HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0981.007 2014-2016 p
William P.Kenoi -(0?-7.7j •!!r . Randall M.Kurohara
Mayor �`,i;Q ` Acting Managing Director
f a of fir 4Ua ur
25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553
KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740
(808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440
n.:
o. #
•
October 13, 2016 _ �;_ •
.c 17)—<
1C)
Dru Kanuha, Council Chair Q
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai`i
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Kanuha and Members:
SUBJECT: County Council Initiated Bill No. 228, Draft 2
Change of Zone (REZ 14-000175)
Request: RS-7.5 to CN-7.5
Applicant: Hilo Medical Center
Tax Map Key: 2-3-035:018
As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawai`i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Windward Planning Commission's letter and
enclosures regarding the above-referenced request.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM P. KENOI
Mayor
MTransCouncilHMCREZl4-1752
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department Comm.No. P • 7
Ref.To:
2?
Ref.Date 0 cot. Zd
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
+tY OFA
• ;
William P.Kenoi .-210:1.°f1,.'.',,,,..
: 4"4 Gregory Henkel,Chair
Mayor .i 'llt%* . Myles Miyasato,Vice Chair
e
Joseph Clarkson
_ , .: • Donn Dela Cruz
of M• Donald Ikeda
Raylene Moses
County of Hawaii
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720
Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742
October 13, 2016
Dru Kanuha, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawai`i
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Kanuha and Council Members:
SUBJECT: County Council Initiated Bill No. 228, Draft 2
Change of Zone (REZ 14-000175)
Request: RS-7.5 to CN-7.5
Applicant: Hilo Medical Center
Tax Map Key: 2-3-035:018
The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on October 6, 2016, considered
the above-referenced referral of Bill 228, Draft 2, on remand by the County Council to the Windward
Planning Commission to consider proposed conditions of approval associated with 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 a
Single-Family Residential-7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet
(CN-7.5) zoning district for 9,230 square feet of land. The 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 2', South Hilo, Hawaii.
After review of the entire record and in concurrence with the recommendation made by the Planning
Director, the Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council.
Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
•
Dru Kanuha, Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
October 13, 2016
We have also enclosed copies of the Background Report, Planning Director's Recommendation,
Supplemental Background and Recommendation Report, and Powerpoint presentation. A draft
transcript of the hearing for your information is forthcoming.
Sincerely,
C U
Gregory Henkel, Chairman
Windward Planning Commission
LCouncilinitiatedBill228HMCwpc2
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant
Hilo Medical Center
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
William Brilhante, Esq., Corporation Counsel
BR-CClnitiated Bi11228-HiloMedCtrREZ2.doc-9/27/16
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND and RECOMMENDATION REPORT
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL NO.228,DRAFT 2)
APPLICANT: HILO MEDICAL CENTER(REZ 14-000175)
The County Council has referred to the Windward Planning Commission Bill No. 228,
Draft 2; to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning
Code), of the Hawai`i 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 Hawai`i Community
Correctional Facility, Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-3-035:018.
BACKGROUND
The County Council is remanding Bill 228, Draft 2 to the Planning Director and the
Windward Planning Commission for comment and recommendation on a favorable consideration
of the request by Hilo Medical Center(REZ 14-175)for a change of zone of the subject property
to a CN-7.5 zoning district along with proposed conditions of approval. (P.D. Exhibit 1- Bill
228, Draft 2)
The application for a change of zone was heard by the Windward Planning Commission
at its meeting on July 7, 2016 at which time the Commission voted 5-0 to forward an
unfavorable recommendation of the request to the County Council for its consideration. (P.D.
Exhibit 2-July 26,2016 letter from Windward Planning Commission to Dru Kanuha,
Council Chair)
At its meeting of August 16, 2016, the County Council's Committee on Planning
considered the draft bill for the change of zone request along with the entire record that was
-1-
presented before the Windward Planning Commission that resulted in its unfavorable
recommendation of the change of zone request to the County Council.
FOUNDATION
Bill No. 228, Draft 2 was provided to this office and the Windward Planning Commission
to solicit our comments and recommendation on the draft bill that favorably supports the change
of zone request based on mitigating conditions which attempts to address adverse impacts upon
adjoining residential uses. At the Windward Planning Commission meeting on July 7, 2016,the
Applicant presented its version of findings in support of the change of zone request along with
proposed mitigating conditions for the Commission's consideration that were similar to the
proposed conditions within Bill No. 228,Draft 2, with the exception of certain conditions that
prohibited vehicular access to the subject property from the Hilo Community Surgery Center
(Parcel 42) and the Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific/Rehab at Hilo (Parcel 16)with its only
access directly from Punahele Street.
The remand of Bill No. 228, Draft 2 is prompted by the significance of its proposed
conditions which would require consolidation of the subject property with the Hilo Community
Surgery Center property(Parcel 42)to allow for interior access connection and prohibit access
directly from Punahele Street. The proposed parking lot would therefore function in a manner
substantially different from that represented by the Applicant before the Windward Planning
Commission, and therefore warrant its consideration of the amended proposal presented by Bill
No. 228, Draft 2.
ANALYSIS
If adopted by the County Council, Bill No. 228, Draft 2 would change the zoning of the
subject property from RS-7.5 to CN-7.5. Although over thirty different commercial land uses
are normally permitted in the CN zoning district (P.D. Exhibit 3-Division 10. CN,
Neighborhood Commercial Districts of Zoning Code), the bill restricts the use of the property
to a parking lot for employees working at the medical buildings on Tax Map Keys 2-3-035:045
-2-
and 016. We provide P.D. Exhibit 4 (Location Map) as a reference to remind the Commission
of the location of the subject property.
While we understand and appreciate the applicant's attempt to mitigate adverse impacts
upon adjoining properties that will be caused by the proposed parking lot,a Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) zoning district allows for a full range of uses such as convenience stores,
financial institutions, restaurants, and general retail establishments. Limiting the use of the
property to a parking lot could be considered"contract zoning", which has been successfully
challenged in courts because it does not offer the landowner the full ranges of uses allowed in the
zoning district.
Section 25-3-5(Application of district regulations) of the Zoning Code discourages
"contract zoning"by stating in part(a),"The provisions of this chapter for each district shall
apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure or land within the district, except as provided
in this chapter." (Emphasis added) This section is saying that each property in the CN zoning
district shall be able to develop to the full range of uses permitted in the district.
We defer to the Applicant to provide whatever narrative or documentation it feels
necessary to encourage the Windward Planning Commission to favorably consider draft Bill No.
228, Draft 2 and its proposed conditions of approval.
Finally,the Planning Director reaffirms, as he did in his initial unfavorable
recommendation regarding this particular request, that the range of uses permitted within a CN-
zoning district, including a parking lot associated with commercial use, is not an appropriate land
use pattern in the midst of a residential neighborhood at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons detailed above,the Planning Director recommends that the Windward
Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council
regarding Bill No. 228,Draft 2.
-3-
BILL NO.228,DRAFT 2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS
In anticipation that the Commission may wish to speak to the specific mitigating
conditions of approval being offered by this Bill in light of this unfavorable recommendation, the
Director provides the following assessment of the proposed conditions from a strict standpoint of
mitigating impacts that have been identified through review by the commenting agencies and
comments received by surrounding property owners and the public.
Most of the conditions within the draft bill are typical of change of zone actions resulting
in a Commercial (CV or CN) zoning district situated adjacent to a Single Family Residential
(RS) zoning district. However,there are certain mitigating conditions that should be highlighted
from the perspective of applicability, effectiveness and enforcement. These proposed conditions,
and corresponding comments from the Planning Director, include:
Proposed Condition D
The applicant shall implement any improvements as may be required by the Fire
Department and/or Department of Water Supply to ensure that fire protection
requirements can be met for the proposed parking lot.
Comment: Parking lots generally do not require fire protection or water service.
Proposed Condition F
Construction of the proposed parking lot, which shall be limited to employees situated in
buildings on TMK: 2-3-35: 45 and 16, shall be completed within five(5) years from the
effective date of this ordinance.
Comment: Incorrect parcel identified. Hilo Community Surgery Center is located on
Parcel 42, not 45. Secondly,there is no reasonable and practicable way for the Planning
Department to enforce this condition short of frequent monitoring of parked vehicles and
its association with employees working in both the Hilo Community Surgery Center
(Parcel 42) and the Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific/Rehab at Hilo (Parcel 16).
Proposed Condition G
Prior to the construction of the parking lot, the applicant, successors or assigns shall
secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in
accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai`i County Code.
-4-
Plans shall identify the paved driveway access between the subject site and TMK: 2-3-35:
42 and paved parking stalls associated with the proposed development, as well as signage
that identifies rules relating to the hours of daytime use only;prohibition of reverse
parking,excessive idling,loitering;penalty and the like. Landscaping shall also be
indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise,odor or visual
impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning
Department's Rule 17 (Landscaping Requirements). Landscaping for the side yards shall
comply with the buffer yard standard for separation of an industrial zoning district
adjoining a residential zoning district in Rule 17. Landscaping for the rear and front
yards shall comply with the parking lot standards in Rule 17. Further, a landscaping
barrier such as a solid fence and/or vegetative barrier between the subject property and
TMK: 2-3-35: 017 and 019 shall be installed. The combined height of the fence and/or
vegetative barriers shall be at least equal to the height of the existing roof line of the
dwelling on TMK: 2-3-35: 017 and shall extend at least to the length of that dwelling.
Said landscaping improvements and barriers shall be implemented prior to the subject
site's use as a parking lot.
Comment: Implementation of this condition should reasonably resolve potential adverse
impacts from parking lot operations upon adjoining properties. Planning Department
Rule 17 regarding Landscaping requires a five-foot wide landscaping buffer with one(1)
tree and three(3) shrubs per 35 lineal feet of parking lot perimeter. However, since the
condition speaks to a"solid"wall, fence or vegetative barrier along the common
boundaries of the adjoining residential properties,reasonable mitigation can be achieved.
However,the Department will not be able to reasonably and effectively enforce the
daytime use of the parking lot,the prohibition of reverse parking and excessive idling,
and loitering.
Proposed Condition H
As represented by the applicant and concurred by the landowner, restrictive covenants
shall be included in the deed of the subject site that, in spite of the multitude of uses
allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-10) district,restricts its use to an
employee parking lot with no direct access to Punahale Street. A copy of the recorded
covenant shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to its use as a parking lot.
Comment: Aside from the contractual nature of this condition, a provision should be
included that would specify that any amendment or deletion of this restrictive covenant
must also require the approval of the County Council through the amendment of the
change of zone ordinance.
In summary, the effectiveness of mitigating conditions of approval are supported by the
Department's ability to enforce it. Should complaints from non-compliant activities be received
-5-
by the Department, it is then obligated to investigate and, if warranted, demand timely corrective
measures. If timely corrective measures are not made, then the Department is obligated to issue
a citation and fines,or bring this matter back before the County Council for further disposition.
In the end,the Department will be obligated to"police"the subject property to ensure
compliance with the conditions of the ordinance. This all begs the question that if a change of
zone requires such extraordinary efforts to manage the parking lot operations and to prohibit any
other use allowed within the CN zoning district, then what does this say about the
"appropriateness"of the requested change of zone in this particular location at this time?
-6-
Greggor Ragan : ..... Office: (808)965-2712
Council Member Fax: (808)965-2707
• �
District 4 Puna Makai —• Email: gilagan'ahawuiicoanty.gov
� -.� • �
HAWAI`I COUNTY COUNCIL
25 Aupuni Street,Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 rn
TO: Duane Kanuha, Director
Planning Department
FROM: Greggor Ilagan,Chair -�
Committee on Planning
DATE: August 29,2016
SUBJECT: 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 Hawai`i County
Code 1983 (2005 Edition),by Changing the District CIassification from Single-
Family Residential—7,500 Square Feet(Rs-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial—
7,500 Square Feet(Cn-7.5)at Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawaii,Covered by
Tax Map Key: 2-3-035:018.
Pursuant to a vote of the Hawaii County Committee on Planning,I am submitting Bill 228,
Draft 2, enclosed for your comment and recommendation. I also request that you forward the
same to the Windward Planning Commission for its comment and recommendation as well.
Please forward your response to Council Chairperson Dru Kanuha.
For informational purposes, Bill 228 had previously received a negative recommendation from
the Planning Department,to which the Windward Planning Commission concurred at its public
hearing on July 7,2016. The Committee on Planning,at its meeting on August 16, 2016,voted to
amend Bill 228 to Draft 2. Committee members then voted to refer the amended bill to you and
to the appropriate planning commission for comment.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Enc.
G1:ps
Hawaii County Is an Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer Planning Dept.
Exhibit, i
COUNTY OF HAWAII j,_A!' ‘"'-ft.:: STATE OF HAWAII
BILL NO. 228
(DRAFT 2)
ORDINANCE NO.
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),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)AT PUNAHOA 2ND, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED
BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-3-035:018.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 25-8-33, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)of the Hawai`i
County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is amended to change the district classification of property
described hereinafter as follows:
The district classification of the following area situated at Punahoa 2nd, South
Hilo,Hawai`i, shall be Neighborhood Commercial—7,500 square feet(CN-7.5):
Beginning at the west corner of this parcel of land and on the southeasterly side of
Punahele Street,the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government
Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 401.48 feet North and 627.55 feet West
and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South:
1. 232° 49' 71.00 feet along the southeasterly side of
Punahele Street;
2. 322° 49' 130.00 feet along Lot 7;
3. 52° 49' 71.00 feet along the remainder of L.C. Aw. 387,
Part 4, Section 1, A.B.C.F.M., R.P. on
confirmation number 1946, number 1 to
D.B. Lyman;
4. 142° 49' 130.00 feet along Lot 5 to the point of beginning
and containing an area of 9,230 square feet.
All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference
made a part hereof.
4
SECTION 2_ In accordance with Section 25-2-44,Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005
Edition),the County Council finds the following conditions are:
(1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public
health, safety and welfare;or
(2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use
proposed with respect to:
(A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the
proposed use, or
(B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the
proposed use.
A. The applicant, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the
stated conditions of approval.
B. If deemed necessary by the Department of Water Supply, prior to the issuance of a water
commitment by the Department of Water Supply,the applicant shall submit the
anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations prepared by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Hawai`i, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the
"Water Commitment Guidelines Policy"to the Department of Water Supply prior to the
issuance of Final Plan Approval.
C. If deemed necessary by the Department of Water Supply,the applicant shall install a
reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly within five (5)feet of the existing
water meter and any additional water meters on private property,which must be
inspected and approved by the Department of Water Supply. Installation of the backflow
prevention assembly and relocation and adjustment of the Department of Water Supply's
water system facilities, should they be necessary, shall take into consideration the future
road widening strip along Punahele Street.
D. The applicant shall implement any improvements as may be required by the Fire
Department and/or Department of Water Supply to ensure that fire protection
requirements can be met for the proposed parking lot.
E. In the event there is a need for a wastewater system on the subject site, the system shall
connect to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawai'i County Code.
2
F. Construction of the proposed parking lot,which shall be limited to employees situated in
buildings on TMK: 2-3-35:45 and 16,shall be completed within five(5)years from the
effective date of this ordinance.
G. Prior to the construction of the parking lot, the applicant, successors or assigns shall
secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed development from the Planning Director in
accordance with Section 25-2-70,Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawai`i County Code.
Plans shall identify the paved driveway access between the subject site and TMK: 2-3-35:
42 and paved parking stalls associated with the proposed development, as well as signage
that identifies rules relating to the hours of daytime use only;prohibition of reverse
parking, excessive idling, loitering;penalty and the like. Landscaping shall also be
indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise, odor or visual
impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning
Department's Rule 17 (Landscaping Requirements). Landscaping for the side yards shall
comply with the buffer yard standard for separation of an industrial zoning district
adjoining a residential zoning district in Rule 17. Landscaping for the rear and front yards
shall comply with the parking lot standards in Rule 17. Further,a landscaping barrier
such as a solid fence and/or vegetative barrier between the subject property and TMK: 2-
3-35:017 and 019 shall be installed.The combined height of the fence and/or vegetative
barriers shall be at least equal to the height of the existing roof line of the dwelling on
TMK: 2-3-35: 017 and shall extend at least to the length of that dwelling. Said
landscaping improvements and barriers shall be implemented prior to the subject site's
use as a parking lot.
H. As represented by the applicant and concurred by the landowner, restrictive covenants
shall be included in the deed of the subject site that, in spite of the multitude of uses
allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-10)district,restricts its use to an
employee parking lot with no direct access to Punahale Street. A copy of the recorded
covenant shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to its use as a parking lot.
I. The subject parcel shall be consolidated with TMK: 2-3-35: 42. Further,there shall be no
direct vehicular access to the subject site from Punahele Street and instead access shall be
limited to the access that currently serves TMK: 2-3-35: 42. A physical barrier, such as a
fence, shall be erected at the site's frontage with Punahele Street to prevent any vehicular
3
access from Punahele Street. The lot consolidation and physical barrier shall occur prior
to its use as a parking lot.
J. A ten(10)foot wide future road widening strip along the property's Punahele Street
frontage shall be subdivided and dedicated, at no cost to the County and upon demand by
the County.
K. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed
toward any adjacent properties.
L. All earthwork activity shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control
of the Hawai`i County Code.
M. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls,terraces,platforms,marine shell
concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease
and the Department of Land and Natural Resources—State Historic Preservation Division
(DLNR-SHPD) shall be notified immediately. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an
archaeological clearance from the DLNR-SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation
measures have been taken.
N. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for
imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall
be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance.
O. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws,rules,
regulations and requirements.
P. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within this ordinance may
be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances:
1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen
or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns,and that are not
the result of their fault or negligence.
2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or
Zoning Code.
3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for
the granting of the change of zone.
4
4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period
originally granted for performance(i.e.,a condition to be performed within one
year may be extended for up to one additional year).
5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning
Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for
appropriate action.
Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion,the
Planning Director may initiate rezoning or the subject area to its original or more appropriate
designation.
SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
�tY ;.At...e171"dat'' 114-74"."'
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
,Hawai`i
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
REFERENCE Comm. 981.4
5
or• '
-fo:; Gregory Henkel,Chair
William Kenoi Myles Miyasato,Vice Chair
Mayor *'�� /, •� Joseph Clarkson
/ Donn Dela Cruz
'�
Donald Ikeda
Raylene Moses
County of Hawaii
"WINDWARD PLANNING COMMIS
Aupuni Center• 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720
Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)9M-8742
JUL 2 6 2016
Dru Kanuha,Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo,HI 96720
Dear Chairman Kanuha and Council Members:
SUBJECT: Change of Zone(REZ 14-000175)
Request: RS-7.5 to CN-7.5
Applicant: Hilo Medical Center
Tax Mao Key: 2-3-035:018
The Windward Planning Commission,at its duly held public hearing on July 7,2016,considered the
above-referenced request for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential-7,500 square feet
(RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet(CN-7.5)zoning district for 9,230 square
feet of land. The 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 rd,South Hilo,Hawaii.
After review of the entire record and in concurrence with the recommendation made by the Planning
Director,the Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation the County Council.
The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from the Single-Family Residential-
7,500 square feet(RS-7.5)to Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet(CN-7.5)zoning
district for 9,230 square feet of land,in order to establish an approximately 24-26 stall paved
parking lot for Hilo Medical Center employees to use that work at the adjacent Punahele
Professional Building and nearby Pu`u Honu Professional Building. Although off-street
parking meeting the minimum Zoning Code requirements is currently available at the
adjacent medical buildings, the applicant believes additional off-street parking is needed for
the convenience of its patients and guests. To accommodate this demand, the applicant
would like to have its staff park on the subject property. A pedestrian access is proposed
for employees to walk from the parking lot to the medical buildings on the adjacent
Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
31 6 2016.
Planning Dept.
- Exhibit to
Dru Kanuha,Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
properties to the south. The applicant will consolidate the subject property with the
adjacent Punahele Profimisionld Building Int,but regardless no vehicular access is proposed
between these properties. Access to the parking lot would be from Punahele Street.
Landscaping will be provided to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and no
lighting within the parking lot is being proposed. Employees usually work between 7:30
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and some weekends. Use of the parking lot
would generally correspond to these hours and the applicant intends to have the subject
property gated after hours.
Commercial parking lots are only permitted in the Village Commercial (CV),
General Commercial (CG), and Industrial zoning districts(MCX, ML, MG)but not the
Neighborhood Commercial(CN)zoning district. Parking tots are permitted in the CN
district if they are directly accessory to a land use permitted in the district, such as medical
clinics. Therefore, should the request be approved the subject property must be
• consolidated with the adjacent medical center property in order to establish the proposed
parking lot. Upon consolidation, the parking lot would be permitted in the CN-zoning
district as a land use that is directly accessory to the medical center.
The change of zone request from an RS-7.5 to a CN-7.5 zoning district does not
conform to applicable goals,policies,and standards of the General Plan.Rezoning is the
primary method for changing the allowed uses of land. Rezoning must be consistent with the
goals,policies and standards of the General Plan and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide
(LUPAG)Map. Other factors beside the map consistency must be taken into account during
the rezoning process,which requires specific consideration of a number of factors to
determine the suitability of the property for the proposed zone.These include proximity to
roads,utilities,and public services,environmental factors such as drainage,slope,and soil
types,and other public concerns. It is only through a comprehensive policy analysis approach
that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve
growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of
these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on
similar areas in the County.
The primary factor for this unfavorable recommendation is that the proposed request
for commercial zoning(CN-7.5)would not result in an appropriate land use
pattern at this time,and therefore the existing residential(RS-7.5)zoning district should be
retained. The subject property is one of seven residentially-zoned lots known as the Hata`i
KOpa'a Subdivision which was created in 1967,many years prior to establishment of the
Punahele Professional Office Building. This subdivision is bound by Punahele Street to the
north,Hula`i Hill to the east,the Punahele Professional Building properties to the south and
Komohana Street to the west,with the exception of two of the 7 lots which are located just
mauka of Komohana Street. In the early 1970's,a single-family residence was established on
Dru Kanuha,Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
each of the lots in the subdivision,except for the subject property which is vacant. At that
time,the Hawaii Conecticsal Facilliyavas any ottablished on the property acxuSS
Punahele Street to the north,but lands to the east,west and south were primarily in
agricultural use for sugar cane. For forty years this subdivision has maintained its residential
character,even after it was bisected by the Komohana Street extension and commercial
development began to encroach to the south with development of the Punahele Professional
Office Building complex.
The General Pian LUPAG Map designation for the subject property is Medium
Density Urban,which allows village and neighborhood commercial uses and single-family
and multiple-family residential uses and related functions. However,commercial zoning is
not necessarily appropriate for all areas designated Medium Density Urban by the LUPAG
map. For example,there are many residential subdivisions in Hilo located entirety within
Medium Density Urban designated areas that should remain residential for the near future
since residential uses are still firmly established. Introducing commercial uses into residential
subdivisions sometimes breaks up the cohesiveness of the overall land use pattern and creates
nuisances such as noise,light,and traffic. Usually these nuisances can be reduced by
providing landscaping between residentially and commercially-zoned properties but often
times these nuisances cannot be completely eliminated.
As a result of complaints filed with the Planning Department,the landowner has been
cited twice for allowing the subject property to be used as a parking lot,which is not
permitted in an RS-zoned district The current request is the third attempt by the landowner
or applicant to rezone the property to Neighborhood Commercial zoning in order to establish
a parking lot.During these previous attempts to rezone the property,the landowner/applicant
and neighboring property owners could not reach an agreement about what measures could be
implemented to reduce nuisances affecting neighboring residential properties as a result of a
parking lot Due to this lack of agreement,the County Council did not approve the rezoning
request in 2007 and the Planning Department and Planning Commission did not recommend
approval of the rezone request in 2011.
Based on testimony received from the Hiila`i Kumiai and its members and the lack of
signature on the applicant's proposed Memorandum of Agreement,establishing a parking lot
or other land use permitted in the CN-zoned district would introduce nuisances that cannot
reasonably be mitigated and thus commercial zoning would not be suitable on the subject
property at this time.
Additionally,.the request is not consistent with the following goals,policies,and
standards of the Land Use, Single-Family Residential Development and Commercial
Development Elements of the General Plan,which indicates that commercial zoning should
be established in areas that are compatible with adjacent land uses and in balance with the
neighborhood's social environment:
Dru Kanuha,Council Chair
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
Land Use
* The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities
meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment.
* Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation,district
goals,regional plans,State Land Use District,compatibility with adjacent zoned uses,
availability of public services and utilities,access and public need.
Single Family Residential Development
* Ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family residential zoned areas.
* Enhance the overall quality of life in our residential communities.
Commercial Development
* Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of
transportation and land usage within the island's regions,communities,and
neighborhoods.
* The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale
with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate
infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such
developments.
The General Plan provides a minimum 20-year vision that helps the County formulate
its land use policies. It is not a mandate for land use in any specific area;it provides
guidance. There are instances where it is simply not the appropriate time to introduce a new
land use within an established area. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years,land tenure and circumstances
may change enough to warrant a rezoning of this particular section along Punahele Street to a
commercial-zoned district such as Neighborhood Commercial. But today,the subject
property is still part of an established neighborhood where long-time residents should be able
to enjoy a lifestyle that they have long become accustomed to.
Based on the above,the request for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family
Residential(RS-7.5)to a Neighborhood Commercial(CN-7.5)zoned district would not result
in an appropriate land use pattern and would not further the public convenience,necessity and
general welfare. Therefore,the Planning Director is recommending that the Windward
Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation for the proposed change of zone
request to the Hawaii County Council.
Dru Kanuha,Council Chair
and Members of the County Council '
•
Page 5
A draft bill to amend Section 25-8-33(City of Hilo Zone Map),Article 8,Chapter 25(Zoning
Cade)of the Hauraki County Code is provided for your . However,please note that due
to the unfavorable recommendation,there are no conditions attached to the draft bill.
We have also enclosed copies of the Background Report,Planning Director's Recommendation,
Powerpoint presentation and the transcript of the hearing for your information.
Sincerely, qi
Gregory Henkel,Chairman
Windward Planning Commission
LHilomedicalcenterREZ14-175wpc2
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke,Planning Consultant
Hilo Medical Center
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
William Brilhante,Esq.,Corporation Counsel
§ 25-5-100 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE
Division 10. CN,Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Section 25-5-100.Purpose and applicability.
The CN(neighborhood commercial)district applies to strategically located centers suitable for
commercial activities which shall be of such size and shape as will accommodate a compact shopping
center which supplies goods and services to a residential or working population on a frequent need or
convenience basis.This district is distinguished from a central commercial district which provides general
business and broad services to a city or region.
(1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999.)
Section 25-5-101.Designation of CN districts.
Each CN(neighborhood commercial)district shall be designated by the symbol"CN"followed by a
number which indicates the minimum land area,in thousands of square feet,required for each building
site.
(1996,Ord.No.96-160,sec.2;ratified April 6, 1999.)
Section 25-5-102.Permitted uses.
(a) The following uses shall be permitted in the CN district:
(1) Adult day care homes.
(2) Automobile service stations.
(3) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7.
(4) Boarding facilities,rooming, or lodging houses,provided that the maximum density shall be
one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit.
(5) Business services.
(6) Cemeteries and mausoleums,as permitted under chapter 6,article 1 of this Code.
(7) Churches,temples and synagogues.
(8) Community buildings,as permitted under section 25-4-11.
(9) Convenience stores.
(10) Crematoriums, funeral homes, funeral services, and mortuaries.
(11) Crop production.
(12) Day care centers.
(13) Dwellings, double-family or duplex,provided that the maximum density shall be one thousand
two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit.
(14) Dwellings,multiple-family,provided that the maximum density shall be one thousand two
hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit.
(15) Dwellings, single-family.
(16) Family child care homes.
(17) Farmers markets. When the vending activity in a fanners market involves more than just the
sale of local fresh and/or raw produce,plant life,fish and local homegrown and homemade
products for more than two days a week,the director, at the time of plan approval, shall restrict
the hours of use,maintenance and operations and may require improvements as determined
appropriate to ensure its compatibility with the existing character of the surrounding area.
(18) Financial institutions.
(19) Group living facilities.
(20) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13.
(21) Medical clinics.
(22) Meeting facilities.
(23) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8.
Planning Dept.
Exhibit 3__.__
§ 25-5-102 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE
(24) Museums.
(25) Neighborhood parks,playgrounds,tennis courts,swimming pools,and similar neighborhood
recreational areas and uses.
(26) Offices.
(27) Personal services.
(28) Photography studios.
(29) Public uses and structures, as permitted under section 25-4-11.
(30) Repair establishments,minor.
(31) Restaurants.
(32) Retail establishments.
(33) Schools.
(34) Telecommunication antennas, as permitted under section 25-4-12.
(35) Theaters.
(36) Utility substations as permitted under Section 25-4-11.
(b) Buildings and uses normally considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall
also be permitted in the CN district.
(1996,Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999; Am. 2012,Ord.No. 12-28, sec. 12.)
Section 25-5-103.Height limit.
The height limit in the CN district shall be forty feet.
(1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.)
Section 25-5-104.Minimum building site area.
The minimum building site area in the CN district shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet.
(1996,Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.)
Section 25-5-105.Minimum building site average width.
Each building site in the CN district shall have a minimum average width of sixty feet.
(1996,Ord. No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.)
Section 25-5-106.Minimum yards.
The minimum yards in the CN district shall be as follows:
(1) Front and rear yards, fifteen feet; and
(2) Side yards,none, except where the adjoining building site is in an RS,RD,RM,RCX or V
district. Where the side yard adjoins the side yard of a building site in an RS,RD,RM,RCX or
V district,there shall be a side yard which conforms to the side yard requirements for dwelling
use of the adjoining district.
(1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999.)
Section 25-5-107.Landscaping of yards.
(a) All front yards in the CN district shall be landscaped, except for necessary access drives and
walkways, and except for the construction of one single-family dwelling and accessory buildings per
lot.
(b) Where any required side or rear yard in the CN district adjoins a building site in an RS,RD,RM or
RCX district,the side or rear yard shall be landscaped with a screening hedge not less than forty-two
inches in height,within five feet of the property line,except for necessary drives and walkways, and
except for the construction of one single-family dwelling and accessory buildings per lot.
(1996, Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2; ratified April 6, 1999; Am. 2005, Ord.No. 05-155, sec. 10.)
§ 25-5-108 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE
Section 25-5-108.Other regulations.
(a) In conjunction with plan approval,the director may require the construction of a continuous eave
overhanging the front property line in the CN district.The director may also require that the eave be
of similar height and design in any one block of the CN district.
(b) Plan approval shall be required for all new structures and additions to existing structures in the CN
district,except for construction of one single-family dwelling and any accessory buildings per lot.
(c) Exceptions to the regulations for the CN district regarding heights,building site areas,building site
average widths and yards,may be approved by the commission within a planned unit development.
(1996,Ord.No. 96-160, sec. 2;ratified April 6, 1999;Am. 2005, Ord.No. 05-155, sec. 11; Am. 2015,
Ord.No. 15-33, sec. 4.)
-7.5
-*� R5 < . 5-7.5
RS-7.5
Ii
ti�
4,
Aso
Adai+,46,' . ,
,_
J f
RS • R5 7.4'.HtNA ST
10,
�O
,10 Q 401.4a
N 627.5
92 "HALA
"10*,.4
to it
10#410 1.0,),0
--
. NGLELYGN 1
CR:,
O
4
R. z. RESIDENTIAL- JQ
7,500 SOFT(RS-7.5) �
10 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL- Jr
• 7,500 SQFT(CN-7.5) t Q Gy
AII
9,230 SQFT TOTAL
2G • -10
R 10 .9"L N
4, PP
'S 7% e it
AlaCN-
R5- .
=Immo= milin Feet
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE
AMENDING SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8,
CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION),
BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 7,500 SQFT (RS-7.5) TO
NEIGHBORHOOD� O
A COMMERCIAL SOUTH HILO, HAWAI CN- 7.5), Planning Dept.
Exhibit III
MAP PREPARED BY:
COUNTY OF HAWAII, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TMK:(3)2-3-035:018 DATE:April 9,2014
Hilo Medical Center
EXHIBIT "A" Mao 1311
SuppBR-CClnitiated B111.228-HiloMedCtrREZ2.doc-10/4/16
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGROUND and RECOMMENDATION REPORT
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL NO. 228,DRAFT 2)
APPLICANT: HILO MEDICAL CENTER (REZ 14-000175)
The County Council has referred to the Windward Planning Commission Bill No. 228,
Draft 2; to amend Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning
Code), of the Hawai`i 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 Hawai`i Community
Correctional Facility, Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-3-035:018.
Shortly after the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation was completed
for Bill 228, Draft 2, new information came to light which brings into question the feasibility of
Condition I of Bill 228, Draft 2 should the rezone be approved.
BACKGROUND
In 1995, Ordinance No. 95-033 was adopted by the County Council to change the zoning
of the adjacent properties (TMK 2-3-035:016, 040, 041, 042) from Single-Family Residential
and Agricultural to Neighborhood Commercial. These properties are the location of the Punahele
Professional Building and related medical facilities. The rezone application included a site plan
showing a driveway connection from TMK 2-3-035:042 through the subject property to
Punahele Street. Based on traffic and noise concerns expressed by neighbors, the plan was
revised to remove direct access to Punahele Street. Condition D of Ordinance No. 95-33
specifically prohibits vehicular access to the medical center properties (TMK 2-3-035:042) from
Punahele Street through the subject property. It states in part, "Access to the subject property
from Punahele Street shall not be permitted."
In 1997, parcels 42 and 16 were created through Subdivision No. 6858. (P.D. Exhibit
-1-
1A- Subdivision No. 6858 plat map) A letter dated July 9, 1997 to Allan S. Takase, M.D.
granting Final Subdivision Approval states, "This final approval is with the understanding that in
compliance with Condition No. 7 of our tentative approval letter dated May 28, 1997, no
vehicular access will be permitted from this development onto Punahele Street. As such, a deed
covenant for a"No Vehicular Access Planting Screen Easement" at the end of Easement "B"
(Road &Utility Purposes) within Lot 12-A-1 adjacent to Lot 6 (TMK 2-3-035:018)be recorded
with the new deed and a copy be submitted to this department for this subdivision file." (P.D.
Exhibit 2A- July 9, 1997 letter from Planning Department to Allan S. Takase, M.D.)
Although the Final Subdivision Approval letter incorrectly states Lot 12-A-1, it is clear
the intent was for the no vehicular access easement to be in Lot 12-A-2 since the no vehicular
access easement is supposed to be located at the end of Easement "B"which is within Lot 12-A-
2. A copy of the recorded deed covenants were supposed to be submitted to the Planning
Department. To date, the Planning Department has not received the final recorded deed
covenant for this easement.
ANALYSIS
It is clear the subdivider has not complied with the terms of the Final Subdivision
Approval. The intent of the "No Vehicular Access Planting Screen Easement" was to create a
visual buffer between the medical center properties and adjacent residential lots on each side of
the subject property, and primarily to prevent future vehicular access to Punahele Street through
the subject property. With implementation of this easement, the adjacent neighbors believed
there would be no vehicles traveling between the medical center properties and the subject
property.
This may explain why the applicant's previous attempt to rezone the subject property in
2011 and current application, proposed a pedestrian only access between the medical center
properties and the subject property, with vehicular access to the subject property from Punahele
Street only. It was not until this current application to rezone the subject property was forwarded
to the County Council that the applicant proposed to change the access between the medical
-2-
center properties and subject properties from pedestrian only to vehicular access, which conflicts
with a condition of final subdivision approval.
BILL NO. 228, DRAFT 2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Proposed Condition I
The subject parcel shall be consolidated with TMK: 2-3-35:42. Further, there shall be no
direct vehicular access to the subject site from Punahele Street and instead access shall be
limited to the access that currently serves TMK: 2-3-35:42. A physical barrier, such as a
fence, shall be erected at the site's frontage with Punahele Street to prevent any vehicular
access from Punahele Street. The lot consolidation and physical barrier shall occur prior
to its use as a parking lot.
Comment: Although this condition is consistent with Condition D of Ordinance No. 95-
33 and Condition No. 7 of the May 28, 1997 Tentative Approval letter which specifically
prohibited vehicular access to the medical center properties (TMK 2-3-035:042) from
Punahele Street through the subject property, it is inconsistent with the terms of Final
Subdivision Approval No. 7858, which called for a"No Vehicular Access Planting
Screen Easement" at the end of Easement"B" on Lot 12-A-2.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons detailed above, the Planning Director recommends that the Windward
Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council
regarding Bill No. 228, Draft 2.
-3-
X11licrix3
• dad BuiuuDid
�
CZ 0
111 wz i 1- iir.
x
r
< � p Qry 11_
i QW y 4.
O rx KtN QQ O 0 U 11 Q Z d
N
0 1 � k
F=- 0O Z I I- 4 ::-a,' to Q O CY O .,
0 0 0 0 0 N W 1.1_1 IL Q v_rr-- �4z u�i m u u4�
Q zffl
QQ ,L �Q= �yuE W r0 QQ.� r �4F Ou W`L N-r- LYQO.r a1 u.i-
Z � O - d O? ZOO Q � 4�.Q Iwkn�
SII � Q Qd < uj--1Z CD rvF=- �I Nz< o --= ��
Ii a- �0z0Z I-zu- t Zc)=
}ij i- u � Q � 0 00 d o f 1 •
— O W W l(1 l- 111
�Or� GP a
nI 0 >- IN Www Q�r �PoZW m s
W Z Z —�Q 0 p ~ ti W O_> N 7
in ....r.--
I-- Q O �j0Z zp � ri
WAN
in 1I < N F Z
n _ — NOQz v zoo 23
�II a � 00 > Np �O'f�Ja*
p - -- u- pQ Q
4 � lv ED I 0
cy
J Ztm � �N
W i d' o
z
m
I 3
•U
Oz
-cCo Q
I
' I g L �� 6:1 Os
= I( CO "` IY L, I �j Z ` V J
n S OO W
w
o -O g°
0' Y
Q rye, �u14 zOQ
'1.I' �m 68'9bZ -� tni i v8i
m r-O b� LS Orr?
N i m ry �_ `y�-�' ALL'N__ N. v
m– �s�',�rb�99-",b1, oLS ` 2211. ---7-156 ---
— ---1
eezb
Plj� . .`.." 4.45 - 232' 40'
z R = 2040.00
�9r �r 1 N Q I ry 0 I
��
fol z.< wz mr d fY r
J' N 0 Z < xw I ry v I
j J , u
dp NN ?gym w '1
/ y- nw er i w W
ti
1-2
b z III
/ �y�,�,`O f I CN
CY
S Fj is.
�t i ... Q (S CL]
r P �zy i i z
Si ^ I– 1 o f d N ( < '
IL I
F-
t Q y ~ �
C"S w r p 1
N 2'. `nit' J w
Nt. i— 01 1- EnQ0-� I' yPdb c O
NN O wpR4 I .1/' °Q
W� � I 9�ti� 0
tt�Jp br /4;,), E
QOM
–Is_ U
k w11�`–r I yo
I ,et, O
�
P,
I di
n� 00'Zb (Q0'�ct�) y�oj r c,ezcaZ
1 O�'tr!_e ---,17.7 czez ,yo%JS
J w
>� g
r
mKO " o1 �ttWWo I � o � �
y J i
/I N.S. r
•
-" - - —"-
z .
.+ E��5 �7 t-f `Nrld < —
It\
-*iv OF
Virginia Goldstein
, .� .
Stephen K.Yamashiro Director
�� ��
Mayor ' + Russell KDkubun
• fit,Of Mr .
Deputy Director
•
Count r of Attfunit
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
25 Aupuni Street,Room 109 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720-4252
(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-9615
July 9, 1997
Allan S. Takase, M.D.
670 Ponahawai Street, Suite 200
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Dr. Takase:
FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL NO. 6858
SUBDIVIDERS: TAHASE, Allan S. Trust, et al.
Proposed Subdivision of Lot 12-A
Into Lots 12-A-1 and 12-A 2 and
Designation of Easement "B" for Road and Utility Purposes
and Deletion of Easement "A"
Punahoa 2nd, South Hilo, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii
TMK: 2-3-035:016 (,SUB 96-O55)
Please be informed that final subdivision approval for
recordation is hereby granted to the final plat map dated
April 5, 1997, as attached herewith inasmuch as all requirements
of the Subdivision Code, Chapter 23, as modified have been met.
You may wish to consult your attorney and surveyor for the
preparation of the necessary legal documents and description of
the certified final plat map for the purpose of recordation with
the State of Hawaii, Bureau of Conveyances.
This final approval is with the understanding that in compliance
with Condition No. 7 of our tentative approval letter of May 28,
1997, no vehicular access will be permitted from this development
onto Punahele Street. As such, a deed covenant for a
"No Vehicular Access Planting Screen Easement" at the end of
Easement "B" (Road & Utility Purposes) within Lot 12-A-1 adjacent
to Lot 6 (TMK: 2-3-035: 018) be recorded with the new deed and a
copy be submitted to this department for this subdivision file.
In addition, comply with the conditions of the agreement with the
Department of Public Works relating to repairing the damaged A.C.
pavement at the cul-de-sac turnaround of Pu'uhonu Place. ( 67r-,
Planning Dept. .
Exhibit 2A
r, g e
k zs ,,Y!,t
Allan S. Takase, M.D.
Page 2
July 9, 1997
Copies of the certified final plat map are enclosed.
ZA-----
Sincerely,
IRGINIA GOLDSTEIN
Planning Director
ETC: lnm
96055tak.fnl
Encs.- 3 Certified FPM
xc: Manager, DWS
Chief Engineer, DPW
Dist. Env. Health Prog. Chief, DOH
District Engineer, DOT
Tax Map Section-HONOLULU w/certified FPM
Imata & Associates, Inc.
REZ 781, 576, 272; CON 666, 686;
SUB 3418, 5696, 6713
Imm
.0
—
1.
0
CN 2c)
N
o =
(7)
V
uim •-
V
0-
O —
O
)41-Irr
0 I ''-• ,
Z ,.
.:-
Z ,
0 ,
, ...
, 1
IN .
" -
0 ,
‘..)
• ,-
.:.
. ,
?-
z . •
C. .
114 .
. .
.... ...
Z
0 ..
14
1111, '
. ..
...._
0
.....
a)
s +-
O L.
O a)
a) O 4- +- N
-0 .0 - aO n c ,a)
T47-
3 a�
a)
O � O p 1.- Oi
N
1,1
D 0.. �N
c
O E a ( 0)
U +- a�-' c s v .-
D
N O -j O N s � VO =
o O
O 'gin � }O � 3 '� 0
EY) •- 0 D 0_ TD vz 17) .k)
° E O VIE ,� 0 a)
o .c +- CI +- — 0 a
E
a) c o 0 �-
l'A ,h� .O 0 o ° s 0) -o a) a)
CD 0
° 73 OC -2 (1) ..-- E v.) 2
O N E' z Q. c a)
C) "0_ 5 •
O -0 EE• ,c_ 8 a) v s N
= s O N 4- O-c L.° >
1/4.,J F— V L Q 4- O CL N
4Y
f4. 4
r v f I
r`li "t�.ea«� ^fit 'r 1' Sy e �.
O # , K..
�_ �.� �, `.'�,� '�. � t-w1�Y t y�.• .Sr�'� y at T(I.7,' "rye., "4"` .a�1
7 v *,
,w.
1 4 �1 �y, ...,.�. 't s
1.
L \
..♦ [ y ' 1 Y a ..
nT �7
iiiZ
, � ,}j. 'hob�l "'i ' �� O-
,
O
x#44
:y I7. \ray �` 'r , +� '� ,+` �* r
4.
Ual Ct. ' ---'22 ''''''\.t' . - . ' LILL'liOt
-., ,„,-, „mi act ' , ...,...0-2 t '. .,, - c>..,"c.,,.?.4 r-,,,..4, ... ..4A-'‘ -..: '.t
'�►, t ' 4 , • , \
� * • / ,' t s.`
LINN
Vt '4 `. I k~ L'
Q 4, . ) '
•
immi
•
W �".., moi' `� ' ' -..\'‘:.s i'.' .
Q
O .c N O N -0
4- 4- 4
_ a
N a -Q .� O }
O O N s O �C
C _
O > Q 0 N F- +- a a)
?, a a) } O -0 a
N -ca 0 � 0 zt 0� j a' O
♦- ~ `� •- - c Q a 0
•E N O tn ? N to .� s 0
E N oS Q O N in 0 c p4-
Vc
�= a O s s N O
N N N D y}-- ,cn
N O N 4- D of Q O E
N
O N
p 0 Q 4) p E
O ma •= D u �V Q } voV
V O 73 a' > a' O-s N
• O -0 N a T a 0) CV c
s D •-
a) O N D O i +- O = E
D C C Es O OS m e
O a _0 O 4- n � O
V 0 N oO } O N (6 a)
} 0 d) v) � a) v 0E 0
Csin I— QO a a) 0 O O O
CD N Q u a s v> > a }
-0 pp v, vL_ 4- §
eassiesosi `O •, Ns O 2 v a) a) -0
} Q = N O > O •- = N
_ a
N O E c M uE
CD °° • - Q a O —til 0 E L- E
� '- 73 "O N .0 D O Q 0 0 O0
4. Q c N Q s •� a-a a N N
0 E a a 2 Q 2 s .�
O67_ at Q .z > aEa F- pa
0 -40-
I - , ,„ ,..
I: ''.•-' ,
Z „ r- •
' , k. . ., .. • IF a.-V ‘ * ' • .
=MN '').' lk, .., , . , ',. •,'" 1 l';‘,Nr.4 . --,,,
- - ).': , :, , ;.:.,,,,, _ -•":,, , :., , 1,,,,f4k4.tilemt, -,.j,"4,' t,‘,,.- '1,,i4,,, ,,,,, .' •
1:::1 _7.4.. ,,,,,...._ .., .... tt t,.t ,' '—4- '1,,./„,:!::, ', ,,p-W'''*4 7A_gt• g' ...tit*.iNip.1*': .4,'..t...f.PA,:.•.."
' lir • • itNkToi
Z "..7,../.1Nif,
.1".4,410
•.14, ,
. . .)..#1'4'' ' It 1..' *sle."•' t! . ; I,4F, t,/,',k4.
),,..Z,r;,.'if, ..4 4.11, >4.. •.,,,,,,, .4 ..... ' -.,V.
- ' . .-,, •• --",.. - . . ,.cvii'....z.,,Th. --w,li .....,..„ .),. ..!..
= AVI..,.,,i,, - 4-•4•,A, * ,•,-. " ° . ''''• . .
IL - ' l'''''St.k,' ‘'''' . • .''' - ':1 7: l'' - , ,(.4 ,,,.'".;14. i'.3-1kif‘71-7.,1,1'
0 ' 'tS:'' ‘‘, 7*'L'‘. .... '-‘01:-; 1 ., , . : ...
''''. l'lle` ' 0.. • 4 IP,r
Ca * .;,,5,- .•0•,' 1,r' ,.• Ir. IV'
kr,!.Z.•.;h.."‘'''' :V '.1 -- • ' t •_' '..•''.'"41,44.' '^ .*N•g-ll
• 4.,- ..,,,,,k -,*,,T.,,,,2±,..:t 1 ,- :,.: -44:".•. .-4, .. .:-.k.,cv l -.
Ca 4r.*4 k 11!.,,L .' 4!":A.,.: ''4'4' :'•:*-: ..4'.. '•,,, 4 N..-_'' ' ',.,....o'c.c,,:.. . .1 1.,* - ...1t.,.' ..• #
1,.
— ' .41, jr . ',`, .1), ''' 'N4 . '34 ' ,,,' .‘k'---- i• v6P ' ,.:.%
\
iii) .;"..' . 1*;',1 *'''''' ' —s ' .4'•"‘" Airlr• ' ''''''' ;-: ". ,- '-' ,e-V,N., ' k''' • vc
i, - .
t . ',..,, - ;=', %.'-' 4.:' ,r:,, ' . -. •L',..,, ‘4,.^ IN)
%
CI
-3.- zi. .,k), •;,,,,,,. •i..)- 4*- 4y,-)
Z .
t,-,*, '...;•=3'....; 't
...., ., . ,,
, -1.,,,. • . i , IP„...2.tqt- , ,17' ,•.
. 0
i -' .,- , -,?•>-- ‘,..' ,ksi 0`4 •.„ _
• -,..- t:•-•:- isp- 1..
.' - : 4.,0:/—r.:- I ' ) ' • 1.,''.--C. ,i'0'.i-,;:"'. ', '.‘,:: i•.‘4.,. ' ,,
Ilk, :' ''''' ''' *s' ..:'kl:'-' ' '0/ V.,4 '.•', --\ I-","'',','•...", t„. •.'- ,-77,- , ..;..---..-"---
>MI ,
. . ' Vs.. .;::::,,,,. '' N'.;,0.!'t "- -:'1,.•
a. . ,* \,,L'IM-1
' Iti .•'2,-,t-Loasn . •. -
. . , . ..
‘' . . ilk, 0,2. , '`,.„,•',.) ' !Ifie=1,..\ .' ' -,,.
Cr. R it g . --"t, .., ' • ,,. ''. ,,4.-nr--..•, „ ..,.36 s, 0
IA-- ' • ' —— - -, '' \°ei- . ' ,, \ ' .
16141111/ ,
•,e,- ''
(4' , * ',, t
0
=
11 I. *-
.., ,
.. .., , ,
‘ -.-...„.„- .,,,,, ' - -:,.., :, -- ? .... : .,,,,..) .. ,.•
U .
.... ,,; ,
0 ' \.,' ---- i. ',or • -.
** 1..' '4'.'
. . ,
'''',-„,...""' ",:,-; -.•',--'
, . .
I•
44• _ , , , ,,, ....:
limn .•• ,
. ...„.- ,
lip 4= .
..... .. ,
.. .
= ., ...
,
. .... . .. • ,
, ,
k •
Cm
‘'S`
- .
ma Oalr` , • ..., ,
...4.. -,..*li
,..• -1:-..,,i,\ 11/4 , ' . . .
• ' „.•-?-'41(40 • '''N .. , ' , ,
ICE ,. , . •V : ,
' ..
\ .$•44..- t \ *I' I, , . ',1* ' .".1.4'.':I'..'
''• +
004 '''''''' , ,,. " I".,.,4.....•_, ' ...,,,, ' '•'', ,
/':i.'• ,-.4•V , 1 ' ''' 1 I ,&,.
UI w
4CC
Z CO
U S -
+-)
Nil= C
O a p N � •�
. . Vn
Q O C g •N � N O U V) NC)._
0
CIU O to = O L' > o �
CD nb.0C � � QCUri3 � ?Q. 0 .Z .c B c 'E 'nu:, C +, CZ U
_
0 C CU
* 4....; tuo
c V) +-' v — O O — O *4--z ` )
* CO •§- * 0 -1-j a) cu 4-',, mc 13 -i-J 2 „, a) _c
O >` O � O -0 0- I . Q • U O 0
V O " UV) +-, � � � �,, .+-� c UQ4-
N • fv O C O O 0 's= —
E s- c 0O Q OC L
O. E C O N C U V Q
.
75 CU
O .c N ,tom -F c04to Q v)
cu LU C — O >- 0,0 -O O —
O N O ' U a , co OL- O N
N� CU +- . nCCU4 - v) c 04+- - 0 C :> 4-'
_ OO ,— � U -O O O — C
V � � C Qa O
. 2 0 � (3) O -c _a UW co � O ca. CO > L... +-a
-0 N ( _ U. O D 'v, a C & CD.
co
N t .� �c O = N N O tv
�— � -� .� 0 -0 C— La cD CD-o 4 -
O m 2 O
O . C — a , O
W
Z CD
Uo ) N 0073 tar) COC
0 as tlo tlo cO oV) NO • -A .473 o � O = CD (1) " " 4-+
rt, C ---....., 0 " Ci Oa s
Z UOCOD p i
O .— � S CCM,
O O2
= U U "O U 4- Z Q) Q. Q) Cl. U Q. U U
O O
.J u- U
C
id08
6aLL U
0Od3K Z O 3t c T
mZ Cdi
1 ._ h
t w W w
QqO zoo �- pp n
O m V,Q d IL 0 8 j i m e 0,. .-
I
ry !di°O NZu �W cOWO OV0 WC w8- 10WO NfOkil Q J�'11
n dQ OWN_ a QQ
Z,1 c<I Q�S'pq �i6 t4:( Q`f.-1,1 U H¢ $1!w�5
0!: q azmm d��z <_. �Wo�
�jj zQ <<. . r'f- ,?F s iLF---1
R= VZ QtLW OQ
z
Q LLFW1C1HW
�1 � �
N ,-(i
P
cal, 0,,N,, Y
cDj dO0_Oz zCz 1s1
��" +
to ' C0Oz `4\e3
N X0Q \„.j
Q < mQ QO
nZ"r i
t i - I
tJ i
GG I S P
i 6 5 iao U„1
' ii
IvO� Y i z�< Zv 1 . Nat
N o z0< J
in : „Tv I nrQ,Pt '01S :G uS
O bB"9btl ebb.LS ' -m• •pg
m 51-;:it.:� "O,b1 9B—bb:,;5______1„.0,, 227�56� — �. . 4,
avr. 232'40'�
� ,L, Y � '!4.45O 7� n I R23.2.204040'
=2040.00
9/ ;, nx. I nC 'IN/ � N� mt W� f ' al
mVp
Jry
�,1.1p � 1
.
ir 11 y ILI
d 'S I I •
N LL I y A lL
D / ry�I ill
I-
-;
9 � eO/ �i .... QV Ii m
m
Z QLL t 04 OI t-@
L t
Q
Na OQ; I g "1
Oo z
I-CP ;_, d
N CO0� ZQo � I O' I Q
Q i b/ E
t f 16 o V
00Lb I (00£b) 0£ZBL
i OE-bLE—.bb.L£t4b�tJ
44,
al Iy
! :
4 •
oda!
_E _G ; ,=-..dN(!.
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 Hawai`i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i 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
Hawai`i Community Correctional Facility, Punahoa 2°d, South Hilo, Hawai`i, 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.
1
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 Halal 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 walk 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 16`h,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.
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
2
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 15`h
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.
FUKE: And, I'm Sidney Fuke, assisting the Applicant.
HENKEL: Thank you. Go ahead.
3
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. If—if 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
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.
4
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.
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
5
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 Council—I 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—
FUJII: —Okay—
HENKEL: —and proceed.
FUJII: 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
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.
6
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?
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.
7
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 worse—a 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?
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
8
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 static—through 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.
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.
9
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
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.
10
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'll—oh, 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. The—I 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
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-
11
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 Halal 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
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.
12
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--
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 Halal 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
13
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: Ido.
HENKEL: Thank you. State your name and where you're from and proceed.
FREITAS: My name is Mary Freitas, and I live in the Halal Tract, and I'm a member of the
Halal 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
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
14
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'll—is 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
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.
15
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.
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. Cabral—I'm, I'm sorry. I was out of order.
CABRAL: Okay.
HENKEL: Public testimony has been closed.
CABRAL: Okay.
16
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.
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.
17
The discussion ended at 11:28 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
18