Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-05 TAOAO PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 5, 2007 AOAO PUNAHELE PROFESSIONAL A regularly advertised hearing on the application of BUILDING (REZ 07-000060) was called to order at 11:45 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 40 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: AOAO PUNAHELE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING (REZ 07-000060) Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 square feet (CN-10) district for 9,230 square feet of land. The property is located along the south side of Punahele Street, approximately 200 feet east of the Komohana Street – Punahele Street intersection, across from the Hawaii Community Correctional Facility, nd Punahoa 2, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-3-35:18. GRAHAM: Okay, our next item is the AOAO PUNAHELE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, a rezoning request. So our mission as the Planning Commission is to give a recommendation to the County Council on the rezoning request. The request is for a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential (RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-10) district for 9,230 square feet of land. It’s located along the south side of Punahele Street, approximately 200 feet east of the Komohana Street – Punahele Street intersection, and it’s across from the Hawaii Community Correctional Facility in South Hilo, Hawaii. Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to the location map. The area of this application is within the South Hilo district of Hawaii, more specifically we’re looking at Waianuenue Avenue, running in a west-east direction. And we have Komohana identified here on the map running in a north-south direction. We have Punahele running parallel with Waianuenue, and the area of the application is identified in the blue dot. Just for reference, the area identified in pink, again, the zoning is Commercial Neighborhood. This is the area of the Punahele Medical Facility, as well as other medical facilities in the area. We have the EXHIBIT C 1 County of Hawaii Employees Credit Union off of Puuhonu Place. And, again, this is in the area of Komohana and Punahele Streets. The applicant in this case, Apartment of Association Owners, AOAO Punahele Professional Building, is requesting a change of zone from Single Family Residential RS -7.5 to Commercial Neighborhood 10,000 square feet for a piece of property that is 9,230 square feet in size. Currently this property is vacant. It has been graded and grubbed as well as fenced along three sides of the property, the area along both adjoining Single Family Residential properties, as well as along Punahele Street. If I could pass out some pictures to the Commissioners to kind of give you an idea of what the area looks like. Previously the applicant has been issued two violation notices for utilizing this as a parking lot in a Single Family Residential zone which is unpermitted. There have been Board of Appeal cases that have been conducted. And at the time of the writing of the application, the Board of Appeals case had not been resolved. But it’s my understanding that since that time it has been concluded; and I believe that the Board of Appeals had upheld the Planning Director’s decision in this matter. At this time, just to bring to your attention conditions of importance, the Condition E is going to restrict access off of Punahele Street to this particular property, except for emergency purposes only. So there can be a gate on the Punahele side. Additionally, there’s going to be some pretty heavy landscaping requirements for the perimeters of the adjoining neighbors as well as Punahele Street. I believe it’s Limited Industrial to Single Family Residential zoning. Also Condition D requires that this property be utilized strictly for employee parking for the Punahele Professional Building. Any amendments to this, you know, if the applicant wants to utilize this property for any other purposes, it will require them to come back to the Planning Commission and to the County Council to amend the ordinance. We have received several letters. One of them is from the applicant’s representative, Sandy Song. Additionally, we’ve received letters from the adjoining property owners, Marjorie Gushiken who resides in this particular area and also Cheryl Reis. The letter that we had st received from Cheryl Reis dated April 1 is requesting that the Planning Commission continue this matter because of medical reasons. Additionally, this morning we had received five letters that have been passed out to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council on this matter. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioners? All right. Well, I think going from Mr. Torigoe’s recommendation we should call the applicant before us first now.So would the applicant and/or representatives please come forward and be seated at the table. SONG: Good morning, Mr. Graham. I’m Sandra Song and I’m representing the Association of Apartment Owners of Punahele Professional. Excuse me, I’m very ill and Diana Van De Car is with me today if I cannot speak. Also with me is Nancy Cabral. So I may need water. GRAHAM: Thank you. Could you folks raise your right hand while I swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the County Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS: Yes. EXHIBIT C 2 GRAHAM: Thank you. So, Ms. Song, you or whomever who would like to speak on this matter can go ahead; and just start with your name and address also. VAN DE CAR: My name is Diana Van De Car. My address is 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 238, Hilo. GRAHAM: Thank you. Go right ahead. VAN DE CAR: All right. I think the first matter that was before the Commission is the request for the continuance by Ms. Reis. Ms. Reis is a resident, I understand that she’s in the hospital right now. We have to oppose the request for the continuance. I’m here today with very little information but I’m here trying to assist Ms. Song. Ms. Song was diagnosed on Monday with ovarian cancer. And she has handled this matter through the entire process and it would be very hard for me to step in at this moment, I mean at this point, and do an effective job at a hearing without her being here to assist. So I think you have a lot of information from Ms. Reis. I think Ms. Reis has been objecting to the application throughout. And I don’t think her position is going to change, and I think you have written information from her already. So if you could hear this matter this morning, we would appreciate it. One of the issues that we do have is that, it’s an important situation. I don’t want to get into the merits right now, but the additional parking for the medical facility is very, very necessary and there’s quite a bit of hardship. If you look in your materials, you have a number of signatures on petitions from patients and employees of the area who really do need the assistance. SONG: If I could just add? GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Van De Car. Go ahead, Ms. Song. SONG: Ms. Reis has stated her position in opposition. Her position will not change. She has always been opposed to it. You have what her written comments are. This is a change of zone application and any comments from the public whether it’s a next door neighbor or somebody 10 miles away, it’s still public comment on the recommendation. It’s not like a contested case hearing. And to be honest with you, since we know she’s opposed, we don’t refute that she is opposed, that’s she’s upset about the traffic and the noise. All of that is stated in her letter. Mrs. Gushiken who is another neighbor who is opposed to this is present. We, and so you will be able to hear any comments she has. And I might also add we have tried our best to work things out with these neighbors. There are five neighbors in an area that is developing as a medical services area; but there are five residential neighbors and they just don’t want to work anything out. So there’s no question they’re going to be opposed to this matter. But we just ask that this matter proceed today so that there will be a decision one way or another and it goes up to the County Council. Thank you. GRAHAM: All right, fine. Let me ask the Commissioners at this point what is your sense on doing a continuance at the request of this one neighbor? Commissioner Watanabe. EXHIBIT C 3 WATANABE: I would, if you would entertain a motion I would move to deny the continuance for the very facts that she stated; and, in fact, her letter is attached in our materials so I’m not overly concerned about, you know, what she could present. GRAHAM: All right. I don’t even know we need a motion. It’s just if there’s interest in the Commission on doing a continuance then we could take a motion on that or take discussion on whether there is any interest. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: My sense and my feeling right now is that we should consider the request by way of a motion. I would support such a motion. Ms. Reis is a neighbor, she has the personal experience, whatever, you know. We have her written correspondence. She also represents that there are things that she wants to present that are not set forth in her letter. And she also can present, you know, whatever. She doesn’t live 10 miles away. She lives right next door so she can talk about those direct kind of matters that I believe she has a right to do so. My inclination is to provide her the opportunity to do that. GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe, would it be appropriate that we take a motion to that effect right now and vote on it and get the sense of the Commission? TORIGOE: That would be within your discretion to do one way or the other. CABRAL: Could I speak on that? GRAHAM: Yes, you may. Go ahead; and give your name and address, first, please. CABRAL: Hello. My name is Nancy Cabral and I’m the property manager and the applicant in this matter. And my address is 2 Kamehameha Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii. And I am the property manager for the Association of Owners of Punahele Professional Building, and I’d like to speak against that. I can appreciate that this is the time when the public all have their right to have their say and present their case. Of course, we all know that this will come up again with the full Council and there will be that opportunity. The Association of Owners while they may be doctors, they are under a lot of stress in the timeframe to try and resolve what the parking situation is going to be; and this came to a head when Radiology moved into the building last year. So then time is of the essence and there’s also the expense. You know, it’s horrible that Ms. Song is ill and it’s going to be quite a time before she might be able to make a presentation to this group again. And we would hate to spend the money to have Ms. Van De Car come up to snuff on all of this. I had to say it in that, but, you know, the Association has done everything, including asking to have a meeting with all of the neighbors. We sent a letter to them to meet with us so that we could discuss it, and discuss the plantings, discuss the request for zoning. No one showed up. Ms. Reis is very articulate.She has put out many, many letters prior to even this meeting about it. It’s very clearly stated, along with her photos. She goes back to historical data before it was even a medical building when the County used the land and how she was unhappy with its use by a contractor putting in the sewer lines 20 years ago. So all of that is in EXHIBIT C 4 your information here. And I would really urge this body to let us move forward because of both the, the fact that we as the association have gone ahead and done everything we’re supposed to try and do to be here today and spent the time and the money to do so; and we’d like to think that her written testimony which is very detailed would suffice in this matter. Thank you for your attention. GRAHAM: Would you care to make a motion then, Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I move that REZ 07-000060, AOAO Punahele Professional Building, Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 square feet (CN-10) district for 9,230 square feet of land be continued to the next Hilo meeting. GRAHAM: Do we have a second to that motion? SIRACUSA: May I make a comment before we second? In case, we might not want to say the next Hilo meeting, you know, we might want to wait and see what Ms. Song’s condition is before we set a date. GRAHAM: Well, we could adjust the motion if there is a -. SIRACUSA: We could just say to the next Hilo meeting agreeable by the parties or something. YUEN: Well, I think the simplest thing is to extend it to the next Hilo meeting; and if the applicant requests a deferral then we would have a deferral. I’m not making a comment on the merits of the motion itself, but that would be the simplest. Because we need to, if it is deferred then the timeframes for getting back to the newspaper publication and the like come into play. So the Department needs to know when it would go back on. GRAHAM: All right. We’re still looking for a second for that motion. Someone care to second that motion for a continuation? SIRACUSA: I’ll second it for the sake of discussion. GRAHAM: All right. Commissioner Siracusa, thank you. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you. Speaking in favor of the motion, I appreciate the concern of timing and so forth expressed by the applicant. However, you know, our rules and this whole hearing public hearing process is designed and supposed to provide those who are concerned, in this case Ms. Reis, the opportunity to be personally present and present those concerns. And I know we have paper from her already but that does not replace the right to be here in person and present whatever additional matters that she believes she has to present. So that is my main concern and why I made the motion. I’m a little, my comment about the timing and the need to EXHIBIT C 5 progress and all of that, the applicant is in violation or was acting in violation for I’m not sure how long but, you know, over a protracted period of time and went before the Board of Appeals and so forth. And this request, this change of zone application is being submitted in order to change the use so that it can be used for a parking lot. Part of my concern, you know, is that the applicant has a business building with parking that it believed was sufficient and now it’s apparent that it’s not and is, you know, basically anxious about obviously getting this thing through to try and rectify that. But that’s a creation of a problem by the applicant, poor planning, excuse me. All right, you have so much office space and expecting so many patients and so forth and you don’t provide enough parking, that’s not technically our problem, you know. And we’re being asked to make a recommendation on this application in order to help the applicant rectify it. Part of my concern is why don’t you just build a parking structure? You know, why can’t you resolve the problem on site and why do you have to go off site? Those are the kinds of concerns that I have and to me speak against the applicant’s argument that we really need to get this through because this is the only thing we have to do. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Any other Commissioners care to comment? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of, there are several options that we can take. We can move this up immediately today and forward this to the Council without any recommendation from this Commission, we can take action immediately today, or we can defer this matter until a future meeting. In my other life as a Council Member, I had also heard the arguments of issues surrounding this particular development in the past by members and residents of the particular area. What I’m looking at now, I think the overriding issue is that, for one thing positively, is that parking lot will be allocated only for those employees who work in that area. So that would mean that traffic only would occur, so-call traffic, would occur in the morning when they come up and pull up into the stalls; and the other issue is that when they leave they’ll leave probably in the afternoon, probably 4:30, 5 o’clock and that would then again create a number of traffic. And I think one of the overriding concern was that there’d be fumes by people coming in and out as they visit the doctors or whatever they do there. So it seems like there would be continuously coming in and going out of cars; therefore increasing the pollution that neighbors are so concerned about, which would not happen because it’s only in in the morning and out in the afternoon. And, you know, I think with the landscaping requirements that would be imposed on the developer, I think it would, I feel that it would negate the major concerns that people would face as I look at it. I don’t know, I might be wrong. But that’s how I look at it. And I think for me I can take a position now. I can just send it up to the Council and have the Council make that decision, or if we take a position today it will also be forwarded to the Council and they will make the final decision on this issue. What we’ll be doing is just sending a recommendation. So I, you know, I don’t know how an important a recommendation would be because often times when you sit on the Council the Council has, you know, in their wisdom overridden recommendations from the Commission. So I don’t think that it’s an issue that would die with us today; but it will be continued and then this issue would be addressed by the Council. So, you know, I have no strong feeling as to deferring this; and this is made in deference to my EXHIBIT C 6 colleagues on the Commission who would like to see a deferral.That’s all, Mr. Chairman Thank you. GRAHAM: So, Mr. Domingo, you’re not sensing that you would support this motion to defer. Is that correct? DOMINGO: Yes. You know, again, in deference to people on the Commission, I respect their position. But what I’m trying to say is that although we may not defer, but this issue is not going to be dead. It’s going to go forward and live its useful life for how long it may be; and the Council will be the final decision maker on this issue. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. Well, two things. I’m wondering first if Mr. Torigoe would help me out with the timeline on this. How much time does this Commission have to make a decision? That’s my first question. GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As usual with your amendments that are initiated by property owners under your Rule 11-3(b)(2), you have 90 days after receipt of the application from the Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant. You have that 90-day period in which to transmit a recommendation to the Council. The recommendation should either recommend approval, in whole or in part, or a rejection of the application. And if the Commission fails to act within the 90-day period, then the application shall be considered an unfavorable recommendation by the Commission. So a default unfavorable recommendation would go to the Council. GRAHAM: And, Mr. Torigoe, if we continue the 90 days would still be running from now? It’s not like we reset the 90 days, is that correct? TORIGOE: That’s correct, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant. GRAHAM: Thank you. SIRACUSA: My second question then. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: It has to do with the landscaping that would act as a buffer on the sides of the parking lot, not the sides facing the street necessarily, but at least the sides facing the two abutting residences. Would parking be precluded from the parcel until that landscaping was in place to afford those residents some relief? EXHIBIT C 7 GRAHAM: Is that in specific reference to -? SIRACUSA: I’m asking if that could be a condition or if it would be allowed in the -? GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Would parking still be allowed? GRAHAM: We’re trying to decide whether to continue this hearing to the next meeting or not right now, regardless of what conditions come out in the end. So if we could -. Are there any other comments on the motion before us on whether we continue this to the next meeting? Jeff, do you want to do the vote then? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to continue this application until the next Hilo meeting. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: The motion does not pass. GRAHAM: Okay, I think we’re at about our lunch break now. So what we’re going to have to do is we’ll just come back and take up this matter with further questions from the Commissioners and our public testimony. We’ll be back here at 1:30. EXHIBIT C 8 RECESSED The Chair recessed the meeting at 12:20 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 1:40 p.m. GRAHAM: All right, the Planning Commission will come back to order. The agenda item we left off when we went to lunch was the Association of Apartment Owners of the Punahele Professional Building, a rezoning application. And we had a request from one of the neighbors for a continuation of the meeting because she was unable to make it; and we just took a vote on that and decided to carry forward today. So we’ve heard from the applicant. And we do have a lot of people signed up for public testimony on that item. So I think the appropriate thing for us to do right now would be to hear from the public. This is the Association of Apartment Owners of the Punahele Professional Building, a rezoning to allow them to build a parking lot next door to the Professional Building. So I can read some names; and if you folks, there are four chairs. If I read four names, four of you can come forward. Okay, I have Marjorie Gushiken, Loretta Rickets, George Karvas and Dr. Karen Nakamoto. Since I’ve got only two of you here maybe I should ask for -. CABRAL: Oh -. GRAHAM: Excuse me? CABRAL: Actually I have the statements, written statements, of the three people that have asked me, they had to return to work, to read on their behalf. That would be all but Marjorie’s. GRAHAM: I also have a Dr. Wayne Leong. CABRAL: Yes. GRAHAM: Cabral? CABRAL: Yes, I’m all of those people. GRAHAM: All of those. Okay. Well, we’re not going to have so many testifiers. And then from earlier I had Ronit Sanders and Mark Power. Are they still here? SANDERS: It’s the next one. GRAHAM: That’s the next one. SANDERS: That’s No. 5 on your agenda. GRAHAM: Okay, I got it on the wrong sheet here. That’s all right. So you folks, you can be seated. And to start off, could you just raise your right hand and swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission on this matter today? TESTIFIERS: I do. EXHIBIT C 9 GRAHAM: Thank you. And I could start with you, Ma’am. Would you just give your name and address, and then go ahead with your testimony. GUSHIKEN: My name is Marjorie Gushiken and I live at 51 Punahele Street, Hilo, Hawaii, adjacent to the Parcel No. 18 which is presently designated as Residential. Owners are requesting a rezoning to Commercial. I am here today to testify against the rezoning in behalf of my neighborhood because Cheryl Reis who is our regular spokesperson is in the hospital and could not be present. During the few months that the illegal parking was in operation the negative effects of the neighborhood were tremendous. These are few of our concerns: (1) the adverse health effects from the exhaust fumes creating air pollution in the surrounding area; (2) noise pollution; (3) traffic congestion, (4) lack of privacy and (5) obscene activities. Both Cheryl Reis and I submitted letters to the Planning Commission and our concerns are spelled out in those letters. We hope that you will all give serious consideration in our favor on this rezoning. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Gushiken. Do we have any questions from any of the Commissioners? SIRACUSA: Yes. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I hadn’t seen anything before in any of the comments about obscene activities. Are people relieving themselves in the parking lot? Is that what you’re referring to? GUSHIKEN: Well, you know, Cheryl has, you know, she’s the one that used to see all these activities going on, because I live on the lower side. And she was telling me that, you know, these people were making out in the parking lot; and then sometimes they would change their clothing in the parking lot. They would just go do it all the way, you know. And she didn’t think that was proper.It wasn’t a very nice thing. SIRACUSA: No, it’s not proper. And the reason I was asking was not because I wanted my prurient interest aroused but because, you know, we have to understand what’s happening; otherwise we can’t make conditions to mitigate. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? All right, thank you, Ms. Gushiken. Ma’am, and start with your name and address please. CABRAL: Right. I’m actually here on behalf of and reading a statement that was presented earlier by Loretta Rickets. And she is the operations manager for Clinical Laboratories of Hawaii. Clinical Laboratories of Hawaii has an office there at 82 Puuhonu Place, which is the Punahele Professional Building, commonly known as the Surgical Center. And her statement is, “As a Manager for Clinical Laboratories of Hawaii, I want to register my concern about the EXHIBIT C 10 current lack of parking for this building. We provide Medical Services in this community, to all members of this community, and must have additional parking places for our patients. Our ability to provide good patient care is hampered by this limited parking. The zoning change to allow the adjacent area to be used as a parking lot is very important to us and to all of our patients.” Thank you. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? All right. CABRAL: Okay, and the next one is from George Karvas who is with Hilo Community Pharmacy, which is also located at the surgical center. And he states, “We the staff of the Hilo Community Pharmacy would like to have more parking available for all of our customers. We appreciate your consideration as a Planning Commission in this matter in making this adjacent area a parking lot for our growing community. Sincerely, Hilo Pharmacy Staff and George Karvas.” GRAHAM: All right. Carry on. CABRAL: Okay. My next letter is from Dr. Karen Nakamoto, MD who she is writing on behalf of both herself as a medical gynecologist and obstetrics doctor there at the Surgical Center and her husband Dr. Raymond Lee. And she says, “Thank you for allowing me to make a statement. As one of the physicians caring for patients in the Punahele Professional Building, my patients have been affected by the limited parking. They have needed to walk from outside the immediate area and at times I have had patients tell me they have been unable to make their appointments because they cannot walk that far. Availability of adjacent parking would allow us to have people working in the building park nearby or park in the additional new parking, not increasing the traffic flow through the day, but only at the beginning and end of the day, and it would open up many more spaces close to the building for our patients. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. Karen Nakamoto.” GRAHAM: Go ahead. CABRAL: Okay, and my last one for someone else is from Dr. Leong, D.D.S., who’s a dentist at, again, the Surgical Center location. “I am writing to support the zoning change to allow the adjacent parking lot to be the Punahele Professional Building employee parking area. I am a tenant in this medical setting and I know that patients coming to our building lack adequate parking for their medical appointments. So the zoning change to allow the parking lot would help alleviate some hardship for sick patients coming to appointments in the building. Additionally, my understanding is that the adjacent parking would only be used by employees of the building between the working hours,” well, it would be 6 “till probably 6; and, therefore, the lot would be partially secured and have minimal impact on the neighborhood during those working hours. Sincerely or thank you, Dr. Wayne S. H. Leong, D.D.S.” Thank you. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. You have anything further at all? CABRAL: My own. Okay, this is myself, Nancy Cabral, writing on behalf of, I guess, a large number of people, not just in that building but also in our community. Part of our zoning change we have over 1,000 names that have been signed. And I’m speaking in support of the rezoning request by Punhale Professional Building. EXHIBIT C 11 This area of Hilo is a neighborhood in transition. When these residential lots were zoned for houses many years ago, Hilo was a small town and Punahele Street was on the outskirts of town with very little traffic. Since that time Komohana Street has been extended, the County Jail has been built, the medical buildings and the County Employee Federal Credit Union have all been built in the nearby area. In addition, nearby is a very large Intermediate School and a very, very large High School. These have also grown in size. Punahele Street is a very busy commercial area! The desire of five or six houses in the area to keep Punahele Street as a quiet neighborhood is an already lost dream. Hundreds of cars pass by these houses daily with or without one of these lots being for Punahale Professional Building which we’re asking for it to be used for parking for 20 cars. Punahele Professional Building is asking for the one residentially zoned lot that Punahale Professional Building owns to be rezoned in order to support the majority of the use of the area. If this rezoning is granted, we will keep up the fence that is currently in place, we will keep the gate that is in place and we will provide security for that lot. Although there has not been a vote taken, but if the rezoning is not granted, Punahele Professional Building has absolutely no reason to keep the fence up, no reason to keep the chain- link fence up. Our only obligation what we found in our appeal was that although it had not been done in the ten years we have to have a barrier hedge between our own property and this residential lot which we also own; and we are in the process of putting up that barrier now. So that’s our only obligation, and I think these neighbors need to understand that. They love it how it is now, it’s all fenced and gated and nobody can walk through it at all. That will not have to stay that way. If we don’t get our rezoning, the fence goes away. I don’t think there’s any requirement in the County that you mandate a residential lot have a 6-footer chain-link fence around it or to have a gate locked all the time. So those will go away and it will return. Again, if the zoning is not granted, there’s no reason to keep those in place. Then it will return to its use that it was before. Prior to us clearing the lot, completely clearing the lot, and fencing it about a year and a half ago, the former usage included the neighbors, including the County jail, using it for a parking lot, including the residential neighbors using it as a parking lot when they had extra guests over or parties or activities, the neighbors using it for staging when they had construction projects on their adjacent properties, the neighbors using it as a rubbish dump for their yard cuttings. So, again, if we don’t get our rezoning, there’s no reason it can’t return to its prior usage which was a parking lot. And I understand possibly, and I can appreciate that there might have been obscene activities going on at that time. I’m a little hardpressed to think that our doctors, professional nurses are doing those activities in a parking lot on their way to work at 6 o’clock in the morning or on their way home at 6 o’clock at night. But, otherwise -. This area of Hilo has grown and changed since the 1970’s. It will never again be a quiet residential neighborhood on a deadend street. Unless you take the jail away, the schools away, and Komohana Street away, then it can return to being a quiet neighborhood. EXHIBIT C 12 At this point I’d like to ask this Commission to help support the doctors and the medical professionals that are willing to do business in Hawaii County. It’s in the paper that we want to have more medical professionals, so we need to show them that we want them to stay here in Hawaii County; and I ask that you support the rezoning request of Punahele Professional Building. Thank you. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you, Ms. Cabral. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. No. 1, the previous testifier did not say it was the doctors and nurses who were performing those activities. It could have been anyone. So let’s clarify that first. The second thing is whenever someone comes in and says if you don’t do this then we’re going to do da, da, da, da, da. And the first thing that comes up for me when someone does that is like I think we’ll I was planning to vote for you but now I’m going to have second thoughts. So you might have just talked yourself out of something with me. Thank you. CABRAL: My apologies. GRAHAM: Do we have any further questions for Ms. Cabral? Commissioner Rho? RHO: I do. You have a chain-link fence now on three sides and it appears that they’re actually going over the curbing to get into the parking area, just from the pictures. CABRAL: No. We, and I apologize. First off, I have no authority to say what will be done. I’m just saying that there’s no reason for that Association to maintain a fence and a gate if they cannot use that land for their usage. And I think all of the objections or the primary objections are all for activities that occurred prior to us putting the chain-link fence or the gate up. What it is is when we were parking there last year, after Radiology came in and we needed the parking, we were entering off of Punahale Street. There was a gate there and we gated the two sides and people would drive in off of Punahale, they would then walk up into the parking lot, adjacent parking lot for the surgical center, and they’d step over a curb. There was no driving over a curb taking place. RHO: Okay. Anyway, my real question is whether or not, I guess, the owner of the lot has considered or would consider an alternative to the chain-link fence and planting. CABRAL: Yeah -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Rho, the only issue that comes from you right now is these sort of public witnesses and next to come is I would be calling the applicant backup. RHO: Oh, okay. GRAHAM: So if you have kind of applicant questions that you probably should just hold them for a minute. RHO: I assumed that she was the applicant. EXHIBIT C 13 GRAHAM: Well, she’s kind of speaking in that way but -. RHO: Okay. I’ll hold my questions. GRAHAM: Thank you. All right, well, you all can sit back now then. Thank you for coming forward with your thoughts. V. REIS: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Did you have public testimony to give, Ma’am? V. REIS: Yes. GRAHAM: Would you like to come forward? Okay, and would you raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Commission today on this matter? V. REIS: Yes. GRAHAM: Okay. And if you could just be seated, use the microphone, and start off with your name and address, and go ahead and give us your testimony. Thanks. V. REIS: Hello, my name Vianne Reis, and I reside at 65 Punahele Street. And I’m here on behalf of Cheryl Reis who’s in the hospital right now. What I’d like to say is that the residents of Punahele Street oppose the rezoning. One of the reasons is because it’s in violation of Ordinance 95-33 which prohibits vehicles from accessing that lot. And I believe the Planning Director is aware of the citations that they have received in violation of that ordinance by continuing to use it as a parking lot. There was supposed to have been a planting screen along the mauka side of their lot which hasn’t been done. And that was supposed to give, you know, screening so we’d have some privacy and to prevent cars from driving in and out of the lot. Since then, and since after they were told that they can’t use it as a parking lot, it has still been used. The gate is unlocked, people have been driving in there with their cars. When the gate is locked or unlocked people climb over the fences. And there’s a gap between Margie’s property and her fence, and people come from the surgical area down through that gap and access Punahele Street through her yard. And there’s a lot of people there as far as the, you know, obscene things. A lot of people bring their animals, and they come along the back area where the planting is on the mauka side and the gap to both Margie Gushiken’s side of her property and Cheryl Reis’s, and they have their dogs urinating, defecating onto our property through the fence, stuff like that. If you allow this rezoning we just see it as a continuing violation of Ordinance 95-33. And, you know, there’s nothing to stop them from putting a 7-Eleven or anything else there. And, yes, we do have traffic on Punahele Street, but we have it on one side. With the parking lot, we’ll have it on the backside. And if you allow that strip to be turned into a parking lot, then we’ll have it on three sides of our property. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? All right, thank you for coming forward. Would the applicant/applicant’s representative please come forward. EXHIBIT C 14 SONG: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to let Ms. Van De Car handle this primarily; and I’ll just interject when necessary. And this is Dr. Takase sitting next to me and he is president of the Board of the Association. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you, Ms. Song. Ms. Van De Car before we have you up here, we were really pretty much addressing the specific issue of whether we were going to continue the hearing today or not; and we’ve already handled that. So I think this is an opportunity if you want to speak to the merits of your application you could do that before the Commission. VAN DE CAR: All right. I’d like to start by saying that I appreciate all the comments that were made today, especially the comments that were made by Ms. Reis’s daughter and by Ms. Chinen. It’s always, always difficult when a neighborhood is undergoing change. And I have gone through that myself. None of the current Planning Commissioners were members back when I was contesting on my street, you know, things that were happening that were changing. And it’s not easy. And you buy land and the commercial areas move up and keep moving; and what has happened on this area is that, as she pointed out it’s absolutely right, I mean, she lives next door to a commercial building now. And there’s a commercial building across the street, there’s a jail across the street, there’s a whole line of, it’s a medical services area now, where 15 years ago it was not a medical services area. So I mean the land has been changing. So I appreciate how they feel. And I think that Dr. Takase and the Association want to be very good neighbors to them. And that’s why they set up the meeting and invited them all to come, so that they could talk about ways to try to address those concerns, ways to try to ameliorate those concerns and what might be done, like what Ms. Sircuasa said about, you know, could you put the landscaping in first before you put it to be a parking lot. And none of those people attended the meeting. They just didn’t come. So it’s hard to address their concerns when they don’t come and they don’t engage in the dialogue and when the dialogue is just here. And I know Ms. Siracusa you were little offended I think by the attitude; and I think that emotions start to run high. But what I want us to do and what I’d like to have the applicant do is stick to what the issues are and try to look at what the applicant can do to best address the concerns of the neighborhood. What they’ve offered in their application is to offer the landscaping to hide or ameliorate the difficulties for the neighbors. They’ve offered to close off the access on Punahele Street to make sure that there is no traffic that goes onto Punahele Street. And that will make the employees have to drive through the other adjacent parking lot, down through Puuhonu and out onto Komohana Street so that cars are going to be routed well away. What we’re talking about is 20 parking spaces, so 20 people who drive into work in the morning, park their cars, and then 20 people who drive in the evening and leave. And that’s the entire traffic addition that’s going to be there. They’re not going to allow any customer parking there. It’s going to be empty on weekends, it’s going to be empty at night. If there’s landscaping and fencing up, we’re not going to have people coming in and having access at night to do things that were upsetting and certainly offensive. So I think that the applicant is trying. There was a concern that there was a violation before, that the people were parking here before. I think there was an honest disagreement in legal interpretations of whether or not you could park cars on a lot in a residential area. I know that the Planning Department’s position was no. The EXHIBIT C 15 applicant’s position was yes. And that’s why they went to the Board of Appeals. And I think what had happened is that at the Board of Appeals level there was a decision to withdraw the appeal and instead simply come and present the application so that all the concerns could be heard at that point, rather than fight and butt head to head. So I think you need to look at it in the context of, you know, here is a good business community. I think they’re, you know, they have this significant problem, they’re trying to address it. They’re trying to address it in the way that impacts people the least; but they kind of have no choice. They have to try to address this. And in terms of whether or not they should have put on their crystal ball and they should have predicted years ahead that they might have needed more parking, well, you know, they followed the Zoning Code. They have, the parking that’s there in place is the parking that’s provided for in the Zoning Code. So if we level that kind of charge against them, then we have to level it against ourselves and we have to level them against our County. So I think they’re very, very anxious to work with the neighbors. They’re very, very anxious, which is why they scheduled the meeting to try to ameliorate any concerns. And they’re quite willing to address these things, and I hope you’ll ask any questions that you have so that we can get the answers for you. And that’s about all I have to say unless Sandy has anything to add. GRAHAM: Thank you. VAN DE CAR: You’re welcome. GRAHAM: Do we have questions from the Commissioners of the applicant? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: To the representative of the applicant, what is your interpretation of the landscaping in this particular situation on both sides of the parcel? VAN DE CAR: You know, since I’m pinch-hinting I’m going to try to defer to Ms. Song. SONG: Are you talking about the recommendation of the Planning Director? DOMINGO: Yes. SONG: Well, the Planning Director wants landscaping that would be required for Industrial zoned property, which is a thicker, I believe it’s a thicker landscaping than would normally be required. My clients have no problem with that at all. But it’s generally, I guess the normal landscaping for Commercial is not quite as dense or thick as an Industrial. And that recommendation is totally satisfactory. DOMINGO: You know, going beyond that like for instance as I indicated before we had a break that the parking lot would be used for the employees and they’ll come in in the morning and they’ll go out after work and that they’ll be no other traffic between that time, probably sparsely with those working, having have to go to do some errands or whatever. So we’re looking at a parking lot that is somewhat passive and not really a lot of cars moving. But one of the statements made during the testimony was the fact that people were taking their dogs or animals, and they’re going across the parking lot and defecating in their property. And that’s why my question, I was led to ask a question about what kind of landscaping you’re looking at. I’ve seen in some situations where the parking lots have barriers made of, you know, you have a EXHIBIT C 16 hollow tile going up a few feet high and then going up higher as you, depending on the topography of the land, and on that is made wooden slats of some sort with the wind being able to pass through, but certainly not animals, and hopefully it would create a barrier for carbon dioxide going through as they indicated. You know, that’s what I’m looking at. SONG: Mr. Domingo, if they wanted a fence my clients could put up a fence. I think some of the complaints, and some of these complaints are mixed up because it has gone over a series of years. This lot was previously, until about a year and a half ago this lot was not fenced. It was open. And primarily it was not used by employees. It was really used by HCC; and it was either used by the jail guards or people coming to visit. In fact, there was a letter in the file where Ms. Reis complained because she found dirty diapers. This is all before the building tried to fence it off and control the area. And so when it was just a vacant lot, I mean, I hate to say it but people going to HCC are not always the nicest people; and that’s across the street. And if it’s going to be open and vacant, they’re going to, you know, they’re going to use it, or do whatever. So merely by the fact that it’s fenced off now has stopped that problem. As far as animals jumping a fence and getting into other people’s property, well, if they’re jumping a fence I don’t what can be done about that. But, again, my clients are willing to do what’s necessary to keep that parking lot from access to the neighbors, to protect the neighbors from dogs, or people, or whatever. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I have a question for the Director; and I’m referring to this comment letter dated February 27, 2007 from Public Works. And they had indicated, you know, at that time they weren’t sure whether entry would be from Punahele Street or not and they had indicated that, you know, they should provide for road widening, future road widening because it’s a 40-foot roadway currently. And I’m wondering if we already have the right-of-way to do the widening. I’m not suggesting that we should do the widening now cause you’ve eliminated access from Punahele. But I’m just hoping that we already do have the right-of-way or if we don’t that we would be able to obtain it at no cost to the County should the County then in the future decide they want to do a road widening there. We already have that. I believe it’s not going to affect their parking lot because it’d probably be, the road widening would probably be in any required setbacks or what not, you know. GRAHAM: That’s a question for Mr. Yuen? WATANABE: Yes. YUEN: We didn’t include the improvements to Punahele Street because of the limited nature of the project and the fact that there wasn’t going to be any access to it. We could have a road widening setback condition put in, and that would be a normal condition in the rezoning. Jeff, was there a reason why we didn’t have a road widening setback? DARROW: Just because of the fact that there hasn’t been any other setbacks on that stretch. YUEN: So that this would be the only one. EXHIBIT C 17 DARROW: Right. WATANABE: Follow-up? GRAHAM: Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Seeing that this, you know, if it goes through it’s going to change to a Commercial and you are going to consolidate the lot, I’m thinking that maybe we should put that condition in, the setback in. Cause we don’t know what the future holds and it saves the County money in the event that some day, well, I hate to say this but if some day you don’t have residents. You’ve got five now and some day if you don’t have residents, then you might want to widen the road. Without having to go in and condemn it, at least one lot is done. GRAHAM: All right, thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes, I’m looking at the letter from the Planning Department to AOAO Punahele Professional Building c/o Ms. Nancy Cabral and this is dated December 22, 2006. On the second page there there’s a, well there’s a list of items, “Our zoning inspector conducted a site inspection,” and then there’s a list of items. Item No. 5 says that “According to our files, the property owner of the subject property was previously cited for ‘operating a vehicle parking lot in a single family residential district’ in our letter dated March 10, 2006. After filing an appeal on April 10, 2006 an agreement was made between your client and the County’s Corporation Counsel. The agreement stated that the subject property would be closed within 30 days (or no later than November 13, 2006) and the property owner would plant a full planting screen along the border with neighboring properties.” You know, the photographs that were passed around nd today I assume are considerably more recent than December 22 and I didn’t see any signs of a planting screen. So it would appear that that has not been done. And the very next paragraph says “Subsequently, the gate to the subject property was closed on November 13, 2006 as agreed. Corporation Counsel considered that they complied with the agreement.” But obviously that compliance had nothing to do with the planting screen because as we see that still has not been done. I would like to have that addressed, please. SONG: Okay, the planting screen, in fact we thought the planting screen would have been along the Gushiken and Reis properties; but Corporation Counsel didn’t want it there. They wanted it along the boundary between Parcel 18 and Parcel 42. And what I’ll call Parcel 18, this is Parcel 18. Parcel 42 is where the Punahele Professional Building is right now. And I didn’t think it made sense but that’s what they wanted, and there was never an agreement reached because of that. But the parking lot was closed. That citation letter that you talked about that you’re referring to, the DLNR had to cut trees down on Halai Hill and the trees would have fallen on cars in the parking lot for the Surgical Center, not the Surgical Center, it’s the Rehab, the upper parking lot. And Mrs. Cabral determined that for safety purposes she would have the employees that normally park in that upper parking lot for two days park in this other parking lot. And she made the decision and took the risk, and did that for the two-day period because she didn’t want to see cars being damaged if trees fell because DLNR couldn’t control the trees. Although they said they could she was still worried. And so that’s what prompted that letter and the violation. EXHIBIT C 18 But as far as the planting screen, it was my understanding we would have started doing a planting screen along the Reis and Gushiken properties. In fact, part of the agreement was that we were supposed to meet with them so they would have input on that. Unfortunately what happened is we closed the parking lot on that date and then Ms. Reis sent a letter that very same day saying she didn’t want to participate in any agreement and settlement. So we never got any input from them as to what they wanted as far as the planting screen easement and we didn’t proceed with it. I thought we’d have one by now but we just didn’t want to do anything without community input as well. Cause right now there are podocarpus trees between Parcel 42 and the back side of these residents’ parcels. And podocarpus trees provide a great buffer but they also, the roots are terrible and the roots have caused problems. And then they’ve had termite problems with some of the podocarpuses, so they’ve had to treat the podocarpuses for termites. So podocarpuses in hindsight hasn’t been the best choice. But they want to put something there that would provide a good buffer other than the podocarpuses. So, you know, there have been some challenges with the landscaping there. And also, Ms. Siracusa, part of why we drafted the application the way we did is if it would be more satisfactory to put up a solid fence for the neighbors, that’s not a problem either if that would satisfy the community more than the landscaping. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. SIRACUSA: Follow-up? GRAHAM: Follow-up. SIRACUSA: It’s my understanding that the primary concern of the neighbors is not so much the visual impact of having to look through a chain–link fence at all the cars but the fact that it’s the noise and the fumes, especially when they start up their cars again. And certainly a very thick planting would help that, but a solid fence would help that as well. My main concern, and I’ve mentioned this earlier, and Diane referred to it, was that I really feel that we should not allow the parking lot to be reopened until there’s a good solid buffer of one sort or another -- be it solid or whatever, you know, is determined, that’s not my call -- in order to protect those two neighboring parcels. VAN DE CAR: I think the applicant would be willing to put a fence up right away. Landscaping you’d have to wait until the landscaping grew up. But I think they’d be willing to put up a fence right away which might accomplish that goal. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Earlier I asked the Director if we had any future road widening setbacks included. And I’d like to ask the applicant now if you think that might be something you’d be agreeable to if we were to craft something like that. SONG: I talked to Dr. Takase and he said it would be okay. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Any other questions? Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT C 19 IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m looking at Page 6 of what’s labeled Page 6 of the Background Report, well, it’s not Page 6 of the Report, it’s Page 6 of, Background and County Environmental Report Change of Zone request, I guess, prepared by the applicant which is attached to the County’s Background Report. And it appears to be an undated plot drawing done by Ron Nagata, AIA Inc. for a new office building for Allan Takase. And to the left or I guess it would be east of the building involved in this case, there’s a 15,094.67-square foot part of the lot. What’s on that part of the lot today? SONG: It’s Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific. IWASHITA: There’s a building there today? SONG: Yes, and parking. IWASHITA: Okay. When was that built? SONG: About the same time as the Punahele Professional Building. IWASHITA: Okay. SONG: Oh, I’m sorry, the Rehab Hospital is the other new building that’s -. I’m giving you wrong information. Oh, I think that’s just part of the hill. TAKASE: No, the Rehab is here. This is the Rehab. SONG: Okay. No, it is Rehab Hospital Pacific now. I’m sorry. This was early on in the rezoning process. IWASHITA: What is early on? SONG: This map was done for the rezoning of the Punahele Professional Building. IWASHITA: Okay. What alternatives if any has the applicant looked at in terms of expanding parking on the existing parcel? SONG: If you’re talking about building a multi-level parking structure, the cost is extremely prohibitive. The impact on the community, on neighboring communities, I think would be worse because if you have a multi-level parking structure people from the parking lot could look down on theses residential structures, on the residences. So I think it would have far more impact. IWASHITA: These are your thoughts or this is what the owner has actually looked into? SONG: Well, the owner has looked at it, too. IWASHITA: And what is the number that you’re describing as prohibitive? EXHIBIT C 20 SONG: I don’t have the number, Mr. Iwashita. But a multi-level parking structure is extremely expensive. IWASHITA: So it sounds like it was a passing thought but no real inquiry, or drawings or anything was done to try and cost it out? SONG: Mr. Iwashita, my clients felt this would be the least offensive manner of obtaining some more parking for the employees. IWASHITA: What alternatives if any did the applicant look at in terms of other possible off-site parking alternatives for employees? SONG: The parking in that, there is none available. The parking in that area is a serious problem for all the medical facilities. IWASHITA: So you’re talking about the Rehab and the other two structures that are south of the Punahele Building? SONG: And I’m talking about Straub, there’s a whole series of buildings Mr. Iwashita. And parking is a significant problem in that area. IWASHITA: Has any consideration been given at a site that’s appropriately zoned so no rezoning would be required and shuttling, and obviously it’s not going to be any where near here, and shuttling employees from that site to the places where they work? SONG: There has not been that consideration. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioner Rho RHO: Looking at that same map, it seems like there’s existing parking bordering the neighbors on three lots. Is that not correct? SONG: That’s correct. RHO: What’s between the parking spaces and the lots? SONG: There’s a fence and a podocarpus buffer, really tall podocarpus trees. RHO: And a fence? SONG: Fence too, yes, a 4-foot fence and the podocarpuses. Most of them are over 20 feet high now. RHO: Anyway, I just wanted to comment that I think it’s really unfortunate that the neighbors didn’t attend your meeting or are not really participating. I think there can be EXHIBIT C 21 alternatives, a wall like you mentioned, even a concrete hollow tile wall that might buffer the noise. But I also have a question about when you expect the employees to report to work cause I think some place in the testimony 6 o’clock was mentioned. SONG: Employees come between 6:30 to 7 in the morning. RHO: And that might be a concern for the neighbors. And then they would leave about 3:30 to 4 o’clock or thereabout? SONG: That’s correct. The latest would be 5. RHO: Thank you. GRAHAM: Any further questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I’m wondering if any of the employees, or if you would know about this, are part-timers so that if they would be using the parking lot they would be going in and out at different times other than the main in the morning and out in the evening? SONG: We don’t expect very many to be like that, if any. We just don’t anticipate it. GRAHAM: Okay, is that all we have? IWASHITA: Just one other. GRAHAM: All right, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Has the applicant looked at valet parking or some other alternatives in terms of maximizing the use of what’s existing there mainly for the patients and scheduling when patients are scheduled to come and so forth, alternating hours? Cause, you know, frankly 20 parking spaces, right, that’s, from the problem you’re describing it’s not going to solve it. Right? So, or is the applicant representing that by getting 20 spaces then that will solve all the parking problems for this building? SONG: Thirty-two employees are presently required to find on-street parking. So this will alleviate 20 out of those 32 employees having to find on-street parking. Now that on- street parking may be on Punahele right now. I don’t know where they’re parking. It’s not going to be a panacea but it sure will help. But then nothing is perfect. Mr. Iwashita, this issue of parking is really complex. The Councilwoman from Kona has recommended a proposal to increase parking because it’s such a serious concern; and properties that meet all the zoning requirements for parking don’t have parking. The downside of this is like Mr. Yuen has said, well, how much parking do you want? You know, do you want unsightly parking lots? It’s a difficult balance but the bottom line is we need medical facilities. We need to have parking for the employees. We’re trying to come up with something that would help the situation with the least offensive way. Rather than any multi-story structure or any offensive structure, just striping an AC and buffering we felt would be the most accommodating method. By closing off EXHIBIT C 22 Punahele we felt that would help alleviate some of the traffic. You know, we’re trying the best we can. That’s all I can say. GRAHAM: Okay. IWASHITA: I don’t have anything further for the applicant. GRAHAM: Thank you. I think we’re finished with our questions. You folks can sit there or go back as you please. But we’re not expecting you to participate any more. Thank you for your presentation. All right, Commissioners, so we’re on to the action part of this agenda item. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yes. I’d like to ask the Director if you feel like we should, cause I think you’ve heard that the applicant is perfectly willing to provide a future road widening setback, if you’d recommend that we place a condition like that in this rezoning? YUEN: Yes. It would say that they shallindicate a 10-foot wide future road widening setback on plans for the site. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. I would like an answer to my question before we go into making a motion as to whether we can make sure that the buffering for the neighbors is accomplished before the parking lot is opened up for use. YUEN: The way the condition is written currently, and it refers to Rule 17, the landscaping doesn’t have to be grown when the facility is opened.The idea is that the landscaping, it’s enough to have landscaping that will grow to accomplish the results. And I’d have to get Rule 17 to describe specifically what is necessary. But basically it ends up being a near complete visual buffer at a low level, like eye level, and then intermittent trees at a certain height to partially block the upper level. But those trees and the bushes even that provide the low level blockage can grow into their correct size. Now the County expects, you know, when these things are implemented that they be done in a commercially reasonably way that you don’t start with a, you know, actually make a little motion with your fingers. No, we’d not accept a little two-inch high cutting. And I think you’ve seen buildings being put in and landscaping being put in with planter, trees being started that are saplings or small shrubs and then the idea is that they do grow out. So if you were to make a condition that didn’t allow this, that would be a special condition. Sometimes, you know, the larger specimens are a little hard to get. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I’m ready to make a motion. I move change of zone application (REZ 07-000060), that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council with the added condition for a 10-foot future road widening setback. EXHIBIT C 23 GRAHAM: Along with the conditions suggested by the Planning Director in his recommendation? WATANABE: Exactly. GRAHAM: Do we have a second? DOMINGO: Second. GRAHAM: Okay, moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Do we have discussion from the Commissioners? Commissioner -? DOMINGO: One question, Mr. Chairman. With regards to that buffer that we’ve spoken of, I’d like to have it clear in my mind that it will be used to prevent noise or fumes and even trespassing onto other neighboring properties, regardless of what the Department or the Commission is referring to about the buffering. You know, as long as it would prevent the noise and fumes and trespassing of other individuals onto the properties is what I’m concerned about. GRAHAM: Do the conditions as they’re written address your concerns properly? DOMINGO: It would address that but I just want to make it clear that, and if so seconding it, I’m of the understanding that these issues will be addressed. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think everyone can see from my earlier questions that I really have difficulty with this change of zone, and it’s a change to a Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which would allow for multiple, lots of uses. But then where it’s being done for a specific purpose and it’s to provide parking and we’re creating all these conditions to make a 20-car parking lot, one that is supposed to allow 20 out of 32 employees that now park off-site, you know, “on-site parking.” And my difficulty with what we’re doing is that in my mind, you can agree or not, but in my mind, you know, this is just a small little wart, if you will, about what’s wrong with our process. And our process is wrong because when this project was approved many years go, you know, all the parking stalls as the applicant represents, right, were in compliance with but was required by the law. And I think all of us from our own personal experience can say that in almost every case, except for maybe early smaller kind of commercial developments, that they’re never enough, a lot of times, sometimes it works. And for us to have to deal with this now in this manner basically, you know, it’s a haphazard process. This is not planning in my mind. This is we’ll just see how it works out and we’ll do what we need to fix it. And that’s not the applicant’s fault. The applicant is not, you know -. And part of my concern is this, is that as this drawing that I was questioning the applicant about, when this was done on the original application to do the rezoning of this property and get it approved to be commercial and medical, this lot that we’re now talking about making a parking lot was part of the plan and it was, and what was designated was basically an access, part of an access to this project. Right? And if in fact it had happened that way, where would the applicant EXHIBIT C 24 be today? Where would the applicant be today? The applicant would have double access and no opportunity to ask for doing what we’re being asked to do today. There is something very wrong with our process when things have to be done this way, and we see this, in my opinion, on a much too regular basis. So here’s my pitch. I’m not going to vote for this, in favor of it. And as most of the Commissioners know, I really believe and I really would like to get a commitment from as many people as possible, including the Director, to have the community development process implemented island-wide all at once and it be done in a way so that in the future we don’t have to be dealing with this, or we’ll deal with these kinds of situations on a minimal basis. And the reason I think that’s possible is that the community development plan will allow basically, hopefully force, or the community members will see it’s an opportunity to, you know, if the remaining residents of Punahele Street want to continue to see it as a residential area it has to be within the context of what’s already there and then what you want in the future and how people are going to get around. And my guess is not one person that goes into this building walks. Not one worker, not one patient, nobody walks to this building. That is an inherent problem in how we do things because we’ll never, never, never have enough parking spaces or enough roads. Everybody grumbles about all the roads. We’ll never have enough if we keep doing things like this. So, you know, I know there’s a problem. It’s a problem that’s created in part by the rules, it’s a problem frankly created in part by the developers who use the rules to get their developments done and don’t make adequate provisions for parking. You know, people talk about a crystal ball, you don’t need a crystal ball. You know, you’re planning a medical building and a doctors office and radiological facilities, you know, I’m sure in their business plan they know how much profit per square foot they’re going to get or they’re not going to build it. Right? And part of that is parking. So if we take out 20 parking stalls and we don’t build them, then that increases the profitability of the office space we have. These are developers that are building these buildings. They may be doctors also but they’re developers. They can count the dollars, right? So we need to do things differently. I, you know, I’m sorry if -. My sense is this is going to pass and when it goes to Council it will go by Council, the same way that Fern Acres went by Council, the same way that Orchidland went by Council, the same way that Paradise Park went by Council, the same way when all these things that we thought were great that, you know, would provide jobs for the community, and alleviate certain problems, right? We close our eyes to the problems we create. And if we keep closing our eyes to the problems we create somebody is going to come around and kick us in the behind one day and say, and it’s probably going to be our grandkids, if not our kids. My son is already kicking me about some of the things he sees going on here. So they see a lot clearer what’s going on. They don’t see the problems, they don’t see the rights, they don’t see the entitlements. They just see on the ground that there are problems that we are creating; and today we’ll create another, or will push one on to create another one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. While I agree with most of what Commissioner Iwashita has said, at the same time we already have, this building is already in place, this medical area is already in place and we are stuck with the poor planning problem that we were left with of insufficient EXHIBIT C 25 parking, and people do have to access their medical providers. So at this point in time for this particular change of zone application I am willing to support it. However, I really would like to see as much mitigation of the neighborhood concerns as we possibly can do. On Condition C the middle of Condition C where it starts talking about landscaping, it says, “Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties,” I would like to insert one word after “noise,” and then the word “odor” because there are fumes generated by vehicles. So what we want to do is also try to mitigate the smell from the carbon monoxide. And so I would feel a lot happier with that condition if we inserted that one word. Would that be acceptable to the maker of the motion and the seconder? GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I don’t have any particular objections to that. I’m just wondering if is it possible with the type of, you know, with Rule 17 in place is it possible or -? We may be splitting hairs here. It may be very difficult to determine to what extent we’re trying to eliminate odor. SIRACUSA: May I respond? WATANABE: Sure. GRAHAM: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: We’re not talking about eliminating totally because we don’t have a yardstick for that. Mitigating means at least make some positive steps towards addressing it. So if we put in, for example, you know, a solid wall or if they put in a really thick planting of say areca palms and some other things that are thick, it would absorb a lot of that. One of the things that vegetation does is absorb odor. And some plants absorb it better than others. GRAHAM: Is that all right with you, Mr. Yuen, to include that? YUEN: I don’t have a problem with including that in the condition. GRAHAM: Thank you. So the Director says he has no problem with including it. WATANABE: Okay, then I’ll accept that as a friendly amendment then. GRAHAM: All right. And the seconder accepts that also? DOMINGO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I alluded to that fact when I, in my discussion with regards to the Planning Department and the Applicant sitting down together as they discuss an approach to establishing some kind of barrier. I have no problem with that at all. But I’d just like to ask a question of the Director or Corp. Counsel. This particular application for a parking lot, we’re extending to them Commercial zoning. Now within that zoning there are varied uses which an applicant is able to conduct. Would it be possible in the future they can change their mind and do something else since they already have the zoning? EXHIBIT C 26 YUEN: Well, there is a special Condition D which limits this to employee parking lot only. And any change would require an amendment to the Rezoning Ordinance which would go through the same process. Plus, there is a sewer easement through the property that limits the practicality of putting a building on it. GRAHAM: Are we ready for a vote on this motion? Jeff, carry on, please. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation for this application to the Hawaii County Council. This is to approve with amendments. One amendment will be an amendment to Condition C where we will add the word “odor,” in the sentence that states, “Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise, odor or visual impacts to adjacent properties….” Additionally, we will be adding a new condition. This will be new Condition G, all conditions after G will be realphabetized accordingly. This new condition will state, “The applicant shall provide a 10-foot future road widening setback along Punahele Street fronting the subject property.” That sounds okay? WATANABE: That’s sounds okay. DARROW: Okay, with that I‘ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. EXHIBIT C 27 DARROW: The motion passes five to two. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. You’ll be notified in writing. SONG: Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT C 28