Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0798.000 2018-2020 I I �e►tv,°•F Nt�y Wil Okabe Managing Director I Harry Kim Mayor Barbara J.Kossow ! •+r T'.... Deputy Managing Director ,AQP N1" lLauufv 17fF,alual-I Offix1e off4azffiavlar 25 Auptmi Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawai°i 96720 • (808)961-8211 Fax(808)961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 (808)323-4444 Fax(808)323-4440 February 25, 2020 Aaron S. Y. Chung, Council Chair w and Members of the County Council County ofHawai`i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Council Chair Chung and Members: SUBJECT: Planning Director Initiated (REZ 13-000167) RM-1.5 to RS-7.5 (Non-Compliance with Conditions B & R of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 14-056) Tax Map Key: 2-4-028:009 As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward Planning Commissions' letter and enclosures regarding the above-referenced request. Smccp ly, HARRY KIM Mayor MTransCouncilPDhiitiatedREZ13-167 Enclosures cc: Planning Department c5W> Comm. Nck- Ref. Ta: County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Ref. Date FEB 2 8 2020 Harry Kim ` n ��,I,iq:; Thomas Raffipiy,Chair Mayor *; :# John Replogle,Vice Chair Joseph Clarkson,Chair Roy Takemoto .+jtl:, Gilbert Aguinaldo ManaginaDirector 4rE...H��r of Donn Dela Cruz Donald Ikeda County of Hawaii WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 FEB 2 4 2020 Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupum Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Chung and Council Members: SUBJECT: Planning Director Initiated (REZ 13-000167) RM-1.5 to RS-7.5 (Non-Compliance with Conditions B &R of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 14-056) Tax Mau Kev: 2-4-028:009 The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on February 6, 2020, considered the Planning Director's initiated rezoning of the property from Multi-Family Residential-1,500 square feet (RM-1.5)to Single-Family Residential-7,500-square feet(RS-7.5)due to the landowner's non-compliance with Condition B and R of Ordinance No. 14-056, which became effective May 12, 2014 to change the zoning of the subject property from Multi-Family Residential-2,500 square feet to Multi-Family Residential- 1,500 square feet. The property is located at 364 Hualalai Street,east of the Hale Nani Street-Hualalai Street intersection, South Hilo, Hawaii. The Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the request. The draft bill is attached for your favorable consideration. We are enclosing copies of the staff Background, Planning Director's Recommendation,the Powerpoint presentation and a draft transcript of the hearing for your information to be provided under separate cover. m� ncre , Thomas Ra1 Chairman Windward Planmi g Commission LPDinitiatedTaiREZ13-167wpc Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Page 2 Enclosures cc: Vincent Tai Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Department of Land and Natural Resources-HPD Ronald Kim, Esq., Corporation Counsel i BRPDtnitiateNoncomplianceREZ14-56.doc 1/30/20 i COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR REZONING DUE TO NONCOMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 14-056 i The Planning Director has initiated rezoning of the property from Multi-Family Residential- 1,500 square feet(RM-1.5) to Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) due to the landowner's non-compliance with Conditions B and R of Ordinance No. 14-056, which became effective May 12, 2014 to change the zoning of the subject property from Multi-Family Residential- 2,500 square feet to Multi-Family Residential- , 1,500 square feet. The subject property is located at 364 Hualdlai Street, east of the Hale Nani Street- Hualdlai Street intersection, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-4-028:009. REQUEST AND REASONS FOR REQUEST 1. The Planning Director ("Director")recommends rezoning the property from Multi-Family Residential- 1,500 square feet(RM-1.5) to Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5). 2. Ordinance No. 14-056 became effective May 12, 2014 to change the zoning of the subject property from Multi-Family Residential- 2,500 square feet to RM-1.5. 3. Ordinance No. 14-056 indicates, "Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate zoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation."The Director has initiated procedures to rezone the subject property to its original zoning of RS-7.5 for two reasons: 1) the landowner is not complying with Condition R, which states, "The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirement". Specifically, the landowner has not complied with Chapter 20 (Refuse), Article 2 of the Hawaii County Code (HCC) related to unsafe flora; and 2) the landowner has the property listed for sale and does not intend to develop the property with multiple-family residential units as 1 i represented to the County Council when the property was rezoned in a 2010 and 2015. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 4. Original Zoning: When the Zoning Code was adopted in the 1960's, the original zoning district established for the property was Single-Family Residential, with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet(RS-7.5). The RS-7.5 zoning district is consistent with the surrounding properties along Hale Nani Street, Hale Nani Place and Popolo Street, with residences that were built in the 1960's and 1970's. 5. Rezoning of Property: Since the original zoning was established, the property has been rezoned twice by the current landowner, Mr. Vincent Tai, who purchased the property in 2005 for$820,000. In 2010, the County Council approved Ordinance No. 10-109 to change the zoning district from RS-7.5 to RM-2.5 (Multiple-Family Residential, with a minimum building site of 2,500 square feet per unit). At the time, the landowner proposed to develop 57 two-story attached townhouses. See P.D. Exhibit 1. In 2015, the County Council approved Ordinance No. 14-056 to change the zoning district from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 (1,500-square foot minimum building site per unit) so that the landowner could build an 88-unit affordable housing project. See P.D. Exhibit 2. On August 30, 2018, the Director granted an administrative time extension until May 12, 2024 to comply with conditions of Ord. No. 14-056. 6. Lack of Development: As of the date of this writing the landowner has not developed the property and the property has been listed for sale since April 15, 2019 for$3,000,000. See P.D. Exhibit 3. The landowner has not submitted plans to the Department for Plan Approval and has done no work to indicate he intends to develop the property with multiple-family residential units. 7. Unsafe Flora Violations: The Department of Public Works (DPW) has issued two unsafe flora violation letters to the landowner for the property. • On June 21, 2019, pursuant to Chapter 20, Article 2 of the Hawaii County Code regarding unsafe flora, the Department of Public Works (DPW) sent the landowner a letter indicating trees on his property pose an imminent danger to five (5) neighboring properties and are required to be removed. 2 The letter indicates that in lieu of tree removal, a letter from a Hawaii State Certified Arborist stating the trees are deemed safe and healthy is acceptable. See P.D. Exhibit 4. The landowner received this letter on June 22, 2019. See P.D. Exhibit 5. In a January 30, 2020 email, the DPW requested a letter from the arborist indicating that implementation of the tree report recommendations would address the June 21, 2019 violation letter. See P.D. Exhibit 6. • On January 28, 2020, the DPW sent a letter to the landowner for a new unsafe flora complaint for trees affecting three (3) neighboring properties. See P.D. Exhibit 7. S. Planning Department Notification of Noncompliance: In a September 5, 2019 letter, the Planning Department informed the landowner that he had not complied with Conditions B and R of Ord. No. 14-056 and that the Director would initiate rezoning of the property if these conditions were not met by October 3, 2019. See P.D. Exhibit 8. Due to his travels, the landowner did not receive the letter until October 24, 2019, so the Department extended the deadline to comply to November 23, 2019. See P.D. Exhibit 9. The Department sent another letter on November 13, 2019 extending the deadline to comply to December 8, 2019. See P.D. Exhibit 10. On December 2, 2019 the landowner complied with Condition B by submitting water calculations and making a water commitment payment to the Department of Water Supply. See P.D. Exhibit 11. The landowner had not complied with Condition R by the December 8, 2019 deadline; therefore, the Department sent a letter dated December 26, 2019 notifying the landowner that the matter would be heard at the February 6, 2020 Windward Planning Commission meeting. See P.D. Exhibit 12. LANDOWNER'S RESPONSES TO COUNTY 9. P.D. Exhibit 13. The landowner has written the following letters to DPW, Planning, and the Windward Planning Commission regarding the Unsafe Flora Violations and Director-initiated Rezoning Action: October 30, 2019 to Planning,November 12, 2019 to Planning, November 21, 2019 to Planning,November 29, 2019 to Planning, January 7, 2020 3 to DPW containing report from Backyard Monkey LLC, January 9, 2020 to DPW, January 24, 2020 to DPW, January 27, 2020 to Planning, January 29, 2020 to Planning, and January 29, 2020 to Windward Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS 10. P.D. Exhibit 14-Three emails from Charlene Nishida dated August 20, 2019. 11. P.D. Exhibit 15- Email from George Chinen dated January 18, 2020. 12. P.D. Exhibit 16-Letter from Leigh and Leatrice Kishii dated January 28, 2020. 13. P.D. Exhibit 17- Letter from Jeremy and Lanette Ganzagan dated January 29, 2020. 14. P.D. Exhibit 18-Letter from Cristito and Celeste Tiogangeo dated January 29, 2020. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Director is bringing this matter before the Planning Commission due to noncompliance with Condition R of Ordinance No. 14-056. The Department also recently became aware that the property has been listed for sale by the landowner since April 15, 2019 and therefore the landowner does not intend to develop the property with multiple-family residential units as represented to the County Council when the property was rezoned in 2010 and 2015. The landowner has been aware that the overgrown trees on his property are negatively affecting his neighbors properties for several years now; he was directed to remove the trees by the County DPW in June 2019 and January 2020; and the Planning Director has provided ample time (from October 2019 to the present) to comply with the County Code and conditions of Ord. 14-056. Over this period of time, the landowner has consistently shown a lack of concern for the wellbeing of the neighborhood and has not taken responsibility for properly maintaining his property. In his letters to the County, rather than indicating he would comply with Condition R, the landowner stated he did not think he was responsible for removing the unsafe flora and had not violated any laws. Please note that the Hawaii County Code (such as Chapter 20, Article 2) is the law of the County of Hawai'i and zoning 4 ordinances, which are adopted by the County Council, are also law. In addition, rather than hiring an attorney to seek legal advice regarding his responsibility to maintain his property, the landowner tried to shift the responsibility to seek legal counsel to his neighbors and the Department of Public Works. Therefore, the Planning Director is not confident that the conditions placed in Ordinance No. 14-056 and 10-109 to reduce impacts to the neighboring RS-zoned community would be fulfilled by the current landowner. The landowner did not make a serious effort to resolve violation of Chapter 20, Article 2, HCC until the Planning Department informed him the Director may initiate procedures to downzone the property. "Downzoning" or decreasing the residential density and use of a property by changing the zoning typically decreases the value of the property, whereas "upzoning" increases the property value. The property has been "upzoned"by the current landowner twice, from RS-7.5 to RM-2.5 and from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5. While the landowner may have intended on developing multiple-family housing units on the property in the past, it is clear since the property is for sale, that he no longer intends to develop the property. To date the landowner has not once disclosed to the Planning Department that the property is listed for sale. One of the criteria for granting a change of zone is that the zoning is consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and the zoning would promote the general welfare of the community. The Land Use section of the General Plan recommends that controls be established to discourage speculative land development. Specifically, Policy 14.5.3(e) of the Land Use, Multiple-Family Residential section states, "To assure the use of multiple family residential zoned areas and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots only, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning, which shall be based on performance requirements" and Policy 14- 5.3(g) states, "Support the rezoning of those multiple residentially zoned lands that are used for other purpose to a more appropriate zoning designation". Also, the Housing section(Policy 9.3(f)) of the General Plan states, "Continue to study and implement appropriate measures to curb property speculative practices that result in increased housing costs." 5 i 3 The property currently is vacant except for one single-family dwelling and i accessory swimming pool, which is more consistent with the original RS-7.5 zoning € district than the current RM-1.5 zoning district. Changing the zoning to RS-7.5 would prevent speculation since it is clear the landowner does not intend to develop the property. Based upon the above finding, the Planning Director believes the current RM-1.5 zoning district for the property is not the best land use pattern and will not promote the 3 general welfare of the surrounding community at this time. Therefore, the Director I € recommends rezoning the property to its original designation of Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) so that single-family housing can be provided. If I a subsequent landowner wishes to attempt to develop a multiple-family residential project { on the property, they would need to change the zoning to the RM district, which would require approval by the County Council to determine if the proposed zoning and density would promote the general welfare of the community. Based upon the above findings, the Planning Director recommends the Planning 3 Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council to rezone the property from Multiple-Family Residential— 1,500 square feet (RM-1.5) to Single-Family Residential—7,500 square feet (RS-7.5)because the change of zone would result in an appropriate land use pattern that would further benefit the general 3 public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code (2016 Edition, as amended), is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the Director is not proposing conditions since the zoning is being changed to the original designation for the property. 6 i i I (V OF y COUNTY OF HAWAII .. STATE OF HAWAII �TF•OF N�'� I I BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. j I I 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— 1,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-1.5) TO SINGLE-FAMILY j RESIDENTIAL—7,500 SQUARE FEET (RS-7.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, j COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-028:009. j i 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 Hawaii County Code 1983 (2016 Edition, as amended), 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, Hawaii, shall be Single-Family Residential—7,500 square feet(RM-7.5): 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); i 2. 148° 10' 68.38 feet along the remainder of R.P. 6790, L.C. Aw. 2402 to Keaniho (Lot 31, Hualalai Subdivision); i i -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 the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. -2- SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1 st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: -3- 1 RM-1 RM-1 . R5-7.5 RM-1 -1 \\X�&X-7/50 R5- . RS-7.5 5-7. RM-1 C6-7.5 R5- .5 C_j RM-1 D'2 JP �� R5-7.5 5-7.5 E R -7.5 R RM-1 t R5-7.5 RS- 5 -7.5 l MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- RM-1.5 1,500 SQUARE FEET(RM-1.5) R5- 5 TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- �' 7,500 SQUARE FEET(RS-7.5) 3.292 ACRES R5-7.5 % -7.5 RM-1 - � v -7 RM-1 R -7.5 RM-1.5 RD-3.75 10 5-7.5'` 5 rs RM- RS- 5 RS-7.5 RS-7.5 � IN R -7.5 RS-7.5 1,227.51S O<9 3,637.22 E R -7.5 "HAr.AT' T R -7.5 R5-7. -7.5 0 RD-3.75 O R5- . 5-7. -7.5 O R5 7.5 R5-7. R5-7. -7.5 ��5 -7.5 P Hp1E q -7.5 �P\�� 5-7.5 7.5 5- .5 L 5-7.5 �\P4 R -7.5 5-7.5 R0-3.75 75 -7.5 QJ-7.5 RD-3.75 5 � 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 - 1,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-1.5) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- 7,500 SQUARE FEET (RS-7.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII MAP PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TMK:(3)2-4-028:009 DATE:Feb.3,2020 EXHIBIT "A" Planning Director Initiated Map:1338r J�tY`OF N COUNTY OF HAWAII i= _• STATE OF HAWAII trt of Nth BILL NO. 229 ORDINANCE NO. .t9 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 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—7,500 SQUARE FEET (RS-7.5) TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—2,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-2.5)AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO,HAWAII, 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 Hawaii 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 Waidkea, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Multiple-Family Residential—2,500 square feet (RM-2.5): 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 Kcaniho (Lot 31,Hualalai Subdivision); 3. 76' 08' 45" 303.03 feet along the remainder of R.P. 6790, L.C. Aw. 2402 to Kcamho (Lots 30, 29 and 28, Hualalai Subdivision); -1- Planning Dept. Exhibit—A— 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 Kallue(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, Hawaii 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: (A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or -2- i I { (B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. A. The applicant(s), its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within one hundred and eighty(18 0) 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. D. The applicant shall install a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly within five (5) feet of the water meter on private property, which must be inspected and approved by the Department of Water Supply prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. a E. 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),Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures,paved driveway accesses and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans -3- 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. F. All driveway connections to Hualalai Street shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawaii County Code. G. 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. H. 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. I. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10,Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. J. 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 -4- approval of the Department of Environmental Management,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. K. 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. L. 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. M. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the property 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 hidex (HCPI). The fair share contribution shall have a combined value of $7,698.11 per multiple family residential unit($11,996.63 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. -5- 3 3 i The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit(single family residential unit) shall be allocated as follows: J 1. $3,797.26 per multiple family residential unit($5,78499 per single family i residential unit)to the County to support park and recreational improvements and facilities; i 2. $120.01 per multiple family residential unit ($279.07 per single family residential unit)to the County to support police facilities; i 3. $369.17 per multiple family residential unit($551.20 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities; 4. $164.54 per multiple family residential unit($241.32 per single family residential unit) to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 5. $3,247.12 per multiple family residential unit ($5,140.06 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. N. 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, Hawaii County Code relating to the Affordable Housing Policy. -6- 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. O. 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. P. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules,regulations and requirements. Q. An annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the aiuliversary date of enactment of the ordinance. The report shall include,but not be limited to, the status of the development and to what extent the conditions of approval are being complied with. This condition shall remain in effect until all of the conditions of approval have been complied with and the Planning Director acknowledges that further reports are not required. R. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. -7- 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. S. 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. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo Hawaii Date of Introduction: April 20, 2010 Date of 1st Reading: October 20, 2010 Date of 2nd Reading: November 4, 2010 Effective Date: November 24, 2010 REFERENCE, Qum. 756 -S- -1 RM-1 -7.5 RS-7.5 RM-2 1 RS- . G CG-7.5 RS-7.5 5-7. RM-1 RM-1 l< RS .5 -9� R5-7.5 5-7.5 R X7.5 R RS-7.5 R5- 5 -7.5 R SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- 7,500 SQUARE FEET(RS-7.5) r1 R5- 5 TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2.500 SQUARE FEET(RM-2.5) 3.292 ACRES I Al R5-7.5 -1 X RS-7.5 -7.5 � Q' -7. R -7.5 RM-1 RD-3.75 5-7.5 7,5 R5- 5 R5-7.5 n i RS-7.5 'v 9� R -7.5 + RS-7.5 zz7.er s 3,637.22E r� R -75 'HAinv^ T R -7.5 RS-7. 4 -7.5 RD-3.75 QQO RS 5-7. -7.5 O R 7.5 RS-7. -7.5 IPA \\ RS-7. -7.5 HRLE - .5 ,apt- 5-7.5 7.5 5- .5 � 5-7.5 { 5� R.-7.5 5-7.5 Rb-3.75P\~O -7.5 J� RD-3.75 5-7.5 Q Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 NT TO THE ZONINGCODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 7,500 SQUARE FEET (RS-7.5) TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 2,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-2.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII MAP PREPARED BY: TMK:(3)2-4-028:009 COUNTY OF HAWAII, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:Dec.22,2009 EXHIBIT"A" Vincent TC.Tai Map:1286 i s i OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii Introduced By: Donald Ikeda 1yI2QL COAL O E „ Date Introduced: April 20, 2010 `Ut AYBS � NOES ABS EX First Reading: October 20, 2010 Enriques X Published: October 30, 2010 Ford X Greenwell R R&WARKS: Hoffmann X April 20, 2010 - Postponed to the Ikeda X Call of the Chair Naeole-Beason'. X Onishi X Yagong X Yoshimoto X Second Reading: November 4. 2010 7 2 0 0 To Mayor: November 16, 2010 Returned: November 24, 2010 ROLL CALL VOTE Effective: November 24, 2010 AYES NOES ABS EX Published: December 3, 2010 Enriques X Ford X REMARKS Greenwell X Hoffmann X Ikeda X Naeole X Onishi X Yagong X Yoshimoto X 5 2 2 0 I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL was adopted by the County Council published as indicated above. APPROVED AS TO �f Jl� w 3— FORM ALI .�.._ COUNCIL zPN r' 1 DEP COR O -N COUNSEL /� ,` -* COUNTY O Al`I DateNOV 2 2 2010 Q�?u Tyr CLERK Bill Na.: 229 C-756/PC-73 rApprovedlDi8 pproved this �T - day Reference: 07 tijt* U c ��, 20 Ord No.: 1-0 ,g o9 MAYOR, COUNTY OF HA THAI`I i i I of COUNT'S OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII art o►•N►a BILL NO. 214 ORDINANCE NO. 14 56 (DRAFT 2 3 3 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 I FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—2,500 SQUARE FEET(RM-2.5) TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 1,500 SQUARE FEET (RM-f.5)AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, 1 COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-028:009. 3 3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: 3 SECTION 1. Section 25-8-33, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii E County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is amended to change the district classification of property a described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, 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. ubdivision);2. 148' 10' 68.38 feet along the remainder of R.P. 6790, L.C. Aw. 2402 to Keaniho (Lot 31, Hualalai Subdivision); -1- Planning Dept. Exhibit��_ i i i i I I 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' 3 2.3 3 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 Hualdlai 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, Hawaii 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. I I 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 Department of Water Supply to provide County water to the proposed development. i D. The applicant shall install a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly i 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. i I I i i I i I i I I I I I I ( 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), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing 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 Hualdlai 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. I. 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 -4- i i 3 i the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a i Certificate of Occupancy. 3 J. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. i 3 K. Comply with Chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control, Hawaii Administrative i Rules,Department of Health, which requires a NPDES permit for certain construction activity. i L. The applicant shall complete and submit to the Department of Environmental 3 Management a sewer study for the proposed development prior to final Plan Approval. Should the existing sewer system in Huatalai 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 3 i 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. 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, 3 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-SIIPD) 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. -5- 3 i I I 3 I 3 I i I i O. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate the potential regional impacts of the development with respect to parks and recreation, fire, I 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 I developed. The fair share contribution in a form of cash, land, facilities or any j combination thereof shall be determined by the County Council. The fair share I contribution may be adjusted annually beginning three years after the effective j 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 I $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 I I units according to the calculation and payment provisions set forth in this I condition. The fair share contribution per multiple family residential unit(single family residential unit) shall be allocated as follows: I 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. $402.57 per multiple family residential unit ($601.06 per single family residential unit) to the County to support fire facilities, I 4. $179.43 per multiple family residential unit ($263.15 per single family � 'I residential unit)to the County to support solid waste facilities; and 1 -6- 3 3 YI i l 1 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. i In lieu of paying the fair share contribution, the applicant may contribute land and/or construct improvements/facilities related to parks and recreation, fire, I police, solid waste disposal facilities and roads within the region impacted by the proposed development, subject to the review and recommendation of the Planning l Director, upon consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval of the County Council, I 3 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, Hawaii 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: i -7- 3 I 3 73 i 3 I I I I. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. T. As agreed by the applicant, the minimum yard setback shall be 20 feet along all property boundaries adjoining RS-7.5 zoned properties, except TMK 2-4-25:59. U. As agreed by the applicant,the applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an on-site manager for the residential development. V. As agreed by the applicant,the applicant shall install 6-foot high chain-link fencing along all property boundaries adjoining RS-7.5 zoned properties. All existing perimeter rock walls shall be kept in place, with the fencing installed on the inside of any existing rock wall. -8- a W. As agreed by the applicant, all structures developed on the property may not exceed two stories. 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. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Kona Hawai`i Date of Introduction: April 1, 2014 Date of 1st Reading: April 1, 2014 Date of 2nd Reading: April 16, 2014 Effective Date: May 12, 2014 REFERENCE Comm. 718.6 -9- I I t i M-1 -1 RM-1 RM-1 j R . -7 5 R5-7.5 -1 R5- 5-7, M-1 PRS-7.5 RS .5 RM-1 RM-1 ii RS-7.5 75 R -7.5 R R5-7.5 RS- 5 -7.5 ` MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM-1.5 2,500 SQUARE FEET(RM-2.5) RS- 5 TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- 1,500 SQUARE FEET(RM-1.5) 3,292ACRES RS-7.5 ` -7.5 RM-1 �tv I -7. RM-1 R -7.5 RM-1.5 RD-3.75 t 5-7-5�1 RM- 7 � +N R5-7.5 .5 RS- 5 RS-7.5 R -7.5 RS-7.5 1.227.515 0( 3,637.22 E `F2, -7.5 "HALA't" ll� 4 R -7.5 RS-7. RD 3,75 -7.5 doO RS- t' S-7. -7.5 R 7.5 RS-7. -7.5 S� RS-7. -7.5 �\5 - .5 Q���P -7.5 N�- -7.5 a S- .55-7.5 5 Q -7.5 OP R 7.5 RD-3.75 -7.5 Q� RD-3,75 Feet 0 500 1,000 1,500 AMENDMENT Tu"' TH NINA' CODE. i 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 TC.Tai OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK COUNTY CLERK County of Hauai`i COUNTY Mfr HAWAII Kona. Hawaii (Draft 2) 20Iq MAY 12 PH 3- 32 Introduced By: Zendo Dern (B/R) ROLL CALL VOTE Date Introduced: April 1, 2014 AYES NOES ABS EX First Reading: April 1, 2014 Eoff X Published: April 12, 2014 Ford X i lagan X KE MRKS'• Kanuha X I Kern X r Onishi X Poindexter X Wille X ryu—S-11 imoto X Second Reading: April 16, 20149 0 0 0 To Mayor: April 28 2014 Returned: May 12, 2014 ROI.I, CALL VOTE Effective: May 12, 2014 AYES NOES ABS EX Published: May 21, 2014 _ Eoff X Ford X REI'M RKS_ X I lagan Kanuha X Kern X - Onishi X Poindexter X Wille X - v Yoshimoto X 9 0 0 0 I DO HEREB17 CERTIFY that the foregoing BILL ivas adopted by the County Council published as ii7dicated above. CUUN 'L CN.9IRPERS'UA' Approve Disapproved this clot: � ZED � 20 COUNT}'CLERK 0�' 4 ,`�° �. eC,.. 214 (Draft 2) Bill No.: A -41A)"OR, COUIVTYOFHAThAI'I Reference: C-718 . 6/PC-61 1 'i 01 . Ord No.: i I i i T 6 i 0 lQ 0 3 � N - _ w n res� � �,: � t - •.,; �_� m '�_ ml = ryag ti n n in o 0 G t m fA T 7- — 2 0 v o � N .} F U CDCD C) - ho, tet` 5q Ln rD =3 �i, tro o II K { Planning Dept. Exhibit i I i 9 — � i CDQ CD CDC cn 0) C. d r-- rJ m o a m � r $ t fi59 V Mill ti 17 cl, E C1 1 Cn (J Q CJ _ fU Q Q ,-7 tfi u` f El! „CI dj Gt. G5 co LL r, ay VC. y � y — _ 0 (0 CD 12 LO �. 7.5. 55.7 F C1! I cliQ �. CL CD 40. »- as d 00 Cal Wro co c ada a co a; u 1 za :rnirU0- :Zco Q CL I I 1 V or 4•%`� �IdiGi Harry Kim +c David Yamamoto,P.E. Mayor Director Wil Okabe t" °FHr� Allan G.Simeon,P.E. Managing Director Deputy Director Caunfv orf a�jai`i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 7-Hilo,Hawaii 967204224 (808)961-8321 -Fax(808)961-8630 public—Works@hawaiicounty.gov June 21, 2019 CERTIFIED MAIL WJ SIGNATURE CONFIRMATION TAI, VINCENT TR 2184 ROUND TOP DR. HONOLULU, HI 96822-2059 SUBJECT: UNSAFE FLORA - Chapter 20,Article 2 of the Hawaii County Code Location: Waiakea, South Hilo,Hawaii Tax Map Ivey: (3) 2-4-028:009 In response to a complaint of unsafe flora on the subject property that poses a threat to neighboring parcels (3) 2-4-055:004, (3) 2-4-055:006, (3) 2-4-055:011, (3) 2-4-055:012, and (3) 2-4-055:013, we conducted a site inspection and confirmed that one or more trees do pose an imminent danger. Therefore, pursuant to Section 20-22 of the Hawaii County Code (Code), we are required to notify you that the trees shall be removed. A copy of the Code is available at www.hawaiicounty.gov/lb-countvcode/. An inspector from the County will be available to meet with you onsite to identify the trees that pose an imminent danger. In lieu of removal, a letter from a Hawaii State Certified Arborists stating that the tree(s) are deemed safe and healthy is acceptable. The owner of the trees shall be liable for damages caused to adjacent properties or for loss of life. Should you have any questions,please contact Ms. Melanie DeMello at(808) 961-8927. ;E DAVID YAMAMOTO, P.E. Director ;E t MD Enclosures: Sketch &Pictures Planning to County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Exhibit �,._ V c: Kishii, Leatrice E Trst [owner of parcel (3)2-4-055:004] w/Enclosures Toma, Roy T/Ann F Tr [owner of parcel (3) 2-4-055:0061 w/Enclosures WKD Trst [owner of parcel (3)2-4-055:011] w/Enclosures Nishida, Shad Keikiokala&Mary Charlene [owner of parcel (3) 2-4-055:012] w/Enclosures Ganzagan, Lanette &Jeremy [owner of parcel (3) 2-4-055:013] w/Enclosures i x f k 1 Ii t !i County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. TMK: 2-4-028:009 (,I)DIRECI SON Or F'HOJ_0 ( EN OWNER: VINCENT TAI 1 cD t APPRax. LacAPoN OF THE NOTE: VARIOUS BRANCHES/LEAVES/ROOT,,., FROM TREES 4 TREES TMK: 2-4-028:009 ENCROACH ONTO 35`t NIGH ADWACENT PROPERTIES CAUSING DAMAGE TO DWELLING AND LANDSCAPING. d t -N 7. LO ! 4 G TMK: 2-4-055:005 TMK: 2-4-055:003 ( OWNER: MARIA & ( TMK: 2-4-055:004 OWNER; VERONICA GAZMEN, ( FREDERICO TOMAS ( OWNER: LEATRICE KISHIMOTO i KATHY CABUS & I ELIZABETH QUINN ( ( ( ( ---TO POPOLO STREET WILE NANI STREET TO KAPIOi.AM STREET-—- NOT TREET---—-NOT TO SCALE MAP SHOWING PARCEL NO. 4 TAX MAP KEY. 3rd DIV. 2--4-055 OWNER: LEATRICE KISHIMOTO YrJs hx-�Rx DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ryx ENGINEERING DIVISION �a INSPECTOR: USA VPLAN Cdr : Photo Index: i 3 r: - wr n} � , X41 1. TN l ^ r ;v Photo Page 1 of 1 AIX u r tl u l U )r1.PP,',l X !_CCATi(;t`ti_.O.�.r TRU.......__.._.._! NOTE: TMK: 2-4-018:009 -VARIOUS BR,WCHES/I.EA`/;S/ROOTS FROM TREES ON OWNER: VINCENT TAI TREES TH": 2-4-028;00 ENCROACH ONTO AD.JACEN T PROPERTIES CAUSING DAMAGE 45'± HI%H TO D?dEI.IING AND LANDSCAPING, (-HI I I 1 1 i Y TMK: 2-4-055:007 TMK: 2-4-055:006 TMK: 2-4--055;005 1 1 OWNER: R T l OWNER: MARIA & ` i O'#�'NER: KIMIKO CHINEN ! ROY & ��NII fOMA ! ! & ERIKO KURASHIGE f i rREDERiCO TOMAS 1 I l t s ! ! 1 ! 1 -----TO POPOLO STREET HAll_E NA.N{ STREET TO I<APIOIANI STREET NOT TO SCAM MAS SHOWING PARCEL NO, 6 TAX MAP KED': lord DIV. 2--4-055 OWNER: ROY & ANDS TOMA -,. , DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION INSPECTOR: 1 USA APLAN M �- :A` M Photo index: I a, i,,1 p Key. 3 ' Dig; 2-4-055-.00-) Date. June, 5, 2019 ry ! �r` :)' t yyj a g. ! �C Photo 2 Page 1 of 1 LEGEND: I tJ UIRECHON OF PHOTO TAKEN �APPROX. LOCATION OF TREE NOTE: TMK: 2-4-028:009 BRANCHES/LEAVES/ROOTS FROM TREES ON OWNER: VINCENT TAI TMK: 2-4-028:009 ENCROACH ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES CAUSING DAMAGE j \ TO DWELLING AND LANDSCAPING, J'st )3HIGH ` , TMK: 2-4-055:012 OWNER: SHAD & CHARLENE NISHIDA /Oor / TMK: 2-4-055:011 OWNER: WAYNE DELUZ f TMK: 2-4-055:010 F OWNER: JOHN BELLAVER F NOT TO SCALE MAP SHOWING PARCEL N0. 11 TAX MAP KEY: 3rd DIV. 2-4-055 OWNER: WAYNE DELUZ M DEPARTENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION T INSPECTOR;, sq sAPLAN cxr Photo Ind ex•. Key: J' Dr,,, 2- 3e 1Ll•1e 5, 2i)I9 may. �. I'F y x v ti S �,Y� •:f�, s-rc a���y wa Y ,. .. fir.• � ,���, • ', � '� ATX Photo 2 Page I of 2 Photo Index; T eV. 3 , D ? Date: Jute 5, 2019 r � Pac7e 2 of 2 / J.. 04 / Q)DiPECTiON O1 PHOiU iAKtN 0APPROX. LOCATION OF THE NOTE: - BRANCHES/LEAVES/ROOTS FROM TREES ON \ TMK: 2-4-028:009 ENCROACH ONTO I ADJACENT PROPERTIES CAUSING DAMAGE VARIOUS TO DWELLING AND LANDSCAPING. TREES 46't HIGH TMK: 2-4-028:009 -� 6--_. OWNER: VINCENT TAI f -VARIOUS TREES r 30't HIGH rr ` TMK: 2-4-055:013 OWNER: LANETfE & JEREMY GANZAGAN TMK: 2-4-055:012 r' 1 OWNER: SHAD & f CHARLENE NISHID,4 r TMK: 2-4-055:011 ,i / OWNER: WAYNE DELUZ r HALE NANI PLACE 'NOT TO SCALE MAP SHOWING PARCEL NO. 12 TAX MAP KEY: 3rd DIV. 2-4-055 OWNER: SHAD & CHARLENE NISHIDA } DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION INSPECTOR: USA SAPUV CIA Tc; Photo Index: Ian %]a ,, 3 : Div 2 1-0551� Date1in- �f. T d �1 �C. `tV � t. .t • r��P Photo 2 Page 1 of 2 Photo Index: Tax N'lap Key: 3" Dtv 2-4 0S :01.2 Date: lune S, 20:9 Phcr.) s 4 -� f Photo 4 Page 2 of 2 i j hti, i �Ll)UifjEC ION OF PHOTO TAKEN APPROX. LOCATION OF TREE NOTE: BRANCHES/LEAVES/ROOTS FROM TREES ON TMK: 2-4-028:009 ENCROACH ONTO ` ADJACENT PROPERTIES CAUSING DAMAGE J TO DWELLING AND LANDSCAPING. j, TMK: 2-4-028:009 OWNER: VINCENT TAI VARIOUS TREES 46'± HIGH \ 2 -� TMK: 2-4-055:013 OWNER. LANETTE do \ JEREMY GANZAGAN TMK: 2-4-055:014 \ � OWNER: MARILYN '� TMK: 2-4-055:012 AH HEONG J OWNER: SHAD & 1 CHARLENE NISHIDA NOT TO SCALE / HALE NANI PLACE \1 ef MAP SHOWING PARCEL NO. 13 TAX MAP KEY: 3rd DIV. 2-4-055 OWNER: LANE7TE & JEREMY GANZAGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORDS _} Y``• ENGINEERING DIVISION / l INSPECTOR: USA SAPL" DATE. Photo Index; ey: 3Div Z-,l.Cc, - Date: ;. nt, 5. ;cilg j, Ay p; 4' r t k rf ft vc Ph0.0 2 Page i of i m ~ Jackson, � / 16 7 . From: Harada, Bryce . r Sent Tuesday,January 21, 202O11�7AK� To: Jockson, ��a' Cc Darrow,Jeff, DeMe||o' Melanie Subject: RE: DPVVs6/21/19letter toVincent Tai;TK4K2-4-O28l09 Attachments: Certified Mail Receipt TK4K2-4-O28-0O9.pdf *» ^x HiMaija, Searching our records, it looks like Vincent Tai signed the certified mail receipt on 6-22-2019 (see attached). - --~-~~~-~ Thanks, Bryce Bryce Harada County orHawaii, Department ofPublic Works, Engineering Division 1OlPauahiStreet, Suite 7 � Hilo, HI 96720 -- ~— Tel. /80O\ 861'8O42 Email: bryce.harada@haw/aiicoun|y.Qov From:Jackson, Maije «MaijaJackson@hawaiicounty.gov> `'0 Sent:Tuesday,January 21, 2O2D1O:324K4 To: Harada, Bryce<Bryce.Harada @havvaiicounty.gov> Cc: Darrow,Jeff'Jeff.Darnoe@hawaiioounty.gov»; DeMe||o, Melanie<K4e|anie.DeW1e||o@hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: DPVV's6/I1/19letter toVincent Tai;TK4K2-4'O28:OO9 - Hi Bryce, | see that Melanie isout til the Z7m. Can you help me? I am just trying to get the Planning Department record in order for the Planning Commission hearing on February 6"and wanted to know when Vincent signed the certified mail receipt for the June 21't letter sent by DPW informing him of the unsafe flora un his property. Thanks, K1aija SCANNED - , Planning~ .102 3 2020 z � Dept. Exhibit C B ® a Oil 0 it 0 Corn, d�te items 9 2, � 0 Print our n and 3`'y Y acne and address on the rever$g A-Signature. So that we can return the card toYDu 'I Attach -this card to the back of . trd Agent r or on ttae front ifs ace a a. 8.Receive by(ldrinled Mame 13 Addressee ;^t. Article Addr P permits C• Da of D livery asset!to D. Is daiivary a teas different from ftam 1? ❑Ye t frO -TAI, '}' If YES,anter deliveryadd / :t TH/r lfjill{rYl',Yt I rasa below: p No ' 3 TMI(24� 8.009 2184 ROOND TOP DR. r HDNOLULU, H1 96822-2059 f� f � i ! ( 3• $eNice Type AdultSignatureR DRdorst mailExprAewe ' 95908 940.2 4717 8344 4708 47 sstrlctad Delivery eg red Mair Q Certified Ma11t� h O Re.9rstared Mail Restricted `�,Certit)od Mall R Delivery 1 2. Articis Nurr-j6er Mransfer from sar�1, labs/ O Collect on Delivery Restricted Dairvery ❑Retum Receipt for -?019 ❑�, o 0 o n Q Cl Collect on Delivery Restrict Merchandise 01.79 ❑Insured Mal ad De(Ivery Signature con(irmatianTm ❑Insured Mail Roswoted Doll very O Signature confirmation i ( S Form 38-11,5u ly 2015 PSN 7530-D2-ppp-9053 avar35eR P as ctad elry R D cry Domestic Return Receipt = V RE SRI t� R Cert BeG . r r R $ tI Fee E O Extd2 m 1_es&feesCciKmJrtwcedd rte) I I C3 I71Rrtlurr, _— O �ttteiectroNc) 6_ Postmark O 0AdWtED �` ,tn3 Rastrict�DeIIvsrY S—5 --- Here ❑adcttsxsraczeReaua»a S `p Pastaga ^ +Rostdcted Dolbtcry S $ Total Po ED age and Fees eGr�t Q Er i sentT- TAI,VlN CI Siisefanc t No2-4 - ............. 2 P DR. .............. !ti �•--- TMK -028.0 184 ROUND TO 1 EP4 HONOLULU, HI 96822- x59 '4 i r 1 R t r Jackson, Maiia From: DeK4el|o, K4elanie Sent: Thursday,January 30, 2OZO9:31AM To: Tai Architecture;Alden "Justin" BarhosUustin@backvandmonkevcom); shanda@backvavdmonkeyzonn Cc: Jackson, Ma'a;Yee, Michael; Darrow,Jeff Subject: TaiArboristReport- [overLetterRequesi Attachments: 2402OOO9Tai-Unsafe Flora Packet.pdf, 2O2O-01-02_SignedArborist Report.pdf Hi Vincent,Justin, Thank you for previously providing the attached Tree Risk Assessment and Risk Reductions Assessment ("tree report") dated January 2, 2O2U. 1 understand that Backyard Monkey may not have had a copy of the attached unsafe flora violation letter dated June 21, 2019 ("violation letter") at the time this tree report was made. For clarity, please provide a letter(stamped and signed by certified arborist)stating that, in the arborists' best professional opinion, implementation ofthe recommendations inthis tree report will address the violation letter. DPW will await this letter along with implementation of the tree report recommendations(tree trimming and removal) before considering closing this violation. Asa side note,this tree report does not address the "additional"violation letter dated January 28, 2020. Please let meknow Uyou have any questions. Thank you, Melanie R4e|anleDpR8eUm County ofHow/o/) Department ofPublic Works Eog/neeringD/ws/un, Regu/otoryJection AupuniCenter, 1O1PauahiStreet,Suite 7 Hilo, H| 9G72O E-Mail: K4o/anie.DeMe||o@hewaiicounty.Qov ' - Planning~ 1 Exhibit�J V Of Harry Kim David Yamamoto,P.E. Mayor Director Roy Takernoto Allan G.Simeon,P.E. Managing Director Caunt of�Rafua-T'T- Deputy Director DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 7-Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4224 (808)961-8321 -Fax(808)961-8630 public—works@hawaiicounty.gov January 28, 2020 CERTIFIED MAIL TAI,VINCENT TR 2184 ROUND TOP DR. HONOLULU, HI 96822-2059 SUBJECT: UNSAFE FLORA- Chapter 20, Article 2 of the Hawaii County Code Location: Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii Tax Map Key: (3)2-4-028:009 In response to a complaint of unsafe flora on the subject property that poses a threat to neighboring parcels (3) 2-4-028:031, (3) 2-4-055:005, and (3) 2-4-055:010, we conducted a site inspection and confirmed that one or more trees do pose an imminent danger. Therefore, pursuant to Section 20-22 of the Hawaii County Code (Code), we are required to notify you that the trees shall be removed. A copy of the Code is available at www.hawaiicounty.gov/lb- countycode/. An inspector from the County will be available to meet with you onsite to identify the trees that pose an imminent danger. In lieu of removal, a letter from a Hawaii State Certified Arborists stating that the tree(s) are deemed safe and healthy is acceptable. The owner of the trees shall be liable for damages caused to adjacent properties or for loss of life. Should you have any questions,please contact Ms. Melanie DeMello at(808) 961-8927. gt4�4 4y DAVID YAMAMOTO,P.E. Director MD Enclosures: Sketch&Pictures Planning Dept. County of HaNvai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer, Exhibit-LT d.L = AJ" Heig i r, f 'AY {' if y(rr r 2-4-028:009 h; OWNER:TAI,VINCENT TR Coconut Tree �z 1 Mango TreeMango Tree •� �� Height-±44' e p _+601 Y i Jn � rJ REFERENCE MAP Tax Map Key- (3) 2-4-028:009 OWNER: TAI,VINCENT TR JM[Y•oc H, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION INSPECTOR: 12/31/2019 RO EO VISAYA DATE i' f.3 s42 E'XNfj, f HABITABLE , > 1, ;+ 1t�ELU6/HOUSE 009 !r ! ! e .IABITABLE h LL tSE Al TMK : 2-4-028:009 f DIRECTION• PRO 00 :40 TAKEN V APPROX.LOCATIONOF 4 Y M�{ J x r 1 P': t REFERENCE MAP Tax Map Key- (3) 2-4-028:009 OWNER: TAI,VINCENT TR J,�sY.or H,h DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC. WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION INSPECTOR: 12131/2019 0MEO VISAYA DATE 1« O,, a 1 r.x tt i >k ff 74-028:009Az1 EXISTI DWELLINQftOUS ' r +44 l t -• ...".tea ::?. ..... ...-.,-. .s y. { EGEN• ..) 947.,+' ✓eY+Y' �__. .�,�.._�.— t.'-� DIRECTION OF PHOTO TAKEN • t ^'+ '� 1 k R .n v f •• a " � � •�IQA y�+✓� � {Sts ry aS kms„✓ ?� p��`r, `,. 54 4r r ItIml-,WIT.,FF a, r REFERENCE MAP Tax Map Key- (3) 2-4-028:009 OWNER: TAI,VINCENT TR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION INSPECTOR: 01/06/2020 RO EO VISAYA DATE PHOTO INDEX TNiK (3) 2-4-028:009 rr�r tit � �i4�;. �4.,,� '^�.+►` n _.. i I r I � Picture No. 1 4 Am Picture No. 2 County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 3 of 3 Harry Kim Michael Yee Mayor Director Wit Okabe Managing Director Duane Kanuha Deputy Director West Hawai'i Office East Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane KeohokMole HNvy10 1 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaili Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 CERTIFIED MAIL 7018 0360 0000 8784 3641 September 5, 2019 Mr. Vincent Tai Vincent Tai Trust 2184 Round Top Drive Honolulu, HI 96822-2059 Dear Mr. Tai: Change of Zone Ordinance No. 14-056 (REZ 13-000167) Subject: Non-Compliance of Conditions Tax Map Key: (3) 2-4-028:009,Waidkea, South Hilo,Hawaii It has come to our attention that you are not complying with Condition B and R of Ordinance No. 14-056, which became effective May 12, 2014 to change the zoning of the subject property from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5. Condition B states: "Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a registered engineer, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within one hundred'and eighty(180) days from the effective date of this ordinance." This condition was in both Ordinance No. 10 109, which originally changed the zoning for the subject property from RS-7.5 to RM-2.5, and was subsequently in Ordinance No. 14 56, which further up zoned the property from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5. In consultation with the Department of Water Supply, we have learned that the water calculations have not been submitted and that the www hiplanninadept corn Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employerpianning@hawaiicounty.go, L Planning be2019 A Exhibit-8 Mr.Vincent Tai Vincent Tai Trust Page 2 September 5, 2019 Additionally, Condition R states: "The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws,rules, regulations and requirements". On June 21, 2019 the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works (DPW) sent a letter informing you of the requirement to remove trees on your property that they determined pose an imminent danger. On July 13,2019 by letter and on Aug-List 9, 2019 by email, you informed DPW that you do not intend to remove the trees and you requested to "extend the 30-day deadline indefinitely until such time as we come to a mutual understanding". As this matter is not open for negotiation and the trees pose an imminent danger, DPW informed you on August 20, 2019 by email that the violation of County Code remains in effect, Ordinance No. 14-056 indicates, "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", This letter is to infonn you that if you do not submit water calculations and pay the water commitment deposit, as well as remove the trees as directed by DPW ori or before October 3,2019, the Planning Director will initiate procedures to rezone the property to its original or more appropriate zoning designation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158, Sincerely, L MICHAEL YEE" Planning Director MJJ:mad P\wpwin60\Maija\Letters\Enforceinetit,tLTii-Non-Coinpliance-REZ 13-167(2).doc cc: Melanie DeMello, DPW Ronald Kim, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mr.Vincent Tai Vincent Tai Trust Page 3 September 5, 2019 bee: Charlene Nishida via email (kpueo r@yahoo.com) Jackson, From: ]ackson, K4a'a Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2O191:31 PM To: 'Tai Architecture' Cc Darrow,Jeff; Dek4eUo, Melanie Subject: RE: Rezone ofProperty inHilo onHua|a|ai-Sdreet Hi Vincent, Glad tohearyou are back and received K4r.Yee'sletter dated SeptenoberS, 3O19. | believe K4e|anie'semail toyou on August 2O, �O19made itclear that DPW will not beforwarding any information totheir Corporation Counsel and the DPW violation is still in effect.The Planning Department is providing you 30 days from the date you picked up the �� September nntoremove the trees asdirected bvDPW, submit water calculations to DWS and pay the water commitment deposit. If you do not complete these actions by November 23,2019,the Planning Department will initiate procedures to rezone the property to its original or more appropriate zoning designation. Mo'oJackson, Planner County«fHawaii Planning Department /808>9G1-8259 ' From:Tai Architecture <taia/chitecLune@gnnai|.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 29, 2O191I:27PK4 To:Jackson, Maija <MaijoJackson@havvaiioounty.govx Cc: Darrow,Jeff<Jeff.Darrovv@havvaiicounty.Rov> Subject: Re: Rezone mfProperty in Hilo on Hua|a|ai Street Hi Mdija/ I came back to Honolulu late last week, been gOO8 since Sept. 19, T will respond in detail to M[. Ye8'S letter before the end Of tOnl0[rOVV. Please see my eDlail5 to Melanie. Best regards, ' Vincent Tai Architecture to Melanie Hi Melanie, T [etUDlBd to HODDlU(U from vacation OO 10/24, picked UD the P2giSt8PBd September 25 letter from Planning [}iPB[tO[ Michael Yee from the post office. T will respond to him the Planning [)eDO[tDOeOt directly. TO the DOe8OtiDl8, T wish to find out from VOU the [,OUDty'S CO[pOF8f2 COUDCil'S legal opinion regarding the branches over the neighbors' fences. T need this iO6O[Ul8tiOO to furnish to my iDSU[BOCe company. Please respond. 1 plann- i ng Dept: �� :��� D���xuuvnvAl_ Best, Vincent Hi Melanie, I found this email to you in my Yahoo Mail box, not sure it was sent to you September 23, 2019 Hi Melanie, I am currently in China where Google and gmail are blocked, temporarily I am using Yahoo mail. I will be in Europe the next 25 days or so. I remember a certified mail from the County Planning Department was sent to me back on September 9, 1 was not home to receive it and I marked on the slip to have it delivered in Sept. 11, but it never came. I checked with the post office on Sept 18 before I left the country, there was no such mail for me. Since I have no idea what the certified mail is about, if it is about the same tree branches dispute, please let the Planning Department knows I will be back in Honolulu after Oct. 25. I communicated with Ted Hong recently, I understand either you or someone from the County office contacted him and was told that I consulted with him but have not officially put him on board to represent me, but I will do so once I hear from the County's corporate 'counsel regarding the County's stand on this issue. In the meantime, I hear nothing from Charlene or Ann, my neighbors. Best, vincent On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:34 AM Jackson, Maija <Maiia.Jackson@hawaiicountV.gov>wrote: Hi Vincent, Are you currently traveling?The Planning Department has been trying to reach you regarding your property on Hualalai Street in Hilo. Please let me know the next time you will be in Hilo or how to reach you. Thank you, Maija Jackson, Planner County of Hawaii Planning Department (808)961-8159 2 Harry Kim Michael Yee Mayor4. Director Wil Okabe Duane Kanuha Managing Director Deputy Director 60; West Hawaii Office East Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy10 1 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kaitua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaili Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 CERTIFIED MAIL November 13,2019 Mr. Vincent Tai(via mail and email) 7018 0360 0000 8784 4006 Vincent Tai Trust 2184 Round Top Drive Honolulu,HI 96822-2059 Mr.Vincent Tai (via mail and email) 7018 0360 0000 8784 4013 Vincent Tai Trust 1238 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94109 Dear Mr. Tai: Change of Zone Ordinance No. 14-056 (REZ 13-000167) Subject: Non-Compliance of Conditions Tax Map Key: (3)2-4-028:009,WaiFtkea,South Hilo,Hawaii This letter is to acknowledge and respond to the following correspondences: 1) Your October 29,2019 email to the Planning Department, in which you confirmed receiving the Planning Department's September 5, 2019 letter on October 24, 2019. 2) Your letter to the Planning Department dated October 30, 2019. 3) Your letter to the Planning Department dated November 12, 2019. Please refer to the Department of Public Works (DPW) letter dated June 21, 2019 which clearly cites the section of law that is the basis for requiring that you remove unsafe flora from your property..The letter also indicates that in lieu of removal, you can provide DPW a letter from a Hawaii State Certified Arborist stating that the tree(s) are deemed safe and healthy. www.hiplanningdept.coin Hawaii County is an Equal OPPOrUtnity Provider and Employer planning0ahawahcounty.go NOV 14 22.019. Planning Dept. Exhibit-1 0 Mr. Vincent Tai Vincent Tai Trust Page 2 November 13,2019 The Planning Department is providing you 45 days from the date you picked up the September Stn letter at the post office,which you stated was October 24h, to remove the trees as directed by DPW, submit water calculations to DWS and pay the water commitment deposit. If you do not complete the actions described in the Planning Department letter dated September 5, 2019 by December 8,2019, the Planning Department will initiate procedures to rezone the property to its original or more appropriate zoning designation. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158. Sincerely, �IC A E� YE Planning Director MJJ:mads P\wpwin60\Maija\Letters\Enforcement\LTai-Non-Compliance-REZ13-167 October.doc cc w/Itrs: Melanie DeMello, DPW Ronald Kim, Deputy Corporation Counsel ya I VIII l SENDER: COMPLEIE THIS SECTION CONI;�kETE THIS SECTION ON/ LIVER W MEO ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. i ' [3 Agent ■ Print your name and,address on the reverse __❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B Roc ed by(Pdnfed Name) G.Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the maiiplece, or on the front jf s ace permits. 1. Article Addressed to: `6.is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: p No MR,VINC6IT TAI s ' VINCENT17AI TRUST 1238 PACIFIC AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94109 11111111��I���II���I�I������I���II�I��I����tl 3 Service Type ❑RegitPriority rvdMaiail pressD 1 I E3 it Signature Ci Registered Meal EC1yAdutt Signature Restrlcted Delivery Cl Ristered Mail Restricted 9590 9402 3888 8060 0163,43 ❑cerUfledea�I Restricted Delivery 8J M u Rdle�Pt for ❑Collect on D y RaWated Delivery[3 Collect on Delivery Signature ConflrmatianT"r 2. Article NumT036�30'70"00 service tabeA=4013,ln ❑Insured l�signature Confirmation 7018 878 4 ed Delivery Restricted Delivery av Domestic Return Receipt PS Form 3811,July 2015.PSN 7530-02-000-9053 { M . o . f-3 ° Q Certified Mail Fee •f Ij 43 $ Extra Services&Fees(chackbox,add fe a ❑Return Recaipt(hardtop» _ nate) $ :3 � � ❑Return Receipt{electronic} -- � $ ❑Certified Malt Restricted Delivery $ .D5tmark []Adult Signature Required �' re Signature Restricted Dative $ vary$ D PostageostageOAdult 3 a Total Postage and Fess �1• $ C ' Sent To MR. VINCENT TAI $treetandA VINCENT TAI TRUST 2184 ROUND TOP DRIVE crry,crate. ----------------------- HONOLULU, HI 96822-2058 ❑Adult Signature Restricted Da ary - Postage I ■ Complete iters 1,2,and 3. A. Signature ; ■ t-rint your name and address on the reverse o that we can return the card to you. X 0 Agent ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B: Recei d ❑Addressee i or on the front if space permits. Y(Printed Name) C At-of elivery j- 1, nr,: t<d t tracencl to 14f D. Is dell verygddress different from item 1? U Yes MR.VINCENT TAI If YES,enter delivery address below: p No VINCENT TAI TRUST 2184 ROUND TOP DRIVE HONOLULU, HI 96822-2059 31.❑dult8Signature ❑Priority Mail Express® 9590 9402 $$ $060 I�"II Adult Signature Restricted Delivery11 Registered Mail- 63 50 E53`Certified Mail@i ❑Registered Mail Restricted El Certified Mail Restricted Delivery9elivery 1 ? ❑Collect on Delivery eturn Receipt for Article Number(Transfer from servfoe label) ❑Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑Signature rchConfirmationTM j ?018 0 3 b Q 0 0 0 0i1 B 7 B 4 ,4 p❑Insured Mail ❑Signature Confirmation a y= .#'t Insured til Rstrjcted elive Restr cted Delivery 'S Form 3$11,JulY2015 PSNn80-02-000-9063 ! oven,$ p), y } i !,'�S3' ttF :II! P5 For"m J� duly Domestic Return Receipt r tN , OF PiATEg S°' *F i* I8 i49 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAVI f0 v ✓r�'L .... ... 345 KEKUANAUASTREETf �SUITE 20 HILO HAWAII 96720 DAHAWAtt. TELEPHONE (808)961-8050 • FAX(808)961-8657 January 27,2020 Mr.Vincent T.C.Tai `- 2184 Round Top Drive -J Honolulu,Hl 96822-2059 - Dear Mr.Tat: Subject: Water Commitment Deposit for the Future Multi-Family Development -' Change of Zone Application(REZ 13-000167) Tax Map Key 2-4-028:009 This is to acknowledge receipt of the required$14,100.00 water commitment deposit for the subject application. We are enclosing Receipt No.295262 for your files. Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Department's Rules and Regulations,a water commitment for the proposed development in the amount of 37,600 gallons per day,or 94 additional units of water at an average of 400 gallons per day,per unit,is hereby granted until December 31,2022,with the following conditions: 1. Construct necessary water system improvements,which shall include,but not be limited to: a. water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under peak-flow and fire-flow conditions, b. cut and plug the existing service lateral to the 518-inch meter serving the property, C. installation of a 4-inch service lateral to accommodate a 3-inch meter, d. installation of a reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly within five(5)feet of the meter on private property,the installation of which must be inspected and approved by the Department before water service can be activated, e. fire hydrant spaced no more than 300 feet apart and within 150 feet of the driveway or access to lot,and f. 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. Submit construction plans and design calculations prepared by a professional engineer,registered in the State of Hawaii,for review and approval. Planning Dept. * Water, Our914ost(Precious resource. . . Y,4 Wai'A xane. . . The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. 130845 Exhibit Mr. Vincent T.C. Tai Page 2 January 27,2020 2. Remit the prevailing facilities charge balance, which is subject to change,as shown below: FACILITIES CHARGE(FC): One(1)initial unit of water from the existing 5/8-inch meter(to be cut and plugged) $0.00 94 additional units of water $.5500.00/unit $517 000 00 TOTAL FC $517,000.00 WATER COMMITMENT DEPOSIT CREDIT(WCD): 94 additional units of water{a $150 00/unit $(14 104 C Facilities Charge Balance $502,900.00 This is due and payable upon completion of the installation of the required water system improvements and prior to final approval being granted. 3. Upon completion and final acceptance of the required water system improvements,water service can be granted when an authorized representative completes an application for water service. Please note that a credit deposit of$150.00 may be required. Application for water service can be completed at one of the Department's offices. 4. Should it be necessary,submit the appropriate documents,properly prepared and executed,to convey the water system improvements and necessary easements to the Water Board of the County of Hawaii prior to final subdivision approval being granted. A registered land surveyor shall stamp and certify the metes and bounds description within the conveyance documents. However,prior to water meter services being granted to the development, or any lots within,the conveyance documents shall be accepted by the Water Board. 5. Comply with all other applicable policies and requirements of the Department's Rules and Regulations. Noncompliance may be cause for voiding this water commitment, at which time availability will be subject to change in accordance with prevailing water system conditions,policies,and Rules and Regulations. Should there be any questions,please contact Mr.Ryan Quitoriano of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070,extension 256. Sincerely yours, Keith K. Okamoto,P.E. Manager-Chief Engineer RQ:dfg i Enc. copy-Planning Department E Mr. Jonathan Oba, Imata&Associates,Inc. Harry Kim Of Michael Yee Mayor Director Roy Takemoto Managing DirectorMew: Duane Kanuha Deputy Director "AF Wiks' West Hawaii Office East Hawaii Office 74-5044 Ane Keohok5lole Hwy101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kaitua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 County of Hawaili Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 CERTIFIED MAIL December 26, 2019 Mr. Vincent Tai(via mail and email) 7009 3410 00013138 0396 Vincent Tai Trust 2184 Round Top Drive Honolulu,HI 06822-2059 Mr. Vincent Tai (via mail and email) 7009 3410 00013138 0402"' Vincent Tai Trust 1238 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94109 Dear Mr. Tai: Change of Zone Ordinance No. 14-056 (REZ 13-000167) Subject: Non-Compliance of Conditions Tax Map Key: (3) 24-028:009, Waidkea, South Hilo, Hawaii In our letter to you dated November 13, 2019, we informed you that the Planning Director would initiate procedures to rezone the subject property to its original or more appropriate zoning designation if you did not complete the following actions described in our letter dated September 25, 2019 by December 8, 2019: • Submit water calculations and pay the water commitment deposit as required by Condition B of Ordinance No. 14-56, and • Remove the trees on the subject property as directed by the Department of Public Works (DPW) in their letter dated June 21, 2019 as required by Condition R of Ordinance No. 14- 56. On November 1, 2019 we received water calculations from your engineer and on November 20, 2019 we received an email from you transmitting the water commitment payment as required by www.hiplanningdept.com Hawaii County is an Epal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning(a),hawaiicouniy.go Planning Dept. DEC 2 72019 Exhibit Mr.Vincent Tai(via mail and email) Vincent Tai Trust Page 2 December 26,2019 Condition B of the ordinance. We appreciate your effort to comply with this condition and are awaiting confirmation from the Department of Water Supply that they received the water commitment payment. We have also received ongoing email and letter correspondence between you and DPW regarding your effort to meet the requirements of DPW regarding the unsafe flora on your property. According to DPW, as of December 13, 2019, the unsafe flora had not been removed from the property and therefore you have not complied with Condition R of the ordinance. This letter is to inform you that the Planning Director has initiated procedures to change the zoning of the subject property to Single-Family Residential- 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) and the matter is scheduled for a hearing before the Windward Planning Commission on Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. at the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, HI 96720. A copy of the hearing agenda will be provided to you once it is available. We encourage you to continue to work with DPW to comply with County Code related to the unsafe flora on your property. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158. Sincerely, MICHAEL YEE Planning Director MJJ:mads P\wpwin60\Maija\Letters\EnforceiTient\LTai-Non-Compliance-REZ[3-167 Notify of Feb Hearing.doc cc: Melanie DeMello, DPW Ronald Kim,Deputy Corporation Counsel 3 SECTIONCOMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY n Cam items 1,2,and 3. a Signature Complete D Agent ■ Print your name and.address on the reverse X Addressee so that we can return the card to you. ved y(p nted ivarre) C.pate of Delivery n Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, f� I or an On front if tiptiCe permits. f<f 1. ea: p. Is delivery address dlift3n t from item 1? Yes ^— If YES,enter delivery address below. p No JaMR VINCENT TAI VINCENT TAI TRUST 2184 ROUND TOP DRIVE HONOLULU FII 968222059 'I�'���'�f't�����1����t»��� ��1 �iI I'I' ❑ Service WO [I ftority MailSignature Restrt*4 Del very ❑Registered M l R ed ❑Mult signature ❑Registared Mail- 9590 9402.3888 MO 017500 DCerti fed Mall ResMcted EWK-V 1 -,W iftetteerdbe OCcoitoot llect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑Signature confirmation- 2. Altai-my1mhor eft--41 rFnm M *r" nWMA ©iured Mali ❑Signature Confirmation 7009 3 410 0 0 01 3138 0 3 9 6 ❑i nstead I Restr..Delivery Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt r PS Form 3511,July 201$..15AN 7534-02-0000063 t ^ ir AA October 3O.2U1Q Michael Yee Planning Director, Planning Department County cfHawaii 1O1PauohiStreet, Suite 8 ' Hilo, H/S072O Re: Non-compliance ofconditions TK8K:(3)2-4- 28:009 Dear Michael, This letter isinresponse koyour letter ofSeptember 5.2O18. Ordinance 14-O5OCondition B: It is my oversight, I was not aware of this condition.Yesterday I authorized Imata&Associates to prepare the water usagoco|cukadonwhiohwi||beead� b this Friday tosubmit bthe Department cfWater Supply. |just wish Vnadd from mypau\experience nencevthrezon|ngapp|iooUon|nother]uhodinhonn'o |nn e approval was based on the availability of water,water meter permit fee was due only when a project)o submitted for building permit. Ordinance 14-O5OCondition R: First of all, |have never said|would not assist orparticipate iclearing the tree branches neighbors', fences whether o/not'amlegally responsible.Asyou can see}nthe enclosed documents| attempted to workwith two neighbors, Charlene NioNdaand Ann Toma.which--g-'-years ago and continued today to seek th eirbo operation without success. I ceaselessly implored them to consult their muunanoecomponyond|ega|adv aur. |need the ircoopanahoninonderbpum' a �y r. unanoecompany SVateFann |noumnca)0mgetinvo|vadChudene�ndioa{�d �h ~ ^ x ' '~ . over nueye�maQoshehaduontechodher insunanoeoompenyandaxomeybutofferedmeno '.hznra8on.--ndaimndshawmu|dunlycontac\hmr ' lawyer after her property indamaged bythe branches. |even offered hopay for half ofthe oos\ but the most appmpheteroute for meiok/work v�ththe neighbors 1u�|eadaimunder myRental Dwelling Policy. Ipaid SkateFonnthousands o(dollars inpremium all these years, Atthis time, |timnot clear tomethere imany noncompliance ofapplicable County|ews /understand the DPVYletter dated June 21.2O18was prepared byibotsff. \hove\ogiUm*�oreasons t~-nequostthaiaouea ahouNbare� by reviewed the County's VV qua|�od\orender legal op\nionndiconsult scorpmra�eco«n«e|� Dp 'ssto�maynu[bo*quippodnr ��. u Ted Hong,oHilo based|awyer (have not yet officially engage him torepresent mebut|intend tndono�needed when the Umnco'esdealing with your depa�mantand 3tyteFann.Hecontends therein nolaw that require smek�''�mbramohesfromo�eo /oo�ed|nmypnope�ythat extend beyond myneiQhbos'#annas.Tho�in�o�-^i�not mymoponsibi|ity andnot/Uego)hzrmenottuc|earthybnanohesinquashnn. Tha\beingMho—~/ |quaaUnnadonwhat basis OPVVclaimed<tiamyrospunaibUi�yandh|ea�o|a�onufCo \ |a case, norponateuuunsei � County ««s»vu»ou�onnauNnQCoun�y'a VINCENT T-c.nAI, AIA,ARCHITECT z1u^Round Top Drive 1xoaPacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.x|ouxuu San Francisco,o�y*�v ePlanning 808-278 0158 Email /om ' �% � � � �� ^ � �m �u^, PN*�����~K�%� Dept. _ `� Exhi bit » Page The DPW did not address the responsibility or the failure ofmyneighbors tomaintain the branches over their fences to their satisfaction over the years. For oxample,what happens when branches from my trees extend only one-foot over a neighbor's fence? K no law says it is my responsibility to trim off the benoheo,it would be entirely up to my neighbor's discretion to trim off the branches as they seo'fitThere is no reason for them to take no action and let the branches grow to a stage that may consider posing imminent danger Uo their own property. It is fair to say the branches in question that deem 'imminent / donQeeUsta�mdvjthnne4bctbayond\he|rfenoeo. kisbeynndmynon�o|ondnoneofmybusi~'~~~ssot which point and when myneighbors decide toVm imo��he� nchesondneirown It imtheir foUupeto noon|k/rand cut oMexcessive branches pehodico|}yand ona\im�yfashion|nk-~'eptheir properties aaha |fthey had paid m�en0 �attention their livelihood and undertaken necessary � actions,there would not boany imminent danger imposed their pnopado ie |~~mybelief the intent of the County Ordinance Section 20-22 imfor o�uoUunsuub as broken dead b--- euorcmu�ng~'~~`'nai wkesthat might pose imminent danger honoighboofpmpe |eo.ondnotfur '-- �hotshou could Nthe conditions— should or I should be offered the eight or opportunity to question or object the findings and requirements determined bythe DPW.Since you stated itisnot open for negotiation, |amnot looking for negotiation atthis time | merely�odVofind out exacdythe extent ofmyroopon�bi(i\y^ i[an� and whether any County laws are ' Violated.|have some ufmylegitimate questions and concerns stated inmy08/22email|oMelanie,such ` as: ° Who conducted the inspection and prepared the photos and comments?What isthe qua|ifioaUunof this person? ° Did DPW ask the neighbors,particularly Charlene and 4mn, why they refused howork with their' insurance company orattorney(n assist me to 0a claims with SbteFann, and has there been any damages inflicted on their properties? ° What are the criteria in determining whet is deem 'an imminent danger';clearly itia a judgment call unless there are clear criteria guidelines?From the photos, |find numerous situations hand to justify ,an imminent danger'. It is important for me to know before|meet with the DPW staff toinspect the physical conditions. ° How and when did the branches or roots become\an imminent danger'?What action did the neighbors take before the branches or roots become 'an imminent danger'? ° Who is responsible for causing the branches deem'an imminent danger?Other than myself, are the neighbors also should be held wholly or partly responsible for not taking an action before the branches posing 'an imminent danger? |urge you tncontact the County corporate ovvnoe|omthaiaoueuothandrequire\ega|(nterpra\etion \oon come(oHUotomeet with you and m1o|anienext week after/Nonday. November 4. pro�dodyou provide answer(umyaforementioned quesdv� nnuond !emob|e�oma�emneppoinbnen�hxmaotthTedHnQ. Thank you for your attention. Sinceroly, VINCENT TAI,AIA Enclosures Vincent�C.Tai,AIA,Architect Planning w Partial list ufenmaheVincent Tai tmMelanie DeNeJ|ovx Tai Architecture 07-22-2019 Thank you for your response.I sentAm Toma another email last Saturday 07/20(see below). I wish she .~willing^"cooperate with me. /will send osimilar email b,Charlene. She-is alicensed appraiser aytar as|know,ihave afeeling she knows the law usmuch os |do.She may have �xnot U a/�|ngao |mugges0adtoher.� hough |havenoproo[ --^'~' '''~^'^~ I forgot my first day back in town was taken up by appointments with my doctor,dentist,roofer,etc. |decided tureply your email inthe form of aletter,|amnot alawyer, |assume you ananoteither(~you are, |apo|oOiza)' |fthis isthe first case comes across OVP.it may asaprecedent insimilar cases inthe future depending onthe outcome ofthem|mQoy'�me County's attorney. Kyletter|sintended for our n»opective|egu| advioerehaoommnntpn. Have you asked Charlene why she refused to contact her legal adviser?I suspect she might have already mu. orpneharsnuttoknmvthetru\h.orpretendonotknowingthatruMh.VVe|\. |amjumtcudous. Tal Architecture 08-00-2019 |haven't heard from Ted Hong's office.He is an experienced real eobaha attorney; |have noreason\o � believe his opinion inincorrect. Unless the branches over the n� hbor'nfence are dead and crossing on electricalc|ina.itixno�thnresponsibi\i|Yc��he�neeown� |suggest you consult corporatethe County's counsel with or without further input from Ted Hong's office as soon as possible in order tokeep the neighbors appraise oftheir legal responsibility. Below are myemai|asent toCharlene and Ann onAugust 4. kisyo ---' ngatheynufunedtuhaedmy ' advice and be proactive. I was told by StateFarm there is nothing they can do until such time my neighbors o/their insurance company file oclaim. |amsorry| still don't understand what you meant bythe tree trunks causing hazardous condibona Whatove1hec�ehaforidenUf�ngcm� trees trunks � upaosingupon the neighbors'properties or you actually meant the branches?If the neighbors had maintained and trimmed the healthy branches over their fences when they were first discovered years ogoperhapsynurooncemawou|dhavabeen miUgoh»d. |suggest wowait un�|your corporate oounoe ' - h—orher determination towhat extent the neighbors are supposed to be responsible to clear the branches for their own safety, and whether or not I Tai Architecture 08-22-2019 ' 1 urge you to contact the County corporate-counsel regarding a number of issues that require the counsel's legal opinion.!fthere imnolaw that requires mebztrim the branches over myneighbors'fences' that iathe uonnoasthe law says |emnot required Sodoso. ' For the time beinQ, at the suggestion ofnnylegal adviser, |list the following questions and concerns to be answered byyou o/your counsel: Who conducted the inspection and prepared the photos and oommenba7 Is this person enutsida contractor o,amember ofDPW staff? What/athe qualification cfthis person? Did this person meet directly with the neighbors involved? What are the criteria to determine or classify what is deem'an imminent danger; clearly it is a kind of judgment call? From the photos, |find numerous situations hard to justify'an imminent danger'. ^ � �� �J � � � �^~ uo � � � U . - - Did my neighborsclaim any damages$atheir properties?Ifso,they should file claims such that my insurance company would step h0opay for repairs. Mow and when did the branches orroots become'animminent denge/? Who isresponsible for creating the branches d 'an imminent dangor?Other b)onmyaelf,erethe !,". `uu/oneheld wholly orpartly responsible for the branches that are supposedly posing animminent gange/? \ understand under certain circumstances some parts ofmytrees clearly may pose animminent dange/ such asadead branch that may foUoff any time orthe branches are omoeingoverhead deo8ico\=|�s' |n my case,there ianoimminent danger when the healthy branches first appeared tobe crossing the fences.The neighbors knew about the condition of these branches years ago. It is their responsibility, and not mine,to trim off the branches before they become an imminent danger. it is their failure to monitor and cut off excessive branches periodically and on a timely fashion t keep their properties safe. They know I don't live in Hilo and it is not my business to speculate what the 9 y want. I know there are situations in which the over hanged branches are desirable because they provided much needed As I told you, I intend to assist my neighbors to deal with the issues one way or another that require their input,but so far they refused to cooperate. I need their input for me to work with my insurance company. Once I received your response, I may come to Hilo to meet With my legal adviser and your qualify person who prepared the documents near the end of next week, I will be in San Francisco the next few days where |live part ofmytime other than Honolulu. Tal Architecture 08-22-2019 In my previous email, I ignored to mention I believe the intent of the County Ordinance Section 20-22 is for situations such as broken dead branches or electrical wires that might pose imminent danger to neighbors'properties, and not for conditions that should or could have been mitigated or avoided by the neighbors. Tai Anuhih*ok/re 08'28-2019 Please forward this email tothe County corporate attorney. AoIpointed out mynaighbu � '~ m wte(ome about the healthy tree branches crossed over their fences almost 3years ego |nAnn Tomoa'oemail dated OcL18.2O16.she made itclear she had nointe'Utrim the early stages, but towait unU|actual damages Noccur before contacUngherintention to She understood fuUythat her|av�m/would file adahnnrsue metodrag myinsurance company to settle the claim. it is dearher mnUvevveupremeditated inogertoavoid taking care ofand pa�nfor clearing the bm' hos. In Charlene Nishida's email on Mar. 15, 2017,she said she had contacted her homeowner insurance and had an attorney represented her, but she did nothing, neither insurance company nor her attorney contacted me.That was two and ehalf year ago. |nher email ofApril 1b 20 '19' she threatened kzvoid d nezonochanQedeppmvod5yearaaQo. | ouepeotbut\ hmvenn' -- ' �` -henh-senoitotakmonyau8onynarabaok. She was the only neighbor appeared inthe County Council hearing objechnQthozon|nDappUom0onin2O14. |nany case,she was mistaken;there ianostipulation in the zone change approval regarding tree branches.Apparently she might believe that she found a way to void the zoning change. /will heoovacation inEurope from September 17toOctober 25. |fyou don't hear from the County corporate attorney before September 7,it is reasonable to continue this matter after I returned from vacation, I made clear to them I am willing to help to pay for 50%of the cost even it is not my responsibility if we are not able to get their insurance company or my insurance company to cover the cost, 8ofar they refused<ocooperate. _ - - - - - - -- -- — -- - ----'' ' < ( � ' `-- Partial list of emai|sfmom Vincent Tai to Charlene Nishida: Tai Architecture 0345-2017 1 only simply asked you to consult your attorney whether or not my understanding is correct. Please do so and get back to me.What I did the last time maybe out of good will and not legally required. Tai Architecture 04-15-2010 |nmylast email toyou dated March, 15.2D17. | said the followings: 7 only simply asked you 6consult wyour attorney whether mnot myundem ~ '' Please do auand get back b/mo� � s /did the last time maybe out of good will and not legally P|aono also refer to my pdnrnmai|s listed below. |asked you to get back to me,but no words from you. | have not beignodngyou. Since|haven't heard back 6nmyou, 1take|tyou had the issue taken care of—by yourself,and you agree with myconclusion after you consulted your attorney. Tai Architecture talarchitecture cimail.com 04-15-2019 As per my previous wma@a,have you consultedwbh ybu '? If so,lei me know. |stated so clearly, you are free hotrim have don't encroach my property. Tal Architecture 04-15-2019 First ufall, there is no subdivision or application. |am not subdivision developer.You are misinformed ormistaken.Are you complaining about another property and not mine?Secondly, |asked you to confirm with your attorney why it is my responsibility and not yours to trim the branches over your property, I never said|would refuse todoouifitiamyresponsibility. From what|know, it|oyour responsibility. ' Have you spoken with your insurance company? |could have myinsurance company hodeal with yours VVhat|syour insumncecompany? � Tal Architecture taiarchitectureCcOgmail,com 04-15-2019 Let me be clear, you had mistaken about the subdivision and erroneously cited violations but made no reference. I asked you for the third time to get a legal opinion but you refused, Asfar aa|know, you are supposed tomaintain your side ofthe property for any branches over your property. Please consult your(ego|od»\oe'. |ask you again, in the meantime, please let me know the name myour insuranceoompany .|wd|| he e my insurance company deal with yours. Be a responsible neighbor. Tai Architecture 04-10-2019 , Your were incorrect in multiple them - ' na|'and not under'udban'designation(you must recall what you said the first time wemet outside the hearing mom). the property is asubdivision(which is noU, you can file acomplaint tovoid the Rk4'1.5zoning(no such provision)' etc. The conditions for rezoning(oRM-1.5are|nconnection with any future demdopmenb There inno pmv�(onregarding proper�maintenance, parUou|or|ytree branches ex�ndinQover the fence into neighboring properties that is the neighbors'responsibility to remove as they wish. } urge you tnread the followings carefully again. |fyou fall tounde/atand please consult wkhyour legal ed�serand have him orher tocontact me.Also,please let mahave the 'name ufyour insurance company.You see, |am trying huwork with you, but you are not cooperating. ` _ ' ( / `. \. � Tal Architecture 04-17-2019 Please allow meUzmake mlayman's suggestion ifyou donot want bzpay for trimming branches over your property. Granted,your legal adviser may offer other suggestions.You ask your insurance company to file a.claim or your attorney to file a lawsuit against me, I will have my insurance company involved to defend orresolve such claims. Well, )amonly trying tohelp. Tal Architecture taiarchitectureCcb gm ail.corn 05'15-2019 |was in the mainland the past 3 weeka, haven't heard book from you. If you had filed a - ,—int with the Planning Department, they have not notified me. May I suggestyuuQetanestimotehnre — -'' '-- trimmers how much itcost bztrim the branches over the hmyour property.You e tenant mnmyproperty who also does tree trimming, Ka|eoWong mai: Have you spoken With your insurance company? Tai Architecture taiarchitectureagmail.com 07-23-2019 |[o been months,|still have not heard from you. !urge you over two years ago, and again to consult your legal advisor,insurance company and get an estimate to Vim the branches.Thlaw clearly states it is your responsibility.You may not like it, but it is the law.It is what it is. If you want me to help you one way or anotUer, even it is not my responsibility,you need to help yourself and do your end of the work. |will see what myinsurance company may doorwhat| may do. Tai Architecture 07-24-2019 Ifyou had heed m dvi0ocontact your legal advisor, insurance company and gotten anestimate over 2 years ago, the alleged branches would have been easier to trim clear any potential damages to your property, | amdocumenting myemaUahoshow you have not been cooperating. The violation you referred to in under review bythe County's attorney, in the meantime,the 30-day notice iooff the tabb. | msd|yurge you again\ocontact your legal advisor. insumnuocompany and get an es�mate. Vincent Tai Architecture 08'05-2019 | urge you againto contact your legal adviser and insurance company. I told you my legal adviser is an attorney based in Hilo specialized in real estate. If the County's corporate counsel agrees with him which I have no reason to believe otherwise.That means I am not responsible for trimming the branches over your property. If for your own unexplained reason unwilling to contact your legal adviser, and not prepared to pay for the trimming, I suggest you at least contact your insurance company and inquire the process of filing a claim. Let your insurance company decides how to contact my insurance company if indeed some kind of compromise can be worked out to your benefit. My insurance company cannot be involved unless there is a claim.This is how the system works. | omdisappointed you refused to cooperate ever since I urged you to do your part of the work years ago- - - ' ' C- Partial list of emails from Vincent Tai to Ann Toma Tai Architecture taiarchitecture(@qmaii.com 10-19-2016 You may wish to consult your attorney.By law,you are not responsible to trim tree branches extending over your neighbors'fences and properties unless any of the branches are dead and about to fall. it is up to your neighbors whether they trim them off. If so,they bear the cost of such work and not you.That being said, I was simply trying to appease you and be a good neighbor even it is not my responsibility to do so. Please let me get two more quotes to remove the branches over your property and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Ann Toma annfT.tomaagmaii.com 10-19-2016 to me I believe it will be your responsibility if for what ever reason the tree topples on to any of the homes. So for we have been lucky that strong winds have not really hit us, I Will not obtain a lawyer to deal with this unless there is damage to our home or property. Tai Architecture taiarchitectureggmail.com 10-1 9-2ol 6 1 only ask you to consult an attorney regarding responsibility. Your understanding is not correct.Below are a few legal opinions: If the limbs of a healthy tree overhang the roof of a neighbor's property, is the owner of the tree under a duty to trim the tree back to protect the roof of the neighbor? No, the tree owner does not have a duty to trim the tree. The adjacent landowner has the right to trim the tree back to the property line to protect his property and should exercise this right. A large tree located entirely on an adjoining lot grew into two large branches one of which overhung the house on the neighboring lot A 90 mile per hour wind caused the overhanging portion of the tree to fall on the neighbor's house, severely damaging it. The owner of the damaged house sued his neighbor for negligence in allowing the tree to overhang his house, alleging that the tree owner was negligent in allowing it to overhang the neighboring property and also alleging nuisance and trespass. The court dismissed the negligence allegation and said that trespass and nuisance required an intentional act by the neighbor. Since the neighbor did not intentionally cause the tree to overhang the neighbor's house, the court held that the tree owner was not liable for damages. Your neighbor(owner of tree) can be hold liable only if his failure to maintain the tree in some way contributed to the damage. If the damage was merely the result of a large storm or an act of God, the neighbor will not be liable for the damage,because the damage could not have been foreseen. If a tree limb appeared precarious(dead branches about to fall)and the owner'failed to maintain the tree after warnings,he is responsible for resulting damage when a storm causes the limb to fall. If the tree was well maintained and a storm knocked it down onto your roof, the neighbor is not responsible. \_. \ � Tai Architecture taiarchitectureagmalf.com 07-20-2018 | urge you again toconsult your legal advisor, insurance company and get anestimate ootrim the branches. K(syour responsibility.You may not like it,but it is the law. |tiowhat his. |assume you are a law abiding citizen. If you want me to help you one way or another, even it is not my responsibility, you need tohelp yourself and doyour end ofthe work first. |will see what|can do. Tai Architecture 08-05-2019 1 urge you again to contact your legal adviser and insurance company, I told you my legal adviser is an attorney based in Hilo specialized in real estate. If the Countys corporate counsel agrees with him which I have nureason tobelieve otherwise.That means| amnot responsible for trimming the branches over your property. |ffor your own unexplained reason unvfliUingtocontact your legal adviser,and not prepared to pay for the trimming, I suggest you at least contact your insurance company and inquire the process of filing aclaim. Let your insurance company decides how\ocontact myinsurance company|f indeed some kind ofcompromise can beworked out huyour benefit, yWyinsurance company cannot be involved unless there is uclaim.This|show the system works. I am disappointed you refused to cooperate ever since I urged you,to do your part of the work years ago. - - � / ir AA November 12.2O18 Michael Yee Planning Director, Planning Department County ofHawaii 1O1Pmuah|Street, Suite 3 Hilo, H| SG72U He: PWyletter ofOctober 3O,201Q Non-compliance ofconditions TyWK: (3)2'4'O28:OOO Dear Michael, I have not heard back from you or the County's counsel. It is not fair to charge me with non-compliance or violation until the County provides a clear legal interpretation and understanding of the parameters and policies governing the legal and moral responsibility and obligation of the parties involved, i.e. me and my neighbors if indeed there is no law that requires me to trim off the branches whether one foot or twelve feet over their fences;and the definition of'imminent danger' As I stated clearly, I am willing and ready to work with my neighbors with their cooperation. I will be in San Francisco from November 1Bto27. Thank you for your attention. / Sinomno|y. ' VINCENT TAI,AIA � VINCENT TcTAI, AIA,ARCHITECT 2184Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.mo6822 San Francisco,nx941e Planning anu-27an1sxTel emai/ TuiArcxnentum@umai|.vom ir AA Via email November 21. 2O1Q Michael Yee Planning Director, Planning Department County ofHawaii 1O1PauohiStreet, Suite 3 Hilo. H196720 Re: Non-compliance nfconditions TK4K: (3)2-4-028:009 Dear Michael, / I refer to your department's letter of November 13, 2019 sent by certified mail which I received on evening ofNovember 1A. 2O18inSan Francisco. You acknowledged receiving my letters of October 30, 2019 and November 12,2019, but you failed to respond and provide me with the County's corporate counsel's opinions on the various questions and legal issues I raised of which some apply to the consultation service by an arborist. I will address these concerns again inaseparate letter toyou, In the DPW letter of June 21, 2019, it specified the 'trees'that pose'an imminent danger'to the neighboring parcels shall be 'removud' } take btomean ifthere are only one branch orafew bnaohen that pose 'an imminent danger',the trees shall be removed entirely and not only the branch or branches in question. If this is what it means, I find it unreasonable.Trees are valuable assets to the environment; they should not be removed just because there are a few questionable branches.A man should not be put to death simply he has a badly infested leg that needs to be amputated.As I indicated in my previous letters, DPW still has not answered my questions on what condition the branches or roots are deemed 'an imminent danger', These questions are pertinent to the engagement of an arborist. Please provide me with three or more names and contact information of Hawaii State Certified Arborists who only provide consultation services and not licensed contractors who also specialize in tree trimming and removal. |tiaobvious there may beconflict ofinterest if the same person who consults and provides trimming services based on his or her own determination or self interest. The County must have worked with consultant erbohstointhe past. I have no problem agreeing to engage an arborist to state that the trees are 'safe' and healthy'. Huvvover, in order to do so, the arborist must be provided with detail and precise instructions and specifications which tree tosurvey and how the survey imconducted. Other than the yet unspecified meaning of'aafe'. what is the definition of'healthy'?Based on DPW's letter of June 21,2019, it is not clear exactly which trees and under what conditions are to be surveyed.The overhead images provided include statements such as 'various trees'with only one or two tree trunks shown.Are only the trees with branches over the neighbors'fences that considered 'an imminent danger'should be included in the survey? If so,the arborist must be provided with the criteria how to determine what condition is deemed 'an imminent � danger'. � VINCENT zu.TAI, AIA,ARCHITECT m84Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.mmeuza San Francisco,rAo41um Planning ouV2ruo1saTel smai| Taixxmmmtune@mmao.omm Page I suggest once an arborist is selected to perform the assignment with precise instructions and specifications, he or she would meet with me and a qualified representative of DPW to tag the trees to be surveyed. Of course,this meeting cannot be productive unless there is a clear understanding and definition of'an imminent danger'that iaagreed byall parties involved. Given there are afair amount cf preparations and negotiations that may or may not involve our respective legal counsels before the arborist can commence work, and depending on the arborist's work schedule, I therefore request the deadline of December 8, 2019 to be postponed and reassessed until we have a better handle on the involvement ofan'arbohet. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincere|y, VINCENT TA.AIA Vincent r�Tai,AIA,Architect Architecture 'mnmno { ir ITILA November 29, 2019 via email l 1 Michael Yee Planning Director, Planning Department ` County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 A' I I Re: Non-compliance of conditions TMK: (3)2-4-028:009 ' i Dear Michael, I I refer to your email of 11/27/2019 and letter dated 11/13/2019. In your letter of 11/27/2019, you indicated you acknowledge and `respond' to my correspondences listed. I wrote to you again on 11121//2019 because as far as I know l did not receive your response. In the same letter, I agreed to engage a Hawaii state Certified Arborist to state the trees are`safe' and `healthy' and I asked you to assist me by providing me with names of arborists and asked for postponing and reassessing the deadline until an arborist's schedule is known. I will write to'DPW regarding the same proposal. I understand this matter was brought up and managed by DPW, but your department sets the deadline for initiating procedure to rezone the property if indeed there is a code violation to be opined preferably by the County's corporate counsel. Now that I selected i the option to engage an arborist in lieu of trimming the branches which I questioned DWP's claim of code violation, please allow me to explain why it is important for DWP to forward the issues to the County's corporate council for his or her opinion regarding branches over the neighbors' fences. For your reference, I attached my letters to DPW dated July 13, 2019, my letter to Melanie dated July 31, 2019 and emails to Melanie from August 20 to August 22, 2019. In my email of August 22, 2019, 1 listed a number of legitimate questions regarding the conditions cited in DPW's letter of June 21, 2019, but she has not responded. I could not understand why Melanie j refused to involve the County's corporate counsel as there are clearly legal issues. i strongly believe it is fair and important in the future for both the owner of a property where the tree is located and his neighbors clearly understand what the codes imply regarding their respective responsibilities in the event one or more trees branches crossing over the fences that start with one foot and grow to 10 feet or more, if indeed there is no law that requires the j property owner to trim off the over-reaching branches. Who is responsible to trim off the € 'branches extend into public streets or right-a-ways, the County or the property owner? In Honolulu, as far as I know, the City or the County cleared the branches without sending the property owners a bill. i i VINCENT T.C.TAI, AIA,ARCHITECT 2184 Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.HI 96822 San Francisco,CA 94109 Planning 808-278 0158 Tel Email TaiArchitecture@gmail.com 1- 296 6 i 1 Page You stated the County would rezone the property to its original (RM-2.5)or more appropriate zoning designation |nueae | don'tnneet(hedoad|ine. GincoUleCountyCwuncj| unanimnuak/ voted hzrezone the property to RM-1.5 in 2014, it was determined RM-1.5 was the appropriate zoning designation in 2014 to provide more affordable housing sites in the County, particularly in Hilo and it is in close proximity to properties with similar or more dense zoning designations, The lack of affordable housing is in far more dire shape today than in 2014. That being the case, it sounds like a good argument to keeping the existing RM-1.5 or rezoning it to RM-1.0 is more appropriate. ' Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, VINCENT TAI, AIA Enclosures - cc: Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii - | | � ' Vincent rcTai,mA,Architect Architecture Planning - o ` 00r AA July 31. 2O1Q Ms. Melanie DoMello Department ofPublic Works 1O1PauahiStreet, Suite 7 Hilo, H| BG72O Dear Melanie, |wish torespond toyour email ufO7-25-2O1A. 1 did mention in my previous letter I notified and forwarded the letter from DPW dated June 21, 2019 to StateFarrn Insurance, my insurance carrier,for their legal opinion whether the removal of tree branches and roots encroached upon the neighbors' properties are my responsibility.Also, even it is not my responsibility, is StateFarrn willing to pay for trimming the branches before any damages inflicted on neighbor's structures or any claims are filed. I was told by the insurance agent the underwriter team is working oni(and | will benotified any time this week. ' ' Assuming the County corporate counsel concurs with my legal adviser's opinion, the same law would epp|ytothetreebnnkeyoua||udedtoifauohirunkeextendedin0bneighbom' properUoo. Youupecifioo||y mentioned the base/trunk of numerous trees being too tall. I interpret the base/truck as the part of the tree's main trunk that starts from the ground and grow upward; branches are connected to the main trunk. I fail to understand how a tree trunk, no matter how tall depending on the species, causes 'imminent danger'to the neighbors. Some species are supposed to grow very tall, some don't. In any case, it would be the branches and not the trunk that might cause concerns to the neighbors. Followings are how VVikipediodefines tree trunk and branch: /nbotany the trunk(or bole)/athe stem and main axis which/sanimportant feature in tree identification, and which often differs markedly from the bottom of the trunk to the top, depending onthe apeo/oa.. A branch or tree branch is a woody structural member connected to but not part of the central trunk of o/ree. Large branches are known as boughs and small branches are known as twigs.L11 The term 1b6�j" often refers broterminus, while 'bozgh''refers only tobranches coming directly from the trunk. ` You mentioned there are numerous trees. It would be helpful if you kindly identify exactly which tree (and specie) in your opinion is too tall. Once I have the information from you, I will contact my legal adviser. Please understand I am not trying to evade my responsibility, I would do so whatever the law requires.As you can see, myneighbors have not been cooperating all these years. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, �*#M. VINCENT TAI, AIA VINCENT rc.TAI, AIA, ARCHITECT o84Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.u|em822 San Francisco,cAow1oe Planning eoo-2rao1uaTel Emai| Tamrcm|tectum@oman^om DeMdb, Melanie 08-20-2019 tome Hi Vincent, Corporation Counsel will only review the items we provide them, so if no specific law is provided than they would only etate/ns-henateour regulations based off the County Code. Thus otthis time | omnot forwarding anything to Corporation Counsel for review and the violation remains in effect. Tai Architecture taiarchitectureAcirnail.corn 08'22-2013 Hi Melanie, I urge you to contact the County corporate counsel regarding a number of issues that require the counsel's legal opinion. If there is no law that requires me to trim the branches over my neighbors'fences; that isthe same osthe law says | amnot required todoso. For the time being, at the suggestion of my legal adviser, | list the following questions and concerns to be answered byyou oryour counsel: ' Who conducted the inspection and prepared the photos and comments? Is this person a outside contractor oramember n/DPW staff? ' What iathe qualification ofthis person? Did this person meet directly with the neighbors involved? What are the criteria iodetermine orclassify what iadeem 'an imminent denger'; clearly itioakind of judgment call? From the photos, I find numerous situations hard to justify'an imminent danger'. ' Did my neighbors claim any damages to their properties? If so,they should file claims such that my insurance company would step intopay for repairs. How and when did the branches orroots become 'an imminent danger'? Who is responsible for creating the branches deem "an imminent danger'? Other than myself, are the neighbors also should be held wholly or partly responsible for the branches that are supposedly posing ,an imminent donger'? I understand under certain circumstances some parts of my trees clearly may pose an imminent danger, such as a dead branch that may fall off any time or the branches are crossing overhead electrical wires. In my case, there is no imminent danger when the healthy branches first appeared to be crossing over the fences. The neighbors knew about the condition of these branches years ago. it is their responsibility, and not mine, to trim off the branches before they become an imminent danger, It is their failure to monitor and cut off excessive branches periodically and on a timely fashion to keep their properties safe. They know I don't live in Hilo and it is not my business to speculate what they want. I know there are situations in which the over hanged branches are desirable because they provided much needed shading. As I told you, I intend to assist my neighbors to deal with the issues one way or another that require their input, but so far they refused to cooperate. I need their input for me to work with my insurance company. Once I received your response, I may come to Hilo to meet with my legal adviser and your qualify person who prepared the documents near the end of next week. I will be in San Francisco the next few days where | live part ofmytime other than Honolulu. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Vincent ` Tai Architecture taiarchitecturep_gmaii.com 08-22-2019 to Melanie Hi Melanie, In my previous email, I ignored to mention I believe the intent of the County Ordinance Section 20-22 is for situations such as broken dead branches or electrical wires that might pose imminent danger to neighbors`properties, and not for conditions that should or could have been mitigated or avoided by the neighbors. Vincent AA January 7, 2020 via email Mr. David Yamamoto Director, Department of Public Works 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, HI 96720 Re: Non-compliance of conditions TMK (3)2-4-028:009 Dear Mr. Yamamoto, I enclosed herewith a copy of Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment report (hereinafter referred to as 'the report')dated January 2, 2020 prepared by Alden Justin Barrios, ISA Bored Certified arborist#WE-12679A. The inspection was carried out on December 26, 2020 soon after Inspector Romeo Visaya finished with tagging 51 trees with numbers from 0 to 50. In accordance with your letter dated June 21, 2019, in lieu of removing branches or roots extending onto neighboring properties that pose an 'imminent danger' (a definition not provided by your office), I authorized Mr. Barrios to prepare the report. This being the case, my understanding as described in the report, I am only responsible to perform the following services including trimming the branches extending onto neighboring properties which are not required and will be done as a courtesy to the neighbors. Mango Trees: Tree 0: trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that are extending onto the neighboring property Tree 1: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that are extending onto the neighboring property. Tree 3: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers Tree 4: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers Monkey Pod Trees: Tree 5: Canopy raising, deadwooding, and removal of invasive, suckers. Tree has limbs that have a heavy lean towards the neighboring house. Tree 6:Canopy raising, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that have a heavy lean towards the neighboring house. VINCENT T.C.TAI, AIA,ARCHITECT 2184 Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.HI 96822 San Francisco,CA 94109 Planning 808-278 0158 Tel Email TaiArchitecture@gmaii.com Page 2 The following scope of work are not required as no 'imminent danger' is observed. I chose to carry out such services for enhancement and maintenance of trees within my property not related to the neighboring properties, and of course as a courtesy to the neighbors as well. Removal of all invasive species and palms as listed on arborist report. Cutting of a 20 foot buffer back from property line or tree line. Green waste shall be left on site as is. Avocado Trees: Trees 8-10: Removal of 3 Avovado saplings. Trees are leaning towards neighboring properties. Tree number 8 has a sever lean towards TMK 24055012. African Tulip Trees: Trees Z 7, 11 to 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28 to 39, 42 and 45 to 50. Removal of 30 African Tulip trees. A majority of the trees are leaning towards the neighboring properties. Gun Powder Trees: Tree18: Removal. Tree is showing signs of decay. Tree 20-Removal- Tree has a a heavy lean towards the neighboring property. Bingabing Tree: Tree 22:Removal of clump of 6 trees. Trees are growing into the neighboring fence. Alexandra Palms: Tree 24:Removal. Tree is growing into the neighboring fence line. Tree26: Removal. Tree 27:Removal. Tree is growing into the neighboring fence line. Melochia Trees: Tree 40: Removal. Tree is mulit dominat and growing toward the neighboring property. Tree 41:Removal. Tree is growing towards the neighboring property. Tree 43:Removal of clump of 4-5 trees. Trees are growing towards neighboring property. Tree 44: Removal of a clump of 4-5 trees. Trees are grwoing towards neighboring property. Therefore, I have executed the agreement for Mr. Barrios to proceed with the scope of work as soon as possible per his recommendation as identifies in the report including those not required by your letter of June 21, 2019. According to Mr. Barrios, the earliest he can commence work is in late February due to his prior commitments. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Aftltiv� VINCENT TAI, AIA Enclosures cc: Department of City Planning, County of Hawaii Vincent T.G.Tai,AIA,Architect Architecture Planning Backyard Monkey LLC January 21", �0�0 Report of: Alden Justin Barrios ISA Bored Certified Arborist#WE-12679A Project Site: 364 Hualalai St. Hilo, Hawaii RE: Tree Risk Assessment and Risk Reductions Assessment The following tree inspection(s)were completed on December 261I', 2019. This tree risk assessment has been prompted by concerns for the potential hazards that the subject trees may present to various properties where the property lines abut 364 Hualalai st.. Below is a map of the property location and approximate location of the subject trees. I P 1 t,Ffi wy i .. .i��..,b'IM1.v vTl^'f;^t"'.• 1 X�'y C rF:.:jt � _L_' .e' w Ir Please note all trees were previously marked and the property owner, Mr. Vincent Tai was onsite during the tree assessment. Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 � 1 • !a �� R' IIF '�. � 15,11';..•� `Y"'Y. i' "`• p0 33 r� e f .may, rt. r ! r. }�,• 'y a .I� �F .Fri I 4�.: x ,���• ~'� .fit �.'� ��� t Backyard Monkey LLC III , t � i ; � I • ���� '�� , 10 1 All } 3- t� W cy Q r 4 at { r r ti l iy r c i t y Yl 1, {' 31 I •pL .r4r y"4. . i � ..n Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Tree Characteristics: ■ St)ecies: Subject trees were identified as Mango-- Mangifera indica ■ Height and Diameter at Breast Height: The height of the trees ranged from 17 to 21 yards. The DBH of the trees range between 4 to 5 feet. v ■ Form: Trees 0 and 1 have large canopies that extend onto the neighboring properties. ZLI Tree 0 is multi dominant_ where there is more than one lead branch. Tree 3 and 4 possessed relatively balanced canopies at the time of inspection. ■ Tree Condition: the health of the subject trees appeared to be fair. ■ Site Factors: Trees 0 to 4 are located on an overgrown,wooded lot. Trees 0 and 1 are extending over to the neighboring property (TMK: 24055013.) Recommendations: • Trees 0 and 1: remove and or cutback limbs leaning over neighboring properties. Trim, deadwood, and remove invasive suckers. ■ Trees 3 and 4: Trite, deadwood, and remove invasive suckers. Section 2: Trees 5 to 6 Monkey Pod -Samanea soman r , " l k n r e 1 Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC fi yy����3f� "{ 456'• c /( - +.>x � #�,' 4 L ^'t � i I + A{y, •" +a"'4'� C''tri J � �.ti.. Ilix(` � ;I Tree Characteristics: ■ Species: Subject trees were identified as Monkey Pod -Samaneo samon ■ Heiaht and Diameter at Breast Heieht: The height of the trees range from 17 to 18 yards. The DBH of the trees range between 4 to 4.5 feet. ■ Form: Trees 5 and 6 have large canopies with a heavy lean towards the neighboring property. ■ Tree Condition: the health of the subject trees appeared to be fair. ■ Site Factors: Trees 5 and 6 are located on an overgrown, wooded lot. Tree 6 as limbs that are touching the neighboring house (TMK:24055012) Recommendations: ■ Trees 5 and 6: Raise canopy, remove limbs leaning towards and/or touchin- the neighboring property, deadwood, and remove invasive suckers. Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Section 3: Trees 8 to 10 Avocado - Perseo Americana 77. al i I Yp y� I 1 .11ll�i 11I iiF i y '� i � I 1 R h tr 4+ � � l� a•% �g i� Y !'. f/fir,�,�►�, � ".°i'p J 14 ♦A 91, F NA r a +a>' Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC "free Characteristics: ■ Suecies: Subject trees were identified as Avocado - Persea Americana ■ Height and Diameter at Breast Height: The height of the trees range from 9 to 12 yards. The DBH of the trees range between 8 to 12 inches. ■ Form: Trees 8 through 10 are saplings growing with a lean towards neighboring properties. ■ Tree Condition: the health of the subject trees appeared to be fair. ■ Site Factors: Trees 8 through 10 are located on an overgrown, wooded tot. Tree 8 has a severe lean towards the neighboring property (TMK:24055012) Recommendations: ■ Trees 8 through 10: Removal Section 4: Trees 2, 7, 11 to 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28 to 39, 42, and 45 to 50 African Tulip -Spathodea campanulate 14{ ,x a'LI r It li"u,,� t Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC T L. \ . A, ■y �' 4"�.1 441. kjj•A. .. I Tt �o"' Z + t ti,r4, rat t r• x t� r 8 2 i 7/D W a "m 9 K 1 ; Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC if v b � w� r joi •;} 'x� � R B Sit ; 9 3`3 Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 36760 (808)315-7460 f �' i c�r f k � ry' �� .? �,v y ��� �", . w' t. � �� � �� i. �' �� s4 i,t �� _•w. MH �+tT! j p t a t � � ���� � - � �'� � �, .. � �' "r � � r C Yj �l �j t'� !; .. � ��_ �, 5 2 r -:� ys: R., a��, � , i,� ,r ' � Y ! , ` r. - �. _ F� �" } ` d, �.. " r t - 'fir � ��a9�j, ��� a.�'��� � ��� �rA �. � Y �' Y� .� '� • • i�i ��/ Backyard Monkey LLC Tree Characteristics: ■ St)ecies: Subject trees were identified as African Tulip-Spathodea companulate ■ Height and Diameter at Breast Height: The height of the trees range from 8 to 19 yards. The DBH of the trees range between 8 to 36 inches. ■ Form: Trees growing straight and upright (columnar growth.) Trees are growing in a condensed area. This can cause the trees to be in a weaker state due to the limitations of canopy extension. ■ Tree Condition: the health of the subject trees appeared to be fair. Trees 21 and 23 have thumped into sets of 3 trees per clump_ ■ Site Factors: Trees are located on an overgrown and condensed portion of a wooded lot. Tree 2 is extendmi g over the property line towards TMK: 2405.5013. Trees 11 through 19 are extending over the property line towards TMK: 24055011. Trees 21, 23, 25, and 29 are extending over the property line towards TMK: 24055004. Trees 30 though 39, 42, and 45 through 50 are extending over the property line towards TMK: 24055006. African Tulips grow extremely fast; shooting up from the forest floor and outcompeting other plants for sunlight. They can be a notorious pasture pest, springing up when land is cleared and creating a field of tulip trees with little else. Given that African tulip seedlings can genninate and grow with little sunlight, they can creep into undisturbed forests and take over, growing faster than surrounding plants and expanding their domain. Recommendations: ■ Trees 2, 7, 11— 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28-39, 42, and 45-50: Removal Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Section 4: Tree 18 R 20 Gun Powder- Trema orientalis �y k i � n ..a Tree Characteristics: ■ Species: Subject trees Nvere identified as Gun Powder - Trema orientalis ■ Height and Diameter at Breast Height: Tree 18 is 15 yards in height and has a DBH of 6ft. Tree 20 is 4 yards in height and has a DBH of 121nclies. ■ Form: Tree 18 is multi dominant. Tree is showing signs of decay with a rot spot at the center of the tree. Tree 20 appears to have previously failed limb: the remaining dominant limb grew and is now extending towards the neighboring property. ■ Tree Condition: The health of tree 18 appears to be declining. The health of tree 20 appears be weak due to the over extending growth. ■ Site Factors: Trees 18 and 20 are located on an overgrown, wooded lot. Tree 20 has a severe lean towards the neighboring property (TMK:24055011) Recommendations: ■ Trees 18 and 20: Removal Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)31S-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Section 5: Tree 22 Bingabing- Macaranga grandifolia Fence line Fence line K ..s M f Tree Characteristics: ■ Species: Subject trees were identified as Bingabing - Macaranga grandifolia ■ Height and Diameter at Breast Height: Tree 22 is 6 yards in height and has a DBH of 6-8 inches. ■ Form: Tree 22 has clumped into a set of 6 and is growing into the neighboring fence line. ■ Tree Condition: the health of the subject trees appeared to be fair. ■ Site Factors: Trees 22 is located on an overgrown, wooded lot. Tree 22 is growing into the fence line of the neighboring property (TMK: 240-5-5004.) Recommendations: ■ Tree 22: Removal Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Section 6: Trees 24, 26, & 27 Alexandra -Archontophoenix alexandrae r 4 r-� 4,1 . i Tree Characteristics: ■ Species: Subject trees were identified as Alexandra -Archontophoenix alexandrae ■ Hei2ht and Diameter at Breast Hei6ht: The height of the trees range from 10 to 15 yards. The DBH of the trees range between 8 to 18 inches. ■ Form: Trees 24, 26 and 27 are growing straight and upright as typically seen with palms. The trees are near neighboring properties. ■ Tree Condition: the health of the subject trees appeared to be fair. ■ Site Factors: Trees 24. 26, and 27 are located on an overgrown, wooded lot. Trees 24 and 27 are -rowing into the fence line of the neighboring property(TMK: 24055004.) Recommendations: ■ Trees 24,26, and 27: Removal Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Section 7: Trees 40 to 41, 43 to 44 Melochia - Melochia umbellate M r. .t" A F 1 s 5, y _ 1 v1 Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Tree Characteristics: Suecies: Subject trees were identified as Melochia -Melochia umbellate ■ Height and Diameter at Breast Height: The height of the trees are approximately 1.5 yards. The DBH of the trees range between 12 to 24 inches. ■ Form: Trees 40 to 41 and 43 to 44, are mostly multi dominant growing in a straight and upward pattern. Trees 43 and 44 have clumped in to sets of 4-5 tree per chunp. ■ Tree Condition: the health of the subject trees appeared to be fair. ■ Site Factors: Trees 40, 41, 43, and 44 are located on an overgrown, wooded lot and are growing towards the neighboring property (TMK: 24055006) Melochia is a shrub or small tree. It grows rapidly and can colonize disturbed land. It has large, broadly ovate, leaves 90-300 min long. The flowers are usually pale pink to red. The seeds are winged, and wind dispersed. Melochia take over, growing faster than surrounding plants and expanding their domain. Recommendations: ■ Trees 40, 41, 43, and 44: Removal Backyard Monkey LLC PQ Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Section 8: Ovei-view photos Ss WIN c Y 4 = T : S. y4 � a $k x a t$ f z{'.�' ..t_��S 11-« cs ht":J. �'4'YJ4s'D.• ;" Y" s'�!-"N(., '�w . fix •"r' °' ws �j. �`i '.:.• - - Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 Backyard Monkey LLC Assessment Limitations and Further Information: This report, it's findings and recomi-nendations are submitted with the following;-ariderstanding: • Arborist arespecialist in tree management and care who use their education,knowledge, training and experience to inspect and assess tree health and condition and identify measures that reduce risk of personal injury or property damage from trees exhibiting defects. • This assessment is based upon the information provided by the Client, and Backyard Monkey's education,knowledge, training, experience, and filed inspection.Arborist cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure or decline in the health of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways that we cannot predict. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe Linder all circumstances, or for a specified period. Trees can be managed,but they cannot be controlled. To have trees within our landscape is to accept some degree of risk. • This assessment is restricted to the designated tree(s) and did not assess any other nearby trees that may present potential hazards to people or property. ■ This assessment if based on predictions of tree behavior during normal weather conditions and the condition of the tree at the time of the field inspection. Changes to tree of site conditions after completion of the field inspection that are caused by severe weather, construction, accidents, insects, disease or other agents may change the structural integrity of a tree or tree part and increase risk. These types of future changes in condition and their impact cannot be reasonably predicted during an assessment. • Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendation of the arborist or seek additional advice. Please contact Alden (Justin)Barrios at(808)315-7460 or email at iusting,backyardmonkey.com, for any questions or to obtain fLuther information regarding this report. Backyard Monkey LLC PO Box 1143, Kurtistown, Hawaii 96760 (808)315-7460 ir AA January S, 2O2O via email Mr. David Yamamoto Director, Department ufPublic Works 1O1PauahiStreet, Suite 7 Hilo, HI 96720 Re: Non-compliance mfconditions TyNK: (3)2-4'028:008 Dear Mr. Yamamoto, | heard from Mr. Barrio's company, Backyard Monkey LLC; his first available dates todothe work are from March 3 to March 6. They understand the urgency to get this done sooner, will let me know if for any reason they can start sooner as sometimes they complete work quicker than expected or have a cancellation. You may confirm this by contacting Shanda Lee-Barrios at 808-315-7460 or .You may beunder the impression that | was the cause of the delays. In Fact, the work could have been finished by now or much sooner. Let me explain. For your information and for the record, please allow me to recap the process and events took place since my letter to you dated November 29, 2019 in which I stressed the importance for me to meet with your inspector, Lisa Saplan, at the site to tag every tree she identified posing so- called 'imminent danger' in her report dated 06-12-2019. Your office scheduled for me to come to Hilo from Honolulu to meet with the inspector(s) at 10:45am on Monday December 9, 2019. 1 also took the opportunity to attempt to meet with the prospective arborists on the same day. I suggested the inspector(s) to bring along a can of spray-on marker as I was not allowed to bring it with my carry-on bag. Unfortunately, upon my arrival at the property, |was told no inspector(s) was available, i.e. it was Inspector Saplan's day off and Inspector Visaya who had not been to the site previously was busy. Subsequently I cancelled the meeting with prospective arborists. I again attempted to meet with Inspector Saplan on either December 12 or 13 through your office while | secured appointments with the prospective arborista. Again unfortunately | received noresponse from your office. Then onDecember 13' | was told Inspector tagged trees without notifying me. I could not understand why your office failed to ask me to be present even | insisted that | should baaothat | could clearly relay tothe prospective arbohsta. | lost another opportunity. Again I proposed to your office to meet with Inspector Saplan on December 18, but my request was again ignored. Due to the Christmas holidays, my suggestion to meet on December 24was also could not be realized. / finally was able to meet with |nspectorViaaya and the arborist onDecember 26. Tosummarize, ifthe inspector(e)was present when | waited at the site on December 9, the erbohat's report could have been finished much sooner. It is clear I seriously and diligently complied with the condition stated in your letter of June 21, 2019. The work schedule of Mr. Barrios is beyond my control. However, I sincerely hope your office would offer.nnemore effective cooperation. VINCENT rc.TAI, AIA,ARCHITECT m84Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.*|9682z San Francisco,m\94109 Planning 808-27ao153Tel smai| Tai�mhiteoture@omuo.00m Page 2 | suQgest your office inform the neighbors that | amnot responsible to trim branches allegedly crossing over to their property now that I had chosen the option to engage a certified arborist to prepare an assessment report per your letter of June 21, 2019. Understandably if they are led to erroneously believe I am the responsible party, it is normal for them to file complaints whether legitimate V[ not, u[whether the condition poses 'imminent danger' nrnot. | was told by Inspector ViGay8Mr. Cristo Tiogangcoof30OHua|a|@iStreet (TW1K: 2-4-O28-O31)filed a complaint about @D avocado tree with branches over his fence. | met with him VO December 26. There are branches from ahealthy and fruit bearing tree ��xteOdiDgabout 5feet beyond his fence and about 7 feet from his building. I explained to him there is no law that requires me to cut the branches in question which means by law I am not responsible, he is free to trim off the branches which are eaay to handle at this point in time and | would give him permission to come to my property if necessary to do the job. He said the tree bear fruits and he doesn't want to trim off the branches. I did caution him the,branches will continue to extend further onto his property if he chooses not to tackle the branches adthis time. | would offer any other neighbors the / permission to come over to my property to trim branches over their properties attheir discretion provided they hold Ole free nfany liabilities. In o|oa(ng. | urge your office tO establish legally appropriate definition and standards of the term 'imminent danger'. According tothe certified arborist, some 0fthe conditions cited are not | posing 'imminent danger'. Also, it b� helpful if obtains an opinion by � . , �� � County's legal counsel regarding 'no law to require an owner to trim tree branches over a neighbor's fence'. If no such law exists according to my legal 8dvisor, what is the responsibility of the neighbors to monitor and maintain the branches before posing so-called 'imminent � danger'? I will keep your office informed in the event Mr. Barrios is able to complete the work per his recommendation sooner than March 3tVMarch Oincluding those extras not required byyour � letter nfJune 21, 2019. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, VINCENT TAI, AIA cc: Department ofCity Planning, County of Hawaii - Vincent rc.Tai,AIA,Architect Architecture Planning ir AA January 24, 2020 via email Mr. David Yamamoto Director, Department of Public Works 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7, Hilo, HI 96720 Re: Non-compliance of conditions TMK: (3)2-4-028:009 Dear Mr. Yamamoto, The office of Backyard Monkey LLC informed me on February 3rd and 4th Mr. Barrios will perform the following first half of the work indicated in his Risk Assessment report dated January 2,2020, also described in Page I of my letter to you dated January 7,2020. Except for a few, Mr. Barrios, an ISA Bored Certified Arborist, did not agree with your inspectors'designations of all the trees posing 'imminent danger'to any properties. Apparently his opinions are based on his professional expertise and common sense observations. I asked your office in numerous occasions regarding the qualification of your inspectors in arboriculture and definition of'imminent danger', but no response from your office. Mango Trees: Tree 0:trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that are extending onto the neighboring property Tree 1: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that are extending onto the neighboring property. Tree 3: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers Tree 4: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers Monkey Pod Trees: Tree 5: Canopy raising, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that have a heavy lean towards the neighboring house. Tree 6:Canopy raising, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that have a heavy lean towards the neighboring house. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely VINCENT TAI, AIA cc: Department of City Planning, County of Hawaii VINCENT T.C.TAI, AIA,ARCHITECT 2184 Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.Hl 96822 San Francisco,CA 94109 Planning 808-278 0158 Tel Email TaiArchitecture@gmaii.com ir AA ( January 27' 2U2O via email Michael Yee Planning Director, Planning Department County ofHawaii 101PauahiStreet, Suite 3 Hilo, H| 8872O Re: Request for postponement ofWindward' Planning Commission hearing Non-compliance of conditions T-K8Kt /3%2~4-028:009 Dear Michael, lwish hmrequest yourdeperbmenttopoetpoOe the Windward Planning Commission hearing oO February 8. 2020, that you initiated and reschedule it Jnecessary to after W1a[oh 14, 2020. Please allow[Deto explain the reasons for rnyrequest, also for the benefit Vfthe members of the Windward Planning Commission. CONDITION B � � | complied with Condition Bafter | sent a letter tothe PWD dated November 18. 2O1Bcopied to � you including a check inthe amount of$14,1OOfor water commitment deposit. Your staff member Maija Jackson acknowledged the receipt of this letter in her email of November 20, 2018. |ttook almost two weeks for the PWD hacash nnycheck oDDecember 2. 2O19. PWD did not send me a letter confirming the receipt of my check within days after I mailed to them; perhaps it was their standard procedure not to do so. In any event, they did finally send me a receipt dated December 2, 2010 /ne9 enclosed receipt). You were aware back on November 20, 2019 1 had complied with Condition B by submitting my payment of$14.1OUto PWD; therefore itiaunfair and incorrect for you toclaim RuD-oo0p|imDce with Condition B. Please amend your request to the Windward Planning Commission accordantly. / CONDITION R In accordance with the PWD's letter dated June 21, 2019 (a copy enclosed herewith), 'in lieu of removal, a letter from o Hawaii State Certified ArboriatsadatiQg that the tree(s) are deemed aofa and healthy is acceptable', and Maija Jackson in her email of November 20, 2019 also rmDfirnned by indicating '2) providing a letter from an arborist indicating the trees are safe to remain inplace asinstructed byDPVV'` \ believe Ihad complied with Condition R. VINCENT�C.TAI, AIA,ARCHITECT mn4Round Top Drive 1238 Pacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu,msoao2 San Francisco,oAo41oo Planning ao8-2rau1oaTel emm| Taixomxoutupa@gmo/iomn Page 2 1 am not,responsible for removal, i.e. removal of any trees or any branches no matter where they are located. To comply with Condition R, instead of merely provide a letter by an arborist asrequired bythe PWD, | instructed aHawaii State Certified /\[boristS' Mr. Alden Justin Barrios to prepare and submit to the PWD a full-blown detail Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment ' report dated January 2, 2020 (enclosed herewith). Such report was submitted to PWD together ` with Dlyletter dated January 7. 2O20and letter dated January 9. 2O2O; acopy each ofthese letters and the report were copied toyou and enclosed herewith. Therefore, | had complied with Condition R. As I stated, I intended to do more than merely submitting a letter by an arborist. In my letter of January 7, 2020, 1 instructed Mr. Adden Justin Barrios to perform certain services for maintenance and safety purposes within my property but not necessarily required by PWD's letter ofJune 21^ 2O1S. {OUnyletter nfJanuary 24. 2O2OtnPWD (enclosed horewjth\' | informed them Mr. Barrios will vv0rkVDFebnua m 3 dFebruary 4th and complete the reminder Vfthe work itemized iDhis report oDMarch 3rd and March 4 m. Apostponement ofthe hearing tnafter March 14 will give the PWD sufficient time to review and comment oDthe work completed. In view of the nsmant developments, it is reasonable and fair for you to notify the Windward Planning Commission to postpone the hearing scheduled on February 6, 2020 to beyond March 14 after Mr. Barrios finished with his work Vn March 4^ 2020 including those not required by PVVD, since you initiated such hearing and not the Windward Planning Commission. It is o|eo[ | intended to have Mr. Barrios performs the services he outlined in his report. So far, the PWD has provided no opinion on the Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment report and my letters dated January 7 m' gm m and 24 ' Again, Iwish you would cooperate and humbly urge you tu postpone the hearing oDFebruary O. 2O20toafter March 14. 2D2O. Thank you for your attention. / Sincerely, VINCENT TAI, AIA Enclosures cc: Thomas Flaffi i ' Chairman`VViDdvvaPdPkanninQCornnnissionvvithendUsureebveDlaU and first class mail. Vincent nzTai,AIA,Architect Architecture pmmmno OFFICIAL RECEIPT DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION NO SERVICE DATE J NO. ttt RECEIVED FROM PAGE FROM TO NO, AMOUNT METER RATE INSTALLATION FACILITIES RESERVE CHARGES CREDIT DEPOSIT SERVICES METER LABOR &� `'MATERIAL�j 1L/L/ Lm b asp~ CASH ❑ (( M.O. ❑ TOTAL CHECK 111 i`3 �.` LJISTRti:T OFFICE❑ W 4/MAIL `952^ RECFJV@D BY ` ir AA January 29, 2020 via email Michael Yee Planning Director, Planning Department, County ofHawaii 101 Pauohi Street, Suite 3, Hi|u, H| 98720 Re: Condition R-Non-compliance ofcondiUnne-TMK: (3)2-4-O28:0O0 Dear Michael, Since you are not willing to postpone the Planning Commission on February 6, 1 am preparing my statements to be presented to the Planning Commission. I am glad you now agreed to remove Condition 8from your notice tothe Planning Commission. As for Condition R, it is between me and the PWD, and not the Planning Department,to resolvewhether or not this condition has been complied with. It is my opinion that I have satisfied the demand stipulated in PWD's letter of June 21, 2019. In lieu of removal of trees and branches, the PWD would be satisfied with a letter from a Hawaii State Certified Arborists stating that the tree(s) are deemed safe and healthy. Instead of merely provide a letter by a certified arborist, I instructed a Hawaii State Certified Arborists, Mr. Alden Justin Barrios to prepare and submit to the PWD a full-blown detail Tree Assessment and Risk ' Assessment report dated January 2, 2020. Such report was submitted to PWD together with my letter dated January 7, 2020 and letter dated January 9, 2020. Therefore it is my claim that the condition stated in the PWD's letter of June 21, 2019 has been complied with and there is no more violation. I suggest you confer with the PWD in this regard since they have not officially rejected, opposed to or commented on the contents of Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment report dated January 2, 2020. I understand it is not the Planning Department's prerogative or burden to conjecture whether PWD was satisfied with the Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment report, I only brought this up to plead with you topostpone the Planning Commission hearing. It is also my understanding the sole focus of the Planning Commission hearing is whether or not the PWD determined the Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment report dated January 2, 2020 is satisfactory since it is not in the form of a letter by the certified arborist, thus triggered the Planning Department's notice to the Planning Commission for violation of Condition R, and whether or not Condition R has been complied ' with. The Planning Commission hearing on February 6 is not to discuss whether the property should to down zoned to RS-7,500 or other appropriate zoning designation. At this time, all I know is the previous Planning Department and Planning Commission declared full support for the current zoning of RM-1.5 as appropriate, and the County Council unanimously approved the same. In fact, one County Council member praised my effort to rezone it to RM-1.5 to mitigate the lack of land in downtown Hilo suitable for building affordable housings.This is not a subject opposed or challenged by the PWD and it bears no relationship toCondition F(. Sincerely, VINCENT TAI,AN cc: Thomas Raffipiy, Chairman,Windward Planning Commission with enclosures by email and first c/moo mail. VINCENT�C.TAI, AIA,ARCHITECT m84Round Top Drive 123oPacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.Hl 96822 San Francisco,o*ov1uV Planning ane-2mn1*sTel Emei| Tmiarcmvaomm@gmai|.nom - ir AA January 2B, 2O2O via email and first class mail Thomas F{effipiy, Chair Windward Planning Commission County CfHawaii 101 P@uohiStreet, Suite 3 0/o, H) 96720 Re: Compliance nfCondition R TK8K: C3%2-4-028:009 Dear Mr. |naccordance with the PVVD'sletter dated June 21. 2O19 (acopy enclosed he[evvith). 'in lieu of removal, B letter from a Hawaii Gbghe Certified Arbohsbs stating that the tnae/o\ are deemed safe and healthy ioacneptab|e'' | believe i have complied with Condition F< and there ieDoviolation existing. I am not responsible for removal, i.e. removal of any trees or any branches no matter where they are located. Tocomply with Condition R` instead ofmerely provide aletter byaDarborist as required by the PVVQ' | instructed a Hawaii State Certified AJbo[isto' Mr. Alden Justin Barrios, an ISA Bored Certified arborist#WE-1 2679A, to prepare and submit to the PWD a full-blown detail Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment report dated January 2, 2020 (enclosed herewith). Such report was submitted to PWD together with my letter dated January 7, 2020 and letter dated January 9. 2O2O; a copy each ofthese letters isenclosed herewith. Therefore, | have complied with Condition R. PVV[) has not officially rejected, opposed to or commented on the contents ufsaid report. I intended to do more than merely submitting a letter by an arborist. In my letter of January 7, 2020, 1 instructed Mr. Alden Justin Barrios to perform certain services for maintenance and safety purposes within my property but not necessarily required by PWD's letter of June 21, 2O18. |DDlyletter ofJanuary 24' 2O2OtoPVVO (eOdooedherewith)` | informed them K8r. Barrios vVi|| YvorkoDFebruary3� m and February 4 and complete the reminder ofthe work itemized inhis m report on March 3m March�Pch 4 . Consequently, | requested the Planning Director to postpone the hearing toafter March 14. it iereasonable tolgive the PWD sufficient time toreview and comment on the work tV be completed. Unfortunate the Planning Director io unwilling to postpone the hearing onFebruary 8. Please allow me to recap the process and events took place. I stressed the importance for me to meet with PWD's inspector, Lisa Saplan, at the site to tag every tree she identified posing so- called 'imminent danger' in her report dated D0-12-2O18. PVVD'sstaff scheduled for 0atocome toHilo from Honolulu tomeet with the inspector(e)ot1O:45 anOoDMonday December 8. 2O18. | also made appointments with the prospective arborists on the same day. Unfortunately, upon rnyarrival mtthe property, | was told noinspedor<e\was available, ie. itwas Inspector Sap|en's vmvuswTzc.TAI. AIA,ARCHITECT z1a*Round Top Drive 1zaaPacific Avenue Architecture Honolulu.H|ase22 San Francisco,oxgu1uo Planning ao8-2rao1ouTel smai/ ToiArchitevme@gmao.onm , ' Page day off and Inspector Visaya who had not been to the site previously was busy. Subsequently ` was sent back home to Honolulu and I cancelled the meeting with prospective arbohots. | again attempted to meet with |OspectorSop|aD on either December 12o[ 13 through your office ofPWD while | secured appointments with the prospective a[boriots. /\oain unfortunately | received no response from their office. Then on December 13, 1 was told Inspector tagged trees without notifying me. | could not understand why PWD failed tn ask Oleto be present even | insisted that | should be SO that | could clearly relay to the prospective a[bohsts. | lost another opportunity. Again I proposed to PWD to meet with Inspector Saplan on December 18, but my request was again ignored. Due b»the Christmas holidays, rnysuggestion tomeet onDecember 24 was also could not be realized. I finally was able to meet with Inspector Visaya and the arborist onDecember 26' To summarize, if the inspector(s)was present when I waited at the site on December 9, the orbohat'enaport and necessary work could have been finished bynow. Uwas clear | seriously and diligently complied with the condition stated iOPVV[]^Sletter VfJune 21. 2O19. The work schedule of Mr. Barrios is beyond my control. | did not cause any delays. However, ) wish PVV[} would have offered Onumore effective cooperation. | asked the PWD the following legitimate and important questions, sofar absolutely noresponse V[comments from the PWD. `° What/othe County's corporate counsel's opinion on 'there/sDOlaw/D the County mfHawaii that requires the owner of a tree to trim branches over a neighbor's fence'?Are the neighbors responsible to monitor and maintain the branches over their fences before branches pose 'an imminent danger'? ° What/mthe qualification ofPN/D'sinspector/nbhetra/O/ngaDd knowledge /nthe pro/eoa/oDa/fie/dofa[buri:ultune? ° What are the criteria aDdparame/ersb/ de/erR/neor classify what imdeemed 'an imminent danger'? ^ Has the neighbors claim any damages totheir properties?/fso, they should file claims such that our respective insurance companies would step /nbopay for repairs. * How and when did the branches become 'an imminent danger' ie. extending over the neighbor's fence bvone foot ofbfeet orY5feet o/whatever? The inspection by Mr. Barrios was carried out on December 26, 2020 soon after Inspector Romeo Visaya finished with tagging 51 trees ( Inspector Visaya added about 15 more trees to those tagged byInspector Sap>eD)with numbers from Dto5O. In accordance with PWD's letter dated June 21, 2019, in lieu of removing branches or roots extending onto neighboring properties that supposedly pose an 'imminent danger', my understanding is that I am only responsible to perform the following services on February 3d and 4th including trimming the branches extending onto neighboring properties which are not required and will bedone naacourtesy tothe neighbors. Vincent T.c.Tai,AIA,Architect Architecture Planning Page 3 Mango Trees: Tree 0: trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that are extending onto the neighboring property Tree 1: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that are extending onto the neighboring property. Tree 3: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers Tree 4: Trimming, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers Monkey Pod Trees: Tree 5: Canopy raising, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that have a heavy lean towards the neighboring house. Tree 6:Canopy raising, deadwooding, and removal of invasive suckers. Tree has limbs that have a heavy lean towards the neighboring house. The following scope of work to be carried out on March 3d and 4 th are not required as no `imminent danger' is observed by the arborist. I chose to carry out such services for enhancement and maintenance of trees within my property not related to the neighboring properties, an'd of course as a courtesy to the neighbors as well. Removal of all invasive species and palms as listed on arborist report. Cutting of a 20 foot buffer back from property line or tree line. Green waste shall be left on site as is. Avocado Trees: Trees 8-10: Removal of 3 Avovado saplings. Trees are leaning towards neighboring properties. Tree number 8 has a sever lean towards TMK 24055012. African Tulip Trees: Trees 2, 7, 11 to 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28 to 39, 42 and 45 to 50: Removal of 30 African Tulip trees. A majority of the trees are leaning towards the neighboring properties. Gun Powder Trees: Tree 18: Removal. Tree is showing signs of decay. Tree 20: Removal- Tree has a a heavy lean towards the neighboring property. Bingabing Tree: Tree 22:Removal of clump of 6 trees. Trees are growing into nto the neighboring fence. Alexandra Palms: Tree 24:Removal. Tree is growing into the neighboring fence line. Tree26:Removal. Tree 27.-Removal. Tree is growing into the neighboring fence line. Vincent T.C.Tai,AIA,Architect Architecture Planning Page 4 MelochiaTrees: Tree 40: Removal. Tree /smulti-dominant and growing toward the neighboring property. Tree 41: Removal. Tree iSgrowing towards the neighboring property. Tree 43: Removal nf clump of 4-5 trees. Trees are growing towards neighboring property, Tree 44: Removal ofaclump of4'5 trees. Trees are growing towards neighboring property, It is also my understanding the sole focus of the February 6 hearing is whether or not the PWD determines the Tree Assessment and Risk Assessment report dated January 2, 2020 is satisfactory since it is not in the form of a letter by the certified arborist, and whether or not Condition R has been complied with. The hearing on February 6 is not to discuss whether the property should todown zoned toFQS-7.5DOorother appropriate zoning designation. At this time, all I would say is the previous Planning Department and Planning Commission declared full support for the current zoning ofRM-1.5gs appropriate, and the County Council unanimously approved the same. In fact, one County Council member praised my effort to rezone ittoRK4-1.5 tomitigate the lack Ofland indowntown Hilo suitable for developing affordable housing. This ienot a subject opposed orchallenged bythe PWD and itbears Do relationship toCondition R. To conclude, I believe | have complied with the condition stated in the FWD^a letter dated June 21. 2O19 and I intend to do far more than such letter implied. I wish to request your commission to postpone the hearing scheduled on February 8tVafter March 14 as Mr. Barrios will finish the work outlined inhis report byMarch 4. 2O2O. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, / - VINCENT TAI, AIA Enclosures cc: Department ufCity Planning, County of Hawaii ' Vincent�C.Tai,AIA,Architect Architecture - y Jackson, Maija From: Charlene Nishida <kpueo@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:10 PM To: Jackson, Maija 3 Subject: Fw: Notice of Violation Mr. Vincent Tai Below is an e-mail confirmation from Melanie DeMello that the Notice of Violation against Mr. Vincent Tai remains in affect. As neighbors,we have repeatedly requested that Mr. Tai trim his trees for the past four years. I will forward seperate e-mails that document our requests to shin. His responses have been consistent iri`F` stating that he is not going to trim the trees and that we need to hire a lawyer to deal with the problem. One of . his trees has already fallen on our home and caused documented damage that was resolved by his insurance- agency State Fann. The trees in question are over 60 feet tall and are now hitting the roof of our home and above the bedrooms. We have documentation with photos and an inspection by the Department of Public Works that our property is in clanger from the overgrown trees yet he still refuses to address the problem. Any assistance you can provide in resolving the problem is appreciated. At the least, a complaint against his rezoning application and necessary penalties is warranted. Sincerely, J_" ry Charlene Nishida Charlene Nishida "'x' Owner A ca, 16 Hale Nani Place cis Hilo, Hawaii 96720 r\> Mailing address: PO Box 908 Kamuela, HI 967'-1.3 (808) 216-1028 ----- Forwarded Message----- Frorn: DeMello, Melanie <Melanie.DeMello@hawaiicounty.gov> To: Charlene Nishida <kpueo@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 10:24:57 AM HST Subject: FW: For Melanie DeMello FYI � a � 1 Planning DePt- ' � � t t From: DeMello, Melanie Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:23 AM To: 'Tai Architecture' Subject: RE: For Melanie DeMello Hi Vincent, Corporation Counsel will only review the items we provide them, so if no specific law is provided than they would only statefre-iterate our regulations based off the County Code. Thus at this time I am not forwarding anything to Corporation Counsel for review and the violation remains in effect. Thank you, Melanie From: Tai Architecture Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 4:32 PM To: DeMello, Melanie Subject: Re: ,For Melanie DeMello Hi Melanie, I haven't heard from Ted Hong's office. He is an experienced real estate attorney; I have no reason to believe his opinion in incorrect. Unless the branches over the neighbor's fence are dead and crossing an electrical line, it is not the responsibility of the tree owner. I suggest you consult the County's corporate counsel with or without further input from Ted Hong's office as soon as possible in order to keep the neighbors appraise of their legal responsibility. Below are my emails sent to Charlene and Ann on August 4. It is so strange they refused to heed my advice and be proactive. I was told by StateFarm there is nothing they can do until such time my neighbors or their insurance company file a claim. I am sorry I still don't understand what you meant by the tree trunks causing hazardous conditions. What are the criteria for identifying certain trees that I am supposed to take care of and what to do with them? Did you mean the tree trunks lean on or over the fences trespassing upon the neighbors' properties or you actually meant the branches? If the - neighbors had maintained and trimmed the healthy branches over their fences when they were first discovered years ago, perhaps your concerns would have been mitigated. I suggest we wait until your corporate counsel made his or her determination to what extent the neighbors are supposed to be responsible to clear the branches for their own safety, and whether or not I am the responsible party. Vincent 2 Jackson, Maiia2-q From: Charlene Nishida <kpueo@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday,August 20, 2019 11:11 PM To: Jackson, Maija V, Subject: Fw: For Melanie DeMello Attachments: 2019-07-13 Response fr VincentTai redacted (1).pdf See message below documenting that Mr. Tai is falsely representing legal opinion and his counsel. Sincerely, 07-, Charlene Nishida (77) ry (808) 216-1028 kpueo@yal-ioo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Charlene Nishida <kpueo@yahoo.com> To: DeMello, Melanie<Melanie.DeMello@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 07:56:57 PM HST Subject: Re: For Melanie DeMello Thanks again for your update. I wanted to let you know that I spoke with the Law Offices of Ted Hong whom Mr. Tai stated in his July 13, 2019 letter to the Department of Public Works was his attorney and they confirmed that they are NOT retained as an attorney on his behalf. The items he is quoting in his letter are not a legal opinion by their office. Sincerely, Charlene Nishida (808) 216-1028 I,zpueo@yalioo.com On Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 10:24:57 AM HST, DeMello, Melanie <Melanie.DeMello@hawaiicounty.gov>wrote: FYI !\Q AUG 2 3 261"1 From: DeMello, Melanie _ Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:23 AM To: 'Tai Architecture' Subject: RE: For Melanie DeMello Hi Vincent, Corporation Counsel will only review the items we provide them, so if no specific law is provided than they would only state/re-iterate our regulations based off the County Code. Thus at this time I am not forwarding anything to Corporation Counsel for review and the violation remains in effect. Thank you, Melanie From: Tai Architecture Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 4:32 PM , To: DeMello, Melanie Subject: Re: For Melanie DeMello Hi Melanie, I haven't heard from Ted Hong's office. He is an experienced real estate attorney; I have no reason to believe his opinion in incorrect. Unless the branches over the neighbor's fence are dead and crossing an electrical line, it is not the responsibility of the tree owner. I suggest you consult the County's corporate counsel with or without further input from Ted Hong's office as soon as possible in order to keep the neighbors appraise of their legal responsibility. Below are my emails sent to Charlene and Ann on August 4. It is so strange they refused to heed my advice and be proactive. I was told by StateFarm there is nothing they can do until such time my neighbors or their insurance company file a claim. I am sorry I still don't understand what you meant by the tree trunks causing hazardous conditions. What are the criteria for identifying certain trees that I am supposed to take care of and what to do with them? Did you mean the tree trunks lean on or over the fences trespassing upon the neighbors`properties or you actually meant the branches? If the neighbors had maintained.and trimmed the healthy branches over their fences when they were first discovered years ago, perhaps your concerns would have been mitigated. I suggest we wait until your corporate counsel made his or her determination to what extent the neighbors are supposed to be responsible to clear the branches for their own safety, and whether or not I am the responsible party. Vincent 2 - NN� NN� July 12,%O1S Mr. David Yamamoto Director, Department ofPublic Works 101 pauahiSLeot. Suite Hilo, H| 8GT20 Re: Response boyour letter dated June 21.2U1U Oear�Mr.Yamamoto, |emwriting torespond toyour letter ofJune 21. 2O18.There are two governing bodies,the law and the County ordinance, I am in the process of examining the conflicts between the two,or which one is more applicable to the issues at hand. | am also waiting for my insurance carrier, S!ateFann |nyunance,to respond to my questions on potential claims. The Law: Myattorney,Ted Hong cf the Law office ofTed H.8. Hong, advised me the| clearly �i responsibility to trim the branches of trees located in my property(herein refer an'autjeci property') that extended over the hanoon into neighbors'properties.The same with the roots migrated into the neighbors' properties. That being the case, by law, it is the neighbors' responsibility to trim off those branches in question. Due to their failure to trim and maintain the branches periodically to keep them at reasonable, safe and serviceable height,they allowed the branches to grow way too high allegedly threatening their own properties. Now the County claimed it is my responsibility and not the neighbors. Regarding Ann Toma, it was more than 3 years ago(see enclosed my email dated Oct. 19,2016 and subsequent emails to her) I advised her to consult her attorney whether to agree or disagree with my opinion that it was not my responsibility, and I was willing to work something out between her legal advisor and mine, or with our respective insurance carriers. She adamantly stated she refuses to consult an attorney unless damages occurred.The branches over her property would have been much lower and easier totrim off back then ifshe had taken any actions, As for Charlene Nishida, I also did the same to her over two years ago (see enclosed my email dated March 15, 2017 and subsequent emails to her). I asked her to consult with her attorney and get an estimate on the work. She did not respond to my subsequent emails starting April 5,2019. It would have been easier tutrim off the branches ifshe had responded and taken actions back in2O17. 1 have seen government employees or contractors trimming and clearing branches extended beyond boundaries of private properties that encroached upon and endangered public streets. I believe the County neither cites the property owners with Section 20-22 and 20-23 violation nor requires them to pay for such services;obviously it is not the responsibility of the private property owners. What bthe opinion ofthe County's attorney onthis issue? VINCENT rcTAI, AIA,ARCmnsur NEW Architecture Planning � Y Page 2 The County Ordinance Section 20-22 and 20-23: It is my opinion these sections do not apply to the issues at hand.These sections refer to the alleged problems and the neighbors' complaints that occurred and to be taken care of within and not beyond the boundaries of the subject lot, no reference is made on effects beyond the subject property's boundaries or on the neighboring properties. It correlates with the intent of the law as 1 understand it. .......to clear the occupied or unoccupied lot (subject lot) of the refuse, uncultivated undergrowth, or unsafe flora... Reference is made to subject lot, i.e.within the boundary of my lot and not concerning my neighbors' properties. .....If the mayor certifies that there is refuse, uncultivated undergrowth, or unsafe flora on the lot (subject lot) complained about to an extent that the lot (subject lot)poses or is likely to pose an imminent danger for fire, health, safety, property damage, or crime hazard,_. Reference is made only to subject lot, i.e. within the boundary of my lot and not concerning my neighbors' properties. As you can see from my numerous correspondences to Anna and Charlene, I didn't ignore them. In fact, they ignored me. It was my intention to find an amicable solution to the issues with consultation of our respective legal advisors and hopefully to get the insurance companies involved. Unfortunately they have not been cooperating. As far as 1 know,they refused to get proper legal advice and did not attempt to get an estimate on the work involved as I requested.They take no steps to work with me. As a layman, I trust and listen to my attorney whose opinion I valued. I am waiting for StateFarm's underwriter for his assessment on the branches over neighbors'fence while no damages occurred yet. 1 understand they normally don't act unless there is a claim.There is no claim if no damages. Apart from the alleged branches in question, I am waiting for StateFarm to respond to my query regarding the tree roots appeared in properties TMK:2-4-055:011 and 2-4-055:012 whether there are sufficient causes for the respective owners to file a claim for damages. If StateFarm agrees to pay for the work to remove the roots even it is not my responsibility, I suggest the owners to file a claim,otherwise StateFarm will not act. I am still willing to work with Ann and Charlene whether or not I am legally responsible provided they cooperate with me, but not the owners of other properties you mentioned. Please take note according to the Map of Parcel no. 13, it appears a part of the building structure on TMK:2-4-055:013 violates the rear setback requirement of 10-feet. If so, it should be removed. I request to extend the 30-day deadline indefinitely until such time we come to a mutual understanding. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, 4WW VINCENT TAI,AIA Enclosures Vincent T.C.Tai,AIA,Architect 4 Architecture Planning t S Tai Architecture<taiarchitecture@gmail.com> Wed, Mar 15,2017, 12:34 PIM to Charlene, Kevin Hi Charlene, Kevin Aoki of Day-hum called me regarding tree branches hanging over your property. I would like to ask you to do a couple of things before we(you and me)decide what needs to be done and how to go about it. Firstly, please send me photos of the tree branches in question. Secondly, please consult an attorney to see if my understanding is correct. I am not a lawyer, as far as I understand the issue, if the tree is located in your property and its branches extend into your neighbor's property,by law,you are not responsible to trim branches extending over your neighbors'fences and properties unless the tree/branches are dead and about to fall. It is up to your neighbors whether they trim them off. If so,they bear the cost of such work and not you. Below are a few legal opinions: If the limbs of a healthy tree overhang the roof of a neighbor's property, is the owner of the tree under a duty to trim the tree back to protect the roof of the neighbor? No, the tree owner does not have a duty to trim the tree. The adjacent landowner has the right to trim the tree back to the property line to protect his property and should exercise this right. A large tree located entirely on an adjoining lot grew into two large branches one of which overhung the house on the neighboring lot.A 90 mile per hour wind caused the overhanging portion of the tree to fall on the neighbors house, severely damaging it. The owner of the damaged house sued his neighbor for negligence in allowing the tree to overhang his house, alleging that the tree owner was negligent in allowing it to overhang the neighboring property and also alleging nuisance and trespass. The court dismissed the negligence allegation and said that trespass and nuisance required an intentional act by the neighbor. Since the neighbor did not intentionally cause the tree to overhang the neighbor's house, the court held that the tree owner was not liable for damages. Your neighbor(owner of tree) can be held liable only if his failure to maintain the tree in some way contributed to the damage. If the damage was merely the result of a large storm or an act of God, the neighbor will not be liable for the damage, because the damage could not have been foreseen. if a tree limb appeared precarious(dead branches about to fall) and the owner failed to maintain the tree after warnings, he is responsible for resulting damage when a storm causes the limb to fall. If the tree was well maintained and a storm knocked it down onto your roof, the neighbor is not responsible. Vincent Tai Architecture<talarchitecture@gmalf.com> Apr 15, 2019, 5:56 PM to Beverly, Charlene Hi Charlene, In my last email to you dated March, 15,2017. 1 said the followings: "/only simply asked you to consult your attorney whether or not my understanding is correct. Please do so and got back to me. What I did the last time maybe out of good will and not legally required. Please also refer tomyprior mnails listed below. lasked you to get back tome, but nowords from you. | have not beignoring you. Since} haven't heard back from you, |take hyou had the issue taken care ofby yourself,and you agree with myconclusion after you consulted your attorney. Best, Vincent Tal Architecture <baiarch itwcture@gmai|.cum> VVad. Apr 17. 11:06 AM toCharlene, Beverly I am not ignoring you. You said you had met with a City Planner and intend to file(or already filed)a complaint with the Planning Department. |don't know which planner you met with, | ouggeatMaija Jackson orMicheal Yee,they know me. | dealt with planning departments and zoning issues inmany jurisdictions the past 50 years,from what I know,they don't deal with nuances involving tree branches over one's property fence since it is not a zoning or land use issue.As for seller's disclosure, a dispute over tree branches on a neighbor's property, legitimate or not, has no bearing on the title, use, enjoyment and development ofthe property for sale.The seller would have todisclose ifthe neighbor illegally encroaches on the property and such act affects the use and planned development. For this reason, I made it clear you are free to trim off branches on your property but not to encroach upon my property. Please allow me to make a layman's suggestion if you do not want to pay for trimming branches over your property. Granted,your legal adviser may offer other suggestions. You ask your insurance company to file a claim or your attorney to file a lawsuit against me. I will have my insurance company involved to defend orresolve such claims. Well, |em only trying hzhelp. Best, Vincent Tai Architecture <taievuhitoctum@gmei|.com> Wed, May 15, 1:58 PM to Charlene I was in the mainland the past 3 weeks, haven't heard back from you. If you had filed a complaint with the Planning Department,they have not notified me. May I suggest you get an estimate from a few tree trimmers how much itcost totrim the branches over the fence onyour property. You may contact the tenant onmyproperty who also does tree trimming, KaioeWong email: Have you spoken with your insurance company? ' N Tat Architecture<tmiarohitecture@gmaiLupm> VVed, Oct19. 2016, 3:32 PM to Ann Dear Ann, Let meexplain the current situation. |nmost likelihood, myentire site will bacleared ofmost trees(those to be remained will be trimmed)and vegetation within the next 5 to 6 months by a professional and licensed company. For this reason, |try not toincur expenses unapiece meal basis unless dison emergency orlegally myresponsibility. You may wish to consult your attorney. By law, you are not responsible to trim tree branches extending over your neighbors'fences and properties unless any of the branches are dead and about to fall. It is up to your neighbors whether they trim them off. If so,they bear the cost of such work and not you,That being said, I was simply trying to appease you and be a good neighbor even it is not my responsibility to do so. Please let me get two more quotes to remove the branches over your property and I will get back to you eosoon aapossible. Best, Vincent Ann Tomo<onnt0oma@Qmui|.com> Wed, Oct 19,2O1G. 3:45 PM to me |believe itwill beyour responsibility iffor what ever reason the tree topples on\oany ofthe homes. So far wehave been lucky that strong winds have not really hit us. |will not obtain alawyer hodeal with this unless there imdamage boour home orproperty. Sent from myiPhone Tai Architecture «taiarohdeotune@gmaU.com> VVad. Oct 19, 2016. 4:42 PM ` to Ann ` Hi Ann, | only ask you noconsult anattorney regarding esponsiWUty.YourundemtandingianotnonantBelow are ufew legal opinions: If the limbs of a healthy tree overhang the roof of a neighbor's property, is the owner of the tree tinder a duty to trim the tree back toprotect the roof o/the neighbor? No, the tree owner does not have a duty to trim the tree. The adjacent landowner has the right to trim the tree back to the property line to protect his property and should exercise this right. Alarge tree located entirely ononadjoining lot grew into two large branches one ofwhich overhung the house on the neighboring lot. A 90 mile per hour wind caused the overhanging portion of the tree to fall oothe neighbor's house, severely damaging it. The owner ofthe damaged house sued his neighbor for negligence bvallowing the tree k/overhang his house, alleging that the tree owner was negligent in allowing it to overhang the neighboring property and also alleging nuisance and trespass. The court dismissed the negligence allegation and said that trespass and nuisance required an intentional act by the neighbor. Since the neighbor did not intentionally cause the tree to overhang the neighbor's house, the court held that the tree owner was not liable for damages. Your neighbor(owner of tree) can be held liable only if his failure to maintain the tree in some way contributed to the damage. If the damage was merely the result of a large storm or an act of God, the neighbor will not be liable for the damage, because the damage could not have been foreseen. If a tree limb appeared precarious(dead branches about to fall)and the owner failed to maintain the tree after warnings, he is responsible for resulting damage when a storm causes the limb to fall. If the tree was well maintained and a storm knocked it down onto your roof, the neighbor is not responsible. Tai Architecture<taiarchitecture@gmail.com> Mon, Apr 15,7:25 PM to Ann Hi Ann, I haven't heard back from Kaelae since my last email to him on Mar 20. Wed, Mar 20, 2:43 PM Tai Architecture <tai arch itectureagmail.com> to Kal2e Hi Kalae, I need to ask you again,trimming the branches over her property ONLY,can you do it for$1,500(half of$3,000 as you quoted and agreed to do). If so, I will discuss with Ann and not ask for another quote. �7� L |7l-!k7 � �x� '" '� , � Jackson, � c , From: Charlene Nishicla <koueo0Dvahoozom> Sent Tuesday, August 20\ 20I9 11:I2 PM To: ]ackso4Ma'a Subject: Fvv Tree ' ^ - � : u - Here is an e-mail thread that requests of Mr. Tal to trim his trees with his repeated response to consult with an � attorney.This tactic to neglect his responsibility as u property and affected is_ ' � an attempttobully neighbors who are mostly retired and/or onulimited income. This is the exact reason why — the County Council adopted the Code as it is written. - Thank you againfor your enforcement ofthe Conditional Agreements for his rezoning,to be compliant with � County, State and Federal Codes/laws. Sincerely, c� Charlene Nishida (808) 216-1028 —~ kp-uco@yahoo.com (:D :3D cw c� --' Forwarded Message From: Charlene Niohida<kpueo@yahoo.cum> To: Tai Architecture<taiurchiLecturo@gmoi|.uom> Cc: Beverly &1o|finu<bever|ymo|fino@e|itupacifio.uom> Sent Monday, April 15. 2019. 04:49:20 PM HST Subject: Re;Tree Let's be u|eer...you are refusing to maintain your property and neglecting your responsibilities as a neighbor and property owner. As part of your conditional agreement for rezoning there are stipulations for approval. One of these stipulations is the maintenance of your property per County Coda. | have met with the planning department and am prepared to 0i a complaint unless you trim your trees back. In addition you have a responsibility to your homeowners insurance todnthe same. They informed meofthis the last time one ifyour trees fell wnour house and damaged it. Be o responsible owner and trim your trees, Please disclose this dispute to any potential buyer as part of your disclosure obligations. Charlene Nimhide (808) 216-1028 On Apr 16. 2010. at 4:19 PM, Tai Architecture wrote: Hi Charlene, ` First of all, there is no subdivision or application. I am not a subdivision developer. You are misinformed or mistaken. Are you complaining about another property and not mine? Secondly, I asked you to confirm with your attorney why it is my responsibility S 23 2 0191 ' ^ ` yours to trim the branch r your property. { never said I wcGrefuse to do so if it is my responsibility. From what know, itisyour responsibility. Have you spoken with your insurance company? l could have my insurance company hodeal with yours. What isyour insurance company? - Vincent OnMon, Apr 15. 2O1Qod8:52PKACharlene Nishida wrote: As per my previous email, { will be filing a complaint against your subdivision application for non | compliance. Please let any potential buyer beaware ofthis problem. | will also make sure the / surrounding affected neighbors are notified to do the same. You have failed in Your responsibility on o property owner and asosubdivision developer. There isnoway toaccess the trees due tntheir height | except from your property. � Sincerely, | Shad and Charlene Nishido | Owners ' 1GHale NaniPlace / Hilo, Hawaii 80720 } | Sin ! Sent from m. Phone On Apr 15. 2019. et3:24PM, Tai Architecture wrote: | As per my previous emnails, have you consulted with your attorney? If ' so, let me know/ I stated n)ycase clearly, you are free totrim the branches � over your property, l have no objection as long as you don't encroach into my property. Best, / Vincent . OnMon, Apr 15. 201QatO:U3PK4Charlene Niahida wrote: ' The trees are adanger hoour property and our residence. They need tobotrimmed back. As per all my previous emai|u, please address this problem immediately. i | Sincerely, ( ' Shad and Charlene Nishkje � | ' ! Sent from my Phone � i ! DnApr 15' 2019. at 2:56 PM' Tai Architecture wrote: Hi Charlene, In my last email to you dated March, 15, 2017. Isaid the followings: � "I only simply asked you to consult your attorney ! ( whether ornot mmy' understanding is correct. Please do 2 � | so and bmmn� ���t� ��� �m� �e� � � maybe out mfcomdwill and not legally required." Please also refer to my prior ennai|s listed below. I asked you | to get back to rna, but no words from you. I have not be i | ignoring you. Since l haven't heard back from you, I take it ` | you had the issue taken care Vfbyyourself, and you agree . . with my conclusion after you consulted your attorney. ' Bost, Vincent � / \ / ! ! OnWed, Mar 15. 2D17mt6:32PMTai Architecture � | / ^ wrote:* | � I only simply asked you toconsult your attorney whether or ' | . not nlyunderstanding is correct. Please dosoand get back ' to rne' What I did the last time maybe out of good willwilland ! | | | notlegally required. | � | / 0nWed, Mar 15. 2D17at10:07AM, Charlene Nishido <kpwrote:� i / | Your trees are over SUfeet high and hanging over our property with / � | the roots undermining our post and pier system. Ifyou donot trim the trees then | will contact your homeowner's insurance and make a . | / claim for the damage they are causing hoour roof and foundation. | | � have anattorney and have noproblem involving them inthis ` matter. | have already consulted our homeowner insurance about the problems and they are encouraging uehocontact you first bz have the trees trimmed back. This affects not only our house but the | ` adjoining neighbors too. � ! Your trees have already caused damage toour home ordid you ( ' forget about that. � | ! | CbuduucNishida . Certified Residential Appraiser Hawaii County CDA¥0000875 � . (808)216-1028 ^ / | � | . . / | ---------------------- --'-------- � ! / From: Tai Architecture To: Charlene' Cc: Kevin Aoki Sent:VVedneada� K4aroh15. 2O17A��34AM | ` | Subject: Tree / � | Hi Charlene, � ! | / Kevin Aoki ofDay-Lunn called rna regarding tree branches , hanging over your property. I would like to ask you to do a couple of things before we (you and me) decide what needs to be done and how to go about it. Firstly, please send me photos of the tree branches in question. SeconC.,,,;please consult an attorney to seeChy understanding is correct. I am not a lawyer, as far as I understand the issue, if the tree is located in your property and its branches extend into your neighbor's property, by law, you are not responsible to trim branches extending over your neighbors' fences and properties unless the tree/branches are dead and about to fall. It is up to your neighbors whether they trim them off. If so, they bear the cost of such work and not you. Below are a few legal opinions: If the limbs of a healthy tree overhang the roof of a neighbors property, is the owner of the tree under a duty to trim the tree back to protect the roof of the neighbor? No, the tree owner does not have a duty to trim the tree. The adjacent landowner has the right to trim the tree back to the property line to protect his property and should exercise this right. A large tree located entirely on an adjoining lot grew into two large branches one of which overhung the house on the neighboring lot. A 90 mile per hour wind caused the overhanging portion of the tree to fall on the neighbor's house, severely damaging it. The owner of the damaged house sued his neighbor for negligence in allowing the tree to overhang his house, alleging that the tree owner was negligent in allowing it to overhang the neighboring property and also alleging nuisance and trespass. The court dismissed the negligence allegation and said that trespass and nuisance required an intentional act by the neighbor. Since the neighbor did not intentionally cause the tree to overhang the neighbor's house, the court held that the tree owner was not liable for damages. Your neighbor(owner of tree) can be held liable only if his failure to maintain the tree in some way contributed to the damage. If the damage was merely the result of a large storm or an act of God, the neighbor will not be liable for the damage, because the damage could not have been foreseen. If a tree limb appeared precarious (dead branches about to fall) and the owner failed to maintain the tree after warnings, he is responsible for resulting damage when a storm causes the limb to fall. if the tree was well maintained and a storm knocked it down onto your roof, the neighbor is not responsible. Vincent Vincent T.C. Tai,AIA,Architect 2184 Round Top Drive Honolulu, H196822 1238 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94909 Matsunaga, Anne From: Micah C. <keokigchinen@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday,January 18,2020 8:49 PM To: Planning Internet Mail Subject: Applicant: Planning Director Initiated (Vincent Tai/Rez 13-000167) Dear Planning Director, My name is George Chinen and I am submitting my public testimony on this rezoning of Mr.Tai's property located on 364 Hualalai St. I am speaking on behalf of my 88 year old mother Kimiko Chinen and sister Julie Chinen who resides on 50 Hale Nani St which borders Mr.Tai's property. It has become increasingly hazardous where very tall trees in his property are overgrowing into neighboring properties like my mother and sister. No action has been taken to clear the trees. If you need further information,you can contact me via cell phone (896-8131) or email at keokigchinen@gmail.com. Thank you for your attention to this matter. George Chinen rU `-C' ES - s_s -y JD --v Planning Dept. AN 19 2020 Exhibit-lq-. .3 0 19-q 0i ) / | | \ ' January 2D, 2UIO i Dear Planning Commission Members: � I am writing this letter as an plead to you to rezone Mr.Vincent Tai's property back to its original RS 7.5 zoning. My mother is a long time homeowner in the Hualalai Subdivision and is now inher elder years, She suffers from health conditions that limit her mobility 10her home. How stressful for her and our family that she is threatened by the overgrown property adjacent tohers that has been neglected for the past decade. HovvcanMr.Tai besmcrue|thathedoes not care for her safety? That heneglects tomaintain his trees and the chaos they cause toher property. Overgrown trees that threaten her home, rubbish from the trees including broken branches that she can trip on, and roots that pose problems with her sewer system. Shame on Mr.Taifor treating his neighbors with such disrespect. I have spoken with my neighbors and many of us have requested of M-r,Tai to be a good neighbor and remove these hazards. His blatant disregard nfour health and safety isalarming. For these reasons, our family is asking that you proceed with the reversal of his zoning to its original zoning of RS-7.5. He has proven that he is not a man of honor and is not concerned ! about the health and safety ufthe community. Sincerely, Leigh Ann klshfiƒorleotrice Kish0 30 Hale NeniStreet Hi|o, H196720 Planning ��°~�� | mm������0�� ����°~ i 0�..&~~&~�� o���0o��Vm | - --------- | January 29, 2020 To Planning Commission Members: We are requesting that TMK: 3-2-4-28-9 be rezoned back to ISS 7.5. We have been dealing with Mr. Tai's neglect of maintenance of his property since he purchased it in 2€105. It has become obvious that he does not care about the welfare of his neighbors even in the face of the Notices of Violation given to hien on June 21, 2019 and the additional one on January 28, 2020. i Our entire neighborhood has been affected by his refusal to maintain his property which affects at least three subdivisions and all properties that are adjacent to his. His trees have not been trimmed since his purchase and now tower over our homes in excess of 60-70 feet. We have no access to these trees and the shear height of them and safety risks makes it impossible for us to enjoy our backyards. As a neighborhood many have requested numerous times for Mr. Tai to be a good neighbor yet lie refuses. There was even testimony at the previous Planning Commission nneetings, Community Meeting requested by the Planning Department and letters to the neighbors from Mr. Tai himself that discuss these hazards. Since he has not been In compliance with the County of Hawaii Ordinance for unsafe flora and fauna going as far back as to when the rezoning occurred, then it only makes sense to revert the property to its original zoning. If Mr. Tai was concerned about his neighbors and their health and well-being then he would have addressed this problem long ago. His refusal to comply with State Law and the County Ordinance is the defining reason for the request of the zoning reversal. Sincerely, Jeremy and Lanette Ganzagan 18.Hale Nam Place Milo, HI 96720 Planning Dept. xhibit .'�_ ' ! ' { | January Z9' 2O2O | RE: Rezoning of Mr. Vincent Tai TMK- 3~1-4-28-9 ! i Planning Commissioners: ' Mr. Tai has told me that | am responsible for maintaining his trees that are overgrown onto rnyproperty. These trees are causing damage tnn)yhome, yard, fence and shed. The Public Works Notice of Violation dated 0I/28/2020 states that the trees are between 44to75+feet tall and located onhis property. ' I am 73 years old and my wife is 67 years old and this causes us stress because the branches and debris are constantly falling. How can vveenjoy ourpropertyvviththese hazards? Even a1night with the strong winds | can hear the branches breaking and failing. The Coconut Palm fronds and the coconuts also fall from heights over 50 feet and onto our property. ! / I remember Mr. Tai stating at the Planning Department requested Community Meeting / on December 18, 2013 that Mr. Tai would create a landscape plan that would address heavy vegetation and trees onhis property within one year. Tothis date Mr. Tai has continued to deny that he is responsible for maintaining his property. _ We are frustrated in Mr.Tai's refusal to remove the trees that border our property. Because we have been dealing with these issues for too long, we support the Planning Director's reversing the zoning to its original Residential-7.5. - Maha|o nUi |oe, Mt CristitoQ Mrs. Celeste Tiooqngcn 3GOHau!afa| Street Hi/o, H196720 - Planning° v "n %on ;0rn �v O O �O rn O � C ra r rn > v z rn nCz z mi .-i O z > OM r ;o C) r � rnv m vi � O rn o � > z ,� � rnn v, Or= mi0 00 :� p -nzz minrnry z r � --I 7v m p -o � rn N -� z co rn Cn -� • • v — o — > o r � ft� n�%t�C �d�� a ed���wi`bt � a t��n. '/`, _-'� �_ � y ��� �� _ �,� _ � „' ,, ,'` �� ,�_ �� � ` � f. ,� ,� � �'�� �� i �� . / �, l f t" .,, � ^i O �: .'LL`' \.' � 1- ^ •� \ ` f"F � _ } O• J. �.., .�+: r,.: �� _. , kl ,F ��f�r �'� .�/r tiV i /J `-f - \. 'l ff./i �� �` S�` � �.� ' _. �.1 � �y''��� s'� -� L 4 .� \ _ �.,` _ , , �'� � + `� '� -- ,.,-�F _��� _ _ _ -- fr r l � 1 ,i"_ `,'•. �� Yet\ - ,� \ \ 1 y. f' f �t � i ,. • fes: , � ; a-- � � � • . � • ;. , � • �i`� .-' � 'i(i`}. �`� 4 ,`\ ` ill �, i� \` t � _. � .. 1 5 � / 4�� � � `�� 't., ,1�' `t, ,, f.� !` .. ` �,\ •, �'r � � 1 .. ', �, �., ` i 1 I F'.r � _ '� .t r s� ,, QL Ul r-+ 0 0 IQ 0 70 0) a o 0L O =7 (D Q) � -�' - I -<r-F (D r'' CSD CSD -�I 0, 0) (J} O (f) (n � �, �' O � CD N r-+:7 O-Q O :3 n O p r+ (,}1 N =5' O rn ° o -+, 3 3 E M �. 700 ca �° cn 0-0 ca l< 0 -0 0 N ■ r InnA ZY Cl) CD CD V) O Cep CD CD -N Cl) : a 0, E n, CDcn CD CCD C) CD Q)O O �2. `..'h r- O 0 COp CD O. O 0 w Cl. 90 O O 0. CD Z3 -+ CCD CD :3 "Ofto CD CD O!• CL CD CD zr iY CD O WIN CD � � --%. ® to N► 0 � cn o � � � o �' _ Co13CD 0 OL CL C) C�ug � cno N N CD CD o C Cftoc �' O► n �, CSD �" cn n �, O Cn CCD �. CD o- c7E3 CDC: o a) ' ch cam. -,, � E3oz- o .* o 0 -0 O s ccn sy O O CCD CD 0)cn o �' v — Q r-f. N 0 CD CD Z �i f-+ CD CD CD CD cn CD - CD CDO QL cO Z* -:3C) � `--. CD � :3 � c 0 CSD o OL N � CD (D. n rn CD CD �. Q N n v CD < 3M O M rn � � — O � ( Qo< = 3 CD cnz0- 0= a) � � � � �' �' o 3 � = m o CSD :03 O o ciao mmv0 � � c� �. Qov v ,m cnN� CN (n U)CD OCD 0cn . (D � 7c O U) 0 0 N �O O O -+ 3 < CD OO D (n O N - p N CD CD CSS Cp -n O CD r-, Q CDCD �. n CD O fl? � �D O CD (D Dn' n� 33 cnQOO � O r � � � O O < oCD WQ •< �m O "<L O CD cn 0) p mCD (n CD u -� n - CD p (n Z C N < -0 CD = l--. CD C ^� Q o O Q C7f— O !-' v O e+ 0 3 — (1) I-, ,--, N CD C/) cn O �' � Q OQ Cn07CD r+ O Ucl 0 CD v N Z CD U) 0 CD CD - Co C r-+ -. CD ,� CD n Q �. m C7 0O CD o O CD O< 3 - O D Q (n O CD v 0= O CD gQ Cn CD N � O �CD Do � r+ -t,Z3 � ( CSD p -"% p � � OCD ,-+ (D CD ��° ' + Cf) 0 C. o z� o� 3 D � v Q) (D W (DN r =70rn06vO (D (D :D :D 0- (D — O cDCD r-F �v U) r-+ � C31 (D Q p CSD COD v CD � � CD Q (DCn o D 60 Or+ Nan 0 _. =7o 0 � cD :37 r+ CD o o �- cD o r+ r_+- � 70 � � � � vQ (D O cD (Q � D :r+ 3 (D 0 C OCD 3 CD3 Q r+ � O U) — CD CD rte+ n = CD 0 Z7 0 Z37 O — N -0 CD 0 — r+ `< CD N :D0 CD O :3 M ZD � 0) ::7rn+ p- 07 Q} CD O'Q U? O 0 D r-+ < 0 D CS 0 0 CD (D p CD = U) : -0 ("? o � n O CD p CD o CD CD o O C % CD O `< < G . pr+ � p CD UCD QOO ---h r"f _. -+, v , O O � U) � _ cn cn Q � Q _ (D CD (D C7 CD CD Q. CD cn r+ O r-+ CD Q O' O �. r=+ fl? N 0 O r+ r+ O O � M Z3 O O (DW Z7CL _. O 1, ® 0 -o r- C7 U) n Q O v ::7r+ � . (D cD CT O 0 0 (D CT1 (DN C� C7) (-0 a J 7 J o x D D ci C) O aCD z, p �• Z m /• I C/)/ Ln rr 3 y 6_6 I � / � �� p\\ f •�v >�yW 0 mI m Al _._..._..__�y _..� r • �I - ..__�-..._ o m -- -,�, --- N !$ F CD I _ I i < g'- r+ • HUALAUU COURT >: 364 HUALALAI MEET `' o HAO•HAWAA W= i i M - +' ri ► SII VAr A • 'I • a�w -j 4' ' I ti ■ ■ r CL 40 -00 Co o W o � c O D C, . r.+ � O iv O > O O CCD CD 0 r-+ Q CD " O Iz SU CD CCD — co Cl) O C � 0O O ( -,. O0 r+ :3 CD :33 CD CD CD O O CD r+ _0 O Cl) — 0) r+ p to c r+ O =:r 6 CD rte+ OL .� :3 Q cn C O CD 3 O 0 r4 cn. CSD O m cn cl r-+' O O CD r+ 0 O CD �� D CD ' CD 4 CL CD _0, 0 CD CCD O o0 — O Q — �� � CD � � 70 CD 70 LnCD CD Nr+ O 3 CD o I-ACD � CO o- cn r+ CD ■ ■ ■ G) F CD � -0 CD � = CD cnc o �� _ � O � 0 Cn30 nc0 M ,.�, 0. a3 CD C 0. U Q a � Cn. � � N ccn `< CDC -+ :3 m i-► CD fns � a� a� 3 CL 0 T1 O 0 '0 C cn -�C.rv y U1 I CD Cs cCD ol 0 CD .'a CD �. N CD r Q O Q C 0CD Et Q CD iY Cni. -4, CCD. 0 N 0 � cn m � v Z' o --ti ',' 0) + .13 o � _. CD �C_ CCD :3 = ` CD �' ��+ cn ,..�, . IQ CD Cp t9 N C n a -s �' C. .a �3 C) C Q N C O --i, O O c CD U) � 0 CDO CDDCQ, C -pfl? O0 @ Cl) '� CD CD fl+ O ? ,OQ = may Ona a) CD C � � C � cr 00 CD 3CD CD 0 CD � CD 0) N cn U) G; CDCD � � CD � CD � Ov�' a o0) n 0 � cn CD :3F cn oa ,. CD co CCDD � Q < � � N r. O E;C ' + O OV - C _� G ib C: r-f- CLO' cn O :3 '0 O CD OL Cn CD N r': � O N � � n 'a 0 O- n � 3 n CD CD CD C cn 00 CD cn 0 a�a Q Q c o O @ cn o CD .... o to �-+ cn' CD � Q 00 � c � CCD@ � O CDC UQ t-+ Fn`y cn Fn Cn QCD 0 :3 L =r 3 CC :3 iii O O C. - � D CD Q (n CD QO fD N V) 0, "y' CD (n ao CD =� r+ a -i ora —i CD �` � U) O OCAN CD r-+ � % � � CD 0 CD CD CD m Q V CD Cn Y 4 = r+ CD cn CD O O p O C2` CD r+' Un Q CD �' �• '� 3 � r+ � � 030 00- 0 - 0 OECD CDCD ' CDCSD O CD C ET CD N O � CD 3 ' O O M CD C Q C ;03 CD CD S p CD 3 Q- cn CD a'�Q CD + CD CD �' CD n W .0 K to �-' Q CD Q C, r-+ r-+• (� CD OL cn 0O 0 � CDCDO. CD O � � 3 OO � CD C2. � N � CD :3 3 in -6QCD CD -4 13) r+ CD CL L % * K O. O _ C cn COD CD �„.f =3 Q. ,..� a � 'O �' O N . ter.+ —• .... � O O Ca CD � CD 'D r+ " CD �• CL CSD = 3 CD , 0 O U)' CD �. M Q• CD � stn CDOCC CDo D SO CDS+, CSD = NO Q' �1 �• O :30 0 CD -� Op � 00 CD � CD Cl) _ -TI CD o o C. CD cD o C ZCD CJS Ott.ft� CA ' CD a � �. � �, CD CD CL No ;p E3 CD 0 CD CD OF — � i3 3 CD cD i3 3 CD CDcn S ° � o cD cD