Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-07 Hearing Transcript - Hilo Medical Center REZ 14-175WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 7, 2016 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of HILO MEDICAL CENTER (REZ 14-175) was called to order at 9:32 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gregory Henkel, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donald Ikeda. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager) (to 10:25 a.m.), Susan Gagorik (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 11 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HILO MEDICAL CENTER (REZ 14-175) Application for a Change of Zone from Single -Family Residential -7,500 square feet (RS -7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial -7,500 square feet (CN -7.5) for 9,230 square feet of land. The subject property is located along that portion of Punahele Street approximately 200 feet east (makai) of its intersection with Komohana Street and directly across from the Hawaii Community Correctional Facility, Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-3-035:018. HENKEL: So, we'll go to Item No. 4. The Applicant is the Hilo Medical Center, REZ 14-175, and presenting will be Maija Jackson. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. DELA CRUZ/MIYASATO/MOSES: Good morning. JACKSON: The next application on your agenda is a request for a Change of Zone, and the Applicant is Hilo Medical Center. The subject property is located in the South Hilo District near Hala`i Hill. You can see Hala`i Hill in the middle of the slide here. And, you have Waianuenue Avenue running towards the top of the slide in an east -west direction, and then coming off of that is Komohana Street heading south. EXHIBIT C The subject property is outlined in red in the middle of the slide here. It's off of Punahele Street, and it's between the Hawaii Correctional Facility in this location here, and the Punahele Pu`uhonua [sic] Medical offices in this area here. The zoning of the property is single-family residential which is shown in the yellow color. You can see that the lots adjacent to the subject property are also single-family residential. They're part of a 7 -lot subdivision that was created back in the 1960's, and the subject property is the only vacant lot in that subdivision. The others are developed with houses. And, then to the south of that on the pink—the pink color is Neighborhood Commercial zoning, and that is where existing medical facilities are located. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban which allows a combination of single-family, multiple -family, residential, as well as commercial uses. And the entire—this entire area of Hilo is in that designation. And, this is an aerial photo of the property and surrounding area. Again, you have the subject property just south of Punahele Street outlined in red, and there are four houses on this block between Komohana Street and Hala`i Hill. You have the correctional facility to the north across Punahele Street and then the medical offices just south of there. The Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Single -Family Residential – 7,500 square feet to Neighborhood Commercial – 7,500 square feet for about a 9,000 -square foot piece of property. And, the Applicant's proposing this Change of Zone in order to establish a 24- to 26 - stall paved parking lot for use by Hilo Medical Center employees which will be working at the adjacent medical buildings to the south. This is a site plan that the Applicant provided. You have Punahele Street on the left side. Access to the parking lot would be off of Punahele Street. There would be a gate located at the access, and then you see the 25 parking stalls here. There wouldn't be a vehicular access between the parking lot and the medical facility to the south. Instead, the Applicant proposes to provide a pedestrian access. So, there is an existing walkway along the property line here, and then stairs down into the subject property. This is a photo that was taken last week. It shows the propertya view of the property looking south from Punahele Street. You can see the property here kind of on the left side. Here's the gate. And, then, this is the neighbor just to the west, and then you can see just beyond that in the yellow color is one of the medical offices where Hilo Medical Center will be operating. And then, this is a view, again looking at the subject property, you have the gate on the right side of the slide and that one residence between Hala`i Hill and the subject property. This is a view of Punahele Street looking west so the property is on the left side of the slide. You can see the street is two-lane with some very narrow shoulders, and then over on the right side is the Hawaii Correctional Facility parking area. 2 EXHIBIT C And, this is a photo of the walkway and the gate from the medical office property down to the subject property. And, then this is a view—these photos were actually taken in 2011 when the Applicant previously applied for zoning of the property, and you can see, this is standing from the medical center properties looking down towards Punahele Street. So, Punahele Street's in the background here. You have the correctional facility beyond that. And, then this is the subject property, and then this is the house between the subject property and Hala`i Hill. That's the roof. This is the other direction. The subject property in the foreground. Correctional facility in the background, and then the adjacent house to the west. The Director is recommending that the Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council for several reasons. This current application is the third attempt by the Landowner and Applicant to rezone the property for use as a parking lot. During these previous attempts, the Landowner/Applicant and neighboring property owners could not reach agreement about what measures could be taken to reduce the nuisances associated with a parking lot that would affect the neighbors. Due to the lack of agreement, the County Council did not approve the rezoning request in 2007, and the Planning Department and the Planning Commission did not recommend the approval of the rezone request in 2011. And, the main reason for recommending an unfavorable recommendation at this point in time is that there's been no substantial changes in the application or with agreement between the neighbors and the Applicant/Landowner since the previous rezone in 2011. The Hala`i Kumiai and its members and the immediately adjacent neighbors continue to oppose the rezone to—of the property for commercial zoning. And, you have a letter from the Kumiai and an agreement—it's a Memorandum of Agreement that the Applicant had submitted by letter dated May 31st, 2016. And, they transmitted a Memorandum of Agreement, but the Agreement was not signed by the neighbors. And, introducing commercial uses into this established residential neighborhood would break up the cohesiveness of the overall land use pattern and create nuisances such as noise, light, exhaust, odors, and traffic that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. Granting the commercial zoning would not result in an appropriate land use pattern at this time and would not conform to the General Plan policies and goals. So, those are the main reasons for the Director's unfavorable recommendation. Since we sent out your Background and Recommendation, we just received a—three pages of maps submitted 3 EXHIBIT C by Sidney Fuke who is representing the Applicant, and you should have received that this morning. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. HENKEL: Any questions, Commissioners? FUJII (from audience): Question here. You said you would have a HENKEL: —Wait, you'll get an opportunity to testify. Thank you, though. Thank you, Maija. Will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? We'll swear you all in at the same time. If you'd please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. SHIROMA: Yes. HENKEL: Thank you. Please speak directly into the microphone, and first, did you get the Director's recommendations and conditions? FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a Planning Consultant. Yes, I did receive the, on behalf of the Applicant, the staffs Background Report and Recommendation. And, that I believe also I shared with the, with the Applicant, and I believe that they will introduce themselves as well. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. And, would you introduce yourselves also, please? SHIROMA: I'm Lisa Shiroma. I'm one of the assistant hospital administrators for the clinics, who oversees the clinics. MARKHAM: My name is Joe Markham. I'm director of outpatient clinics at Hilo Medical Center. HENKEL: And, you both live in Hilo? MARKHAM: Yes, we do. HENKEL: Thank you. Do you agree with the Director's recommendations? FUKE: Obviously not. You know, we have some different points that we'd like to share with the Commission on this particular matter, and what the staff pointed out, passed out earlier, was something more like for reference, and I wanted to just give the Commissioners some generalized background on the history behind, you know, how we arrived to where we are today. 4 EXHIBIT C I passed out a three, you know, three -sheet item. The first one is like—reflects like the map which is the rezoning ordinance back in 19I believe it was 1995. And, it shows the area where the Hilo Surgical Center is and the Rehab at Hilo facility as, you know, in relation to the balance of the property, and, when that, subsequent to the rezoning of that area, the project was developed; the surgical center was developed, as well as the Rehab of the Pacific, was developed. We all know, I think, like as the request shows, the request is essentially to allow for additional parking. When the project was initially approved, the Zoning Code at that time required five stalls for every physician, and they had met that requirement. Plan Approval was issued. Subsequent to that, the Zoning Code was changed to say that they eliminated the number of stall requirement per physician, but instead just went generically, and, the generic requirement is one stall for every 300 square feet. So, ironically, with the change in the Zoning Code relative to parking, now you actually have less stalls required, you know, for a physician. It averages out like on an average a thousand square foot office, physician's office building, you now require like about three, maybe at the most four, parking stalls. Notwithstanding that, I think the surgical center and the rest of that complex, they probably fell victim, you know, to their success and, you know, just the overall demand for medical service. The problem is that, with the parking is that you have overlapping requirements. You know, it's just like you're gonna go to the golf course if you're a golfer, and, you know, your tee time is at 8 o'clock and another set of tee time is like around 11 or 11:30. You know, you just have that crossover, so during that crossover period, you know, you have really have a lack of parking stalls. Likewise, you know, at the surgical center what happens is that, you know, you have people who used to come in for outpatient appointments and, you know, in the past, they used to be scheduled maybe hour, hour and a half, but still then, you have some measure of overlap because, you know, you have people coming in to pick them up; others coming in for the next surgery. The victim of their success is that now they are a little more efficient so rather than doing maybe hour and a half or two hours per patient, they'll be able to do like half an hour to one hour and so, you know, gradually, it increases the level of service but, nevertheless, it compounds the parking problem. So, this is like, over the last I guess like eight years, what the Applicant and the landowner have been trying to do is best address this parking situation, and the problem has become over time again, because of the victim of success of the surgical center, it has become more of a problem. They had applied back in 2007 for the rezoning of the subject area, but unfortunately, that was denied—that was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and also the Planning Director, then Planning Director, went up to the County Council. The County Council had, for its own reason, did not act on that application. Essentially, denied—denied that application. In 2011, they reapplied. At that time when they reapplied, then I was contacted to see, you know, to assist them with the process, and so during that process in 2011, I tried to kind of like understand what the issues were, then reached out to, you know, particularly the neighboring 5 EXHIBIT C residents in trying to see what can be done to ameliorate or address, you know, their particular concerns. A lot of the concerns dealt with the representations or lack of representation on the part of the landowner, the developer, the caretaker of the property, but notwithstanding that, you know, there are other kinds of concerns that were raised, so we try to package a series of proposed mitigations. We came up, you know, and at that time, the Planning, the then Planning Director initially recommended approval but then subsequent to receipt of public hearing, came up with a recommendation for denial. It went before the Planning Commission, and I'm not exactly sure whether the Commission actually took action or not because right around that time, on behalf of the Applicant, the Applicant decided to withdraw that application and said basically, we need a little bit more time to see whether we can work it out. And rather than just kind of dragging it on and on, the application was withdrawn. Now, you know, here we are, you know, back in 2014, two years ago. You know, I guess the Applicant wanted to renew their request and then they asked me to kind of reach out again to the neighbors and see what can be done, and I've tried over the last, you know, two years to see what can be done. I think one of the issues is like when you deal with an area in transition whether it's like this particular area which is an area in transition. It's Medium Density designation. Or, if you look at like a very comparable areas like in the Waiakea House Lot area, you know, you do have areas that are coming in for Commercial or Mixed Commercial Industrial, and you do have areas—you do have some neighbors or residents coming in to support; others who object. But, nevertheless, at the end of the day, you know, the Commission just looks at the fact, look at the fact, and then, arrive it's, you know, arrive at its decision. Whenever you're dealing with areas in transition as in this area, you know, it's very sensitive, so hopefully, you try to see whether conditions can be developed to address and mitigate the concerns. But, before going into that, I think I'd like to just kind of punt for the moment and let Ms. Shiroma, you know, on behalf of the Applicant really speak to as far as why this additional parking is needed and what its implications—if they don't have it, what its possible negative implications may be. SHIROMA: Thank you. So, the additional parking lot is really for the employees so that patients can park closer to either the surgery—to the surgery center. And, as a patient of, my PCP is in the surgery center and also being a patient of the surgery center, it's very difficult at times to find parking, and when you're looking to go for surgery, you're having to walls quite a ways to just find a parking stall and walk in. Or, if you're gonna go and see your PCP, it isif you have an illness or if you're the older population, it is, it can be very difficult for them to actually get in to see their doctor and to get to their appointment on time. So, it's definitely hindered our ability to get into, see our doctors quickly and efficiently, especially with that older population. We've had some complaints within one of our other buildings down our orthopedic center where patients who just have had either knee surgery or hip surgery have had difficulty finding a stall and then they're trying to hobble in to go see their 6 EXHIBIT C doctor for their follow-up appointment, and they're not able to find close parking. So, it definitely has been hard. Why are we looking at that area? It's really because for us, that is one of our only other areas to provide outpatient surgical procedures to patients of this community. The hospital has the ability to provide surgeries at the—at the hospital, but we really focus on the inpatients, you know, because we never know what's going to come in the doors. We don't know how many other appointments we can schedule for this outpatients, those outpatients might be bumped because somebody is coming through the ER who needs something. So, that's sort of the reason why we're focusing on that area, and we have the ability right now to even—if we had additional parking, we have the ability to potentially expand in the area as well. So, really, if the request is denied, it's just going to be a continued inconvenience for the patients and staff, and it will—it will limit our ability to expand, you know, and help out. FUKE: So, during the course of the couple years and actually from 2011 and, you know, just periodically, in my meeting with, you know, the, some of the neighbors, the kinds of concerns that were raised, and I wanted to share that with you and probably, you know, people that I've been, you know, meeting with, they're here so they will probably come up and state their own concerns, too, and hopefully they kind of overlap it with I'm just sharing with you. But, notwithstanding the issue about like the credibility of the developer, the landowner, and so on and so forth, just looking at the specific case itself, you know, the substance of the objections, you know, they seem to relate to like noise, smoking, loitering, and those kinds of things, and a lot of that—you know, it's my understanding that a lot of those activities had occurred like, you know, during the so-called, the illegal use of this area for parking `cause the landowner then initially made it available for the hospital, the medical, Hilo Medical Center. And, so the employees were using it during the day, but during the night, because it was not gated, then so- called visitors at the correctional facility, you know, they didn't have any place to park, you know, in that area. And, you saw the photos it's kind of, the road is relatively narrow. And, so a lot of them used to park in there, and they were the ones making a lot of noise, you know, loitering and swearing and so on. So, understandably, if you're, if you're a neighbor and I get 8 or 10 o'clock you hear those kinds of things, you'd be very intimidated, and so we're trying to figure out like, okay, how can we best address that. So, we then came up with some proposed mitigation. The mitigation would be like, you know, after it's fully improved, it would be gated. It would be used, limited only to employees of the Hilo Medical Center or the Punahele Medical Center Complex. There would be time limit, you know, 6 a.m. – 6 p.m. kind of closure so that, you know, nobody else can use it. There are other concerns about like well, the road is kinda narrow and, you know, they don't want to have like traffic coming through and increasing, you know, or taxing, you know, Punahele Street, so very wisely, back in 2007, when the initial zoning was approved, there was a 7 EXHIBIT C requirement to say there shall be no access, you know, between the primary medical complex and, and Punahele Street. So, this is the program that they'll still kind of like maintain. So, there's no access—so essentially what you'll see is like, you know, along Punahele Street, you'll have like traffic that will come during the a.m. and the p.m. Some were during the day. You know, but no more than 24 or 25 movements during the time. In addition to that, when the staff had originally recommended approval, they had recommended that because Punahele Street currently has a right-of-way of only 40 feet, the staff had recommended, wisely so, that they'd be a 10 -foot wide additional future road widening setback taken from this property and within that area curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be constructed. So, you know, it's similar to a lot of the kind of conditions that the Commission has imposed on, you know, projects like in the Waiakea area where, you know, the roadways are narrow and so then there's an obligation on part of the developer to put curb, gutters, and sidewalks fronting the street. There was this added concern about like, you know, which I think the Hala`i Hill Community Association raised like, and rightfully so, in saying that well, you know, zoning cannot restrict only for parking. You know, you have to look at zoning categories and its commercial neighborhood, so what if they don't use it for a parking lot and instead like tomorrow a bar comes in or they use it for a gas station, but it's very unlikely. But, you know, there's always that kind of possibility, so what we're suggesting is that no, it would not be used as that, and then we would—we would require that if there is a use any other than what is limited only for parking, if there's a use other than parking, then they would have to go back to the Planning Commission, and the Commission at that time would have the opportunity to, you know, with the public hearing to, you know, weigh in and recommend to the Planning Director, appropriate mitigations to address the use because the mitigation that is being proposed right now, you know, relate to a parking lot. So, if you have a different kind of use, then obviously the mitigation would probably be varied. So, the other thing, too, is like that, you know, we tried our best, you know, to reach an agreement with the neighbor. We developed this memorandum of understanding and it was kind of like just about a year and, you know, I'm sorry that, you know, we couldn't kind of get over the—you know, at the one yard line and we couldn't kind of push it over, but, we tried our best to address the concerns. One of the additional concerns that was raised by some of the neighbors were that well, they don't want to be put in a position where, you know, there are all these conditions of approval and, you know, they don't enforce it. The landowner doesn't comply with these conditions of approval, then what do you do? And, so, they are saying, okay, if they don't do it, and so the memorandum of understanding is saying like we would set up, the association would set up like a revolving fund that the neighbors can use to then contact that person, you know, mutually whether it's going to be an attorney or whomever, and let that person take the responsibility of seeing that the conditions are, you know, appropriately enforced. And, so you remove the EXHIBIT C burden from, you know, like the affected property owners or the complaining property owner. So, that's all kind of reflected in the agreement. Anyway, like as I was just saying, then toMaija, can you pass the proposed recommendation? So, I guess like all we're asking right now is that, you know, we tried our best and so we're prevailing upon the Planning Commission if you were to look at this area like an area in transition like House Lot because we say like it's an area in transition because it's not all residential. This is not the first commercial related activity here. You have the correctional facility right across the street. You have the Hilo Medical—you have the surgery center. You have like just across the street, too, is the undeveloped Project District for the Wailani Project. So, I guess like what we're asking is whether, you know, for the Commission, you know to consider this application favorably and to look and ask yourself like, you know, the questions that you normally ask yourself whenever you go through any zone change. You know, like first of all, you ask yourself whether it's consistent with the General Plan, and in this case, it is consistent with the General Plan LUPAG Map. It's a Medium Density designation. You ask yourself the question about the infrastructure; whether water is needed or a sewer line is needed, and the roadway needs to be improved and so on and so forth. And to all of that like, you know, what we're trying to demonstrate is that, yes, you know like water's available, and the sewer line is fronting the property. If there is a need for a sewer, there is. And, they're gonna make their proportionate share of roadway improvements to Punahele. Other questions you always ask yourself is like whether there are environmental considerations, cultural considerations, archaeological considerations. And, on this 10,000 -square foot property, there are none. You ask yourself whether there are any drainage issues. There is no drainage issue on this property. And, you ask yourself well, whether there is a need. And, I think as Ms. Shiroma kind of pointed out, there is definitely a need, you know, for a project of this naturea supportive project of this nature. So, I guess like, you know, because it's an area of transition, then, you know, you have to ask yourself always like in the Waiakea House Lot area, you have to ask yourself about impacts and whether they are reasonable mitigation, and we say that, you know, there are some reasonable mitigation that can be taken, and I've passed out a proposed recommendation because obviously one way or another, if the Commission recommends favorably, we go favorably, there has to be some justification behind a favorable reason, so what I used was that—you know, this is a report that was prepared and handed out to the Commission way back when. A recommendation for approval. So, I used this as the template and prepared what was just handed out to you and made some slight modifications to that both in the reasoning, you know, behind the recommendation for approval. And, if you go back towards the conditions, having all of the different kind of conditions that, that address those things that we've represented on, you know, right now, and as well as like on paper earlier, you know, dealing with the signage, no back up enforcement provisions, and so on and so forth. The proposed recommendation on behalf of the Applicant and the conditions of approval, just to make it easier, I had—if you look at the underscored and italicized version, that's, those are the 9 EXHIBIT C new terms. All of the changes are reflected in the bold, and for those that are going to be deleted, they're reflected in brackets. And those, which are new ones would be reflected in the italicized and the underscored. So, it's pretty much, you know follows along the line of what was recommended back in, initially back in 2007 by the Planning Director and Planning Commission and followed by the Planning Director's initial July 11 th, July 2011 Recommendation. With that, Mr. Chairman, and it's kind of long and you have a lot of things to go through, but if there's any questions, you know, we'd be more than happy to respond to them. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioners, any questions for the Applicant? MIYASATO: Chair, I have a question. HENKEL: Yes. MIYASATO: Mr. Fuke, you know, I guess security is one of the major concerns. You mentioned a gate, gated facility. So, would the gate just be opened in the morning and then closed in the evening and unattended? FUKE: No, they're thinking about a card system. MIYASATO: Oh, for the gates? FUKE: Correct. MIYASATO: Okay. And, yourI guess it might have been a condition that you're speaking of, as far as it, this property being specific to a parking lot FUKE: Correct MIYASATO: —for its use, would that be a condition that you would accept? FUKE: Yes, we would, but, you know, if there's some you know like legal implication behind it restricting only because it might amount to like a contract zoning, so I was just trying to avoid the contract zoning restriction. So, but, if the Commission and the decision makers, you know, wish to restrict this only to a parking lot and attendant to the Punahele facility, the Applicant would have no objection. MIYASATO: Chair, could I ask the Director about that? To comment on that? KANUHA: About the contract zoning condition? MIYASATO: Yeah, would that be consistent with an application? 10 EXHIBIT C KANUHA: Contract zoning—you know, if there's a challenge, you know, perhaps Corp. Counsel might answer that. We would always look to whether or not—what our role is to ensure that whatever approvals and conditions of approvals that we recommend to the Commission, that it's defensible to the maximum extent possible so where the condition that has overtones of being a contract zoning condition, you know, we feel that it could leave the Commission's and also the Council's decision on it somewhat open to legal challenge. Maybe Danny might want to weigh in a little on that, too. PATEL: Yeah, that would subject any kind of contracted condition or contractual zoning effect open to challenge. You generally cannot contract zone. MIYASATO: Okay. FUKE: So, Commissioner Miyasato, so thereforeI'm sorry to interrupt—but and because of what the Director and your counsel has advised, and that's why I was trying to structure a language that addresses that kind of like limitation, and so if you look at on page 2 of the what we call the conditions of approval, kind of like way in the back. On condition f, you know, it reads, I guess, you know, also for the benefit of the public, it would read as follows: "Prior to the submittal of plans for Plan Approval for a development of the property for any use permitted within the CN -zoning district other than the proposed parking area, the Windward Planning Commission shall be given the opportunity to review and recommend, if needed, appropriate mitigative conditions to the Planning Director." What this would mean, is that, you know, the Planning Director has discretion when it reviews and approves Plan Approvals, you know, whether it comes in the form of additional landscaping, access requirements, further setbacks, and so on and so forth. You know, there is that discretionary authority that the Director has when during the plan review process, so what we're saying is that, okay, so if you have a use that is other than the parking, because all of the conditions have been tailored around the parking right now. But, if you have a use other than the parking, well, fine. Let us have the Planning Commission review it, you know, via a public forum, and then you make your recommendation to the Planning Director. At least there will be an additional step of I guess so called opportunity for the public to comment on any change of use. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: What I HENKEL: Go ahead, Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: I'm new and unclear aboutI'm still unclear about this and maybe our Corporation Counsel can answer. If this property is rezoned, and a different use that is consistent with the zoning is proposed, other than standard mitigative measures, is there any way to prevent that other use from being permitted? In other words, if it's zoned commercial and some other use that is appropriate for that zoning, is submitted for a permit, can that permit be denied by the Planning Department or anybody? 11 EXHIBIT C PATEL: So, generally speaking, and it goes back to the concerns that Mr. Fuke raised as far as what the neighboring property owners were also raising is that zoning runs with the land. Whatever is permitted in that zoning, you're generally gonna be able to put that property to those uses. So, to, I guess in answering your question, your primary avenue for controlling what happens would be through mitigative measures, and I think that's what Mr. Fuke is getting at with his proposed conditions. FUKE: If I can just kind of add just one more paragraph to that, Mr. Counsel, and that is like what we're also proposing is that the property be consolidated with the parent parcel. So, if it gets consolidated, it's going to be very, very difficult to, you know, and I think it's going to be like, you know, maybe a century maybe from now, before like the medical center complex will probably find a different use, and only when you have a different use in that complex than conceivably you could have a different use to this particular area `cause there is a mandate that this, as proposed over here, that this lot be consolidated with the parent parcel. So, it would be hard to have, I would think, you know as a practical matter, hard to have like the surgery center, you know, find a different use other than like medically related for that particular area `cause it's going to be part and parcel of the same family parcel. HENKEL: Mr. Fuke, you mentioned earlier an MOA that the adjoining property owners didn't sign. Did that reflect these recommendations that you've just submitted to us? FUKE: Yes, with the exception of the provision about having like this revolving escrow fund of $5,000 to assist with the enforcement `cause that would amount to more like a private contract and like a conversant that would be, kind of like, should be separate and apart from the conditions. The Applicant had made it known to me that he, they would still be in a position to execute this memorandum of understanding, and if that memorandum of understanding is executed, than the $5,000 revolving escrow fund kicks in, in terms of the enforcement, but all other mitigative measures are generally reflected in the proposed conditions. HENKEL: Thank you. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I had a question or two. Mr. Fuke, given what you just mentioned about a proposal to have this property consolidated with the rest of the project, can you explain to the Commission why if that's the case, it's not possible to have access to this property come from the actual medical center itself? FUKE: First of all, like when a medical center, you know which is the first page I passed out you know when this zoning was done—there was a requirement, there was a condition that stipulated that, that project shall not have any access, direct access, to Punahele Street, so the only way that can happen is that there has to be an amendment to that basic ordinance which means, you know, the public hearing process, Commission, and Council, Council approval. 12 EXHIBIT C The other thing is like the staff accurately pointed out, too, is that if the parcel is not consolidated with the parent parcel, then a freestanding parking lot is not a permitted use in the CN zone. But, if it is part of the parent parcel, then it becomes all part and parcel, you know, really of the primary use. And, that's the reason why there is a need or a mandate for having the parcel consolidated with the parent parcel. KANUHA: So, in other words, it's physically impossible to develop that parcel as a parking lot with access only from the medical center and not from Punahele. FUKE: No, I thinkI think the language would allow that. I think it says that like the Punahele, you know, Surgical Center property cannot have a direct access to Punahele Street. So, if you seal off Punahele Street, then everything goes back again, you know, up to the parent parcel. KANUHA: Okay, then, you know, just another question. This, again, is related to the contract zoning issue, yeah? So, if some point in time because the whole complex is zoned for commercial, okay, so if some point in time, if someone were to come in and make an offer to purchase the entire facility for multi -family shopping center, etc., does the zoning or the conditions of the zoning restrict those kinds of uses? FUKE: You mean, if someone buys the Punahele Surgical Center property and also which would mean like this property as well, and they want to change that into a KTA, for example? Yes, it would be possible. Under the terms of the condition, however, like what we're proposing is that if that happens, then prior to the Planning Director issuing Plan Approval, there has to be a public review process vis-a-vis the Planning Commission to decide on what kind of conditions that could be imposed, you know, vis-a-vis the Plan Approval process, whether it's going to be added setback, landscaping, and all that stuff KANUHA: Yeah, I think the difficulty with that particular condition is that the Planning Commission is only advisory to the Council. The Council is the one that actually initiates the zoning, okay? And, once the zoning is through, then the oversight for the approval, conditions of approval for permitted uses falls back to the Department rather than the Commission. So, I have some difficulty in the Council actually creating legislation that gives additional review oversight to the Commission when, you know, they're not in the, that process to begin with, yeah? FUKE: The whole idea was to enable some public forum, you know, for the neighbors or somebody, you know, like if there's going to be any change in use, but, again, my feeling is that any change of use, especially because of this consolidation requirement, is going to be very difficult, you know, to achieve unless for example, as you pointed out, that if somebody else buys the Punahele property and this property and says like, no I'm not going to do this but I'm going to a KTA or whatever like, you know, but I think that scenario is very unlikely but, you know, in the scale of probability whether very low, but it still, you know, it is possible. So, the idea behind coming with that condition was, you know, for my own brainchild was just trying to see, well, whether there was any way for the public to kind of weigh in on it because everybody's weighing in only a parking lot and some guys are concerned about well, you know, 13 EXHIBIT C what if it's a gas station or McDonald's or whatever. You know, and so I can understand that, but it's unfortunate that there's not a processing vehicle that's like a Use Permit that would say yes, you know, this would be exclusively only for a certain use, but, you know, we don't have that ability. But, we're open to any suggestions that the Commissioners or the Director may have or the Department may have in terms of how you can tie down or enable the public to review on uses other than a parking lot for, associated with the facility. HENKEL: Any other questions for the Applicant? Thank you very much. You may be seated. MIYASATO: Chair, excuse me, could we take a five-minute recess, please? HENKEL: Yeah, let's recess for five minutes, please. MIYASATO: Thank you. Chairman Henkel called a recess at 10:17 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:25 a.m. HENKEL: Let's go back into session. It's time for the public testimony portion of thisI'm sorry, Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yes, I still have a question. I don't know whether Corp. Counsel or maybe the Planning Director can answer, but it goes back to the original zoning of the property on which the medical center is now located. And, I just wanted to find out if at the time the rezone from Residential -7.5 to the Commercial was made, whether as part of that rezone, there were mitigative measures as part of the application for rezone that were promised between the rezoned property and the residential properties fronting Punahele Street. I'm just curious about whether any of that was involved between the rezoned property and the existing residential. JACKSON: I can try to answer that question for you, Commissioner. If you look at your package, Exhibit 4 is actually the ordinance from when the medical office property was rezoned back in 1995, and that ordinance has some mitigation measures above and beyond what the Department and Commission would normally require. There's one—there's one, let's see. That's it. You just found it. So, if you turn to Page 4, Condition B, there was a 50 -foot structural setback requirement along the northwest property boundary and that's above and beyond CLARKSON: —Which condition was that? JACKSON: Condition B, yeah, the second sentence. There's also the third sentence, required a minimum 6 -foot high privacy wall or landscape buffer between the property and the adjoining single-family residential properties along Punahele. And—let's see what else—and then Condition D has that access restriction. Access to the subject property from Punahele Street shall not be permitted. So, that, that meant no connection through the medical office property through the subject property under the current rezoning now to Punahele Street. 14 EXHIBIT C And, those are the main conditions related to mitigation measures for the adjoining properties, and you asked also whether those have been implemented? I believe the, there's a large fence that has been placed between the medical office properties and the residential properties that is shown here, and this fence actually extends all the way towards Komohana Street, so it divides the two properties. And, the only other issues have been there have been complaints because since this 1995 ordinance was approved, the landowner of the property, of the subject property, has been off and on using the property as a commercial parking lot. Did that answer your question? CLARKSON: Yes, that does. Thank you for pointing this out, and I'd just like to find out whether then any potential rezone of the subject property then, which would require breaking the heavy planting screen or fence, which was required to be unbroken, whether this rezone basically cancels all the mitigating requirements of the original zoning of the parcel where the medical center now stands. JACKSON: I can try to answer that as well. So, the Applicant is currently proposing a parking lot with pedestrian connection only, and the way they currently have it set up is keeping that fence along the property line, and they've provided a gate to connect the medical center property which is where I was standing taking this picture. You open the gate and go down to where they are proposing the parking lot. So, I would say that as long as conditions are included in the ordinance that only allow a pedestrian access, then that would not conflict with the 1995 rezone ordinance. ButI would think that you're correct that if, if they are proposing to consolidate the property and open that area up for vehicular access, they would have to go back and amend the 1995 ordinance to do that because of the landscape requirements, the fencing requirements that were in that 1995 ordinance. HENKEL: Does that answer your question? CLARKSON: Well, II'd just say I would have to disagree, that's all. I mean, it looks to me like this condition was to protect the residences that were already there from noise and visual impacts and that if you have any kind of traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, going through this area, it does not make that mitigation continuous and unbroken. So, I don't know. HENKEL: Okay, I'd like to get on with the public testimony and then we'll have a chance to discuss it more if there's any motion for action or, you know, even questions of the public. So, I've got six people signed up to testify. If there's anybody else, please sign up now. The way it is now, I'd like to have three at a time come up so it doesn't get too crowded, so I'll call Stephen Woo, Jr., Cheryl Reis, Kapuaokalani Andrade as the first three. It looks like two more signing up so let's go ahead and get Vivian [sic] Reis up here, please. We'll go four and four. REIS, C.: Mr. Chair, I'm going to read the letter from Mrs. Andrade. 15 EXHIBIT C HATA-FINLEY: Microphone, please. REIS, C.: Oh, I'm sorry. HENKEL: Okay, well first let's get you signed in, so what is your name? REIS, C.: My name is Cheryl Reis. HENKEL: Oh, and so you're here for you and Ms. Andrade. REIS, C.: And also for Mrs. Gushiken. HENKEL: Okay. We'll allow you a little more time because you're representing three. Everybody else, three minutes, please, and you'll be timed. Maija over here will keep track of the time. So, will you raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? REIS C. & V.: Yes. WOO: I do. HENKEL: Okay, then as you testify, please state your name and where you reside, and keep it to three minutes and speak into the microphone, please. We'll start with you, sir. WOO: Thank you. My name is A. Stephen Woo, Jr., and I've lived on Hala`i Hill for 40 years. I offer three points for your consideration and thank you for letting me speak my viewpoints in opposition to the zoning change. Number 1. Residential remains the best use of this parcel. Punahele Street is a narrow street with marginal borders and no sidewalks and is suitable only for residential traffic. Moreover, it's used by many students who walk down the road toward the neighboring Hilo Intermediate School. Number 2. Residential loss, loss of Residential zoning will profoundly affect the neighborhood. Single -Family Residential zoning provides homeowners a certain degree of safety and security for their families. Stripping this protection from the area would [inaudible] activities and enterprises of uncertain nature and present new and complex problems for those living there. Even so, Residential zoning is not always protective. For example, one of our neighbors lives next to the lot in question. She and her husband, now deceased, built their home 45 years ago when the area was semi -rural and tranquil. But, a few years ago, the lot was put into use as a parking lot for the benefit of personnel working nearby. This was in clear violation of the residential Zoning Code. For years, the poor woman suffered from exhaust fumes and noise of vehicles as drivers reversed parked their vehicles just a few feet from her bedroom window. Only after a complaint was filed in 2011 did the activity stop. Sadly to say, the noise and 16 EXHIBIT C violation recalls a similar violation in 2006, meaning that this was the second violation, so you can see where people have one about good -faith promises. Number 3. Why is there a parking problem? My background is in pathology, and we all know that diagnosis is very important. And, part of the answer is given from Mr. Fuke when he said there is an on-site parking that satisfies the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code. Hilo Medical Center believes that additional parking proximate to these buildings is still needed. Bluntly, to me, when someone says minimum requirements, that means they're gonna do the least as necessary, and that's what happens when you do the least that's necessary. You run short of space. I look at the Ka Waena Lapa`au Medical Center just to the south of this project, and they have plenty of parking. They far exceed their requirements of one space for every 300 square feet or whatever it is because they planned ahead. So, they're shackled by this area. They [inaudible] for the minimum. Secondly, their location of parking stalls leaves a lot to be desired. It was mentioned that some of the orthopedic patients have to walk a long way to get to a parking area. One of the buildings in that area is at the 73 Pu'uhonu building, and there's an orthopedic surgeon that works in that building. If you look at the building, there are exactly 11 spaces in front of the building for parking. Three of those spaces are for disabled, and the other parking is up the hill, across a driveway, which is very busy, which is not marked for pedestrians, and they have to park there. So, it's about a 100 -foot walk for people who have a difficulty walking. So, I think there's some poor planning as well as adherence to a minimum code. So, basically, we have a fundamental difficulty, and a shotgun and short-term solutions will not suffice. That's why I oppose the zoning change. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Woo. Cheryl Reis? REIS, C: Can she go first? HENKEL: She can go first. REIS, C.: Thank you. HENKEL: That's Vivian [sic]. REIS, C.: Yes, Vianne. HENKEL: Vivianne [sic]. REIS, V.: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Vianne Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street adjacent to the subject property. 17 EXHIBIT C Most of us are familiar with disaster preparedness and home fire escape plans. These are measures taken by most of our families and communities to prepare for, prevent, and reduce the negative effects of disasters whenever possible. I'd like you to please look at Exhibit 2 in the binders. This is the fourth time a runaway car, truck, semi -trailer has had the potential to inflict harm on our family. At our home, we've had to devise a runaway vehicle crash plan. This is an attempt to mitigate its effect on my 72 -year old mother or other family members only when I'm home, upstairs, and able to see a vehicle crashing through the fence. I will then yell, "run" if my mother is home. My mother understands. If she hears me yelling "run," she only has a few seconds to get to the front of the house or better yet, the front of our property. Possible areas of impact are the clothesline my mother uses regularly; my mother's bedroom; my entrance/exit to upstairs; and, lastly, either of our living areas. My mother might have a chance of escaping potential harm or death if the vehicle crash doesn't cause our house to collapse. I will have to gather my two cats, if possible, put them in their carriers, which I have handy. If not, they go by the grace of God. Then, I will have to climb out of 2 -story window, onto a roof, then another, and eventually jump to the ground. By the way, I am physically handicapped. If I'm not home or upstairs, all we can hope for is to be able to effectively cope with the consequences and results of a bad situation not of our making. Further, it disturbs me to see our neighborhood suffer from the constant threat of our way of life slowly destroyed. I know this weighs heavily on the minds of our kupuna who have worked so hard to establish the good relationships and what used to be a great place to live and grow. As Commissioners, you have the power to prevent and/or lessen this potentially reoccurring impact by voting no to this proposed parking lot/commercial venture/road and who knows what next. Thank you for your attention. HENKEL: Thank you, Vianne. Cheryl? REIS, C.: Thank you. HENKEL: State your name, please. REIS, C.: My name is Cheryl Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street. HENKEL: And use the microphone, please. REIS, C.: Sorry, my name is Cheryl Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street which is directly adjacent to the subject property. The letter I'm going to read is from Mrs. Kapuaokalani Andrade who lives at 44 Punahele Street. I am telling the Planning Commission my concerns that I do not, do not want, and am against the request for the Change of Zone from Single -Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. I am very much against the development of a 25 -space, paved parking lot on the 9,230 -square foot 18 EXHIBIT C parcel of land located on Punahele Street. I live next to the Hilo Correctional Facility across the lot. Hawaii County Code 95-33 [Ordinance No. 95-33] is a law stating that landscaping across the northwestern boundary and no access to the site from Punahele Street. The Association has not followed this. Right now, there is no landscaping across the northwestern boundary, but a covered fence with a gate to the lot, and this rezone application does not follow no access to the site from Punahele Street. The Association has already submitted plans for the existing medical facilities and buildings with paved parking. Why do they need additional parking? I do not want to deal with less safety and peace of mind, less privacy and security. I do not want to deal with more traffic congestions, vehicles, pedestrians, more air pollution, exhaust fumes, loud noises from vehicles and people. We, the neighbors, and myself do not seek the benefit—do not see the positive benefit and growth of our neighborhood with this zone application. Do not allow this to happen. Please vote no on this zone application, and mahalo to the Commission for allowing me to voice my concerns. And, thank you for your attention. HENKEL: Now, you have a letter from Marjorie Gushiken? REIS, C.: Yes. HENKEL: Okay. REIS, C.: Members of the Commission, my name is Marjorie Gushiken, and I am 87 years old. I live at 51 Punahele Street, TMK 2-3-25-[:]17. Adjacent to the subject property, 2-3-35:18. My family has lived here for over 45 years. I am writing this letter to testify against the rezoning of the parcel from Residential to Commercial. I strongly object to having a parking lot next to my home. At one point in time, said lot was cleared of brush and used as a base yard for the development of the Ainako Sewer Alignment Project. During the two-year period, my family was subjected to toxic exhaust fumes, disturbing noise from constant vehicular traffic. My health was seriously compromised by causing me to suffer daily headaches and requiring me to be under doctor's care. Subsequently, employees and staff of the Pu`uhonu Professional Building as well as staff and inmates from the Hawaii Community Correctional Center started using said property as an illegal parking lot. Again, my family was subjected to exhaust fumes from people reverse parking and disturbances from vehicular traffic. In addition, we were fearful for our safety as inmates, their visitors, and anyone parking there could look directly into my home. We had no privacy from anyone else who used the illegal parking lot because it was convenient. There was drinking and other disturbances going on with no one to monitor these illegal activities. I understand that there is a proposal from the owners, GELOCAG, but I know that they propose—what they propose will not be feasibility enforceable. I believe that I am entitled to live in a safe and healthy neighborhood. I also believe that I, along with my family and guests, 19 EXHIBIT C am entitled to the enjoyment of my home which is highly unlikely with the rezoning of the parcel to Commercial. I sincerely hope that all of you here today will take my concerns into consideration. As a long- time resident of this community, I would like to have the peace of mind that I and my family will continue to live and a healthy and safe neighborhood. HENKEL: Thank you, Cheryl. And, then, did you have any comments on your own? REIS, C.: Yes. You have a copy in that folder of my testimony, and I would ask you—well, I'll read it. I'll read what I wanted to say, but I just want to qualify it for you. What I'm saying here is a history of what has happened to us because I don't believe that any zoning application will tell you what we've actually experienced. So, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to request the denial of this application on behalf of my family, and three other families in our neighborhood surrounding the subject property who don't wish to be named. And, also, for Mr. and Mrs. Danny Johnson, and Danny is here, and I believe he might testify. I would like to request that the Commission might want to do a site visit before or during a normal work day to see firsthand what we are discussing, and, also that perhaps you might have questions for us after the testimony. I am a retired Hawaii County Police Major and certainly did not expect to spend my golden retirement years policing violations made by people who were trusted and should be responsible enough to obey the rules. Trust and responsibility are the important operative words here, and I ask that you keep these in mind as you hear testimony and ultimately when you make your decision on this unwanted parking lot. We have been at this issue since 1979 when the project was first discussed. The property which sits between Mrs. Gushiken's and ours was first proposed as a road and then a parking lot and now possibly another commercial venture. During the Ainako Sewer Alignment Project, Haitsuka Brothers Construction, with the permission of the owners, used the surgery center property as their base yard. The subject property was used as a road to access Punahele Street which was prohibited by the County in the rezoning process of 1994, excuse me, 1985. From 1994 to 1996, 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven days a week, our lives and traffic on Punahele Street were adversely affected by the disruption of heavy equipment and street traffic, incredible amounts of diesel, hydraulic fluid spills, and fumes from mounds of asphalt, diesel exhaust, dust and soot, noise from compressors, bulldozers, a vibrating compactor, backhoes, and vehicle repair. Approximately 77,000 cubic yards of material was excavated from the base of Hala`i Hill also known as Termite Hill, where the former Straub Clinic parking lot and Rehab of the Pacific now sit by several construction companies using, again, the prohibited access to Punahele Street. This occurred from 1994 to 1996 and was allowed to continue by the County in spite of our numerous complaints to Public Works and the Department of Health. 20 EXHIBIT C Jiro Sumada, then head of DPW talked to Gerald Takase, part owner of the subject property, who was then first deputy Corp. Counsel. Each respite was short lived until we made the next complaint. November 17, 1994, before the Planning Commission, I repeatedly stated a Wiki Wiki Mart type business wasn't acceptable and would oppose the development on that basis. Commissioner Sally Rice cautioned me at one point saying that once commercial is approved, they could not do—they could do anything they wanted to. I said that I took Dr. Takase at his word and now I know better. Commercial is cart blanche for anything and whatever the developer wants to do, and it's forever. It took another complaint by the neighbors to the Board of Appeals to force compliance with the required landscaping plan, another rezoning condition violation, along the common border of the surgery center's parking lot and our adjoining homes. Without it, we were stripped of privacy, dust and noise mitigation, and safety. The vinyl fencing we ultimately agreed to because termites were attacking the Podocarpus. Again, this did nothing to mitigate the impact of the parking lot. It actually exacerbated the safety issue with errant drivers crashing through the fence as illustrated in the photo folder before you, and that was Exhibit 2. There was a Toyota this was a Toyota as was the previous one which hit a Podocarpus without making it to the chain link fence. Every day, Pepsi, Hawaiian Waters, Suisan, Fire Department ladder trucks, rescue units, Office Depot and sundry other delivery vehicles use the same traffic pattern as the Toyota that came through the fence. That's not the kind of surprise I would like to find in my bedroom at any time. The subject property was used as an illegal parking lot by the center's employees, patients, H Triple C guards with permission from Dr. Takase, which they told us and the police. HCC visitors' lunch, cell phone conversations, talking stories, picnics in diesel trucks running engines for 30 to 60 minutes as they sat in the lot in air-conditioned comfort while we got their exhaust. H -Triple C weekenders, wielded in vehicles engaging in activities better suited to a hotel room, drank beer, smoked the last marijuana joint, urinated and littered along the fences bordering both the Gushiken and Reis' homes. Most reversed park with their exhaust facing the homes. This was 24/7, 365 until we complained yet again. The Gushikens and us were now bordered on three sides of our homes where we live by parking lots. The original application states that the lot is to be used by the HMC staff only, yet the Yamauchi's of 73 Punahele support the rezoning in their letter by saying it will keep the visitors from parking alongside the road in people's yards and driveways. Whose visitors? Only H -Triple C has visitors. Are there plans to allow H -Triple C parking there? For decades now, the Takase's have been adamant about the parking shortage, and testimony before the previous Planning Commission, we had been labelled by the surgery center physicians as selfish for not giving up our homes for parking lots, and, of course, that is why loosely, Hilo has no doctors. 21 EXHIBIT C In a building that was to have contained medical offices as asserted by the application, there has always been a lunch shop there from the very beginning with a lot of people coming from off the property to buy lunch and eat in their vehicles in this center's parking lot, in their cars. Could the non-medical business account for the parking shortage, and suddenly, now, they don't want to be restricted to a rezoning condition of being only a parking lot, and might do another commercial venture? And, I understand definitely about the contract conditions, but what are we to expect? A marijuana dispensary next? That's a medical facility perhaps. We didn't initiate the Memorandum of Agreement idea written by Gerald Takase, part owner of the subject property, and probably would never sign such a contract because we know first-hand from the experiences that we've endured, a parking lot cannot be mitigated. We know, again, from experience that no matter how many times we complain about the violations, there will be little relief until the next complaint unless there is a change. The Applicant wants no restrictions on his future development. Our County resources are stretched thin enough so blaming them isn't the cause or the answer. Developers need to be trusted and responsible to do the right thing or not do it at all. With all due respect to Mr. Fuke, who is just doing his job, we are due some respect, and could we please have some respect where we live. Thank you. Please deny the request. HENKEL: Thank you. Let's get the next four people. You may be seated. Danny Johnson, Annette Fujii, Katherine Rycraft, and Sally Kegler, please come up. And, Danny, if you can just pull up on the end there, I think the microphone will reach. Do you want to sit there and help Danny when he testifies? REIS, C.: Thank you. HENKEL: First, would you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes/I do. HENKEL: Okay, we'll start with Danny. Speak into the microphone, and you've got three minutes. JOHNSON: Okay, thanks. Yes, my legal name is Daniel Grant Johnson just for the record. HENKEL: Thank you. JOHNSON: Okay, I live at 18 Punahele Street. This is the first street, first house on Punahele Street, and I just returned to my childhood neighborhood in 2012 so it's a whole new world from where I came from. My prior residence, it was on a cul-de-sac, yeah, so, but I love it. I love being back home, but the thing is Punahele is such a popularI'm gonna just talk about traffic because I'm way at the beginning of Punahele so I don't deal with lot of the upper things but I 22 EXHIBIT C deal with the traffic, yeah? And, it's been said, the narrow street, the narrow size of the street, walkway. So, I go up and down Punahele. I go to the medical facilities and stuff, so I deal with the traffic, anddaily, I deal with the traffic, and it's a real popular street. Lot of trucks, buses, people walking, bicycles, motorcycles, cars, all the, all different vehicles, pedestrians use Punahele Street. I don't know why, but it's a wonderful street, and people love it. And, the thing is, right now, I believe in my heart that it's about maxed out as far as much, as far as the capacity for traffic. And, of course, it varies through the day. If I can ask you—but I believe, in Hilo, Punahele Street with a length of whatever it is, 750 feet whatever between Hala`i and Komohana is probably the busiest residential street in Hilo at that length. I would beg to differ with anybody that disagrees with that. So, I think the traffic is maxed out and that doesn't say it's, the capacity is not, it's good, it's good now, but it's like—it's like what Mr. Fuke said about the parking lot is the parking people up there need more parking and stuff because it's, it's sort of maxed out as far as parking up there for the workers like that. And, I would say tell the workers to, all of them, to carpool. Ridiculous statement, yeah? But, it's also ridiculous if I say add more traffic to Punahele. They know, and they can say, oh, 25, 24, 26 stalls, whatever, but that's adding those cars morning, afternoon at pau Kana, lunchtime, whatever it is, but that's ridiculous to add more traffic to Punahele. And a safety factor is also the obvious to everybody. So, thank you very much. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and thank you, Ms. Reis, for your assistance. The next testifier please state your name and where you're from. FUJIL Hello, hi, Annette Fujii. I'm representing the Hala`i Kumiai as a member, and I reside at 419 Haili Street. I remember being on the board, the Hala`i Kumiai for the longest, and we'd been discussing this issue for a long time. I think there's a matter of trust with the site owner as he opened up his parking lot to all this kind of activity which created and exacerbated the tranquil—the peace that was there prior to with all the activities that were going on. But, getting into this area of transition, it seems to me that when this facility was built, there was inadequate planning with regard to facilities; namely, parking. And, obviously, the facility is growing and with the growing of our island and the rest of the nation and world, more medical services are going to be needed. So, we're not only talking about only 24 to 26 spaces, and I think because the original sin was not planning appropriately, then perhaps there should be other considerations like instead of acquiring this lot, which the kumiai highly opposes, why not go up? I mean, we have serious problems, and we've been fighting this for a while, to convert Residential to Commercial, and because of the trust issue, we—we surely do not expect things to go as planned. So, our concern iswe table this. Do not accept this proposal. We deny it for the sake of the community and the greater good of that HMC. They need to plan for the future because more people are gonna get sick. In addition, across the street we have the Wailana, and what is that facility? It's a senior center. Am I wrong? Is it a senior center, Steve? So, we're gonna have traffic. Lots of traffic. So, one thing to take a look at is the kind of zoning there is; the kind of 23 EXHIBIT C anticipated growth at HMC is going to be subjected to as an area of transition. And, just this small parking lot will not be the total of the improvements that will be needed to accommodate patients. So, I think there needs to be forward looking at this project and provide for more parking and not just go after and disrupt a residential zoned area for a small parcel to accommodate today's needs. Thank you. HENKEL: Please state your name and where you're from. RYCRAFT: My name is Katherine Rycraft. I live at 26 Ulili Street which is in the Hala`i Tract. I live just right around the corner from the property that we're talking about, and I just want to say what others have said here, and thank you for the time and attention that you're giving this matter. It's greatly appreciated. I think my—my primary concern is, it is residential. It's in the middle of a residential block. It's right in the middle of the block. But, the point that Mr. Clarkson raised is actually kind of the deal breaker for me. Once this is rezoned, and it's now commercial, it kind of opens a floodgate for all kinds of other things. It can go from a parking lot very, very benignly into something else, and very benignly into something else, and then you've got a gas station because it is zoned commercial. And, I think that it won't it will be just a process that happens over time. And, I really, really think that it's in the best interests of the neighborhood, the area of town, old Hilo, to keep it residential. In my mind, if we were talking about the lot at the end of Punahele that is, that abuts onto Komohana, it wouldn't be as big an issue for me. But, this is between two homes, and it just doesn't, it just doesn't ring right. Just doesn't—my heart and soul tells me this just doesn't feel right. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you. Yes KEGLER: —Give me my minute. My name is Sally Kegler. My husband and I, Don, and Sally Kegler live at 40 Hina Street up on Hala`i Hill. I justI have no comment to make other than I want to go on record that I agree with all of my neighbors, and as a member of the Hala`i Kumiai, that I am in opposition, that we are in opposition to the building of this parking lot. HENKEL: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for any of the testifiers? If not, I'll look for a motion to close public testimony. You may be seated. Thank you very much. MOSES: I make a motion to close public testimony. MIYASATO: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Moses and seconded by Commissioner Miyasato to close the public testimony. All in favor, say aye. 24 EXHIBIT C COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Okay, public testimony is closed. At this point, I would be looking for a motion for action, and this motion would pertain to the Change of Zone 14-000175 as written. If—we've been given a lot of material today, too. If any of you don't feel ready, then maybe a motion to continue it would be appropriate, but if you're ready to act—I'll look for a motion one way or another. MOSES: Chair? HENKEL: Yes. MOSES: I'd like to make a motion. I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone, Docket No. REZ 14-175 based on the Planning Director's recommendation and findings, which shall be adopted. I also want to add something here. It's always difficult to make this type of decision when there's such a need for medical services as I know all of you agree with that. I am a patient there. I just had surgery there the other week, and I do understand the situation with parking. It's horrendous. But, I also heard something, and that is, we can't put a band-aid on this. And that's what this would be—is allowing for this residential property to be consol—which I think that's a great idea, but it's still a band-aid because there is such a great need and will continue to be. And, so, we may have to look for other options. And, so that's my two cents. HENKEL: So, there is a motion on the table. Is there a second? DELA CRUZ: Second. HENKEL: And motion by Commissioner Moses; second by Commissioner Dela Cruz. Any discussion? I would, I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Moses. For myself, I think it's a high price to pay for a band-aid and that we, you know, in this issue should be looking more to the future. Anybody else have comments or discussion? Then, we'll take a roll call. JACKSON: Okay, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. 25 EXHIBIT C JACKSON: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Henkel. HENKEL: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero to forward an unfavorable recommendation. HENKEL: You'll be notified in writing of the findings of the Commission. The discussion ended at 11:07 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 26 EXHIBIT C