Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-02 TNEKOBA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 2, 2007 DIEN-JUNG LIN NEKOBA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ-000071) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: William Graham Takashi Domingo Rene’ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Shelly Ogata Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: DIEN-JUNG LIN NEKOBA (REZ 07-000071) Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 square feet (CN-10) for approximately 39,771 square feet of land. The property is located along the south side of Kekuanaoa Street, between Manono Street and Hinano Street, Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-36:25 and 26. ALAMEDA: The first agenda item is Dien-Jung Lin Nekoba. It’s a rezoning request for 07-000071; and I’d like to turn it over to staff for the introduction. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. If I could direct your attention to the location map on the board. The area of this application is within the South Hilo District. More specifically we are looking at the Waiakea House Lots area. We have Kekuanaoa Street running in an east-west direction; and we have Manono Street and Hinano Street running in a north-south direction. The area of this first application is identified with the blue dot. In between Manono Street and Hinano Street on the south side is Kekuanaoa Street. The applicant in this case, Dien-Jung Lin Nekoba, is requesting a change of zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet to Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 square feet for 39,771 square feet of land. This includes two parcels; Parcel 25 which is made up of EXHIBIT A 1 19,607 square feet, and Parcel 26 which is made up of 20,164 square feet. Looking at the applicant’s site plan that was submitted, just for reference we have Manono Street, we have Hinano Street and we have Kekuanaoa Street. Both parcels are identified with a blue outline. Within Parcel 25 you’ll notice some yellow coloring. Those indicate existing structures on the property. On Parcel 25 we have a two-story dwelling; and on Parcel 26 we have a one-story dwelling. The applicant is requesting this change of zone to be able to have office space and related uses for a tour operation called Green Travel and Tours Incorporated. We have received comments from the Department of Public Works. They are requesting improvements along the frontage of Hinano Street, mainly sidewalks and other improvements. Additionally, they are requesting a height limit on the hedge that’s located there up to three feet. And, lastly, they’re asking that no left turn signs be placed at each of the entrances on Kekuanaoa. Those are identified with the black, the two entrances. Additionally, the Planning Department received a letter this morning from Jeffrey Lin Joseph and Teresa Ann McCrary; and this has been distributed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for this application. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners? Jeff, I noticed on the, I have one on what got passed out. There’s a new condition, Condition F, is that correct? DARROW: Yes. I believe the applicant’s representative is going to address that issue. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right, if we don’t have any questions, I’d like to call up the applicant or the applicant’s representative. Please come forward. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? LIM: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record. LIM: Steven Lim, 121 Waianuenue Avenue on behalf of the applicant; and with me today to my left are the son and daughter, Jung Kai Nekoba and Cindy Nekoba. ALAMEDA: Good morning, Steven. I understand you got the Department’s report and the recommendations. You have any questions or comments? LIM: We have received the background report and recommendation and we agree with both. The submittal that we passed out this morning was the applicant’s EXHIBIT A 2 proposed amendments to Condition D which was the recommendation to consolidate the parcels. Since we don’t have any plans to cross the lot lines with a new structure, we’d like to delete that condition. And our proposed condition to Condition F is the Public Works’ comment on curb, gutter, sidewalk construction on the Hinano Street side of the property. We’d agree to do that upon any future conversion and construction of a new commercial or residential structure. At the present time and probably for the fair, you know, kind of good near-term, I think that they’re going to be conducting the tour operations out of the existing structures. So we probably won’t be doing a new building for a long time. ALAMEDA: Okay. Fellow Commissioners, you have any questions or, how about -. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Lim, what is the extent of the business that is being conducted there? LIM: This property has a history in that they had some prior issues; and I think that was some of the result of this November 2, 2007 letter from Jeffrey Joseph and Teresa McCrary who are the adjacent property owners on the Hinano Street side just behind the property. In mid-2006 they were cited with a notice of violation by the County for keeping their large buses -- they call that mini buses, they carry about 25 people or so -- on the property. And they were essentially using the property as a baseyard for their commercial operation, the tour operation. So they were cited for that. And what they did was they relocated all of the mini buses and the baseyard operations off the property first to Waianuenue Avenue because they thought that was allowable; and that turned out not to be proper zoning either. So they moved as of about June of 2006; and they’re still over at Silva Street in the General Industrial zoning where they have their baseyard, they keep all the big buses. The only thing that you will see on the property today is the smaller regular type of vans where they carry about 10 people. Those are partly used for tour operations, but partly used for personal; and we’ve been informed by the County that those are allowable. They don’t conduct any baseyard or marshalling of the customers at the property. We note that the letter from Mr. Joseph and Ms. McCrary indicated that they had couple of instances in September and August of this year showing the Green tour buses there in the morning hours. And I asked my clients what that was about and they said that it might have been one of those situations where the buses came to pick up something that somebody forgot or, you know, to pick up some paper; but it wasn’t a situation like they’re running the tour buses through the property. Essentially what happens every morning is that the tours start out from the baseyard and also from the property with the smaller vans. They leave, they pick up the customers either at the tour ship or at the airport. They’ll go, one typical route is they’ll go out to Akaka Falls in the morning, circle back out and go up to the Volcano, come back down and hit the Mauna Loa Mac Nut Factory, and then drop off the customers at either the airport or the ship. They won’t bring them back to this site here. That’s not the intention. So, you know, we tried to do that and arrange it that way to minimize the impacts on the neighbors. You know, but EXHIBIT A 3 they’ve had discussion with Mr. Joseph and Ms. McCrary starting back in mid-2006. I think a lot of their issue initially was with the beeping noise that these big buses make when they back up. So those supposedly disappeared. If they’re still hearing beeping noises it’s the same beeping noises that my client heard, he heard, well, last night in fact, and it’s coming from some place across the street. So it’s not from their property. So that any, you know, any evidence of buses there recently is just coming by to pick up something; and it’s not an indication that they’re going to conduct these operations on site. We tried to, I think that Mr. Joseph and Ms. McCrary at one time in mid-2006 provided them with some small Podocarpus plants to plant along the boundaries of the property to try to minimize the impacts and they indicated that those small plants died so they purchased new Podocarpus plants. My clients stated they planted those and those are now growing. We’re hoping that that’s going to, the Podocarpus are those relatively quick growing thick bushes that grow quickly; and we’re hoping that that in conjunction with the minimizing of the activities of the vehicles on the property will allow them to live in harmony with their neighbors as much as possible. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Commissioner Domingo, follow-up? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, you know, you addressed the concerns that I had, and more so especially with regards to that which was contained in the letter by the neighbors regarding the noise situation. I’m clear that that has been addressed, hopefully. I don’t know if the noise issue could be inserted in the Zoning Ordinance itself with regards to, you know, the noise taking place and the time. LIM: We’re, you know, we’re in agreement proposed Condition C that the Director has proposed that the landscaping between the properties for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to the adjacent properties be implemented in accordance with the Planning Department’s Rule No. 17 on landscaping. So we will be checking to see what landscaping is presently out there; and if there’s more needed to comply with the Rule, then we will implement that. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: You’re welcome. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I had a question actually for the Director. It seems the applicant is asking to remove Condition D. And I guess my question would be are you satisfied with that? I guess the only ingress and egress is all from Manono, no Kekuanaoa anyway, yeah? And you already have two. So even if you remove that you’re not increasing the amount of egress and egress? ALAMEDA: Mr. Director. EXHIBIT A 4 YUEN: Well, I think we would want a condition requiring that they establish cross easements if the property is not consolidated. And they would implement it in connection with any new construction on the property so that you don’t have two properties that are forced to have their own accesses in and out, if you develop something further. Because once this is rezoned, although the current plan is different, they could develop quite a sizeable, there could be quite a sizeable commercial development put here. And if you had two separate buildings, we would prefer that there’d be some way to get from one, say you did not consolidate the property and you had two lots and you had two buildings on two lots, that you’d be able to, we would want to see a way to get from one building to the other without coming back out on the street. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe, follow-up? WATANABE: So then you have some wording to that effect? YUEN: Yeah, we have something that we would, I’m working on something right now that we could do. ALAMEDA: Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Mr. Lim, would that be agreeable to you? LIM: That will be agreeable to the applicant. WATANABE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Any further questions? Okay, well, go ahead, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: What’s the total square footage for the two parcels? DARROW: Thirty nine thousand seven hundred and seventy one square feet. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita, follow-up? IWASHITA: I guess my concern -. And the separate square footages for each parcel is? DARROW: Parcel 25 is 19,607 square feet. Parcel 26 is 20,164 square feet. IWASHITA: Part of my concern is the request is for changing the zoning to Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 so that, I guess, potentially in the future they can get three lots out of this on a subdivision. And the reason I bring this up is one of our more recent approvals which got through with over my no vote, is now, I see a sign for a subdivision on Manono Street for a Commercial approval. And, you know, so basically EXHIBIT A 5 we have, that developer and owner came here asking for a change from Residential to Commercial 10,000, I guess, that was that one; and now, you know, a few months later it’s going through a subdivision of that lot. And all of the Commissioners know of my concern about the strip mall implications of what we’re doing here, what was done there, what is being asked for us to be done here. And it seems to me that, you know, that doing it Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 square feet just has the potential for compounding my concern. So I guess my question to, I guess, the applicant and perhaps the Director is can’t we do it at a, you know, something that more approximates the current size of the lots so that we aren’t looking at a subdivision application a few months down the road to three lots from these two?. ALAMEDA: The applicant or Mr. Director, care to respond? Sir? LIM: Well, I guess, I’ll respond for the applicant. But we felt that the Neighborhood Commercial zoning was consistent with the other zonings that were existing and proposed in the area, it complies with the General Plan for the area in Waiakea House Lots. ALAMEDA: Mr. Director. YUEN: The rezoning to a Commercial area is consistent with the General Plan which actually, both has this as Medium Density Urban but also has a statement in the text of the General Plan that commercial developments within the Waiakea House Lots should be centered on a number of the major streets. And Kekuanaoa Street is specifically one of those streets. Just as a big picture on this, you know, Kekuanaoa Street is a very busy street that goes, a lot of the airport traffic goes on it. It’s got some significant commercial uses either on Kekuanaoa or quite close to Kekuanaoa, like Big Island Candies. Long-term it is probably not a great area of residential uses because of the kinds of traffic that’s on it. If the specific concern though is the potential for three lots rather than two, and it is correct that with the CN-10 zoning that’s requested it could be subdivided into three lots, having more lots does create a development problem. You wind up having, and if they’re developed separately like they decide to make a, and I don’t know if this would fit, but say they decided to make three 10,000 to 13,000 square foot commercial lots and sell them off separately and each had its own entrance, that’s the idea behind requiring the cross-easements for internal circulation. We could without changing the bill itself state that “No more than two lots shall be established.”That would create the possibility for a change in the lot lines but without the possibility of creating a third lot, which would be possible under the CN -10 zoning. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita, follow-up? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Director. You know, this application to me is another example of basically the lack of adequate controls that we have in terms of trying to create a more ideal environment, in particular in the House Lots area. And, yes, Kekuanaoa is a primary road that’s used to go to the airport and so forth. EXHIBIT A 6 But I think if you look down the road, you know, long-term, which is what we’re supposed to do, which is what the General Plan is supposed to provide some guidance on, I think the comments of the Director indicated, you know, basically, make it rather pointedly that, you know, we really don’t have any control over this. And as the Commissioners know, you know, my view is that if we keep going down this road and, you know, Big Island Candies is, so if you look at that map, you know, for me it’s a perfect example of spot zoning. How the heck did Big Island Candies get placed in the middle of a residential area? And now it’s being used as basically partial justification for all of the rezoning applications that come in in the House Lots area. And, you know, it is troublesome to me that, you know, this process that we’re going through allows essentially the development of a strip mall. And I’d like to hear from someone to tell me that that’s not what’s going to happen -- You know, take Kekuanaoa Street, we’re going to be basically looking at Dillingham Boulevard/Nimitz Highway kind of development in 20, 30 years, you know, down the road if we just keep doing these commercial zoning approvals as the Director is suggesting, you know, this is how it’s going to go. And, you know, keeping customer circulation parking within a certain area, that’s all fine and dandy. But the picture of Kekuanaoa Street being another, you know, Dillingham Boulevard or that kind of a scenario to me is not an ideal picture and one that we can avoid if we don’t approve this, and if we really press again to have the Community Development Plan done in a way so that the Houselot community can get together and say, you know, this is really how it should be done, and how we want it done, and how should look in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Point well taken. Commissioner Watanabe, would you like to comment? WATANABE: Yeah, I’ve got a question for Mr. Lim. Do you believe the applicant would have any objections to the limitation to two lots on this one? LIM: I’ve checked with the applicant and they’re agreeable to the limitation to keeping the two lots, so long as we can have the ability to consolidate and resubdivide those two lots and move the lines back and forth. WATANABE: Exactly, and still have the easement, the cross easement, right? LIM: Correct, that’s correct. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe, follow-up? WATANABE: So, Mr. Director, do you believe that would, for the most part, resolve this issue, yeah? Cause I kind of agree, I don’t think I’d want to see three entries onto Kekuanaoa on this, you know, this limited stretch. But I think that the cross- easements and the limitation to subdivide it into two lots would resolve that issue, for the most part, right? EXHIBIT A 7 YUEN: Well, it would definitely -. We could limit it to so that it, they cannot have more than two lots. But we can write a condition that will take care of that. ALAMEDA: Any other questions, Fellow Commissioners, before we move on to testimony? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? -. ALAMEDA: Sure, Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: The Hilo Development Plan right now designates the property as Medium Density, does it not, Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA: That’s correct. DOMINGO: Medium Density. YUEN: Right, yes. DOMINGO: And within that designation you can come in with residential units, like for instance, I think it states RM-4? YUEN: Well, actually, the Medium Density in the General Plan, the maximum stated is 35 units an acre, which is really quite a bit. It’s more like an RM- 1.25. And a CN zoning incorporates the possibility of an apartment building up to one unit per 1250 square feet. So you can have a fairly dense development within a CN zoning, you can have a fairly dense residential development. Usually that doesn’t happen but it is definitely a possibility. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Seeing no further questions, we have a testifier. Thank you, Mr. Lim, you may be seated. Could I please call Theresa M. McCrary. Please come forward. Ms. McCrary could I ask you to please raise your right hand. All right, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? MCCRARY: Yes, I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you for coming today. Could you please state your name and address for the record. MCCRARY: Yes, my name is Theresa M. McCrary, and with my partner Jeffrey Joseph. We live at 630 Hinano Street. ALAMEDA: Okay, Ms. McCrary. I know you’ve been listening to our discussion and -. EXHIBIT A 8 MCCRARY: Yes. ALAMEDA: Do you have any feedback for us today? MCCRARY: Yes, I do. I passed out -. ALAMEDA: Could you -. DARROW: Mrs. McCrary? MCCRARY: Oh, excuse me. DARROW: Could you use the mike, please. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Yeah, you know, we’re getting everything recorded, it will help our staff. Thank you. MCCRARY: Okay. I’m here to speak today in opposition of this rezoning. My partner and I have lived at 630 Hinano Street for approximately 18 years, we’ve lived on that property. We’ve seen a lot of changes occur in that neighborhood. We’re getting older. We hoped to be able to build a home on our back lot of our property, I’m sure you know that there. It’s by the Hinano Street property in question here, the Hinano and Kekuanaoa Street. So we directly look right at that property. And so we’re hoping at some point to be able to build our retirement home which should be in about, hopefully the retirement for us will be in the next five years on that back lot back there. We haven’t asked for that or anything, but that’s what we want to do on our back lot. And we have, as you well know from the earlier discussion today, all along objected. Sometimes I’ve felt that our objections were on deaf ears; but we’ve done the best we could and trying to be good neighbors with all of this. I’m not going to read what I’ve submitted to you folks, but for the folks here basically we’ve been in opposition to this. I’m just going to review it real quickly. And for a number of years we’ve listened to Green Tour buses coming and going from the Manono Street property now. And we in the past have taken pictures of that. That’s years ago, that’s water over the dam. We never complained because, again, we’re Hilo citizens and we try not to rock the boat. Okay? It was on the other, we’ve said, okay, Kekuanaoa and Manono we don’t see those buses for years and years. The hedges went up, we minded our own business, which we’ve always done. But when they purchased this other property and immediately moved forward with bulldozing and putting gravel in and moving their buses in, you know, that’s when we politely began to talk with our neighbors, which is the first step we took saying, you know, you can’t do this, this isn’t zoned for this. And we kept on and on, and they still kept on with the buses. And so we finally rather than to get into really arguments, we got in touch with the Planning Commission (sic) and started working with Mr. Usagawa. This was probably a year or so ago. We complained, they sent out violation letters. We complained because the buses EXHIBIT A 9 kept on coming, people weren’t listening. Okay, and we complained again, they sent out more letters Our reasoning here today, it’s really basic. This is our home. It’s the only home we’ll ever have. Okay, you know how that is in Hawaii. You sell your home in Hawaii and you’ve got to move. And we object to this because of the noise of the beeping buses. Okay? We object because of the safety hazards. We know, I’m not a planning, I’m not a traffic person. But I know looking on Kekuanaoa, you know, those buses are coming out, and I know you’ve all done some addressing to that. They’re pulling out into a turning zone, lane. Hinano Street is, there are accidents there often. There are bodily injury accidents there. I personally have often felt there needs to be a stoplight at Hinano Street anyway. Okay? I also have to, without changing the subject, I have to tell you, you brought up the Big Island Candy thing, I greatly, we greatly regret that we did not get involved in the same vein we are today with the Big Island Candy. Big Island Candy should have never been put there. Okay? Because it’s trying to change the face of the whole community. And the beeping buses over there are outrageous. Okay? But back to the conversation here -. We continue to complain, oh, and, well, the noise concerns, the safety concerns, and the visual appearances. And I’m going to show you here briefly, if you approve this, what you are doing to my home, okay, what you’re doing to us and where we live. Because that’s what it’s about. We are the people we believe that are most affected by this change, and I mean personally day and night. And so we’ve got the visual concerns. I will say also I wanted to, there was another comment that was made this morning regarding the fact that we had given them plants to plant. We did not give them plants to plant. That’s not a big deal but I just wanted to make that -. What I did say is if you’re going to do this, because obviously I felt like they were going to do this, then please put up a hedge; and I showed her the type of hedge. Now I want to go on record now as to saying that after a great deal of thought and looking at the hedge, the hedge is not going to stop the noise. The hedge is not going to stop the visual and ugly and unsightliness of these buses. So we have, then we talk about the noise pollution. I did a little research, decibels, I think that’s the word for it. Forty decibels wake up sensitive people. Okay, we have been woken up by these buses. Now the buses, there are rules. I believe that you guys are setting down conditions that will only allow them to operate these buses at certain times. You know, I’m going to show you why I don’t believe that the conditions will be followed. Okay? And once you turn your back you’re going to leave me, a little old lady, having to continue to fight this. Okay? Because I can’t sleep with the beeping buses. So 40 decibels wake up sensitive people. Seventy decibels wake up most people. A hundred and twenty decibels, I got this off the internet, 120 decibels causes human discomfort, pain in the ears. Beeping buses although it stops and goes, beep, beep, beep, it stops and goes, beeping buses have anywhere from 82 to 112 decibels on those beepers. Okay? And its not just, well, you know, I don’t have to go into that, beep and then back off, and forward, okay. The part, and moving buses as I’m going to show you in pictures here are within 30 feet of my dining room table. Okay, now this is where commercial EXHIBIT A 10 meets a, you know, the home, this is my home, okay. And the decisions you’re making today is going to affect us. The beeping buses will be within 30 feet of my dining room table. The part in moving buses and beeping buses will be, now think about this for yourself, 68 feet from my bed, okay, from my pillow. And remember 70 decibels will wake up most people. Now who is to say and what reason would I actually believe that these folks, although nice people and I understand where they’re coming from because I actually have a business as well, okay, who is to believe at this point, and I’m getting ready to show you, that these folks will actually follow the rules? I don’t believe it. And I’m asking for your help here. I do not believe that this area is, there’s community, there’s commercial neighborhood zoning I think. I just can’t believe that this is the intent of what you’re trying to do. Big Island Candies shouldn’t have been there, this shouldn’t be there. And, also, that little area in between the Manono and Hinano is not very big. So I think you’re addressing the fact that there just needs to be one coming and going. But still in all, has anybody done a traffic pattern study? I see people hauled out to the hospital all the time off of the Hinano Street, you know, area. You’re going to pull a bus out into a turning lane, you know, maybe you won’t have any people in it, maybe it will. Okay, so those are my concerns there. So I don’t believe, in summation, before I show you the photos, I don’t believe the plants on the property will reduce the noise or the unsightly view, which is terribly unsightly. And I did not give them the plants. And then, also, I want to make another point, a final point, according to Mr. Usagawa who I’ve spoke with numerously when the citations were sent, and I did get a copy of that, those, when they were sent to Green Tours it was to be, there was to be no buses on this property until this is rezoned. Okay, it’s not about, oh, I think today I’ve got to by and pick up some paperwork or I forgot something. What makes you believe if they couldn’t follow those rules, if they’re going to follow anything else? Okay? And, let’s see, so with that -. ALAMEDA: Can I ask you how long will that presentation take? Is it -? MCCRARY: I’m done with the presentation. This won’t take but a minute. ALAMEDA: All right, go ahead. MCCRARY: This won’t take but a minute. Okay, this right here, in fact, I tried to really staple these together last night. The buses have gone along, this right here is, and I can pass these (photos) around. This is, these were taken on 9/26 at 8 o’clock in the morning, Sunday morning, Sunday morning. And the photograph there shows the newspaper there which you can confirm that’s 8/26/2007. This is way after you folks have sent the citations. So, you know, this isn’t fair. The rules are not being followed. And you’re going to, if you approve this, you’re going to leave me having to fight this alone. Okay? That’s 8/26. Now then let’s talk about what happened. So then I complained again and then Mr. Usagawa said, you know, I’ll call the lawyer. They’re not supposed to be doing this. It’s not about doing it for five minutes. It’s following the rules. Again, I’m a business EXHIBIT A 11 person. You know, I’ve always said, and I’m not perfect, but it’s like tell me what the rules are and I will follow. Okay? As a business person you have to do that. Nine- twenty two, when was that, ten days ago? Ten days ago, buses, beep, beep, beep, beep, buses at my back door. Okay, remember the property line is, what did I say, 30 feet from the center of my dining room table. And these are the views that I get coming out of my house. This is 9/22, 9/22 at 8:14 in the morning. This was Monday morning. This was way after you’ve sent out letters you will cease and desist. Okay? ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow? MCCRARY: And this is 9/22, if you’d like to send that around. Finally, and I’m two minutes from being done here. Surely you all must own homes. This is what you are relegating me to. And do you think for one minute that they’re going to put those buses over there in that one little orange section on, I think that’s Lot 2A? They’re not going to listen to what you’ve said. They’ve not listened all along, and they’ve not listened to me as a kind neighbor trying to talk to them. This right here I want, take a look and think about this for your home. This is 30 feet away, this right here. Actually, some of these showing my back yard use are just a nightmare. And so are they going to be doing a baseyard? They’re going to be, you move right along, well, they’ve got to -. I’ve seen them in the past changing oil or whatever they do to those things. Okay, what else are we going to have? What other policing am I going to have to do just because I want to be able to sleep at night? And, also, there have been times, and we are aware, and we do know, most of the time the beeping is 8 o’clock in the morning, 7:50 to 8:30 in the morning; and then the last buses come in at about 6 o’clock in the evening. Okay? However, when you get holidays, let’s talk holidays, this past year I was reduced -. The only time I ever actually got mad, I mean really mad, I was a screaming idiot at 12:30 at night. They brought the buses in. Now I believe it was either New Years, or right around there, or some comet, or something that had had happened this past year, they brought the buses in at 12:30 at night and were beep, beep, beep. I was out there hollering. That’s the only time I ever got angry about this. ALAMEDA: Ms. McCrary -. MCCRARY: Yes. ALAMEDA: I need to submit this for the record. Could I mark, could I mark it 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, like that? MCCRARY: You can, yes, yes. So that’s really all I have to say for my partner and myself. We humbly, humbly, humbly ask you to consider what you are doing. As Mr. Andrew Iwashita, yes? IWASHITA: Iwashita. EXHIBIT A 12 MCCRARY: Yes. Okay, as he stated, you know, you’re making decisions here that’s going to affect the community a long time from now. And I know as well as you that the people that live in that area, they’re all older people, but we ain’t dead yet, you know. And we don’t want to listen to the buses, we don’t want to listen -. I already have to listen to Big Island Candies which I very much regret. So any questions? ALAMEDA: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What if we take away the buses? MCCRARY: And then what do you have, what do you have? DOMINGO: Yeah, I mean, your complaint is that the buses are causing a lot of noise and everything, the beep. What if we take away the buses? MCCRARY: Take away the buses, that’s a good thing. Take away the buses, but now then we’re going to have the employees. We’ve also had a problem with the employees coming in there, which that’s not as big a deal. But I think particularly any of you that are in contracting or big construction, when you put a gravel parking lot down, this causes, when people come on it a really yucky noise where that -. Okay, so we have been disturbed by that. But we are reasonable people, okay. Beeping buses are a nuisance, and we don’t want to look at them. If you see those pictures, think about my new house that hopefully one day you all will approve; and it’s going to be two-story, cause that’s a small lot. I’m going to be looking down at buses, you know. So removing the buses, that’s a good thing. The plants, those Podocarpus are not going to stop the view problems, you know; and I did think that a year ago. ALAMEDA: Follow-up? DOMINGO: What if -? ALAMEDA: Go ahead, follow-up. DOMINGO: What if we paved the parking area where the buses park at this time? MCCRARY: But you’ll still have the busing, you still have the bus problem. Yes, if this goes through -. DOMINGO: Okay. I mean you’re talking, you’re referring to the workers who work there. MCCRARY: Yeah. EXHIBIT A 13 DOMINGO: What if we pave that? MCCRARY: Oh, for the workers to work there, absolutely if that can happen. I don’t like the rock noise. Okay? DOMINGO: Okay, now we’ll pave, we’ll concrete the area where they park. Now what would be your take on that? MCCRARY: If the buses were not there and -. DOMINGO: Okay, we take away the buses. MCCRARY: And the employees came in with a paved parking lot, that’s okay. But how about -? DOMINGO Okay. And then we have the workers come in and park there. Okay -. MCCRARY: Yeah. That would be quieter, that would be okay. Then you still have the traffic coming and going. DOMINGO: But that would be acceptable to you? MCCRARY: I think, what do you think, Jeff -? NOMURA: Microphone. MCCRARY: Oh, you can’t sit over there and talk. JOSEPH: Never mind. MCCRARY: The busing, beeping buses and the coming and going at all hours at night is the problem, and the gravel noise. So I believe, speaking on the fact that he can’t be up here now, is that employees coming and going if you -. DARROW: Mrs. McCrary, could you please your microphone. MCCRARY: Oh, I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry. Employees coming and going with a paved driveway would be acceptable, I think, if the buses were gone. But remember we’ve got a clear history here up to ten days ago, they’re not going to follow the rules, I don’t believe. I mean we’ve done everything, including the one screaming fit I had about it. So that’s an issue. And am I going to be having to police this two years from now. DOMINGO: Well, what if the Multiple-Family Residential units are built there? MCCRARY: Multiple-Family Resi-? EXHIBIT A 14 DOMINGO: Residential units? MCCRARY: You mean like a condo or like a -? DOMINGO: Yes. MCCRARY Yeah, that is at least in the, I would certainly want a rockwall or something in there. I wouldn’t want a -. DOMINGO: How high? MCCRARY: How high? As high as you can get it. You know, as high as you can get it. DOMINGO: You know, I’m not being facetious but you said that, you know, when you build your new home and -. MCCRARY: Oh, you’ve got to look down over that, yeah. DOMINGO: You’re looking down and you’re looking at the Podocarpus trees that that is an unsightly situation for you. So, you know, I’m asking you if multiple family residential units are put there -. So what you’re saying is you want the wall to go as high as the unit itself so that you won’t see anything but just a blank a wall right in front of you? The moment you open your window you see nothing but a wall? MCCRARY: I know, and I’m not sure that that’s an answer either. You know, I’d rather this just go away; and I don’t think it’s going to. DOMINGO: So you want, what you’re saying is that you don’t want anything at all there, with the exception of what’s there today? MCCRARY: If this moves forward, there has got to be something there, you know, to separate the property so that we don’t have to look at that. It’s not going to address me looking down into the area. If the buses aren’t there, that’s a major, major problem that has gone away. Buses cause beeping and they cause diesel or fumes, I don’t know whether it’s diesel, but they cause the fumes which rise. That’s the major thing. I’m not -. DOMINGO: Thank you very much. MCCRARY: Okay. Did I answer -? I mean, I hope I did. DOMINGO: Yeah, you did. MCCRARY: Yeah, okay. EXHIBIT A 15 ALAMEDA: I’d like to make note, just for the record, that the exhibits that you shared with us it went from A to Z, and then AA and then BB. So I’d like to submit those Exhibits A to Z and AA and BB for the record. MCCRARY: Okay, so you’re going to keep those? ALAMEDA: No, you can have them back. MCCRARY: Okay. ALAMEDA: There are a lot of pictures. DOMINGO: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I? ALAMEDA: Sure, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know I noticed a majority of those pictures have been taken on a given day, on a Sunday morning, on a Sunday. MCCRARY: Yes. DOMINGO: And the other date I noticed was 9/22 -. MCCRARY: Monday. nd DOMINGO: Monday, October 22, Monday. MCCRARY: No, 9/22, ten (sic) days ago. DOMINGO Okay. So what we’re looking at is two instances where the buses have been parked there and -. MCCRARY: The buses continued to be park there until -. DOMINGO: Every day? MCCRARY: No, no, no. No, these were the two instances that I caught. I’m usually gone, okay? I don’t know, I don’t think that they come every day. I mean I don’t think these people are trying to do this. What I pointed out by bringing this to you is that if you think you’re going to set down rules that’s going to be followed I don’t think so, you know. Mr. Usagawa told me that, oh, well, you know, there will only be allowed to operate their buses from 8:30 in the morning until 4:30 in the afternoon, Monday through Friday, or whatever it was. I don’t think that’s, I don’t think they’re going to listen to that because they haven’t listened all along. You know, it took me six months to get them to go and talk to the planning people, you know, but it just continued on. EXHIBIT A 16 ALAMEDA: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Well, you know, I kind of -. ALAMEDA: Do you have a question for her? Could I let our testifier go or do you still have questions? DOMINGO: Well, just in response to what she said, you know, I kind of question about the ability of the Planning Department being able to enforce these rules. You know, they’ve been diligent in trying to do what they can; and it brings me back to a situation where a special permit was issued and there are constantly being infractions with regards to performance of the conditions. You know, they were asked to pay a fine every day; and as I calculated it probably would have amounted up to $40,000 of fine for infraction of one item on that special permit. So, you know, as far as the Planning Department being able to do it, there are ways in which it can be done and it is done. So, you know, I don’t question their ability to enforce the conditions that we imposed through any kind of a land use matter. MCCRARY: And I certainly didn’t mean to say that they had not being doing their job because I think Mr. Usagawa was very, very responsive to me. You know, we try not to be, we have tried to be, complain when the complaints were appropriate and photographed when it was appropriate, and tried not to get to the point that nobody would listen to us, you know. ALAMEDA: Ms. McCrary, I was just informed by our staff that we do have to keep those pictures. MCCRARY: Okay, that’s fine. ALAMEDA: Is that okay? MCCRARY: Yeah, that’s fine. ALAMEDA: All right. Thanks. MCCRARY: Now will they be at the County Council? ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow, what happens with the pictures? MCCRARY: Those pictures cost me fifty bucks. ALAMEDA: That’s a lot of pictures. DARROW: They will be with the file which I believe is transferred. EXHIBIT A 17 ALAMEDA: Goes up, it’s transferred. DARROW: Yeah, but I’m not sure about that. Oh, it may not, it may stay with us. ALAMEDA: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Let’s make a colored Xerox of her photos and have them available for her to pick up her originals later. DARROW: Okay, will do. MCCRARY: I have one letter, I have CDs with me if you’d like those. YUEN: Or if you have a CD we can, we can print a colored copy of it and return her originals to her, yeah. MCCRARY: Off of the CDs, okay that’s fine. That way I have them available. YUEN: Because normally the entire file is not sent up to the County Council. ALAMEDA: Oh, all right. Thanks for that clarification. It’s good to know. That is a lot of pictures. So we want to let you go. MCCARY: Yes, and I’m sure, I’m sure you do. Thank you very much for listening to me; and I appreciate your efforts at looking at this fairly. ALAMEDA: We will. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your preparations. I’d like to call up one more testifier. Can I ask Dorothy Hirowatari, please come forward. Mrs., I’m going to ask you to, Ms. Hirowatari, can you raise your right hand. HIROWATARI: Yes. ALAMEDA: Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? HIROWATARI: Yes. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Mrs. Hirowatari, go ahead. HIROWATARI: I’m a realtor by trade and I own that two parcels. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT A 18 ALAMEDA: Yes? WATANABE: For the record, name, address? ALAMEDA: Oh, thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. I forgot to ask you, Mrs., can you state your name and address for the record? HIROWATARI: Oh, my name is Dorothy Hirowatari. I now occupy the back home. ALAMEDA: Your address? HIROWATARI: It’s 556A (Hinano Street); and 556 I’m trying to renovate it and do things. ALAMEDA: Okay. Let me ask our staff. Do we need a Zip Code and everything? Is that okay, 556A? NOMURA: Yes. ALAMEDA: Okay, we’re good. All right, go ahead. HIROWATARI: I know a lot of you on board here and I was impressed with, you know, your comments. But right now not only the buses do have this beeping sound. My daughter has an SUV, a Ford, and they fixed it so even she has a beep on her -. And if you don’t look out you might just see a truck, really. You know, but with what I see going on, you have ways of doing things, like putting up a firewall and using all that parcel; and the County cannot stop, you know, us. You look at Hank Correa’s building, that’s a firewall. He doesn’t have any windows, the back and sides; and he has got it all in the front. I congratulate him. I inherited, you know, I bought these properties on 600 Kinoole which is my office; and that had a firewall because of the comments of the Fernandez family; and I’m not allowed to put any. So maybe she should do that. You know, we can’t just turn somebody down for getting a zoning. We have to do a lot more; and it’s not easy for what we do in this world. Well, also, I want to give you a comment. I think the applicant is more trying to get the one zoned more towards Manono Street area.But her father and mother for years owned four, I would say approximately four or five parcels. They had junk homes over there. And I don’t know if you folks can help on this matter. I was hearing this bulldozer operator going out on Sundays. That’s when nobody is working, the County is, you know, gone maybe to Kona for more work, but I’m not angry as to what went on. But I think there should be some injunctions to clarify what Andrew said. Things are, you’re giving the approval and they come in for some work, you know, and then you’re faced with people bulldozing the land. And I never had chance enough to go and ask if they came in to get a permit. EXHIBIT A 19 I can be a developer, I can use, you know, somebody’s license to do the work and then blame the guy for not doing his work. I’m very much angry because all these years that properties adjoining her parents were bulldozed, left high with tall trees, bad trees coming into, you know, my friend’s property which I now control. And then when they were done the last time, I said to the bulldozer operator, “Isn’t that a cesspool?” And it’s close by, many years built, grandfathered. And he says, “yeah.” I says, “Well, could you as a bulldozer operating go back to whoever you’re working with and let them know that I’m concerned this is going on?” And I don’t feel like I’d like to be on the wrong side of the Hara or Nekoba family. ALAMEDA: So, tell me, do you have any other comments regarding this application? HIROWATARI: Well, I would personally think that before you, if these people do things, you have guidelines, that you must work with their engineers on this. ALAMEDA: Okay. HIROWATARI: I don’t intend to have my friend, Planning Director, go and do all this work. ALAMEDA: Okay. HIROWATARI: You folks as lay people appointed have to help and make sure batteries are buried, cesspools that was brought out, and it has to be like I had gone through as a realtor, get the owner to take out all the trash in there, backfill it. And my husband made a bad example. You know, I didn’t know this until I went back to the planners and they told me “George not supposed to do that. He’s supposed to dig it all out and have the inspector go in and check it out.” I don’t think those things were done. ALAMEDA: All right, any other comments before I let you go? HIROWATARI: I probably opened a can of worms. ALAMEDA: That’s okay. HIROWATARI: But I think these are the concerns in not only zoning, agreeing to any kind of zoning, but there must be some good and bad parts. When this lady complained, I think you folks should have told her that she could have put a firewall. And you folks are listening. And then the other day I was watching the tourists walking around and they going, walking towards Big Island Candies. I don’t think there was a big bus. It must have been just a min-bus that stopped there and they jumped out, they go I think to Atebara maybe Potato Chips, and then they walk on the sidewalk and then go to -. But I didn’t stop and ask them, I could’ve. EXHIBIT A 20 ALAMEDA: How you say, “aye, sos, Maria.” That’s how you say it, huh? Anyway, we’re going to let you go now. Thank you. Any questions for our testifier? Okay. HIROWATARI: But you cannot just rezone. ALAMEDA: We hear you, we hear you. HIROWATARI: Okay? ALAMEDA: We’re going to let you go. Thank you. HIROWATARI: You need to kind of worry about the aftermath. ALAMEDA: Ma’am? HIROWATARI: When you buy lot of -. ALAMEDA: Ma’am? Time out, time, time. We’ve got to stick to the merits of this application or else we’re going to go way off track. So I’m going to ask you for any last comments for this application only, and not going off on tangents. Do you have any other comments for this application? HIROWATARI: I approve any kind of development provided they stick to the rules. ALAMEDA: Okay. HIROWATARI: But when you cannot do the in between, that’s what I’m here to talk about. ALAMEDA: And we hear you. HIROWATARI: It’s not fair. ALAMEDA: And we heard you. Thank you so much. HIROWATARI: I don’t want to, I don’t want to, excuse me, sir. I don’t want to be in this world, yeah -. I’m seventy something years old. I’ve been in business for almost 40 years. I don’t want people to take advantage of me. I don’t want to take advantage of them. I sleep every night. ALAMEDA: Okay. We hear you. HIROWATARI: And it’s important that you folks sit on this Board and yet be able to go out and help the other agencies within the system to correct this before it gets out of hand. I don’t want to live next door and I get these toxic fumes. EXHIBIT A 21 ALAMEDA: Okay. HIROWATARI: You should see what they have done now. Do your home work. See if they had gone and applied for grading.You’ve got a lot of agencies. We pay a lot of taxes for these kind of quality work. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right, thank you. HIROWATARI: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you for your testimony. HIROWATARI: You want me to write it down, what I gave you? ALAMEDA: No -. HIROWATARI: I can give it to you after. ALAMEDA: No, everything is documented and recorded. HIROWATARI: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Yeah, it will be in the transcripts. Thank you. All right, any other testifiers? Seeing none, I’d like to take a five-minute recess, if that’s okay. There’s no objections? All right, five minutes. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 10:04 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:13 a.m. ALAMEDA: All righty, well, we heard testimony from Mrs. McCrary and Mrs. Hirowatari, more than we wanted to probably. That’s okay. Anyway, we’d like to call up the applicant or representative again. Mr. Lim, I know you’ve sat back there and listened to the testimony, and hearing the reactions back and forth. How about you share with us your thoughts at this moment? LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we stated, and I think maybe for Mr. Joseph and Ms. McCrary, I wanted to make it clear that the proposed rezoning is not going to let them park the, what we call the mini buses, those tall ones that you have the pictures of. You know, the picture that they showed, I think the last set of pictures showing the three or four mini buses parked up on the property, that was way back in 2006; and that was what resulted in the notice of violation. So those are all gone. Those are all now parked at Silva Street. So you won’t see those parked there. You know, the only reason why we can figure out why they were there just recently was that someone EXHIBIT A 22 was picking up something and it wasn’t a situation that they were, you know, trying to use the area for the, what we’ll call a baseyard use. ALAMEDA: Mr. Director? YUEN: Yeah, could I just jump in with -. ALAMEDA: Sure. YUEN: With some clarification of permitted uses on the site. The CN rezone would permit a number of things, including office use, including retail establishments. And there’s quite a range of things that will be permitted. It would not allow a commercial parking lot and garage. And it would not permit, there are other similar kinds of uses. The word, the exact term for a bus baseyard is not in the Zoning Code. Another close thing is transportation terminals. So you can’t, you can have vehicles that are, you can park vehicles that are accessory to a permitted use. For example, if you had a retail establishment you could have a delivery van or you could have a truck which you use to pick up things from the dock to bring to your store. But say you had an office or a trucking company in a CN zone, you couldn’t park all the trucks for the trucking company in the parking lot. A CN zone, the purpose of, it’s useful sometimes to look at the purposes, besides the permitted uses. But it’s commercial activities which shall be such a size and shape as will accommodate a compact shopping center which supplies goods and services to a residential or working population for a frequent need or convenience basis. This district is distinguished from a central commercial district which provides general business and broad services to a city or a region. So the actual, you know, a baseyard for parking buses, a trucking parking area, is potentially a CV zone, potentially a CG, potentially a, but best actually, best is in an ML zone. And they do have a parking area or they do have a baseyard area on Silva Street on an ML zone. Now that being said, we had a discussion, and I think Mr. Lim understands that, and that they would be parking the buses elsewhere.But then we had a discussion about the fact that they live on the property and they have vans that they also registered. And why don’t you talk about that for minute. ALAMEDA: Mr. Lim? LIM: Right now when you go to the property you will see two, I think they’re 10- or 12-passenger vans. They’re like, you know, like one of those white vans that you see out here, the delivery vans.And those are owned one by Dien Nekoba and one by Cindy Nekoba, her daughter. So they use those for personal, you know, go to the store and those types of things; and then part-time they use those for passenger vans for the tours if they’re needed. The most, I guess the biggest, the largest bulk of their business comes in off of that mini bus that they have now stored down at Silva Street. There’s, I think, five of them at the present time. EXHIBIT A 23 ALAMEDA: Follow-up? YUEN: And we would look at that as basically okay while they were living on the property. And to give an example of this similar kind of accommodation, if a plumber has a van that has, you know, Al’s Plumbing on the sign, the plumbing company is full of plumbing equipment, and the person takes it home and parks it at their home in an RS zone, we do not cite people for that kind of usage. It’s a vehicle that they use at work but they also, it’s also used as a personal vehicle that they may drive around in or they may go to and from work. So we don’t look at that as a violation even in an RS zone. So I don’t think we need to say anything specifically in the zoning conditions about that kind of usage. But it needs to be, I think we do have an understanding here on the record that the CN zoning does not authorize the use of the site as a baseyard for buses. Then on the other issue, on the issues, you know, we did have complaints, we did cite the complaints and they did establish a baseyard in an ML zone for the buses as a result of the complaints. I don’t look at that as a failure of our enforcement process. If there were other violations then we, if we have other complaints we will follow-up on those and investigate it and see if there was a violation. And then the final thing I did want to mention though that there has been this discussion of the, and this is a recurrent thing in the Waiakea House Lots area, a conflict between commercial and residential uses. The General Plan does identify the area as Medium Density Urban which opens the opportunity for commercial uses, that passed the County Council. There’s also a course of action in the General Plan that talks about Kekuanaoa Street being a site for a future commercial development; and that also passed the County Council in 2005 as a specific course of action. ALAMEDA: Mr. Lim, response? LIM: I guess it’s finally, we’d like to give the Planning Commission the applicant’s commitment that they understand fully the ramifications of any of those mini busses coming onto the property. So we’re going to take additional steps to make sure that that doesn’t happen. We’d ask for your support of this rezoning. I think Mr. Watanabe has a question. ALAMEDA: Okay. Sure, Mr. Watanabe, question for Mr. Lim or the Director? WATANABE: Yeah, I have a question for Mr. Lim. Earlier I asked if you would agree or the applicant would agree to limiting subdivision or resubdivision to two parcels. And another thing has come up, maybe we can just change the zoning to CN-15 or something like that which automatically states that, given the lot size. LIM: We could agree to the first where there’d be no more than two lots on the rezoned property. We couldn’t agree to the second cause that would require us to reprocess the whole application. EXHIBIT A 24 WATANABE: Oh, oh, I see. Okay, and then the cross easements are not an issue and also the Hinano Street improvements are not an issue? Those are all acceptable conditions? LIM: Yes, we’d ask that the Hinano Street curb, gutter, sidewalk be deferred until we redevelop the property, as noted in our proposal. But all the others are acceptable to the applicant. WATANABE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Okay, any other follow-up? WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Follow-up for the Director, given the feedback we’ve just gotten from the applicant’s representative, would you be able to restate maybe Condition, I guess that will be D, yeah; and I don’t know if you’re going to add a new condition for the maximum two-lot zoning. YUEN: Well, first we recommend the Hinano Street improvements be required. The second is that we are willing to recommend substituting for D that the applicant shall either consolidate Parcels 25 or 26 prior to receipt of final plan approval for any development on the property or shall establish cross-easements to permit a traffic circulation between TMK Nos., and insert the two TMK numbers that would be implemented in connection with any construction of new buildings or any subdivision of the properties. Any access points other than the existing driveways shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. And then add a condition that no more than two lots shall be created from the subject properties, and insert the two TMK numbers. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe, follow-up. WATANABE: Just for clarification, you indicated you would recommend the Hinano Street improvements, but as submitted I believe the wording says deferred until future development then. And are you in agreement with it as it’s constructed? YUEN: No. We would support the request of the Public Works Department. And given that this is a rezone of the property that does allow a significant amount of commercial use, and this is a corner property, and we’re not creating a situation where there’s a sidewalk that doesn’t connect to anything else, we still would recommend that the Hinano Street improvements be required. ALAMEDA: Okay. Follow-up? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Because we had such impassioned testimony, I -. If there’s no other questions I would move that we close the hearing. EXHIBIT A 25 ALAMEDA: Are there any other questions for Mr. Lim? Also for the public and for the testifiers, and the applicants, we only get to make a recommendation at this level, and then it goes up. You know, cause we have a bunch of personalities here, but then it goes up to the County Council and they have a bunch of personalities, too. So it’s going to be a process, okay? So just so you know. No further questions, then I can ask Mr. Lim if, can Mr. Lim stay there? Yeah? YUEN: Yeah. ALAMEDA: Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the hearing. WATANABE: I move to close the hearing, public hearing. WOODWARD: Second. ALAMEDA: All right, those in favor say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ALAMEDA: So noted. All right, anybody care to entertain a motion? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I move to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for Change of Zone Application REZ 07-000071 with the revised Condition D which addresses either the consolidation of Parcels 25 and 26 or establishment of cross- easements, as well as the limitation of resubdivision of those parcels into no more than two lots, and also with the addition of Condition F which requires the improvements to the frontage along Hinano Street, and the renumbering of the remaining conditions. ALAMEDA: Is there a second? DOMINGO: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak in opposition to the motion. In that regard, I’d like to actually cite the rationale that is quoted in a later matter we’re hearing, but basically it’s this: The proposed rezoning action for a Single-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial is not consistent with the applicable goals, policies, standards and courses of action of the General Plan for this area.In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the zoning amendment needs to be consistent with the applicable goals, policies, standards and courses of action of the General Plan. The current use of the property is consistent with the EXHIBIT A 26 goals, policies and standards of the Land Use (Single-Family Residential) Element of the General Plan and should not be amended. The location of the designated single-family residential lands in this area is important in that they are located in close proximity to centers of employment, shopping and other conveniences, and have the basic improvements and amenities necessary for development. The Land Use and Commercial Elements require that a change of zone request be evaluated for a particular area in relationship to the following goals, policies, standards and courses of action: Land Use Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. Zone urban- and rural-types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers with adequate public utilities and facilities. Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. Encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. Commercial Development Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. Commercial facilities shall be developed in areas adequately served by necessary services, such as water, utilities, sewers, and transportation systems. Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, commercial and regional needs. Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central core area. The request is contrary to the Land Use goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan is intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve lands for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space. Land Use is one of the EXHIBIT A 27 principle focal points of public concern and policy. The Land Use element, which also includes a Commercial sub-element, provides the basis for control and guidance of public and private resources. The request is not consistent with the Land Use - Commercial Development goals and policies of the General Plan, which state: Encourage the concentration of commercial uses within and surrounding a central core area. Provide commercial, and in this regard I would point out that the applicant has already established its business in other properly zoned areas. There is no eminent need for this zoning change. Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. The proposed request fails to address the fundamental problems associated with the development of commercial property in this particular area, which is the inability to establish an effective land use pattern. And you look at the map, I would suggest at this point, and there is really -. You know, it’s a map; it shows basically spot zoning going on at, you know, with the authorization of this body and the County Council in the recent past. The effective land use planning requires a regional perspective towards establishing a proper land use pattern within a given area. The proposed request would be better located and already is located within established commercial-industrial areas, which are located within close proximity to the property, or within other commercially-zoned sites, rather than spreading into residential neighborhoods not planned for such commercial - uses Another consideration is the potential for encouraging strip commercial development should the request be approved. Approval of the request may attract the “in-filling” of lands between the established commercial areas by other commercial developments or could extend commercial development further, in this case, east and west, creating strip development in this area. Such strip development would create rapid growth increase in adverse impacts to traffic, as one testified, expressed, as multiple access points would be required for such developments along Kekuanaoa Street. The words I’ve just read basically comes from the Department’s recommendation for an unfavorable recommendation in Item 3 on our agenda today, but the words fit this case. But in this case we have a different recommendation. The last paragraph I’m going to read, “Therefore, from a land use perspective, to allow higher density commercial uses through the CN zoning in this area would be inappropriate at this time, in my mind, especially because the applicant already has adequate facilities that services its business needs. Allowing this change of zone would undoubtedly serve as a precedent for future rezonings for commercial uses along Kekuanaoa Street in this area. Based on the above, the CN-10 zoning is not appropriate for this property. EXHIBIT A 28 The distinction that the Department is making between this application and the one on Item 3 is that the one on Item 3 the LUPAG designation is Low Density Urban; and in this it is Medium Density Urban. And just as a historical footnote, I would point out that that designation, Medium Density Urban for this area, was made in 2005 basically in, and I regard, a stealth manner. It was not, up until that time the community, at the community’s specific request Low Density, it had been previously Medium Density Urban. And when all of the hoopla occurred on, Jeff, can you help me, the name of that street by the Civic -. DARROW: This street here? IWASHITA: No, no, the one that goes by the Civic towards Kanoelehua. DARROW: Piilani. IWASHITA: Piilani Street. Thank you, Jeff. When that zoning change came up and those businesses came up and there was considerable neighborhood uproar about that, the zoning was changed from Medium Density Urban to Low Density Urban. The neighborhood did not come back and ask for an increase in the Medium Density Urban back in 2005. It’s something that happened. And now we’re having, if it didn’t happen we wouldn’t be dealing with this today. If, you know, but it did happen and so we’re dealing with this. But at the same time in 2005 what happened in the General Plan amendments was the implementation, the planned implementation portion of the General Plan, 15.1, Community Development Plans; and this is really the process that should be followed before any action like this should be taken. The Community Development Plans are intended to be a form for community input into managing growth and coordinating the delivery of government services to the community. The Community Development Plans will translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas, i.e. house lots. A Community Development Plan should direct physical development and public improvements within a specific area. You know, this is real nice word, idealistic words, right? And my point is that these words should be implemented, that if we want “preferred future” if we want something other than the strip mall development that the Department’s adverse recommendation comments are bringing up in Item 3 that I read earlier, then this is what should be done. This is the process we have. The Community Development Plan may contain detailed land use and zoning guide maps, plans for roadways, drainage, parks, other infrastructure and public facilities, architectural design guidelines -- and when you’re going to have lots of mixed uses in an area like House Lots that we’re envisioning, those are the kinds of things that really should be addressed; and we have absolutely nothing in the conditions about these things -- planning for watersheds and other natural features, and any other matters relating to the planning area. EXHIBIT A 29 I thank the Commissioners and the public for your indulgence in ascending to my making a record of this; but I think very appropriately in this case that we have, in my mind, very contradictory recommendations being made by the Department on two separate matters in this. But when you read the words, you read these words about an adverse recommendation, there is no way to distinguish this case from the one we have on an adverse recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. All right, any other comments? Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Yeah, I have a couple of problems with this application. And part of it is that we have a situation where the people have another site for their business. There have been citations for illegal use of the property. We have resistance from the only neighbors we’ve heard from, and I don’t see really a clear reason why they absolutely have to have this property rezoned to forward their business interest. LIM: Excuse me, Commissioner. I’d like to make a statement, it’s something that was also said by Mr. Iwashita, too. But the Silva Street property that we have a lease on for the baseyard use doesn’t allow the present business. It’s two separate things, a baseyard use where the buses are and the commercial office use for the tour operation that we’re using it as. So there is really no alternative. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita, promise me you’re not going to take the same amount of time we just took (jokingly). IWASHITA: Well, it depends on Mr. Lim’s response. I was going to ask Mr. Lim -. ALAMEDA: Well, actually, the hearing is closed and we did take a vote on that. And that’s why I was a little bit nervous to let the applicant’s representative actually sit there. IWASHITA: Okay, so point of order, your honor. Then I agree with the Chair’s ruling that it’s closed, so the record is a record. ALAMEDA: Okay. IWASHITA: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any other comments or -? All right. Well, we have a motion on the floor right now, by Commissioner Watanabe, and it was seconded by Commissioner Domingo. And seeing no further questions, I’d like to ask Mr. Darrow for the call. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin with the roll call, I need to get clarification from Commissioner Watanabe on the motion. The conditions that are EXHIBIT A 30 being changed are Condition D -. And do we, is it my understanding that we have a new conditions regarding the condition -? WATANABE: Oh, excuse me. The condition after is the same. Yeah, I misspoke. So I was looking at the suggested, but we clarified that with the Director that he would require those, he would prefer that those be required. DARROW: Okay. Now Condition D requires either the consolidation of the cross-easements, is the condition that requires the lot to remain two lots, is that a separate condition or -? WATANABE: Yes. DARROW: Okay. So we have an added condition. So we have a revised Condition D, and we have an added Condition E, and then we’ll realphabetize all conditions after that. Is that correct? WATANABE: Yeah, that was the intent. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. With that I’ll take the roll. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council with a revised Condition D, a new Condition E, and all conditions after that realphabetized. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: No. EXHIBIT A 31 DARROW: And Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: The motion does not pass, four to two. ALAMEDA: All right. So that motion and the materials and the minutes and the documents will all go up to the County Council? WATANABE: No. We review it -. TORIGOE: No -. ALAMEDA: Oh, not. It doesn’t? The recommendation doesn’t go up still yet? I mean the documents doesn’t go up to the County Council, not yet? DARROW: At this time the motion did not pass. So we still have time. I believe the background and recommendation were just sent out 10/26. Okay, so we still have quite a bit of time. ALAMEDA: Oh, we do have-. Oh, that’s right. So we’ll see you guys again then. TORIGOE: Unless somebody has another motion to make. ALAMEDA: Unless somebody has another motion, then. TORIGOE: You have to have five votes. ALAMEDA: Yeah. I don’t think so. WATANABE: Four-two, we’re not going to make. ALAMEDA: Yeah, so we have I think 90 days. Jeff, could you explain to the public so people can understand how this works, now that it didn’t get the five votes either way? DARROW: At this time, because the motion does not pass with five, with a majority of the votes, for a favorable or unfavorable, we have a period of time, 120 days, that we can take a revote. And so at this time we do have approximately a little less than four months still left to be able to bring this item back on the agenda. ALAMEDA: Okay, Mr. Watanabe? WATANABE: Mr. Chair, I move that we continue this application to the next Hilo meeting. Would that be agreeable to the applicant? EXHIBIT A 32 ALAMEDA: And just for the record, I think it’s 90 days, yeah, Mr. Darrow? YUEN: Yes. DARROW: Ninety days, okay, I stand corrected. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe has asked that we put this agenda item again on the agenda. For what, the next Hilo meeting? WATANABE: Yes. LIM: Yes, the applicant would agree. DOMINGO: Second. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right. So we’ll put this on the agenda item for the next Hilo meeting. PUBLIC: I have a question -. ALAMEDA: And maybe you can ask a question to the staff, sorry. PUBLIC: Okay. ALAMEDA: Any further comments? th DARROW: The next Hilo meeting is scheduled for December 7, for your information. th ALAMEDA: December 7. WATANABE: We need to have a vote, right? ALAMEDA: Okay, all those in favor for putting this on the agenda, next Hilo agenda, all those in favor say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ALAMEDA: All those not in favor say nay? Seeing no objection, for the record, it will be on the next Hilo agenda. And that will be Round 2. Okay, take care. Thank you very much. EXHIBIT A 33 The discussion ended at 10:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 34