Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-04 DJSM PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 6, 2004 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of DJSM, LLC (ORD. NO. 92-91) was called to order at 9:58 a.m. in the County Athkchmf+BntmbhkqnnliRoom 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Vice Chair Earl Fujikawa presiding. ` PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT AND EXCUSED:Fred Galdones C. Kimo AlamedaFrancis Smith William Graham Jeffrey McCall Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Joe Kamelamela, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kelly Gomes representing Department of Public Works And approximately 22 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: DJSM, LLC (ORD. NO. 92-91) Amendment to Conditions C and F of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92-91, which rezoned approximately 47,680 square feet of land from a Single Family Residentiali0/+///rpt`qdenns (RS-10) to a General Commerch`ki0/+///rpt`qdenns (CG-10) district. The property is located along the east side of Kilauea Avenue, across from Tyke's Laundromat, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-2-28:29. FUJIKAWA:Next on the agenda, Item No. 4, will be Applicant DJSM, LLC, that's for Ordinance No. 92-91. This will be the amendment to Conditions C and F, Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92-91, which rezoned approximately 47,680 square feet of land from a Single E`lhkxQdrhcdmsh`ki0/+///rpt`re -, 10 million square -, is that, I'm I reading right, not 10,000, it's a lot of zeroes, square foot to General Bnlldqbh`ki0/+///square foot. GRAHAM:Is that a typo right there? 1 FUJIKAWA:Yeah, it is. Yeah, we got a correction on the typo on that -, in the E`lhkxQdrhcdmsh`ki0/+///- You got it, Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. If I may direct your attention to the location map, this area is located in the District of South Hilo. We're looking in the area of Kilauea Street. This is close by the Mormon Church, 7-11, across the street you have Tyke's Laundry, so we're looking in this approximate area. Approximately across from Tyke's Laundry area is an area that was rezoned in 1989 from RS-10 to Commercial, Fdmdq`kBnlldqbh`ki0/+///square feet for a piece of property that is approximately 47,680 square feet in size. Originally, the Applicant, Paul Rosendahl, was intending to subdivide the property into three lots, but had amended the permit in 1992 to delete that condition requiring final plan subdivision approval to be completed by a certain time frame. So in 1992, the ordinance was amended to Ordinance 92- 91. The Applicant, DJSM, LLC, is requesting an amendment to Ordinance 92-91 to allow a one-year time extension to secure final plan approval, Condition C, and also to delete Condition F, which requires a 10-foot wide, future wide -, road setback widening for the area along Kilauea Avenue. There's been several letters that were submitted. One was submitted previously by Robin Kealoha Black, and then this morning we have received a letter that has numerous signatures located on it. Hopefully that letter was copied and distributed to all of the Commission Members. One of the concerns that is addressed in the letter is the drainage issue. In our letter in March of 2004, we were informed by Public Works that the makai two-third of the property is in the flood zone and the base elevation is 27 feet. The Applicants had received a Condition Letter Of Map Revision, or CLOMR, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to be able to develop in that area. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the request to amend Condition C and is recommending -, oh, I'm sorry, recommending a favorable recommendation for Condition C, and also recommending an unfavorable recommendation for the request to delete Condition F. Condition F, the original reasons that it was approved have not changed since the original ordinance was adopted, and so we're going to continue to require that particular condition. Are there any questions? FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners? Springer. SPRINGER:So recommending denial of that request on Condition F meets the concerns of the citizens who testified? DARROW:It may address one of the aspects that they are bringing up, but it appears that there quite a number of issues that the -, oh, I'm sorry, the Applicants or the people that had sent letters? 2 SPRINGER:Does the recommendment to deny the application regarding Condition F address the concerns of the letters that have just been passed out to us? I haven't had a chance to read them in detail. DARROW: Yeah, I don't think that addresses the concerns. SPRINGER:Thank you. DARROW:Yeah. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners, to the Staff? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:May we take about a five-minute recess then to read these documents? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, let me give you a -, let's take a five-minute break. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a short recess at 10:02 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 10:08 a.m. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Tsukazaki, are you on the stand? Representative for the Applicant? TSUKAZAKI:Yes, I'm sorry for holding up the show. Yes, for the record, Ben Tsukazaki, representing the Applicant in this proceeding. FUJIKAWA:Okay, you want to raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i Planning Commission? TSUKAZAKI:Yes, I do. FUJIKAWA:State your name and address. TSUKAZAKI:Ben Tsukazaki representing the Applicant here. I must explain that I'm -, we're just involved very recently. As you have probably seen in the Background Report, Bill Moore has been assisting this Applicant throughout, but he had to leave the Island because of a family matter, very urgently, and so I -, he asked me to basically take his place this morning and -. FUJIKAWA:Very good. TSUKAZAKI:Address whatever comes up. 3 FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. TSUKAZAKI:By the way, the Applicant has reviewed the Department's Background Report and Recommendation and accepts it, has no objections to it. FUJIKAWA:Okay. TSUKAZAKI:In regard to the material received this morning, although we obviously haven't had time to read it very carefully, it appears to me that two things, some of the neighbors' concerns really relate to whether this particular property should be zoned at all for office use, and I do not believe that that particular issue is on the table at this point, or at least from the Background documents that I see, this hearing has not been based on any action to nullify zoning, to take away any rights that the landowner has. I think quite correctly the Planning Department noted that the plan approval process really could not be administered because a time condition in the ordinance had not been satisfied. So the Planning Department advised my client that that particular requirement of the ordinance had to be addressed first before there could be any plan approval process, and so I believe that's the nature of this application and the nature of this hearing. So I believe with regard to the issues regarding whether the ordinance is valid and so on, I think those are issues for another quorum, another proceeding. With regard to the -, some of the concerns about the impacts of the project, I believe some of them would look to be appropriate for the plan approval process. And if this extension is granted on the request to be able to submit documents for plan approval, then that process would be the appropriate one to address many of the concerns of the neighbors. Some of the other concerns relating to FEMA, the grading issues, perhaps in combination with drainage issues, I believe those are issues within the jurisdiction of other agencies. The project has grading permits issued by the Department of Public Works. I believe the record indicates that FEMA has allowed a map revision to federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and Public Works has approved that, as well as the grading permits that exist currently for the project. And so I believe that if there are issues relating to those grading permits, whether things were done properly or improperly, there is an appropriate agency for those concerns to be taken. So, again, I guess in a certain way, I'm saying that although I've only been able to look through this correspondence served on us this morning very quickly, it appears that -, there appear to be many issues to me that are really not relevant, directly relevant to the scope of this hearing, and so it's not possible for us to address all of those here. FUJIKAWA:Any questions? Commissioner Springer, you have a question with the Applicant? SPRINGER: Well, more I'd like the Planning Director's comments. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. 4 SPRINGER:Given the Applicant's representative's testimony. We've had a chance to look at the correspondence, particularly Robin Kealoha Black's, which seems to be discussing failure to comply with the conditions of the ordinance, and it's been presented to us as part of the material for this hearing. Can you comment on its relevance to us today? YUEN:I think that when there is a request for a time extension on a relatively old zoning that it is on the table for the Planning Commission and for the Council to consider -, and for the Planning Director to consider the reason of the original zoning, given the passage of time. I think that's one of the functions of having time limits so that if there are changed circumstances that that can be looked at again. There is necessarily an inertia and -, to having the zoning in place that's been there for 15 years. In this case, in response to the fact that the condition, the time condition had run out, I did not choose to initiate a rezoning, given the commercial uses on much of the nearby property. We simply informed them that they should pursue, they should ask for a time extension and they have done that, and that's specifically what is before you today. I don't, but I don't think it precluded from having a discussion about whether the zoning should be a CG zoning or not, nor do I think that the Council is precluded from considering that at that point. On the specifics of some of the issues that have been brought up, we did ask Public Works to send somebody over, seeing that this is going to be an issue here, and we do have Kelly Gomes here from the Department, so if there are any specific issues on the grading permit or on drainage, we can ask Kelly to comment on those. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Any questions, Commissioners? If not, I would like to call Kelly Gomes up forward. Do you have any questions with Kelly Gomes, Commissioners, or the Director pertaining to this matter? Mr. Gomes, do you have anything to say on this application? GOMES:No. If there are no questions, then I guess I'd rather not say anything at this point. FUJIKAWA:Graham. GRAHAM:Yeah, I'd like, if you would, Mr. Gomes, to give us your appraisal of what's been done with this property as far as grading and any of the other concerns you've seen in our correspondence that we might use your first-hand knowledge to better consider their comments. GOMES:Okay. Well, first off, they came in for a stockpiling permit to stockpile material on the property. They went beyond what was originally to be stockpiled, so we issued them a violation, a grading violation. They then came in with a grading permit to show that the work they have done as far as the grading beyond the stockpiling, they had submitted a grading permit for that, which we approved. And I'm not sure on the status right now what they did get plan approval, I think, from the Department of Public Works as far as their building, and I don't know what the status of the grading for the entire property at this point. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Mr. Yuen? 5 YUEN:Yeah, I have a question about the CLOMR for the property. When this, when the plan approval application came in for the office building in I think it was March of this year to the Department, we looked at the regular Public Works maps and saw that much of the property was in the AE flood zone and did not see how the building was going to be put there. We then wound up not approving the plan, not giving plan approval because of the time lapse on the original zoning ordinance. But we have information from the Applicant that a CLOMR was issued that would allow the development of the property. Can you explain what happened in that CLOMR? GOMES: The engineer representing the owners did a topography, and based on that topography and the existing conditions, they have shown that they're not going to increase the water level, so that's why they did a, what they call a backwater flood study showing cross sections and it was reviewed by the Department of Public Works and then we sent it on to FEMA and they reviewed it and they addressed the issue of, you know, no adverse effects to the, effects to the adjoining properties.The flood zone is not going to raise, you know, that's our main concern is that it's not going to raise the flood waters, yeah. YUEN:If I recall correctly, I guess we don't have a smaller scale map of this. PUBLIC:We do. YUEN:But -. Okay. That the -. Do you have a more detailed map of the area? Okay. GOMES:I think this map right now that Norman is putting up is the map that was prepared by Yen Wen Fang, he's the engineer for the developers, and it's his study and cross- sections of the lines are the cross-sections in his determination of what's going to happen with this development. YUEN:If their office building is put there, how does the water get across the lot? GOMES:It would flow around the building. YUEN:It goes around the building? GOMES:Yeah. So it would be what they call an encroachment into the flood zone. YUEN:Can you show us, can you just point things out on the map, and the before and after, and give us some reference points here? GOMES:This is the flood zone, and the water's flowing this way. YUEN:Can you show us the streets, just for point of record? 6 GOMES:This is Kilauea Street and Lanikaula Street, and the proposed project site is right here. And basically they're going to wall this development up and put in fill material to bring this level with the road, approximately, Kilauea Street or Avenue. I don't have a map, but I believe the final result would that -, would be that this flood water would go around the building. Right now it's, the limits are this dark solid line on both sides. So by putting in this building, they're saying that it's going to be negligible, it's not going to affect or raise the water level in this area. YUEN:On the makai side or Kanoelehua Avenue side of the building, are they making improvements to carry that water past them, or physically what is going to be on the ground where the water flows there? Is there a parking lot? Is it an empty lot and a building? GOMES:It's going to be a parking lot around, well, parking around the building. There's a building in the center of the development and parking all around the building. YUEN:Now the limits of the floodway on the makai or Kanoelehua side of the property, they go off onto the other property? They're not just on this lot that we're talking about, the floodway? GOMES:Yes. I mean the property is -, ends right here, yeah. And this is the rest of the flood zone. YUEN:Right. And just as a matter so when this letter of map -, what we were talking about, you know, for the people listening in the audience that may no be familiar with it, this condition, the CLOMR, it's called Conditional Letter Of Map Revision. GOMES:Correct. YUEN:Is -, is notice of this given to the adjoining property owners that the owner of this property is seeking a change in the way the flood map is done so that if they have any objections to the plan of how the water is handled, the adjacent property owners have a chance to object or comment? GOMES:No. They have a 90-day appeal period when they get the official Letter of Map Revision. The premise on this type of development is the engineer proposes to build something, he gives FEMA his flood study, and he says I'm trying to propose this and as-built, you know, this is what I intend how the water's going to flow. After it's built, then he has to certify that it was built per his plan and that the effects are going to be what he said it was going to be and there's no changes to the plan. If there is changes to the plan, he's going to have to show how that affects the flood zone, the flood boundaries, the flood height. And at that time, they issue what they call a Letter of Map Revision, that would be an official revision, but however, they have a 90-day appeal period where they issue, where they put a ad in the paper showing that the community may come in and appeal at that time or they may raise questions about the Letter of Map Revision. 7 YUEN:Yeah, this -, I didn't understand what you just said before. I had thought that the CLOMR involved some kind of notice to the -. GOMES:No. YUEN:Neighbors. GOMES:Not the CLOMR stage, at the LOMR stage. YUEN:Okay. Now so after the fill is put in and after the alterations are made, then the notice goes to the adjoining -? GOMES:To the public, yeah. YUEN:To the public. It's not to the adjoining neighbors, it's a public notice type thing? GOMES:It's a public notice that must be seen in the local newspaper. YUEN:Okay. Okay. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners, with Mr. Gomes? Graham. GRAHAM:Kelly, could you, on that map you were just looking at, could you just indicate what those boundary lines represent, the heavy dark ones. I know there's like hundred year flood and those kind of things. GOMES:Yes, the heavy dark one is what they call the hundred year flood. In any given year, you have a one percent chance of it happening. It's not a flood that happens every hundred years as most people think it is, it's just your probability is one percent in every year. This dashed line on the outside is what they call the 500 year flood, and that would be the limit between the hundred year and the 500 year flood.It's a -, we don't regulate that portion, that cross-hatch section, we just advise to build one foot above adjacent grade. We regulate the old flood zone area. GRAHAM:And the little dash line stuff kind of running through the middle of it all, what's that? GOMES:That's what they call the floodway, or another word would be stream or river, or that's the most restricted, restrictive area. So, you know, this development is not in the so-called floodway, which is the most restrictive area. GRAHAM:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Very good. No other questions? Thank you, Mr. Gomes. We have four people signed up to testify on this application. Staff, can you put up another seat right there, 8 have all four of them here. Will Robin Black, Jordan Stewart, Bruce Hansen, Nancy Cabral please step forward. I need one more seat up there. Are there any other people whose name I haven't called that are going to testify on this case? Okay, none. Okay, all four of you, can you kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You want to state your name and your address first of all. BLACK:My name is Robin Black. My address is 43 East Lanikaula Street in Hilo. FUJIKAWA:And the next person. STEWART:Jordan Stewart, 257A Ululani Street in Hilo. FUJIKAWA:Okay. HANSEN:Bruce Hansen, 82A Kaiwiki Road, Hilo. CABRAL:Nancy Cabral, 591 Alawaena Road, Hilo. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Now let's start with Robin, you may proceed. BLACK:Okay. Several things. The neighbors and I have been quite concerned about this for some time, and one of the reasons that we were getting more and more concerned is that there seemed to be a situation where it was kind of like it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission, so let's go ahead. And we live there, this is our home. And because it's close to my heart and I was concerned I might become emotional, we prepared a group statement and we all signed it and I've asked Jordan to read it to you. However, following that, one of my neighbors, Mr. Aguiar, who is undersigned on the letter, told me that he felt I did not address the traffic concerns enough and so he wrote his own letter and asked me to read it, so I will read his letter first. I'm sorry. First I'll let Jordan read our group letter. STEWART:"Dear Members: We the undersigned have concerns regarding the property located at TMK: (3) 2-2-028:029 in Hilo. We thank you for this opportunity to express these concerns. As we understand it this hearing is a request to amend the conditions stated in Ordinance 92-91. We feel strongly that this request be denied, for several reasons. "Originally zoned RS-10, the County Council passed Ordinance 89-50 and the property was rezoned to create a small subdivision of homes. Since construction in the flood plain proved expensive, this concept was changed to build a single, commercial structure and the County Council amended Ordinance 89-50, resulting in Ordinance 92-91. A large and spacious older home that graced the property for decades was sold and moved off the premises. For whatever 9 reasons the proposed development never got off the ground. For more than ten years the conditions of the amended ordinance went unmet, the property sat empty and was recently sold. "This is not the first time amendment issues have been raised.The facts regarding the conditions of the rezoning were known at the time this property was acquired, however, no effort was made to address the conditions. In fact, no action of any kind was taken until after the complaints about the illegal grading activities, and a March 10, 2004 letter to Mr. Yuen from Robin Black stating concerns over the potential illegality of the commercial zoning situation. "As stated in that letter to Mr. Yuen, in reading the ordinance we found that: 'According to Ordinance 92-91 (effective: August 18, 1992) it amended Ordinance 89-59 4. Condition K stipulated that if any of the conditions are unmet, or not substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director shall initiate rezoning of Parcel 29 to is original residential zoning, or something more appropriate. This is a mandatory action required of the Planning Director.' "As we read this, since the conditions were not met, the action required of the Planning Director is clear: revert the zoning to RS-10 or change it to 'something more appropriate,' or the developers must go back to the County Council again to amend the ordinance. It seems we are -, or should be - back at square one. "We are very concerned about the problems associated with commercial development of this size in our residential community and we urge you to think about the negative impact on our families and properties and deny the request of the developer to amend the conditions. The initial plans submitted to the Planning Department were a shock to the neighborhood and we were very disturbed by what we saw. We understand that the Planning Department rejected consideration of these plans, due in part to reasons outlined in the previously mentioned letter to Mr. Yuen, nevertheless they are indicative of the developer's intent and vision. "Leveling the entire property completely changes the movement of rainwater through the neighborhood. While we acknowledge the existence of the flood plain and the need to address runoff, complete leveling and grading of the property creates other effects. A small stream that meanders during rainy weather will cease – leaving that property considerably changed from its current conditions. Proposed drywells to contain rainwater will likely be unable to deal with Kilauea Avenue storm runoff during peak rains. "Leveling the ground, and then further increasing the elevation in preparation to build a massive structure on top of it completely removes the view of Mauna Kea for all the accompanying residents – some 7 residential homes. A massive two-story building imposes itself into our living room and bedrooms not only visually but with sound pollution as well. A glance at the proposed building plans submitted showed placement of air conditioning ducts facing towards the residences, as well as placement of the industrial sized dumpsters closest to three residential backyards. This poses all kinds of concerns for health hazards as a huge building deposits garbage right next to our play yards, fruit trees, and clotheslines. They proposed pavement or 10 concrete corner to corner over the entire property with a 2-4 foot border of plants. This will decrease the view planes and airflow and is unacceptable for a residential area. "The traffic is of utmost concern. Currently, we witness cars traveling mauka on Lanikaula Street past our homes towards the light at Kilauea and have often seen cars sit through four changes of that traffic light waiting to turn right – unable to do so because of someone turning left into Tykes Laundromat, located across the subject property on Kilauea Avenue. "Concept Construction is currently building a food court on the Kilauea/Lanikaula corner. With this already approved commercial development adding more traffic stress on the neighborhood we feel to see how Kilauea Avenue can stand another 71 cars (according to the proposed parking stalls) utilizing not just the existing but yet an additional planned driveway onto Kilauea. "There have been two major accidents near the corner in two weeks, both on Friday afternoons. One of them involved a family member with two of her boys in which her car was totaled. She was waiting to turn left into our driveway and was rear-ended by someone blazing around the corner. Last Friday's accident involved two vehicles right in the intersection. Both vehicles were seriously damaged. We have requested and are waiting for statistics from the State Department of Transportation on traffic accidents near this intersection. We know from our personal experience accidents have increased as has traffic overall since the opening of the Mohouli Street extension. "We are in close proximity to the University of Hawai`i at Hilo/Hawai`i Community College, and Waiakea High School campuses. Students, school bus kids, wheel chairs, and bicycles all access this intersection, and we are certain that the road widening clause mentioned in Mr. Yuen's correspondence with Concept Construction, May, 2004, maybe insufficient for more commercial development. The applicant desires an amendment to this condition as well. "The bottom line is this: we live here, most for decades, several of us for over 40 years as original builders in the Shigeoka subdivision (homes 87 A-E on East Lanikaula Street). These are our homes, our refuge in our yards, gardens and flowers that sustain us. The wonderful views of Mauna Kea and the sweet and gentle breeze we cherish each and every afternoon, our neighborhood sense of community. We do not fault Dr. Takase and his partners for their desire to develop their property. But it should not be completely at our expense or loss. We strongly prefer the original proposal for a small subdivision – other homes – in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. We are asking for a limitation to a single driveway onto Kilauea Avenue, restrictions on the height of structures, no intrusive night time security lighting, no invasive air conditioning vents or dumpsters situated near the existing residences, and a great effort demonstrated to conserve green space and view planes. "Will you please consider our concerns carefully and deny the request to amend the conditions of Ordinance 92-91, Article 4, and determine that the Planning Director initiate rezoning to its original RS-10 or that a small subdivision be considered as "more appropriate" than the proposed commercial development? We would like to be informed of any decision you arrive at. You may correspond using the addresses, below. Signed Sincerely, Robin Black, Marion Aguiar, 11 Henry Aguiar, Eric Ishihara, Anita Ishihara, Sarah Goldman, Iva Goldman, Tatiana Paz, Fusae Miyamoto, Katsuto Kojiro, and John Black." FUJIKAWA:Okay. Go ahead. BLACK:I'd like to add something, if I may. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Robin. BLACK:When we originally received notice from this, of this meeting from Moore, who is the Applicant's representative, it was accompanied by a form for participation in a contested case hearing. As a result of that, people who received the letter felt that they weren't able to have feedback in this forum unless they had legal standing. Now when my cousin, a property owner of 87A, contacted Mr. Moore, not realizing that he was representing the Applicant, thinking instead that he was communicating with the Planning Department, they said oh, that form was a mistake, you never should have gotten that. That was a problem. We shouldn't have sent you that. Well, if they shouldn't have sent that, why didn't they send us a note afterwards saying, you know what, that was a mistake, disregard that? It's the subtle way of quelling the opposition. And the reality is, we feel pretty strongly about the situation. Now, I heard earlier, I'm sorry, I don't remember the gentleman's -. Hi. PUBLIC:Hi. BLACK:Speaking that perhaps this was not forum in which to have this discussion and that in fact the item in front of you is whether or not to amend or not amend. Well, that's not quite good enough. I mean we, when are we going to take this up? We vehemently disagree with the idea of a commercial structure as was proposed. We understand that the original structure and proposal was not considered by the Planning Department, and for that we are all infinitely grateful, but the reality is here, the neighborhood can't stand any more traffic. Right now, we have a nightmare situation going on on Kilauea Avenue. If anybody travels that intersection, I'm sure you are aware of this. I'd like to point out a few things about this map, if I may, that don't really address. Some of the information that Kelly mentioned to you is not entirely factually correct, and so I'd like to just straighten that out if I may. FUJIKAWA:You may go up. BLACK:Okay? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. BLACK:Okay, where are we? Here we go. So this is the -, show me the property there. This guy right here? DARROW:The property is right here. 12 BLACK:Okay. Okay. DARROW:These are all your -. BLACK:Okay. These are -. When I gave you the copy of the letter, I broke it into yellow and green and we're all the green. Okay. When we're talking about that, we're talking about the Shigeoka Camp properties are in here. These are the 87A through E properties. These properties here are 43 and 61. So when we had that so-called hundred year rain, not all the water came from Lanikaula Street. Part of the problem that's going on here is that there is no sewer drainage on Kilauea Avenue in the block between Kawili and Lanikaula, so what happens is you get the big rains, the water comes down Kilauea Avenue, it's moving on Kilauea Avenue, and because there's no place for it, no puka for it to go down under, it just catches up, catches up, catches up, and then there's so much water crossing the intersection in a big rain that half of the water breaks across and actually makes a right turn on Lanikaula Street where it moves along the front of our two properties, No. 43 and 61. But when it reaches the little driveway that accesses the subdivision in the back, the 87 homes, it just breaks right down there and it starts charging down into the back. Mrs. Miyamoto's house, when we had the hundred year rain, it went in one side of the ground floor window and out the other. She lost everything on the first floor. She filed a FEMA claim. Now part of what happened in that situation is that the home and my cousin currently owns at 87A, he told us that -, excuse me. Prior to the purchase of the property, I queried our other neighbor who is not present here, Mr. Horiuchi, because he said he couldn't fight progress and he bought himself another house and moved out, okay. Kind of a bummer. Anyway, to make a long story short, the water that did not go past the -, that did not turn onto Lanikaula Street went straight down Kilauea and starts going down these driveways. Now I made this clear to Dr. Takase the very first time that he came to look at the property when I went over and introduced myself because I've known his daughter for years, she's my classmate, and I wanted to have a nice exchange with them. We're not trying to be adversarial neighbors, we're just concerned. And what he said was that he was going to do some kind of a flood study. So th we all got a notice back in the mail September 17 or something that this flood study was going to be done addressing the concerns of the water. Did we ever get a copy? No. They came, they put their little stickers all around, they measured this, that, and the other thing. We never diddley squat about what happened with that report. We sort of were thinking that we were going to get a copy of it. They were querying what was happening in our neighborhood. It concerns us. Now when I had my dialogue with Kelly about the grading situation, because originally the stockpiling permit had been issued and then the bulldozer started moving, and I said, "Hey, whoa, wait a minute." They're bringing any kind of debris from construction sites, road construction, whatever, dumping it here in this area and grading it flat in a place that is currently like a little stream. Now here's the thing. Granted, the fact that there's no drainage on Kilauea contributes to the problem, and that is not the Applicant's problem, that's everybody's problem. But the water comes inside of here and it starts to go across. Now if you look at the area currently, you will see that there is an area right there where water crosses underneath Kilauea 13 and flows right into this property. I don't think there's enough drywell available to contain all of the water that it is that we're talking about. Now I've experienced having a change of residential to commercial personally by the dentist's office that appears on the corner. The dentists put in drywells in their property, and the water completely bypasses their drywells and comes into my yard. So I'm aware that just because you put a drywell in doesn't mean that it's going to work. Now one of the things that addresses me greatly about this situation of going -, bypassing the Public Works on the flooding issue and going directly to the federal guys and saying, oh, you know what, we'll just go ahead and make it according to our plan and we'll certify afterwards that it's going to be okay. I question that. How is that going to work? You know, it's -, I think that the huge office building with the pavement from corner to corner, it's too much. When this was introduced to us on the bigger map, you diligently pointed out all of the commercial things, 7-11, Tyke's Laundry, but the reality is this is people, this is families, this is yards, this is gardens. If you build this monstrosity right in our backyard, and believe me, I should have brought a copy of those plans, they'd scare anybody. Anyway, I don't want to rant, but we're very concerned. And if this is not the body to address these questions, then tell us what it is and we'll go there. Now I'm still supposed to read Mr. Aguair's letter, so I promised him I would do that. I'll do that now. Thank you. "Dear Commission Members, For years now I've been walking in the afternoon from my house to Longs Drug Store and back, and I do that four or five times a week. I walk about 4-5 miles per day. When I see traffic so strong that as far as your eye can see, I'm standing on the corner and waiting for the light to change so I can walk and I can see down the street and the traffic is so heavy that I can see almost quarter mile down the street, bumper to bumper cars waiting for the light to change. "Another thing I see is speeders, there is a lot of drivers tearing down the street, overtaking each other, their tires screeching like there was no tomorrow. I see that almost every time that I walk. And what gets me is that there is no policeman on the street, the only time that I saw one policeman arrest a speeder, not exactly a speeder he ran a red light – that was on the corner of Hilo Motors. This driver came from Waiakea side, made a right turn into Kilauea without stopping, and luckily there was the police facing downtown waiting at the stop light also, and he got him, so that was about it. "This happens so many times – not just once or twice. The volume of traffic, the backup at traffic lights during certain hours of the day is creating unsafe conditions." This is true. Now I realize that, you know, there are certain things that are going to happen, but the reality is the food court's coming on the corner, that's going to add a huge amount of traffic. To even suggest that the ten-foot road widening be modified as an amendment to me is like what are they thinking? They're not thinking, and they're certainly not thinking about those of us that live there. And we've been there for a while. We have a very strong investment in our homes 14 and lifestyle, and I think that this commercial development needs to be rethought. When Dr. Rosendahl, Mr. Rosendahl suggested this in 1989, it was a different situation. We didn't have that Tyke's Laundry, BISAC thing across the street. All those big buildings weren't there. We didn't have the traffic issues that we have. It's a different ballgame. Now my sister and her boys were here earlier, and they were prepared to give testimony, but my two-year old nephew wanted to practice his outside voice, so I made them leave. But the reality is we have a lot of -, the few that signed this letter are indicative of the many in our neighborhood. And I really thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. Your name was -. HANSEN:Bruce Hansen. FUJIKAWA:You're Bruce? HANSEN:Bruce. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. HANSEN:I own the property on the corner of Lanikaula and Kilauea. We're doing the development of the food court. I'm also the general contractor with Dr. Takase for this development. I recommend, I strongly that you approve the change. That whole area is commercial. It's a (indiscernible) along Kilauea. And I think it's already, it is -, I bought that property and did my development with the understanding that that was going to be commercial along there. What the development is on Kilauea Avenue, it's not back in the residential area. The concerns with the water, the water from Kilauea Avenue is going to go under a couple culverts. It's going to stay in the same channel that it is now. There's a channel that cuts through the property, and we're going to keep that water in that same channel. We're not going to change that water flow. Water generated off the property will get either absorbed (indiscernible) and will be captured with drywells and kept on the property. My development on the corner will take some of the water that's cutting across the Kilauea corner and direct it on down, and it won't be cutting across and going down toward the property we're talking about, the Takase property. BLACK:The water from -. HANSEN:If there are any questions you have about that, I'd be happy to answer that. I still feel it's commercial, it was commercial, and it is commercial, and it should be allowed to be commercial. 15 FUJIKAWA:Okay. Any questions, Commissioners, with the -? Graham. GRAHAM:Mr. Hansen, if we were going to go ahead and have this be developed commercial as it is now, but knowing that there are drainage concerns, are there any other considerations or ways things could be done that you're aware of that would alleviate to some way the drainage problem? HANSEN:I guess if you told me the concerns, I could address each one. The runoff, I believe, we are addressing, we're not changing that. Raising the height of the lot is not going to affect the flood plain, that's been approved by the County and by the federal government, both. All the other concerns -. GRAHAM:So it looks like what you're saying is there's nothing further you could do as far as the design of the project that would improve the drainage measures? HANSEN:As far as what -. We could -, you could -, yeah, we can -. I'm not sure what items you're specifically referring to. About the noise, there's going to be buffers, there's going to be planting buffers. GRAHAM:I'm just talking about drainage. Given -, I don't have a site plan in front of me for what's being proposed to happen, but given the drainage concerns, and your expertise in this kind of stuff, is there anything else that, beyond what is there in your plans, that could be done to alleviate the drainage problems? HANSEN:We're not changing the drainage, per se, because the drainage runs through the property and we're going to allow it to -. GRAHAM:I'm not claiming you are. It sounds like you don't -. Do you have anything else to offer you can think of that would help? HANSEN:I think we could do sidewalks and curbs and gutters and that's going to keep some of the water within the property, but basically it goes down to the corner of the property and flows through, so either -, it's all, it's going to go where it is going now. GRAHAM:Okay. HANSEN:I'm not sure. I'm not a civil engineer. GRAHAM:I see. HANSEN:That's the person who does the study and you need to ask him. NOMURA:Mike. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? 16 YUEN:Yeah, just -, could I ask him some questions about the drainage and the flood plain on the property. According to the map that Kelly put up, the bulk of the lot is within a flood pain. HANSEN:It was previously designated as such. YUEN:Yeah, previously designated flood plain. You are planning to -, you have elevated a portion of the lot with fill. HANSEN:The plan is to do that. We have not -. YUEN:Okay. HANSEN:Done that yet. YUEN:All right. HANSEN:Fill will be brought in for some of the area that is not in the flood plain. We have approvals for that. That's spread out a little too wide so we got approval to do that (inaudible). YUEN:All right. And how much fill would be put in? HANSEN:It's quite a bit. It's quite a bit. YUEN:Like -? HANSEN:What the -. YUEN:Give me a height. Give me an idea, a height. HANSEN:About three foot in the main area, and there's going to be, where the swale is now, there'll be more fill. There will be two 24-inch culverts in there to take the water through so it won't be impeding the water flow. YUEN:Okay. That's the part I wanted to get to is including fill, and that's, you know, just putting the fill stops the water from flowing across where it used to go. HANSEN:That corner. YUEN:And then you will be -, you're going to put in two 24-inch culverts parallel to Kilauea Street. HANSEN:They are parallel to the flow of the water through the channel. The channel kind of flows diagonally. 17 YUEN:Yeah, not -, not exactly parallel but parallel to the flow of the water, and that will carry it across to the -, and on the -, it'll carry it across to the Latter -, to the Mormon Church property. Is that where it's going? BLACK:No. HANSEN:No. BLACK:It's one -. YUEN:Where does it go? HANSEN:It's goes -, where it's flowing now, we're not going to change the flow, the direction of the flow. YUEN:Where is that though? It's behind the Mormon Church where it flows? BLACK:It goes to 87C. HANSEN:The private property behind there. YUEN:Behind the Mormon -? HANSEN:Kind of up this side, to the (indiscernible) Lanikaula side of the Mormon Church. It doesn't -, the water doesn't flow to the Mormon Church property, no, it flows through the private properties, and not (indiscernible) flood area. We're not changing that at all. YUEN:Okay. And you have an engineering study that says those two 24-inch culverts will do it? HANSEN:That will suffice. That's according to the engineering study, yes. YUEN:How -, is almost the whole lot going to be raised then? HANSEN:Yes. It will not impede the flow of the water, that's a crucial point, I believe. YUEN:So there's a 24-inch culvert in the whole -, the whole -, two 24-inch culverts rather, the whole width of the property? HANSEN:It's -, the water now cuts across the corner of the property, so the culverts will be in that existing floodway, that low area across there. Does that make sense? YUEN:Well -. HANSEN:Say here's the property here. 18 YUEN:If you could show us on this map, I think it would be more useful. HANSEN:Okay. The water flows basically right across here now, and so we're going to keep that. We're going to put the two 24-inch drainage pipe right through here to keep everything flowing the way it's flowing now. I'm not going to change anything. Does that make sense? YUEN:Okay. HANSEN:Is that clear? YUEN:Show the inlet and the outlet of the pipes. HANSEN:Right here. YUEN:You're showing the outlet. HANSEN:Here's the inlet here. YUEN:Oh, okay. HANSEN:And outlet right about here. I'm backwards, I'm backwards, I think. SPRINGER:We cannot see on this end. HANSEN:This is it right here. Yeah, this is it. It comes in here and goes out here. That's where the flow is now. SPRINGER:Could you do that again, please? HANSEN:Sure. Here's the Mormon Church lot, over here. This is the edge of the property right here. The water comes in right about here, it comes across the corner and flows back out this way, so we're just going to keep that as it is. There will be two 24-inch pipe to carry it from here to here underneath the ground. YUEN:Can you trace the property boundaries with your pointer? HANSEN:This is the corner closest to the church, here, here, and down like this. YUEN:And then could you show the path of the culverts again? HANSEN:Here to here through here, just on that corner. 19 YUEN:But you're showing -, there's -. What I'm seeing is that you're filling in, there's a lobe of the flood plain there that sticks out toward Kilauea Street. You see what I'm showing that -? HANSEN:Right in here, this low spot. YUEN:Yeah, this -. HANSEN:Yeah, that's -. YUEN:Hang on a second. Let me come up and ask. HANSEN:Sure. Sure. YUEN:This whole area, this whole lobe here is part of the flood plain? HANSEN:Correct. YUEN:And so the lot is -, much of the lot is here, okay. You are filling -, so -, and the water goes over -, comes from a Puna direction? No? HANSEN:This is the flow here, and this is the flow we're concerned about. YUEN:Yes. Well, there's a flow that comes down Lanikaula Street and joins, but it joins this general flow that comes from the Puna direction and then flows toward Hilo Bay. And what you're showing is you're going to fill this area here, this lobe, to put the building on. HANSEN:Right. Correct. YUEN:Right? What happens to the water that used to go into this area here? BLACK:Bingo. YUEN:This lobe? HANSEN:It was determined by the CLOMR study that this is not really necessary for the flood plain. By filling this, it's not going to change the flood plain level, it's not going to change the flood plain. That was the work that the civil engineer did and reviewed by the County and by the FEMA and then by the County again. These -, I guess Kelly is probably more of an expert on this than I am, but these lines are just arbitrary drawing made on a map, and they weren't spec -, the areas were not specifically studied. And once we wanted to do this development, then we did a specific study of this whole area to see what was happening with the water, not just this, but this whole area was surveyed and looked at by the civil engineer, and then the determination made that this was not going to affect this main area. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to -, wouldn't have been allowed to do what we wanted to do or need to do. Does that make sense? 20 YUEN:Okay. So the two culverts that you're talking about are only in the corner of the property that's farthest from Kilauea Street and closest to the Mormon Church side on the Hilo Bay side. HANSEN:Yes. YUEN:Okay. Does this map show what the water flow was determined to be by the -, by your civil engineer? HANSEN:I can't speak for him, I don't know. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Anything else? Is there any other question, Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair, we are in the middle of receiving public input on this matter, but given Director Yuen's last question and Mr. Hansen's not being able to provide that information -. FUJIKAWA:Right. SPRINGER:At this time, and some of the questions that have been raised by the public testifiers and what information we have, I'm not familiar enough with the property to envision it well. I'm wondering if we might receive the rest of the public testimony but then continue this matter and schedule a site visit with Staff's help perhaps for the next Hilo meeting so we can -. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, what we'll do is we'll finish where Nancy will complete the public testimony, and after she's done and then you people, the Commissioners may request a continue with a site visit. So let's -. Are you through with this? Okay, let's hear the testimony from Nancy. CABRAL:Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Nancy Cabral. I am with Day-Lum Rentals and Management, Inc., the largest rental management company in East Hawai`i, and I certainly can appreciate the often difficult job you folks have because what I think we're seeing is the -, with this changes, as are always going to happen in a community, you guys are faced with a difficult decision of how to allow for responsible growth and still take into consideration all the needs of all the people in the community. And I think I had the privilege of hearing Paul Brewbaker from Bank of Hawai`i speak yesterday and he said growth is going to continue and unless, as he very crudely put it, unless we're going to kill our children. And so we are -, I think we are really faced with what to do and if you look at that map which is a interesting map to see the different colors of the different representation, that area obviously 15 years ago was zoned into Commercial, the specific property we're talking about, and all of the surrounding properties have already gone in that direction, although one yellow large piece, there is the Mormon Church and it's still -, but it is still not a residential lot. 21 And the suggestion that this property be instead residential would, I think, be counter to what is going on. Having -, the complaints we've heard are all that this is not an appropriate place for residential usage. And so it's granted that's what progress brings and why we have to consider, obviously, Kilauea Avenue in this area is going commercial, and you're not going to change that. There is already what they say considerable traffic, the flooding has already taken place, that this lot is not going to contribute to it or add to it or alter it, and so the idea that the development, the traffic, and the flooding is going to be hereby wrongfully impacted to these few residents is, that's the reality of what's already happening based on decisions either you or your predecessors made in the past. And so, you know, where else are you going to put a commercial building? There is a growing need in Hilo, and I can attest to that, for good commercial buildings, and so you need to allow for that to happen someplace, you know. And so -, and as that need grows, I would like to see developers like Dr. Takase, who has in his past with his medical developments and other commercial buildings, done a really nice job of making nice buildings that attract quality tenants. That's a nice landlord on a commercial level, versus some landlords who take any old thing, versus what I'm sure, I know is happening. People are doing commercial operations on residentially zoned areas and nothing happens because nobody complains. You know, if you can't make responsible decisions in favor of responsible sometimes not always popular but necessary growth in a responsible manner, then you're going to force more and more people, or more and more people are going to do things irresponsibly. So I'd like to speak in favor of allowing that. I think -, I'm sure Dr. Takase, as well as the architect can probably make considerations on where to put air conditioning units, where to put the dumpster, those type of things could be considered to accommodate the concern for those tenants in that area. Also, although those tenants, I am sure, don't want to move because that's their lifetime homes, lifelong homes there, their property values are going up, and they would be able to make choices if they chose to sell or something of that sort. And I know it's not what they want necessarily, but I don't think you're going to be able to go backwards and create the nice community where they liked it 50 years ago when they could walk down the street and not have any traffic. I drive by there all the time because my kids are in school in that neighborhood, and it's a high traffic area, particularly from 7:30 till 8:15 in the morning, but that's not going to change by not allowing this lot. I think having a commercial development, a commercial, beautiful commercial building there with quality businesses will, in fact, be a contribution and a asset to Hilo. Thank you very much. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Commissioners, any questions with Nancy? If not, would the Applicant's representative step forward. Do you have any questions with any of these testifiers at this time? TSUKAZAKI:No, I don't. I -. NOMURA:Microphone. TSUKAZAKI:Yeah, I would just like to reinforce something that some of the speakers have said, you know, and to maybe clarify the record because one, I think, of the speakers 22 referred to the original concept, which was a small subdivision. The original concept was a commercial development with commercial buildings on three lots. The -, as one speaker said, the commercial designation for this area, you know, is not only reflected in the zoning but it's also been part of the General Plan for about 15 years, and the land use, General Plan designation for this area is High Density Urban, you know. And so besides the fact that Dr. Takase, you know, has certain rights as landowner, etcetera, if one just steps back to think about this, you know, assuming this commercial office building were not built, there could be something else built which perhaps would have even greater impacts for that neighborhood. So I think it's good to look at some of these issues with the backdrop of what the County itself has indicated to be its plans for growth in this area on the face of the General Plan. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Maybe before we -, we could have some discussion on what's been presented to us? FUJIKAWA:You may. SPRINGER:I'm particularly interested in the Planning Director's response to -, sorry, Robin Kealoha Black's concern that Condition K stipulated that any of the conditions aren't met or not substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director shall initiate rezoning of Parcel 29 to its original residential zoning or something more appropriate, on the matter of drywell capacity, and if there are no traffic conditions given the opening of the Mohouli Street extension, and if those have been taken into consideration when evaluating this application. YUEN:Okay, three different questions. For about the last dozen to 14 years, that language of the conditions not being met in a timely fashion and then the Planning Director initiating rezoning, shall initiate rezoning to the original or more -, or another more appropriate designation, that's been standard, that was standard for about a dozen years. More recently, we have asked the Council to use the word "may" rather than "shall" because of it is a directive that the Director, that we're supposed to do it. I have not gone and I don't think the previous Directors have ever gone systematically through the old inventory of rezoning ordinances, trolled through the files and looked for ordinances that were out of compliance with the timeframes. And the basic reason behind this is that if we did that, both the Planning Department and the Planning Commission and the Council would be doing nothing else but looking at out of compliance zoning ordinances for the next couple of years. There are many, many, many of them. What we try to do though is -, and it's really brought on by seeing what -, seeing this application on the letter is making it clear that if you are out of compliance and you have a condition like this that says that you can only get one time extensive administratively, and that after that you have to go to the Council, you are, in effect, in a limbo. You -, we can't give you, administratively, approvals based on your zoning because your timeframe has run out. If you had asked for a time extension after your -, for administrative time extension after your administrative time extension 23 had run out, we couldn't give that to you. So how can we give you a plan approval or a subdivision approval without giving you the time extension? If you ask for the time extension first, we would have to say no, so then if you -, we can't give you the approval that depends upon the time extension without your getting that time extension. So we are probably going to see, and I don't that this has been systematically caught in the past. I'm sure it has happened that people have gotten subdivision approvals, plan approvals based on old zoning that had, in fact, these expired time conditions, but we will be probably catching more of these as people come in and want to work on their zoning. And it is, as I mentioned earlier, it is a chance that if it is not appropriate anymore, that the zoning can be reconsidered. So -, and I'm not -, I wish we had the time to do everything, but I am not planning to go back and say have a project. We did this with the old SMA permits at one point, we did have a student intern for the summer who did nothing but look at old SMA permits and find out of compliance, unused SMA permits, and we went and we did bring those and revoke those, revoke a couple before the Commission. I think you may recall a couple of those. But there's just so many hours in a day, and we're not planning to go back and do what is often a pretty lengthy job to look at a particular file and see if the rezoning ordinances has been, if all the time conditions have been complied with. We will do that when the actual application to develop say the plan approval or subdivision approval comes forward. Okay, that's an answer to the first question. Answer to second question on drywells. A standard condition of all development is that you take care of additional water generated by your development up to the ten year storm event. So whether this property is in the flood plain or not, the civil engineering for the project would -, the civil engineer would design dry wells that would -, they would make a calculation based on the fact that they are covering over what is currently an undeveloped surface and can pass water through it, it's a permeable surface, and they're going to cover it over mostly with asphalt and with roofs and other impermeable surfaces, and they would have to design a drywell system to take that water up to the expected ten year storm event, and that is the condition of a standard condition. If it rains beyond that, then there is a potential that more water will run off this property than currently does. That's for handling the increase in your, in the -, that's the requirement for handling the potential increase in rainwater falling off the property as a result of the fact that they're going to cover a permeable surface with an impermeable surface. And you had a follow-up question? SPRINGER:Yeah. So if a hundred year flood is a one percent likelihood of occurrence, is a ten year flood a ten percent? YUEN:That's a flood that you have a, I think, Kelly, ten percent likelihood in any year of happening? GOMES:I'm not sure on the percentage on a ten year flood. YUEN:But I said it correctly as far as what they were expected to do with drywells? 24 GOMES:Very good, very well, yes, you did. SPRINGER:So I wonder in a situation like Hilo, which hundred year floods every couple years, if this formula is in a sensibility is properly applied to circumstances such as this. YUEN:I have a concern about this, not so much on a -, I hate to do things on an individual basis on this lot, on a lot by lot basis, but the very fact that -, you see these floodways? They are established based on historical precedent, that this is where -, this is the extent of the active floodway based on rainfall we've had in Hilo in the past. And it's not, they're not engineered in the sense that somebody has really done a detailed study, it's mostly done, you know, from the standpoint that this is what happened last time and so this is where we're mapping that it's going to happen next time. As you, as we develop and develop subdivisions and develop roads and make these more impermeable surfaces, we are creating a condition where when you get beyond the ten year event, then more water is going to run off into the floodways and potentially increase the severity, not that the rainfall increases for the hundred year event but the amount, the area that becomes a floodway during a hundred year event may increase. And I have to say I don't know that we really are dealing with this. So it's a concern. It's not something that I would advocate doing, you know, we don't deal with it on this application, but it's something that is, that we have to think about as a community. FUJIKAWA:Okay. SPRINGER:I have a concern then if there is increased commercial activity there resulting in a decrease of, a net decrease in permeable area, that you've got this cumulative effect and I'm wondering if that's taken into consideration when calculating for 24-inch pipes being sufficient to remove water from a newly resurfaced area or not. YUEN:Well, I can't, obviously, from my questions, I don't have a lot of details about what happened on this particular piece of property. As a general concern or a general question, yes, cumulatively as we develop as a community in Hilo or in Kona, what has historically been floodways may not handle the water that goes through them. I mean, is this little, is this commercial lot going to be, make a big difference? Probably not. So we need to deal with this lot and the drainage specifically on this lot. There is this bigger issue that I think you're asking about. SPRINGER:Okay. One more question on this. If not on this little lot, how do we address this so that the cumulative effect of all these little lots is to the greater benefit of the community rather than detriment? YUEN:I think in the long term we need to look at the floodways and see if they are adequate. What we've been trying to do on the zoning level is keep people out of the floodways as much as possible, and out of the floodway fringes and out of the flood plains, and so we have, if you look at the previous application for the Waiakea Uka Subdivision, we have our standard, we have a standard condition in zoning that there be no construction within the flood plain. Actually, you know, without that, the Flood Code does allow construction within the flood plain. You just have to elevate a little bit. And that's another issue because okay, are 25 you elevating enough, not only the flood plain become wider but the flood plain is going to become higher. So we're trying to do that and be more conscientious in the zoning area, but I don't have -, as apart from being aware that these -, the historical floodways that are shown on the FEMA maps are not written in some kind of -, they're not some kind of absolute and we're absolutely safe if we follow those and respect those. I don't have a solution right now? SPRINGER:Thank you. And then the Mohouli Extension question. YUEN:Okay. We didn't -, I don't know. I don't know how the Mohouli Extension, which ends a half a mile or so uphill from this piece of property, really impacts the traffic on Kilauea. I'm sure there's been a general growth of traffic on Kilauea just as there has been on other areas, but the current phase of Mohouli Extension doesn't -, it ends up on Komohana Street, which is say a half a mile away. SPRINGER:Thank you. BLACK:May I add some things? Is that appropriate? FUJIKAWA:Just a minute. Are you done, Director? You may go ahead if only it's a question. BLACK:I can provide a little insight into what's happening with the Mohouli Street Extension. Ever since that roadway was opened, what's happened is now Lanikaula Street has become a conveyor belt for big trucks, a lot of them like from places like Glover that are going out of the industrial area. Rather than taking the intersection at Mohouli and Kilauea, they take Lanikaula Street. They can take it all the way up to Kumukoa and then make their left to go up top, so we've had a huge increase in traffic. And one of the things that the Ishiharas had mentioned when we were discussing it that was not specifically outlined in my letter is that right now the traffic is so bad it's impossible to make a left turn out of my driveway. I can't make a left turn out of my driveway, I have to go right. I have to feed into the Kilauea intersection because I can't get out of my home without it. Now if we put additional commercial development on Kilauea, then that just has that much more traffic coming and going onto that street. To even suggest that eliminating the widening of the road is a consideration is just not okay. But the thing, just going back to the relevancy of this whole dialog, because I, again, you know, you guys, this is your thing. This is not our thing. We're just trying to educate ourselves so we can protect what we care about. It's my understanding that not every zoning change gets an ordinance. Not every time you want to change zoning it goes to the County Council. Is that correct? YUEN:No. Every change of zone goes to the County Council, yes. BLACK:Okay. Because when this ordinance was originally amended, on the first read, it did have the language, it did say may initiate, and that was specifically struck out and 26 replaced with shall. So the County Council, when they looked at this the first time, they said no, you know what, this is what the rules are, and after that, pencils down, game over. Come back to the drawing board. So we, I think what we're hoping is to discuss what is more appropriate. Now Nancy testified that the whole neighborhood is going commercial and you can't take away what was there before. What was provided -, this zoning was conditional. There were umpteen conditions that went up to K. So to me, that's not saying, oh, it's a done deal. It's saying if you comply with these conditions, this is the situation, and if you choose to not comply, now it's not their fault they didn't own the property, I'm not faulting them, I'm just saying that when I read this, this is the law. It seems kind of clear that what we should be discussing is what's more appropriate. Now what really scares me, and I'm not a engineer or anything, but if you take the property that right now has water coming off of Kilauea Avenue from the street, with a little drainage thing, which I don't know if it's the State or the County or whoever, but water goes from that road and flows directly into the subject property. And you pave that subject property and you put a 24-inch, two 24-inch culverts to take the water from point A to point B -. You know, the water didn't go from point A to point B, it went all the way across a vacant lot that was dirt and soil and trees, which have all been removed because it's been -, everything's been cleared. So now you're going to take that water and speed shoot it right into 87C. That property is going to completely inundate what is Mrs. Uratani's residence. Now just as point of clarification, in case, because it's not clear, so I'll just make it clear. When I gave you guys this little map, and I shaded the areas that are green, I would like to just bring to your attention the fact that the property -, well, I can't read very well, but this one in the corner, on the upper right-hand side, that lot was deemed unbuildable by the County. When Mrs. Miyamoto and the neighbors originally all hui-ed together to make that Shigeoka Subdivision, that lot could never get a building permit because it's too low and there's too much water. So now we're going to take water from over here in two 24-inch culverts and speed shoot it to the next property? It doesn't make sense. I trust you guys to do what you think is right, but really, I think the whole thing needs a rethink. I do. Now, granted, there may be a commercial development there someday, but what was proposed, the original plans that were submitted for the monstrous structure which paved everything from corner to corner and turned its back on the existing neighbors with the dumpster and the air conditioning, and used the beautiful green space of the Mormon Church as their, you know, front yard while they chose to pave every inch of theirs, just seems to me fundamentally wrong. It's too much, it's too big. Granted, something will be built. Can't it be more in keeping with what's there? You know, we're already there. You're saying a nice little residential neighborhood where people walk on sidewalks. Hello, we do. We have a great neighborhood. You guys should come for the site visit, you really should. It would be so informative. You'd just get it in a second. All you have to do is get out of the car and walk around. FUJIKAWA:For your information, that we do a recommendation to the County Council for the zones, okay. 27 BLACK:Okay. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners? Mr. Thibadeau. THIBADEAU:Yeah, could I ask the Applicant. FUJIKAWA:One second. Any questions with -? THIBADEAU:No, not on this subject, no. This is a new subject. FUJIKAWA:Our testifier? You testifiers may sit -, go back, and the Applicant's representative please step forward. Mr. Tsukazaki, go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Thibadeau. THIBADEAU:Several questions. What's the impact on the project if Condition F stays in effect? Obviously, there's a reason F could be removed. Do you know the reason it's to be removed and what would happen if it were not removed? TSUKAZAKI:This is in regard to the ten-foot wide -. THIBADEAU:That's correct. It's the setback. TSUKAZAKI:Widening strip. The Planning Director recommended against that, in other words, against removing that, and what I said in, you know, when I first got up to speak here is that we accepted that. In other words, we would withdraw our request to remove that. FUJIKAWA:I see. TSUKAZAKI:So it's there, it stays. THIBADEAU:Are you withdrawing the request to remove Condition F, is that what you're -? TSUKAZAKI:Yes, because we agree with Mr. Yuen's recommendation that that Condition F stays. FUJIKAWA:Okay. THIBADEAU:Okay. TSUKAZAKI:I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? THIBADEAU:Question then to the Director. There must be a reason. YUEN:The impact to their -. 28 THIBADEAU:You're talking about future traffic congestion, you would like to keep the F in there, is that correct? YUEN:We would like to keep the option that Kilauea could be widened to an 80-foot right-of-way, and impact to their property is that it would require a 10-foot further setback from the property line for the development of the property. THIBADEAU:So as it is now, you are withdrawing your request to have that removed and the Condition F is then still in effect. Okay. YUEN:Yes. THIBADEAU:But the original deal was because the County or the State decided they're not going to extend that arterial. That was your decision originally to eliminate it? YUEN:Yes. When -, the Applicant did talk to Public Works and it looked like the 80-foot widening of Kilauea was something that would probably not happen, but in our work-up -. THIBADEAU:But that -. YUEN:We still want to preserve the option of it happening. THIBADEAU:That decision was based on financial capability, not on a traffic study, right? YUEN:Probably, yes. THIBADEAU:Yeah. Okay, thank you. FUJIKAWA:Do you have any questions, Commissioners? Graham. GRAHAM:I'm trying -, thinking that we're going to be about soon ready to take action one way or the other. Again, our action is this recommendation going to the County Council, in this case, because it's a rezoning. As the Planning Director said earlier, since we're all revisiting this, it is a -, he feels it's appropriate for us to look at these other issues, I'm just wondering if given what's transpired here today as far as concerns of residents and property owners, in general, when there is a zoning change, conditions are added which are meant to protect the public interest and the interest of the neighbors. So I'm just wondering if the Planning Department and the Planning Director have any interest in postponing this action to the next meeting such that they may come up with any additional conditions or further spelling out, you know, the condition here like drainage shall be installed in accordance with the Department of Public Works, if the extra time would -, if they have interest in trying to put additional conditions because of the experience we've had with the property since the original zoning ordinance went into play, to give more protection to the neighboring property owners. And if the Planning 29 Department, you know, wishes to consider that and dialog further and come up with some proposals for conditions which would mitigate this commercial zoning for neighboring residential property owners, I would be interested in doing that, but I don't see any reason to postpone for a week unless the Planning Department feels like they want to pursue that. YUEN:I'm not asking for a deferral, no. GRAHAM:All right, thank you. SPRINGER:So if the Applicant is not challenging the Director's recommendation with regard to Condition F, we're left to consideration of Condition C, which is -. FUJIKAWA:Right. SPRINGER:Basically about time frame. GRAHAM:Right. SPRINGER:Thanks. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? ALAMEDA:I have a question, Mr. -, Chair Fujikawa, regarding the site visit. What would be the protocol for that, and our -? FUJIKAWA:I'm sorry? ALAMEDA:Participation in that? For the site visit, what would be the protocol and our participation in that? FUJIKAWA:For the site visit? ALAMEDA:How would that look like? FUJIKAWA:Normally, a site visit, you ask for a continue on the case and then we, same time we will set aside a time when the site visit, and normally it falls on the meeting day. We'll meet on the site in the morning, then from there we'll come back to the court. ALAMEDA:Additional question. So would it be inappropriate or maybe unnecessary to also get a better under -, better understanding of the building, the elevations and all? FUJIKAWA:Well, at that time, we can request the Applicant to submit all the information that they have that will support their bill. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. 30 FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? Springer. SPRINGER:What if we don't take up the matter of Condition C, what happens then? FUJIKAWA:Planning Director, you want to answer that? SPRINGER:If we don't approve the amendment to Condition C? YUEN:Well, if the -, if it's -, if either the Planning Commission or the Council felt that the zoning should be changed and that's why you would not -, in accordance with changing the time extension, then I think that that should be accompanied by a motion to ask the Planning Director to initiate a zone change to something else. The only people -, see, right now, as I said earlier, the property is in a little bit of a limbo because the zoning does not automatically become void with the time condition passing, but it's not -, that also means it doesn't revert to the residential zoning either. So -, and if the recommendation of the Planning Commission or the final action of the Council, they decide no, we don't like the CG zoning, then something else has to happen. And so -, but the only parties that can initiate a -, actually initiate a rezoning are the landowner and the Planning Director. So the Council can say, you know, we don't like the CG zoning, so we're not extending the time to perform under the CG zoning. They should state some -, and the Planning Commission, as well, should state some reason that -, about something that has happened since the zoning was enacted that justifies them for saying that, and then accompany that with a direction to the Planning Director to initiate zoning to some other use rather than simply deny the time extension and leave the property hanging there. SPRINGER:So then -. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:I wonder if anybody here today now is prepared to have a more lengthy discussion about the flood, the flood history of this property between the time of the original ordinance in '89, was it, to now. One of the things I think I'm sensitive to is that in a few years' time, we've had a number of large floods. Perhaps it was not that way in the '90s. But I don't know enough about Hilo and its flood history to understand what the movement of water through this area is historically, other than the lines on the map, but the lines don't tell us frequency or how often it happens. FUJIKAWA:How do you get the answer? Mr. Thibadeau. THIBADEAU:Does anyone know, has there been a change in the FEMA flood plan in the last ten years? YUEN:I don't, Kelly probably does. FUJIKAWA:Kelly. GOMES:Not in this general vicinity, no. 31 THIBADEAU:Not in this area? GOMES:No. THIBADEAU:They've change a lot of them but not this one, right? GOMES:They changed here and there for certain developments. THIBADEAU:Yeah. GOMES:The closest I can think of right now is Kaiulani Subdivision, which is I think Palai, this is Palai Stream, that's off of Kilauea and Kanoelehua. They did a revision when they did their subdivision. THIBADEAU:Komohana, they've changed. GOMES:And maybe, well, Alenaio Stream they did when they built the channel, that was a change, yeah. THIBADEAU:Yeah, that's changed. Okay. But we don't know about this area? GOMES:No. I mean a lot of people, you know, would like to change it because, you know, there's a lot of developable lots in the area, and generally flood zone lots are cheaper and right now the market is very tough, yeah, so we have a lot of inquiries onto flood properties as far as building a home or a commercial development, yeah, because it's -, all the good lots are taken, yeah. FUJIKAWA:McCall, you had a question? MCCALL:Yeah, question or comment. I just don't -, at this point, I don't feel I have enough information. I think we are -. FUJIKAWA:Okay. MCCALL:Lacking. We're being asking to make decisions without enough information about the flooding here. We don't -, we are -, I feel to some extent like we are, you now, we're hearing around the sides of what is being developed, but we have no picture. We're not being shown this -, what is being developed. I would like to see -, I would feel uncomfortable making any decision on this without having the engineer -, I don't know, some -, whoever did the flood study on this come in telling us. I would like him to tell me that, you know, what the impact of this development at what he's representing will be on the other properties, because there will be a impact. It's very clear, notwithstanding what they're saying, there will be an impact, and we need to know what it is so -. 32 FUJIKAWA: Well, you Commissioners have a right to ask for a continuation, also a site visit to make you feel better on your decision. MCCALL:I think, I think -. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Thibadeau. MCCALL:If the rest of the Commissioners -, I think this would be an appropriate time to ask for that if that's -, if the other Commissioners are -. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Thibadeau have a question? THIBADEAU:I'd like a clarification. Today aren't we deciding on Conditions C and F? One of the participants in the discussion said they would like to know where they go if this is not the proper panel to discuss addressing the zoning, where do they go? FUJIKAWA:Well, we're doing a recommendation -. THIBADEAU:Pardon me? FUJIKAWA:We're doing a recommendation to the County Council. THIBADEAU:I understand that. FUJIKAWA:And so -. THIBADEAU:But are we, right now, discussing C and F? FUJIKAWA:Yes. THIBADEAU:We are not discussing the other tangents, as critical as they are. FUJIKAWA:Well, this is why, Commissioners, do you have any questions on Mr. Thibadeau's or the Planning Director? TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Yes. TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman? Here. May I just make a statement in response? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. TSUKAZAKI:To Commissioner Thibadeau? FUJIKAWA:Mr. Tsukazaki. 33 TSUKAZAKI:Yeah, I'd like to reiterate, for the record, and I urge you to really think about this because it has to do with Mr. Thibadeau's comment, which is what is the scope of this matter. FUJIKAWA:Right. TSUKAZAKI:Okay. And I mean even if it takes, you know, getting some advice from Corp. Counsel or what, and I think we probably have some different opinions as to how far the Planning Commission can legally go, should legally go here. Again, the request is, as Mr. Thibadeau indicated, whether certain conditions should be amended. I hate, as a legal matter, and I'd like to say this -. FUJIKAWA:Sure. TSUKAZAKI:On the Applicant's behalf. There's a limit to how far the County can go in considering these two items. FUJIKAWA:I understand. TSUKAZAKI:I don't believe it's carte blanche where the Planning Commission, in this context, is asked to consider what type of zoning should be on that property, okay. That's inappropriate on a number of different grounds. Clearly, you know, it has not been noticed that way to the public. Clearly, the Applicant hasn't been given due process notice that there's a danger of losing his -. FUJIKAWA:Sure. TSUKAZAKI:Zoning or something like that. So I ask you, again, to be somewhat diligent about what the scope of the hearing is, because if you're not, there's no end to the consideration of the issues. And, again, this is not a case where there hasn't been anything done. There has been a lot done. There are permits existing, granted by other agencies and, therefore, certain issues are actually within the jurisdiction of other agencies.So I just wanted to reiterate that point. FUJIKAWA:Corporation Counsel, do you have -? YUEN:Yeah. FUJIKAWA:Planning Director. YUEN:I'd like to comment on that. When we release time extensions, there are a number of conditions under which you can grant a time extension. And let me -, for the Planning Director, and I think it's basically similar for the Council, but the Planning Director can grant a time extension, it says, the granting of time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan 34 or the Zoning Code, and granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. To me, this gives both the Planning Director and the Council the opportunity to look at what has happened in the years since the original change of zone was granted and see are the reasons still valid. There -, a property may have been, or a change of zone may have been granted for an industrial site based upon a need for industrial zoning in a particular community. That may have changed over time. There may be new industrial areas, there may be no demand for industrial, for the industrial site. There may have been an experience like -. If it were, for example, if we were looking at this time extension and it were -, we had learned from the 2000 flood that this is a terrible site for a commercial development, I would say yes, we would say it -, the reasons are contrary to the original reason for granting the change of zone. So I don't think -. So the review is not -, you can't do this review with blinders on. It doesn't mean that you disregard the fact that it is zoning that was granted, you know, it's been there for many years. There is a consideration of that, but it's not something that is done and in a complete vacuum of the surrounding circumstances. So -, and you would not be, as far as the question of due process or notice, you would not, you cannot change -, you are not -, it is not on the agenda to change the zoning here to something else, to multi-family residential, single family residential, any other change of zone. That is absolutely, that is correct.The only thing that if you -, you are being -, we have a question of whether to grant or deny the time extension. If you deny the time extension, the project or the property is in this limbo state where they can't do anything with it. You can't just deny the time extension and walk away from it. There's got to be a reason for denying the time extension, and if the reason is that you feel that it would be contrary to the original purposes, original reason of a rezoning to allow it to continue, then something else has to happen. Now that would all -, that would take a further action. Any -, for this to be rezoned, for example, to single family residential, for either the Director or the Applicant or the landowner to make that rezoning, there would have to be notice to the public, it would have to go through a hearing, and eventually go to the Planning -, to the County Council. That can't be done on this agenda item, even if everybody sitting here wanted to do it or if it went up to the Council and nine members of the Council all wanted to sit there and do it right there, it couldn't be done just there, it would have to be in separate action to go forward. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, McCall. MCCALL:Yeah, a question for the Planning Director. If we make up -, if we recommend a time extension and let's say the Council grants them a time extension, is there another forum for the public, or what would be the next -? Is there another forum for the public to have input on this or is it a matter if that extension is -, the zoning is there, everything is there, the building goes up? I mean is there public input or does it just go through the Planning Director? YUEN:That's a good question. There is no -, for this particular development to happen, with the plans that they submitted, the -, if the time extension is granted, in the form that it is here, then they could bring these plans in, and if they complied with all other codes, we would sign off on it, they would get a building permit, and they could put the building up, and there's no other opportunity for public hearing. 35 There is a possibility for an administrative appeal of a plan approval, and that has happened in the past, but that's done on the basis of there would be something defective about the plan approval. Plan approval is a stage of review of plans that there is a certain checklist that is in the Zoning Code that's followed. Typical things on the plan approval would be the height, was the building too high? That's also looked at in the building permit, but it would also be re-looked in the plan approval. Are there enough parking spaces for the size of the building? Is the landscaping put in per Rule 17? There is a Planning Department rule of the kind of landscaping that you have to have in a situation like this. So if all of those are complied with, we would issue the plan approval. Someone with a particular interest in the property, like an adjoining property owner, could make an appeal to the Board of Appeals of the Planning Director's decision to issue that plan approval, but the grounds for the Board of Appeals to overturn that are limited by the ordinance. It wouldn't be, gee, the -, at least the Board of Appeals is not supposed to say we don't think a commercial building should be there in the first place, therefore, we're going to throw out plan approval. Or we -, although the Code allows a building up to -, and I'm not sure the height limit for this, but up -, well, the building is within the height limit but it blocks the neighbors' views of Mauna Kea, so we are going to throw that out. So the review by the Board of Appeals is quite, is limited. And so for the really basic decision of should there -, should this be a commercial type area, that decision is made in the Zoning Code and is made by the rezoning ordinance. And there is nothing after that that allows that to -, that type of decision to be reviewed. TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman, may I -? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Tsukazaki. TSUKAZAKI:I think in response to that question, if maybe I misunderstand whether Mr. McCall was asking where there's another forum to talk about whether this should be commercial zoning or not, or is there another forum to talk about the concerns and issues being raised by the neighbors, some of which do not pertain to zoning. And this question was is there another forum? If he meant is there another public hearing process, then I would agree with what Mr. Yuen said, because I don't know of any other public hearing process. When I said forum, I meant is there an opportunity to make input into a process, and the answer is yes. Plan approval, which Mr. Yuen described, notice of filing of plan approval goes out and Planning Department would gladly look at the issues and information that comes in from neighbors that's relevant to that process, which you generally described. But as another example of what I'm talking about is on grading, on flood issues. Those are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. There, you know, interested neighbors could inquire there and make input there and perhaps provide information that Public Works was not aware of. So that's what I meant when I said there's other forums for raising of concerns. And, you know, I think if the -, I'm still uncomfortable with what the Planning Director is saying as far as what the nature of this hearing is because if, in fact, an applicant was to request an 36 amendment of a time condition but was really in jeopardy of losing zoning, then that applicant should be told when that applicant applies for a change in the time condition, the applicant needs to set forth all of the information justifying the existing zoning under current conditions. Because, otherwise, the applicant is going to come here and is going to be faced with information that arguably is irrelevant to the specific condition for time extension, would not have put information on the record in anticipation of that and then is in a position to face, you know, questions about whether the zoning is even valid or not. So I don't think that's the way, you know, the rules or the code is set up for this kind of thing. And I think if that is going to be the case, then the fair thing would be to let people know, let applicants know when they come in for a time extension, they've got to basically rejustify the whole zoning in terms of current conditions. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER: In light of Mr. Tsukazaki's comments and what the Planning Director has said, I'm wondering if we can ask Deputy Corporation Counsel if it's appropriate for us to request a continuance and go on the site visit, or if that is outside of the scope of what we're being asked to consider? Sir? KAMELAMELA:One option here, but this has to be a Board decision, is to make a motion to continue or to defer the matter, but that's up to you, because apparently there are concerns here that have been expressed, and so you need at least, for the deferral, I think you need at least five votes, yeah. FUJIKAWA:Right. KAMELAMELA:Or continuance. SPRINGER:Well, I'm wondering if -, so it is proper for us to have this discussion? I think Mr. Tsukazaki is questioning whether or not this discussion is in the scope of our work before us today, so that's what I'm asking clarification on. KAMELAMELA:Okay. So it may be part of it because -, and I'm not too sure if Ben is asking for a continuance to present his side of the case, because it's kind of important that maybe you get his view as to why the time extension is valid here and that the conditions 15 years ago really is the same thing as today and could more adequately prepare and solve the reasons why they have adequately dealt with the flooding issue, too, which seems to be part of the Board's feelings here, too. TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman, may I -? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. 37 TSUKAZAKI:Address -? Yeah. I never specifically argued against a site visit, and so I never meant to say that going to see the property would be outside the scope of this hearing, and I don't think the Applicant would have any objection if you'd like to do that. And I further feel that since one of the speakers was, you know, had testified that the notice of hearing would have indicated a contested case being available or being appropriate, I think the Applicant would feel better about straightening, you know, clarifying all that out. And if the, if this matter were continued until your next Hilo meeting, there would be an opportunity for the Applicant to send, you know, notice of that hearing out to neighbors and make sure that the proper kind of notice goes to them. So -. KAMELAMELA:I don't think this is a contested case hearing case but -. TSUKAZAKI:Exactly. KAMELAMELA:Yeah. TSUKAZAKI:But the person who testified earlier indicated that the notice that was received would indicate that that was either available or a part of this procedure, and so I'm saying, you know, and her allegation was that maybe there would be some neighbors who were discouraged from coming because they thought that was the nature of this proceeding. So without -. And, you know, with me being ignorant, basically, of what happened back then at the time the notice was sent out, I can't speak to that, and I'll just take her word for -, at face value, and would think that a continuance until your next Hilo meeting would allow the site visit and also allow some additional notice to neighbors. FUJIKAWA:You had something to say? KAMELAMELA:No, nothing else. It's up to you guys. BLACK:May I add something? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, is it going to be a length one? BLACK:No. FUJIKAWA:Okay, what are you going to say? BLACK:No, I just -, again, this is not my forum, I don't know how this stuff works. You guys, this is what you do. It took us, collectively as a neighborhood, a long time to get our ducks in order. What I'm just hearing is why if the ordinance says you're going to do this, you don't do that? If it says if the conditions aren't met, you shall do this. And what we're sitting here is talking about changing the conditions. Again, one of the conditions said no extension of the condition, so I’m confused. 38 Now listen, I know that whatever Dr. Takase builds will be nice, I'm confident of that. We do not want an adversarial relationship.We want something we can live with. And I think you guys should come on the site visit. I think you should go another round. I think we should get a notice that isn't accompanied by a contested case hearing paperwork that requires notarization, people would really have something to say and speak up. I agree wholeheartedly that we'd like another less intimidating go-round. It was probably an honest mistake, but it had a quelling effect, so please come, please come take a look. Thank you. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:I've listened carefully and have taken to heart what the Planning Director has said regarding this little application which is before us. I think a site visit might help us to differentiate the, some of the small scale issues from the broader questions. I think there are questions of process that the public testifier deserves to have answered. FUJIKAWA:Sure. SPRINGER:Although the Planning Director did make his statement as to the reasons why. But I think this under -, may underscore part of the reason that citizens may not have confidence in the process. I'm concerned that the FEMA maps follow zoning rather than the other way around. It sounds to me as though the maps are generated and amended on a case by case basis and that's driven by planning requests and zoning applications rather than coming forward with a whole and complete body of information upon which decisions are made. FUJIKAWA:Right. SPRINGER:So there are small scale microcosm and macrocosm issues that we have to deal with. I think though on the matter of Condition C and the matter of the site visit, I have no more comments to make before we go into decision making. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? BLACK:I'd like to add more thing. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. BLACK:I know we all want to go. I would really like if the Applicant would follow the recommendation in Mr. Yuen's letter about having the Planning -, excuse me, the Department of Public Works look at the property. It's very disturbing to me that he sent them a letter and said please talk to Department of Public Works about the flood thing, and they said, no, no, and they go around Public Works and they go in the back and get the federal guys who have no idea what's going on anyplace around here and get them to say if you certify that, in 39 effect it's okay. That just seems like really dirty pool to me. I don't like it. I'd rather people that are knowledgeable in our own County, that are familiar with the area, go there and look at it. And I would trust the Department of Public Works' recommendations vis-à-vis flooding, etcetera, over those of some absentee body that's too busy to go there on their own and says we just stamp it and you pay if it screws up after the fact. YUEN:I just wanted to say to that that what they did is the right process and that the map that you see here is generated federally and changes to that are made federally, are approved federally. BLACK:But Public Works wasn't invited to comment. You wrote them a letter that said talk to the Department of Public Works, and I called Kelly and he said this is what they did. They went around us and they went in the other side. That bothers me. I mean I'm -. TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman, for the record -. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. TSUKAZAKI:Before the speaker accuses Dr. Takase of dirty pool, she is well advised to have her facts straight. BLACK:I am sorry. TSUKAZAKI:And if anybody has represented on the County that Dr. Takase has intentionally skirted the law, I would like to see that, a statement to Dr. Takase or me. BLACK:Okay, then let me amend -. FUJIKAWA:Okay. BLACK: What I said, please, because I'm not accusing Dr. Takase of doing these things. I am saying that the methodology by which this process was followed was contrary to what I interpreted Mr. Yuen's letter to direct them to do, and I question that. So I'm sorry. FUJIKAWA:All right. BLACK:I'm done. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners? Go ahead, Graham. GRAHAM:Well, I'm going to float a motion here and see where we go. I believe that a major topic of consideration is this Condition C, which would revive the ability of the Applicant to move with the zoning from a number of years ago, and that because of the concerns of the Planning Commissioners expressed by a number of us about our own understanding of flood issues and other issues and the limited information we have had so far, that it would be to our benefit to continue this to our next Hilo meeting and to schedule a site visit before that 40 meeting, and so that we could take it up at that time and make our best informed effort and a recommendation on this application before us. FUJIKAWA:So you're doing a motion? GRAHAM:That is a motion. SPRINGER:Second. FUJIKAWA:Okay. The motion's been made to continue, is that right? GRAHAM:To continue and have site visit. FUJIKAWA:And a site visit, by Commissioner Graham, and seconded by Commissioner Springer that there be a continue and a site visit pertaining to this application. Staff, before we go any further, when would that timing be? HAYASHI:If we can make the public hearing publication requirement, it would be on nd July 2, otherwise it will be in August. I think we still have time if we wish to -. FUJIKAWA:For the record, this is on Item C, right? HAYASHI:That is correct. It's my understanding from listening to Mr. Tsukazaki that on the record he has withdrawn the request to delete Condition F. FUJIKAWA:Condition F, I understand. Okay. So any other questions, Commissioners? If not, Staff, go ahead and roll call. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Thibadeau? 41 THIBADEAU:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:And the motion passes. FUJIKAWA:Okay. YUEN:I wanted to correct something that I said about who can initiate a rezoning amendment. The Council can initiate a rezoning amendment. FUJIKAWA:Right. YUEN:So the property owner, the Planning Director, the Council, and a person with the property owner's consent can initiate a rezoning amendment. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Very good. The discussion ended at 12:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janet L. Kama, Transcriber 42 43