 square feet, shall have a minimum of 12,000 gallons of water available for Firefighting. Buildings, greater than 6000 square feet, shall meet the minimum County water and fire flow requirements. Multiple story buildings shall multiply the square feet by the amount of stories when determining the minimum water supply. Commercial buildings requiring a minimum fire flow of 2000gpm per the Department of Water standards shall double the minimum water supply reserved for firefighting. Fire Department Connections (FDC) to alternative water supplies shall comply with 18.3.8 (1)-(6) of this code. NOTE: In that water catchment systems are being used as a means of water supply for firefighting, such systems shall meet the following requirements: (1) In that a single water tank is used for both domestic and firefighting water, the water for domestic use shall not be capable of being drawn from the water reserved for firefighting; Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 8 (2) Minimum pipe diameter sizes from the water supply to the Fire Department Connection(FDC) shall be as follows: (a) 4" for C900 PVC pipe; (b) 4"for C906 PE pipe; (c) 3" for ductile Iron; (d) 3' for galvanized steel. (3) The Fire Department Connection(FDC) shall: (a)be made of galvanized steel; (b)have a gated valve with 2-1/2 inch, National Standard Thread male fitting and cap; (c)be located between 8 ft and 16 ft from the Fire department access. The location shall be approved by the AHJ; (d)not be located less than 24 inches, and no higher than 36 inches from finish grade, as measured from the center of the FDC orifice; (e)be secure and capable of withstanding drafting operations. Engineered stamped plans may be required; (f) not be located more than 150 feet of the most remote part, but not less than 20 feet, of the structure being protected; (g) also comply with section 13.1.3 and 18.2.3.4.6.1 of this code; (4) Commercial buildings requiring a fire flow of 2000gpm shall be provided with a second FDC. Each FDC shall be independent of each other, with each FDC being capable of flowing 500gpm by engineered design standards. The second FDC shall be located in an area approved by the AHJ with the idea of multiple Fire apparatus' conducting drafting operations at once, in mind. (5) Inspection and maintenance shall be in accordance to NFPA 25. (6)The owner or lessee of the property shall be responsible for maintaining the water level, quality, and appurtenances of the system. EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 18.3.8: (1)Agricultural buildings,storage sheds, and shade houses with no combustible or equipment storage. (2) Buildings less than 800 square feet in size that meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road requirements. (3) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, storage sheds, and detached garages 800 to 2000 square feet in size, and meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to 1000 feet. (4) For one and two family dwellings, agricultural buildings, and storage sheds Duane Kanuha June 20, 2013 Page 9 greater than 2000square feet, but less than 3000 square feet and meets the minimum Fire Department Access Road requirements, the distance to the Fire Department Connection may be increased to 500 feet. (5) For buildings with an approved automatic sprinkler system, the minimum water supply required may be modified. If there are any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau at (808) 932-2911. adps..2. DARREN J. ROSARIO Fire Chief RP/lc NEIL ABERCROMBIE LORETTA J.FUDDY,A.C.S.W.,M.P.H. I, t',81 � r E'NT {„'i sy�� Director of Health I.{s e ,7 G 1 4 be 2013 ,1111, 15 t.1 9: 51 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O.BOX 916 HILO,HAWAII 96721-0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 11, 2013 TO: Duane Kanuha Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Newton Inouye 't District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ 13-000167) Applicant: Vincent T. C. Tai Planning Dept. Request: RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 g p Tax Map Key: 2-4-028:009 Exhibit The subject project is located within or near proximity to the County sewer system. a. All wastewater generated shall be disposed into the County sewer system. c. Wastewater Branch supports the sewer requirements made by the County for the proposed project. 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." 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. The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of the subject document on June 19, 2013. The CWB has reviewed the limited information contained in the subject document and offers the following comments: 1. The Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted at (808) 438-9258 for this project. Pursuant to Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the "Clean Water Act" (CWA)),Paragraph 401(a)(1), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC)is required for"[a]ny applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the constructio operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigabl "CANNEL St 3673 BY: July 12, 2013 Page 2 of 5 waters...". The term "discharge" is defined in CWA, Subsections 502(16), 502(12), and 502(6); Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 122.2, and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-54. 2. In accordance with HAR, 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.hawaii.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] 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] July 12, 2013 Page 3 of 5 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] 3. In accordance with HAR, Section 11-55-38, the applicant for an NPDES permit is required to either submit a copy of the new NOI or NPDES permit application to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DOH that the project, activity, or site covered by the NOI or application has been or is being reviewed by SHPD. If applicable, please submit a copy of the request for review by SHPD or SHPD's determination letter for the project. 4. Any discharges related to project construction or operation activities, with or without a Section 401 WQC or NPDES peniiit coverage, shall comply with the applicable State Water Quality Standards as specified in HAR, Chapter 11-54. 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." 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." 1. 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. 2. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. 3. 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. July 12, 2013 Page 4 of 5 We recommend that you review all of the Standard Comments on our website: http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/env-planning/landuse/landuse.html. Any comments specifically applicable to this project should be adhered to. The same website also features a Healthy Community Design Smart Growth Checklist (Checklist) created by Built Environment Working Group (BEWG) of the Hawaii State Department of Health. The BEWG recommends that state and county planning departments, developers, planners, engineers and other interested parties apply the healthy built environment principles in the Checklist whenever they plan or review new developments or redevelopments projects. We also ask you to share this list with others to increase community awareness on healthy community design. WORD:REZ 13-000167.ni k ,,' Stephen J.Arnett cP•--- 1%a Housing Administrator William P.Kenoi •tom: '�'`���'• Mayor == _ • Susan K.Akiyama ey+ e:•' Assistant Housing Administrator &Milt Of qe.,4aillan M ite ofAousing intb Gattuitunifu ttti hipmnnf 50 Wailuku Drive • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8379 • Fax(808)961-8685 KONA: 74-5044 Me Keohokalole Highway • Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 (808)323-4305 • Fax(808)323-4301 w ri July 2, 2013 - 4 MEMORANDUM +*� ,,r TO: Duane Kanuha 2 Planning Department --rn Oft FROM: Stephen J. Arnett , Housing Administrator f- SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION(REZ 13-000167) APPLICANT: Vincent T.C. Tai REQUEST: RS-2.5 to RS-1.5 TAX MAP KEY: (3)2-4-028:009 The Office of Housing and Community Development has reviewed the application and determined that Affordable Housing Conditions are applicable to the subject request. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. SCANNED *N , •§4(1130-13:n ■ a 2222pasr EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY "HAWAI'I COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Planning Dept. PROVIDER AND EMPLOYER" Exhibit q 2 WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP Principal Consulting Civil Engineers Bruce E. Witcher,P.E. Construction Managers July 11,2013 Mr. Aaron Takaba, P.E. Department of Public Works,Traffic Division County of Hawaii 108 Railroad Ave. Hilo,HI 96720 SUBJECT: Hualalai Court,TIAR,Hilo, HI TMK(3)2-4-028:009 Reference is made to your memo of May 20, 2013 concerning the subject report. In Item#1,you state that there is a need to establish a methodology to determine trips. On page 3 of the report, I was attempting to do just that. Only during the PM peak hour is there a problem. Using the average generator,0.58,from ITE Trip Generation,8`h Edition,we arrive at 51 trips. This exceeds the threshold for concurrency and would require the buildout, 5-year, 10-year and 20-year projections. According to the ITE Trip Generation,the range of values that the trip generator comes from is between 0.39 to 0.93. Knowing this, it would seem to me,that more latitude in the value used for the trip generator could be allowed. If we are allowed to deviate from the 0.58 value to say, 0.56(0.02),the trips generated for the PM peak hour trips would be 49,less than the 50 trips in the concurrency requirements. This is a call that only the traffic division can make. We are requesting this slight change in trip generation. With the above being said,then the extension of Kapiolani Street would become a mute point since, as far as we know,the project has not been funded nor scheduled. However,it will no doubt happen sometime in the 20-year projection period. As for Item#3,the affects of the development of the planned Boschetti project,this work has yet to be scheduled. If we are required to use the 0.58 PM generator and incorporate the Boschetti project and Kapiolani Street extension,then a much more voluminous report, going well beyond our scope of work,will need to be produced. P.O. Box 348, Holualoa,Hawaii 96725 Email:bewitch @ilhawaii.net Office: (808)334-0322 • Fax: (808)324-0327 Planning Dept. Website:witcherengineering.com Exhibit 10 Mr. Aaron Takaba,P.E. July 11,2013 Page 2 Please give this matter some thought. I would like to discuss this with you at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, s WITCHER ENGINEERING LLP Bruce E. Witcher, P.E. Partner cc: Mr. Vincent Tai Ms Maija Cottle Mr. Ron Thiel Mr. Kelly Gomes RTai-RM 1.5-REZ.doc 8/7/13 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION VINCENT T.C. TAI CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 13-167) Upon careful review of the request against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation for the Change of Zone request from Multiple-Family Residential-2,500 square feet(RM-2.5) to Multiple- Family Residential-1,500 square feet(RM-1.5) 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 applicant is requesting a change of zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 in order develop an affordable housing project known as "Hualalai Court"consisting of 88 affordable housing units, of which 50 will be one-bedroom units approximately 580 square feet in size, 36 will be two-bedroom units approximately 760 sq ft in size, and 2 will be three-bedroom units approximately 850 sq ft in size. The development would also include common recreation/play areas, a communal vegetable garden, and on-site parking and landscaping in accordance with the zoning code. The applicant estimates infrastructure improvements (i.e. driveways,utility connections)will take approximately 4 months and cost$900,000 to construct. Due to the uncertainty of financing and market conditions,the time schedule and cost to construct the proposed project are unknown at this time. The change of zone request from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 will conform to, among others,the Land Use and Housing elements of the General Plan. 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 be also Attachment to: Comm. 718 -1- Bill 214 considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)Map,which establishes the basic urban and non- urban form for areas within the county, designates the subject property as Medium Density Urban which allows for single-family and multiple-family residential uses with an overall density of up to 35 units per acre as well as village and neighborhood commercial uses. The applicant's proposal to develop 88 residential units on approximately 3.292 acres would be below the maximum density of 35 units per acre allowed with the Medium Density Urban designation. The proposed development will support the goals of the Housing element for the South Hilo district by providing housing for those individuals that prefer not to live in or cannot afford single-family dwellings,such as low and moderate income earners, college students and the elderly. Much of the multiple-family housing stock that exists in Hilo is aging and in need of repair or renovation. Additionally, the request supports the goals and policies of the Land Use element in that the proposed project is located in close proximity to services in downtown Hilo and adequate infrastructure is available to serve the project. The subject property is located in an urban area, in close proximity to other residential uses including multiple-family residences such as the Lanakila Homes Public Housing project which is located on lands to the south zoned RD-3.75. The adjacent properties to the north were recently rezoned to RM-1.5. The County Police Department Headquarters complex and St.Joseph's School are located nearby on Kapi`olani Street. A minor increase in traffic and noise in the area will occur due to the proposed project;however these impacts are reasonable to expect in an urban area and can be reduced through on-site landscaping and adherence to State laws relating to construction noise. A Revised and Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report(TIAR),prepared in April 2013, determined that the proposed project will not change the acceptable levels of service at the Kapi`olani Street/Hualalai Street intersection. A condition of approval will require the applicant provide adequate landscaping to mitigate any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties. Based on the above, a change of zoning to the RM-1.5 district classification is appropriate in this area and the request is consistent with the General Plan. -2- All essential utilities and services are available to the site. Access to the property is from Hualalai Street, which is a County owned and maintained roadway with a right-of way width of 60 feet. The applicant will construct a 32-foot wide asphalt paved driveway aligned with Hualalai Street. A condition of approval will require that any driveway connection to Hualalai Street conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawai`i County Code. According to the Department of Water Supply(DWS),water can be made available to the property via an existing 8-inch waterline within Kapi`olani Street by extending approximately 260 lineal feet of 8-inch waterline to the subject property. The proposed request would also require the installation of a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly within five feet of the existing or additional water meters. Conditions of approval will be included to address the Department of Water Supply's requirements. A County sewer line is located along Hualalai Street. The Department of Environmental Management has indicated that the applicant will be required to provide a sewer study prior to connection to the County sewer line. A condition of approval will require that the applicant provide a sewer study, construct any required upgrades to the existing sewer system in Hualalai Street, and connect to the existing County sewer line prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Solid waste will be disposed of by commercial haulers or individual homeowners into an approved landfill. 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 "X", an area determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit a drainage study to the Department of Public Works and construct any required drainage improvements. Additionally, all development generated storm run-off will be disposed of on-site and not allowed onto adjacent properties or roadways. Electrical and telephone services can be made available to the property. Police services are located nearby on Kapi`olani Street. Fire services are located in downtown Hilo. Medical services are available at Hilo Medical Center. Nearby parks include -3- Lincoln Park and Mohouli Park. Private and public schools are in close proximity to the property. The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management Area. The subject property is located over half a mile from the shoreline and is not in the Special Management Area. Thus,the property will not be affected by coastal hazards and beach erosion. There are no identified recreational resources,historic resources,public access to the shoreline or mountain areas, scenic and open space preserves,coastal ecosystems,marine resources or other natural and environmental resources on the subject property. In view of the Hawai`i State Supreme Court's"PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai 0 Ka'Aina"decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural,historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: • Investigation of valued resources: An archaeological survey was not conducted because the property has previously been graded and is developed with a single- family dwelling. A flora and fauna survey of the property was conducted by Geometrician Associates,LLC in June 2009. The valued cultural,historical, and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The flora and fauna survey found no rare, threatened, or endangered floral or faunal species on the property,but recommended against removing or disturbing any vegetation during the months of June and July in order to avoid impacts to any roosting endangered Hawaiian hoary bats,which are difficult to detect. • Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The property does not abut the shoreline, therefore Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights is not an issue. Native plants may be destroyed by ground alteration. There is no evidence that the flora in the area are particularly desired or used for cultural practices. • Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: There is no evidence that traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised on the property; therefore no action is necessary to protect these rights. A condition of approval will be included to require the applicant to notify the DLNR-SHPD should any -4- unidentified sites or remains be encountered, and proceed only upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR-SHPD. Based on the above findings, approval of the Change of Zone request from a Multiple-Family Residential-2,500 sq.ft(RM-2.5)to a Multiple-Family Residential- 1,500 sq. ft(RM-1.5)zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further benefit the public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map) of Chapter 25, Zoning Code, of the Hawai`i County Code, is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. -5- . COUNTY OF HAWAII • � �' STATE OF HAWAII . 7Tt Of N►`i� ' BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. ( ttthvi b e e4-T') AN ORDINANCE 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 MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—2,500 SQUARE FEET(RM-2.5)TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- 1,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-1.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-028:009. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Section 25-8-33, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawai`i, shall be Multiple-Family Residential— 1,500 square feet(RM-1.5): Beginning at the southeast corner of this parcel of land and along the northerly boundary of Lot 39, Hualalai Subdivision and along the southwesterly side of Hualalai Street, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station"HALAI",being 1,227.51 feet South and 3,637.22 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: 1. 58° 10' 433.93 feet along the remainders of L.P. 8063, L.C. Aw. 2663 to Kahue and R.P. 6790, L.C. Aw. 2402 to Keaniho (Lots 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34 and 33, Hualalai Subdivision); 2. 148° 10' 68.38 feet along the remainder of R.P. 6790, L.C. Aw. 2402 to Keaniho (Lot 31, Hualalai Subdivision); -1- 3. 76° 08' 45" 303.03 feet along the remainder of R.P. 6790, L.C. Aw. 2402 to Keaniho (Lots 30, 29 and 28, Hualalai Subdivision); 4. 184° 30' 324.02 feet along Lot 144, 143 and 142 of Land Court Application 1205 (Map 51); 5. 277° 12' 320.40 feet along Lots 9-L-19 and 9-L-15 of Land Court Application 1205 (Map 9) and Lot 169 of Land Court Application 1205 (Map 72); 6. 255° 46' 154.80 feet along Lot 169 of Land Court Application 1205 (Map 72); 7. 243° 28' 32.33 feet along Lot 169 of Land Court Application 1205 (Map 72); 8. 328° 10' 121.35 feet along the remainder of L.P. 8063, L.C. Aw. 2663 to Kahue(Lot 1); 9. 238° 10' 120.00 feet along the remainder of L.P. 8063; L.C. Aw. 2663 to Kahue(Lot 1); 10. 349° 02' 19.67 feet along Hualalai Street; 11. 348° 02' 33.62 feet along Hualalai Street to the point of beginning and containing an area of 3.292 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto,marked Exhibit"A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-44, Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), the County Council finds the following conditions are: Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; or (1) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed with respect to: -2- (A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or (B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS SECTION 2. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I , Hawai`i Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: -3- 1 1 RM1 RM RS-75 '` R5-7.5 RM 1 RM-1 /\R5-75 /RM-1.5 ''-7.5 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- $500 SQUARE FEET(RM-2.5) TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- \ 1,500 SQUARE FEET(RM-1.5) \�\Q' 3.292 ACRES 44 A\ 1 Kt II 1 stj .ti,4.4ta RM 1 ♦ •5-7.5♦ *10 1,227.515 3,637.22E AL411:4 0,` "HALA7"RD 0 O� , • O �\5 AA� ,,,,,,,,A.,,.. I tl o 0)� 5 • 4411P RD-3.75 A \ •5- 1 Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 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 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 2,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-2.5) TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 1,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-1 .5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII MAP PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF HAWAII, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TMK:(3)2-4-028:009 DATE:Jun.17,2013 EXHIBIT"A" Vincent T.C.Tai Mon.1'3'2e CTai-RM1.5REZ.doc 8/7/13 VINCENT T.C.TAI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. (REZ 13-167) A. The applicant(s),its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. The applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations, as recommended by a registered engineer, to the Department of Water Supply, and secure water commitments in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy", within one hundred and eighty(180) days from the effective date of this ordinance. C. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall extend approximately 260 lineal feet of 8-inch waterline from the existing 8-inch waterline within Kapi`olani Road to the subject property,provide prevailing facilities charge(s), service lateral(s) and water meter(s), and any other water system improvements as required by the Depaitulent of Water Supply to provide County water to the proposed development. D. The applicant shall install a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly on private property within five(5) feet of any water meter(s) serving the proposed development, which must be inspected and approved by the Department of Water Supply before water service can be activated. E. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the Department of Water Supply's affected water system facilities, should they be necessary,due to construction of improvements within the road right-of-way fronting the subject property. F. Construction of the proposed development 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 Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai`i County Code. Plans shall identify all existing —1— and/or proposed structures,paved driveway accesses and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements). The applicant shall comply with landscaping requirements for RM zoning. G. All driveway connections to Hualalai Street shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawaii County Code. H. Streetlights and traffic control devices, as may be required by the Traffic Division,Department of Public Works, shall be designed,purchased and installed by the applicant. 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, if required, shall be constructed,meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. J. All earthwork activity,including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10,Erosion and Sedimentation Control,of the Hawai`i County Code. K. Comply with Chapter 11-55,Water Pollution Control,Hawai`i Administrative Rules, Department of Health,which requires a NPDES permit for certain construction activity. L. The applicant shall complete and submit to the Department of Environmental Management a sewer study for the proposed development prior to Final Plan Approval. Should the existing sewer system in Hualalai Street require upgrading due to development of the property, the applicant shall bear the cost of the upgrade. Additionally, the applicant shall install sewer lines within the development to connect with the County's sewer system, meeting with the approval of the Department of Environmental Management,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. —2— M. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. N. 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-SHPD) shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR-SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been taken. 0. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the development 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 combined value of $8,394.57 per multiple family residential unit($13,081.99 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 unit) shall be allocated as follows: 1. $4,140.80 per multiple family residential unit($6,308.37 per single family residential unit)to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; 2. $130.87 per multiple family residential unit($304.32 per single family residential unit) to the County to support police facilities; —3— 3. $402.57 per multiple family residential unit($601.06 per single family residential unit)to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $179.43 per multiple family residential unit($263.15 per single family residential unit)to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 5. $3,540.90 per multiple family residential unit($5,605.09 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. P. 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, Article 1, Hawai`i County Code relating to the Affordable Housing Policy. Compliance with Chapter 11 shall be approved by the Administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval and/or Final Subdivision Approval. Q. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for the imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees,conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. R. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules,regulations and requirements. S. 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. —4— 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 Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council 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— W F cc r-I V �� N \ice -1 p .,-{ m • ^1 0 O .,c_ z • o ---, 0 I- w Q w V .E O :A: > . N 4- O taA co U ,• ri, N -------- .-----. . ' . . \NN,NNN NN, ...\\- . -, - -----7--\- ' ' \ ,e I ...- , . lesc. :.., . 1 _, .41 •um. , to I'S\ IP 4. • 11 .: , , \,, ,400" ATIor'' -vv •,... , INNEI , ,,‘ ■ "'e ‘' \1411L, - _ ., e- 7.-0 ...c. 5 . --- - - . .. . .... 0 .. . „, ,...., - a; a . •MB ,..- 4.11 7:714 CO f - -, , . ..‹ •MEM illn "..- \ \''''' \ .. .4, ,,'<' ,,,\:),,,,\V ,,,,..,,,, ,a1 N e... el"; -- 1,V''' ,2>', , . 4:1 ,1 N ' ■\: „, n co ,,,,, - . \ \ ..... , ... .. . „..„..„---------- >, ., ...,...-„, , ,N ,,,- , .. \ ,. , ...„ ....„. ,, ,, ,,,,,,,, / ---s' \ \.\-' •--\\ , \ 0 ,,,,, // ./ - .-,-:.:.-„,<= ../-\\, E ..- )''' - \-/' ---)\ '''''' ..<, .,; / / l''':-:-- ':)., 77 ----I (-- \ \- \ . / , . , ,.....\\., ..,.....,--\\ 4c. ,. .• ,.., .1 - ,..,..X . \ , \ ........ :, ,.. ::./ ,t,,,.. ..-77. .\\1,,,,,,,,, , t =,:',,,, / .- ' \ .-.. '-- -',..•'- .--- ( \ \ ' \ \ ... \ , , \„..4 ,.. z,, ....., \,\.,,,,, ..,,,,,,---- ir:Ilk ___.,,,,,,.......,,___ , -4.... / CD „), ',--- 11.7 , \ ... ..,.., \ \ \ --.....,.,... / , \ ce \ \,, \- \ \ --:\ CL. \ , 3e- ', „-,) _,,,\ \,_ .„/-';‘ \ .-. , MN= A ,, ,,-. ,. \ ” \ ' ,....,,,,,'' ::;:: \X„.. \ , ---,..,, \ \ ...k., ...- CD ..)-:„,- .....- , ..., ..„-- \,.....„ \ ------- -- \ \ -, Ls a) .. . ." ,...<,. <-„-. ,..--- .,......--- .....- .> ,..-- ‘.,-,--- \ ...\__ ___.).„..(- „..... C ,- -------....:::: .,., ) ,,....,„›.... •. a) - ',..„ .. >" ,-.:.;;;".., \ /..------ __:---------__.... 0 i „,- N. ,<.-.. \ ......\ \--- .,...- .. (- , - . „ .., ,.....<- Ey } >1 cr ;..-:' /' z • O O et: , 0 ....„..,„ ,...,,,-, U 11'! Ln ,..,_ 1 • d S :.CC/ i r"� N , r 4••• 2 (CI 0 Oc +�+ 4) 2 zit 4) Qi E 10,7 '17;:j -I:3 , , v� 0 a-+ 0 4:1) a-+ ' VI Loa a) a) , 3 4) LA >a 0 E 0 4� N ___ cr; 1 411•• CO LL •— N 0 }+ ll 41010 G) it, C GI) C 1111=11111 1111111/ t7413 cl) 0- %—i ,,,,„ •glom mi... 2 .. •_ to 0 0, _ a� 0. s oc 0. voce : 4:1( • , .,. ,. .. . . _o d � G ,, e 7 i 120 il ' )5 t -.Tan.T.,,,,, lir it i I 0 1161j j• tinkz _____ ..._ . f I i i r Alt,io, 1 0 VI _ i � >f.7 u 1111 LJ 2 . 1„.L.,:ii cn w1 441. 13 4CX.j CG ! 40 . t 1 i 1 1.- . Q d • •Ems ,S011: . ,/A 4.,;.tlf# V) I Q , I4k774.44Y ::::-'-.: ..:.]," 14#14.4p, # Lai 0 in :.• 40,4 „ .:;,.31". .11, , *tie/ s (.410,\"40 , :.:4„.:.::::.!.::::.:!:.'i.:!::.::!! 0 I- I N ,,:4 ,,..,,,,:/.4.7.7■, 1st wir1•47 '■,* --::::::".,': arac fK --J L.OM 4/0 ♦ d. W,'1 4;11, -:i ,:.:-:;. .��{f!,� II III ,11� _ m n C CI) R. ; . ,,' ,,, •I,se,-- / _t g w E `$ � ' ,',,� III Q o Ne T 00 a- �, �•�k . I �a " sec 0 O.a) 0 '•':,., 11111111111111111111111W' F � K:7�11 Oast _ ; ! J�ll�K�1r1rIM1iY! Y � _ 1 I .11f100Irl wma i I Nl i r S s BGii 1i _ 4 'fig' I I % it.5 0 II J a 9C III t w 7 0 a 7 Ti 1","•41111%..4111 ,110., J J ICI. g / a : § $ i 1!err .\# .,/ j Q rill B s i o Lai w . � fit' o Fil At€ € I lire fie/ w I 11011i ! il -'41A/ AO u P w m 041) - :S:lop i 1401/4* '4" E --, ,4 .4 /\ h ...s* goVit atigaig . (.4 o ` ' �► a w 411) 4IP 44MV/404L % 4tIP co z fri c, z ill > 119.-,...,,..., ...„, %,,,, peb,-, ; 011 Alik**A.AISN N4IFF4'lir- (i) Teil WIP 74,.'0,..\ ,7 0 w 2 s ..,•, g VI 4 �w * 3 o .. 4,w a 1 6 , e o •w di CL m r c% 1:1.,,,, r. x 0 � . s !"r ry s. - a � { i s liOlit ''.‹,,,,.,,,z, V y . mot: 1%a..... 4i 4 6..1 I 0, .•. ''. , ■ ■ ..41:!;...,.. . .,,....,.,. { ,. „. r N F li • ' I' '% -..'*10,'; ''' a t.. . lot:. Ilk - -- i1 gym` . N S :' :i f ,,.- ill" , .* . 4 4.i., , J 0,.„,,,, ,141...,... . . ,,,..,,,,,:;:ki.i.,,,,,.7.., ,_:_.,,,,.,..*. >k Kti Mkt , "4,1 r♦•..... . ' 4 • `,,- :`... • .. , s Co 4 1%, `s. _••,�,r �4.f "j. �` " " 't lam , .7 ♦•; ;• ' ,irli /e t . IP f o t , `� 4.-• a) ,. , , _ . . „ .. a) j ;. . ��^In /� r �V �IF` r t 0 f , . Al' C / / / W / / E / �' / ., . 4 Saw L cu / OW . 4 y . • 4 �!SJ , r 4", \ . 41,.. 4 '7:3 O >` tti O 1. I ,r �? r2 ' £ ,-.....4r + WI rf O O ! 1� r gx O J ,, .\ 14•0 in r r4 ! +Sf 4............. . it C lea ♦ :t ,,. ..y Fr.1 CU SIM Zg .. 41 ,:,_.. , „,„,,,, ,,!ois,......, . . .. e ,,, ___. a) 0 ....... lb_ r. . ‘ CO ci. Y • � � .. .I • • t. • E (#f) .,,, • , '4t' y ' J+ � y• 0 440., awn r,• F ,t tiL t, � t ICO i Id , le'''.' ir At, ,,,,..,-,._, .„. .,. . ... . , ,. , , - C L0 ■ cu M L ti O 4U bA N O ill MID ' u..J ,,ilma 4•Ni E ca oc F V E --c ----- -- , ,. �� o V N 1. '- V• CI a) 004) o — Cr) !aA au •— r_i , V co c E . 0 C O o o z U > V C o , am. ce C +co a) LI- • F� .'GL = V - o •_C3 v o 4-' LL ,; t 2rS 9:= 1 ■ O t s e Devil o Ai 14 1 .� 1 11; fir' �t'�� _ L""ir'''• C 1 I 1 Rj 0 N t �,,, 1 in N • � i I— Z 2 .. ...:- _ eL .....,..1 s C m ' et,t, 1 ce 0 La i N n p, , o r gl » x w lIhill 11111•11111 I(13 V.S '4 (.4.)=.1) a94'•41k11-4,4*# 4,t) 154,72- -vt,:: % wri;„, 0 2 ce 0 D MB LAI In 4/b,%,' No/ ..%, - /111-16,7• 3 e".% CD I Ea./4T*741-44*4 7'6. ‘ 11".11711-1: N •♦� ,•�j 0 p ce s ♦ !ice, •4 •; 0- L- o 44, A� z W Ow A/difiV 0‘At )2,.#4%04,t 1 / ji W U 0 A,.,t.• 474■74,74p 4ir - 1.„ i as 0 to CU • i., 44>444.41r4t. 4f.,,. i v) c) NA \r.. A� � � , 4.41, ��*� / Qom. Q V�4,44,, 'N.VA.:. 2,0.4 0 4/416 n r... ce tin 11 lir4;■,." ,,,,,,7 ,, . ... 3 .....40., ,,._:./47 • ..40- s 4/ i Ciii 1 4r, r,f,, .fix 2)0)4 Cottle, Maija 'prom: David Martin [drm @hawaiiantel.net] ?nt: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:58 PM •o: mcottle @co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: kpueo @yahoo.com Subject: application (REZ 13-000167) to Maija Cottle or Duane Kanuha, As a home owner of tax key 2-4-55-15 I am not in favor of the rezoning of the property that Mr. Tai is asking for Born and raised here and selling Real Estate for 32 years on the island of Hawaii I find that the problems with traffic as well as Policing the area for problems the may arise because of the cramping of the amount of people in our area will be too much. We still have not seen the impact of the other property that was given the ok on kukuau st (Boticelli)? Hilo is still growing and we do not need to make more problems by putting this cramping into any area. The 2.5 zoning is small enough, and we should leave it as is. Thank You David Martins Attachment to: Comm. 718 1 Bill 214 21(4 .4k2 February 4, 2014 Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is written as follow-up to the requested community meeting with Mr. Tai on December 18, 2013. The meeting was productive with a full room in attendance and multiple concerns cited by surrounding neighbors. Mr. Tai has agreed to compromises for his development with some of the concerns and has agreed to"Conditional Requirements." However,he did not agree to all of the requested changes and did not provide answers to many of the specific concerns raised by the neighbors. He has stated that certain concerns were only raised by individual property owners but these individual concerns were also collective concerns of the neighborhood. Specific to our families concerns, Mr. Tai has not agreed to a bufferyard setback for his development that would shield neighboring lots from the adverse affects of the development including the increased occupancy, noise, parking lot lights, car headlights and safety concerns. We have repeatedly requested from Mr. Tai the need for a comprehensive bufferyard setback that includes the entire development and not just individual plantings along the boundary. He states that he will preserve the"already extensive growth of vegetation and trees along the property lines"but this growth is a overgrown weeds and not a planned landscaping design as the attached photo shows evidence of. In fact, the trees that he is referring to have caused previous property damage to our home when one of them fell on our roof above the porch and main bedroom of our home. These trees are non-native, invasive and rapid growing which requires reoccurring trimming and constantly shed leaves on our roof. These concerns are not addressed in Mr. Tai's proposed development. In addition,the rockwall that is along the boundary of Popolo Stream and the neighboring properties is acting as flood control and Mr. Tai's development does not address the seasonal flooding of Popolo Stream. There are too many unknown concerns to Mr. Tai's increased development and as a result we are opposed to the change of zoning application from RM 2.5 to RM 1.5 for Mr. Tai's development. If for reasons beyond our control the Planning Commission does grant the Change of Zoning application,we request that the following items be included as "Conditional Requirements": 1. Bufferyard setback that includes landscaping along the RS 7.5 zoned property boundaries. (We prefer adopting Rule 17-6 (b)(2)(A) as a template.) To exclude all visual contact between the development and residential uses and to create a strong spatial with concomitant lessening of noise intrusion, the landscaped buffer shall be opaque from the ground to a height of at least six feet, with intermittent visual screening from the opaque portion to a height of at least 20 feet. Compliance shall be determined 1 on the basis of the average mature height and density offoliage of the subject species, or field observation of existing vegetation. At maturity, the portion of intermittent visual screening should not contain any completely unobstructed openings more than 10 few wide. 2. Sideyard setback to 20 feet. 3. On-site manager for the residential development. 4. Six foot high chain link fence inside the existing rock wall and along all property boundaries adjoining RS 7.5 zoned properties. 5. Existing perimeter rockwalls will be kept in place. 6. No building will be taller than two stories. In discussions with the neighbors, we believe that the change of zoning application will negatively affect our property values and quite enjoyment of our properties. Mr. Tai has already received a change of zoning from RS 7.5 to RS 2.5 and we oppose any further increase in density. We believe our request to deny the application is reasonable. Sincerely, Shad and Charlene Nishida Shad and Charlene Nishida kpueo(aiyahoo.com (808)216-1028 kpueo @yahoo.com 16 Hale Nani Place, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • 2 0 Rear Boundary Between Nishida Residence and Mr. Tai Lot « "„ : 3 k i` 3; T`1' �, , xy , Wad Ala*„olior ,,, „ „a ring wora, F r , 410 i 1 , ! . , . . .0„„e; y a ,,,, „ ... ... ,., i Rockwall is on the rear property boundary with overgrown weeds and invasive trees beyond. l s,, ►uti b N t c l\UA, .,� ,-At fir. Aker . 1+ 4 :. v i i r rev.,.�:•�... t i I W doorr niai ,- •,, e4 ter At yo ,p 4 By: Q99 ' 1 J; (.0 241 1(4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 20111 JAN 29 P4 2: 03 January 26, 2014 Ms. Maija Cottle Planning Department 101 Pauahi St. Hilo, Hi. 96720 Dear Ms. Cottle I am Ann Toma a resident on Hale Nani St.for the past 40 plus years. We are now faced with enormous changes in this neighborhood. Of course it is not a welcomed change. I am a lay person when it deals with zoning changes,building permits,etc. (affordable housing) I thank the Planning commission for understanding that we were somewhat left out regarding the request from Mr.Tai for the zone change. A thoughtful individual will work through and know exactly what he wants before applying for any changes. Mr. Tai set up 2 previous meeting and cancelled both on short notice.We finally were able to meet on December 18th. I am sure that this county is happy when an individual plans to build affordable housing. A lot of the residents would also be for the idea as long as it is not built in their"back yard". For us,we have no choice since the initial RM 2.5 was approved. Therefore,we remain concerned about privacy,traffic, parking, safety,and flooding. Besides loss of privacy, the traffic issue will be troubling. Kapiolani St. will be extended to the Uof H Hilo. I am hoping that this has been taken into consideration. I want to see that this is taken care of before something happens. I hope that all of you know what Hualalai St. beyond Kapiolani St. and also where Hale Nani St. intersects Hualalai St. looks like today. We will have a lot of problems,should St.Joseph School enrollment climb to what it was before. Should the other multicomplex units be built across from the police station,we will be in big trouble. Maintenance of the complex will be crucial to the value of our properties. My understanding is that Mr. Tai will have a property management company take care of the complex. The chain link fence that will be installed is better than nothing at this stage. Should problems arise whether it be complex or people, who would we call? Parking problems will become large issues should tenants or visitors begin to park on Hale Nani St. What will be our recourse? Will this be a county or private issue? As far as I'm concerned, less is better than more. (referring to units to be constructed) Sincerely, Ann Toma LC: 4-0.4 .-``�'' =CANNED 2 9 2014 By: O 9699 144 4kh ri 2: 119 January 30, 2014 by first class mail To: Charlene Nishida, Roy Toma, David Martins, Tim Wright, Cristito Tiogangco, Jr., Leatrice Kishii, Doreen Friberg, Clarence Mendonca, Romona Jardine, Lanette Ganzargan, Kimiko Chinen, Charles Shimizu, Wes Hatada, Evelyn Paiva, Ray& Pearly Line Re: Application: Change of Zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 364 Hualalai Street, Hilo, HI 96720, TMK: 3-2-4-028:009 I am only writing to all of you who attended the community meeting and signed up last year on December 18. Since this coming Planning Commission hearing on February 6 is a continuance and as such it does not require me to circulate to all the owners with 300-feet radius. I included Mr. and Mrs. Ray Line since they kindly informed me they could not attend the meeting. Also, I cannot find the address of Salvacion Cacho whose name appeared on the sign-up sheet My proposal is to build workforce (affordable) housing, possibly the first substantial project of this nature in the city of Hilo, it is understandable that you are not familiar with the impacts on the city as a whole, not just on the neighboring properties. Mrs. Toma lamented that such a project offers no benefits to her. Other than the contentment of social conscience and the need for more affordable housing, a new workforce housing project in a community like Hilo offers an array of benefits to its residents directly and indirectly. Constructing workforce housing is more than creating quality affordable housing for working families, seniors, veterans, etc., it generates needed jobs, stimulating local economy and serves as catalysts for improving their neighborhoods. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates, in the first year, a typical 100-unit workforce affordable housing development will have the following impact: • $8.7 million in additional wages for local workers and profits for proprietors of businesses. • $3.3 million in additional taxes for federal, state, and local governments. • 116 additional jobs, about half of which are in the construction sector. • Job creation spurred by such development continues after the construction phase. After the units are occupied, 30 jobs remain in the wholesale and retail trade, dining and drinking establishments, local government, health, education, and social sectors. The latest study by the Hawaii Housing Finance & Development Corp projected 19,000 units will be necessary to fill housing for people in the State making $61,800 or less. There is a real need for this kind of projects to providing needed housing and to spur economic growth. As I indicated in my previous letter, I pointed out it is not true that the proposed workforce or affordable housing will depress the property value of neighboring single family homes as Mrs. Nishida testified. Of the many studies I quoted in my letter of November 20, I again present the following article from the 'Shelterforce' publication: *From 'Shelterforce-the Journal of Affordable Housing Community Building published by the National Housing Institute-summer 2012. VINCENT T.C.TAI, ARCHITECT 2184 Round Top Drive SCANNED Honolulu. HI 96822 • 808-941 3778 Tel By. 253-830 8892 Fax 01'9482°47 Page 2 "When a housing development containing affordable units is proposed, neighbors, other town residents, and public officials often oppose it, claiming that a series of negative outcomes will result. The fears tend to relate to increased traffic; additional school costs;increased demands on other municipal services, such as fire and police; stresses on water and sewer systems; concerns about developer quality or experience; decreases in property values; various types of environmental degradation; and, perhaps least tangible of all, adverse changes in the character of the town. These claims may often mask underlying biases and racist attitudes. Contrary to these common assumptions, several studies have consistently found that, if affordable housing is well designed and is well managed, there appear to be no negative impacts of that housing on the property values of neighboring houses. Other studies have shown that population growth associated with new affordable housing does not necessarily yield higher municipal costs, and there is actually less increase in school costs related to the construction of multifamily developments than there is with new single-family houses." I started the meeting by comparing the existing already approved proposal (on November 24, 2010) per RM-2.5 which includes 47 market rate 2-bedroom townhouses and 12 affordable housing units for total of 59 units with the revised site plan of the current application's 88-unit workforce (affordable) housing scheme per zoning RM-1.5. I stated the total project size and number of bedroom counts are actually smaller in the current RM-1.5 scheme despite the total number of unit are more because they are mainly smaller one-bedroom units. The total number of bedrooms is 115 under the RM-2.5 proposal compared to 91 to 93 bedrooms under the current scheme. The total building area is about 70,360 sf under the RM-2.5 proposal compared to 51,863 sf under the current scheme. Obviously the site plan is only a conceptual plan and the final site plan may differ somewhat. My point is that the RM-1.5 proposal will contain less or no more floor areas and number of bedrooms than the RM-2.5 scheme, and with plenty more open space and retain more existing vegetation and trees. I also presented an aerial photo superimposed with the revised site plan. It shows the subject site heavily covered with full grown vegetation and trees, particularly along the border adjacent to properties zoned RS-7.5, which acted as a natural physical and visual barrier. The primary concern of the neighbors is security in terms of strangers entering their properties from the subject housing development. I agreed to install a 6-feet high chain linked fence along the property adjacent to properties zoned RS-7.5 in character with the neighborhood. The existing low rock walls in reasonably good condition will remain. There are existing chain linked fences from 3-feet to 6-feet high in the neighborhood. I understand your concern with security; however, you ignored the fact that there are few fencing between your neighboring properties and even fewer or none in the front yard. Strangers can easily enter your properties from the front and the sides with no barriers. Intruders would choose the easier way to enter your properties and not to be bothered with climbing over a G-feet fence. it is like keeping your back door locked but keeping the front door unlocked or open. The fact is you have to be vigilant in looking out and preventing intruders whether or not there is a 6-feet fence in your rear yards. There was only one neighbor, Mrs. Nishida, requested 100%visual blockage by planting Arica palms. One neighbor disagreed, echoed by another, because she was concerned with people hiding in the bushes. I agreed to take this issue up in an individual basis as there are existing full grown vegetation already providing close to 100% visual blockage in most locations, and i don't think it is necessary for Mrs. Nishida to dictate what other neighbors' requirements. I agreed to walk the site with Mrs. Nishida when the construction of the project is near completion and determine where to plant Arica palms which takes about 2 years to mature as she suggested in the gaps between existing vegetations and trees. In my opinion, it opens to dispute whether it is 100% or not quite at 96% blockage since palm branches and leaves may fall and grow at different times. Vincent T.C.Tai,AtA,Architect Architecture Planning Interior Page 3 (, The revised Site Plan shows, as suggested by Mrs. Nishida and I agreed, the minimum of 20-feet side yard and rear yard setbacks at property lines adjacent to properties zoned RS-7.5 despite the code only requires 10-feet for side yard setback. (with the exception of property located at 349A Kukuau Street since it also borders on Mr. Boschetti's property already zoned RM-1.5 with only 10-feet setbacks). I have complied or compromised with every item Mrs. Nishida insisted except for the buffer zone as required in industrial zones. I simply disagreed with her statements that Hilo is not an urban city and the workforce affordable housing will depress the value of neighboring properties. A number of you were concerned with the increase in traffic. Understandably so as there will undoubtedly a small, but close to negligible, increase in traffic volume. The TIAR shows the increase is so minimal that all approach delay changes are less than one second. Mr. Toma questioned the hours the survey was taken. The AM peak hours are from 7:15AM to 8:15AM and the PM peak hours is from 3:45PM to 4:45PM. It is obvious the neighbors either didn't have the opportunity to review the TIAR or didn't understand fully its methodology and findings. I stated I will work with the City's traffic division to install stop signs or traffic lights where necessary. I agreed there will be an on-site manager upon occupancy of the housing project. As for the potential flooding caused by the dry stream on Popolo Street and outside of the subject property, I told one neighbor, Mr. Tim Wright, that it is a much larger issue nothing to do with this rezoning application, and we will together approach the DPW and see what they can do to deal with this issue. There is no existing natural water courses, drainage way or improvement within the subject property. The stream is located in the neighbors' properties outside the subject property. The storm water will be handled by an on-site drainage system that consists of a series of drywells or combined with the use of porous paving materials for the parking and landscaped areas that allow rainwater to percolate through the pavement's surface back to the ground. There will be no off-site runoff. Mr. Wright mentioned that Mr. Boschetti's site (TMK: 2-4-28-9 adjacent and north of subject property already received approval to change zoning to RM-1.5) is far worse as water tends to accumulate there. I believe I agreed to and compromised in good faith with all the reasonable requests presented by the neighbors, particularly those by Mrs. Nishida. I enclosed herewith a copy of the community meeting minutes except for the photos and the site plans, prepared by Alan Rudo, the facilitator, in case you did not receive a copy. Sincerely, A6UaltW VINCENT T.C.TAI,AIA, Owner and Applicant cc: Planning Department, County of Hawaii Windward Planning Commission, County of Hawaii Vincent T.C.Tai,AIA,Architect Architecture Planning Interior f a • III Meeting V.T. i "I Intend to have a management company,possibly on-site resident manager." D.M. "Increased visitors,parking will impact us." 1 V.T. "Whatever the code requires,that Is what I will do." J.G. "Need a privacy 15'high because it's two story." V.T. "I can agree to a 6'fence along the RS 7.5 bordering properties,If they are going to climb or cut a 6'fence,they will climb or cut a 20'high fence. C.N. "He needs to agree to have his statements as conditional requirements,so he can't just say he will than change later." V.T. 1 "I will do the 6'high fence along the RS 7.5 zoned residential properties" "Need 100%privacy buffer thru landscapirg,fencing and rock wall.The buffer yard will provide privacy—I C.N from the development,the street lights,parking lot and headlights from the cars.This will also address security concerns of the neighbors.And you need to agree to have them as conditional requirements." { V.T. "I will do the buffer,I will install the 6 fencing but I just don't know what landscaping" C.N. "And leave the rock wall,you can't build on top of the rock wall,it's loose rock." V.T. I will leave the rock wall.I will but my fence on my side of it and not touch the rock wall.I just don't know what landsca'in_for the buffer. C.N. Conditional Requirements?He hasn't agreed to have them conditional." V.T. I Yes,conditional requirements.That's fine. C.T. "School traffic is awful.During school rusn hour it can be dangerous.There needs to be a stop sign at E •V.T. "We'not that stage yet.Whatever they tell me.We will have to put in street lights. R.T. "There are a lot of elderly,people in their'70s and'80s,they're vulnerable." V.T. "We will do a fence,a privacy buffer." Unknown "Sometimes a 100%privacy buffer makes it unsafe because people know you can't see them." V.T. No response. P.M. "An 8'high fence." V.T. "6'is consistent with the neighbors,Lanikila has 4'or 5'fence.If they are going to cut or climb a 6'fence it doesn't matter. "Kupukupu Street is how wide.We don't want you or the other developer opening that street up later." D.M. What if you sell the property?Can someone open that street? 1 V.T. "Kupukupu Street no longer exists.I made this 15'in case of an emergency.I was told I have to have a 15'emergency access. A.R. "the Change of Zone Ordinance runs with the land.So If Vincent sold and new owners wanted to continue the project they would have the same requirements as specified in the Ordinance." T W 'What about flooding.The parcel adjoining to the North Is a big bowl and fills with water.We don't want that to flood our parcels.The police station gets flooded.Flooded is serious problem. Y.T. "I have to install drywells along the property to contain water." T.W. "How many dry wells.What if they overflow?I've seen them over flow In heavy rains.It floods us." V.T. "I will install drywells.I won't touch the stream." Unknown "Can he go higher than two-stories?" V.T. "Only two stories.The adjoining parcel Is 3 stories,but I will keep It at two stories." Adjournment • I thanked everybody'for their question _ email and by telephone and I passed 0' A few people stayed to discuss the fence,privacy border and wall. ... ■ Court u � a Project Meeting Minutes Hualalai Court Housing Project- Community Meeting Meeting called by Vincent Tai,Developer Type of meeting Community Meeting Facilitator Alan Rudo,Office of Housing and Community Development Note taker Alan Rudo Timekeeper Alan Rudo Attendees See Sign-in shoot attached hereto. Introduction Ground Rules I read the following ground rules that were posted on board: 1. Cell phones to OFF/Vibrate, 2.Respect everyone's comments, 3.Every signed-In guest may speak at least once, 4.Each speaker would have at least 3 to 5 minutes max but that I hoped not to have to enforce the time limit, 5.No Booing or Hissing would be tolerated, 6.We will summarize everyone's comment, 7.We will summarize Vincent's responses, 8.Only comments related to the project would be accepted. Note:Two people expressed concern to the last rule and I told them I would allow a lot of latitude in the discussion. Developer's Discussion Developer Discussion Vincent posted three large scale layouts illustrations:A possible layout given existing RM 2.5 zoning,possible layout given RM 1.5, Googie earth view of the project with proposed RM 2.5 project layout including a senior vegetable garden as part of buffer zone. Vincent discussed the three Illustrations along with a summary on the affordable vs.workforce housing and that some people had mistakenly believed this was low-income project housing.Vincent talked about the urban zoning how Hilo is zoned"urban." Vincent discussed the reason behind the community meeting and that the planning commission was going to give a negative recommendation if Vincent did not hold community meeting. Public Questions/Testimony A.T. "The number of people&traffic will increase with 2.5 RM zoning over the 1.5 RM zoning.° V.T. "The unit sizes are smaller,so only 94 bedrooms are proposed compared to 115 currently." "As far as traffic,the traffic engineer speaks very technical, he says maybe only 1 second." A.T "What times did he check?Did he check peak hours?I didn't see It in his report." V.T. "Yes,he checked all times.it Is in there(report)." R.M. "The minimum setback puts the project too close to our homes." V.T. "The minimum setback will be 20'along the RS 7.5 zoned residential properties,some spots • 30'or more." E.P. "Parking is a problem.There doesn't seem like enough parking spaces.The overflow parking will be adjacent to Hualalai Street and people will through the bordering properties as a short cut. V.T. "110 parking stalls+visitor parking.Whatever the code requires,that is what I will do" D.M. "There will be an Increase of people,No management of them,no enforcement of what goes on." Comments By Email 18 - 12/23 Received by email: wrightt003@hawaii.rr.com Tim Wright My main concern is flooding. As someone who has lived in this area for close to 30 years I have seen the stream that runs under Popolo St.fill up with rain water and flow towards Mr.Vincent Tai's Hualalai property. A few weeks ago a had a long talk with retired County Police officer Jimmy Day. Mr. Day who grew up in this area in the 1960's told be how there was a large lake above Kumukoa St.(the stream that runs under Popolo St. i was cut off at the top of Kumukoa). On Nov.3,2000, I was working for the Honolulu Advertiser. The photo editor Seth Jones asked me to take photos of flooding around Hilo. I was shocked when he gave me the address of a home a few houses away from my home. This was Lanikukila St. This was a new subdivision next to the Popolo St.stream. In the 80's I use to see cattle in the pasture above the police department on Kapiolani St. When in rained for a few days the cattle would be belly • deep in water. This is another area that the County approved for RM-1.5 zoning.(Mr. Boschett's property). I will send you photos in the next emails. Contact .'1Ciiitator Contact Woe of Housing and Community Development.County of Hawai'I Alan Rudo Housing and Community Development Specialist 50 Wailuku Drive Hilo,Newai'l,96720 Phone:(808)961-8379 Email:ohcdolanning @hawaiicountv.gov it ^ s3 C 161�l3� 1 C ,MM � i STUN NYMVII'0�I t 11 i 0 1 3 AMU IVIVIWIN WS Z jW100 NW i � •.g; ' i i �G G G i EgE317---- 1 i g o "-ail r X 1 1 i..1 I I)- 0 k j ■ aim Z 1 i . AI '`i r a_ z 'N*, - --i .9i ir I LL, . 11) r O = Ssli 'az : ./ 1 091 I I PAO —1 --J i 'A tiario*N4 LJJ z _J LLI a = i 11 14 i Q ° 6 It I #41.7 N 44kle Lsi 1 410 0,♦ 4 ♦ i `. to o I NDAiid) / **/ .1 let*iiiil Lai 1.,# *' * / /40***.' s415*i Cr < SI jo%4VII■ /lAit■•• li 0 La oirtkii , 4141 i r, La (-) 41 ix c,j i z.. "41*/■ Ave. Am-7:. N o t i 4 4>:N.4.1107/ **Abigail* 0 t x CL ce cc W 4141W■ ..- Per". ,s? Cl- o°oo z 0'4.44,,,, 411 e e .k.,' ,P.,....-\ Nv, 4k.±-i- . 4 4 ,,,, _ilaik 4110.v.44,4,.„ N,41410.' 0 z Z.,11.. 0 Apvelk, 4,/ ditit _ V/ r... , t C."11,e �i I i M ,� Mk.Ilk ZI,II4 Cottle, Maija From: Vincent Tai [vtai88 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:17 AM To: Cottle, Maija Cc: Arai, Daryn; Kanuha, Duane; Command, Bobby; Fujimoto, Phyllis; Darrow, Jeff Subject: Re: Outcome of 12/18 Community Meeting for Tai Rezone in Hilo Hi Maija, Please see my responses below: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Cottle, Maija<mcottle @co.hawaii.hi.us>wrote: Aloha Vincent, Thank you for providing the meeting minutes from the 12/18 community meeting, photos of vegetation along your property boundary with properties on Hale Nani Street and your emails to Charlene Nishida. I am glad to see the meeting went well. I would like to clarify the issue of what type of buffer yard landscaping is required for RM zoning since this seems to be a concern that you and Ms. Nishida are having a difficult time agreeing to. The zoning code does not require buffer yard landscaping around property lines for the RM zoning district. However, it does have a requirement that a minimum of 20% of the building site in the RM district be landscaped to reduce the effect of the potential higher densities permitted in this district. The 20% landscaping requirement can be fulfilled by landscaping along the adjacent property boundaries or within the interior of the property.....it is up to the discretion of the landowner and/or their landscape architect (if one is hired), with final approval of the landscaping treatment to be made by the Planning Director at the time of Final Plan Approval for the project concept. ( I am not confused and have no problem agreeing to the landscaping requirement for RM district to be approved by the planning Director at the time of Final Plan approval. It was Mrs. Nishida who claimed that there is a buffer zone code requirement for RM and promised to send me the link which obviously does not exist. ) Below I have outlined commitments that you have made to your neighbors based upon the meeting minutes and your e-mails to Ms. Nishida. Please let me know whether you are supportive of the Planning Commission including these commitments as possible conditions of approval for the change of zone ordinance. 1 • The minimum yard setback will be 20 feet along all property boundaries adjoining RS-7.5 zoned properties. Please clarify this because your latest schematic site plan shows only a 10-foot setback along the boundary with TMK 2-4-25:59 (George and Richard Paiva property). 4,-ft c( co 8 r,Thf (I excluded Paiva's property because first of all the code only requires 10-feet setback, and secondly it is also contiguous to Mr. Boschetti's property zoned RM-1.5 without the requirement to set back 20-feet. It is only fair to treat Mr. Bosbetti's and the subject property the same.) • The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an on-site manager for the residential development. (I agreed although given the advancement of technology, there may be other alternative equally as good. Only years ago I have never heard of driverless cars and package delivery by drones (Amazon PrimeAir). ) • The applicant shall install a 6-foot high chain link fence along all property boundaries adjoining RS-7.5 zoned properties. All existing perimeter rock walls will be kept in place. The fence will be installed on the inside of any existing rock wall. (Do you intend to only install fencing along the Hale Nani neighbor properties or all RS-7.5 properties? See zoning map below). (I agreed to install a 6-feet high chain linked fence (inside the existing rock wall) on all RS-7.5 bordered properties.) • Construction on the property will not exceed two stories in height. (I agreed to no building will be taller than 2 stories.) I understand that you want to address your neighbors concerns by installing additional landscaping along the perimeter of your property but it is unclear what type of landscaping you are committing to install at this time (at the rezone stage of development) and which existing trees and shrubs (if any) along the property boundaries you intend to keep. If the rezoning is approved, you will need to submit a landscape plan at the time you apply for plan approval. This is typically done just before applying for building and grading permits and typically the plan is approved by the Planning Director without a public hearing. Are you willing to have the Planning Commission include a condition requiring landscaping along the RS-7.5 zoned property boundaries? It could say something like this: "Prior to submitting plans for plan approval, the applicant shall meet with each landowner of adjacent properties zoned RS-7.5 to determine appropriate landscaping along the mutual property boundary. The applicant shall incorporate all reasonable landscaping requests into 2 the landscape plan submitted for plan approval, and shall install and maintain the landscaping per the approved landscape plan." (I don't agree to your specific language. As I said, there was only one neighbor (Mr. Nishida) asked for it. Alternatively, I would ask the neighbors to come to see me only if they have concerns before I prepare the final plan. There are already extensive and heavy growth of vegetation and trees along the property lines which will undoubtedly continue to grow. The Planning Director will have the final approval authority for landscaping when I apply for final plan approval which will most likely be at least one year away. ) Some of your neighbors had concern about adequate onsite parking and asked that you provide more parking spaces than the minimum required by the zoning code, which is 1.25 stalls per unit. You indicated you will provide the minimum required by code. (I will provide the minimum number of parking spaces. If the budget allows and space is available, I will provide more than required. I wish to point out by increasing the side yard setback to 20-feet (instead of 10-feet by code), it reduces the potential hard surface area for more parking. ) Please let me know if you have the same understanding of the outcome of the community meeting and if you agree to these commitments. I will be providing a copy of this e-mail and your response to the Planning Commission and Ms. Nishida so that they can see the meeting outcome and agreement. Maija Cottle County of Hawaii- Planning Department Ph: 961-8159 Fax: 961-8742 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720-4224 3 Z .,. 4 -• • '.....--'-"------.1"."'\7"."'\ \ *) ,,. : 1 \ ii, \ . . . . - ..,,, \ ,,, ,. N. , ..,. ,, VINCENT T.C. TAI,AIA,Architect 2184 Round Top Drive Honolulu,HI 96822 1238 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94109 4 21tp I) LI i wir „In 7_ tI ro December 29, 2013 Mr. Wallace A. Ishibashi Jr., Chairman Windward Planning Commission 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Community meeting held on December 18, 2013 Application for change of zone from RM 2.5 to RM 1.5(REZ 13-000167) TMK: 3-2-4-28:09, 364 Hualalai Street, Hilo Dear Sir, As requested by the Planning Commission, a community meeting was held on December 18 at the Aupuni Conference Center. There were about 20 people attended including spouses and children. Alan Rudo of the County of Hawaii Housing and Community Development was the facilitator. Enclosed is a copy of Alan Rudo's minutes and the aerial superimposed site plan. I started the meeting by referring to the three large site plans. I compared the existing already approved proposal(on November 24, 2010) per RM-2.5 which includes 47 market rate 2- bedroom townhouses and 12 affordable housing units for total of 59 units with the revised site plan of the current application's 88-unit workforce (affordable) housing scheme per zoning RM-1.5. I stated the total project size and number of bedroom counts are actually smaller in the current RM- 1.5 scheme despite the total number of unit are more because they are mainly smaller one- bedroom units. The total number of bedrooms is 115 under the RM-2.5 proposal compared to 91 to 93 bedrooms under the current scheme. The total building area is about 70,360 sf under the RM- 2.5 proposal compared to 51,863 sf under the current scheme. I also presented an aerial photo superimposed with the revised site plan. It shows the subject site heavily covered with full grown vegetation and trees, particularly along the border adjacent to properties zoned RS-7.5,which acted as a natural physical and visual barrier. The primary concern of the neighbors is security in terms of strangers entering their properties from the subject housing development. I agreed to install a 6-feet high chain linked fence along the property adjacent to properties zoned RS-7.5 in character with the neighborhood. The existing low rock walls in reasonably good condition will remain. There are existing chain linked fences from 3-feet to 6-feet high. I understand their concern with security; however, they ignored the fact that there are few fencing between their neighboring properties and even fewer or none in the front yard. Strangers can easily enter their properties from the front and the sides with no barriers. There was only one neighbor, Mrs. Nishida, requested100%visual blockage by planting Arica palms. One neighbor disagreed, echoed by another, because she was concerned with people hiding in the bushes. I agreed to take this issue up in an individual basis as there are existing full grown vegetation already providing close to 100%visual blockage in most locations, I agreed to walk the site with Mrs. Nishida and determine where to plant Arica palms in the gaps between existing vegetations and trees. VINCENT T.C.Tai,AIA,Architect 2184 Round Top Drive Architecture Honolulu.HI 96822 Planning 808-941 3778 Tel Interior 808-941 3778 Fax Email:TaiArchitecture @gmail.com 0 8 9 2 4 • Page 2 The revised Site Plan shows, as suggested by Mrs. Nishida and I agreed, the minimum of 20-feet side yard and rear yard setbacks at property lines adjacent to properties zoned RS-7.5 (with the exception of property located at 349A Kukuau Street). A number of them were concerned with the increase in traffic. Understandably so as there will undoubtedly a small, but close to negligible, increase in traffic volume.The TIAR shows the increase is so minimal that all approach delay changes are less than one second. It is obvious the neighbors either didn't have the opportunity to review the TIAR or didn't understand its methodology and findings. Or they still might have problem recognizing where they live has become an urban city long time ago. I stated I will work with the City's traffic division to install stop signs or traffic lights where necessary. As for the potential flooding caused by the dry stream on Popolo Street and outside of the subject property, I told one neighbor, Mr. Tim Wright, that it is a much larger issue nothing to do with this rezoning application, and we will together approach the DPW and see what they can do when I am ready with the final development plans. There is no existing natural water courses, drainage way or improvement within the subject property. The storm water will be handled by an on-site drainage system that consists of a series of drywells or combined with the use of porous paving materials for the parking and landscaped areas that allow rainwater to percolate through the pavement's surface back to the ground. There will be no off-site runoff. Mr. Wright mentioned that Mr. Boschetti's site (TMK: 2-4-28-9 adjacent and north of subject property already received approval to change zoning to RM-1.5) is far worse as water tends to accumulate there. Most of the comments were more complaints in nature rather than concerns need to be compromised or mitigated. I can understand their uneasiness since they are not familiar with the nature of the proposed project, i.e. 100% median income group workforce(affordable)housing. Unlike Honolulu where workforce housing is a major news item and being constructed in large scale,there is no substantial construction of this kind of housing in. Also understandably,they remember what this neighborhood used to be like when they moved in 30 years ago. One of the neighbors still believes Hilo is not an urban city. One neighbor lamented that new housing developments do not benefit them. Unlike policy makers and planners,they don't understand how new workforce housing projects may benefit the city in the short and long terms; how new residential constructions in urban city's infill sites may benefit the city as a whole and its economy, including creation of local jobs, invite more new and younger residents, increase the tax bases to support and improve services to its residents. I believe I agreed to and compromised in good faith with all the reasonable requests offered by the neighbors. I respectfully request the next Planning Commission hearing to be scheduled at an earliest date. Sincerely, Akt NVAP VINCENT T.C.TAI, AIA Enclosures cc: Planning Director, County of Hawaii Vincent T.C.Tai,MA,Architect Architecture Planning Interior o ' ;\ .,`§.r h j t t ;�. n e K - # .Z . a f' r • Z a W / y 0 ce r fit; 'lye w : aka , .. O *41 - i apkw: s soot r 'Y 11411161 alum 0 rr ' P . J I �� ` _t _r �if 5 Q I. I =% - . = • *b, C '`,.. . . , w - . . 924-1 • 12.18.2013 5:00 PM Aupuni Conference Center Meeting called by Vincent Tai,Developer Type of meeting Community Meeting Facilitator Alan Rudo,Office of Housing and Community Development Note taker Alan Rudo Timekeeper Alan Rudo Attendees See Sign-in sheet attached hereto. 5:00 PM-5:05 PM Alan Rudo Ground Rules I I read the following ground rules that were posted on board: 1. Cell phones to OFF/Vibrate, 2.Respect everyone's comments, 3.Every signed-in guest may speak at least once, 4.Each speaker would have at least 3 to 5 minutes max but that I hoped not to have to enforce the time limit, 5.No Booing or Hissing would be tolerated, 6.We will summarize everyone's comment, 7.We will summarize Vincent's responses, 1 8.Only comments related to the project would be accepted. i Note:Two people expressed concern to the last rule and I told them I would allow a lot of latitude in the discussion. 5:05 PM- 5:20 PM Vincent Tai Developer Discussion Vincent posted three large scale layouts illustrations:A possible layout given existing RM 2.5 zoning,possible layout given RM 1.5, Google earth view of the project with proposed RM 2.5 project layout including a senior vegetable garden as part of buffer zone. Vincent discussed the three illustrations along with a summary on the affordable vs.workforce housing and that some people had mistakenly believed this was low-income project housing.Vincent talked about the urban zoning how Hilo Is zoned"urban." Vincent discussed the reason behind the community meeting and that the planning commission was going to give a negative recommendation if Vincent did not hold community meeting. 5:20 PM-7:OOPM A.T. "The number of people&traffic will Increase with 2.5 RM zoning over the 1.5 RM zoning.' V.T. "The unit sizes are smaller,so only 94 bedrooms are proposed compared to 115 currently.' "As far as traffic,the traffic engineer speaks very technical,he says maybe only 1 second." A.T "What times did he check?Did he check peak hours?I didn't see It in his report." V.T. "Yes,he checked all times.It is in there(report)." R.M. "The minimum setback puts the project too close to our homes." V.T. "The minimum setback will be 20'along the RS 7.5 zoned residential properties,some spots 30'or more." E P "Parking is a problem.There doesn't seem like enough parking spaces.The overflow parking will be adjacent to HualSlai Street and people will through the bordering properties as a short cut. V.T. "110 parking stalls+visitor parking.Whatever the code requires,that is what I will do" • D.M. "There will be an Increase of people,No management of them,no enforcement of what goes on.' 08924 V.T. "I Intend to have a management company,possibly on-site resident manager." D.M, "Increased visitors,parking will Impact us." V.T. "Whatever the code requires,that Is what I will do." J.G. "Need a privacy 15'high because it's two story." V.T. "I can agree to a 6'fence along the RS 7.5 bordering properties,If they are going to climb or cut a 6'fence,they will climb or cut a 20'high fence. C.N. "He needs to agree to have his statements as conditional requirements,so he can't just say he will than change later," V.T. "I will do the 6'high fence along the RS 7.5 zoned residential properties" "Need 100%privacy buffer thru landscaping,fencing and rock wall.The buffer yard will provide privacy C.N from the development,the street lights,parking lot and headlights from the cars.This will also address security concerns of the neighbors.And you need to agree to have them as conditional requirements." V.T. "I will do the buffer,I will install the 6'fencing but I just don't know what landscaping" C.N. "And leave the rock wall,you can't build on top of the rock wall,it's loose rock." V.T. I will leave the rock wall.I will but my fence on my side of it and not touch the rock wall.I Just don't know what landscaping for the buffer. C.N. Conditional Requirements?He hasn't agreed to have them conditional." V.T. Yes,conditional requirements.That's fine. C.T. "School traffic is awful.During school rush hour it can be dangerous.There needs to be a stop sign at V.T. "We'not that stage yet.Whatever they tell me.We will have to put in street lights. R.T. "There are a lot of elderly,people in their'70s and'80s,they're vulnerable." V.T. "We will do a fence,a privacy buffer." Unknown "Sometimes a 100%privacy buffer makes it unsafe because people know you can't see them." V.T. No response. P.M. "An 8'high fence." V T "6'is consistent with the neighbors,Lanikila has 4'or 5'fence.If they are going to cut or climb a 6'fence it doesn't matter. D.M. "Kupukupu Street is how wide.We don't want you or the other developer opening that street up later." What if you sell the property?Can someone open that street? V.T. "Kupukupu Street no longer exists.I made this 15'in case of an emergency.I was told I have to have a 15'emergency access. A.R. "the Change of Zone Ordinance runs with the land.So if Vincent sold and new owners wanted to continue the project they would have the same requirements as specified in the Ordinance." T W "What about flooding.The parcel adjoining to the North is a big bowl and fills with water.We don't want that to flood our parcels.The police station gets flooded.Flooded is serious problem. V.T. "I have to install drywells along the property to contain water." T.W. "How many dry wells.What if they overflow?I've seen them over flow in heavy rains.It floods us." V.T. "I will install drywells.I won't touch the stream." Unknown "Can he go higher than two-stories?" V.T. "Only two stories.The adjoining parcel Is 3 stories,but I will keep it at two stories." urnment 6:50 PM I thanked everybody for their questions,comments and civil behavior,I invited them to contact me by email and by telephone and I passed out my business card as well as written It on the board. A few people stayed to discuss the fence,privacy border and wall. • • 1 o uala' a Court A 6 6 12/18 - 12/23 Received by email: wrightt003 @hawaii.rr.com Tim Wright My main concern is flooding. As someone who has lived in this area for close to 30 years I have seen the stream that runs under Popolo St.fill up with rain water and flow towards Mr.Vincent Tai's Hualalai property. A few weeks ago a had a long talk with retired County Police officer Jimmy Day. Mr.Day who grew up in this area in the 1960's told be how there was a large lake above Kumukoa St.(the stream that runs under Popolo St. was cut off at the top of Kumukoa). On Nov. 3,2000, I was working for the Honolulu Advertiser. The photo editor Seth Jones asked me to take photos of flooding around Hilo. I was shocked when he gave me the address of a home a few houses away from my home. This was Lanikukila St. This was a new subdivision next to the Popolo St.stream. In the 80's I use to see cattle in the pasture above the police department on Kapiolani St. When in rained for a few days the cattle would be belly deep in water. This is another area that the County approved for RM-1.5 zoning.(Mr. Boschett's property). I will send you photos in the next emails. Facilitator Contact Office of Housing and Community Development,County of Hawaii Alan Rudo Housing and Community Development Specialist 50 Wailuku Drive Hilo,Hawaii,96720 Phone:(808)961-8379 Email:ohcdplanning @hawaiicountv.gov ' 0 , 1100C - A li „ ittt ' '"''' ii, , 1440111 NI 4. I ' 4( ' # 41W , . , .,,. i AO Oill i le IL Or Ali- 14 • Hua a al r ou iit C t 0 .Meeting 4 utes Min ro .A< n .x^^ ..✓gyp b'rt mil .xa x+e* .�.a*.....„- ... .,....,,r. , _ j al, .a.dr. 3 _ F ! er �i t +P .�Yf h # -om ^� i "� 1"g� Ew a.,n F 3yi s '-+0;3-iiiitAfttwai..- - Je .i TA 0 0 4 • • . . 1 0 W711,043 Iola ! alai Cou H 6 it P oject .. ... . ism . 1 ivil meet ng nutes .. . --etkik.4,-. ,. ..„. .. .,, r M 1 ,.., .,, . . ..,.,.2„,,,..4,... :..ii.,.:„..- ,,r. , ,- ..,..„,f) „Jemies M ,, ' '.'F.rY , d i...f. *�fk t "3�Y ia. s � t a 14 " , 4 .... . .. ‘,..„, , , .,...., . , . . .,... „. . ., .,,,*.;v..... . . .. ti air; �.� >p�.4,: • r r „. ,.,. ., d Uli 1 i I 60:8Z1-Z:NINI ,.. i OZL96111/MVH'01IH 4 e w 0 0 i 1331:11S ivivivm 179£ o cc i g g z 4 * lunoo IV1V1VflH -6 1 4 a Oa.fr, 41 • rw -,.„.. el.11 g 4....-4. .z...2 I 2t•-A - b. t'l 11 I _ ,,,, . al V 04.4.4 X 11 ill J.3 $01.14 0,.....,..,..."'...° •:,.... . pi , .. gVIZI ii;g1 111 1 ^ ri Z 111 CL . wArs IA / ,s, ; LAI 2 v) 74 cb i i I- v! i 0 '41fA IlLti. Z Fa i , ,4* in' O L.L..1 /S. 22,- 826 '4'6'4 a • d IC,'1 z.-olv 2 > 3,ce , cHao x Z p—o).........c. ■N. /- (.10Apd) tosAis ndmincloN 4 '`,■/4 / ISM mai - 0 z 4.- 44106. .,•,■„:7... 411, CD D s■•■ A u_i r, .414r A 1 *a/ c6:1* lia . . em CO I ......, e A I/ mow MI 11 I V < / - CL ci IX .„.. t,i. IP • 0 se 0;'," AlliViiN /41P I 4itio 4. •, Nitic 40, 96'LE MTV I < / ....... ., 4. •• ..„ ...., ,, ...., , D 0,3 0 0 z v) _ 4/ip 4, ..,, •,,, 40,,,,, ''' ...>,... I 4" 0 LIJ Z lak■'.` /1 4 AI • si 0 0 _ D N `..Nrt- V , .. • Jgr i 'AP" ''''A N04, V■ ii < 0 1 C:i Z W .1",. , ,,. • ■ i `,... < V) ..44, '''',..1■IrAp'# 'Z' I N. ii-4i:p * 1.^ g —I 0 ° 4. N 4V•;/, VN A-, j ■::::. < Oa- NNAVO C 0 441, it,I- 211 4Wt.• (-A 4 ■ i .0;\4ipt V •NI ,2- c, 2 •,4- 0- Ii . 4iy,ir .A...* , 41 1 4 Vi / ,s 0 EP i F 1 i ' outs IVMVH WIN } t 4 J.N1oo Mvivnu lin , - c of i 5 e u t S s•Tl m•4r _ \ Ili 4 } ..a wn = : _ I • 1 -- 8 u t Y } O x l II ti O q H Z e srz��_ "" x n i O _ Z r n O =Y i r TM Y a } V j ] ^ , °zib�; o !jy,,,.� 8 $ s og 40 � ! +`�1► / W z Li, 1 0 ir,L` til I I i / . il. o N.!N ,;,1: C.z:.. c S c "�•``\1 �/. NN _J W Fri o i p x ;. 1 a • e� 0 o 4 Ct 5 ,- i 4_h4 ° 4 m 6 a°\ I / il* z J� g � z o �d 4 D o • 1•4+4s ndnIndnH ,P ' �+ �� �,' O O V, $IT L o 4ellk.,jv AL7.46,. tdr, CL oo c..9 oir O a Z N.ot4r4lit\ 4,,, 17, 4 wo .4sitt, '`•N sots xr • Al • ;:S, b Qom• Q a 0 2N110111riii * J � O ,, \s. 0 . libr4i . Itifi: .,IPsse i (I) CI- i N„,,, 40,.4.4p, 41 . i 4 I i R �► . 1 • e ....,„„r..,„.., -,, .\ \ :'4 ' li VV,, t '„,..37 ',t,..!'" ''''- ' •-•,,,‘'.' , 41'. . .,-;;;;` ,•,'` Ill •. ., '.-...,,te \ 1 • 9.1.1:. I . .....,*., : * ! 4 t:',"`" ..,•. .1•91* - r , .;.,,- , ',...,;:,-;,::.,-,.°Att,';31:'4,ert,,,, . , 114, ' .. . ■ r• , , + .. .■ • ‘ ... '17 , ' ‘ ' '''''' g"' ''' '' '-;•,!,' '' S . i• .. 9 . A 4;,, ,,1 ■:' :.''''''' '''::‘ ‘- . ./ . .,,... ,.. ........-- • 0) ' .' ', — %. -i , 4. •' ,,,, . t A , ' - ',, , ■ i' t,t.41"'1,1 " ''', 4 ' ' " • I 1.,...—, ,,,,,.: , ; • ,, , ,.. 7.-t Ile Iiiii ..• „,„:,.---ik. . , , i., 1 .'...j ie_ •:,!.,.. :„....,:, ' ' • , ., _..,,,„ .1,:,,,,,,-..,f,.r. te4 11111' 4 i_ :M.- t .... . , ,.,,. •., , 1-. rt -, . , - ,-,.,_,,,,,,• - , , i -s, . , I 4 - . 41.tuivif . , f Ilk. . 4k tail i _alio ' are t , 1. '. N. . i , c , , ARO,. • " -': 0 t 0 ' 1 Wt,11\„ i A' V • , ' . ' '" k A A , t ,. -..'". • • ,, ,... ..,, .,.. I . 4 , . . , . . . i ,., '1,„ •'-' 4'7' . . , i 4 , 4 ,„„._ 1, 7 - i - ' - ...„. : i., •, , -:: i It iLft at. 4. , .2r` - 6' . „ . it; f, . - . 2 1.,',. 41 • , . i ,I w.4,,'4.i',°0,1.-'i ,4, , •4,:,'.-.4 or i t , r. .... ..li• at ' 11 ... .,, 4.Y. 0 .. . ,, .... ., al $ 4. ' 1 . 4 '. , • 1 .. . • : , 1 4 i 441111111111111* ..., .'. . .... . 11 _it '.,‘„,..,f4_, .. ...•.;, ,, , . . .,„ ....,..„ . , „, ,,... . „ ..... • t t ... 1 •-,.,-,- t.ko,.; -. . , . ship ..i. - . t. r . _ ' I , e. , .. . . , ... . „ . , •- . ..-__ . jii..7--.. .. . . ''........4 !•,,,, -,..',,,i;L,-:,:.,:,:':',:::::'.1 '-,' 1 . 0 ,... , . - ... .. ,t, .. . • .:,.:-... . :„. I , ' 4 ..' 1 -••• ':At,, it,,,,,..,t:'•??,-,,ir,', ,;.:,,,,-,..l',, .., • , # , i^ r r` i .. . e r i is } t. m At R r � � 4141' "� ,. . "a} L .a .. R �fl L , ''(:-.,1.'' �„ '`ra t �� 4A"w l ` ♦ �q �� 4 �h IV r 11,0„ , : �1 wa ' � s <44,1\ r, r = 7,:- °' ..k ,. ,,r, 1; erg. . + , ♦ d + r i--.4.7"',,'''''''-'° r� ,'. �� �vt„' .$ R * Aid r« .��°'�,�.�� i`.,F .'t '' 4,..0* h ' +� ,'° k A'�" 1 }_t' '. ) "� (�mss 4f' „41 ,A"."*-:'',..:"P.' ..:;-.1.-4?",..=-'?.";I.,;.:',..„' ',,-....,..., v. --,;4:"..i.-1'.`,' .'"-4,- ---, r'' '....4„.'-,k,Ai,tii�1. w i�t C is .'+° 2 '_'•. It q.'it K + Ay Co, h .yam, ,,,y *r^ �„�¢" .i . , +..�a s , $, ., i .4 � !a �} ! � gym' R .�. 't ,�° r r� � •;,7,1,,i:..-..--, -iiii;_, ior,...,,,,,:.,:::.,,,,:!:.,,,,, :..",7,r....:A'...,,7-.. „,,, .., •r.---".‘f i: 4,,,.%:, , ....';',A.'; ., ,. 4,-,.'"v't.......-':V:,'...s,r Tr.,,r:7.1( . ??:.:,,NP; *V i ..' :, ,''' ,' ''1,,, ,, a _fir !pc, . ' - , , N.., .; '... t..., .2 s.>., . , — t7 r.,-1 ) itt �- �+�+" `v#� � I 4'���{� � 1 �i i��� 1. '''�'�, �,, ,�' 2_:-.4,rrr `t .'i xi t. 1 t`t � �'u'k 'IY' ' :.t' "R ° o ".',4,1111444t,4 '41 k .. l `""1r 4 „,- itot,..,,, ...,..„,...4.x4.4. .e, - .,..Ltie4 ..,...4 .4,tt, ' -7,. - '.'*r, ' i' ''',,,? -,#,,i . '''''''' :'°., * ,k{,4,'' '''''"'• . ‘,.. *otre,"!:\;,.-',4t4 ....• NI?; i,_,-..:. ; .... r k , ° ; * ..-- lot .:, yj , A fie sto ,. . "R ---.,,#;, ;$t .} / .�`C A}t ` . 'R, �s �" A ', s.; t r �t /64 .� , . x,, ." ue r ,,41,,;,, .'ii•••.. , 40(.. , ‘,,', . „. , ,-. dr....,... ,, .,. .,. . • at . M link- JJ i` J'" t 111'. �� .{� `r� � � � _ �� q l e `er. f • # / a e �t ' is .' , ' (,Y, •el 4(eir i • P 9M 0 A f ds 5 V' .1,i'. .: t f 4 hpy N. # v� 4 j * m �' i' X41 ,,*"#':pe"..-'1•.'''-'r ..' '7' ' ' * * 4 ryN'; d':4 iy vv a p .� Y UT: ics •t . 'o .« .�... r �:. ;� "< a*eta,,rte a • i r '',' r..4. ''''-4.r''' ,:;,4,,,,, ',..4 e:'' Aj n, ;t - }} ♦ i. — 1 -yy 4 a= > •.mow, `4 �m ,. rr r. ir December 11, 2013 To: Neighbors: Charlene Nishida (44 Hale Nani Place), Roy Toma (44 Hale Nani Street), Tim Wright(331A Popolo Street), David Martins (19 Hale Nani Place), Ray& Pearly Line (21 Hale Nani Street), Romona Jardine (15 Hale Nani Street), Leatrice Kishi (30 Hale Nani Street), CristitoTiogangco (360 Hualalai Street). Re: Meeting with neighbors on December 18, 2013 Application: change of Zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 364 Hualalai Street, Hilo, HI 96720, TMK: 3-2-4-028:009 I am writing to the above listed neighbors because they either showed up in the Planning Commission hearing on October 3 or communicated with me since. In my letter of November 20, I attempted to clarify the nature and character of workforce or affordable housing for 100% median income group so as not to be confused with low income housing such as the nearby 8 properties registered Residential Affordable Rental and the Lanikila low income housing project adjacent to the neighbors who own the properties on south side of Hale Nani Street(house number 15 to 87). These low income housings are for tenants of low to very low income groups, probably in the range of 50% median income group. The subject proposed workforce or affordable housing is for the 100% median income group, i.e. for ordinary folks such as policeman, fireman, postman, young professionals, retired fixed income seniors, etc. whose income match the average income level of Hilo. These are very different type of residents from those of low income housing projects. That is to say the proposed project's targeted residents are folks in a much higher income bracket and most likely of higher economic and social status. They maybe your friends and relatives residing in the County of Hawaii. If you haven't had much issues or problems with your nearby low income neighbors, or your property value had not been negatively affected by their close proximity, you should not be overly concerned with residents in the workforce or affordable housing development. The property values of the proposed workforce or affordable housing units are no less, or in most cases worth more, than the average neighboring properties. These units will be up-to-date code compliance including ADA. I also pointed out it is not true that the proposed workforce or affordable housing for 100% median income group will depress the property value of neighboring single family homes. In fact, for a well designed and properly managed development, it may have a positive effect not only to its neighbors but to the City as a whole. If you go to Honolulu or San Francisco, you will find affordable housing projects within the same block or neighborhood or adjacent to condos over a million dollars. As for your concern with parking and traffic, it will be meaningful and constructive if you state clearly which section, paragraph or methodology you may disagree with the TIAR prepared by Witcher Engineering, so that I can get them to prepare answers to your questions on Dec. 18. If you think it is necessary, I will invite the principal of Witcher Engineering to attend the meeting. VINCENT T.C.Tai,AIA,Architect 2184 Round Top Drive Architecture Honolulu. HI 96822 Planning 808-941 3778 Tel Interior 253-830 8892 Fax Email:TaiArchitecture @gmail.com A:, ir November 20, 2013 To: Property owners within 300-feet radius By First Class Mail Re: Meeting with neighbors on December 18, 2013 Application: change of Zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 364 Hualalai Street, Hilo, HI 96720, TMK: 3-2-4-028:009 As requested by the Planning Commission, I wish to meet with you in Hilo on December 18 at 5:00pm to 7:00pm. The place of meeting will be the Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street. The County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development shall be providing the facilitator. I present below my statements in response to the comments and concerns some of you voiced in person or in writing since the last Planning Commission meeting on October 3. Of course, I will answer any other questions you may have during the meeting. WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I believe some of you misunderstood the meaning and character of AFFORDABLE HOUSING as defined by most jurisdictions in the country, including the State and County of Hawaii. Affordable housing is NOT low-income housing or so-called 'project' like those notorious housing projects known for crimes, drugs, guns, etc. Affordable housing is also known as 'WORKFORCE HOUSING'or working family housing. It is designed for those who are employed with earned salary more than what is qualified for low-income housing and not sufficient to buy or rent high cost quality market rate housing in their communities close to where they work. Workforce or affordable housing may target government workers, police officers,firemen, students, teachers, nurses, secretaries, etc. These are decent people probably very much like yourself in terms of social and economic standings. The country, nationally and locally, is for years promoting and encouraging the supply of workforce or affordable housing, particularly in those neighborhoods with high or moderate real estate costs. The Kaakako neighborhood in Honolulu is a prime example. A year ago, I attended a National Conference on Affordable Housing held in Honolulu where Governor Neil Abercrombie gave an emotional opening speech pledging his unconditional support to create more workforce housing in all the islands. Developers who build affordable housings that follow established County guidelines may qualify for certain incentives such as increase in density and building height, and certain financial assistances and funding tools. The County of Hawaii, as in most cities, requires the inclusion of affordable housing in all new residential projects of certain size. I believe at present it is 20% of the new dwelling units must conform with the affordable housing guidelines. The County publishes annually a document: "Affordable Housing Guidelines for the County of Hawaii -for sale and for rent". Effective September 2013, for 100% median income group (the group I am targeting for the proposed project), the sales price of a 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom dwelling is$267,200 and $296,500 respectively. The rent (not including utilities)of a 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom dwelling is $1,572 VINCENT T.C.Tai,AIA,Architect 2184 Round Top Drive Architecture Honolulu. HI 96822 Planning 808-941 3778 Tel Interior 253-830 8892 Fax Email:TaiArchitecture @gmail.com B November 21, 2013 Page 2 and $1,815 respectively. The 100% median income group in the County of Hawaii is annual income of$48,900 for single person and $69,800 for a family of 4. As you probably know, the assessed value of most properties within 300-feet radius of the proposed project,with few exceptions, is in the $130,000 to$170,000 range. I assume the retail value is higher than assessed value, and based on my limited research checking with 3- bedroom homes for sales listed in MLS, the market price is in the $150,000 to $300,000 range depending on the condition of the improvement and size of the lot, except for the larger lots on Kukuau Street which have higher land values. That is to say, the value of the proposed affordable dwellings are more or less in the same range with your homes and your neighbors' homes. In fact, the market value of existing properties in the 1,000 sf plus range averaging $150 to $240 per square foot. The proposed 2-bedroom affordable units with 760 SF values at over $350/sf, while the 3-bedrom units with 895 SF values at over $330/sf. The value per square foot of the new affordable housing is substantially higher than the neighboring single family homes. Almost all the two and three bedroom homes on Hale Nani Street and Hale Nani were built in 1969 and 1970. Homes built in those years do not conform with the latest building and safety codes, such as resistance to hurricane and earthquake. In fact, some of the properties are not in particular good shape. I doubt if they can be rented for$1,815 plus utilities, the same rental charge demanded by the affordable housing next door with new construction and equipment, not to mention conformance with latest building and safety codes. Attached are schematic floor plans of the affordable residential units for your perusal. WHERE TO FIND WORKFORCE OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? You may not know even you are standing in front of it. Government approved workforce housings are everywhere to be found in most urban cities. It may be the property next to yours or it may be in the same building where you reside. In urban cities like San Francisco and Boston, an affordable housing complex or high-rise stands adjacent to and among high end condominium projects. I spoke with the developer of'Holomou', a high-rise 176-unit(including 90 affordable units) condominium tower in Honolulu's Makiki district completed and fully occupied over a year ago. I asked him how does one tell which unit is market rate at close to $500,000 or affordable at mid $300,000. He said that there is no signage or any indication which unit is affordable; it may be right next door or across the hallway. It is an established fact that workforce(affordable) housings blends in comfortably and seamlessly with market rate or upscale housings. If you are overly concerned with having an affordable or workforce development in your neighborhood, you don't need to look far. According to County records, there are already existing 8 properties within the 300-feet radius registered 'Residential affordable rental', some are your immediate neighbors. These properties are: 391A Kukuau, 391C Kukuau, 331C Popolo, 331D Popolo, 57 Popolo, 415 Lanikukia, 86 Hale Nani Street and 80 Hale Nani Street. ! am not certain what exactly is 'Residential affordable rental', but I suspect it is low-income rental such as Section 8. In any case, as far as I know, you are not concerned with these neighbors within a stone's throw. If this is the case, there is no need to be alarmed by the proposed workforce (affordable) housing development. Tal Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior November 21, 2013 Page 3 { Attached a plat map showing most of the properties with 300-feet radius. The 'Residential affordable rental' properties are highlighted. Mr. David Martins may take note that there are three such properties immediately adjacent to his property and there are no fences separating the adjacent properties from his. The neighbors who contacted me are identified so that they know where their properties are located. WHAT IS URBAN INFILL (OR SMART GROWTH)? First of all, as I stated previously, I disagree with Mrs. Nishida's statement that Hilo or this community is not urban. It may not be urban in the scale of San Francisco or Honolulu, but it is indeed 100% urban by any standards. Please refer to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG)which establishes what is urban and non-urban. It is clearly designated Medium Density Urban. Perhaps it was not urban when Mrs. Nishida bought the property a few decades ago. In fact, this property is a typical and prime example of what the planning profession called 'urban infill' site. In communities all over the country, including those similar to Hilo, there is a trend for the municipalities to encourage the development of urban infill parcels. The city of Hilo. like many other cities, are evolving due to changes in demographics, lifestyles, financing of public and community services, environmental awareness, etc. The Urban Land Institute in Washington long recognized the importance of urban infill. It reported that the demographic shifts, particularly the aging Baby Boomers(seniors) and the their children (Generation Y) will alter the landscape of housing development in the next few decades. These people that accounts for half of the country's population do not favor to live in ■ suburban communities. They prefer to live in urban centers close to where they work, and not get stuck in traffic commuting to work among other reasons. Urban infill provides the solution to this demand for housing; consequently urban infill is also synonymous with 'smart growth'. The city's financial health is derived primarily from taxes paid by folks who live and work there. Cities need a population base to generate sufficient taxes to support necessary public services and pay their bills. In other words, it is essential to build more well designed housing, affordable or otherwise, in an urban environment. If you wish to learn more about the benefits and principles of urban infill, please contact me and I will be happy to provide you with more information. ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTS POOR, BAD, UNRULY AND NOISY PEOPLE? One of the neighbors complaint to me that the people who will reside in the proposed affordable development are poor, bad, unruly and noisy. They are the kind who will pack six people in a small apartment even it only allows two occupants. First of all, I don't think one should unfairly associate poor people with bad people. I was once poor, but I was not a bad person. As I stated earlier, the targeted tenants are most likely in the same league or social and economic status as this particular neighbor or as most of you. We occasionally encounter neighbors who crank up the volume of their kind of music a bit too loud, allow their children playing in the backyard too noisily, or simply talk too loudly. It happens in any neighborhood, in market rate as well as workforce housing developments. If the neighbor gets to be too rowdy, one needs to talk it over with the neighbor or report to the police if the noise ordinance is violated. Tai Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior I ti November 21, 2013 Page 4 Mr. and Mrs. Line of 21 Hale Nani Street mentioned they have a question on noise. I assume they refer to traffic noise. There will be very little, or unnoticeable additional traffic noise since the TIAR indicated very little traffic impact. WILL A WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DEPRESS MY PROPERTY VALUE? Mrs. Nishida testified in the last Planning Commission hearing that the proposed workforce (affordable) housing development will depress her property value. I don't know where she got this information, or perhaps it was only her personal professional opinion. On the contrary, many studies by credible sources over the past two decades concluded there is no such undesirable effect. In fact, it is not uncommon for it to lift the value of neighboring properties. Of the many reports published on this subject, I list three below: *From HomeBase/The Center For Common Concerns, San Francisco published 1996 "It is a common belief that affordable housing, including residential care facilities and supportive housing, will lower neighboring property values. Contrary to popular beliefs, studies indicate conclusively that affordable housing has little or no effect on neighboring property values Numerous studies conducted over a period of many years and in various locations find that this widely held preconception of depressing neighboring property values is incorrect. Why? Because property values are primarily determined by the condition of the particular property for sale and other broader, more complex forces such as overall area development and prosperity. The location of affordable housing has no significant impact on these other conditions which determine property values." *From MIT's Center for Real Estate-affordable housing initiative published in April 2005 on "Effects of Mixed-Income, Multi-Family Rental Housing Developments on Single-Family Housing Values," "The study examined the relationship between the affordable rental developments and single- family home values, determining how home values had changed over time within the "impact" and control areas. It concluded, "The introduction of large-scale, high-density multi-family rental developments in single-family neighborhoods does not affect the value of adjacent homes. . . The fear of potential asset-value loss among suburban homeowners is misplaced." *From 'Shelterforce-the Journal of Affordable Housing Community Building published by the National Housing Institute-summer 2012. "When a housing development containing affordable units is proposed, neighbors, other town residents, and public officials often oppose it, claiming that a series of negative outcomes will result. The fears tend to relate to increased traffic;additional school costs;increased demands on other municipal services, such as fire and police; stresses on water and sewer systems; concerns about developer quality or experience; decreases in property values; various types of environmental degradation; and, perhaps least tangible of all, adverse changes in the character of the town. These claims may often mask underlying biases and racist attitudes. Tai Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior November 21, 2013 Page 5 Contrary to these common assumptions, several studies have consistently found that, if affordable housing is well designed and is well managed, there appear to be no negative impacts of that housing on the property values of neighboring houses. Other studies have shown that population growth associated with new affordable housing does not necessarily yield higher municipal costs, and there is actually less increase in school costs related to the construction of multifamily developments than there is with new single-family houses." On a personal basis, I have been a practicing architect and real estate investor for almost 50 years mostly involved with big and small urban cities;some smaller than Hilo. My experience with urban home values in connection with affordable housing is identical to these studies. Property values may be affected by poor physical conditions of the neighboring property, whether it is market rate or affordable. It is understandable, if your neighboring properties are in disarray and poorly managed, most likely your property value may be negatively affected. I had experienced in an urban infill situation where a zone change to accommodate higher residential density, the neighboring properties increased in value because it was perceived that they might also be qualified for such up-zoning and therefore sustain much higher land value if developed. I suspect the properties with larger land area, particular those on Kukuau Street, say more than 15,000sf may have the opportunity to experience higher land value. SIDE YARD SETBACKS FROM PROPERTIES ZONED RS-7.5 AND OPEN SPACE The revised Site Plan (Rev. no. 3- Oct. 30, 2013) shows, as I agreed as suggested by Mrs. Nishida, minimum of 20-feet side yard and rear yard setbacks at property lines adjacent to properties with Zoning RS-7.5 although the code only requires 10-feet. I noticed from the aerial photos many of your properties have structures with 10-feet or less side and rear yard setbacks. If you study the revised site plan carefully, except for two situations where the structure at an oblique angle stays away from the property line by 20-feet, most of the structures are measured far more than 20-feet from the property lines. This Site Plan compares favorably to the already approved one under Zoning RM-2.5 as the buildings are grouped closer to the center of the site and farther away from the neighbors' properties. I do not agree with Ms. Nishida's requirement to conform with Rule 17-6 9b)(2)(A) because it applies to industrial uses, and not residential uses. There will be only one recreation/play area adjacent to Mr. Boschetti's property to the north,far away from the homes on Hale Nani Place, Hale Nani Street and Popolo Street. The communal vegetable garden is located on a 15-feet wide strip along the property lines adjacent to the home on Hale Nani Place and Hale Nani Street. It acts as a buffer so that children do not play in this area. As you know,there are existing heavy growth of vegetation and mature trees next to the existing stone walls at the property lines which already provided thick visual barriers. Some of those trees and vegetation will be removed and some will stay. The existing stone walls will remain. A landscape plan will be submitted for plan approval in due course, There will be a 25' wide 5-feet high berm or some kind of barrier near the end of the dead end parking area to block off any potential automobile head light shining on the neighboring properties. Tai Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior November 21, 2013 Page 6 TRAFFIC Since Mr. David Martins expressed concerns and Mr. and Mrs. Ray and Pearly Line have questions regarding the traffic impact, I enclosed for them only a copy of the full traffic report with the title"Revised and Updated Traffic Impact Analysis"dated April 2013 prepared by Witcher Engineering LLP. A copy is also available for your review at the Planning Department. This report concludes as follows: "This project has very little impact on the neighborhood. The intersection of Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street has no change in levels of service.All approach delay changes are less than one second—not noticeable to the driver or public in general. It should be noted that all levels of service remain the same with the build out." Mr. Martins said that he disagrees with the report. I would be grateful if Mr. Martins communicates with me, on or before December 10, clearly and exactly which part of the report he disagrees with; whether it is the methodology,the traffic counts, level of service,trip generation, etc. If his comments or objections are related to the report,they will be reviewed and responded by Witcher Engineering LLP prior to our meeting on December 18. On the other hand, if Mr. Martins's disagreement is solely based on his perception or he simply didn't like the result, it will be impossible and meaningless for the engineer to respond or counter intelligently. The report as I understand it is neutral and unbiased based on on-site surveys employing established and approved methodology. The same with any questions regarding the contents of the traffic report any of you may raise; I will get you the answers if you contact me a week before the meeting. If necessary, I will invite the principal of Witcher Engineering LLC to attend the meeting to answer all technical questions regarding his report. I am not trained as a traffic engineer and I am not able to answer technical questions being raised, if any. However, I am generally familiar with traffic issues in urban cities. Unlike homes in a rural setting where one sees only fewer than 5 cars passing by each day. If there are more than 10 on a particular day, that is doubling the norm, one may feel uneasy or consider it too much traffic. In an urban setting, one or two hundred more cars crossing an intersection during the course of a day may not be noticeable among the normal traffic volume. The proposed housing project is not large scale in terms of traffic generation. As the report stated, a delay at certain intersections of less than one second is not noticeable. STORM WATER TREATMENT AND STREAM UNDER POPOLO STREET The storm water will be handled by an on-site drainage system that consists of a series of drywells or combined with the use of porous paving materials for the parking and landscaped areas that allow rainwater to percolate through the pavement's surface back to the ground. There will be no off-site runoff. I was told there might be an issue with the stream under Popolo Street which may impact the subject property. Since the stream is outside the subject property, this issue will be investigated and dealt with at the Building Permit stage with the involvement of the Public Works Department, and not at the application for zone change stage. Tai Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior November 21, 2013 Page 7 ON-SITE PARKING The proposal will provide parking per Planning Code requirement, i.e. 1.25 spaces for each dwelling unit. It is worthy to note that almost the entire development(also on average) consists of one-bedroom units. Most likely each unit's occupants presumably will have only one car. That means there will be 22 extra spaces not occupied. One of the principles of urban infill is to discourage the owning and using of automobiles. COMPARISON- SCHEME PER RM-2.5 AND RM-1.5 Revised Site Plan-88 Affordable Residential units- Revision no.3 dated 10/30/13 The existing already approved (on November 24, 2010) proposal under zoning RM-2.5 (see attached) is for 47 townhouses at market rate and 12 affordable housing units for total of 59 units. The attached revised proposal (see attached) under Zoning RM-1.5 is for 88 affordable units. Below is a table that shows the comparison between the two proposals in terms of total living area, number of bedrooms. A. EXISTING APPROVED(Nov. 24, 2010) 59-unit SCHEME PER RM-2.5 ZONING No. unit Living area Total No. bedrm Total No. bedrm 2-bed townhouse market rate 42 1,300 54,600 sf 2 84 3-bed townhouse market rate 5 1,440 7,200 sf 3 15 1-bed-affordable 8 625 5,000 sf 1 8 2-bed-affordable 4 890 3,560 sf 2 8 TOTAL 59 70,360 sf 115 B. PROPOSED AFFORDABLE 88-unit SCHEME PER RM-1.5 ZONING No. unit Living area Total No. bedrm Total No. bedrm A-1-bed affordable 76 592 44,954 sf 1 76 B-2-bed-affordable 6 752 4,509 sf 2 12 C-3-Studio affordable 6 400 2,400 sf 0.5 3 TOTAL 88 51,863 sf 91 DIFFERENCE - A. AND B. (18,497 sf) (24) -36% -26% As you can see, the proposed scheme under Zoning RM-1.5 contains substantially less total floor area (less 36%) and less number of bedrooms (less 26%) compared to the already approved scheme under Zoning RM-2.5. Due to the fact that the proposal under Zoning RM-1.5 is to develop all affordable housing, almost all the units are one-bedroom dwellings with smaller footprints or living floor areas, despite the total dwelling unit count is more. in addition, it provides much more open space with greater set back distance from the neighbors. It is also a TaI Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior November 21, 2013 Page 8 fact that in order to develop a financially viable affordable housing project in Hilo, there is a need for more units to share the cost of infrastructure improvement. The reason I applied for the RM-1.5 is because my goal is to develop all affordable housings, either for the 100% or 80% median income groups, which the County needs. I do not agree with Mrs. Nishida's requirement to conform with Rule 17-6 9b)(2)(A) because it applies to industrial uses, and not residential uses. CONCLUSION: I believe I answered all the questions and concerns in sufficient details. Since the meeting with you will be about 4 weeks away, it allows you sufficient time to review my statements. If you disagree or do not understand my explanations or have additional concerns, I strongly suggest you to contact me ahead of the meeting so that I can prepare appropriate answers for you. It is my opinion that the revised Site Plan for the affordable housing 88 unit development per Zoning RM-1.5 has far less impacts on just about every conceivable issue affecting the neighbors compared to the market rate townhouse project already approved under Zoning RM- 2.5 back in 2010. I look forward to seeing you on December 18, Thank you for your patience and understanding. Sincerely, ,kve/wirAe VINCENT T.C.TAI, AIA , Owner and Applicant Enclosures: cc: Planning Department, County of Hawaii w/enclosures Windward Planning Commission,County of Hawaii w/enclosures Tai Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior . 6 November 4, 2013 To: Owners within 300-feet radius By First Class Mail Re: Meeting with neighbors on November 14, 2013 Application: change of Zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 364 Hualalai Street, Hilo, HI 96720, TMK: 3-2-4-028:009 As requested by the Planning Commission, I wish to meet with you in Hilo on November 14 at 5:00pm. The place of meeting will be determined depending on how many of you intend to attend. It will be in a location within the City of Hilo. If you plan to attend, please call me at my cell phone: 808-358-2321 or email to me at the address shown below on or before November 10. I will then let you know the place for the meeting, I have requested the Windward Planning Commission to hold the hearing on December 5, 2013. I present below my statements in response to the comments and concerns some of you voiced in person or in writing. Of course, I will answer any other questions you may have during the meeting. Revised Site Plan - 88 Affordable Residential units - Revision no.1 dated 10/06/13 The existing already approved (on November 24, 2010) proposal under zoning RM-2.5 (see attached) is for 47 townhouses at market rate and 12 affordable housing units for total of 59 units. The attached revised proposal (see attached) under Zoning RM-1.5 is for 88 affordable units. Below is a table that shows the comparison between the two proposals in terms of total living area, number of bedrooms. A. EXISTING APPROVED(Nov. 24, 2010) 59-unit SCHEME PER RM-2.5 ZONING No. unit Living area Total No. bedrm Total No. bedrm 2-bed townhouse market rate 42 1,300 54,600 sf 2 84 3-bed townhouse market rate 5 1,440 7,200 sf 3 15 1-bed affordable 8 625 5,000 sf 1 8 2-bed-affordable 4 890 3,560 sf 2 8 TOTAL 59 70,360 sf 115 B. PROPOSED AFFORDABLE 88-unit SCHEME PER RM-1.5 ZONING No. unit-Living area Total No. bedrm Total No. bedrm A-1-bed affordable 76 592 44,954 sf 1 76 B-2-bed-affordable 6 752 4,509 sf 2 12 C-3-Studio affordable 6 400 2,400 sf 0.5 3 TOTAL 88 51,863 sf 91 ( VINCENT T.C.Tai,AIA,Architect 2184 Round Top Drive Architecture Honolulu.HI 96822 Planning 808-941 3778 Tel Interior 253-830 8892 Fax Email:TaiArchitecture @gmail.com November 4, 2013 Page 2 DIFFERENCE-A. AND B. (18,497 sf) (24) -36% -26% As you can see, the proposed scheme under Zoning RM-1.5 contains substantially less total floor area(less 36%)and less number of bedrooms(less 26%)compared to the already approved scheme under Zoning RM-2.5. Due to the fact that the proposal under Zoning RM-1.5 is to develop all affordable housing, almost all the units are one-bedroom dwellings with smaller footprints or living floor areas, despite the total dwelling unit count is more. It is also a fact that in order to develop a financially viable affordable housing project in Hilo, there is a need for more units to share the cost of infrastructure improvement. The reason I applied for the RM-1.5 is because my goal is to develop all affordable housings, either for the 100%or 80% median income groups, which the County needs. The revised Site Plan shows, as I agreed, the minimum of 20-feet side yard setback at property lines adjacent to properties with Zoning RS-7.5. If you study the site plan carefully, except for two situations where the structure at an oblique angle stays away from the property line by 20- feet, most of the structures are measured far more than 20-feet from the property lines. This Site Plan compares favorably to the already approved one under Zoning RM-2.5 as the buildings are grouped closer to the center of the site and farther away from the neighbors' properties. I do not agree with Ms. Nishida's requirement to conform with Rule 17-6 9b)(2)(A) because it applies to industrial uses, and not residential uses.Also, I disagree with her statement that the subject property is not located in an urban area or setting. Please refer to the Land Use Pattern • Allocation Guide(LUPAG)which establishes what is urban and non-urban. It is clearly designated Medium density Urban. Perhaps it was not urban when Ms Nishida bought the property decades ago. In fact,this property is what the planning profession called 'urban infill' site. In communities all over the country, including those similar to Hilo, there is a trend for the municipalities to encourage the development of urban infill parcels. The city of Hilo. like many other cities, are evolving due to changes in demographics, lifestyles, financing of public and community services, environmental awareness, etc. Storm water treatment and stream under Popolo Street The storm water will be handled by an on-site drainage system that consists of a series of drywells or combined with the use of porous paving materials for the parking and landscaped areas that allow rainwater to percolate through the pavement's surface back to the ground. There will be no off-site runoff. I was told there might be an issue with the stream under Popolo Street which may impact the subject property. Since the stream is outside the subject property, this issue will be investigated and dealt with at the Building Permit stage with the involvement of the Public Works Department, and not at the application for zone change stage. b'� z Tai AssoclateslArchitects V Architecture Planning Interior November 4, 2013 Page 3 On-site parking and open space area The proposal will provide parking per Planning Code requirement, i.e. 1.25 spaces for each dwelling unit. It is worthy to note that almost the entire development(also on average)consists of one-bedroom units. Most likely each unit's occupants presumably will have only one car.That means there will be 22 extra spaces not occupied. There is only one recreation/play area adjacent to Mr. Boschetti's property to the north, far away from the homes on Hale Nani Place and Hale Nani Street. The communal vegetable garden is located on a 15-feet wide strip along the property lines adjacent to the home on Hale Nani Place and Hale Nani Street. This acts as a buffer so that children do not play in this area. There is a 25'wide 5-feet high berm or some kind of barrier near the end of the dead end parking area to block off any potential automobile head light shining on the neighboring properties. Traffic Please refer to the Revised and Updated TIAR dated April 2013 prepared by Witcher Engineering LLP. available at the Planning Department. This report concludes as follows: "This project has very little impact on the neighborhood. The intersection of Kapiolani Street and Hualalai Street has no change in levels of service. All approach delay changes are less than one second—not noticeable to the driver or public in general. It should be noted that all levels of service remain the same with the buildout." To conclude, it is my opinion that the revised Site Plan for the affordable housing 88 unit development per Zoning RM-1.5 has far less impacts on just about every conceivable issue affecting the neighbors compared to the market rate townhouse project already approved under Zoning RM-2.5 back in 2010. I look forward to seeing you on November 14,Thank you for your patience and understanding. Sincerely, MdatiVA9 VINCENT T.C.TAI, AIA , Owner and Applicant Enclosures: Revised Site Plan per Zoning RM-1.5 and location map Rev. no.3 dated Oct. 30, 2013 Site Plan already approved per Zoning RM-2.5 dated Oct. 15, 2009 cc: Planning Department, County of Hawaii w/enclosures Windward Planning Commission, County of Hawaii w/enclosures Tai Associates/Architects Architecture Planning Interior October 1, 2013 Dear Windward Planning Commission Members: We are homeowners in the Hale Nani neighborhood(Hualalai Subdivision) and our property borders the lot that is proposing to change from Multiple Family 2.5 to Multiple Family 1.5. This letter serves as an additional letter in opposition to the Change of Zoning application for TMK:3-2-4-28-09. If the Change of Zoning application is granted we request that the following items specific to our property, as well as our adjoining neighbors, be addressed: 1. We request an amendment that would require a bufferyard to shield neighboring lots from the adverse affects of the development. Specifically we request that the bufferyard standard in Rule 17-6 (b)(2)(A) be required. This landscaping requirement would exclude all visual contact between the development and neighboring properties and would preserve the quite enjoyment our properties currently have. This bufferyard requirement would also offset the negative impact the development will have on our property values and the market reaction to the increased density of the development. Rule 17-6 (b)(2)(A) To exclude all visual contact between the industrial and residential uses and to create a strong spatial with concomitant lessening of noise intrusion, the landscaped buffer shall be opaque from the ground to a height of at least six feet, with intermittent visual screening from the opaque portion to a height of at least 20 feet. Compliance shall be determined on the basis of the average mature height and density of foliage of the subject species, or,field observation of existing vegetation. At maturity, the portion of intermittent visual screening should not contain any completely unobstructed openings more than 10 few wide. 2. In addition to the bufferyard, we request that the side yard setback be increased to 20 feet to preserve the open space as stated in item #1. 3. There currently exists a rockwall on the boundary between the proposed development and several residences, including ours, in the Hualalai Subdivision. The rockwall is an improvement to our property and contributes to its esthetic and property value. We request that the Planning Commission address improvements on the property boundaries including rockwalls and fencing. We do not grant permission for any removal of the rockwall or fencing that is within/overlap our property boundary. In discussions with the neighbors, we believe that our request is reasonable and by making the requirements stated above the negative impacts of the proposed development will be mitigated. Sincere , Charlene Nishida kpueo @yahoo.com (808) 216-1028 kpueo @yahoo.com 16 Hale Nani Place, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Rc',' ,r/-/3imtg by t r}i;;t , / • • February 4, 2010 Dear Windward Planning Commission Members: We are homeowners in the Hale Nani neighborhood (Hualalai Subdivision) and our property borders the lots that are proposing to change from Single Family Residential to Multiple Family. This letter serves as an additional letter in opposition to the Change of Zoning application for TMK:3-2-4-28-09. If the Change of Zoning application is granted we request that the following items specific to our property be addressed: 1. There currently exists a rockwall on the boundary between the proposed development and several residences, including ours, in the Hualalai Subdivision. The rockwall is an improvement to our property and contributes to its esthetics and property value. We request that the Planning Commission address improvements on the property boundaries including rockwalls and fencing. We do not grant permission for any removal of rockwalls or fencing that are within/overlap our property boundary. 2. We request maximum landscaping requirements to mitigate any adverse noise or visual impact to our property. As neighbors, we would like to give input to the landscaping plan and request that we are included in the landscaping planning process. I am willing to serve as a contact for the neighborhood and coordinate communication. Due to the Governor's implementation of furlough Friday's, I may not be able to attend the public hearing scheduled tomorrow due to childcare restrictions and would like this letter to serve as my testimony. Please contact me any time to discuss any further. Sincerely, Charlene Nishida Charlene Nishida kpueo @yahoo.com (808) 216-1028 • kpueo @yahoo.com 16 Hale Nani Place, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • November 1, 2009 Dear Windward Planning Commission Members: We are homeowners in the Hale Nani neighborhood (Hualalai Subdivision) and our property borders the lots that are proposing to change from Single Family Residential to Multiple Family. We oppose any request of zoning change for TMK:3-2-4-25,48,53,80 or TMK:3-2-4-28-9 parcels A and B) other than its current designation. We purchased our home at 16 Hale Nani Place in 2007. We were looking for a home that we could raise our three children in while attending Kamehameha Schools in Keaau and then onto the University of Hawaii in Hilo. Before we purchased the home we called the planning department to inquire what the vacant lots that border our future home could be subdivided into. We were told Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 sf. We moved forward with our purchase with the understanding that the neighborhood would remain residential. We do not approve of any change in zoning that would change the neighborhood characteristics of our single-family zoning. I am a Certified Residential Appraiser, CRA#875. It is my professional experience that property values remain the highest when there is conformity in the neighborhood. If the properties bordering ours were to be developed into single-family residences it would not have a negative impact in value. However, if the properties next to ours changes to multiple family, then there would no longer be conformity, noise factors would increase, the views would be hindered and property values would definitely decline.for our property. We are a hard working, law-abiding family who contribute productively to the community. We expect that the planning department will act prudently to its constituents...we the people. How can a project that financially benefits an out of state owner at the expense of hard working local families be considered? Our family, and the majority of homeowners in the neighborhood are requesting that the zoning remain Single Family Residential RS-7.5. Please maintain the current zoning in its current density. Mahalo Nui Loa, Charlene and Shad Nishida kpueo@yahoo.com (808) 216-1028 16 Hale Nani Place, Hilo, Hawaii 96720 •Ir U s ,1 ROY T TOMA 7013 OCT `2 iPi'9 3: 55 September 18, 2013 hi mr.tai: my name is roy toma and we met at the last hearing. i live on 44 hale nani st. your revised plan calls for 88 units and 110 parking stalls per allowable unit and every 4 units an extra stall. are you going to enforce the 1.25/ratio? where are the excess cars going to park? your recreational playground and garden is a great idea but who will monitor the areas? if it cannot be monitored for late noise then move it within the units. are you planning to erect 8'wall to retain your tenants from tresspassing in our properties? we hate to call the police everytime we have tresspassing in our properties. your reply is appreciated. sincerely. roy&ann toma 44 hale nani'st. hilo, hi. 808-935-7712 Tai Architecture<taiarchitecture @gmail.com> September 22,2013 Dear Ann and Roy, Thank you for your email and interest in this subject change of zone application. First of all, let me clarify the intent of this Planning Commission approval hearing coming up on October 3; it is only for change of zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 and not for planning approval of a specific housing project development. It is a requirement of the zone change application to submit a plot plan or conceptual development plan only and not a set of complete and ultimately final designed project development plans.The owner or developer is not allowed to submit for project development approval until the zone change is approved by the Council and the property's zoning classification becomes RM-1.5. Most likely,the development plan to be submitted for planning approval in due course resembles more or less the conceptual plan, but it will contains a lot more details that address various design issues.That is to say you will have the opportunity to study the development plan and offer your comments including those concerns you raised. As for parking, it is my intention to provide the number of stalls based on ratio of 1:1.25. Sincerely, Vincent T.C. Tai,AIA SCANNED OCT 0 3 2013 By: 087885 Dacayanan, Melissa 1,)LAtil,! ( DEPT:f!!E.tT i1 From: David Martin [drm @hawaiiantel.netj Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:25 PM €� OCT _.3 raj 9: j' To: planning @co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: dmartin55555 @gmail.com Subject: Change of zoning 3-2-4-028-009 My name is David Martins and I'm the owner of tax key 3-2-4-055-015 I'm responding to a change zoning request by Mr. Tai, to begin with I against any zoning changes for that property, it will create a huge negative impact for the people living in our area. Hale Nani st and Kapiolani can not handle the traffic that will be generated if this zoning is approved we have cars from mohouli housing, lanikila housing using hale nani st every morning_ and with school traffic in the morning it is surly a mess there as it is. WE still haven't seen the impact of the other zoning chane that was given to Mr Giampaolo Boschetti 2 years ago Im against this zone change thank you David Martins SCANNED OCT 0 2 7013 By:087869 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 6, 2014 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of Vincent Tai(REZ 13-167)was called to order at 10:13 a.m. in the County of Hawai`i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i with Chairman Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr. presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr., Ronald Gonzales, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono. ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Molly Stebbins (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), William Brilhante(from 10:09 a.m. to 10:28 a.m. and from 10:58 a.m. to 12:01 p.m., Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Kelly Gomes (from 10:02 a.m. to 11:20 a.m., Department of Public Works Engineering Division), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow(Staff Planner), Maija Cottle(Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley(Secretary). And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: VINCENT T.C. TAI (REZ 13-167) Application for a Change of Zone from a Multiple-Family Residential-2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) to a Multiple-Family Residential-1,500 square feet(RM-1.5)zoning district for approximately 3.292 acres of land. The subject property is located at the end of Hualalai Street, just west of the Hualalai Street/Hale Nani Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-4-028:009. ISHIBASHI: Ok,moving on. Item 6. Applicant Vincent Tai, Rezoning 13-167. Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This was a,this item was continued from the October 30th [sic] Planning Commission hearing. The Commission at that time requested that the applicant meet with his surrounding community to resolve some of the issues that they were concerned with and then report back to the Commission. So, if it's all right with the Commissioners, I'd like to just give another brief overview since it's been quite a few months since that hearing. MOSES: Yes. COTTLE: Good? Ok. All right. The subject property is located in the South Hilo district in Downtown Hilo. You can see Kapiolani Street on the right side of the slide. The police station is in this area that I'm pointing to now. Hualalai Street runs makai,towards downtown in this location, and then Attachment to: Comm. 718 1 Bill 214 Hualalai Street extends,to provide access to the subject property which is shown in a black outline in a dark purple color. The dark purple color indicates the current zoning which is Multiple Family Residential with a density of 2,500 square feet per,per lot or per area that they can build. The requested zoning is RM-1.5 so the applicant is requesting a higher density. And you can see the property to the north, it's in brown, is currently zoned RM-l.5 which is similar to what the applicant's requesting. Surrounding properties to the south and the west are zoned single family residential 7,500 square feet. That's shown in the yellow color on the map. The General Plan designation for the property is medium density urban. Medium density urban allows for single family residential as well as multiple family residential, and also community and commercial uses. So the request is consistent with the General Plan designation. The applicant's requesting a change of zone from Multiple Family Residential 2,500 square feet to Multiple Family Residential 1,500 square feet. He is requesting the zoning in order to develop an affordable housing project known as "Hualalai Court" and that will consist of 88 affordable housing units. This is the site plan that the applicant submitted when he originally requested this zoning back in October, and the site plan has been changed after meeting with the community members, so I just want to fast forward over this one, and show you the current proposal. Now you can see a driveway access off of Hualalai Street, Hale Nani Street turns to the south in this area here, and then loops around to the residents of the Hale Nani neighborhood to the south. You can see the parking area for each of the units, and then the buildings are oriented mainly along the property lines off of the parking areas. So the difference between the previous plan and the current plan is you'll notice one of the things that the neighbor's requested was an additional setback, additional building setback. The Zoning Code requires a 10-foot setback, and so that's reflected here in this plan. And you can see in the current proposal,the applicant has set back at least 20 feet from the property lines. He's also proposing to keep some of the existing vegetation on the site, and that's shown with these circles. Those are existing trees or shrubs that he is planning to keep on the property and not remove so that it will serve as a buffer between the neighbors along Hale Nani and the proposed development. This is an aerial view of the property. Again,you have Hualalai Street providing access to the property. This is Hale Nani Street, and these are the residences along Hale Nani Street. There's currently a single family dwelling and pool on the property which will be demolished if the zoning is approved. And this aerial photo is from Google. It was from January of last year, and I think it's pretty representative of the vegetation that is currently on the property. You can see the big trees and some shrubs. This is a view of the end of Hualalai Street so the subject property is far back in this area. You can see one of the concerns that's been brought up by the neighbors is an increase in traffic. You can also see that there's a big wall here at the corner of Hualalai Street and Hale Nani and that kind of limits the site distance. This is a very old wall that's been there for many years. And then this is another view of that wall. This is Hale Nani Street and it curves around to Hualalai Street so the subject property is located off of the slide on the left side. 2 The Planning Director is still recommending that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for this rezone request because the request is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area which calls for more housing and commercial uses in Downtown Hilo. There are several letters that you should have received in your package this morning, and I just want to go through them. You should have a letter from Charlene Nishida dated February 4th. You should have an email from David Martins dated February 5th. A letter from Ann Toma dated January 26th. And two-three-four, I think you have four letters from Mr. Tai dated November 4th,November 20th, December 11th—I'm sorry five letters—December 29th, and January 30th. I think the December 29th letter and the January 30th letters were held after, were written after Mr. Tai had the community meeting so they're probably the more current letters and most representative of the outcome of the community meeting. You should also have an email that Mr. Tai had sent to me dated December 31st, and that email just generally goes over points of agreement between Mr. Tai and the community and suggests some conditions that the Planning Commission may want to consider. And, lastly, you should have a piece of paper with five photos on it, and I'm not certain who submitted this. Maybe one of the testifiers can let us know. (Note: This was submitted by Charlene Nishida, attached as Exhibit One to this transcript.) Are there any questions? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Maija. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Ok. COTTLE: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I also want to add that we do have a representative here from the Department of Public Works that can answer any questions related to flooding or traffic if the Commission has them. Ok? ISHIBASHI: Commissioners, I know that we just got this info this morning, so I'll give you a couple minutes. Try take a look at these letters and then we'll proceed. I'd like to call up the applicant. Mr. Tai, if you could come up, please? Good morning, Mr. Tai. TAI: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Raise your right hand,please. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? TAI: Yes, I do. ISHIBASHI: Thank you so much. Please state your name and address for the record. TAI: My name is Vincent Tai. The address is 2184 Roundtop Drive in Honolulu. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. You may proceed. TAI: First let me express my appreciation for allowing the continuance from the last time. As I explained, I've been in business for a long time. I, I misunderstood. I thought that there would 3 be another public meeting, hearing, for the planning project approval, so I thought this rezoning is only the first public hearing and there will be a second when we deal with design which I didn't understand that. And obviously, I, I wanted to meet with the neighbors. It's just that I didn't understand that I, there won't be another public meeting for them to speak up. I just got the two letters from Maija dated before yesterday, so I told Maija that I would respond here in person instead of writing because it's so many letters already. So let me just first respond to Mrs. Toma's letter, real brief here. And she mentioned that, that you know I have two previous meeting planned and both cancelled on short notice for meeting, right. Actually, there was only one was planned, and I was not the one who cancelled it. Let me explain. I wrote to a, 62 owners within 300 feet in trying to set up a meeting on November 14. I even bought plane tickets to come over here. And just a few days before November 14, I got a phone call from Maija, and I understand that Mrs. Nishida insisted that I should cancel that. She asked for, I give them 10 days notice, and I was told it's not enough. It should be a 30 days notice, and also she insisted that I should hire a facilitator. So because of that, the November 14th was cancelled, and I cancelled my plane ticket as well. So, again, I sent another 62 letters to, for the second meeting which was December 18`h. Right, again, luckily that one did not get cancelled. Ok, I was glad that a good number of attendees at that meeting, and I really appreciate their attendance, and I go over that a little later. Now, Mrs. Toma also raised a lot of questions like, you know, who should I call if someone climb over the fence, you know, if someone park in front of my property. Those, I really cannot answer those questions but I did in my statement, that obviously as the project sponsor, I have to work with the traffic department, public work department, and resolve any issues that need to—a deal with that I can be responsible,but there are things that outside of properties that a--. It's a city, you know, you know, there are traffic. Obviously, there will be a slight increase of traffic. In fact, according to a TIAR, the traffic report, a, the impact was just almost negligent (sic). You know,he was saying less than one second of delay, you know. But be that as it may, you know, I'm not going into that because it was done by someone else. And then, a, Mrs. Nishida's letters, little bit more lengthy here. Maybe I should address that now. A, I believe I comply with just about,just about everything that Mrs. Nishida asked for. She was the only one that asked for the delay of the hearing, for the 30 days notice. She asked for facilitator, I had complied with. But there are a few things that I did not agree with her. Number one, she said this location,this here, this property, is not in the urban area which I disagree. Ok, in fact, even the County, the city documents, the whole city, the town of Hilo, including this property is considered urban area. Now, I think there is a big difference in interpretation that may affect her thinking is what I am trying to say, ok? And also, she is a licensed appraiser, and she claims that having workforce affordable housing nearby in a two-story building next door would depress the property value which I disagreed because I have support, I have gone through many of these sources from authorities saying that that is not the case, ok, and I can detail that a little bit more. The fact, and also, I think the point is maybe urban appraisal is not Mrs. Nishida's area of expertise, which is perfectly fine, like even for doctors, you don't go to an oncologist if you want to have a heart transplant, right? I'm a licensed architect. If you come to me, if you want me to design a hotel, I mean a hospital, I will know what to do. You know, I'm a licensed architect ,but we all have areas of expertise. So, I'm not trying to say or diminish 4 Mrs. Nishida's qualifications. All I'm saying is that maybe her expertise is not in the urban setting is all I'm trying to say, you know. Because she pointed out that I have not agreed with the buffer zone. First of all, I checked with Maija and she confirmed that for residential zoned areas,properties, there is no buffer zone required. The section she stated applied for industrial properties which I don't think is appropriate because we're really dealing with residential here. So, it's not appropriate for me to comply with an industrial zone buffer zone. But I'll leave it up to the Planning Director. If the Planning Director said well you still have to do it, then I'll do it, ok? But I don't think it is appropriate because it is not industrial here. And, we talk about this non-native plants and these things that grow in the wild,they're all kinds of trees out there you can see, ok? But this has nothing to do with the rezoning. If a problem exists now, it needs to be resolved. In fact, about 3 months ago, I told Mrs. Nishida I would get another associate, who's a civil engineer,to identify the property line one more time, which she has fixed up here, and I even sent that latest drawing to Mrs. Nishida. I said I need that so I that I can run the line to find the exactly where the property line is because some trees could be in the neighbor's properties, some trees could be my property. We cannot see because it's all trees out there, ok? Now, of course, if there are non-native, they are invasive species, they need to be removed eventually, whether I get the rezoning or not. Nothing to do with rezoning, ok? There are trees that are very nice. There are mango trees, there are all these good looking trees. They should be kept. You know,nobody wants to cut healthy trees. So again, she raised the question here that I said I didn't do it. Not, that's not the case. In fact, I told her that after we got through all of these, we walk the property, we make sure we run a straight string, show exactly where the property line is, then we deal with this so called invasive species that move to grow into the neighbor's property which happens all the time, you know, because even in my house in Honolulu, ok? So that needs to be dealt with but it's nothing to do with the rezoning because that needs to be done no matter what,ok? And, also, this one about flooding that I didn't respond. Now,perhaps she didn't quite understand what I told her or written in letters. The supposed stream is outside of my property, so in fact it runs through my neighbor's property. Now, if this water did come into my property and create flooding and so on, I need to deal with even now or in the future, nothing to do with the rezoning. In fact,the rezoning, I, I in the background statement, I stated a certain method that I will use to get rid of water that is coming into the site so that all the water,the storm drainage will be all done, on site, and none of the water will be flowing outside, but if outside water coming in, something we need to resolve and Mr. Tim Wright is very kind. In fact, every time, you know, something happen, he would send me pictures because I don't live here. I really appreciate his help and I told Tim that we together, him and me would approach the department of public works and we sort out the easements, the problems, but the problem is completely outside of my property. You know, down. He told me it's underneath Popolo Street and also to my neighbor's property and then somehow it get into my property. So again, it had nothing to do with this rezoning. It needs to be done. It needs to be resolved. In fact, if the project is developed, they're already certain methods to deal with groundwater and how to get rid of them. Now, I know Mrs. Nishida complained that I did not have a landscaping plan. I also check with Maija, and she confirmed that in the rezoning plan, you don't require a landscape plan. When you do, when you come to the building design, when you request for approval, then you do need a landscaping plan. Now, I don't, I think that Mrs. Nishida didn't understand it because she's a layman. In my profession, landscaping plan is not a separate easel. It's really an intergral part of 5 the overall project design. You have to understand what kind of building is going to be there, what it looks like, where the parking area is, how to create berms, or for any visual blockage, and you plan the landscaping around the structures. And also that would be the time to survey which are the trees that need to be cut down,removed, and rebuilt. I mean replant. So, I see that this is a project. I mean the landscaping itself is not a separate easel. It really cannot be done at this point because the design is only conceptual, and once you have exactly where the buildings are, the height, where the windows are, then you do the landscape design. This is the correct way of doing it, you know. And also, in terms of timing, I did agree hundred percent with Mrs. Nishida that I would walk the space with her once the construction is just about finished when we start to do landscaping, we would survey what are the existing trees in back of her property that need to be kept or need to be removed, and I agreed that I would grow Arica palms as she suggested to fill the gaps. I would agree to that, but not today. It's too early to do that because we don't know exactly where things are now, and then after the building is completed just before we do landscaping, that would be the time to do it. And already we do it in writing. Although I still question you know what a 100 percent because these are plants, can't control them. Ok, in fact, one attendee, I think her name is Doreen Friberg, she disagreed with Mrs. Nishida that there should be 100 percent blockage. She said she didn't want that. You know, so it's not fair for Mrs. Nishida to speak for everybody else because they all have different ideas, but I did promise Mrs. Nishida I would do that for her. But anyone who think that they need something more than what is there now, and I also made the statement that I will be glad to meet with each of them if they come to me,but I won't impose that condition on these people because, like I said, at least one person objected to that idea. Ok, like I said the last time, if this project, if this location has not been a--under the current a General Plan, and is prime for a, developing housing, I, and if affordable housing is needed, I really want do the project, ok? I mean, I don't want to force on anything that is unreasonable. Now, this project, under the RM-1.1, 1.5, when you compare to the project that previously approved under 2.5, and I have a table to show, to compare the two projects. This project under RM-1.5, I intend to do affordable housing for the entire project, not just 20 percent or 25 percent to satisfy the—it's the entire project. It's anywhere between 60 to 100 percent AMI. Now, I was told if I'm correct for the last 30 years, no such project have ever built in Hilo. Maybe a small amount built on the Kona side, I'm not sure. You see project that are low income, which is between from zero to 50 percent, mostly 30 to 50 percent, but there is none 60 to 100 percent. From my research, in the State of Hawai`i, ok,between 60 to 100 percent is the most needed. It's the big gap that people are not doing. Either they do very low income or they want to go 140 percent which is actually higher than the most affordability, ok? But it's still so called still affordable. That's why people do that so they can satisfy the 20 percent,right?And there's a big gap for the 60 to 100 percent. These are the people who needed the housing most. They are the one who cannot afford market rate, but did not qualify for the low income. These are people that maybe your friends are—students, city workers, fireman, policeman, working families. This is a big gap, ok? Now, I own five or six properties in Hilo alone the last few years. I have two properties owned what in 30 years, are condos, supposed to be nice. One in Bayshore and one in right here, ok. I have no problem renting one bedroom. Of course, inexpensive, $1,100. I have no vacancy whatsoever because a lot of people asking for this kind of housing. You know $1,000 plus or minus. And they're students. Half of those are students. Half maybe more than, less half are nurses to come here for six months, ok? They told me that it is not easy to find this 6 kind of housing, ok. They cannot afford $2-3,000 and they not qualify for low income, all right? So, I believe what I'm doing here is, haven't been done in Hilo at all. Even in the Kona side, very limited. Even in Oahu, very limited, ok. So again, you know, I follow every rule, everything according to the book, and the so-called workforce housing is needed in Hilo, this is one opportunity here. Now, I went to see, I went to meet with the Honolulu office of the Hawai`i Finance and Development Corporation . They are the one who hand out the low income tax credits. I met with Darren Ueki. He's the finance manager. He spent more than half an hour with me. First I asked him why he's even want to talk to me. Now, he said two things. You may or may not know, ok. First he said, oh good, this one's in Hilo, and someone is willing to offer a piece of property. He said there is lack of properties to really do a substantial project in Hilo, number one. Number two, he said financially, it's very difficult to do it in Hilo because the cost of construction is so high. He said you have to watch your construction, you make sure, you know, because otherwise you won't make it, you know. I think I can make it, ok? And he told me that if I can do it, I might have a good chance in winning one of the competitions for the low income housing credits are nine percent is highly competitive. If I apply before January of next year, I might have a good shot just because of nothing happening here,but of course he cannot say that. He kind of encouraging me, ok? But then, he also stressed that 60 to 100 percent is a real big gap. Very few people are doing that. So, I think in sincerity, I believe I met with almost all the reasonable requests that my neighbors have raised, those that are even beyond what the code requires. There are issues that I cannot deal with. There are questions that I cannot answer, but I do know from reading newspapers, and going on line, that that affordable housing between 60 to a hundred percent AMI is badly needed in the whole State, and particularly in Hilo. Thank you. Any questions? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Tai. Questions Commissioners? Thank you. Ok, we have public testimony. Mrs. Nishida--Ms. Charlene Nishida, Alan Rudo, David Martins, Roy Toma, Leatrice Kishii. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? TESTIFIERS: I do. ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you so much. Ok, start with Charlene,please. NISHIDA: My name is Charlene Nishida, and I reside at 16 Hale Nani Drive in Hilo. You know, I need to start off by saying Mr. Tai has on several occasions in written and in testimony has absolutely made false statements that I've said, and I need to be very clear that these are inaccurate and the two things that he quoted today, I have never said. And I need to be very clear about that. That Mr. Tai has this ability to take things that people say and twist them into things they have not said. I did not say anything that stating that Hilo was not, in our neighborhood, was not in an urban area. I did not state that I was opposed to workforce housing developments that would have, and that they would have a negative effect on our property values. I have never said, and I need to be clear that letters he sent out that he's quoting me as saying things. I have not said and I need to be on record as saying that to you. So, in moving forward, I wanted to, there's a couple things that I want to point out, and I think that first and foremost, as neighbors, we are not opposed to an affordable housing development 7 at all. That has never been the majority of the neighbors that I've been speaking to,they've never been in opposition to that. What the opposition is, is to the changing of the zone that would increase the density in our backyards, in our neighborhood. If Mr. Tai would pursue an affordable housing development at its current density, I don't think that anyone would object. So we need to be very clear that this is not about an affordable housing development. This is about increasing the density and the issues that come up as a result of that. Mr. Tai cites in his different letters,he's making references that the studies that he's showing and the research that he's stating that show no impact on property values when a development is well designed and managed similar to neighboring houses. Well,this change of zoning, he's not comparing apples to apples. If it was, these studies are all of affordable housing developments where they're residential and the neighborhood is residential, what he's proposing is an affordable housing development that's apartment buildings. So you can't use that research and apply it to this situation. He needs to be taking research that shows how property values are affected when you are in a residential single family situation and then you become surrounded by apartment buildings. That's the research that he needs to be providing and that he hasn't. I will say that as an appraiser, when I am appraising a property, I am required to report if the property that I am appraising as a residential appraiser, if there's a parking lot adjacent to it, whether it's an apartment building or a commercial complex, it's something that has to be disclosed, and you have to use comparable residential properties that have that similar attribute. If you can't find them, then you have to disclose that information and you have to make negative adjustments in your determination of market value for that property, so I don't see how Mr. Tai can say that these are not going to, that having an apartment building that is visible, is going to be something that is not going to negatively affect our property values. I think if you talk to any residential appraiser, they will tell you we are required to disclose that and we are required to write comparables that have that similar attribute. And it's not common. It's not something that's common. If any of you have recently had your houses appraised, I think you would find that the comparables that are used in your homes, and you don't have parking lots of comparables that were used in your reports. One of the things that I provided to you was this picture that actually shows,the top two photos are from our backyard staring into Mr. Tai's development. The middle photo is from the front of our yard, and then the two bottom photos are just samples of houses in the area. (See Exhibit 1 to this transcript.) What we have requested from Mr. Tai in the community meeting that was held here and was—this whole room was full—every seat was taken, it was a very well-attended community meeting. What I'm, one of the things that I've asked for is a buffer yard setback, not because its required,but because it's a way to minimize the visual effect of having a two-story apartment style development,that we would be looking at. If it would be the way to minimize that effect on our property values. The current landscaping that he is saying is adequate is overgrown weeds. It's invasive trees. It's things that aren't currently being maintained. So, he's saying there's no need for a buffer yard setback because of what's in place right now is sufficient. Well, any planned development, that's something that you can't maintain this. This is not something that is adequate. I think that it's within reason to ask that the land, that there be a buffer yard setback that will minimize what we're actually visually looking at. What we, I think as neighbors, I think our bottom line is we oppose the development at an increased density. We would encourage the development at its current density. We are not in support of a rezoning to increase the density. There's just too many unknowns. Whenever there's been specific 8 questions asked of Mr. Tai, he,his common response is that well this is a conceptual design. It's a proposed design. It's subject to change later on. Well, we don't have the opportunity later on as neighbors to give any input. Right now is our time to be able to have these things done as conditional requirements, and that's what we're asking. We're either asking, as a Nishida family, we're asking that this increase in density be denied,but if it's not for whatever reasons, then we are asking that these conditional requirements be attached to the development so that it ensures that we're protected for the future and it's not something that's just a proposed or conceptual idea. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mrs. Nishida. Any questions for the testifier. Commissioners? Ok. Mr. Rudo? You can go, can go next. RUDO: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Good morning-- RUDO: Thank you, Commissioners. ISHIBASHI: State your name and address for the record please. RUDO: My name is Alan Rudo. I'm with the Office of Housing at 50 Wailuku. I'm a housing and community development specialist. Um, my personal residence is 15-1812 30th Avenue, Kea'au, Hawai`i. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. RUDO: Sure. Um, every three to five years the County of Hawai`i has performed what's called a housing policy study,the last one was a Hawai`i Housing Planning Study done 2011 by SMS Research and it was um done in conjunction with the other counties in the State of Hawai`i defined what the stock was, what kind of need there is, what kind of gap there is, island by island. Urn,this study looked at the total units needed from 2012 to 2016 both for the State and for the County. For rental units within our island,there is a gap of 1,753 units. Urn, in the number,the percentages of area median income of 30 to 60 um percent of median income,there is about 406 units that are um in the gap right now. Urn,we've been completing several projects on the County level, and most of them have been in Kona. We are finding that with the help of HHFDC--that's Hawai`i Housing Finance Development Corporation, a non-profit--we are able to get some of the units in the 30 to 50 percent, um but Mr. Tai's testimony to be doing in the 60 to the 100 is probably the most difficult area of urn satisfying because of the lack of urn financing available from public entities. Um, yeah, right now, that we're looking below urn 30 percent of median income, we would need somewhere around 770 units. This study done by SMS was done in 2011 and was anticipating regular number of units being built. I actually believe that because of the slowdown that this gap is actually higher. Urn, the total units in Hawaii County that are needed including ownership are 3,514. So, we can see that there is a dire need and urn he has been working with our office on this project, um because when he—if he is granted this change of zone, he'll have a requirement to do at least 20 percent affordable housing. Urn, he's come to our office and recommended that he do a 100 percent affordable 9 housing, and we would require him to do an agreement, urn to that level, urn to be able go after urn some of the financing and things that he's asked for as well. So we're anticipating that as well. Urn, that's actually all I have unless you have any questions. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Rudo. RUDO: Sure. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: We can, have any questions Commissioners? For that testifier? Ok, thank you, moving on if we can have Mr. Martins next. MARTINS: I'm David- ISHIBASHI: State your name and address please? Thank you. MARTINS: David Martins. My address is 815 Kukuau Street. I have a home that I lived in at Hale Nani place since 1974. I stayed there roughly about ten years and I've kept the house and used it as a rental and throughout the time, one of the main problems that I saw over there was the problems with water coming in during a heavy rain. There is sufficient drywells in the area, but when we had a heavy rain, the water would be coming out of the drywells. We would have so much rain, it couldn't handle, and the water coming out of the drywells would flood the street, Hale Nani Street. So now if you're gonna be taking away more land in the back or building more units, this may still cause more of a problem as far as the flooding in the area. Now, with, I don't oppose a 2.5. I, I feel that going down to the 1.5 would be even worse for the area. There was another property that was approved to the 1.5, and yet,nothing has been done on that property. It's still sitting there. So, if this is approved down to 1.5, when will the development begin? Will it just stay at 1.5 and maybe wait several more years before anything is done or maybe it be sold? One of my things is if this is approved to 1.5,there should be something stated that they should start building within a certain time zone, not keep it for the future and make a profit. Traffic in the area will increase dramatically. People coming out from Hale Nani Street will encounter cars coming out from the proposed development. You're talking 88 units, if it was approved, you're talking roughly 166 cars or somewhere in that area. And a—that's not right—putting the people in that subdivision that has been approved down to cramping of the area, and putting more people into the area that was a, was approved in the past. Now,the crime element,what's going to happen to that with 88 units in the area? Will the police be able to come in, in proper time? Is what kind of people are going to be staying there. We cannot say. But,when you start putting a lot of people in, and you don't have a control over that, that's a high possibility that you have the wrong type of element in the area. And basically,that's my opposition to the 1.5. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you Mr. Martins. Any questions of this testifier? Commissioners? Ok, moving on, Mr. Toma? TOMA (from audience): Before I testify, I'd like to give, sorry I didn't make the copies,but I'd like to show you what I personally did in my report. (Please see Exhibit 2 attached to this transcript.) 10 ISHIBASHI: Thank you. If you can state your name and address for the record please. TOMA: My name is Roy Toma, and I live on 44 Hale Nani Street in the back of the development. On January 31st, on Friday, I was on the corner of Hualalai and Kapiolani Street mauka, taking traffic count. During the hours of 7 to 7:15. Now when I say traffic count, I'm talking cross, crossroads. From 7 to 7:15 , there was 105 cars; 7:15 to 7:30, there was 152 cars; then on 7:30 to 7:45, the busiest time, was 170 cars involved in that area; and finally at 7:45 to 8 o clock, it was 153 cars. Total of 580 cars in that area alone for one hour, plus one bicycle was going Puna side. So right now, we accept the 2.5. The bad part about it is there's no exit road on this new development. It's in and out of Hualalai. With this density, the traffic is going to be tremendous. We will not be able to get in and out of Hale Nani Street. So as I say, if you folks need to deny this new change, and leave it at 2.5. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Toma. Any questions for the testifier? Ok, thank you, Mr. Toma. KISHII: Oh, my name is Leatrice Kishii. I live on 30 Hale Nani Street. And I, excuse me, my main concern was the traffic and it has been discussed so I don't have anything more to add except that the, like he said, there's no, there's only one outlet, in, for that 88 ah, what you, 88 ah units. So, I would think that, that a, like I said, like he mentioned the traffic going be the main problem. It's actually up, you know there's an S turn over there. There's a blind corner two ways. Now when I'm going leaving for to go out, I have to slow down before I reach the corner because people are coming in, instead of staying on their side of the line, they're right in the middle. So if I was, kept on going, I would be, have an accident. Now, there haven't, I have lived there for 44 years. Now,they haven't been—a—any major accidents except for one driver that plowed into the neighbor's fence, but aside from that, there hasn't been any accident,but if we have those 88 units plus, 88 or so many cars, I would think there would be accident, and that would be his fault. That's all I can say. ISIIBASHI: Thank you, Mrs. Kishii. Any questions for the testifier, Commissioners? Anybody else from the audience would like to testify over this issue? Ok,this is--our main concern was trying to address the issue that the community had,that's why we had, you know had extended this vote, trying to get the feedback and mana`o from all of you, and give Mr. Tai the opportunity to try and fix, or at least address your concern. So,that's what we wanted to do. Ok, seeing no questions, you may be, you may be seated. Thank you so much. Mr. Tai? I had one question in regards to the parking. TAI: Oh yes. ISHIBASHI: You know from your first phase, the first plan you had to the second, what, the parking changed? TAI: No, it would comply with the parking requirement, it's 1.25 per unit—one thing that I should clarify, this, because this is going to be, the entire project is going to be affordable housing,between 60 to 100 percent, these are smaller units. They're mainly one bedrooms and 11 studio units. Compare with the project that I proposed under the RM-2.5, they all mainly 2- bedroom units and 2 stories. Ok, so, when you compare the two projects, actually the one under RM-1.5 is smaller in terms of buildable bedrooms, in terms of the total area,just because of the nature of the project. Because for affordable housing, you cannot afford to build large units, you know,because of cost of construction, you know, the studios are in the three hundred eighties square foot range; the one bedrooms are between maybe 580 to 600, that's the going, you know, and there's only maybe a few two bedrooms, so actually this is something that I am trying to convey to the neighbors even though the zoning has changed, actually the project is smaller. And also because I have to be really have to conserve the cost, that's one reason I asked for change in a, density,because you do need that density to make the project work, number one. Ok? And number two,because these are smaller units, I can pack them closer together so they stay away from the neighbors farther than the previous one. The previous one, all the houses are right almost right against the property. You know, because they're town homes. And, the latest change, and I'm hundred percent sure, the closest is 20 feet, which is actually at an upward angle, ok, touching the corner. Everywhere else, are 30 to 50 feet setback. The previous change didn't have that, so actually if you don't look at the zoning either with 1.5 or 2.5,just looking at the project itself, the lastest project proposal is substantially smaller and less impact than the previous RM-2.5. I know, you know, the neighbors concern with the density,but in my profession, in development profession, it's a number of units, the number and a square footage, you know, it's really not the zoning itself, because I made a commitment to do affordable housing, 100 percent of them, that really restricted me to do smaller footprints. So I wish the Planning Commissioners can see that point. It's really not the zoning change. It's really the project itself has changed, and I believe it's only a 5-year window for me to, a proceed with the project. If not, this is out. You know, so my time frame is kind of tight here. But again I stress that you have to look at the project itself and not the zoning. The zoning only allow me to have more units,but they're smaller units, so the impact actually is small. And also people with one bedroom unit,not necessarily have two cars. In fact 80 percent of the renters from my building up here,they don't have cars. Most of them are students. They use a bike. In fact they like the idea when I was talking to UH, the vice president on housing, that he really liked the idea of Kapiolani Street eventually come, come through, because then will allow student to actually ride the bike straight through. You know,without going even out, down to Kino`ole and then up the hill. You know, so again, you know, it's not true that the assumptions everyone that would even have two cars. That's the magic of doing downtown development or, or in city center development. It's people who don't need cars, they don't want a car. If they could walk, if they could bike, they rather do that. If this is out in Puna, you know, another ten miles away, they have to drive, you know. And this is a perfect so called in field urban site. Any urban planner look at it will tell you that. This is the perfect location for that. Close to school, close to downtown, close to a lot of struct—but again I urge the Planning Commission to look at that. Look at, it's the project itself, and not the zoning. The zoning is only one element and because my statement it's in writing, I'm doing the entire project 100 percent affordable. That means I'm restricted to do certain things. All the bed-all the bathroom will be ADA compliance, a, you know, this is unusual if it's for market rehousing, you don't have to do that. Urn,but this is something that I urge again the Commission to look at. It's the project itself ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tai. Any questions Commissioners? Ok, seeing none. So, a motion is in order. 12 MIYASATO: Mr. Chair, could we have public works? ISHIBASHI: Ok. We could have a representative from the public works come up please. Question Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Yeah, you know we had some concerns from Mr. Martins on the flooding, and we had some comments from Mr. Tai where he stated that he has a run-off coming from an adjacent property and if it comes through his property then I guess he kind of said in so many words that it's like his,it's not his, a--, to deal with or whatever how he stated it. You have some, a, if it comes from another property, is it his still, it's still his obligation to contain it and I guess so, Mr. Martins concern is that, is the flooding in this area a concern, a big concern. GOMES: Well, the flooding in the area- ISHIBASHI: Excuse me brother, could you state your name and address for the record. GOMES: My name is Kelly Gomes. My address is 1703B Ainaola Drive, Hilo, Hawai`i. The properties adjacent to Mr. Tai's property, there is a designated drainage easement and the water should flow in that designated drainage easement, and that easement is a private easement, and shall be maintained by those private entities that own the drainage ditch. MIYASATO: Ok is, so if it does overflow, which was stated that it does overflow, it should be contained within the development? GOMES: Well, it should, it should pass. It should, it should flow downstream and then shouldn't go into Mr. Tai's development. It should be contained in the drainage ditch. MIYASATO: Ok, thank you. ISHIBASHI: I get one question. What would this project add to the flooding to the adjoining properties? The neighbors? GOMES: Mr. Tai is required to mitigate his developmental runoff so whatever more he creates through impervious errors,he is required by code to mitigate that and that should be done by drywells. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any further questions? Commissioners? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I have a question-- ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: I have a question for staff. Sorry to bring staff back up if I could. ISHIBASHI: Ok, Maija. 13 GONZALES: Thank you. Looking at the recommendation, that I wonder if you have it on your display up there, you make mention to the Lanikila homes public housing project. Can you show us where that is- COTTLE: Sure. GONZALES: --in relation? COTTLE: Oh boy-- GONZALES: Maybe-- COTTLE: I believe it's off the slide. Let's see, in this area here. GONZALES: Ok, and that's zoned RD-3.75. What does that mean? COTTLE: RD? That's double residential and it's basically, it allows for, it's townhomes, apartments, it can be a mix,but they're usually attached units,not single family units. So, it's kind of an in between-between single family residential which you have at a single home and then the multi-family which is like apartments, townhomes. RD can be like also duplexes, triplexes. GONZALES: Ok, I think I understand, and you also make mention that there are some add— some other properties to the north that are,have recently been rezoned to RM-1.5. COTTLE: That's correct. GONZALES: Would you be able to point those out? COTTLE: Sure. That would be this property here. GONZALES: So, that's already been zoned the same zoning that Mr. Tai is asking for now? COTTLE: Correct. That was rezoned I believe in 2009 or 2010- GONZALES: As far as you know- COTTLE: --and at that time, the developer was proposing a 100 units, I believe it was a 4-story townhome development. GONZALES: Is that still in the planning? COTTLE: There's been no movement on it. And with that rezoning, as well as any rezoning the Council approves, there's always a condition that says you have to develop within five years or 14 they can come back for an administrative time extension. After they exhaust that,they have to come back to the Commission and the County Council for another time extension so- GONZALES: Ok, you said that was 2009? COTTLE: 2009. GONZALES: So they're just about up. COTTLE: Yeah. GONZALES: Ok, thank you. COTTLE: You're welcome. ISHIBASHI: Ok, a motion is in order. Commissioners? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we a send a- ISHIBASHI: Mr. Gonzales. GONZALES: —favorable recommendation to the County Council for Change of Zone Application 13-167. HENKEL: Second. ISHIBASHI: Seconded by Commissioner Henkel. Ok, we are open for discussion. Comments? GONZALES: This is a—you know, we got--obviously we have concerned community members here and this is kind of a toughy the way, it kind of looks like you're surrounded, you know,the change is coming. Um, if this, if the vote passes and this goes to the County Council, I would urge you to please take it up there also. Mr. Tai, I would, I would strongly urge you to, if this goes through,to please be a good neighbor and keep continuing to address these concerns. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Yeah, I also think the concerns of the neighbors are valid but I think there is a severe need for--this type of housing, and I—and I truly believe that a--Mr. Tai is doing everything that he can to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. ISHIBASHI: I understand. Thank you, Commission Henkel. Any further questions, comments Commissioners'? AUDIENCE: (Nishida): Can you address the conditional requirements that Mr. Tai stated that he would agree to? If he was allowed to be, allowed the change of zone application. 15 COTTLE: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask the Commission, I just want to draw your attention to the goldenrod recommendation, and I want to ask whether the Commission wants to forward those conditions or whether they want to add any conditions to address the community concerns. GONZALES: I think that my motion would be a--to a--approve with the conditions as stated. COTTLE: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Ok, we clear on that? Henkel? GONZALES: That's good. HENKEL: That's good. Second. ISHIBASHI: Ok, still open for discussion? Ok,Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the change of zone request to RM-1.5 as stated in the Planning Director's recommendation. Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair. ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Ok, the motion passes six, zero. 16 ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you Commissioners. You will be notified in writing Mr. Tai. You'll be notified in writing. This discussion ended at 11:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 17 3 t1 *OW 1,.., , 4,, , .' . ,401011,,.. , ...,.. C.1.-711" 4111111110.141141111t, 4 'm • d at 4 mtg by�J�'f . "a * x '... E' i t Pa w t .- Y ■ • .4t,004„ e,,,,., 1 .'' s. . . . EXHIBIT I C \canC q \rlICtsCA Friday, January 31, 2014 07:00-08:00 Am. Mauka of Kapiolani St.on Hualalai St. before Hale Nani St. 7-7:15 Am Puna side on Kapiolani St.making left turn(mauka)to Hualalai St 1 Puna side on Kapiolani St. making right turn(makai)to Hualalai St 11 Puna side on Kapiolani St.going straight(hamakua direction) 31 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St making right turn(mauka)to Hualalai St 0 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St.going straight(puna direction) 20 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St. making left turn(makai)to Hualalai St 15 Makai side on Hualalai St.making left turn(puna)on Kapiolani St 4 Makai side on Hualalai St. making right turn(hamakua)on Kapiolani St .8 Makai side on Hualalai St.going straight(mauka)on Hualalai St 4 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making right turn(puna)to Kapiolani St 1 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making left turn (hamakua)to Kapiolani St 1 Mauka side on Hualalai St.going straight(makai)on Hualalai St 9 total 105 R,[ f t'Y►?ti. ne C p C. tLL'(( c t.t C3L c1P it Joh Friday, January 31,2014 07:00-08:00 Am. Mauka of Kapiolani St.on Hualalai St.before Hale Nani St. 7:15-7:30 Am Puna side on Kapiolani St. making left turn(mauka)to Hualalai St 0 Puna side on Kapiolani St. making right turn(makai)to Hualalai St 28 Puna side on Kapiolani St.going straight(hamakua direction) 47 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St making right turn(mauka)to Hualalai St 2 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St.going straight(puna direction) 26 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St. making left turn(makai)to Hualalai St 17 Makai side on Hualalai St.making left turn(puna)on Kapiolani St 6 Makai side on Hualalai St.making right turn(hamakua)on Kapiolani St 11 Makai side on Hualalai St.going straight(mauka)on Hualalai St 3 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making right turn(puna)to Kapiolani St 0 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making left turn(hamakua)to Kapiolani St 0 Mauka side on Hualalai St.going straight(makai)on Hualalai St 12 total...........152 Friday, January 31, 2014 07:00-08:00 Am. Mauka of Kapiolani St. on Hualalai St, before Hale Nani St. 7:30-7:45 Am Puna side on Kapiolani St. making left turn(mauka)to Hualalai St 2 Puna side on Kapiolani St. making right turn(makai)to Hualalai St 19 Puna side on Kapiolani St.going straight(hamakua direction) 36 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St making right turn (mauka)to Hualalai St 0 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St.going straight(puna direction) 27 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St. making left turn(makai)to Hualalai St 38 Makai side on Hualalai St. making left turn(puna)on Kapiolani St 8 Makai side on Hualalai St. making right turn(hamakua)on Kapiolani St 21 Makai side on Hualalai St.going straight(mauka)on Hualalai St 3 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making right turn(puna)to Kapiolani St 3 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making left turn(hamakua)to Kapiolani St 2 Mauka side on Hualalai St.going straight(makai)on Hualalai St 11 total 170 Friday, January 31, 2014 07:00-08:00 Am. Mauka of Kapiolani St.on Hualalai St. before Hale Nani St. 7:45-8:00 AM Puna side on Kapiolani St. making left turn(mauka)to Hualalai St 1 Puna side on Kapiolani St. making right turn(makai)to Hualalai St 14 Puna side on Kapiolani St.going straight(hamakua direction) 33 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St making right turn(mauka)to Hualalai St 1 Hamakua side on Kapiolani St.going straight(puna direction) 39+1 Bike Hamakua side on Kapiolani St. making left turn(makai)to Hualalai St 26 Makai side on Hualalai St.making left turn(puna)on Kapiolani St 13 Makai side on Hualalai St. making right turn(hamakua)on Kapiolani St 10 Makai side on Hualalai St.going straight(mauka)on Hualalai St 3 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making right turn(puna)to Kapiolani St 0 Mauka side on Hualalai St. making left turn(hamakua)to Kapiolani St 9 Mauka side on Hualalai St.going straight(makai)on Hualalai St 4 total 153+ 1 Bike Total 580 cars+ 1 Bike WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 3, 2013 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of VINCENT T.C. TAI (REZ 13-167) was called to order at 10:00 a.m. in the County of Hawai`i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairman Wallace Ishibashi presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wallace Ishibashi, Ronald Gonzales, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono And 12 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: VINCENT T.C. TAI (REZ 13-167) Application for a Change of Zone from a Multiple-Family Residential-2,500 square feet(RM- 2.5)to a Multiple-Family Residential-1,500 square feet(RM-1.5) zoning district for approximately 3.292 acres of land. The subject property is located at the end of Hualalai Street, just west of the Hualalai Street/Hale Nani Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-4-028:009. ISHIBASHI: We're on Agenda Item No. 5, Vincent Tai, Change of Zone(REZ 13-167). Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next application is a change of zone request. And the subject property is located in the South Hilo district,just above the police station in Hilo. So if you look at the map, the subject property is located in the middle of the map. It's an irregular shaped lot and it's kind of a dark red color. The police station is located in this area right here where the red dot is. Kapiolani Street is running in a north-south direction in the middle of the slide. Then you have Hualalai Street heading down towards the bay. And then coming off of Hualalai you have Hale Nani Street. This is the public housing area here. As I mentioned the police station is located here, and then in the yellow color are Single-Family Residential lots known as the Hualalai Subdivision. The subject property is currently zoned Multi-Family Residential-2.5. The applicant actually changed the zoning about three years ago. It was zoned Single-Family Residential-7.5 like the 1 EXHIBIT A Attachment to: Comm. 718 Bill 214 surrounding area, but it was successfully rezoned back in 2009. You can see the property to the north is zoned Multi-Family Residential-1.5, so that is consistent with the zoning that the applicant is currently requesting. This is the General Plan designation for the property. The areas in orange are Medium Density Urban. The areas in red are High Density Urban. In the Medium Density Urban Multi-Family Residential zoning is allowed, and, as well as some commercial uses. The applicant is requesting a change of zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 in order to develop an affordable housing project known as Hualalai Court. He's planning on developing 88 affordable housing units. This is his current development proposal. This is conceptual so it can change. But you have Hualalai Street on the right side of the slide, and then Hale Nani comes down off of that heading south. So he is proposing to extend Hualalai Street and then drop it down into a driveway. And you can see the units here, the Multi-Family Residential, units here in this location here. He's also proposing some playground areas along here and on the northeast side of the property. This is an aerial view of the property and surrounding neighborhood. These are the Single- Family Residential homes making up the Hualalai Subdivision. The property is outlined in red. You can see there is an existing dwelling and pool on the property that the applicant is planning on demolishing. And then this is a view from the end of Hualalai Street looking towards the property. So this curve here curves around to Halenani Street. And the subject property is in this location here. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation for the change of zone request. And before I take questions, I just want to call your attention to a few correspondence we've received. You should have two letters from Charlene Nishida. One is dated February 4, 2010. These were comments that she submitted when the applicant first rezoned his property three years ago. And then you should also have a letter dated October 1, 2013 from Charlene Nishida. And we've also received a letter from Roy Toma, Roy and Ann Toma, and that letter includes the applicant's response to the Tomas at the bottom of the page. Then you should also have an email from David Martins dated October 1s`. And that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Maija. Any questions of staff, Commissioners? Could we have the applicant come forward,please. Good morning, Mr. Tai. TAI: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: If you could raise your right hand, please. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? TAI: Yes, I do. 2 EXHIBIT A ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Could you state your name for the record. TAI: Vincent Tai, T-a-i, last name. ISHIBASHI: And address? TAI: Oh, I'm sorry, 2184 Round Top Drive, Honolulu, 96822. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Have you reviewed the conditions? TAI: Yes, I did. ISHIBASHI: Any concerns or questions? TAI: Not at this time in terms of the Planning Commission's approval. ISHIBASHI: Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners? Anything you'd like to say? TAI: Well, I'm aiming for, let's see, 80 percent median affordable housing, not 100 percent, not 140 percent. The numbers are very, very tight. That's one reason that I need to increase the density, because the infrastructure cost is constant. I need to spread it out with more units. I've been in this business for 40 years, many in urban development. So the density here being RM- 1.5 is median by the stretches. I mean it's not high density at all. And the site being like 3.3 acres it could be planned so that some of the neighbors concerns could probably be mitigated. Now keep in mind this is really a very conceptual plan at this point because this is a zoning change. Once I receive approval by the Council then I will work diligently to try to come up with a plan that tries to mitigate as much as possible. There's no 100 percent solution, no 100 percent perfect solution here. But as you know, it's not easy to develop in Hilo, given the cost of construction here being probably as high as Honolulu or even higher. But the value,the rental value, sales value,is probably 50 percent or even less. So I do need the cooperation from all sides. Financing is an issue. If my numbers are correct, if I really can control the construction cost part-. The rental income I cannot control because it's published,I have to follow the County's guideline. I haven't seen any publication since 2012. This is the last published numbers. So I'm going to stop by the office and see if I can talk to Jeremy and see what the 2013 and proposed 2014 is like. Because these numbers are very important. The cost of construction is not going down, you know. But I, I think it will work by having a little bit more density but still low by most standards. Okay? It has the possibility of working. Now there are reasons why there hasn't been any development in Hilo for the last, I don't know how many years. There are reasons, right? And, and just change of zoning is really probably evolution in an urban city, urban development, you know. It's, I see it as a positive. Of course, some of the neighbors see it as a negative, which I have some response to those concerns. I just 3 EXHIBIT A received this letter this morning, so I just read it. Okay? And this is something that I'm not quite familiar with. But I think these should be dealt with when I get to the stage to submit development plans and not during the change of zoning application. For instance the suggestion that I should comply with the Rule 17.6 which is like between Industrial and Residential use, okay? But this is all residential here. It's not change of any use, in the sense. It's only the density here. And in my preliminary plan, conceptual plan, I adhered to all the regulations and codes the best I can. It doesn't mean that they cannot be more generous. It's just that I need to work on it once I know that the, my application for the rezoning is successful. Now in terms of property value, in fact I just read it too, five minutes ago. Charlene was saying that,because, was saying that they are probably,may be affected because it may not be in uniformity. Okay? Now when I looked at this, and this is really off the top now because I just read it a few minutes ago, I would agree, depends on what kind of uniformity or lack of uniformity. Right? If it's changed from Residential to Industrial, I would say, you know, there's not a consistent conformity, therefore their property value will be affected. But here it's all residential. So the question is just the density. Now, again, this is just in general, I'm not talking about specifically this particular location. In Urban areas, land, let's say single family homes, and it'll probably apply here in Hilo as well but I'm talking about in general. In general value, okay, the property value of single family homes, the majority of the value is on land, it's not on improvement. I'm pretty sure the same here. Okay? Now that is to say if the density can be increased, the land value will be increased. So from my experience in the Urban development in the Urban environment, when you have mixed density those with lighter density that is contiguous to areas of high density, they foresee or predict in the future they can increase the density, therefore increase the value of the property. Actually,property value could be increased, not decreased. But I'm not here to argue one way or the other. I'm just trying to point out,because her letter pointed out there's a lack of conformity, therefore their property value will be reduced. But I don't understand, I mean,that's not the way, from my experience,understanding in an urban development. Okay? But there are probably other things that I'm not able to address at this moment. But I'm certain all of the neighbors will have plenty opportunities to voice their opinions when I'm able to come up with a more definitive, final development plan. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners? KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Vincent, you represent that there will be other opportunities for people who have concerns about your project when you get into your further design stage. Is that, is that your understanding? TAI: Yes, correct. That's always the case, yeah. KANUHA: How is that going to happen? Because from here on, once the zoning goes through the plan approval process is a ministerial process. There's no public hearing, there's no notice, etc. So how do you propose that these folks who have concerns about the development will have 4 EXHIBIT A any input on what you're going to do? TAI: Well, first I didn't understand that in order to get the final development plan before I go for the building permit, there won't be any public hearing. I didn't know that. Okay? Be that as it may, as an architect we work with the neighbors, we work with communities through a design process. Like I said, there's no 100 percent perfect solution to satisfy everybody. That's, that's the way the world is. I have, like 35 years, 35 years experience as architect/developer working in the Bay area. And I can tell you the Bay area is far more intensive in terms of community development. So I'm used to that. And I can be very patient. Like I said, you know, I have to be reasonable, I have to come up with a plan that I can look at it and I can say it's a reasonable solution, irrespective of what the neighbor says. Okay? And then I can, from that standpoint, I get the opinion. Now some people may have unreasonable demands. Now those I cannot adhere to. But there will be a process. Okay? Now exactly how I go about it, I'm not sure yet. But like I said I need to come up with a plan that I can look at it and I can say to myself it is a reasonable and doable plan. And then from that point on I will meet with the neighbors, I will meet with the community members, staff, your staff, or anyone who is interested in this particular project. Unless you have proposed suggestions,but that probably would be my tick-. KANUHA: All I'm suggesting is you need to think this through,how you're going to present it because these questions won't go away. This Commission will give a recommendation to the Council. And if these concerns go up to the Council folks, they're going to be asking you the same questions. That's all I'm suggesting. TAI: I appreciate it,yeah. Yes. But I think,you know, like I said, this change in the zoning is rather mild, in my opinion, okay, given the urban setting here. It's not like asking for something that is extraordinary. And if I remember correctly there hasn't been a lot of development here, although no development lately, you know, in many years. So this kind of process, it'd be kind of new even,you know, for the neighbors. Because there's really no other opportunities that they can, or no other examples, you know, they can refer to. Okay,thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Tai. Any further questions, Commissioners? HENKEL: Chair? ISHIBASHI: Yes,Mr. Henkel. HENKEL: Mr. Tai, do you know currently what the parameters are that define affordable housing? TAI: I believe I do. I have those documents from, I've been getting from Jeremy McComber; and I have a list of the things that, the rental rates, selling rate, I'm talking about 80 percent because I'm focusing there for now. Okay? And also the plan is going to be for affordable use. 5 EXHIBIT A There's,under certain kind of financing, they have to conform the ADA. This project most likely will be a one- to two-story building. It will not be a three-story building. I have to defer answering,you know, exactly what the plans are going to be like because I will be working on it as soon as I can get the rezoning approved. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. So for now all your questions have been answered? GONZALES: 1 have a question. Mr. Tai, looking at all your conditions here, under Condition F, it says that the development shall be completed within five years. Is that realistic? TAI: I don't know. I don't know. Once I get the, I really don't know. I wish, you know, no sense of holding on to the property and not doing anything. Since I'm working on my own plan, I'm not relying on someone else's schedule-. So once I know that the rezoning is successful I will work on the development plan immediately. And I will be meeting with either the departments or companies or individuals who, I think,have experience with working on affordable housing. Then I'll know how the financing would come about. But to answer your question, I would like to push it as fast as I can, and not just to sit around there and waiting. GONZALES: Okay, thank you. And have you look over all these conditions? Are you okay with all those? TAI: Yes, except for one that I just brought up with Daryn. But this is not for the Planning Commission to decide. And I need to bring this up with the Council after they approve the rezoning. It's the fair share costs. Okay? Now I understand the reason for fair share costs. It's not that I don't. But the fact is it's so difficult to develop in Hilo, as you can see, you know. This fair share is adding additional burden for affordable housing. Because affordable housing you get very little rent,you know,the value of the property is only worth so much, it's determined by someone else. And this fair share really may affect the viability of affordable, developing affordable housing in Hilo. So that's something that I wish to bring up,not at this stage but later on. GONZALES: Okay. And one more thing, you do understand like the Director said that we're going to give you a recommendation, and this is going to go to the County Council and you're going to get all these questions again? It's going to be probably scrutinized a lot more? You realize that? TAI: I understand it perfectly. I've gone through this before. GONZALES: Okay, very good. Thank you. TAI: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: No other questions? You may be seated, Mr. Tai. Okay, we'd like to call up our testifiers, Charlene Nishida, Roy Toma, and Tim Wright. You can come up, please. Okay, we 6 EXHIBIT A have three minutes for you each. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? TESTIFIERS: I do. ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you so much. Charlene,you can go first, three minutes. NISHIDA: Thank you for letting me meet with you today. I'm Charlene Nishida at 16 Hale Nani in the Hualalai Subdivision. And we have, we're in opposition, the neighbors are in opposition of the change of zoning. However, we also recognize that our attempts have failed miserably to stop it, so we're trying to take a new approach here. And what we're proposing is that we have, three things be amended and adopted so that it can mitigate the impact that the higher density is going to have on our properties. And specifically we'd like to have a creation of a buffer yard and using the buffer yard standard defined in the Rule 17 as indicated on the letter. I think it gives a very clear picture of what we hope to have, which is to provide as much privacy to our properties as possible. If you look on the subdivision proposed map that he, or the development proposed map that he shows, the development literally comes right,you know, almost to the edge of our property line. The second thing is we'd like to increase the sideyard setback to 20 feet. And, again, that's to be able to have a greater buffer between the development and its impact on our privacy. The third thing is there's actually a rock wall that's on the boundary. And in nowhere has there been any, in the drafts or in the conceptual plans,has there ever been an acknowledgement of that? And that's something that we'd like to make sure gets maintained. So what we would like to ask of the Commission is that if you are going to approve allowing for the rezoning, that at a minimum,you please consider our needs and that you add these additional items as part of the mitigation. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Questions, Commissioners? HEAUKULANI: I had a couple of questions just on that testimony. Ma'am, in your request No. 1, is your concern about the buffer yard primarily during construction or just generally the impact that you anticipate from the new subdivision? NISHIDA: Not just during the construction but, you know, that's certainly part of it. But actually even once the development has been finalized that buffer yard will mitigate the higher density that our properties are going to be experiencing from its current -. What we, when we bought the properties we expected it to stay Residential-7.5. And now that we're going to have that higher density, whatever compromise that we can make that would allow for, to decrease the impact. So it would not be only just during the construction but then afterwards as well. HEAUKULANI: What impacts are you concerned about? 7 EXHIBIT A NISHIDA: Well, I'm a certified residential appraiser and, I'll tell you one thing, that I've actually worked for Bank of America. I'm not here on, you know, representing the bank at all. But we have to provide in our reports aerial views of developments. And when you have a Single Family residence next to any kind of, you know, high density development you have to disclose that and you have to discuss that in the report. And I, you can only imagine that if you have a single family residence and you're going to purchase a home, are you going to look at a property that right behind it has the higher density, higher development? It's something that it absolutely affects property values. There are privacy issues, there's noise issues, there's the, you know, the-. There's going to be a parking lot so there's going to be street lights, there's going to be an obscuring of the views. The quiet enjoyment that we currently have is going to be no more. So I just don't see how anyone could not acknowledge that. And at this point, that's all we're asking, is that, you know, we realize that there's this push to allow for that rezoning,but you need to meet us half way; and we feel that this is the point to be able to have the Commission support us. Because if it gets past this point and you don't add these provisions, then it's, you know, you're having to go off on someone's word who can't even give us any specifics on his conceptual plan. And we've given this testimony before, so if he was so committed to getting our involvement and having this be a model, which I think it really can be, it can be a model for development, why hasn't he, why hasn't he come to us? This isn't the first time that these opinions have been voiced. So we can't just go off on his word. We'd like to have the Planning Commission be able to add an amendment so that it makes sure that these things are addressed. HEAUKULANI: Thank you. I had one other question. On your No. 3 you talked about a rock wall that's on the boundary. Whose property is that rock wall on? NISHIDA: It's right on the boundary between both -. HEAUKULANI: On both, both parcels it sits on -? NISHIDA: Yeah, it's on both. And it's about three feet high right now. And it's not a cement- built rock wall,but it has been there a long time, and it's over multiple properties. So the concern is that in the development process that's going to be removed or altered without something being done in its place, or without an agreement of what to do with the rock wall. ISHIBASHI: Further questions for this testifier, Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Toma? TOMA: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Good morning. TOMA: Originally I had opposed the zoning from 7.5 to 2.5. So, it was approved, which is accepted. We accept that. However, he wants to change the zoning to 1.5 to include, as you look at the map, there's only one way in, one way out. There's no street parking allowed in his proposed plan. So where are the traffic congestion going to, where are the people going to park? Park on Hualalai Street, Hale Nani Street, Hale Nani Place. Now if this is approved, where are 8 EXHIBIT A they going to park? Park on Hale Nani Street, Hale Nani Place,Popolo Street. They're going to jump across our properties, trespassing our properties. Is that what the Council wants, your Planning Commission wants to encourage the development? There was no set proposal to us on what he's planning to do to alleviate this problem. There is on his proposal 110 parking stalls for 88 units. Each unit has one stall. Every four units have another stall. Where is that other 20, 22 cars going to be parking? There's no room here. So,we,there's no traffic light,there's no proposal for that. And we feel that the change should be disallowed; and if it's approved please have a retaining wall throughout the adjoining properties so we'll have privacy on our own. I don't want to call the police department every time somebody trespasses on my property going to their car. I don't know them. So that's, that's our proposal. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Toma. Questions, Commissioners? Mr. Wright. WRIGHT: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Good morning. WRIGHT: You guys are about to approve this 104 unit development on this area. I live on Popolo Street close to 30 years, and I've seen a lot of development. And over the 30 years, you know, you get to know your area. One thing I know is there's flooding. That bottom of Kapiolani Street and Kukuau and Kapiolani Street, it floods like crazy. I talked to the late Mayor Yamashiro who lived up the road from me, and I said, you know, Mayor why don't you do something about this flooding; and he said, you know, the County had look at it numerous times, there's nothing we can do. There's a stream, on Popolo Street there's actually a bridge. There's a steam that runs directly into this guy's property. What is the County going to do? Has it looked at the flooding that's going to occur if you approve this development? I mean you already approved 60 houses. He's asking you to double it to 104. My main concern is the flooding. Please look at the flooding. I'm here on record to just bring up this concern so I can sue the County one day when it floods my house. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Questions, Commissioners? Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners? Okay, none. A motion is in order. GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we go into executive session so we can consult with counsel. Is there anyone who would like to second that? ISHIBASHI: Is there a second to the motion calling for executive session? HENKEL: I second. ISHIBASHI: Okay it has been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 9 EXHIBIT A ISHIBASHI: Motion carried(unanimously). EXECUTIVE SESSION—The Commission went into executive session at 10:36 a.m. The Commission came out to executive session at 10:56 a.m. by a motion made by Commissioner Henkel, seconded by Commissioner Gonzales, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. ISHIBASHI: I'll call the meeting back to order. And I appreciate you allowing us the time. So, Commissioners, there's a motion required for this change of zone application (REZ 13-167). Commissioners? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council on the change of zone application(REZ 13-167). ISHIBASHI: Motion by Commissioner Gonzales. Any second? MIYASATO: Second. ISHIBASHI: A second by Commissioner Miyasato. It's open for discussion. Commissioners? GONZALES: I'd just like to say that I think, Mr. Tai, I think you should,might do a better job, and also the neighbors in the community, you guys should work together. You should talk. No matter how this vote turns out, it's still going to the County Council. So this isn't the end of it. But we just think you two should have a little more communication. That's all I've got to say.' ISHIBASHI: Okay. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: I'd like to add that the concerns that have been brought up by the neighbors should and need to be addressed. That is my feeling. They're legitimate concerns. And so that's where I stand. ISHIBASHI: Okay,thank you. TAI: Mr. Chairman, can I -? ISHIBASHI: Sure, come up,Mr. Tai. Okay, Commissioners, any more discussion? TAI: Let me, I want to make it clear—The concerns that were raised today, it was not brought to my attention back in 2001. The two letters that Charlene sent was never forwarded to me. The first time I heard about this was maybe three days ago. I had a conversation, telephone conversation with Charlene. And today is the first time I've seen the letter sent in on October 1st. So to be fair I have no knowledge on all the concerns that were even expressed by the neighbors until maybe three days ago over a telephone conversation. And at that time actually I encouraged Charlene to put it in writing because that will put it on record, so that I have a chance to deal with 10 EXHIBIT A it. Now it is true all of this is completely new to me until maybe three days ago over the phone. And only today, this morning, I discovered that it's finally in writing. And, in fact, I encouraged Charlene, you know, send me an email so that I can send it to the Commission here and put it on record. That's true, right? That was, so it's not my modus operandi not to work with neighbors. Because I had no knowledge at all, absolutely. So at this stage I would like to request for a continuance of this hearing because, like I said, I've done it many times, got used to it. Okay? I always work with the neighbors. Now, so this is a misconception that I refused to work with them because I never,knew only about three days ago. Okay? And I only saw the letter this morning. Okay? Now it's strange, the letter sent in on 2001, I believe, was never sent to me. Because at that time there were two projects. The one above me, I think it was sent to the other developer,but not sent to me. So I have absolutely no knowledge, okay? And I expressed this to Charlene. This is a rezoning application. So my plan only reflects what's the minimum requirements by Code. That's the way you work. Right? You look at what are the requirements, you stay with that, and you come up with a plan, and knowing that this is not the final plan because this is really for rezoning. So, to be fair to me, and I'm speaking it truthfully, I had no knowledge of all these requests until three days ago over the phone and only in writing today. When, they suggested that I should conform with the buffer zone that's similar to,between industrial property and residential, which I never even heard of it. Okay? So I would sincerely ask for a continuance of this hearing to give me a fair chance, and also for the neighbors too, to have a chance to see what I am doing. Now I may have to do a little bit more work now because I had no intention to really spend a lot of time and do the final plan until the zoning approval is granted, which is normally the case,you know, because there's so many details here. So maybe now I'll just go ahead and do that. Okay? I tried to deal with some of their concerns. They asked for 20 feet,maybe end up 18.5 feet. Okay? But what I'm saying is I need to know what I can do,now that I know their concerns. Okay? But there are concerns that I may not agree with. I,just off the top of my head now, okay, the separation between industrial and residential, which to me it doesn't make a lot of sense. It may set a bad set of precedence too because this is not with industrial rezoning right? But if you can allow for a continuance of this hearing then it will also give me a fair chance, and also for the neighbors,to see what I can come up with. And we can sit down and work things out. It's all within the process, and I intended to be in the process, you know,before the final plan is done. In fact, only today I heard that there's no other public hearing. I kept thinking most often than not the final plan also you have public hearing. At least it's true in the Bay area. Okay? In fact, in many,many public hearings even before that. So I don't think it's an unreasonable request to ask for a continuance instead of just turning it down or in favor, unfavorable recommendation,because I have not been given a fair chance to even look at their request. GONZALES: Mr. Tai, how much time do you think you would need if you come back? In one month, two months, three months? TAI: No, it would be less than that. Because like I said I'm my own schedule. I don't have to rely on somebody else's. Good thing, I just finished my taxes, it's due on the 15`11 of October. I'm just done with that. Within a month, within 30 days. 11 EXHIBIT A GONZALES: Okay. Mrs. Nishida would that work for you if we decide to go that way? NISHIDA: The only thing I'm not clear-. NOMURA: Excuse me, microphone. NISHIDA: The only thing I'm not clear on is if there is something that needs to be reviewed, we have the whole neighborhood that would have to review it. Are you asking if we can have dialogue or-? NOMURA: Microphone, please. NISHIDA: I'm sorry. Are you asking if we can have dialogue or-? GONZALES: Well, if we decide to, if I withdraw my motion and we put in a motion to continue this, of course we're going to have to check with staff and see when we can get you on the agenda-. But he's saying 30 days is plenty of time for him. But you're saying maybe that's not enough time for the whole neighborhood to get involved to address -? It's not only your concern. I'd also like to see the flood issue addressed also. I mean I know what it says in here. We've read everything and the recommendation, but I think all the community's concerns could be met. So what would be a timely manner to you? NISHIDA: I'm sorry. I'm not clear. And is he going to actually, does he want to get together with the neighbors and figure some of these out before he comes back, or are you asking him to - ? GONZALES: That's what he's asking. I'm not even-. I mean we still have a bunch of other things we need to do before we get to that point. But I'm going to put it on him to get in contact with you folks, and you're all going to need to get together and talk about this and come back with some solutions. TAI: Yeah, Mr. Gonzales is correct. NISHIDA: He needs to do what he needs to in 30 days,but he still hasn't submitted anything to us for review. There hasn't,that's not, there's not going to be enough time for dialogue before we come back to here. So I think what we're trying to do is set a model of how do you, as a community how do you address these issues so that it's fair for all. And I'm not sure how 30 days is going to influence that. MOSES: I don't even know if there's a need to require a timeline just to approve a continuance. And then when they have it all settled, then they can come back and we can schedule them in. GONZALES: Does that sound correct to staff, Daryn? 12 EXHIBIT A ARAI: The way the rules operate is that the applicant must agree to any continuation that goes beyond the 90-day period where we've got to send, the Commission needs to send its recommendation to Council. So as long as the applicant is willing to agree to a continuance to that appropriate time where, you know, they've hopefully resolved their issues, or whatever, then at that point I think you won't run afoul of that rule. But the applicant must be in agreement. TAI: Well, I'm in agreement with the continuance, whatever it takes. It's, like I said, it's not a really complicated process. You know, first I have to study their requests or their wish, you know, and how I can implement it in the plan in a reasonable manner. Then we need to either sit down in here, or somewhere else, we need to communicate and see how that might work. There's always some give and take. And like I said, you know, I've done it many times, particularly with community groups or even just with individuals until you have the whole -. You just have to deal with them, you know. So I'm asking for the continuance because I had no opportunity to try to implement some of their concerns. And now I need a little bit more time. As I said I can probably do it within 30 days. I think it's between us, me and the neighbors, you know,how we communicate. NISHIDA: One question and then we can just cut to the chase right now. Would you be agreeable to do this, the rear setback of 20 feet and create a, as stated in my letter,buffer yard? GONZALES: You know, I'd like for you to work this out. We're already bogging down more than we need to. So I think we're done with question and answer with the applicant. NISHIDA: Okay. ISHIBASHI: Daryn? ARAI: If you'll allow me, if you'll allow me. One suggestion, and I think it's a good suggestion from the staff, was that the continuance be also predicated on an agreement with the applicant upon a community meeting being held in order for them to resolve their differences. And the outcome of that meeting,whether good or bad, be presented to the Commission. And at that point,well, at least we'll hear from both sides whether there's a resolution or not, and then at that point we can schedule the meeting,put it back on the agenda, in writing. GONZALES: Okay, you folks can be seated. I think we've got it. TOMA: I want to reiterate-. MASUNAGA: Wait, wait, you've got to come up here. ISHIBASHI: Okay, come up, use the mike and -. MASUNAGA: State your name. 13 EXHIBIT A ISHIBASHI: Fast one, name again for the record. TOMA: Roy Toma again. Thank you. I'll try and keep it short. On September 18th I sent an email to Mr. Tai. My name is Roy Toma and we met at the last hearing. I live on 44 Hale Nani Street. Your revised plans call for 88 units and 110 parking stalls, it comes out to 1.25 stalls, per allowable unit and every 4 units an extra stall. Are you going to enforce the 1.25/ratio? Where are the excess cars going to park? Your recreational playground and garden is a great idea but who will monitor the areas? Even if, if it cannot be monitored for late noise then move it within the units, according to the plan. And are you planning to erect 8' walls to retain your tenants from trespassing in our properties? We hate to call the police every time we have trespassing in our properties. Your kind reply is appreciated. Sincerely, Roy Toma, Roy&Ann Toma."This was dated September 18`h. September 22nd he sends me a reply-. MOSES: Excuse me, Mr. Toma. We have that information. We have that. TOMA: Oh, you have this? MOSES: Yes. And we have his reply. So thank you. We are fully aware of that. TOMA: Oh, okay. MOSES: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Okay. Commissioners? GONZALES: Okay. Mr. Chairman, with that, all being said, I would like to withdraw my request for an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. MIYASATO: I'll withdraw my second. ISHIBASHI: Okay. Discussion, Commissioners? Okay, seeing none,motion is withdrawn and second withdrawn. So what's the pleasure of the body? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman? ISHIBASHI: Yes. GONZALES: I would like to make a motion to continue the public hearing on the application, with the consent of the applicant, or that we reconvene when time permits. Is that? MASUNAGA: And that he waives the right to the 90-day-. 14 EXHIBIT A GONZALES: And that you waive your right to the 90-day-. I don't know the word. MASUNAGA: Deadline. GONZALES: The 90-day deadline for us to reconvene. And I'd also like to add that we'd like you to have at least one community meeting, and we would like you to report back to us on the results. ISHIBASHI: Is there a second to that motion? MIYASATO: I second. ISHIBASHI: Okay, there's a second by Commissioner Miyasato. Discussion? GONZALES: Work it out,please. Come back and see us. ISHIBASHI: This is one of the important issues, is having open communication with the community. So we encourage that process to take place. And, Mr. Tai, if you could set that up and report back to the Commission, we'd appreciate that. Okay, any questions, Commissioners? Discussion? Maija, you can take the vote. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? 15 EXHIBIT A ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion to continue this hearing passes 6-0. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tai and Mr. Toma, and others. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT A