Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-06 Hearing Transcript - Council Bill 228 (Hilo Medical Center REZ 14-175)WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 6, 2016 A regularly advertised hearing on the referral of COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NO. 228, DRAFT 2 (HILO MEDICAL CENTER REZ 14-175) was called to order at 10:27 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, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Molly Stebbins (Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), William Brilhante (Assistant Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Malia Ho (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 15 members from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL No. 228, Draft 2) APPLICANT: HILO MEDICAL CENTER (REZ 14-175) Referral of Bill 228, Draft 2; an Ordinance amending Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), by changing the district classification 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. The County Council is remanding Bill 228, Draft 2 back to the Planning Director and the Windward Planning Commission for comment and recommendation to consider proposed conditions of approval associated with the change of zone requested by Hilo Medical Center (REZ-14-175) that was heard by the Windward Planning Commission at its meeting on July 7, 2016 and for which an unfavorable recommendation of the request was offered to the County Council for its consideration. HENKEL: Okay, we'll move to No. 7 on the agenda which is the County Council Bill No. 228, Draft 2. The Applicant is the Hilo Medical Center, REZ 14-175, and Maija will be doing the presentation. EXHIBIT F JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, so the final item on your agenda is a County Council initiated transmittal of Bill 228, Draft 2. This is related to the Change of Zone application for the Hilo Medical Center. And, just to refresh your memory on the location of the property, it's in the South Hilo District just below Komohana Street. You see Komohana Street running in a north -south direction through the middle of the slide. You have Hala`i Hill in this location here, and then Punahele Street makes up the northern boundary of the subject property which is shown in red here. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential, and they are requesting Neighborhood Commercial zoning. So, just to give you a chronology of what brings us to this point, the application for Change of Zone was heard by your Commission in July of this year, and the Commission voted five -zero to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. At the time you heard the application, the Applicant proposed to use the property for a parking lot and to be used by the employees of the adjacent medical buildings with vehicular access from Punahele Street and pedestrian access between the subject property and the medical building properties. So, at that time, the Applicant had proposed to have vehicular access come from Punahele Street into the proposed parking lot and then employees of the medical center buildings here would walls to and from the employee parking lot through a pedestrian access here. So, then, your recommendation went up to the County Council's Committee on Planning. On August 16th, they considered the request, and they voted to support the Change of Zone request and to amend Bill 228 with adding conditions of approval. At that time, the—to address the community's concerns about increased traffic on Punahele Street, the Applicant proposed to eliminate vehicular access to the property from Punahele and instead provide vehicular access through the medical center building parking lot to the subject property, and I'll show you that in just a minute. So, now we're here today. The Committee on Planning transmitted Bill 228 to you to consider the Change of Zone conditions of approval and seek your recommendation on the bill with the conditions of approval. So, this is again the property. When the Council heard this application, the Applicant had proposed instead of having vehicular access from Punahele Street, having access through Pu`uhonu Way along the driveway through here and then a vehicular access connecting these two properties. So, the Planning Director the County Council asked that the Planning Director provide a recommendation as well as the Planning Commission on Bill 228, so we transmitted two recommendations to the Commission. One was our original recommendation and then we provided a supplemental, I think earlier this week, and both of those recommendations are unfavorable for the following reasons. 2 EXHIBIT F Condition H which is shown in the first Background we provided to you on page 3 of the draft bill, it limits the use of the property to a parking lot. This is one type of contract zoning—what we call contract zoning, and contract zoning is discouraged in the Zoning Code. It's also been successfully challenged in courts because it doesn't offer the landowner the full range of uses that are allowed in that zoning district. So, that was one of the reasons. Another reason is that if you look at Conditions F and G, there's no practical and reasonable way for the Planning Department to enforce those conditions. They relate to limiting the use of the proposed parking lot to employees only of those medical center buildings as well as enforcing daytime use only of the parking lot and prohibiting reverse parking, excessive idling, and loitering. It would obviously be very hard for the Planning Department to enforce those two conditions. And, then, lastly, Condition I, which is also on page 3, proposes vehicular access through the medical center properties rather than through Punahele Street. This conflicts with a final subdivision approval condition for the subdivision that created the medical center lots, and that issue was raised in our Supplemental Background and Recommendation Report to you. And, I can show you here what I'm talking about. So, this is the subject property here. Here's Punahele Street. Here's Komohana, and the medical center buildings are located on this property and this property here. Access to them is through Pu`uhonu Way which comes off of Komohana through a driveway here. So, when the subdivision was approved to create these two lots, there was in the Final Subdivision Approval letter language where the Department granted the Final Subdivision Approval with the understanding that to prevent access to Punahele Street, there would be a 10 -foot wide, no vehicular access planting screen easement located here. That's not shown on the plat map, but it was included on the Final Approval letter. So, obviously the Applicant's current proposal to cut off or restrict access from Punahele Street and use this driveway through the medical center properties to the subject property would conflict with that provision of the Final Subdivision Approval. And, I just want to also bring your attention to two items we've received since we released those recommendations. One is testimony you should have received this morning from Cheryl Reis, and then another is a letter from the Hala`i Kumiai dated September 15th. And, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. HENKEL: Thank you, Maija. Are there any questions for staff? If not, will the Applicant or their representative come forward? Will you raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before, on this matter before the Commission? FUKE/TAKASE: I do. HENKEL: Thank you. State your name and proceed. TAKASE: My name is Gerald Takase. I'm the owner of the subject property. 3 EXHIBIT F FUKE: And, I'm Sidney Fuke, assisting the Applicant. HENKEL: Thank you. Go ahead. TAKASE: Yes, so Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, we're here today on a remand from the County Council. When we appeared before the County Council and taking into account the testimony that was previously presented to the Planning Commission, we had presented some conditions to the County Council for, to be considered with this application. Since the matter went forth with an unfavorable recommendation, there were no conditions attached to the rezoning ordinance at the time, and the County Council felt that they wanted to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to weigh in on these conditions before taking any action on it, and that's why they're, I guess, back here before you. With respect to, I guess, the presentation by the Department, you know, yes, there is currently a planning [sic], planting screen easement across the boundary between the subject parcel and the medical center parcel. The primary purpose for that was to prevent access onto Punahele. The origin of this parcel really was when we had first gone in to seek rezoning of the medical center parcel, the County had recommended that we create a driveway to go through the parcel and go out to Punahele and that's why this parcel was acquired at the time. Through the rezoning process, there were objections by the neighbors, and so the driveway was abandoned at that point in time, and it's kind of sat ever since. The parcel has, I guess, still remained there and due to the increased use of the medical center, you know, parking has now become a problem up there. You know, I don't think anybody anticipated the amount of use that it would get, but with the surgery center being I guess very efficient in their operation now, the women's imaging center, there's much greater use of the center then was originally anticipated, and that is the reason for the—for the request for the parking now. As to the issue of contract zoning, yeah, I would agree that in general property owners should be given as many of the rights as possible to use their property, and that's kind of a general tenet of land use operation. In this case, I don't know that contract zoning should become an issue because contract zoning is an issue for the landowner to bring up, but in this case, we're the ones proposing the—the conditions upon the land, so it's not a situation where you typically have in contract zoning which Maija was talking about where the County or the Planning Commission would be the ones limiting the amount of use or limiting the uses by imposing conditions upon the zoning. You know, we will give you the zoning with these conditions. Ifif we weren't in agreement with this, then I think you have a true contract zoning situation, but in this case, we're—we as the applicants are proposing it. We would be hard pressed to file any type of action saying that the County can't do this to us because I think the County's answer would be you're the one that asked for it. We didn't impose it upon you. So, you know, it's there, but I think it's wrongly applied in this case. As to Conditions F and G, those were also proposals that we proposed to try and alleviate the concerns by the surrounding neighbors. It has always been our intention to use the lot only for 4 EXHIBIT F employee parking. We will be able to gate there and control access to that area through that method. Our property manager is here, and they will be responsible for helping to maintain those conditions—no reverse parking, you know, only employees; and the lot will be locked in the evenings, so, you know, we don't mind those conditions being imposed as well. And, I guess that's all I have if you have any questions. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Takase. Mr. Fuke, do you have anything to add? FUKE: Just very briefly because, you know, this has been kind of like a quote, unquote, like a festering sore for the community, and so basically, I think the community as well as like the Applicant basically would want to just kind of have this ultimately determined, you know, sooner rather than later. And, so, I think, you know, Mr. Takase did indicate a number of things. I just want to amplify one. You know, on the contract zoning issue, it is true that it's something that was proposed by the Applicant. On the other hand, if it's challenged by the Applicant, then it becomes a questionable matter. If, for example, if you look at the previous application on the John Kai's, you know, application, there was a condition restricting, you know, only one dwelling per lot whereas like the Zoning Code actually enables a property owner to have like one or two more, you know, dwellings on the property. So, in situations like that, you know, that's almost like a standard condition that has been, you know, accepted by the County Council. However, if it's challenged, then it's a situation where, you know, it's not what the Applicant is representing although he had agreed to it. So, in situations like that, perhaps, that, if it's challenged, could fall under the umbrella of the contract zoning and, thus, make that particular decision, you know, legally questionable. In terms of Condition G on the enforceability, I can understand what the staff is saying about like, you know, it's difficult to, you know like, how do you enforce like, you know, excessive idling, smoking, and so on and so forth. The reason that was suggested by the Applicant is that by having more specific details in terms of what to look for, then it becomes easier to enforce as opposed to just say that, you know, a generic condition that, you know, the parking lot shall not create any offensive, you know, not be offensive to the surrounding property owners or whatever. Then, it becomes, you know, how do you define, you know, offensive or whatever, so by having little bit more specific or more articulation as far as to what to look for whether it's going to be smoking, excessive idling or, you know, like reverse parking, you know so on and so forth, the concept behind that was to enable enforcers or other surrounding property owners to take pictures and create like a much more credible record for enforcement. That's pretty much it I guess. HENKEL: Thank you. Are there any questions of the Applicant? MIYASATO: I have a question. HENKEL: Yes. 5 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Yeah, I was wondering if you address Exhibit 2-A, the Final Subdivision Approval previous condition? FUKE: Okay, yeah, if you look at the map, I think back—the normal process is that, you know for prior to granting Final Subdivision Approval is that, you know, you don't grant Final Subdivision Approval with conditions. You know, you have to meet all of the conditions of Tentative Approval, and then you grant Final Approval, and this is not the decision that the current Director made, but you know back—way back then—the Final Approval was granted with certain conditions, and that's kind of like very unorthodox in my opinion anyway. So, having said that, I think that even if it's not reflected there and then, you know, there was this condition calling for that restriction, should the County CouncilI guess in my opinion—should the County Council approve a condition that requires internal access, then I would be of, it would be my opinion that the, that determination, legislative determination kind of trumps an administrative discretion of having a no, no access planting easement. So, the short answer is that, in my opinion, that it is reversible. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. HENKEL: Any other questions for the Applicant? Thank you. You may be seated. We have nine people signed up to testify, so I'm going to call the first four. There's four chairs up there. Annette Fujii, Katherine Rycraft, Cheryl Reis, and Vianne Reis. Will you raise your right hands? Do you affirm to tell the truth before the Commission on this matter? TESTIFIERS: Yes/I do. HENKEL: Thank you. Let's start with you. FUJII: Oh. HENKEL: State your name and where you live FUJIL Okay HENKEL: —and proceed. FUJIL Good morning, Chairman Henkel, and Committee, Council. My name is Annette Fujii, and I live at 419 Haili Street. I've lived there most of my adult life and moved into that neighborhood when I was five. Funny, Johnny's dad, Johnny Kai, used to live on Alae Street, one street over from me, so it's nice to see him today. My concern—I've lived in that neighborhood—Johnny and I and all the other guys used to ride around the community, and it's a very nice community. We have the only hill in Hilo, and it's beautiful. The jail was on the corner of Waianuenue and Komohana. We didn't have Komohana 6 EXHIBIT F then, but Punahele was a nice back street. You couldn't see the jail too much because of the growth there. Today, these residents on Punahele Street wake up and the first thing they see is the jail, all right? The State wants to do anything, you know, I would have made a recommendation to put it somewhere else, but there it sits right in front of these people's homes. And, since 2004, these people have had to live with that parcel under question having all kinds of situations going on. This is the third hearing we're having today on this rezoning. The prior two requests were denied. They weren't favorable recommendations, and we're here today again trying to deny this request. The residences, the residents here from 2004, I believe, have been fighting this issue, this parking lot—the noise, the exhaust, the illegal activities going on, swearing—all kinds of stuff going on in this lot until we said hey, do something about it. After the two hearings, there were recommendations made to Mr. Takase to help mitigate the situation and those were met with hardly any good faith and no faith at all, and this is why we've come to distrust the Applicant. If you had to live in this area, and wake up every morning looking at the jail, and having to deal with the traffic that's coming off of Komohana, you would be taken aback, I, I think. Now, they want to put in a parking structure, which is what their goal was all this time. You need to be there. You need to live there. You know, when people say not in my backyard. We can't say anything if the State wants to put something there, they have eminent domain. They have the right. But, when you have people trying to change a residence, those granting—that was granted zoning for that, then you have a problem, and it sticks right in the middle, right across the jail. These poor people have had to deal with this for years—since 2004. These reasons came up why the Commission has recommended unfavorable recommendations to the Applicant, and again, we would like to ask you to deny this request. You live in our neighborhood, you will understand. Right now, there's a gouge in the mauka side of our hill done without permit by Mauna Towers, LLC, and if you Google them, you will find their site on the web with the Hilo site. So, it seems like it's a done deal. There was no permitting done for this construction, for this big gouge. That parcel below the big gouge reaches right, right by these residents. They've had to deal with all that heavy construction, etc. when Komohana was built. They're gonna continue to be under outside forces trying to make life more difficult for them. So, I am asking you all to forward an unfavorable recommendation. These people have had to live with these situations for a long time. Cease and desist already. I would like to see, Mr. Takase, the vision for this medical center—are you going to be pac-manning every space available so that you can provide—the 24 lots, are there going to be enough for the future demands? Where's the vision? Where's the plan? We have nothing. We have failed promises from previous recommendations. That's what we have to go on. Please. Do not recommend favorably the Applicant in this, in this situation. HENKEL: Thank you, Ms. Fujii. And, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear before, but I'm going to ask you to limit your testimony to about four minutes, okay? 7 EXHIBIT F RYCRAFT: Okay. Hello, my name is Katherine Rycraft. I'm a resident of the Hala`i Kumiai, and I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify. I don't have a planned speech. I don't really know exactly what I'm going to say, only that my gut level tells me this is wrong. It's wrong to put a parking lot between two homes on a small residential street. It's wrong to put an ingress and egress through the back of the property to a commercial business. What I'm thinking off is when we listen to Dr. Takase talk about the increased business at the, at the medical center, how they are able to treat patients more efficiently, and they're able to serve more and more members of the community, I think that's wonderful, and I wish them continued success. But, with that continued success, is going to mean, they're going to need more space. They're going to need a bigger facility. They're going to need something that's above and beyond the facility that's there now. In time, they'll relocate, and they will move. And, they'll move to a bigger site that suits their needs better, and that will leave that little parking lot lying fallow. They won't have a use for it. They won't—it will be, it will be an eyesore. It will be a house lot that has either been paved or asphalted that is now weeds coming up through it. And, that's going to be worsea parking lot lying fallow is going to be worse than a parking lot in use. And, that's kind of one of my concerns. And, as I said, I appreciate this opportunity, and I'm going to implore you to give this a negative recommendation. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you, Ms. Rycraft, and next? REIS, V.: Good morning, Commissioners and Planning Director. I'm Vianne Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street, and I oppose the rezoning of 49 Punahele Street. I am tired of worrying over the constant threat of a car or a semi -truck crashing into our family home. I'm tired of worrying over the chance of Albizias or other trees falling onto our homes or property from the subject property. Two have fallen on our property. One fell onto the fence from the subject property over Punahele Street and partially blocked the makai lane of travel. Two fell on Mrs. Gushiken's home. The first tree knocked her power, her—excuse me—her cable out for two weeks. The second took two phone calls to Gerald Takase by Mrs. Gushiken's son, Paul, who was visiting before it was removed. I'm tired of worrying if and when three electrical transformers will explode that sit on an electric pole which we thought was supposed to be underground. This pole is approximately 15 feet away from my living room. I'm tired of worrying if and when again four ceramic resistors will explode. Why? Because one has exploded onto our roof next to my living room. Why did it explode? Kukai-maile has grown over the subject property's pole touching the resistor's line and transformers. HELCO cleared the maile partially from the guy wire and the pole but maile does, does return within a month and continues to engulf the pole. I'm tired of our families and our neighborhood, neighbors having to suffer the ill effects of poor maintenance, poor planning, exhaust, noise, and lack of privacy. Responsibility has and is not happening. Please deny this rezoning request. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you, Vianne. Cheryl? EXHIBIT F REIS, C.: Am I on? Thank you. Good morning. My name is Cheryl Reis, and I live at 65 Punahele Street mauka and immediately bordering the subject property. My neighbor, Mrs. Marjorie Gushiken's house, referenced later, is on the border below the subject property. I thank you for the opportunity to request a denial of this application. The real issue here isn't just whether you will approve a parking lot for a developer because he says he needs one, but you will actually set a precedence for a developer, any developer, to continue as past Planning Commissioner, Andy Iwashita, admonished his colleagues about, for creating problems that penalize neighborhoods that are supposed to be protected by real planning and foresight, to stop developers from overbuilding and riding roughshod over those neighborhoods and correcting their errors to the negative and to the harm to the people, who live there that you're supposed to be here to protect, from bad decisions, and then try to solve these mistakes on the backs of the community with the sanction of the so-called process. We have been voicing our concerns since the first rezoning requests in 1979, 1987, 1994, opposing the approval of a road, not a parking lot—originally part of the project, through the middle of Mrs. Gushiken's home and mine. Since approximately 2004 when rezoning requests began for a parking lot instead of the road, we objected then as we do now to any gross intrusion of traffic—moving or staticthrough the middle of two established homes in an established residential area. As a former District Commander, I reviewed development plans and noted concerns from an HPD perspective. I retired in 1994 as a Hawaii County Police Major and little did I realize that I would still be policing in a different way watching people I care about suffer as a result of indifference and an almost total disregard by some members of this community for others rights and wellbeing. Past Planning Commissioner, Sally Rice, cautioned me to remember that Commercial zoning is cast in stone, and the developers can do whatever they want. I naively replied that Dr. Allan Takase gave his word that he would respect our concerns. She was right, and I was wrong. On October 4, 2007, we received wonderful news that rezoning for the parking lot had again been denied. My daughter and I returned home to share the news with my mom, Bertha Awaya, then 93. On October 5th, the very next morning at 3 a.m., she suffered a stroke. On October 19, 2007, the zoning Board of Appeals upheld the violation of rezoning conditions relative to the operation of an illegal parking lot in that subject property. My mother died that day. She was never again able to enjoy her home, and our last day with her well and cognizant was spent at a rezoning hearing trying to recover our old, good neighborhood. George Gushiken, already ill at home and Mrs. Gushiken's husband, he is now also gone, and my mom suffered greatly from the overwhelming exhaust, dust, noise, and soot generated by Haitsuka's Construction Company and their base yard and Concept Construction's work on the surgery center and rehab, as did the rest of us. 9 EXHIBIT F Ordinance No. 95-33 required the following rezoning conditions be implemented. Twenty Podocarpus plants were planted instead of the original 81 six-foot plants depicted on the landscaping plan for our privacy/exhaust mitigation in a continuous, unbroken line along the northeastern boundary of the project, including the Puna boundary of the subject property. The privacy planting screen for Mrs. Gushiken's home was cut in 2012. They died and they have never been replaced. She has no privacy. A four -foot chain link fence was installed along the boundaries—that northeastern boundary of the subject property for PPB. Of Enomoto's, Yamauchi's and Reis' properties, instead of the required black vinyl coated six-foot chain link fence. The no vehicular access planting screen easement was never planted across the Puna boundary of the subject property. Each a violation of no access from or to Punahele as required by Final Subdivision Plan and Ordinance 95-33. The deed for this no vehicular access planting screen was required to have been filed before the Final Subdivision Approval. I haven't found a record of its filing with the Bureau of Conveyances as of last week. Haitsuka Brothers baseyard, Loeffler Construction, and other independent truckers, Concept Construction, etc., County and State inspectors, visitors, vendors, government inspectors, and anyone used the subject property from 1994 as an access to and from Punahele Street that continued to the completion of rehab in approximately 1997 when the first certificates of occupancy were issued. Even though 95-33, enacted in March of 1995, prohibited this use as an access point. The rough total of trips by Haitsuka vehicles, including machinery, the various truckers, deliveries is at least around 25,000 plus, and each is a violation of that access to Punahele Street. The subject property then began its use as a parking lot after being cleared of vegetation and first used as is. Later, gravel was installed and parking spaces marked with paint. HCC ACO's, attorneys, social workers, and other State officials, visitors, inmates, and anyone including HENKEL: Ms. Reis? REIS, C.: Yes? HENKEL: Could you please wrap it up because your time is up? REIS, C.: Okay, thank you. Well, you have a copy of that and you can see from, what I'm trying to say as far as we're concerned. We are still trying to recover our good, old neighborhood that Nancy Cabral characterized this as the desire for a quiet neighborhood is a lost dream in testimony before the 2007 Planning 10 EXHIBIT F Commission. I have filed two rezoning condition violations on 9/25 of this year and one should have been in place before the surgery center was occupied. Sgt. Richard Rickard, my mentor at HPD, told me that my life experiences were the best teacher and to put myself in the other guy's shoes when dealing with people in my job. I did, and he was right. It worked for both sides. I'm asking you now, all of you, to do the same. We had, and still can have, a great neighborhood if you will put yourselves in our homes and lives after the horrible ordeal that we have been subjected to and correct what is still continuing. Conformance with the law didn't and isn't happening many times over. And a new set of conditions will not do anything to change things. Please deny this request. HENKEL: Thank you. I'lloh, I'm sorry—are there any questions for the testifiers? Thank you. You may return to your seats, and I'll call the next four—Ted Lesnett, A. Stephen Woo, Nancy Cabral, and Gary Harrold. Thank you. If you will raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do/yes. HENKEL: Okay, then we'll start with Ms. Cabral. You can state your name and where you're from and proceed. And, I'm going to ask again to please limit it to four minutes, okay? CABRAL: Okay. HENKEL: Is it four? CABRAL: Thank you. Yeah, my name is Nancy Cabral, and I am the property manager. I work with Day-Lum Rentals and Management. I am the property manager for the Punahele Professional Building, not the rehab center but the one building and other buildings in that general area. And, I have been to a number of these hearings over the years and the efforts to extend parking for the building. TheI appreciate the passion of those that are obviously clearly, immediately directly affective by having a commercial property next to residential, and I have a feeling with my new appreciation for the job you folks do that, that this is the challenge of why sit where you sit is that you have always the conflict between growing needs of a community with commercial needs and service needs growing into residential establishments. I did ask that the map be up, and I think I'm loud. [Secretary's Note: Ms. Cabral went off mic to the audience/presentation screen area.] There's a lot of history here, and I think I want to point it out `cause on the zoning—this is zoned as Residential, but that's the prison. It's been there from the looks of the buildings probably a hundred years. And, so then, these, all of this area here before it became medical, my understanding is it was zoned for multi -family, and I think Mr. Moore helped us with trying to work things out years ago when we verified that. So, had had the Takase family at that time not gone in, in '96, '97 and ask for that change, chances are 11 EXHIBIT F that would have and could have become multi -family residential, and I at Day-Lum will tell you in 1996, '97, the only thing that would have been built would have been HUD low-income housing, and, I manage that housing. So, while these neighbors are, are impacted by it, they also in their own testimony testified we're not, this medical thing is not putting any—anything onto their street at Punahele. It is a fact that it is a major thoroughfare— HENKEL: Ms. Cabral? CABRAL: —right down here, you've got the schools HENKEL: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're not getting your testimony, you know, for the record. Can you use the microphone? CABRAL: Oh, okay. Anyway, it—the, you've got the prison there, and you've got the schools. You've got all the schools for the—the original schools for this entire community are all feeding into that. You've got the one-way traffic patterns. So, you know, the community has been impacted, and I am sorry. I think it used to be a dead-end street and you could have a quiet house even with the prison across the street. Many of the complaints that they issue and cite are ones that occurred when the parking lot was unfenced, and it was open. It was just left there as raw, and it wasn't the medical people `cause we didn't even have a walkway to get to, and it was gated on the medical side. It was the people visiting at the prison. I can assure you it was not doctors down there, God forbid, smoking dope and having, shooting up drugs and, you know, having sex in the parking lot. So, that is what it could return to. It's a vacant lot. Right? If we unfenced it, it would become a vacant lot, okay? So, I'm really imploring you what the, what we're asking for is to be a fenced, vinyl fenced, privacy fenced controlled parking lot. I, at Day-Lum as the property manager, can absolutely control what 20 people will have parking spaces in there. We will know exactly whose car they are. They will be permitted. They will be gated in. They will only be—we have night-time security. They will only be allowed to park at night-time [sic]. Those things that were considered unenforceable are enforceable. We do it elsewhere. I cannot promise that there will never be a mistake, but no one can. But, I really implore on you folks. It's a hard decision but that's why you're in the hard seat. The decision is to do what's best for not it's the Hala`i Hill. That's a nice place, but it's not affected. It's really those four houses or two houses, and while it's unfortunate, they will not be any more affected then they already are. It's a matter of doing your job and doing what's best for the community at large. Otherwise, all of us can just fly on out to Honolulu when we need to go to the doctor and that's kind of what option you're giving these doctors. Thank you very much. HENKEL: Thank you. Next testifier, please. LESNETT: My name is Ted Lesnett. I live at 59 Ala Muku Street. Good morning, again. And, I say again because isn't our first rodeo together. This is at least my third. It's feeling a lot to 12 EXHIBIT F me like the movie, "Ground Hog Day." We keep doing the same thing over and over and over expecting different results, and for some, that's a good definition of crazy. Are we? I feel myself really, though, back in graduate school. Back there, everybody had to take statistics. And, you aren't in class for more than about a week, then you learn the departmental joke. It goes like this. You ask a math teacher how much is 3 and 5, and he or she will say eight. You ask the school principle, he will say eight. You ask a housewife, an engineer, a neighbor, a policeman, three and five, you get eight. But, you ask a statistician, and the answer is, "how much do you want it to be?" Same thing goes for accountants, lawyers, politicians, planners. They all know how to do that. Those occupations are paid never to accept the simple truth. This bill represents the attempt of such people to convince my neighborhood that we can't add. My neighborhood is an older community, well established. You know, we have phones that have cords on them that attach to walls. And, they have big buttons, too. When we get up in the morning, we look out our window to our neighbor's house seeking a face that will tell us our neighbor survived the night. And, we wave. Then we look at trees; we look at the yard; we look at flowers; we look at cats, weeds; listen to the birds. But, that all adds up to eight in a residential neighborhood. We do not expect to look out at a parking lot through any kind of fence, at strange cars, or the noise of traffic next to our dining rooms or our kitchens, or smell the exhaust of automobiles floating in our windows. That isn't a residential home. We bought and built our houses. We had families. And, we did it in a residential area that guess what? Was zoned Residential. Imagine that. This bill attempts to add three and five and get nine, or get seven. For some, even six. It won't work. Let me make it crystal clear. In a residential area, you build houses next to houses and put families in them. You don't put parking lots between neighbors. We know that. This bill doesn't understand that. So, our answer to this bill and application is no. And that isn't new. It's been no before; it's no today; and it will be no tomorrow. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Lesnett. Next? HARROLD: Good morning. My name is Gary Harrold. I live at 11 Ala Muku Street. The cancerous expansion of asphalt parking lots is deplorable in this entire country and the entire world. As most of you have seen, this block chop expansion, oil drips from cars and vehicles onto parking lots. That that vehicular discharge gets washed into the bay, into our sacred waters, and something that is never talked about is ride -sharing incentives. Every single medical facility, educational facility, business facility in this world really, especially, I mean everywhere, needs to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads. My primary care physician is in that building, 95 percent of the time I ride my bike up there. I'm 71, and I'm really proud of the fact that I cycle as much as I do, and I wish everybody did, but so, I'm extremely opposed to this lot -- 13 EXHIBIT F this asphalt cancer in this residential area. And, I really feel compassion for the next door neighbors of this proposed lot. Thank you for listening. WOO: Good morning. My name is A. Stephen Woo, Jr. I'm a resident of the Hala`i Kumiai. I am speaking as a member of the Kumiai. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my objection to the proposed zoning change. I pause at the hypothetical advertisement that one homeowner could put in if the zoning change is approved. "For Sale: Spacious, recently remodeled 4 -bedroom, 2 -bath home. Close to schools, library, and to Downtown. Well-maintained by owner who has occupied it for over 30 years. The house is a gem and a must for your family's use." Then, at the bottom of the ad, it says, `By the way, the adjacent lot is zoned Neighborhood Commercial, and is currently used as a parking lot. Moreover, the commercial zoning of this lot opens the possibility of using it for other uses in the future." And, at the bottom we say, "Make your best offer." Most homebuyers look at the zoning as assurance that the site will be utilized as zoned. As a protection from uses that endanger the value of their property, and Ted has talked to that very, very eloquently. So, what you're doing is a matter of public trust, and we ask you to deny the zoning change. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you. Are there any questions for these four testifiers? You may be seated, and there is one testifier left, Mary Freitas. And, also, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify? Now, would be the time to sign up, so please sign up if you want to testify. Oh, you can sit down there. I was asking if there was anyone else that wanted to join you. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before this Commission on this matter? FREITAS: I do. HENKEL: Thank you. State your name and where you're from and proceed FREITAS: My name is Mary Freitas, and I live in the Hala`i Tract, and I'm a member of the Hala`i Kumiai which is a wonderful, wonderful organization. I think there used to be so many kumiais in Hilo, but thanks to these good people, ours is still alive, active, and having fun, and helping to keep our community the way we like it to be. I had written things I was going to say, but apparently everybody else has pretty much said them, and I ask you, please give it consideration what they have said. Originally, I was not in favor of protesting this rezoning because I know we all need the Hilo Community—the Hilo Medical Center, and those people need to park, and I want them to park. But, I wonder why Mr. Takase is so insistent on using this little, tiny lot that will only provide 20 parking spaces or 20 plus when he's gonna need hundreds, and apparently, he needs hundreds 14 EXHIBIT F right now, and there is other property available. For instance—you have to excuse me, I don't like speaking in public, but I'm trying to organize these thoughts. I believe there are parking spaces or commercially zoned areas on the Ponahawai Street area which is just a short walk for these people, and he could have that developed. He could lease it, and make a multi-level parking lot which I think is ultimately what's going to be needed. And, I don't understand why he insists on using this little, tiny space, and it does not justify disrupting a neighborhood. I can only guess that it's for his own personal financial gain. Another thing I would like you to consider is something we don't always appreciate when we live in Hilo—and, that is, how beautiful little Downtown Hilo is. And, I think tourists appreciate it. It's a unique, beautiful place, and included in that beauty are the neighborhoods mauka of it, our neighborhoods. And, I ask you to do all you can to preserve those neighborhoods. I also believe that granting this rezoning application will open the door for many more little commercial lots all along the way, because everybody's going to sell out for the money. Not everybody. Not us, but a lot of landowners will, and pretty soon, it will not be nice. It's a unique and beautiful part of Hawaii, and I beg you to protect it, and I believe that is your job, and I believe there is no justification for using this little, small residential lot. It's not going to have any effect on the parking needs of the doctors, so. I don't know what else I wrote. I can't read it. Anyway, I just ask you to do what's right and to give it a lot of consideration. Down the road if they still need it, we can come back and redo it, but once the rezoning is changed, we can't reverse it, I don't think it would be easy to change it, so let's take our time and put our integrity into this decision. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Freitas? If not, I'llis there anyone else that would like to testify? I'll look for a motion to close public testimony. MIYASATO: I make a motion to close public testimony CLARKSON: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say, "aye." COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? The motion carries. Public testimony is closed. I would look for a motion for action now and then some discourse to the motion. MOSES: Chair, I want to make a motion. HENKEL: Yes, Commissioner Moses. MOSES: Since our last time that we've met regarding this issue, I want to first thank the Planning Department to continue with their stance on this. I haven't changed my feelings from the last time. Although, I am a consumer, a patient many times of Dr. Takase, and the use of that 15 EXHIBIT F facility, which I am so grateful for, I believe, yes, the success there has surpassed its place. It needs another place that can support the amount of patients and care that it can give. And, so, I don't change my stance as far as having this parking lot as a band-aid fix for something much greater. I thank the community for continuing to come out and for sharing your concerns. So, with that, I want to make a motion to move that an unfavorable recommendation on Bill No. 228, Draft 2 be forwarded to the County Council based on the Planning Director's recommendations and findings which shall be adopted. HENKEL: Is there a second? CLARKSON: I second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Moses and seconded by Commissioner Clarkson to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. Any discussion on the motion? MIYASATO: Yeah, I just have a comment. You know, I guess my comment would be more to the Planning Department in regards to parking spaces that are required per office unit. You know, everyone here that's familiar with prior practice of medical facilities, professional buildings, it was common to have one doctor, one dentist per an office building where recently, maybe—well, not maybe recently—but, as far as maybe 20 years ago, it's been more common practice to have multiple doctors or dentists sharing an office, and I think that contributes a lot to the lack of adequate parking. And, you know, I appreciate the Applicant's effort to try and remedy this problem, and at the same time, you know, it's a burden to the community that's probably been placed on them by doctors or dentists or professionals sharing office spaces. And, I think it's going to continue towards that practice of sharing, and so maybe at the Planning Department level, we might need to look at requiring more stalls per unit would be just my comment to this. HENKEL: Thank you. You know, I would like to comment also, and I appreciate the Applicant's attempt to mitigate the situation, but you know, this Commission has always placed a lot of weight on how it affects neighbors, you know. This—this goes back to a lot of previous issues that we've discussed, and I still look at it, too, as kind of a band-aid fix for 20 parking stalls whereas we need to find a—you know, to design intelligently and find a bigger, more permanent solution for the growth in that area. And, I mean, there's, there is room towards Ponahawai. There's public transportation alternatives, and that's about all I have I say. I know Ms. Cabral, do you have something to add back there? CABRAL (from audience): I have a question since I manage the property HATA-FINLEY: Microphone, please. CABRAL: Okay. 16 EXHIBIT F HENKEL: You do have a nice voice, but we need to get on record. CABRAL: Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you for letting me, indulging me in this probably out of normal statement. Okay, so based on Raylene's comments and so many people probably in this room have used a doctor facility in that general area. So, what we need to do is limit how many patients we have come. That's what the only solution is. If we cannot accommodate the patients we have, we need to limit the patients, so HENKEL: —Okay, Ms. CabralI'm, I'm sorry. I was out of order. CABRAL: Okay. HENKEL: Public testimony has been closed. CABRAL: Okay. HENKEL: And, we're not allowed to let you testify. CABRAL (from audience): Okay, my comment is how who do we eliminate? Who wants to send—when you make that decision on who we send a letter to and say, "I'm sorry. Go to Kona or go to Honolulu. We can't accommodate you" HENKEL: —Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, that was my mistake. Is there any more discussion? Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: Yes, I just want to say that this is a rezone. I personally feel it's incumbent on the Applicant to demonstrate that the Change of Zone will cause no harm at the very least and preferably be a positive benefit for the community. In this case, the testimony has been almost overwhelmingly negative in terms of the neighborhood, neighbors to this property. And, my feeling is that the Applicant has not met the standards that would be required for a rezone. So, I'm also disappointed if I may say that what we decided last time was disregarded by the County Council. I don't want to get into an argument with them, but I just want to be on the record as urging them to follow our recommendation which I believe will be overwhelmingly negative. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Clarkson. Anybody else have any comments on the Commission towards the motion? Then, we're ready for a roll call vote. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. 17 EXHIBIT F JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Henkel. HENKEL: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five, zero. HENKEL: Thank you. You'll be notified in writing of the Commission's findings. The discussion ended at 11:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 18 EXHIBIT F