Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0375.006 1998-2000 ?sv,w William G. Davis Stephen K. Yamashiro • • Managing Director Mayor Henry Cho ~~i,d~ ~'+~o Deputy Managing Director f~>Qixnfg >af ~trfutsii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 Hilo, Hawaii %720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 Fax (806) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kualuni Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (806)329-5226 Fax (808)326-5663 November 1, 1999 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council c`Do County of Hawaii `r~, ~ ..n ~ 25 Aupuni Street ~ - Hilo, HI 96720 = ~ cv Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: - ~ ~ _ cn _ Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-020) ~ y Applicant: John Tanaka = Request: A-20a to A-Sa Tax Map Key: 5-4-002:014 ? Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-010) County Council Initiated (Akana Trust) Request: RS-10 to CN-20 Tax Man Key: 2-2-25:24 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 5-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action aze the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. Sincerely, Stephen K. I'~dmashiro Mayor L101599.MAY Enclosures cc: Planning Department l Y, Comm. No. 3 7s~ ~ ~ L File No. Z'N r%{ Ref, To• COVNUt_ Ref. Date IqV__ 3 1999 n,a `yy Stephen K. Yamaehiro Mayor . ~~oi~+~' ~IIltit~~1 II~ ~tC~Ttiii PLANNING COMMISSION 25 Aupuni Stree4 Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii %7204452 (808) %1-8288 Fax (808) %1-%15 NOV 0 1 1999 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-010) County Council Initiated (Akana Trust) Request: RS-10 to CN-20 Tax Map Key: 2-2-25:24 The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on October 15, 1999, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification for approximately 41,010 squaze feet of land from Single Faznily Residential (RS-10) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20). The original request was from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to General Commercial (CG-20). The property is located at the southwest corner of the Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street intersection, Waiakea Houselots Second Series, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the change of zone: County Council Initiated Bill No. 106 (Draft 4) amends the request filed by the Akana Trust to change the district classification from RS-10 to CN-20. The applicant's original request was to change the district classification to CG-20 in order to establish a commercial/office facility. The new facility would be designed to provide space for business enterprises and services to the University of Hawaii-Hilo as well as the local community. In reviewing the original request, the County Council felt that the CN-20 designation was more appropriate for the subject property, as the General Commercial designation seemed to indicate that the parcel be located in either the Downtown area Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 or a major shopping area, which the parcel is not located in. The amended request was forwarded to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such 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 be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County, but ultimately, on the future development of the whole island. The proposed change of zone request from RS-10 to CN-20 would further the County's goals of providing an economic environment which allows new or existing businesses to expand and diversify the County's economic base, and thereby also increase the choice of occupations. The proposed request would be consistent with the following goals and policies of the Economic Element of the General Plan: * Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. * Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. * The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. * The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. * The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. * The County of Hawaii shall continue to encourage the expansion of the research and development industry by working with and supporting the university, private sector, and other agencies' programs developed to aid the County of Hawaii. * The County shall support the development of a master plan for lands within the vicinity of the University of Hawaii at Hilo to incorporate a "college town" Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 concept utilizing an appropriate mixture of residential, commercial and other land uses to complement the university's infrastructure. The proposed request would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Land use is one of the principal focal points of public concern and policy. The Land Use Element provides the primary basis for direct control and guidance of publicly and privately owned resources. It is also intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The overall Land Use goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. These state the following: * Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. * Zone urban- and rural-types of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. * Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. * 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 request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access and public need. The proposed request would also complement the following goals and policies of the Commercial Element: * Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 * Distribution of commercial areas shall be such as to best meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. * 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. * Commercial development shall be located in areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and other amenities. Commercial developments shall provide for adequate internal circulation amongst commercial facilities in the area. * Commercial zoned lands in proximity to the University of Hawaii at Hilo shall be allocated as the need arises. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan represents the document's goals, policies, standards and courses of action to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the spatial relationships among various land uses and the expressed policy statements of the document itself. The LUPAG Map, in essence, establishes the basic land use pattern for areas within the County. The subject rezoning action conforms to the LUPAG Map which designates the area for High Density Urban Development. This High Density designation allows for commercial, multiple residential and related services. The proposed site would be suitable and allow for Neighborhood Commercial uses. The rezoning reclassification would be a reasonable expansion of commercial activities associated with this designation and the existing commercial uses in the area. Although the Hilo Community Development Plan (CDP) Zone Guide Map adopted in 1975 suggests the retention of Multi Family Residential (R-4) zoning, there has been increasing demand for additional commercial-zoned lands. This is reflected by the various change of zone requests approved along Kilauea Avenue to the northeast of the subject property as well as other properties within the "college town" core area. The proposed change of zone would, therefore, complement the existing commercial land uses, be consistent with the transition from residential to commercial that is occurring in the immediate vicinity and provide for an orderly commercial development of the area. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 The County Council adopted Resolution No. 286 96 on Apri13, 1996, which encourages the private development of mixed commercial and higher density residential uses surrounding the University of Hawaii at Hilo campus. The University of Hawaii at Hilo campus is located approximately 900 feet or two blocks west of the subject property. The subject property is located within this "college town" core area and therefore, the proposed development would provide services to the university campus. The project site is situated within close proximity to schools, commercial areas, employment centers and public safety services. The surrounding properties consist of a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The project site is located approximately one mile from the Hilo urban center where police, fire and emergency medical services are available. Adjacent surrounding lands are zoned RS-10 and RM-1 and include single family dwellings and apartment buildings. The ILWU Hall is situated on a property zoned RS-10 and located approximately 80 feet northwest of the property. There is a parcel zoned RM-4 located approximately 180 feet north east of the property. Commercial establishments including Tyke's Dry Cleaning and Scruffles Restaurant are located approximately 500 feet from the subject property to the northeast, on Kilauea Street. Along Kilauea Street one block northeast of the subject property, the following commercial rezonings have been approved: A. TMK: 2-2-24: 13, RS-10 to CO-20, Ordinance No. 83 842 (REZ 423) effective 2/10/83, to William Brilhante. This site was subsequently rezoned from CO-20 to CG-20, Ordinance 86 42 (REZ 522) effective 5/15/86, currently the site of a real estate office. B. TMK: 2-2-24:14, RS-10 to CG-20, Ordinance No. 92 26 (REZ 707) effective 3/11/92 to Sandra Kaneshiro. C. TMK: 2-2-24: Por. 15, RS-10 to CG-10, Ordinance No. 89 161 (REZ 651) effective 12/22/89, to Sandra Kaneshiro, site of Scruffles Restaurant, Paradise Cafe, Tyke's Laundromat, Personal Touch Dry Cleaners, and retail uses. D. TMK: 2-2-24:1, RS-10 to CG-10, Ordinance No. 96 84 (REZ 826) effective 7/26/96 to Wayne and Sandra Kaneshiro. This property on the corner of Lanikaula Street and Kilauea Avenue is currently vacant. Commercial zoning has also been approved on TMK: 2-2-38:26, RS-10 to CN-10, Ordinance No. 97 4 (REZ 841) effective 1/20/97, to Betty Tomori, site of the existing Ken's Service Station, as said property is situated within the "college town" core area. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 6 All utilities and services which are essential to accommodate urban development are or will be made available to the project site. Current access to the site is from Lanikaula Street. However, the applicant proposes access to the property from both Kinoole and Lanikaula Streets, which are County roadways. Kinoole Street has an approximate 36-foot wide pavement in fair to good condition, with concrete curbs and sidewalks within an existing 60-foot right-of-way. Lanikaula Street has an approximate 40-foot wide pavement in fair to good condition, with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, all within an existing 60-foot right-of--way. The Department of Public Works requires that the applicant provide commercial standazd sidewalks (sidewalks with no planter strips) along the entire frontage of the subject property, and provide channelization improvements to the Lanikaula/Kinoole Street intersection and the proposed driveways. Further, the department recommends that driveways be adjusted to the extreme corners, away from the Lanikaula/Kinoole Street intersection, as certain turning movements into and out of the property will be restricted. The Department of Public Works also recommends that a wheelchair ramp on the corner of the intersection be provided, meeting with the approval of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities and the Department of Public Works. The Department of Water Supply notes that water would be available from a 5/8-inch from the 6-inch waterline along Kinoole Street which fronts the property. Since the request would allow uses that may exceed the 600 gpd maximum allowed usage, the Department of Water Supply requires that the applicant submit an anticipated maximum daily water usage recommended by a registered engineer. Further, the applicant will be required to remit a water commitment deposit. All other utilities and services aze available to the subject property. The project has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The subject property is relatively level. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), it is within Zone X, an area determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. The subject property is also located outside of any tsunami inundation azea. Any new construction or improvements to the project area must comply with Chapter 27 of the County Code relating to Flood Hazazd Control. The subject property has been previously developed with a residence and therefore, no endangered or threatened species of floral or fauna nor any archaeological sites are anticipated to be found on the subject property. To mitigate any potential noise and visual impacts to adjacent neighbors, it is recommended that a landscaping buffer, to be determined during plan approval review, be established along the rear property boundaries. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 7 Based on the above findings, this request for a Change of Zone from a Single Family Residential (RS-10) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that would further benefit the general public. For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25-8-33, the City of Hilo Zone Map, of the County Zoning Code is transmitted. We are enclosing a copy of the application and a copy of the staff background for your information. Sincerely, Leonard S. Tanaka, Chairman Planning Commission LAkaua02.PC Enclosures cc: Mr. Glen Koyama Mr. Alfred Akana Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Kazu Hayashida, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu 4OJ~jY OF N~~i 130BBY JEAN LEITHEAD-TODD ~1~G~%c. Phone: (808) 961-8261 Cnuncilmem6cr PAX: (808) 969-3291 •j~~F Of ~M~~' COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 November 4, 1999 James Y. Arakaki, Chair Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Attached Communication No. 375.006 (Bill 167) Pursuant to Section 1(e) of Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of the County of Hawaii, this written approval is submitted in regards to Communication No. 375.006, Bill No. 167 regarding Akana Trust change of zone application, waiving said referral from the Committee on Planning to full Council in order that appropriate action can be taken by the Council. In reviewing the contents of the referral, it is deemed advisable that such waiver be granted. obby Jean Leithead-Todd, C air Committee on Planning Approved: Y. Arakaki, Chair Hawaii ounty Council BL :jet PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT October 15, 1999 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of AKANA TRUST was called to order at 9:50 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom-Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Leonard Tanaka presiding. PRESENT: Leonard Tanaka ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lin McIntosh Richard Baker, Jr. Florence Kubota Geraldine Giffin Mildred Mosher James Souza Grant Togashi Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Susan Gagorik, Staff Planner Fred Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel Kelly Gomes representing the Department of Public Works Bruce McClure representing Department of Water Supply And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. TANAKA: Okay. We'll move on to the next agenda item; and this is a County Council initiated Bill No. 106 Draft 4, proposed bill relating to a request filed by the Akana Trust for a change of zone by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) for approximately 41,010 square feet of land. The original request was from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to General Commercial (CG-20). The property is located on the southwest corner of the Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street intersection, Waiakea Houselots, Second Series, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii. Okay, Ms. Fujimoto. FUJIMOTO: Yes, thank you. Before I begin, I'd like to make a slight correction in our recommendation, on page 7, five lines from the bottom, where it says, "Based on the above findings, this request for a change of zone from a Single Family Residential (RS-10) to a General Commercial," it should say "Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20). TANAKA: I'm sorry, what page was that? FUJIMOTO: Page 7 of your recommendation. TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. FUJIMOTO: Okay. TANAKA: Proceed. FUJIMOTO: Okay, thank you. At the June 18th Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners voted to send a no recommendation to the County Council on this request. The Council then amended the bill, the request from the original CG-20 to a CN-20, and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review and reconsideration. Basically, the Council felt that the CN designation would be a more appropriate one for this site, and the Applicant agrees to this change. Now yesterday, we received a letter from potential buyers of the property who, with the permission of the sellers, have requested to amend the proposed Conditions D and E of the bill; and I believe that was distributed to the Commissioners this morning. And the Planning Director has agreed to the change. TANAKA: Has everyone received that BAKER: Yes. TANAKA: Dated October 14`h. Okay. We'd like to acknowledge the presence, also, of Councilman Aaron Chung. Thank you for being here. Okay. Any questions for Staff, Commissioners? Commissioner Mosher. MOSHER: This is to Virginia, and it's with Condition E. I wondered why you agreed to the conditions but providing wheelchair improvement put on only for new construction and not if they retain just the present dwelling. TANAKA: You're talking about the proposed Condition E? MOSHER: The proposed Condition E. TANAKA: Okay. MOSHER: It said provided that such improvements, which would be the wheelchair access, shall be applicable only to new commercial structures and not the use of the existing structure. I read this to mean that the existing could be changed to Commercial Neighborhood, no new buildings constructed, and no wheelchair access needed. -2- GOLDSTEIN: I don't think that that was the intent of the way that the condition was worded, that it was meant to be only if the other improvements would be applicable to new commercial structures. Because under the ADA kinds of requirements, the whole structure MOSHER: Used. GOLDSTEIN: Existing, yeah, also. It might, I mean we might want to MOSHER: Have to reword it. GOLDSTEIN: Further reword this to make it clear. MOSHER: Okay. GOLDSTEIN: You know, I'm going to have to take a look at this a little bit more closely. MOSHER: But you see where I'm coming from? GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, yeah, I see where you're coming from. MOSHER: Okay. Thank you. TANAKA: What is your concern again, Commissioner Mosher? MOSHER: My concern was that if the present structure is turned into Commercial Neighborhood, no wheelchair or ADA requirements would be required. It would only be required if there was new construction. TANAKA: Okay. So there's two areas of concern then. One would be the ADA requirements for the building. MOSHER: For the existing, existing structure. TANAKA: Right. Which should be covered under the MOSHER: Under ADA. TANAKA: Building permit process or the submission of plans MOSHER: It would be. TANAKA: If we're going to change the use of that building. -3- GOLDSTEIN: Right. MOSHER: But that's not how I read this condition. GIANNINI: What GOLDSTEIN: But, but TANAKA: This condition, I think, addresses the wheelchair ramp at the intersection, correct? MOSHER: Well, that would be part of the ADA requirements, wouldn't it? TANAKA: We can maybe ask Mr. Gomes from Public Works because it would come under their jurisdiction if they, as far as the wheelchair ramp on the intersection MOSHER: Yeah, it's the wheelchair ramp on the intersection. TANAKA: That you're concerned about. MOSHER: Yes, because I think the structure would require a wheelchair ramp onto the structure. TANAKA: Right. MOSHER: But I was, at the intersection. TANAKA: Okay. There is a mechanism for wheelchair accessibility, ADA requirements on the building site, okay, so that's covered. MOSHER: Yeah. TANAKA: Mr. Gomes, maybe you can address that for Commissioner Mosher. GOMES: If there was a reconstruction done on the intersection, then they would need to provide a wheelchair ramp, according to the ADA. TANAKA: Only if GOMES: If there's any reconstruction. TANAKA: New construction? -4- GOMES: And right now, at this point, the Department of Public Works is initiating an inventory of the whole Island as far as wheelchair ramps and the need to improve substandard ones and the need to construct new wheelchair ramps. But according to the ADA, we are not required to put in wheelchair ramps unless there's reconstruction at that site. BAKER: I have a question for him. TANAKA: Okay. BAKER: So if I'm TANAKA: Commissioner Baker. BAKER: Understanding you correctly, if they don't make any new construction, they use the existing building into a, and we approve a neighborhood commercial, the sidewalk area where See, there's two people that go up and down that area on these small motorized carts that have a red flag, one is a man, one is a lady. GIFFIN: Yeah. MOSHER: Yeah. BAKER: And I see them around there a lot because I work in that area. And so, you know, for them to go into this area or be in that area, I see it would be a problem; and if that could be improved, I think it would be a good need. Now, it, there, legally, is no requirement that they have to do that for that area? GOMES: I'm not aware of it, the legal requirement. Because of the construction of this development, I'd have to check on our inventory that we are doing and any, what the consultant has requested as far as improving intersections or what time frame we need to have wheelchair ramps. TANAKA: Okay. Also, maybe we can have the Applicant come forward. We just received this letter that there is a potential buyer. So my question to that is because this is new, I want to see if the intent of the development of this property is the same as the original. So maybe we can defer and come back to you, Mr. Gomes, depending on how this might affect the application as far as this new potential buyer. So would the Applicant or its representatives please come forward. And I have one person signed up to testify, Mr. Ben Tsukazaki. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify on this agenda item? I guess not. Okay, if not, if I could swear you all in. Raise your right hand. And do you sweaz or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? -5- TESTIFIERS: I do. TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Have you received the new background and recommendation report? KOYAMA: Yes, I have. TANAKA: Okay. Do you have any comments? KOYAMA: As you know by now, the last time I appeared before you, I indicated to you that the owner had received, since applying for a change of zone application, an offer from an interested party to purchase the property with a condition that he has the new zoning. We are pursuing that possibility, at this point, and the buyer, the interested buyer, is interested in leaving the existing structure for a professional office. The buyer is here today, and the owner is open to having the buyer speak on these conditions. TANAKA: Okay. You can remain seated up there. If we can call Mr. Tsukazaki up. And everybody is in receipt of the letter from Tsukazaki, Yeh & Moore as the potential buyers. Mr. Tsukazaki, would you shed some light on what your plans are, or your company, your corporation is planning to do with this property? TSUKAZAKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the way, at the top, let me apologize for the late submittal yesterday of this revised language. As indicated in the letter, our firm is a potential buyer of the property. We are under contract to purchase the property subject to certain conditions. And the purpose of our buying this property would be to relocate our law firm's office to the site. We would use the existing dwelling structure, try to renovate the inside; and we, at this point, based upon the contractor that we're working with, it's quite clear that we'll have to provide some on-site parking space to comply with the Code requirements. But really, what we're hoping to do is to be able to relocate our office there without significantly changing the character of that property, try to keep it the way it is. It's a really nice site; and we'd like to avoid altering it as much as possible. If I may respond to the issue on, that was raised on the ADA requirements, Condition E, I believe, Commissioner Mosher directed attention to that language. And, again, I want to make clear that the position that we had was that, and actually our understanding is the same as Mr. Gomes, is that, you know, when you're in the County right-of--way like that, you're talking about a wheelchair ramp at the intersection. Our understanding is [hat that's basically a County requirement, to conform its infrastructure basically to what the ADA requires. And so that's why you've seen throughout town, the County gradually make improvements of a lot of intersections to make it wheelchair accessible. So, again, it's not the ADA requirements or improvements on our property, which we are under a separate requirement to do; there's no question about those. So the focus is on that -6- intersection. And our position was that given the kind of practice we have, basically, clients, potential clients, really would not be using the sidewalk, would not be using that intersection. They would basically be driving into our property, parking in the parking lot, and then walking into our office. So we do not anticipate any significant level of foot traffic to our law office; and, therefore, we did not feel that there was a justification for us to make an improvement at the intersection on the County's property. And if I'm wrong in any of that, you know, we can try to address that with Public Works and try to sort it out. But I'm just explaining that to you that, basically, as you can see throughout these conditions, we're trying to avoid requirements that would be imposed in these conditions for new construction at the site because we do not plan on constructing a new building. We're planning on using the existing building. So, basically, that's what our intent is. TANAKA: Commissioners? Commissioner Togashi. TOGASHI: Yeah, it does seem that the proposed use on this piece of property, I guess, previously the intent was to put up some kind of a, I guess a, like a Kinko's, I guess, to MOSHER: Kinko's? TOGASHI: Right, something like that, right, a Kinko's or a, like a Xeroxing center, yeah, which is something that the university students could use. But now the proposed use is something where I sense that the students would not be able to avail themselves of this type of And I guess, you know, in the background report, you know, there was so much discussion about, you know, the, I guess the intent of, or the concept of a college town, yeah, within this area; and a, I guess, your proposed use, Mr. Tsukazaki, kind of runs counter to that concept of creating this college [own. TSUKAZAKI: Well, hopefully, there will be some students who'll need some legal services down the road. TOGASHI: Are you going to be like the Legal Aid or something like TSUKAZAKI: And we would try to do our part, yeah. Yes, and that's a good point; that's well taken. I saw certain portions of the proceedings at the Council level, and so that was reflected, what you're bringing up was reflected at the Council level. On one hand, it would be beneficial to have more services available at that site to serve the TOGASHI: University students. TSUKAZAKI: Student population. TOGASHI: Right. -7- TSUKAZAKI: Yeah. And on the other hand, you know, there were some people in favor of trying to preserve GIFFIN: The neighborhood. TSUKAZAKI: That particular property in as close to its existing condition as possible. So there's some choices that have to be made. Nevertheless, under the General Plan designation, we believe that the proposed zoning would be appropriate. Our law office use would be a permitted use under that kind of zoning. And I hope that, you know, that the Planning Commission would just take that into account that, again, we tend to look at things only in terms of today. The General Plan looks at things long- term. Even if we establish a law office there, you know, and are fortunate enough to practice there for 10-20 years, that doesn't mean it'll always be a law office; it, at some point, may very well be converted to some other kind of use. And I wanted to mention that the language that I had proposed here tries to account for that. There's only an exemption from needing to put in certain kind of improvements if we use the existing dwelling. But at such time where there is new construction, a new structure, new commercial structure, then that structure would be subject to whatever the Code requirements are at that point. So, this has a long term effect, as well as a short term one. TANAKA: I have a question for you, because this is your proposed condition, and also I need some comments from Staff. But on your Condition D, you mentioned some of the improvements that we would need to make, you would need to make to meet with DPW's requirements; and one of them was, and it's not only you, I think you probably took it from the Staff's recommendation, channelized, channelization improvements to the Lanikaula- Kinoole S[reet intersection. And being familiar with most of the signalized intersections in Hilo because I've had a part of it somehow or another, whether it's new construction or upgrading or renovation, I'm familiar with this one here, and I just didn't understand how we could put further channelization in addition to what is already there when you have a signalized intersection. Was that your intent to further chammelize that? TSUKAZAKI: You know to TANAKA: I mean if I look at that, the map there, and I know where the intersection sits with the signals, and even with the driveways that are proposed, it's in such close proximity to that that it seems to me the signals itself will handle the control of traffic. TSUKAZAKI: I really, I really do not know the technical considerations on that issue. In the portion of the County Council proceedings that I heard, it seemed to be acknowledged that it would be discretionary with the Department of Public Works as to whether there really is a need to channelize -8- TANAKA: Okay. TSUKAZAKI: Anything more, given what the actual use is that's proposed. And, but that's a good point. I mean, the way it reads right now, someone could read that and say, well, it's mandatory TANAKA: Right. TSUKAZAKI: That you have to put in some channelization improvements. And to be honest with you, I really wouldn't know what those would be at this point because I recall that there is channelization right now. TANAKA: That's correct. GIFFIN: At Kinoole. KOYAMA: Mr. Chairman? GIFFIN: Kinoole. TANAKA: Mr. Koyama. KOYAMA: That, I believe at the last Commission hearing we addressed that question to the Public Works Staff person. And I think he, what he had in mind was that not so much at that intersect, the property intersection, where the streets cross, but basically further away from the intersection where the driveways are located, to take care of the left- turn movements into the property. So he was looking at some kind of storage lane facility to accommodate left-turn movements. TANAKA: Again, I wonder, you know, just the distance that we have there, you have your proposed driveway, you have an apartment building right above it, yeah, and just the close proximity, I would think maybe wording, "if required." Even that, I think is maybe too vague. I think that it should be stricken from the condition, but we'll let maybe Mr. Gomes offer comments. Mr. Yanagihara is not here for the next couple of months, yeah, so we're really breaking him in on the first day. BAKER: I think, Mr. Tanaka, the concern was on Lanikaula coming down. And that's where we wanted to have some storage because of TANAKA: That's right. BAKER: The buses -9- TANAKA: And that's where the BAKER: In the morning. TANAKA: Other driveway is, yeah? BAKER: Yeah. And in the morning TANAKA: Yeah. BAKER: When the buses line up and stuff. TANAKA: Okay. CHUNG: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. TANAKA: Councilman Chung. CHUNG: I have a meeting in Pahoa at 11:00. I'm just wondering if there's any questions that the Commission may have of me. Ms. Leithead-Todd is going to stay here for the remainder of this matter. TANAKA: Why don't you come forward while you're here, and we can maybe just get your comments, since you're here. Councilwoman Leithead-Todd, are you going to testify today, too? LEITHEAD-TODD: If you have questions. TANAKA: Why don't I swear you both in, Council Members. Do you swear Well, you're already sworn in; I'm sorry. LEITHEAD-TODD: I already am. TANAKA: Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? CHUNG: I do. TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioners, Mr. Chung represents the, this area; this is his Council District. We have all received the minutes of the Council meeting. Does anybody have any questions of him? Commissioner Souza. -10- SOUZA: I don't have a question, but if Mr. Chung has got to leave, I do want to make a statement, regardless how I'm voting and how I feel at this point, because I have more questions. But my feeling, I voted against this the last time, and my feeling doesn't change that I don't think at this time we should put any kind of development beyond Lanikaula Street. Once you start developing, to me, Lanikaula Street, at this point, we have enough land on the Hilo side of Lanikaula than the Puna side. And once you start developing the Puna side of Lanikaula, in essence, you're saying yes, we are open to development on the Puna side and take it out of residential. And I don't think that's right at this point in time. Now this morning I'm hearing that the fellow that's going buy the land, he plans to put a lawyer's office. Now, I'm not sure that he can put the lawyer's office under any zoning designation besides neighborhood commercial. I'm not opposed to something like a lawyer's office because the traffic would be very minimal; but I am, at this point, unless other discussion come up, against putting commercial development beyond Lanikaula. And what I'm trying to say is I think that we should be looking more toward planning the future, what we want. If you say yes, I think we should have development between Lanikaula, and what's the next street now, whatever GOLDSTEIN: Kawili. TANAKA: Kawili. SOUZA: Yeah, then I say fine, that's your opinion. But I'm, I just feel strongly that in planning, you know, we think about planning, not reacting to an application, that at this point in time, I don't think we should think of any kind of commercial development Puna side of Lanikaula. I offer that as my comments since you have to leave. TANAKA: Councilman, go ahead. You want to respond, Ihave afeeling CHUNG: I don't think there's much to respond to that commentary. I certainly recognize Commissioner Souza's sentiment. Basically, what he has expressed though is a philosophical idea. And couched in planning principles, and like anything else, different people will have different philosophies. I certainly respect what he's saying, and there's a lot of reason to the statements. But, at the same time, if you look on the Puna side of, and I'm not saying that I'm in support of this or not, but I'm just responding to the comments. If you look on the Puna side of Lanikaula, you have the commercial development, which was the old Wiki-Wiki Mart; that's on the Puna side of Lanikaula, if you go a little bit more down that side. And I think that entire block which is encompassed by Lanikaula and Kawili will, as Commissioner Togashi pointed out, will be the main area which will comprise the so-called college town that we all envision in the future. And everybody talks about the college town, and I think it's reasonable to assume that that block will be it. -11- I think a more compelling argument would be to say that there will be no commercial development Hamakua of Lanikaula or perhaps Puna of Kawili. But to say Puna of Lanikaula, that's really, to me, the main block, that's where the action is going to be. But I think Commissioner Togashi actually pointed out what I would consider another philosophical difference or issue. It's that he felt that the proposed development was intended to be ancillary to this college town concept and would service the students or faculty or whatever the case may be, and now you're having a totally different development. To that, I would answer and, you know, again, I would reiterate I'm not in support or against it at this point, but I think I stated at the Council level that I'm not against a landowner utilizing his property at its best and highest use. I mean, certainly, that is his or her prerogative. In this situation, my personal feeling was this. You know, being a lifelong resident of Hilo, I don't know how many Hilo residents we have on this Commission, but you know, I sort of grew up seeing that stately home, and it's a very nice home with a large yard, and it's just something that I grew up with. And to approve a development there, which was contemplated earlier or the sale that was contemplated earlier, would almost, on a sentimental level, be like saying goodbye to an old friend. It would almost be like the death knell to something that I had seen or grown up with. And, therefore, my feeling was opposite from the Commissioners. I wanted to provide this incentive to the development of a full-blown facility there, in the sense that perhaps we would put more traffic requirements or other types of infrastructure requirements if a new development was going to be done. And if they retained the old building and used it, well, used the existing dwelling, then they could get away with, I wouldn't say, you know, they would still have to do some infrastructure things, but it wouldn't be as onerous as if they came up with afull-blown development. And I would use the term "springing," something would spring into action later on in the event that they did decide to raze that building and develop something later. So something could be triggered at a later date. But some other people may feel that it might be probably more advisable to have or better to have a bigger type development. We could have a Kinko's or maybe a little convenience store to service that need in the community. And, again, it all really comes down to philosophies; and I respect, you know, everyone's philosophy on that. TANAKA: Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: May I just make a short comment. I question whether this town or that area is ready for a so-called college town concept. Remember, Wiki-Wiki Mart was one they had to close, which tells me that the college was not accepting that area at least. You would think that would be the most profitable one they had, but it didn't go. So I question whether we are ready for this now. CHUNG: Again, in response to that commentary, I think, and I don't want to go into a whole discourse about economics in our small community, but I think that the closing of Wiki-Wiki was more a function of some other external factors involved with the Sure Save -12- Company rather than its location; that's my personal feeling. Because, you know, we've been seeing Sure Save closing all over the place and, you know, this may have been one more fatality in that, all of that. I, personally, feel that that Wiki-Wiki Mart location is an excellent location for someone to start a business, you know, to take advantage of not only the college traffic but the Waiakea High School traffic, as well. I mean, if I were a businessman, and I had something, you know, that I thought I could present as a product, I think that would be one hell of a location. TANAKA: Mr. Chung, I have a question. You know, the General Plan allows for high density urban development in this area. What is your, given the discussion, what is your general feel about the designation as it stands now? CHUNG: Could you repeat that? I'm sorry. TANAKA: The General Plan allows for high density urban development in this area so which equates to, as we as Commissioners, we look at that as our guide for planning. CHUNG: Right. TANAKA: It was mentioned earlier about trying to look to the future, to be pro- active and not reactive. So we really heavily rely on the General Plan as our guide, what is allowed and what is not allowed. Just give us your comments, your feeling. This whole area is under General Plan use high density. CHUNG: Well, I think the General Plan designation is consistent with, again, I hate to reiterate this whole college town concept for that area. However, the reason why the County Council sent this initially back to the Commission was because of what we viewed as being a technicality perhaps or a policy decision perhaps. And that was that the designation that was being asked for was a CG, Commercial General. And we felt, based on our examination of the Hawaii County Code and the requirements for the various designations, the more appropriate commercial designation would be a CN that's what's before you today. And, you know, I really don'[ have the County Code in front of me, but if you look at the requirements of the two designations, you would see that probably the CN is more appropriate. Ms. Leithead-Todd, who is the chairperson for the Planning Committee of the County Council, has more information on, you know, in what properties have CN designations in the surrounding area. But I believe, and again, it's a philosophical issue, that the General Plan has enunciated a direction for the County which is in keeping with the spirit or the ideas of a vision for that area. TANAKA: Okay. CHUNG: I think it's consistent. -13- TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Mosher. MOSHER: I just wanted to thank representative, not representative, Councilman Chung for referring this back to us and following the Hawaii County Code, because that gives people the opportunity to discuss this further. TANAKA: Thank you for being here. CHUNG: Thank you very much. TANAKA: Let's finish up with Mr. Gomes on this channelization and we can move on. GOMES: Before we talk about the channelization, I'd like to bring up our Division Chief, Galen Kuba, to discuss about the ADA transition. TANAKA: Okay. Mr. Kuba, if I could swear you in first. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? KUBA: I do. TANAKA: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. KUBA: My name is Galen Kuba. You want my personal address? TANAKA: Yeah. We want to find you. KUBA: Three nine three Noe Street, Hilo, Hawaii. TANAKA: Okay. Thank you. You may proceed. You have some comments about the ADA requirements? KUBA: I'm not quite certain what the discussion was about, but I believe Kelly was, advised me that you were concerned about the time frame and what is involved. TANAKA: There is a question by Commissioner Mosher about the requirement. There is a condition that is being proposed, and her concern is about the requirement, if any, on the wheelchair ramp at the intersection. KUBA: As far as requirements on the County of Hawaii, we are required to, by the year 2005, to upgrade all existing curb ramps to ADA standards and to install curb ramps where none are presently existing, by the year 2005, and this is Island-wide. -14- TANAKA: And do you have plans, does the County have any plans for this intersection in the immediate future? KUBA: I believe so. I have to double check. But we have several signalization upgrade jobs. And we are gradually, as part of the signalization job, we are required to correct the curb ramps. I believe this azea will be covered because we are covering almost every, we are upgrading almost every traffic signal from Waianuenue to, I think, Kawailani. TANAKA: You know, thank you for bringing it up. I am the contractor doing that. So he is correct, there are about 10 intersections in Hilo that are going to be upgraded. KUBA: Right. TANAKA: The reason I forgot about it is because I'm waiting for you folks to fund the thing. KUBA: Oh. I'll look into that. TANAKA: But he is correct. I'm sorry, Commissioners. There are plans, like Mr. Kuba had said, to not only upgrade the signals but to put in the required drainage, as well as infrastructure for wheelchair ramps. Okay. Commissioner Mosher, does it answer your question? MOSHER: Yes, thank you. TANAKA: Okay. Okay, regazding the channelization then, Mr. Gomes, would you be opposed to if we reworded it, if there are some concerns from the Commissioners And do you have a copy of this, the conditions, the proposed condition? GOMES: Yes. TANAKA: And what I'm thinking, Commissioners, is that right now it appears that it is mandatory for channelization improvements to be made on the intersection, but if we could perhaps move that channelization improvements to the second sentence where it says, "street lights, signs, and markings shall be installed, if required." And we would just add that in so if you feel that it's required, I certainly think it's not, again, being familiar with the intersection and signalizing it GOMES: Yeah, I think the channelization improvements as required, I mean, as recommended by Casey, what he was concerned about, I guess, is the left-turn movement into Lanikaula where you'd have a backing up problem like you have at Burger King. And if we do it through traffic control devices as signs, no left turn, it wouldn't be a requirement; it -15- would be more like an advisory thing. So I think that was, his scope was to try and limit or somehow alleviate the traffic from backing up, but I guess it wasn't worded properly. TANAKA: Would you have objections to that then if we did that change? KUBA: Can I make a quick comment TANAKA: Sure. KUBA: Regarding traffic on Lanikaula? TANAKA: Okay. KUBA: As you may or may not know, we are pursuing the construction of the Mohouli Street Extension which will, I guess, I live in the neighborhood also, and one of the concerns my neighborhood had was potential traffic impacts on Lanikaula from the Ainako area. I can see that is a potential problem, so we are looking at upgrading the intersection at Lanikaula and Mohouli. How that affects this area, I believe there may be an impact, too; but that's difficult for me to say at this point in time. But we are looking at, you know, a general upgrade of Lanikaula Street because even today, there is a backlog between the Kinoole- Kilauea intersections during school hours. I mean, it backs up all the way back. I mean, you can't cross that intersection. TANAKA: Right. GOMES: So there is a potential for further upgrades. How much, you know, I really can't say. But I think when the extension goes through we probably will see some impacts to the area as far as traffic. TANAKA: I think that's great. And I think that is ultimately what it requires; because when you have the signal right in close proximity to those driveways, you're not really solving the problem. Okay, so thank you for the comment. Commissioners, any further questions for Mr. Gomes or Mr. Kuba? Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: So then we're speaking of channelization on Lanikaula, right, not at the intersection? TANAKA: Right. GIFFIN: Okay. Okay. -16- TANAKA: So the proposal is, and this is up to the Commission, to move channelization improvements to the second sentence so that it reads, along with the others, "street light signs and markings shall be installed," but we would add in "channelization." GIFFIN: "Channelization." TANAKA: "If required." GIFFIN: Yeah. TANAKA: And I think it requires some careful study on that because KUBA: Very true. TANAKA: Physically, my mind, from a contractor's standpoint, I don't know how that can happen. But you folks are the experts and if you can find a way, great. But if you're going to upgrade like you said, I think that might be the ultimate resolution. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Councilwoman Leithead-Todd. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify? Okay. LEITHEAD-TODD: I don't know if you got my message. Iran out to the intersection. TANAKA: Okay. LEITHEAD-TODD: There are four curb cuts for wheelchairs TANAKA: Okay. LEITHEAD-TODD: Currently in place. GIFFIN: Oh. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yeah, they are current Well, I was almost positive, but I ran out in my car to make sure because my girlfriend lived on the corner; and I remember them constructing GIFFIN: So it's there. LEITHEAD-TODD: The wheelchair ramps are already there at all four corners of that intersection. TANAKA: Okay. Great. -17- LEITHEAD-TODD: They were put in by Public Works a couple years ago. I think the issue for Public Works is the ADA standards have changed so that a lot of the curb cuts we put in a few years ago BAKER: Don't meet the standards. LEITHEAD-TODD: No longer meet current ADA standards because they altered the slope grade that you are allowed on the wheelchair ramps; and that's why we're having to re-assess even [hose intersections where we went in and installed curb cuts. The I didn't agree at the County Council with some of the decisions in terms of this. I looked at this as a high density urban area. I did not have a problem with the commercial, the CG designation; and part of that is because off of Kawili Street, mauka of Waiakea High School, is where the University is intending to put in what they call Vulcan Village. They have been meeting with Taiwanese investors for sometime now; I have been involved in some of those meetings. They are going to be putting a commercial complex in there as well as residential facilities. We're looking at things like a conference center, things like a pizza parlor, perhaps a couple of movie theaters, and that would be at the top of Kawili where it curves. And the intent to have it there is because it would align with the realignment of Puainako Avenue which will swing in towards the University there. There are also plans to place a kind of a multi-purpose complex, a sports complex similar to, if you've been to Manoa campus and you've seen the place where they play volleyball, I can't think of the name of that facility. MOSHER: Stan Sheriff Center. LEITHEAD-TODD: The Stan Sheriff Center. They're looking at doing something like that. And the entrance to that might be off of Kawili, closer to where Puainako will come in; and they are looking at that Puainako-Kawili area as the primary entrance areas to the University of Hawaii. They just are finishing up the internal road that goes from the Research Park where the telescope, the observatory facilities are, connecting it to Kawili, and so you are going to have that spur development. You have the Wiki-Wiki Mart on one corner. The corner opposite Wiki-Wiki Mart, if I am correct, is also CG, because there is a construction company that works out of that particular piece of property. TANAKA: Oh, yeah, right, right. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yeah. So you already have some movement in that area. And, also, the University's plans are to try and double the size of the University population. We are currently at about 2,500 students. The most recent long range plans formulated by the University of Hawaii are to double that to 5,000. It is intended to be a residential campus; and -18- so the Vulcan Village and other facilities are intended to service that. And I think as that occurs, the need for commercial property will occur in that area. The Council's arguments centered over, and this was Mr. Chung, primarily, and Mr. Tyler, that the CG designation they saw as somehow being restricted to major shopping areas and the Downtown Hilo area. So in their minds, you would need, you could only give CG if you were planning something like the Redevco, the Prince Kuhio Plaza area, or you were going to do something like Downtown Hilo, and that you could not do CG anywhere else. So all those other properties that are already zoned CG, if it was coming before them, they would use that as an argument not to do it. And the reality is, is you have a changing neighborhood, the commercial areas are moving. You are going to have, the fact that you have, I think you have got Hal's, Tyke's, there's another commercial development, all in a row, it, that neighborhood is changing. I think the other problem that the Akana property had, and this is something we didn't discuss, is that, frankly, once you zoned the property next door RM, and put in a multi-story apartment building, the ability of the owners to sell the property as an upscale residence was diminished. It is a very beautiful home. If it was surrounded by like homes behind it, you could command a very good price. But if you go to that residence and you are next door to a, I think it's a three- or four-story apartment building, and it is an affordable apartment building, I think it's very difficult [o go and command the kind of price for that home that you could if it were located on Reed's Island, if it were in Sunrise Ridge. It's a beautiful home. But I think that market, when they come and look for that kind of house, they're going to go elsewhere. They're not going to want to be next to an apartment building; that's a reality. So I think when you put the apartment building in some, not you but in the sense that we allowed that development to take place, you almost forced property owners in front of those apartment buildings to look at other uses because they cannot command the price as a residential property. Those are my thoughts, and that's why I thought that it was appropriate to look at General Commercial. Maybe we need to amend the Zoning Code so that General Commercial doesn't say intended for a principle, downtown area, and just say maybe that it's intended for high density urban areas so that there's a little more flexibility. And as you can tell from the minutes, that I have, and I'll put this on the record, I have a Council that when it's up, when it's something that they're not real happy with, in some cases I have Council Members who want to dot every "i," cross every "t," and have every public hearing in the world. But when it's something that they want to do, they are perfectly willing to say, oh, we don't need to send it back to the Planning Commission because we're the final arbiters anyway. And I want to commend the property owner because there were the votes to pass this as Neighborhood Commercial on the Council and not send it back. And it was after I met with the property owner outside during a recess and they said, yeah, we agree to send it down because we think that's the right thing to do; and they came back and on the record said, yeah, we agree to have it sent down. Otherwise, I was faced with a precedent that I thought -19- was bad and I thought it was also going to leave a cloud on the rezoning and leave the property owners subject to legal challenge. But I was very concerned about the direction the Council was taking because I was, in particular, disappointed, not so much with Mr. Chung, but with other Members who have insisted that we follow every opportunity to have public input and were perfectly willing to forego it in this case; and I just wanted to put that, and they can read the minutes and my comments when it gets up to the Council. Thank you. TANAKA: Well, we thank you for that, because we know what the rule states. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yes. TANAKA: And we have been there. We have Council Members in our Commission meetings that are asking us to continue because of lack of public opportunities, and when we were reading the minutes, we thought, oh, my goodness. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yeah and, in particular, I'm going to even say his name, I was particularly disappointed with Mr. Tyler. Because Mr. Tyler is the one that comes down to the Planning Commission and constantly talks about public input, but he was proceeding to read the Code and the Charter to say that we did not have to refer it back to you and give you and the public an additional opportunity. And I was very disappointed in that because on other occasions I have Council Members who use every rule that they have available to extend the process and prolong it. So, anyway, that's my personal, you know, beef that I had up there. And I didn't want to make more work for you folks, but I did think it was the proper thing to send it back down. TANAKA: Thank you for standing your ground and doing that which is right. LEITHEAD-TODD: And I want to commend MOSHER: Right. LEITHEAD-TODD: The property owner for doing what was right because the votes were there to pass it at the Council without sending it back down to you. TANAKA: I have one question for you. Let's get back to the General Plan, because I think it's an important document. How much weight do you think, I know the answer for myself, but I want to hear it from you so the others can also, how much weight does that carry when we're looking at these planning and land use issues? LEITHEAD-TODD: I think it carries a lot of weight, and you have aCouncil I think there's been a, I can't speak to prior Councils really. But the Council, the type of individuals that I've seen elected to office now are much more concerned about compliance with the General Plan, and, generally, unwilling to deviate from it, with one exception that I can think -20- of. But I think they were thinking in that case that the General Plan hadn't caught up to what was happening. I think when it comes to you that what you need to be doing is maybe not looking at just 10 years but because we have to live with this document for the next 10 years, you really need to be looking at what your vision for 20 and 30 years is. So if your vision 30 years is this, what do you need to set in place in the next 10 years to accomplish that vision. And the reason I say that is we're looking at the Mohouli Extension and we're looking at the Puainako Extension. We're looking at roads that Ray Suefuji planned 30 years ago; and we're only starting to implement that now. But we're able to implement it because 30 years ago somebody had vision and said we need this corridor here, the city is going to grow in a particular direction. And, in fact, if we had listened to Mr. Suefuji we wouldn't have the substandard subdivisions in Puna which he warned us were going to become a headache. And so what I'd say is yes, it's for 10 years; but when it comes to you be thinking 30 and 40 years in terms of how you provide input to it, what kind of a community do you want to leave to your children and grandchildren. Because the reality is, is that a lot of times when you put plans in place, it really isn't something that's going to happen in the next 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 years. What you're really trying to figure out is what kind of a community you want to retire in, if, you know, you're in your 30s or 40s. If you're a little bit older, it's what you want to leave to your children. And in my case I guess cause my children are getting a little bit older it's a community that I want them to be able to come home and work in. Cause, otherwise, if my kids all lived on the mainland, I'm packing up cause that's where the grandchildren are going to be. And as much as I love Hawaii, I'm going to move where the grandchildren are. And so I would dearly love for us to have a community where there are jobs that they can come home to so that I don't have to move. Because what I perceive occurring is if we don't provide room for growth and economic development, Hawaii, and this island in particular, will be nothing but gentlemen farms. It will be people who made their money some place else, sold their business or they're conducting their business long distance or they're living off of a trust fund or investments; and they're coming here because this is a great place to live. But everybody else is going to have to move elsewhere because there won't be jobs, other than service jobs, maybe, you know, cutting somebody's grass on their 10-acre gentleman farm. And so that has to be part of the plan. I recognize that people don't want us to look like Oahu. But you have to remember that Oahu can fit into Puna, so there's lots of room for growth. It's a question of where you want that growth to occur and what kinds of growth you want to encourage. You want livable communities, you want to try and encourage sustainable businesses here. Thanks. TANAKA: Thank you. MOSHER: I have a -21- TANAKA: Commissioner Mosher? MOSHER: I have a question. When the University finally starts coming in rezoning for their future plans LEITHEAD-TODD: I don't know that they do because it's State land. MOSHER: Okay, that would Do they have to come in to us? LEITHEAD-TODD: They don't, State land, the And plus it's University, they basically can do whatever the heck they want and not come in to us at all. MOSHER: For Pizza Huts or whatever they want to do? LEITHEAD-TODD: They can exempt themselves. MOSHER: That's what I thought. LEITHEAD-TODD: As long as it's on University property or on State land. You know, it, I don't recall them coming in for zoning on the Research Park or any of that stuff, none of that. It's kind of like Hawaiian Homes in a way, you know. And it's like the prison, if they build the prison on State land, they don'[ come and knock on our door at all. MOSHER: Okay, thank you. TANAKA: Okay, thank you very much for being here, and for your comments. Let's get back to the main issue. We'll call the applicant and its representative forward again for any last comments. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Regarding the proposed amendments that we don't know if that will be made into a motion yet, but any, I think we're squared away on everything else. Any objections to that regarding the channelization, the wording being moved to "if required"? KOYAMA: We have no objections. TANAKA: Okay. MOSHER: I have one question, last question. Is your offer contingent upon neighborhood commercial, neighborhood commercial or general commercial, or it's just a change to a commercial? KOYAMA: Yes. _22_ MOSHER: Okay. TANAKA: Okay, and the application before us is for a CN, yeah? TSUKAZAKI: Yes. TANAKA: Commissioner Baker? BAKER: Mr. Chairman, in hearing no further discussion, I would like to make a motion that we make a favorable recommendation for the change of zoning for REZ 99-10 with the amended conditions, on D as stated that we would move that channelization down to the other sentence. TANAKA: Okay. Do we have a second? GIFFIN: Isecond. TANAKA: We have a motion by Commissioner Baker and a second by Commissioner Giffin that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on Change of zone Application REZ 99-010, this is a County Council initiated Bill No. 106, Draft 4, Akana Trust, for the reasons and with the conditions and the insertion of the new Conditions D and E as proposed by the applicant, with amendments to Condition D that on the second sentence it would start off with "Channelization improvements, street lights, signs and markings shall be installed, if required," etc., etc. Any discussions? Commissioner Souza? SOUZA: I have a question for staff. Is there any other zoning designation that can be applied other than neighborhood commercial for, to allow an attorney's office there? FUJIMOTO: Yes. Actually, you can go, well, to a CG and also to an RS SOUZA: What is CG? FUJIMOTO: General commercial. SOUZA: Oh, that's up FUJIMOTO: Right, it's as a higher use. SOUZA: And the other one? FUJIMOTO: CN, which is what they're requesting. Offices are allowed in that, and RS. -23- SOUZA: And what was the FUJIMOTO: RS, residential. SOUZA: But they could not put an office if it's an RS, huh? Can they put a FUJIMOTO: Oh, not for a law office, no. No, I'm sorry, no, no, no. I'm sorry, yeah. SOUZA: So in order to establish an office as they plan it would either have to be neighborhood commercial or general commercial? FUJIMOTO: General commercial, yes; more appropriately in a CN, neighborhood. SOUZA: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if We didn't close. Can I ask Mr. Tsukazaki something? TANAKA: Sure. SOUZA: You mentioned, I'm kind of confused here. You mentioned that if you purchased this property you're just going to maintain the house for your office. But you have no plans to put any other kind of commercial activity on the lot? TSUKAZAHI: We don't currently have any plans to build any buildings or put any other commercial uses. SOUZA: So, can you give a guesstimate if you're going to invest all the money remodelling the house for an office at least how many years you'd be there, or is that an impossible question? TSUKAZAHI: Well MOSHER: He's offered a million dollars TSUKAZAHI: I'm going to have to be there a long time to, because my kids are at the age where if they should go to college or stay in college Ihave along-term investment that I have to pay off. So I'll be working a long time. SOUZA: Would, let me ask you, would there be room, I don't know who can answer this, maybe, would there be room to establish any kind of commercial activity on that particular lot if you don't tear down the house or would that be practically impossible? In other word, if you can maintain the house but somewhere along the line they said let's put a storefront up here, then you're not, you know, you're taking away from what a lot of people -24- said to maintain the beauty of the place. Where I'm coming from is I have no objection, really, if we know it's going to be a lawyer's office because it's going to be very minimum, going to look like what we have there, the land is going to be the same. I love it, I love it that somebody is going to do that. But I'm, I'm BAKER: Doubtful? SOUZA: I'm not, well, doubtful, yeah. But to me if you decide two years from now, hey, let's put a storefront in front, then, you know, what good is the original concept of that property. TSUKAZAKI: Commissioner Souza, I think, you know, I'd sure like to give you the answer that you want to hear, but I really think that the best thing that I can say right now is although you know what our intentions are and you know what our intentions in terms of staying and keeping [he property the way it is for as long as we work, I really think that the Commission should look at this in terms of the law, the land use land, which is the General Plan which is guiding all your decisions on rezoning. Because as much as I would like to assure you of certain things today there's nothing that I can really do to guarantee what might happen three years from now, five years from now. We've had a recent restructuring in our firm just recently that I don't think we could see coming down the line when, if you look back three years. So the best thing to do is to, again, look at this property, where it's situated, look what the General Plan says, you know, bring all your separate experiences to the table here, try to make a decision on what you think is appropriate in terms of this rezoning. And I think, because then if something happens, whether it's 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road, you know, it won't just be based on a representation I made and where I could not foresee certain circumstances happening that might change what happens. So I can only tell you what we plan right now and what we hope to be doing. There's a financial side of it, too, you know. One reason why we're here today seeking the changes to the conditions is because like anybody who has to purchase property and renovate it or build something, there is a limit to what we can afford. So if the improvements [hat are required in the rezoning are so burdensome we wouldn't be able to buy the property basically. So there's that side that, you know, I'm asking you to weigh as well. TANAKA: Any further discussion before I call for the roll call? MOSHER: I just wanted to say I'm going to vote in favor of the motion, but not because the Council sent this back to us. Had CN been noted at the original time of application, I would have voted for CN, but I didn't even go beyond and look into another type of zoning. But I just want the Council to know that it was not because of them sending it back to us. TANAKA: Okay. Commissioner Souza? -25- SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, I'll be voting for the motion because I feel that at this point what Mr. Tsukazaki, and I appreciated his honesty where he said vote on the Zoning Code and not what going there. On the other hand, because of his honesty I feel that we can be comfortable in seeing that place unaltered for many years; and that if Mr. Tsukazaki's firm does not buy that, that could be sold to, the Council already had the votes, that could be sold to somebody else who would put up a commercial building. So at this point, taking all the circumstances, I rather see the old house there, well manicured like I'm sure you folks will, than commercial activity right away. TANAKA: Any further discussions? Okay, I had one last comment. I just wanted to thank the applicant. As I was looking at the background report, the applicant came before us on June 18th, and now we're into October already, so a lot of time has passed. He has gone up to the County Council with CG, he has had to come back, remanded it back to us and going back another venue, which is CN. So I appreciate, as was testified by Councilwoman Leithead-Todd, that you had agreed to do which is right. I would be supporting this motion also but with reservations. And the only reservation that I had is that I strongly feel like Councilwoman Leithead-Todd had mentioned that the General Plan is really our guide. And when I asked her how much weight do we put onto the General Plan, I think we put a lot of weight, you know, on that guide because it was the planning guide that has been used and is still being used today. And if we have disagreements with the General Plan then the avenue to address those disagreements or amendments or revisions is during the General Plan Amendments which will be coming up. I would hope that the Department can get that started before December because I sure have some comments, too, that I would like to provide; and, if not, if it goes into the year 2000 then I certainly will be a part of that as a public participant. But, anyway, thank you for your patience and for going the proper route. And I, again, I was in support of the CG just because the General Plan allows for that and the entire area is designated as high density. Okay, roll call. FUJIMOTO: Commissioner Baker? BAKER: Aye. FUJIMOTO: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. FUJIMOTO: Commissioner Mosher? MOSHER: Aye. FUJIMOTO: Commissioner Souza? SOUZA: Aye. -26- FUJIMOTO: Commissioner Togashi? TOGASHI: Aye. FUJIMOTO: Mr. Chairman? TANAI{.A: Aye. FUJIMOTO: Mr. Chairman, there are six ayes. Motion carried. TANAKA: Thank you. We'll notify you in writing of today's result. TSUKAZAHI: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 10:57 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary _27_ BAkana02.skg- 10/1/99 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT AMENDED BACKGROUND REPORT AKANA TRUST COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO. 106, Draft 4 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION tREZ 99-0101 The COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED BILL NO. 106, Draft 4 relating to a request filed by AKANA TRUST for a Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to General Commercial (CN-20) for`approximately 41,010 square feet of land. The original request was from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to General Commercial (CG-20). The property is located at the southwest corner of the Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street intersection, Waiakea Houselots Second Series, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-25:24. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. June 18, 1999: Public Hearing held in which the Planning Commission voted to send "No Recommendation" to the County Council. 2. September 9, 1999: The County Council at its meeting amended Bill 106, Draft 2 to Bill 106, Draft 4, which amended the bill from General Commercial (CG-20) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20). 3. September 10, 1999: By letter, the County Council referred Bill No. 106, Draft 4, and transcripts of the discussion on September 9, 1999 to the Planning Commission for proper review and reconsideration. COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED REQUEST 4. Request: The County Council amended Bill No. 106, Draft 2 from General Commercial (CG-20) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20). This was due to the general sentiment of the Council that CN-20 was a more appropriate designation for the subject property, as the General Commercial designation seemed to indicate that the parcel be located in either the Downtown area or a major shopping area, which the parcel is not located in. The amended request was forwarded to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. With agreement of the applicant's agent, Glen Koyama, the County Council voted to send the amendment back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. 5. Supportive Information: (See Exhibit A -Council transmittal letter dated September 10, 1999 forwarding Bill No. 104, Draft 4, Verbatim Transcripts of September 9, 1999 Council Meeting and July 28, 1999 Memo with Bill No. 104, Draft 2. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 6. Zoning: (See Exhibit B -Permitted Uses within the General Commercial (CG) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Districts) ADDITIONAL AGENCIES' COMMENTS 7. Police Department (September 20, 1999 Memo): "Staff has reviewed the above-referenced change of zone application and has no comments or objections to offer at this time." 8. Department of Public Works (September 16, 1999 Memo): "We have reviewed the subject request and our comments in our memorandum dated April 13, 1999 are still applicable. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Casey Yanagihara in our Engineering Division at Ext. 8327." 9. Department of Health (September 22, 1999 Memo): "The Department of Health does not have any objections to the proposed change in land uses. However, existing or planned land use activities adjacent to the proposed neighborhood commercial should be compatible with a residential neighborhood." 10. State Department of Transportation-Honolulu (September 27, 1999 Letter): "Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1999, transmitting the subject zone change application for our review and comments. The proposed zone change (residential-RS-10 to commercial-CN-20) will not adversely impact our State highway facilities." -2- 11. State Land Use Commission (September 21, 1999 Letter): "We have reviewed the County Council initiated Bill No. 106 Draft 4 for the subject application transmitted by your memorandum dated September 15, 1999, and have no further comments to add to our previous comments dated April 14, 1999, regarding this matter. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Bert Saruwatari of our office at 587-3822." -3- JAMES Y. ARAKAKI ~,~"`•~"••"•!w, AARON S.Y. CHUNG C'lrgirnrgn rF Presiding Q(ficer d6i~. BOBBY JEAN LEITHEAD-TODD • LENINGRAD ELARIONOFF AL SMITH JULIE JACOBSON fire Chnirmm~ ~'~~i ei'Mi'~~ NANCY PIS ICC H 10 J. CURTIS TYLER, III DOMINIC YAGONG COUNTY COUNCIL County ojHawai "i Hawaii County Building 15 Aupuni Street Hilo. Hawni'i 96710 September 10, 1999 Re: Comm. 375.Oa1 TO: Virginia Goldstein, Director Planning Department SUBJ: Bill 106, Dr. 4: Akana Trust, applicant -Amends Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key 2-2-25:24 The Hawaii County Council at its meeting held Thursday, September 9, 1999, amended Bill 106, Draft 2 to Bill 106, Draft 4, which changed the district classification from the General Commercial designation to Neighborhood Commercial. By this change, tl:e Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for proper review and reconsideration. For your information, Bill ] 06, Draft 4 and the transcripts of the discussion at the September 9, 1999 are included. Should you have further questions, please contact my office at your earliest convenience. Ja es . Arakaki JYA~ K/hkmd tt. cc: Planning Commission Mayor Yamashiro Corporation Counsel E X H I B I T .,uz==Ya., ~~~e ' ' ~ °auf~ COUNTY OF HAW ~ ~ -STATE OF HAWAII , 106 BILL NO 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, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-10) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-20) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 2-2-25:24. 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 Hawaii County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20): Beginning at the west corner of this pazcel of land, on the southeasterly side of Lanikaula Street, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 3,976.92 feet South and 6,594.90 feet East, thence rurming by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1. 238° 10' 217.00 feet along the southeasterly side of Lanikaula Street; 2. Thence along the south comer of the intersection of Lanikaula Street and Kinoole Street, on a curve to the right with a radius of 20.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 283° 10' 28.28 feet; 3. 328° 10' 153.40 feet along the southwesterly side of Kinoole Street; 4. 58° 10' 237.00 feet along Grant 9391; 5. 148° 10' 173.4.0 feet along 30-ft. Railroad Right-of--Way (abandoned) to the point of beginning and containing an area of 41,010 squaze feet. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. This change in district classification is conditioned upon the following: A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. The applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculation and the required water commitment payment to the Department of Water Supply in accordance with its "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" within ninety (90) days from the date of Final Plan Approval. C. Construction of the proposed development and related improvements within the subject property shall be completed within five (5) yeazs from the effective date of this ordinance. This time period shall include securing Final Plan Approval from the Planning Director in accordance with the Zoning Code Sections 25-2-72 and 25-5-117 and the Planning Depaztment's Rule 17 (Landscaping Requirements) for the commercial development within the subject property. Plans shall identify structures, fire protection measures, landscaping and maintenance plan, paved and striped pazking stalls and driveway and other improvements associated with the proposed uses. Plans shall include landscaping along property boundaries for the purpose of mitigating any potential adverse noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. D. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, driveway access and channelization improvements to the Lanikaula/Kinoole Street intersection and the proposed driveways shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Street lights, signs and mazkings shall be installed, if required, on Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street meeting with the approval of the Department 2 of Public Works. E. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any development on the subject property, the applicant shall provide improvements to the frontage of the subject property along Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street consisting of, but not limited to, commercial standazd sidewalks (sidewalks with no planter strips) along the entire frontage of the subject property, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Sidewalks and an accessible wheelchair ramp at the comer of Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street shall be provided and meet with the approval of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities and the Department of Public Works. F. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works in conjunction with the submittal of plans for Final Plan Approval. G. Sewer line connections to the County sewer system shall be installed meeting with the requirements of the Department of Public Works. H. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development, the applicant shall submit a fmal written report to the Planning Director stating that all conditions have been met. I. Comply with all other applicable rules, regulations and requirements of the affected agencies for the development of the subject property. J. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fee Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towazd~ the requirements of the Unified Impact Fee -3- Ordinance. K. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: I. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicants, successors or assigns, and that aze 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. 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 yeaz may be extended for up to one additional year.) L. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director may initiate rezoning of the subject property to its original or more appropriate designation. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declazed invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. -4- SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTR~ODnUCED BY: '"„rrCe" COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: REFERENCE: Comm. 375.004 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY CORPORATION COUNSEL DATED: -5- KS 10 QJ-10 CG-20 ps-I 25-IQ ~ ~7-3.75 CG-7.5 LONG STREET KS-10 20 ~7-3.75 CG-10 ~ 10 ~ RS-10 RS-10 8 GG -7.5 ~ ~p~ K5 -10 F W QJ`V ~ ~-lO W ryO ~ ~ ~ H N ~ x5-10 ~ RS-10 LG-10 RS-10 RS-10 ' W 2 CG - 20 r~ - to rzs Io----- Q 3 976.92 S 6,594.90 E CG -10 " HAV+I" A LANIKAULA STREET RS-10 RM-4 RS-10 p~_I PS-10 12M-I = RS-10 SINGLE FAMILY I________ o RESIDENTIAL (RS-10) r-~ COMMERCIAL (GG,-20) ~ as - to o es - to a _ - I Z W Y Q AREA: 41.010 SQ. FT. ~ J Y Z RS-10 RM-1 j Its-10 12M-I ~ RS-10 OLONA STREET 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. BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-10) TO GENERAL- COMMERCIAL (CG-20) AT WAIAKEA. SOUTH HILO, HAWAII. _-.•.r.~.~e- PREPARED BY PLANNIND DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII JUNE 10. 1999 TMK 2-2-25:24 (uuuu rnusr) EXHIBIT ~Ar IMMEDIATE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS Hawaii County Council Prepared for: Planning Commission (B. Hashimoto) Council Meeting Date: Thursday, September 9, 1999 Date of Request: 9/9/99 Needed by: 9/10/99 Completed: 9/13199 Page 1 REGULAR SESSION TWENTIETH SESSION Hilo, Hawaii Thursday, September 9, 1999 The Regular meeting of the County Council was called to order by Chairman and Presiding Officer James Y. Arakaki, at 9:09 a.m. in the Councilroom, County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo. ROLL CALL: Councilmember Aaron S.Y. Chung (Arrived 10:03 a.m.) Councilmember Leningrad Elarionoff Councilmember Julie Jacobson Councilmember Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Councilmember Nancy Pisicchio Councilmember Al Smith Councilmember J. Curtis Tyler, III Councilmember Dominic Yagong Council Chair James Y. Arakaki ALSO PRESENT WERE: Harry Takahashi, Finance Director Richard Wurdeman, Corporation Counse] Glenn Taguchi, Mayor's Administrative Assistant Jiro Sumada, Deputy Chief Engineer Gerald Takase, Deputy Corporation Counsel Alice Kawaha, Planner AI Konishi, County C?erk Connie Kiriu, Legislative Auditor Alapaki Nahale-a, Fiscal Program Review Auditor Barbara Hashimoto, Legislative Auditor Assistant Walter Iida, Legislative Assistant Donna Watanabe, Legislative Assistant Jeanette Aiello, Council Assistant I Hansrenda K.M. Dutro, Council Assistant II Page 2 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 ORDINANCE A Bill for an Ordinance numbered 106, Draft 2, amends BILL 106: Section 25-8-33 (City of Hilo Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (DRAFT 2) (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, by changing the (C-375.00]) district classification from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to General Commercial (CG-20) at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key 2-2-25:24, Akana Trust, applicant, introduced by Ms. Leithead-Todd on August 25, 1999; was presented for second and final reading. Ms. Leithead-Todd moved for the passage of Bill 106, Draft 2, on second and final reading. Seconded by Mr. Smith. CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had quite a lively and lengthy discussion at the first reading regarding this bill and not only on the rezoning itself, but the designation, in terms of General Commercial versus Neighborhood Commercial, and there seemed to be some sentiment on the part of, at least a number of the councilmembers that we ought to look at that. There was some discussion about how the bill might change, even though it's in the title, etc., and I'd like to hear from some members on the East side, who are much closer to this than I, regarding any further investigation or any research that was done regarding this. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: This is Mr. Chung's area, so I'll ask Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I haven't done any additional research on the subject, but it was my impression that when we last discussed this matter, we were going to change the designation from what exists right now, or what is being requested-- the general commercial designation, to a, I think it's called, a Neighborhood Commercial designation, which would be, in my estimation, a more appropriate one. Page 3 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 The General Commercial zoning, by its own definition, seems to indicate that it has to either be--this parcel has to be located in either the Downtown area or the major shopping area, which this obviously is not located, in either of those two types of location. Therefore, I think it's totally inappropriate to approve something that's asking for a General Commercial designation. You know, I'm in favor of the rezoning if it's a Neighborhood Commercial, I'll supporC it. I just want the proper designation. I cannot, in good conscience, approve the rezoning for General Commercial. CHR. ARAKAKI: You'd like to defer it? You want to defer it? MR. CHUNG: Well, I thought we were going to have it all corrected by this reading. CHR. ARAKAKI: It hasn't, so--. MR. CHUNG: Right. CHR. ARAKAKI: We'll have Mr. Yagong speak first. MR. YAGONG: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to hear--is the applicant here? I'd like to hear your comments regarding Mr. Chung's comments. Is there any response to that? (At this time, the representative for Akana Trust, Glenn Koyama, came forward to address the Members of the Council.) MR. KOYAMA: I guess the last time I was in this position, so I'll assume the same position. The last time, I guess I still had my frog voice, and it's been carrying over for six weeks now, so I don't know what's the deal. CHR. ARAKAKI: Could you please identify yourself? Page 4 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. KOYAMA: My name is Glenn Koyama. I'm here representing the owner, the Akana Trust. As Councilman Chung indicated, the intent of the General Commercial is to establish a central shopping or a principle downtown area for a city or a region, which is stated in the zoning ordinance. Several things, actually, the reason why the applicant has gone in with General Commercial is, first of all, the area is, I guess, within a block or two, has a number of general commercial zoned properties. There are a number, in fact, just one block away from the area, from the property. The General Plan indicates that this property is for High Density Urban development, which a General Commercial is consistent with. Thirdly, the Planning Department passed on a favorable recommendation on the general commercial zoning request, and I think, most of all, when we went before the public at the public hearings, there was no, except maybe one, no objections to the proposed project, which included the neighborhood area which we had sent notices out, and of course, as you know, public notices in the newspaper. So we feel that as far as the project goes, the owner feels that this is appropriate zoning for his property. In terms of Councilman Chung's reference to the intent of the General Commercial district, the--we believe that a General Commercial district designation for this parcel represents a component of the Hilo town, which we believe is the General Commercial designation for this region. It's not a commercial center in itself, but a component of the larger Hilo town area, and that's how we'd like to address that issue. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Yagong, you have the floor. MR. YAGONG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Koyama, thank you. You mentioned that there's several other businesses within a block or two that are zoned General Commercial? Could you point those businesses out to us? MR. KOYAMA: There are, I believe, a number of commercial establishments on Kilauea Avenue. CHR. ARAKAKI: Are you referring to Tykes, Scruffles and all that? That complex? Page 5 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. KOYAMA: There's restaurants, that's correct. Let me see if I have my---. CHR. ARAKAKI: On Kilauea Avenue? MR. KOYAMA: On Kilauea Avenue, that's correct. MR. YAGONG: This property is on Kinoole (Street), is that correct? CHR. ARAKAKI: That's right. MR. YAGONG: Kinoole (Street), Lanikaula (Street)? CHR. ARAKAKI: That's right. MR. KOYAMA: That's correct. MR. YAGONG: Mr. Koyama, as you search for that, it seems to me that there is general support for rezoning. The question is whether it'd be General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial. As far as the owner, that you represent, is it your sense that if we do change it to Neighborhood Commercial that you would ask to pull this application, or, in other words, are you adverse to changing it to Neighborhood Commercial? MR. KOYAMA: The owner has no objection to going to Neighborhood Commercial, but he just feels that he's invested--- MR. YAGONG: You'd prefer the General? MR. KOYAMA: Yes. Obviously, he's invested a lot in this project and for him to go back to the Planning Commission would be a step backwards. MR. YAGONG: That was my next question, Mr. Chairman. Regarding that, if we do have a change, would it have to go back to the process or could that just be an amendment at this level? CHR. ARAKAKI: I would ask Ms. Leithead-Todd on that. Page 6 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: This is one in which, I guess, there's some disagreements between us. I believe that if, one, you were changing not only the title but the general purpose of the bill, and the purpose of the bill, as I view it, was to change it to General Commercial, which is a CG-20. I view CN, the Neighborhood Commercial as a different purpose. I believe Mr. Chung says that he doesn't view it as a different purpose because he sees the purpose of the bill is to rezone it to a commercial property, but I believe that there is a distinct difference in the Hawaii County Code between Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial. So at the very minimum, if such an amendment, if such an amendment would be made, you would definitely have to hold it over to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment. CHR. ARAKAKI: So I guess the question was, does it need to go back to the Planning Commission? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I believe that it does. MR. YAGONG: So, Mr. Koyama, you wouldn't, or the applicant would not be adverse to Neighborhood Commercial, as long as it can be dealt with here at the Council, is that correct? MR. KOYAMA: That's correct. MR. YAGONG: So maybe we should get--would the Planning Committee be able to give us a, the Planning Department, rather, give us a read on this, or is it more the Corporation Counsel that we should ask? CHR. ARAKAKI: Maybe we should have Corporation Counsel. Is Corporation Counsel here? Yes, Corporation Counsel, Mr. Wurdeman. MR. YAGONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ARAKAKI: Or would you want to pass it off to the Planning Department? (At this time, Corporation Counsel Richard Wurdeman came forward to address the Members of the Council.) Page 7 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 POINT OF MR. CHUNG: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of personal privilege. PRIVILEGE: CHR. ARAKAKI: Yes, Mr. Chung? MR. CHUNG: Could we allow all of the remaining speakers to speak, because I think Mr. Wurdeman just came in here cold, really. I don't know if he's here for this issue. So, you know, if we could just allow him to--- MR. WURDEMAN: Well actually I'm here for the sewer problem. CHR. ARAKAKI: So you wouldn't be ready to do this? MR. CHUNG: Have a little bit more time to digest, because I think this is a pretty-- CHR. ARAKAKI: Yeah, pretty heavy. MR. CHUNG: Considerable issue. MR. YAGONG: I have no problem with that, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. We'll come back to you, though, Mr. Wurdeman, on that question. MR. YAGONG: I'll yield the floor, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Tyler, before I call Mr. Chung. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Koyama and thank you for coming here. Ms. Kawaha, are you about to leave? Can I just have you come forward for one second? Just a real quick question? (At this time, Planner Alice Kawaha came forward to address the Members of the Council.) MR. TYLER: Mr. Koyama represented that the Planning Department recommended approval to this, that there was no public objections, but isn't it a fact that the applicant applied for this designation? MS. KAWAHA: Yes, yes. The applicant did apply for General Commercial. Page 8 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. TYLER: Isn't it then the practice of the Planning Department that, for the most part, these kinds, do you recommend approval for most of these applications, on the basis of the application, assuming it's not breaking any laws? MS. KAWAHA: Yes, because we have to look at the criteria again and make it our recommendation. MR. TYLER: Isn't it true that the Planning Department, excuse me, the Planning Commission, with respect to any action it would be taking, is purely advisory, with respect to this? Is it not? MS. KAWAHA: Advisory from whom? MR. TYLER: Advisory to the Council? They have no final decision making--. MS. KAWAHA: Right, they are advisory to the Council. MR. TYLER: With respect to rezoning, right? MS. KAWAHA: Right. So it is the prerogative of the Council to do what it pleases, as long as it's within the County Code, and we have a majority vote, isn't that correct? CHR. ARAKAKI: I think that's a procedural question. MS. KAWAHA: It's just a procedural that I don't, yes. MR. TYLER: Okay, I'm Sony. CHR. ARAKAKI: Maybe we should ask that to Mr. Wurdeman. MR. TYLER: I'm asking an illegal question, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put you on that, but I just wanted to establish for the record that I believe the reason that the Planning Department, and the Planning Commission recommends approval for this is because that's what was applied for. Page 9 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 I daresay that unless I had brought up this matter, it probably never would've come up, and the fact that the Public did not respond to whether it should be General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, as far as I'm concerned, is a moot point, because the public was never given that opportunity. The public does not have a copy of the Hawaii County Code; the public generally doesn't know enough. I daresay, probably most of us here wouldn't have even thought about it. I just happened to stumble upon it because I was looking at sidewalks. So it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, since the applicant is in agreement with the change to Neighborhood Commercial, Mr. Chung, in whose district this is located, says he won't vote for it unless it is that, and number three, that this Body is the final decision-making body, and that the Planning Commission is only advisory, and we have already gone through the public hearing and, number four, since Ms. Leithead-Todd says we would have to hold it over, which I agree with completely, Mr. Koyama, do you and the applicant have any objection to holding this over for one more reading? MR. KOYAMA: No. MR. TYLER: I mean you'd rather have that than have it not voted, right? MR. KOYAMA: Not going back, correct. MR. TYLER: No, I'm not advocating it for going back to the Planning Committee, because I believe we're the final decision makers on this and we can check with Corporation Counsel. But, Mr. Chairman, that's my position, with respect to this. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, I'll have Mr. Chung have his say. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I don't want anyone to leave with the impression that I'm trying to find a legal technicality or a, yeah, a legal technicality, as a basis for holding this project up, because, as I stated earlier, you know, although I have some sentimental concerns, you know,l kind of grew up with those properties around there, beautiful property. You know, I'm not against allowing a land owner to make use of his property to its best and fullest use. So, you know, I'd be in favor of it and I'm in favor of the rezoning to a commercial designation. Page 10 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 I just feel very strongly that a designation being as for here, is not the correct designation, and I'm going to read again. I know I did this before, but I'm going to read it again. The CG, General Commercial district, which is being asked for here applies to "an area suitable for commercial uses and services on a broad basis to serve as the central shopping or principle downtown area for a city or region," and I think anybody who's familiar with that area or what it's proposed to be, even in the very near future, would agree that it doesn't fit into these categories. Now I grant you that there are some, probably--I don't really know for a fact, but there are some CG zoned properties more, I would guess, by the Hilo Shopping Center area, which is about two blocks away from the subject property, but a big two blocks away. I mean it's quite removed from that azea. As Ms. Leithead-Todd pointed out, there is a distinct, well, she talked about it in a different context, but she said that there's a distinct difference between the Neighborhood Commercial and the General Commercial. If we were to approve this rezoning as is, that means we're making a broad policy statement as to where we want the direction of the development, commercial development, to go. We're saying that that area where you want rezoned is now either going to be the downtown area or the principle shopping center area for the Hilo and I don't think that's right. I can see where it's right around by the Hilo Shopping Center. I have to, I'm just going to guess, but you have Hilo Motors that's probably a CG; the Hilo Shopping Center, and probably all of those other commercial properties immediately surrounding that area, HELCO and maybe even the 7-Eleven, but, you know, there is quite a big distance between that area and the area that we're talking about, even if it is two blocks. Page 11 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 So, by approving the CG today, we're making, I believe, a broad policy zoning statement, and I don't think that that's the direction that we want to be going, yet. It may come about maybe 20 years from now, you know, when the University of Hawaii is fully developed, maybe, but I think right now is not the time. Based on everything that you have told us, what you are actually looking for is the neighborhood designation, because when we talked about the sidewalk issue, you said that it would probably keep with the flavor of the neighborhood, I think you used that. But if we kept the current sidewalks--now wasn't that the thrust of your argument? That you wanted to keep with the neighborhood flavor? So if that's the case, I think it would be more appropriate if you went with the Neighborhood designation, which reads, "The CN 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," and based on what you've told me, it's basically to service the University. So it would kind of fit under this category, I think, more appropriately. But now this is where I differ with Ms. Leithead-Todd. I believe that we can change the title of this bill and whatever is necessary within the text of it, hold it over for one more reading here at the Council without the necessity of it going back to the Planning Commission, and that's where I differ from Ms. Leithead-Todd because I still believe it is the commercial rezoning, and almost the entire record seems to indicate a Neighborhood Commercial type of designation, so, thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. Ms. Pisicchio. MS. PISICCHIO: Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chung covered several of my points, but I'd like to add that I agree completely with everything you said. I drove around in that area again last night with this in mind, and I agree completely a Neighborhood Commercial designation would be much more appropriate. I think that it might be safe to guess that when the applicant went in originally for their zoning, they looked around and the closest thing was already commercial designation for, or rather, the Neighborhood Commercial, and so they didn't think about it, they just did it. So I think the only question now probably is the legal question regarding the Sunshine Law and the title. Thank you. Page 12 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Elarionoff. MR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we're placing bets, if we were to change this from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial, I would side with Ms. Leithead-Todd. But because we're going from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, I would side with Mr. Chung. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I guess I'll have to hear from Mr. Wurdeman, but, again, I refer you, and I guess Mr. Wurdeman specifically, to Page 4 of the Charter, Section 3-10(d), which says, "a bill shall not be amended to change its original purpose," and I contend that the original purpose of this bill was to amend the zoning to General Commercial. So an amendment to Neighborhood Commercial, I believe is changing the purpose of the bill and that's incompatible with the Charter. CHR. ARAKAKI: Let's call Mr. Wurdeman. Are you ready, Mr. Wurdeman? (At this time, Corporation Counsel Richard Wurdeman came forwazd to address the Members of the Council.) MR. WURDEMAN: I agree with everybody! I agree with Mr. Chung, Ms. Leithead-Todd--I agree with everybody! CHR. ARAKAKI: You know what, I'm going to ]et Mr. Yagong have the privilege of asking you and he has the floor. MR. YAGONG: That's what my light--I wanted the referee to come in and settle this thing. Mr. Wurdeman. MR. WURDEMAN: Okay. Well, generally I agree with Ms. Leithead-Todd, what she just said. I'd like to elaborate a little bit. There is a case from Honolulu some years ago that said that the title of a bill should allow someone of reasonable intelligence to know what the bill is about, and I think when you make a change of the nature that has been proposed, you are, you need to change the title and that would require a new bill to go to CN, which means it would have to go through the process. Does that answer your question? Page ] 3 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: So your interpretation is it has to go back to the Planning Commission? MR. WURDEMAN: If you're going to go to CN. CHR. ARAKAKI: To CN--you start the process all over? MR. WURDEMAN: With a new bill. CHR. ARAKAKI: We take it from ahigher--. MR. WURDEMAN: ACouncil-initiated bill. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, inegardless ifwe're going from a higher designation to one below. MR. WURDEMAN: Right, because the title specifically says CG-20. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Tyler, you want to follow that line of questioning? MR. TYLER: Yes, I just have a quick question. So in that regard, Mr. Wurdeman, if this bill were filed, the motion was made and passed, and the bill were filed and in two weeks we had a new bill that had everything identical except neighborhood--General Commercial was changed to Neighborhood Commercial, and Ms. Leithead-Todd waived it out of her committee and we brought it to the full Council, could we, in two consecutive sessions, assuming everything else remains unchanged, pass that bill? MR. WURDEMAN: Anew bill would have to go to the Commission. MR. TYLER: Why? MR. WURDEMAN: Because the ordinance requires it. MR. TYLER: But they're advisory-only. MR. WURDEMAN: Nevertheless, there's an ordinance that's part of the Zoning Code that it has to go to the Commission. Page 14 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. TYLER: Okay, so this section of the Charter that Ms. Leithead- Todd referred to with respect to the purpose of the bill, it shall not be changed, that there's a second sentence in that Section (d), as I'm sure you'll recall, which says, "an amended bill shall upon aone-third vote of the entire membership be laid over for at least one week before final reading." So, the first sentence said that a bill shall not be amended to change its original purpose. MR. WURDEMAN: And the original purpose is reflected in the title, or should be. MR. TYLER: Okay. Well, I think, you know, Mr. Chung has stated and I have stated that we regard the purpose as being moving from a residential to a commercial use. The fact that it's between a Neighborhood and a General Commercial--is that also part of the purpose? I mean---. MR. WURDEMAN: Well, is that what the title said, then that would be the purpose. The purpose is what the title says. The title is required by the Charter to reflect the purpose of the bill. MR. TYLER: Okay, so what would happen if this Council disregarded your opinion and, I want to, because it is your opinion, and I want to hear this and I want to run this one through, and the majority of the Council, approved an amendment to Neighborhood Commercial from General Commercial. What is the scenario that could occur? I mean--. MR. WURDEMAN: Well, the bill would go to the Mayor for signature. MR. TYLER: Yes. MR. WURDEMAN: If, after looking at the facts I felt that it was improperly passed, I would recommend that he veto, and then it would be up to him. MR. TYLER: Okay, so he vetos the bill and now it comes back here and then you'll have atwo-thirds override, then what? MR. WURDEMAN: Then it goes into effect until somebody challenges it. Page 15 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. TYLER: What kind of a challenge are you likely to have on these kinds of things, since it's going from less--I'm trying to, I'm looking at the Akana Family here and I'm trying to think, how do we move this thing and do it correctly? MR. WURDEMAN: Well, there are people in this County, as you're fully aware, that like to challenge things on procedural basis, just because they like to challenge them, for no substantive reason or, you know. MR. TYLER: But Mr. Chung just said and I overhead this, I can't help it, Mr. Chung, "but not in Hilo," you know, and that's probably true. This is in Hilo, this is not in West Hawaii. MR. WURDEMAN: I think Mr. Ross now spends most of his time now in Hilo. MR. TYLER: Oh, oh, he does? MR. WURDEMAN: Yes. MR. TYLER: Oh, okay. Well, I'm just curious and I didn't mean to embarrass Mr. Chung, but I think you absolutely have a point, it's a proper point, and that's the kind of point I was thinking. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, can I turn a lawyer to another lawyer, because we'll ask Mr. Chung. MR. TYLER: Yes, I'm going to yield the floor, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wurdeman. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I speak that loudly when I talk? Oh, okay. Mr. Koyama, you'd better hope that Mr. Tyler and I are correct on this one. If not, you might be looking at a possible referral back to the Planning Commission. But I'm still going to argue that we have the ultimate right to go ahead and initiate these types of things. I mean, not only change the title, but to really initiate it without the need of a Planning Commission. Page ] 6 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 The reason why I say that is, I'll refer to that section that was mentioned by Ms. Leithead-Todd, "A bill shall not be amended to change its original purpose." Even assuming that we're changing its original purpose by this, I think we're not changing the original purpose, but even assuming that we are, then it has to be--this thing only says it has to be laid over for at least one week before final reading. Well, an amended bill shall, upon aone-third vote of the entire membership, be laid over for at least one week before final reading, but that still begs the question whether it has to be referred back to the Planning Commission. Now I know we have a Zoning Code provision which relates to amendments initiated by the Council and Director, and in both situations, it requires that it go to the Planning Commission. MR. WURDEMAN: That would be a new bill. MR. CHUNG: Right. But I think the---. MR. WURDEMAN: I believe is the proper procedure to follow. MR. CHUNG: But I think the County Charter is instructive here, when it says that the "duties of the Planning Commission are, among other things," or "they shall, among other things, review subdivision and zoning code ordinances and amendments thereto drafted by the Director and transmit such ordinances with recommendations thereon through the Mayor to the Council." It only mentioned "drafted by the Director," because I think what the Charter did was presuppose that the Council has the authority to do such things without them. So I think that the Zoning Code provision---. MR. WURDEMAN: But the Council, by ordinances, limited its--. MR. CHUNG: No, but we cannot--. MR. WURDEMAN: You've limited your--. MR. CHUNG: I believe--I think, okay, if you take it on its face value, we have limited ourselves. But I think it's in contravention of this Charter, that Charter intent, which specifically limited that situation only to aDirector-initiated type of situation. Page 17 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. WURDEMAN: Well, you've assigned an additional duty to the Planning Commission, which is to review your initiated ordinances. MR. CHUNG: I don't think we can do that, though. That means we can abrogate our powers anytime we wish to do so without some kind of Charter or statutory authority. I don't think that's proper. I really don't think that's proper. So I think that this thing, insofar as it requires any Council initiated amendments to the Zoning Code, which are very infrequent, I mean, I think we'll all admit that. But in those situations, I think it's not applicable, and it's probably void, in my opinion, and I know that differs with your opinion. MR. WURDEMAN: The proper process would then be to amend the Zoning Code to take that out. MR. CHUNG: But then I would think as a practical matter, or going even further, based on what Mr. Tyler said and what I whispered back there, you know, we're going from a higher designation to a lower designation and there were really no objections at the Commercial General level, you know. I think there's all kinds of ways of arguing this, but I would just say, change the title, hold it over for one more, and let's just go on our merry way, because I think it's a good idea to have something there, although I'd like to see you guys keep that house and have somebody operate out of that house, that's my personal feeling. But, you know, I think there's a practical thing of solving all of this. I just cannot go with the Commercial General. CHR. ARAKAKI: I guess lawyers can differ. Ms. Jacobson--I'm going right down the line. MS. JACOBSON: Actually, it was left-over from some time ago, the question with Mr. Wurdeman, but since I've got the floor, I just generally support Mr. Chung's position on this. I think it's in the best interest of the residents and I think the chances of--I think if people had opposed this, they would have come forward in your initial process with it and that the chances that they'd come back opposing something that would actually give them more protections of it being kept to kind of a residential character to it, I think that's just about zip. So I think Mr. Chung's on the right track and that's my thought. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Yagong. Page 18 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. YAGONG: I appreciate Mr. Wurdeman giving his opinion and I tend to agree with Ms. Leithead-Todd and Mr. Wurdeman. However, I'm going to side with Mr. Chung. I actually, in fact, I would actually like Mr. Chung to actually make a motion to do it, whether it'd be to hold it over for that, because I will support that. The main reason for that is, as the applicant has stated, a lot of investment and time and effort has gone into this and, you know, it would just cost a lot more to have it go back. So in a sense, I'm siding with Mr. Chung, but at the same time, I think I'm siding with Mr. Koyama here because they do not object to Neighborhood Commercial, but just that the length of time that it's going to take us to go through the process. So I hope a motion is made to hold it over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Elarionoff. MR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Koyama, I guess right now you can see how the trend is going among us and I'm sure we can stay here and argue it until your client's money is all gone. How do you feel about it? Do you want to take the chance on it, or are you not willing to take the chance? MR. KOYAMA: Well, it's been--. MR. ELARIONOFF; You know, it's a principle of that, that at the end of this principle, we don't know better, but at your expense, or your client's expense. MR. KOYAMA: Well, as I said before, we went in with a General Commercial, basically to provide the owner with the flexibility to provide some of the uses that he thought would be able to serve the University, as well as the community, because it's a nice location next to the University. There's a market for types of uses that might serve the University, but I want to say that it's going to be restricted just to businesses that serve the University, and they also would serve businesses in the neighborhood. Page 19 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 When we looked at the zoning map at the time we applied for this project, we did notice that there were a number of General Commercial zoned parcels, and as I looked at this map now, just to refresh myself, within a block, the next block over, there are General Commercial, there's a General Commercial at the corner, this is on Kinoole (Street), not Kilauea Avenue, and right across the street from that pazcel is the General Commercial and I believe that's the Credit Union building. So just one block from our property you have two General Commercial zoned parcels, and as you go one block towards town, there's another General Commercial. Across, I guess the kitty comer across from that pazcel is another General Commercial. So all along Kinoole (Street), you have a number of General Commercial properties, not to mention the General Commercial properties that aze zoned on Kilauea Avenue, Kilauea Street. As I mentioned before, the General Plan shows that high density urban is moving out or is designated for this whole area and includes the property, and I think in the long term, vision of the General Plan, it's looking at Hilo town expanding and growing. It recognizes that this whole area is going through a transformation. There's mixed uses all around this property. You have apartment buildings in the back of the property. You have the ILWU Hall, which is right across the street from the property. You have multi-family zoned parcels, just one parcel over from the property. Of course you have Wiki-Wiki, which, well, it's a Neighborhood Commercial zoned property, but that's a property that's further away from the town area that's also in commercial use. Not to mention just a number of other type of facilities, a medical clinic, a senior center facility, churches and apartment buildings, all in this area. I think the point is this whole area is going through a transformation and it's part of the Hilo town expanding, and the University is a part of it, and they've also designated this area for a college town area. So if it's the Neighborhood Commercial that you're looking at, maybe that's looking at the near term and eventually this area will be more of a General Commercial type zone, and that's--I see the pattern. Page 20 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. ELARIONOFF: But once you made the statement that your client had no objection to go into Neighborhood Commercial, you know, I can see where the Council has gone along with Mr. Chung and his affection for that house, and so we would like to see that preserved and leave it Neighborhood Commercial. But the question today we're facing right now is do you want to take a chance and side with Mr. Chung, or you want to take your chances, or not take a chance and go with Ms. Leithead-Todd. It's your client's money. MR. KOYAMA: I don't know. All he's interested in is getting the commercial zoning so that he can do his project. If it means going back to the Planning Commission, and again it's going to be more time and investment for him, but if it means that okay, he's going to get the zoning, then I think he wouldn't mind. Well, it would be time and expense on his part, but I think his preferences to just stick with the current zoning, but if that's going to jeopardize the approval of this project, then he would then say okay, well, why don't we just go with the Neighborhood Commercial. I mean it's, you know--. MR. ELARIONOFF: But I think the question I'm still trying to get to you is that if we're going with Mr. Chung, you might get your Neighborhood Commercial much sooner, but you might be subject to challenges later on. Is that a worthy gamble for you? MR. KOYAMA: I guess either way you there's a risk and I think that's fine. If--I'm going to have to take confidence in the opinion of Mr. Chung and Mr. Tyler. But, you know, I don't know. You know, it's--. MR. ELARIONOFF: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ARAKAKI: Those are very difficult questions for you to answer. MR. KOYAMA: It is. CHR. ARAKAKL Ms. Leithead-Todd. Page 21 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I believe that if you change this from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, you are changing the purpose of the bill. The Charter says you may not change the purpose of the bill. Furthermore, if we change this by changing the title, then this, I believe, becomes aCouncil-initiated amendment, which triggers the zoning code requirements under (Section) 25-2-43 of the Hawaii County Code, which says "the Council shall refer any proposed Council initiated amendment to this Chapter, to the Director and the Commission with requests for their respective comments and recommendation thereon prior to the first reading of any such amendment. The Director and Commission shall each submit comments," etc., "within 120 days," and it further goes on to state that "the Commission shall hold at least one public heazing," and then the Commission shall transmit it to us. I believe if you change the title to change the purpose, you, there have, anew bill, which is aCouncil-initiated amendment, and it triggers that Code provision. While the Charter initiates certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission that we cannot take away from, theoretically, what we did not--we didn't take any power away from us. We still vote on rezoning, but we set up a process in the Code that I think we're required to abide by. We set up a process that says if we initiate an amendment, we send it to the Planning Commission for a public heazing. It's atwo-step process. The reason is it gives the public more opportunity. What we're trying to do, is because the sentiment here is that the Neighborhood Commercial is more appropriate, we're trying to convolute and get around existing Charter and ordinance provisions that would require sending this back to the Planning Commission because nobody wants to do that, because it would delay development, it would incur additional expense for the developer. I have a suggestion which, while it would still leave the title, General Commercial, might satisfy Mr. Chung's concerns. Page 22 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 I have looked at what the differences between the uses for a Neighborhood Commercial and for General Commercial are, and I'd like to refer to (Section) 25-5-112, which are the uses in a General Commercial area, and these are the items that are allowed in General Commercial, but not allowed in Neighborhood Commercial, and what I would suggest is that perhaps the better way to do this is to put restrictions in this that would preclude those uses not allowed in Neighborhood Commercial, and those would be: No. 2 -Amusement and Recreational Facilities, Indoor; No. 3 -Art Galleries and Museums; No. 4 -Art Studios; No. 7 -Bars, Nightclubs and Cabarets; No. 12 -Car Washing; No. 13 -Catering Establishments; No. 14 -Cemeteries and Mausoleums; No. 26 -Equipment Sales and Rental Yards, and Other Yazds where Retail Products are Displayed in the Open; No. 32 -Hospital Sanitaziums, Old Age, Convalescent Nursing and Rest Homes, or Other Similar Uses; No. 34 -Ice Storage and Dispensing Facilities; No. 35 -Laboratories, Medical and Research; No. 36 -Laundries; No. 37 -Light Manufacturing, etc.; No. 54 -Time Share Unites; and No. 56 -Veterinary Establishments. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: By changing it from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, that is what you would be precluding the owner from doing, and I'm saying that perhaps you could avoid some of the potential legal challenges by just inserting those restrictions. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you, that's a very good suggestion. I think it's, everybody knows I did not vote to support this rezoning and may not today, even though if there's an amendment to change it to Neighborhood Commercial, I would support that. But I just want to speak to a couple of comments that have been made by the previous speakers. Mr. Koyama talked about Hilo town expanding, that there's General Commercial within one block, that this is a designated college core area. Page 23 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 That may be true, but I think if you drive through this area, all of us who have done so and those of us who live here, know that this is a very, very, very unique character in this area, and I think this is the tension that we're all feeling, well most of us aze feeling, if not all of us. The other tension is this one about what the Charter says and who's advisory and who's decision-making, etc., and I think, actually, we need to refer to the new Code section, which was recently passed, relating to the Planning Director and to the Planning Commission. It's more succinct and I think the Council is pretty much familiar with it. But generally speaking, it talks about--it more clearly defines the role of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department, and the intent, at least to the extent I was involved in writing part of it, was that to clarify that, it is, the ultimate authority rests, for rezoning, rests with this Body. Now I've always had a problem with this, "any Council-initiated amendment" has to go to the Planning Commission, to the Planning Department, to the Planning Commission and back up, because I think, essentially, this Body, current Body, and previous Bodies, has not adhered to that strictly. I mean, it would make our jobs just impossible. What the current Charter reads is it says that they are to make recommendations on rezoning applications. This is--the administrator, head of the department, the Planning Director, shall make recommendations on rezoning applications, special exemptions and other similaz requests. Then with respect to the Planning Commission, it says, "review proposed subdivision and zoning ordinance and amendments thereto and transmits such ordinances with recommendations thereon to the Mayor and to the Council for consideration and action," which they have done. So we are considering it, and we're about to take some form of action, and we're following the process. That the County Code appears to be inconsistent with this, actually, I think is a hold over of a fundamental, in my estimation, a problem that we've had in the past where the Council has, for whatever reason, turned over to the Planning Commission certain responsibilities that actually are given by law, by Charter, to the Council alone, and for whatever the reason--whether it was the workload, maybe it was the lack of interest, I don't know what happened. Page 24 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 But fundamentally, it's one of principle in my mind. We are the final arbiters of this, assuming there's no challenge, and I would like to state for the record at this time, even though I don't live in Hilo, that I have no plans to challenge any change to a Neighborhood Commercial, and I would do everything I could to dissuade any other friends of mine from West Hawaii in that regard. So I think, you know, we've got these various tensions going on, but we always have to come back to what is the authority of this Body, and what is the Sunshine Law, and what is the public consideration for the applicant, and the applicant's representative? It seems to me that if, that we should be able to do this. On the other hand, I don't want to set a precedent. Ms. Leithead-Todd says, yes, we have a process, and I don't want to set a precedent that well, oh, this one is, you know, the majority feels that we can do this, so we'll just bypass the Commission on some major, major change. I think what we're doing here is actually, we're almost down zoning from what they were asking for, as opposed to increasing it. I think Mr. Elarionoff, in his usual fashion, said it, as about succinctly as could possibly be said, you know. If it was the other way around, he wouldn't go with it, but since it's this way and it's a down zoning, he did it. So I just wanted to make those comments, Mr. Chairman, and I don't want to have anyone--I don't want Mr. Koyama or the representatives of the Akana Trust to have any illusions about my feelings on this. I really think that it should remain in residential, but I want to listen to what the representative from that area has to say. Thank you, Sir. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak one more time. You know, I know Mr. Koyama rattled off some of the CG designated properties in the surrounding area, but I would offer that, you know, only because the prior Council approved those designations doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. You know, I'd certainly be willing to honor it, but at the same time, I would offer that that Council probably didn't have Mr. Tyler who brought this, who pointed this issue out to us, and probably the inappropriateness of the designation. Page 25 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 So I guess, by giving us, or informing us about those properties, only buttresses, I think, our position, because if we were to allow one more on the basis that, you know, other ones were allowed, then we're just kind of exacerbating the situation. As far as I'm concerned, there's only several areas which fall within the CG district--the area around Prince Kuhio Plaza, you know, those areas; Hilo Shopping Center, that area; and the Downtown area, I mean, as far as I can tell, based on the definition that I see in the Zoning Code. With respect to Ms. Leithead-Todd's suggestion, which is kind of interesting, and I hope you realize that everybody is trying to help you guys out. I mean, even if we have different perspectives of this, you know, we're trying to get this done as fast as we can. But if you take her interpretation of the Charter and the Zoning together, which requires that something has to go back to the Planning Commission if it is a substantial change, then obviously, her proposal has to go back to the Planning Commission, because now you're not only--you're just changing the substance, but not changing the designation or the name. It's almost like a subterfuge. I think that's worse, frankly. I think I would argue this, now, another alternative argument, and it always gets us back to this provision. "A bill shall not be amended to change its original purpose," but if it is, then "upon one-third vote of the entire membership, it shall be laid over for at least one week before final reading. So one thing is clear, you can amend a bill to change its original purpose, that is clear, alright? MR. WURDEMAN: But you've got the other section, I believe, that says "the purpose should be expressed in its title," or words to that effect. You also have a court case that says the same thing. MR. CHUNG: Where, exactly, is that? I mean I know it's there somewhere, but--. MR. WURDEMAN: I don't have a Charter in front of me. CHR. ARAKAKI: Here you go. (A Hawaii County Charter was handed to Mr. Wurdeman.) MR. CHUNG: Okay, "every ordinance of the Council shall embrace but one subject," right, that's what we're doing here. Page 26 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. WURDEMAN: "And that subject shall be expressed in the title." MR. CHUNG: Right, which is a rezoning. It may be a different designation, but it's still a commercial rezoning, because it's not like we haven't changed titles before over here, you know, and it really becomes a subjective determination as to what constitutes--. MR. WURDEMAN: This has come up on several occasions and I think our office opinion has been, both prior to my being there and since I've been there, that changes that aze cosmetic or correction of typographical errors, those kind of things, are permitted, but that any change to substantive, is a change in the purpose of the bill. MR. CHUNG: And so it really becomes a judgment call as to what constitutes substantive, right? MR. WURDEMAN: Right. MR. CHUNG: Imean--because if it's not substantive, then you could change it, and I'm of the opinion that it's not substantive. I mean, that's where we might differ. But now, if you take that argument and you go to this, the bill can be amended, right, under certain conditions? MR. WURDEMAN: Right. MR. CHUNG: This Zoning Code ordinance only deals with amendments to the Zoning Code ordinances, not to bills. (At this time, approximately five seconds of discussion was not recorded or available, due to technical problems encountered with the recording equipment.) MR. CHUNG: substantive nature, so as long as we make that finding, I mean, it may be overturned by a Court at some subsequent point--. MR. WURDEMAN: To take it to extremes, you can't take this bill and amend the text to appropriate money to the animal shelter. MR. CHUNG: Right. But with this one, we're getting kind of close to--it could go either way, right? Page 27 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. WURDEMAN; I think because of the specificity of the title and I have never said the title need to be this specific, but someone who drafts these things, they love to put details in the title. Because of the way that the title is worded in this bill, I think you're changing when you go to CN because of the many uses that you're not prohibiting, or not permitting, as-- MR. CHUNG: Okay, try commenting on Ms. Leithead-Todd's suggestion. MR. WURDEMAN: Underrated by Ms. Leithead-Todd. Well, I concur with what she said. MR. CHUNG: No, her suggestion as to rectifying this situation. MR. WURDEMAN: Okay. Well, I think it's legal. I don't think it's a recommended procedure, but I think it would pass legal muster. MR. CHUNG: I don't know how you can say that, because you're changing now the substance. You're actually making it a--. MR. WURDEMAN: They're putting conditions on the zoning, which we do all the time. We say you cannot have a night club, but you can have the zoning, or you cannot have this or you cannot have that. MR. CHUNG: You know, I'm going to do this. I'm going to make a motion to change, to make an amendment, as Mr. Yagong suggested, because this is getting too far afield and I'm going to just take my chances, actually. MR. TYLER: Second. MR. CHUNG: Because if it fails, then it goes back to the Planning Commission. I didn't actually make a motion yet, but I'm going to make a motion to amend the title of the bill to make this a, what is it called? A CN designation, as opposed to a CG designation, and hopefully everyone will see fit to consider anything within the text that will be consistent with that change, as a friendly amendment. FRIENDLY Mr. Chung moved to amend the title of Bill 106, Draft 2, AMENDMENT: by changing the designation of General Commercial (CG) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN). Seconded by Mr. Tyler. Page 28 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: Anyone want to discuss that? Okay, Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I believe that that amendment requires sending it back to the Planning Commission. I know that some of my colleagues differ, but I'd hate to set a precedent which says that if someday there aze five of us here that decide that we want to go and change something from Neighborhood Commercial or General Commercial to Hotel Resort because it's aCouncil-initiated amendment, that we do not have to comply with the Code and send it back to the Planning Commission. The precedent you're setting to is that I could come in with an original bill. In other words, I could have a developer bypass the entire Planning Commission and public hearing process and the notification requirements required there by coming directly to me and saying, "Bobby, could you initiate a bill to amend the zoning from Agricultural to Resort-Hotel, and because it's initiated at the Council, I don't have to go to the Planning Commission, I don't have to do those extra public hearings, and I can fast track this, I can bypass all of that." Now I may not be here, but we're setting a precedent that if we say that you can do that, just remember that the Council elections are every two years and you could get a group of people that are willing to do that. They might not be in of£ce more than two years, but they might be totally willing to do that. There aze safeguards that are set up, and part of those safeguards were to ensure public participation and notice. I know that you're motivated by very good motives in this particular bill, but I'm just saying that the precedent is set that if we do this and we pass it, that down the road, somebody else can come along and do something that many of us, who may not be here, would strongly disagree with. POINT OF MR. CHUNG: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of personal privilege, can PERSONAL I just make a brief response to that? PRIVILEGE: CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. Page 29 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. CHUNG: First of all, you know, I don't want anybody to get the impression that the reason why I'm making this amendment is because I'm taking the interpretation that I had mentioned earlier, about it not having to go to the Planning Commission. What I said, I think I made it clear, that we should make a statement relating to either substantive, or non-substantive nature of the change in the bill, and that's all. It's just a subjective call. WITHDRAW But you know, I'm going to do this. Because Ms. Leithead-Todd feels MOTION: so strongly about this, because she is from Hilo too, I'm going to withdraw my (friendly amendment) motion, and let the chips fall as they may on this one. MR. TYLER: Okay, I'll withdraw my second to the motion. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. Ms. Pisicchio. We're addressing the main motion, the main motion, okay. MS. PISICCHIO: Well, I was going to say I supported the amendment made by the Councilman, but I'm going to support whatever direction he takes because he represents the district and also he's an attomey, and this has been a fascinating discussion. But to me, again, it boils down--I'm not an attomey, but it boils down to the concept of changing the intent of the bill. To me, the intent of the bill, from a non-attorney perspective, is going from Residential to Commercial. That's the substantive intention here. What kind of commercial, to me, is maybe not significant. The significant thing, again, is from Residential to Commercial. But I kind of wanted to make a little bit of a joke. In earlier part of this discussion where here we have Councilman Tyler, whose fame is for really so, interpreting the law, deciding that in this case we can disregard the opinion of the Corporation Counsel because who in Hilo is going to file suit? So that's the best thing that I've heard since I've been on the Council, I think. MR. TYLER: Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Overrule the Corporation Counsel. MS. PISICCHIO: Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Ms. Jacobson. Page 30 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MS. JACOBSON: Well, I think at this point, when you read off that list and you suggested maybe we look at that list, Ms. Leithead-Todd, I thought maybe that's what we should do, and the one that strikes me as, if I were in that neighborhood, the one that would be critical to me, and I would also think it was particularly pertinent because it might be commercially valuable for the owner to build something like that and could make a lot of money on it, would be bazs and nightclubs, and I could see that that would be a real source of contention in a residential area, and it seems like, I mean, I don't know that anyone's really likely to do some of these other things, and I'd be happy to have other things added to it, but at this point, I'd like to, and maybe I can get some help with the wording, but make an amendment that would say we would exclude the use, the building of a facility to serve liquor in the area. I think if I'd look at what I'd think of the concept of the neighborhood, that would be one of those key things that would be, that I could potentially imagine people objecting to, and I could potentially imagine a motivation to do it because of students and students who attend such locations. So--. CHR. ARAKAKI: You'd still have to be of age to drink liquor, though. MS. JACOBSON: Well I know, but still, we have, actually in this day and age, a lot more older students than we used to, and I could see it being in conflict with even the university courses that might be held in the evenings to go as late as 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and I could see it being opposed by that--. POINT OF MR. TYLER: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, point of order. If ORDER: Ms. Jacobson would like to make a motion, then she can speak to the motion. But Ididn't,-- CHR. ARAKAKI: Yes, that's right. MS. JACOBSON: Thank you, no, let's see. MR. TYLER: Please, if you wish to make it, make it and we'll see if it--, yes. CHR. ARAKAKI: Do you wish to make a motion? MS. JACOBSON: Okay, I wish to make a motion. Page 31 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 Ms. Jacobson moved to amend Bill 106, Draft 2, to exclude the commercial development of establishments to serve liquor. CHR. ARAKAKI: That would be a condition. MS. JACOBSON: A condition. CHR. ARAKAKI: You needed a second. Seconded by Ms. Leithead-Todd. CHR. ARAKAKI: Anyone want to speak to that? Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the reason for this. I think it makes a lot of sense, however, if we're going to do this, you know, we really need to look at all the rest of them and I would feel much more comfortable with a more inclusive amendment, as suggested by Ms. Leithead-Todd, and whether that gets a second and whether it passes muster and etc., then it's just like the previous one that was withdrawn. So I would feel more comfortable with that and I kind of was hoping that Ms. Leithead-Todd would do that, and I don't know if she's going to. CHR. ARAKAKI: Who else would like to speak to that exclusion? Okay, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if I could ask Mr. Wurdeman, not that we're going to listen to him, sorry, but, I know you made a statement earlier that we impose conditions all the time. But we have enacted a set of laws relating to Zoning and what types of activities shall be permitted in a particular zoning district. For example, in a CG, bars shall be permitted. Where, in the Hawaii County Zoning Code is it provided that we can now pull back from something like that? After something has a mandatory word "shall?" MR. WURDEMAN: Well, it's not specifically provided for, but it has been the practice. On a regular basis, the conditions are imposed, in addifion to--. MR. CHUNG: I'm not worried about what the practice has been. I just want to know what the specific authority is for us to now hold Page 32 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 back on a duly enacted ordinance which has, which the public is presumably, I mean, you know, they can rely on something like this. POINT OF MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Point of information, Section 25-2-44 of the INFORMATION: Hawaii County Code, conditions on change of zone, allow the Council to impose conditions on the use of the project. MR. WURDEMAN: Right, and in addition to that, you have a general ordinance, which is the Zoning Code. You have this ordinance, which is the zone change. One is special, particular to this property, and one is applicable to the whole County. They're of equal dignity and you can, in essence, not amend--. MR. CHUNG: Right. I know about that thing that Ms. Leithead-Todd just brought up, you know, as a point of personal privilege, but it's really a general thing. You can impose conditions. I want to know where it's specifically provided where we can eliminate something that we have duly enacted as an ordinance. MR. WURDEMAN: Because you're passing another ordinance that should take precedence under any rule of construction. One, it's subsequent to the Zoning Code; two, it's a particular special case rather than of general application. MR. CHUNG: So I guess you're saying it's okay, then? MR. WURDEMAN: Right. I don't think it's the preferred way to proceed and I agree with what you said about the purpose of CG and where it's supposed to be and where it's not supposed to be, but given the considerations that we've heard about the equities--in this case, I think it's okay. MR. CHUNG: So, in once sense, then we have to allow the public, you know, the opportunity to have things heard at the Planning Commission for their sake, and now on the other hand, what we can do is we can restructure a bill at the Council level totally contrary to what was had at the Planning Commission and we don't have to go back to the Planning Commission? There's something kind of funny over there, you know? MR. TYLER: Yes. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yes, we do it all the time. Page 33 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. CHUNG: Yes, but, well, I just wanted to point that out. CHR. ARAKAKI: Anyone want to address the liquor thing? That's what's on the floor, to eliminate--. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yes, the liquor thing, and to some extent, Mr. Chung's comments. We have had bills where the Planning Commission recommended denial of the zoning change and yet we have gone against their recommendation and approved it at the Council. So we have gone against everything that the Planning Commission recommended, because we have that authority. CHR. ARAKAKI: Would you address the liquor? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: We have the authority to impose additional conditions when we feel that it's in the public's interest, such as barring a nightclub or an establishment that's, you know, a cabaret type of establishment, if we find that it is in the public's interest to ban that particular use. If we find that that condition on the use of the property is necessary to prevent circumstances which could be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare, or we need that to protect the public from potentially deleterious effects of the.proposed use, you can do it. If you think that the neighborhood would be potentially adversely impacted by a cabaret or nightclub in that azea, you can impose that on the General Commercial classification. Where I see this going is I'm not sure what'll happen with this particular amendment, so why don't we just vote on it? CHR. ARAKAKI: Essentially what she's saying is banning liquor, am I correct? MS. JACOBSON: That was the gist of it. CHR. ARAKAKI: In other words, you cannot, just for clarification, Pizza Hut that sells beer, out, if they sell liquor. Okay, essentially that's what happens. MS. JACOBSON: I didn't think about--. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Yagong, you have the floor. Page 34 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. YAGONG: Let's just vote and I want to speak to the main motion after it, yes. CHR. ARAKAKI: Oh, okay. Ms. Jacobson, you want to speak to that liquor thing, your motion? MS. JACOBSON: Well, yes, and I would also speak that I was just started, by the thought that I'd start simple, but I'd be perfectly open to either withdrawing it if you have, Ms. Leithead-Todd would like to make an amendment that would include that one and cover others, or have things added to it, so I'm not just set on this just exactly as it is. I'd be open to changes. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, okay, that's fine. Ms. Pisicchio, you want to speak to that liquor thing? MS. PISICCHIO: I guess I speak against the motion because even if we added all these conditions, one condition or other conditions, it would still remain in General Commercial, and so Mr. Chung's original objection to the intention of General Commercial and what the general precedent it sets for the development of the neighborhood, it's still there, because General Commercial connotes something, so adding these other little conditions in, I don't, I would still, I don't think satisfies his concerns. So I speak in opposition. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, let's address the motion. The Chair will be voting against the motion. I think it's selecting out one item from the CG area and it's just like picking and choosing and I think it's a little premature that, you know, maybe an innocuous liquor dispensing might be precluded. So I'll be voting against it. So, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I just wanted to make one explanation, because I'm going to be voting in support of this motion, okay, even, despite all of my feelings to the contrary, I'll be voting in favor of it, because in the event that it passes, it's a good thing. You know, I don't know how, you know, the main motion is going to play out, but if it does somehow pass with the CN designation, then, you know, I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to, you know, have bars prohibited in those areas. So I'll be voting in favor of this instant motion, thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. You want to speak to that? Page 35 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 FRIENDLY MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I just want to clarify with Ms. Jacobson. AMENDMENT: The language, because I'm trying to remember exactly what your language is, but the language that, in the permitted uses, I think, that you're trying to eliminate is Item No. 7, and the specific language is, "bars, nightclubs and cabarets." Would that be a friendly clarification of your amendment? MS. JACOBSON: Yes, that would. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: So what we would be voting on is an amendment to ban "bars, nightclubs and cabarets" as a permitted use on this particular property. MS. JACOBSON: Thank you. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Okay. POINT OF MR. CHUNG: One more point of information, Mr. Chairman, I think INFORMATION: it wouldn't preclude something like a Pizza Hut, because that would be a restaurant with alcoholic beverages served as an ancillary type of thing. I don't think it would be considered as a bar. CHR. ARAKAKI: Well, she cleared it up, but prior to that she said "liquor" and it was kind of like a general statement. So, Mr. Tyler, you want to speak to that? MR. TYLER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the motion. I think it's been clarified, but I just want to be sure that Ms. Jacobson, in making the motion and then agreeing to this friendly amendment, I thought what I heard was "the sale or consumption of alcohol on the property." CHR. ARAKAKI: That's what I thought. MS. JACOBSON: I did, if I could respond. MR. TYLER: Wait, so, let me just finish. So I thought that's what I heard. Now, the friendly, what you said was a friendly amendment, is actually different from what you proposed, so are you agreeing to that? MS. JACOBSON: Yes, I am. I just hadn't thought it through, but I think the idea of a restaurant where a person might have a beer with a meal isn't disruptive to the whole neighborhood. It was the idea of music and lots of people just drinking as a nightclub or a cabaret, so I appreciate Ms. Leithead-Todd's friendly amendment. Page 36 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Tyler, satisfied? MR. TYLER: Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Yagong. MR. YAGONG: Thank you. I don't know if this whole discussion of this liquor thing is moot because, you know, the consumption of liquor is allowed under General Commercial. So we're making an amendment, because the main motion is still on the floor that the motion is, because Mr. Chung withdrew his motion, is for us to approve a General Commercial. So does that mean that if you approve taking this liquor out that when the main motion comes forth for General Commercial, you're going to approve General Commercial? Because the feeling t get is no one here supports General Commercial. So if you don't want liquor, then you just vote against General Commercial, you know? So if we're going to change, you know, take this one item out and then vote against General Commercial, then we're just spinning wheels here. So, anyway, I'm going to speak against the motion and I hope we can go to the vote so that we can go to the main motion, and then I can speak at that time, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Mr. Chairman, liquor consumption is also allowed in Neighborhood Commercial, because Neighborhood Commercial also allows restaurants in there, and actually, whether or not you consume liquor is no so much governed by the Zoning Code as a fact that you have to go to the Liquor Commission to get a license to have liquor consumed, and then there's a whole separate notice provision. So regardless of whether you have General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, you have to go get that license, you have to notify the community that you're trying to get a license to dispense liquor, and you have to have a whole separate hearing process. But it is allowed in Neighborhood Commercial because restaurants are allowed. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Ms. Jacobson. Page 37 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MS. JACOBSON: Just to clarify that, the question you asked, Mr. Yagong, I would've preferred Neighborhood Commercial. I think it was the appropriate designation, but it looked like we weren't getting that. I didn't want to punish the owner in their Commercial endeavor, so I thought I'd just zero in on what I thought was the most odious example and that's why I brought it up--so I do plan to support it at this point. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Yagong, you want to speak to that again? MR. YAGONG: No, let's just vote on the motion. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. The motion is to ban cabaret and, whatever, what did you say? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Bars, nightclubs and cabarets. CHR. ARAKAKI: I thought that's what they want around Universities? The vote on the amendment to Bill 106, Draft 2, by the show of hands, was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Chung, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio and Tyler - 6. NOES: Councilmembers Smith, Yagong and Chairman Arakaki - 3. ABSENT & EXCUSED: None. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, the motion carries. What is the main--what is the motion on the floor? We don't have a motion to amend, right, to Neighborhood? MR. KONISHI: Mr. Chairman, the main motion is to pass Bill 106, Draft 2. Page 38 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: To pass the bill? Okay, that's the motion, to pass the bill? Okay, Mr. Yagong. MR. YAGONG: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Koyama, so we're down in the 9th inning now, on this thing, here, okay, and so the motion on the floor is to approve with the General Commercial. So, in this case here, you know, I think Mr. Elarionoffmentioned that you'd want to take a chance, that's where we're at right now. We're at a point in juncture where we're going to determine whether this Council feels General Commercial is a proper designation, and if you don't get the five votes, then your project dies. My question to you, and because I still agree with Mr. Chung's first assessment that we should go to Neighborhood Commercial--my question to you, Mr. Koyama, would you like to take a few minutes where we can table this so you can speak to your applicants over there prior to this vote? If not, I'll just go ahead and go with the vote, but, you know, this has been a pretty long process, or would you just want to stand and see what happens with this vote, or do you want to take time to speak to these folks? I' m assuming that they're the Trust, there. MR. KOYAMA: We'd like to take a short recess. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, we'll take a recess for lunch and then come back at 1:30 p.m. RECESS: At 12:45 p.m., the Chair called for a recess for lunch and announced that the meeting would reconvene at 1:30 p.m. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 1:45 p.m., with all Members present. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, the meeting come back to order. We're back from a lunch break. We had left off, let's see, we were on which one, Mr. Clerk, 106? MR. KONISHI: Mr. Chairman, we were on Bill 106, Draft 2, and the bill was amended to impose a condition which would impose a condition which would prohibit bars, nightclubs and cabarets from, as a permitted use of the subject property. Then as we went to the break, Mr. Yagong asked the applicant's representative if he needed a few minutes to speak to his client. Page 39 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, and we are on the main motion, and Mr. Yagong has the floor. MR. YAGONG: Yes. So I have the floor, Mr. Chairman? CHR. ARAKAKI: Yes. MR. YAGONG: Thank you. Mr. Koyama, thank you--the break allowed us to go out and have lunch and it allowed me an opportunity to speak to your applicant. Do you want to share any thoughts right now, regarding my question? MR. KOYAMA: First of all, could you repeat the motion on the floor? CHR. ARAKAKI: The motion is to approve Bill 106, but it was amended to exclude bars, cabarets and nightclubs. MR. YAGONG: But the amendment still is to prove the zoning to General Commercial (CG)? MR. SMITH: Yes, and the amendment. MR. KOYAMA: Yes, after hearing the discussion today among the Councilmen, and after discussing this matter with the owner, we also looked at what the Neighborhood Commercial zoning would allow, and it appears that the uses that are permitted under the Neighborhood Commercial would still allow the owner to do the things that he wants to do, and so he is amenable to go into Neighborhood Commercial. MR. YAGONG: Mr. Chairman, with that said at this point in time, I'd like to make an amendment to amend Bill 106, Draft 2--. CHR. ARAKAKI: Before you do that, Mr. Yagong, may I ask him a question? MR. YAGONG: Sure. Page 40 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: I know you talked to your client--did you want to withdraw the whole thing and start the process all over? That's one option, right, because I know what Mr. Yagong is going to do, and go to the Neighborhood Commercial zoning, which you can do that. I think what Mr. Yagong is going to do is make an amendment so that you could try and do it here on the floor, but then it would be questionable whether the Mayor will approve it or whatever, if it passes here, first of all. So did you want this Council to proceed? MR. KOYAMA: Well, I'd like to do the proper thing, if the Council believes that Neighborhood Commercial would be appropriate for this property, then we would go with that. CHR. ARAKAKI: No, I guess the question I'm asking is, did you want to withdraw and start the process over and go into that, rather than take a chance of having us vote on amending it, or do you want us to go ahead and--. MR. KOYAMA: If the motion is to amend and it's denied, then let's go back to the original motion, which is to vote for it on General. I'd like you to proceed with the current motion. CHR. ARAKAKI: Fine, I'll let Mr. Yagong proceed. MR. YAGONG: Proceed with the current motion? MR. KOYAMA: Which is to amend--. MR. YAGONG: Oh, okay, yes. Okay, I just wanted to make sure, because to me, the correct motion is General Commercial. MR. KOYAMA: General Commercial, with the condition that we don't allow liquor establishments on the property. MR. YAGONG: Right, I'm about to make an amendment to change the zoning from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial. AMENDMENT: Mr. Yagong moved to amend Bill 106, Draft 2, by changing the district classification designation from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial. MR. KOYAMA: But we have a current motion that you're voting on? CHR. ARAKAKI: He's amending the motion that was on the floor. Page 41 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. KOYAMA: He's amending the motion that is to amend--. CHR. ARAKAKI: He's amending it to go to Neighborhood Commercial. MR. KOYAMA: Okay, I guess I'm confused. CHR. ARAKAKI: Wait, wait, we need a second on that. Seconded by Mr. Elarionoff. CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Elazionoff seconded it. Now we can discuss it. Mr. Yagong, you still have the floor. MR. YAGONG: Yes. I guess I just fee] that after listening to all the arguments, very good discussion on both sides of the fence, I still feel that Neighborhood Commercial is the proper designation and adhering to some of the azguments, especially by Mr. Chung, I feel comfortable that we should be able to pass this with the, probably further discussion, but I think his arguments would prevail in the end. So I'm going to support Neighborhood Commercial. So thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, the motion is to amend Bill 106, Draft 2, by changing the title and all the contents within the bill from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial. Am I correct, Mr. Yagong? MR. YAGONG: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Mr. Koyama, if the amendment to Neighborhood Commercial goes through, would you prefer to have us refer it back to the Planning Commission for the public hearing, and then they would send it back to us to remove any potential cloud over this, or do you want to take your chances that approving it Neighborhood Commercial here, without referring it back to Planning Commission, could result in a mayoral veto? MR. KOYAMA: We discussed this with the owner, and hesitantly he would like to do the proper thing, and if it means eliminating any cloud over the project, he would go with going back to the Planning Commission. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Okay, thank you. Page 42 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I guess that being the case, we're back to square one, then, Imean--. CHR. ARAKAKI: Yes, it should go back. MR. CHUNG: Imean, if they want to go back, I mean, you know, Mr. Koyama, we're trying to do whatever we could within our power to get this designated properly, which would be the Neighborhood Commercial designation, but also to allow you to, you know, begin your development as soon as possible. But based on what I hear, you don't mind it going back to the Planning Commission and starting the whole thing all over again? MR. KOYAMA: Hesitantly, we don't want to do that. But if, and we're not attorneys, you know, we don't want cloud over this bill, then maybe it's the way. But--. POINT OF MR. YAGONG: Mr. Chairman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman--. ORDER: CHR. ARAKAKI: Yes. MR. YAGONG: In light of that, I didn't think that that was going to be stated by the applicant, so in light of that, would that mean, Mr. Chairman, maybe my motion should be withdrawn--we should vote on it, and if it's filed, then a new application is going to come forward? CHR. ARAKAKI: Actually--. POINT OF MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Point of information--if we reject the-- INFORMATION: let's say there is no amendment by Mr. Yagong and we instead vote on a motion to approve the General Commercial. What happens then is this bill is totally dead and they have to restart the application with the filing and processing fee, and all the maps and everything, they'd have to start again. If we amend the bill and refer it back to the Director and the Planning Commission, they do not have to do a new application. Page 43 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 MR. YAGONG: So, Mr. Chairman, would the proper motion be to amend and send back to the Planning Commission? Would that be the proper motion? CHR. ARAKAKI: That would be a better motion. That would--. MR. YAGONG: I'd like to amend my motion to change General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, and also to send it back to the Planning Commission. AMENDMENT: Mr. Yagong moved to amend his previous proposed amendment by changing the district classification from General Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, and also to send the bill to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Elarionoff. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. Any discussion on that? Okay, everybody, I'll tum all of you off. I think now you'll be okay now. I don't see any lights. The voice vote on the amendment was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Chung, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Smith, Tyler, Yagong and Chairman Arakaki - 9. NOES: None. ABSENT & EXCUSED: None. CHR. ARAKAKI: The motion is carried. That was for the amendment, yes--now we go back to the main motion. Okay, I'm sorry. Let's take (Bill) 106, Draft 2, as amended. Okay, any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk. The roll call vote on the amendment to Bill 106, Draft 2 (Bill 106, Draft 4), was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Chung, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Smith, Tyler, Yagong and Chairman Arakaki - 9. NOES: None. Page 44 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 ABSENT & EXCUSED: None. (Note: This above-referenced approved amendment to Bill 106, Draft 2 is hereby identified as Bill 106, Draft 4. A Bill 106, Draft 3 had been introduced at the August 25, 1999 Council meeting, and was subsequently filed; therefore Draft 3 will not be reused to identify this new amendment.) CHR. ARAKAKI: Bill 106, Draft 2, (as amended), passes second-- wait aminute, how do we word this? It cannot be--not final reading--it passes, but it goes back to the Planning Commission for consideration again. Do you understand what happened, Mr. Koyama? Okay, all bets are off on all the other stuff now, the CG stuff. Now we have approved this amendment, Mr. Yagong's, as a Neighborhood Commercial, so everything that's designated Neighborhood, as in the Code, stands. Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Mr. Chairman, just a procedural question. So if this passed on final reading--. CHR. ARAKAKI: No, it didn't pass final, it's not final reading. MR. TYLER: Okay, because I thought I heard you say it passed. CHR. ARAKAKI: It passed to go back to the Planning Commission. MR. TYLER: But it was sent--. CHR. ARAKAKI: The amendment is--. MR. TYLER: But the motion was to approve the bill, as amended. That was the main motion. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: But the amendment was to refer it back to the Planning Commission. CHR. ARAKAKI: The amendment is to refer it back to the Planning Commission. MR. TYLER: Okay, so when the Planning Commission has completed its action--. Page 45 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 CHR. ARAKAKI: It comes back up again. MR. TYLER: Then it'll come back and it needs to get waived up to Council, whatever happens, and then we go through the process again? CHR. ARAKAKI: Right, right. POINT OF MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Point of information. My intention is to INFORMATION: waive it up to Council when this bill comes back. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. MR. TYLER: Mr. Chairman, and then it would come back and then it would then have to go through the two reading process? CHR. ARAKAKI: Yes, two readings, two readings. MR. TYLER: Okay, alright. Thank you very much. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, that'd be okay with you? MR. KOYAMA: Yes, please. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, for after two hours ofthis--but you know, at least we didn't kill it. We're moving forward! Thank you. Thank you for coming today. MR. KOYAMA: Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: That's a good question--what bill it'll come up as, I'll let you guys work that out. Page 46 Hawaii County Council September 9, 1999 ADJOURN- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of MENT: business, Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council, at 4:15 p.m., Ms. Leithead-Todd moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Tyler and unanimously carried by the following voice vote: AYES: Councilmembers Chung, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Smith, Tyler and Yagong - 9. NOES: None. ABSENT & EXCUSED: None. hkmd Page 47 BOBB t" fEAN LEITHEAD-TODD ~-4:~` Phone: (808) 961-8261 C.ro:ulnant6cr ~~\.~1~.. L FAY' (808) 969-3291 ~.J I.P~US~: ~,l~`P --~J '99 fiUG 10 PIS 4 16 COUNTY COiINCII. County of Havnii . - ° ~r Harunii Cmn~ty Builuirr,~+ ?5 Aupuni Street - July 28, 1999 Hilo, Harvnii 96720 TO: James Y. Arakaki, Chair and Members of the Hawaii County Council FROM: iii Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair Committee on Planning RE: Proposed Bill No. 106, Draft 2 Applicant: Akana Trust TMI{: 2-2-25:24 Attached for your favorable consideration is proposed Bill No. 106, Draft 2, which includes the proposed conditions of the Planning Commission. Because the Planning Commission did not have the necessary five votes to move on this measure, they submitted the Change of Zone request to the County Council with no recommendation and no conditions. All inserted conditions are verbatim, except for Condition H which has been amended to "Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development, the applicant shall submit a final written report to the Planning Director stating that all conditions have been met." and Condition D which has been amended to "Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, driveway..." Bill /O G, O, Comm. No. 00~ File No. ~ N U ! Presentc~ P G lief. To! 17rcf, Ijate AUG 1 Q i~ ry, O COUNTY OF HAWAII: ~";STATE OF HAWAII ``~.,;;~4';~ BILL NO. i nF (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, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-]0) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG-20) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 2-2-25:24. 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 Hawaii County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be General Commercial (CG-20): Beginning at the west corner of this parcel of land, on the southeasterly side of Lanikaula ' Street, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALAI" being 3,976.92 feet South and 6,594.90 feet East, thence rumiing by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1. 238° 10' 217.00 feet along the southeasterly side of Lanikaula Street; 2. Thence along the south comer of the intersection of Lanikaula Street and Kinoole Street, on a curve to the right with a radius of 20.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 283° 10' 28.28 feet; 3. 328° 10' 153.40 feet along the southwesterly side of Kinoole Street; 4. 58° 10' 237.00 feet along Grant 9391; 5. 148° 10' 173.40 feet along 30-ft. Railroad Right-of--Way (abandoned) to the point of beginning and containing an azea of 41,010 squaze feet. All as shown on the map attached hereto, mazked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. This change in district classification is conditioned upon the following: A. The aRplica_nt its successors or aligns chap be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of ap rp oval. ~ The aQp]icant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculation and the required water commitment payment to the Department of Water Supply in accordance with its "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" within ninety (901 days from the date of Final Plan Approval Construction of titgproposed development and related improvements within the ~bjg~ip;opertv shall be completed within five X51 veazs from the effective date of this ordinance This time pgriod shall include cecuring Final Plan Approval from the Planning Director in accordance with the Zoning Code Sections 25-2-72 and ~S 5_117 and the Planning Department's Rule 17,JrLandscaping RequirementsL the commercial development within the subject property Plans shall identify structures fire ~ptection measures lands~~e and maintenance plan~n v and t~ripgd parkins stalls and drivewayand other improvements associated with the proposed uses Plans shall include landscapine alongproperty boundaries for the puroose of mitigating air potential adverse noise and visual impacts to surrounding~roperties. D. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy driveway access and channelization improvements to the Lanikaula/Kinoole Street intersection and the proposed driveway shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works Street lights signs and markings shall be installed if required on -2- Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street meeting_with the approval of the De ment of Public Works. ~ Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any development on the subject property the applicant shall provide improvements to the frontage of the subjgct property along Kinoole Street and Lanikaula treet con i ing of but not limited to commercial standazd sidewalks (sidewalks with no planter stripy along the entire frontage of the subject~roperty meetine with the anp~gval of the Department of Public Works Sidewalks and an accessible wheelchair ramp at the corner of Kinoole Street and Lanikaula Street shall be provided and meet with the a~roval of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities and the Department of Public Works. E. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works in coniunction with the submittal o~plans for Final Plan Approval. Sewer line connections to the County sewer system shall be installed meetine with the reauirements of the Department of Public Works. ~j, Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. the applicant shall submit a final written report to the Planning Director stating that all conditions have been met. j, Comply with all other applicable rules. regulations and requirements of the affected agencies for the development of the subject prop. Should the Council adopx,a Unified Impact Fee Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees conditions included -3- herein shall be credited towards the req>asements of the Unified Impact Fee Ordinance. ~C. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the followine circumstances: The non-performance is the recall of conditions chat could not have been foreceen or aze beyond the control of the avnlicants. successors or assien,~ and that aze not the result of their fault or negligence. ~ r nting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. ranting of the time extension would not be contra to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension granted shall be for a neriod not to exceed the period nr;ain~ally_granted for performance (j e a condition to be performed within one year maybe extended for up to one additional vear 1 Should any of the conditions not be met or substantiall cy or~1plied with in a timely fashion the Director may initiate rezoning9f the subject~ronerty to its original or more ~,nriate designation. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declazed invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. -4- SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: _ _ ~ ~ C91~I IC~I1. MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: F.tFERt1~GE: Comm. 375.001 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY CORPORATION COUNSEL DATED: -5- RS 10 CN-10 CG-20 ps-I RS-IQ, p7-3.75 CG-7.5 LONO STREET 85-10 RS 10 ~ 20 p7-3.75 RS-10 RS-10 CG-10 ~ CG -7.5 ~ 85-10 ' ti~• ' RS-10 ~0~4~8 RS - 10 H w ~J~.t- R5 -10 W v~i N RS-10 RS-10 CG -10 RS-10 RS-10 ~ W Z RS-10 PS-10 ~-ZO j 3 976.92 S Q 6,594.90 E CG - 10 "HALM" ~ LANIKAULA STREET RS-10 RM-4 85-10 RM-I RS-10 RM -I 85-10 SINGLE FAMILY o RESIDENTIAL (RS-10) TO GENERAL ~ W COMMERCIAL (CG-20) ; Rs - to o Rs - to a ~ ~ W - AREA: 41,010 S0. FT. ? ~ Y Q J Y Z Q RS-10 J RM-I ~ RS-10 RM-I ~ RS-10 OLONA STREET 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, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-10) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG-20) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII. PREPARED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII TMK 2-2-25:24 JUNE 10, 1999 (AKANA TRUS'n EXHIBIT "A' §25-5-100 HAWAII COUNTY CODE development. Division 10. CN, Neighborhood Commercial Districts Section 25-5-100. Purpose and applicability. The CN (neighborhood commercial) district ap- plies 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 distin- guished from a central commercial district which provides general business and broad services to a city or region. 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. Section 25-5-102. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the CN district: (l) Adult day care homes. (2) Automobile service stations (3) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-~. (4) Boarding facilities, rooming, or lodging houses, provided that the maximum den- sity 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 l of this code. (7) Churches, temples and synagogues. (8) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4-1 I. (9) Convenience stores. (10) Crop production. (1 I) Day care centers. (12) Dwellings, double-family or duplex, provided that the maximum density shall be one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of land azea per rentable unit or dwell- ing unit. (13) Dwellings, multiple-family, provided that the maximum density shall be one thou- sand two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit. (14) Dwellings, single-family. (l5) Family child care homes. (16) Farmers mazkets. When the vending activity in a fazmers market involves more than just the sale of local fresh and/or raw produce, plant life, fish and local home- grown 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 compatibil- ity with the existing character of the surrounding area. (l7) Financial institutions. (l8) Group living facilities. (19) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13. EXHIBIT Ordinance No. 96-160 (ar amended by n 25-70 ZONING § 25-~- 103 (20) Medical clinics. , (21) Meeting facilities. (22) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-5. (23) Mortuaries. (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. (3l) 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-I 1. (b) In addition to those uses permitted under subsection (a) above, the following uses may be permitted in the CN district, provided that a use permit is issued for each use: (t) Crematoriums. (c) Buildings and uses normally considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this sec- tion shall also be permitted in the CN district. Section 25-5.103. Height ?imit. The height limit in the CN district shall be fogy feet. Section 25-5-104. Minimum building site area. The minimum building site area in the CN dis- trict shall be seven thousand five hundred squaze feet. 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. Section 25-5-106. M?oimum yards. The minimum yazds in the CN district shall be as follows: (1) Front and rear yazds, fifteen feet; and (2) Side yards, none, except where the adjoining building site is in a RS, RD, RM, RCX or V district. Where the side yazd adjoins the side yard of a building site in a RS, RD, RM, RCX or V district, there shall be a side yazd which conforms to the side yazd requirements for dwelling use of the adjoining district. 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. (b) Where any required side or reaz yazd in the CN district adjoins a building site in a 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 neces- 25-71 Ordimm:e No. S6-160 (uc amended by nr,nel §2S-S-lOS HAWAII COGN1'Y CODE sary drives and walkways. Section 25-5-108. Other regulations. (a) In conjunction with plan approval, the direc[or 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. (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 director within a planned unit development. Division 11. CG, General Commercial Districts Section 25-5-110. Purpose and applicability. (a) The CG (general commercial) district applies to an area suitable for commercial uses and services on a broad basis to serve as the central shopping or principal downtown area for a city or a region. (b) No CG district shall be established until there is a demonstrated need for such action and no two CG districts shall be established in such relationship to each other that they cannot act as one center and yet are too close together to serve two distinct regions. Section 25.5-111. Designation of CG districts. Each CG (general commercial) district shall be designated by the symbol "CG" followed by a number which indicates the minimum land area, in thousands of square feet, required for each building site. Section 25-5-112. Permitted uses. (a) The following uses shall be permitted uses in the CG district: (I) Adult day care homes. (2) Amusement and recreation facilities, indoor. (3) Art galleries, museums. (4) Art studios. (5) Automobile service stations. (6) Automobile sales and rentals. (7) Bars, nightclubs and cabarets. (8) Bed and breakfast establishments, as permitted under section 25-4-7. (9) Boarding facilities, rooming, or lodging houses, provided that the maximum den- sity shall be one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit. (l0) Broadcasting stations. (LL) Business services. (l2) Car washing, provided that if it is mechanized, sound attenuated structures or sound attenuated walls shall be erected and maintained on the property lines. (L3) Catering establishments. (14) Cemeteries and mausoleums, as permitted under chapter 6, article 1 of this code. Ordiwrtce Na. 96-160 (us amended by ~ 25-"l2 ZONING § 25-J-1 l 2 (l5) Churches, temples and synagogues. (16) Cleaning plants using only non-flammable hydrocarbons in a sealed unit as the; cleansing agent. (17) Commercial parking lots and garages. (l8) Community buildings, as permitted under section 25-4- 11. (l9) Convenience stores. (20) Crop production. (2l) Day care centers. (22) Display rooms for products sold elsewhere. (23) 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 dwell- ing unit. (24) Dwellings, multiple-family, provided that the maximum density shall be one thou- sand two hundred fifty square feet of land area per rentable unit or dwelling unit. (25) Dwellings, single-family. (26) Equipment sales and rental yards, and other yards where retail products are dis- played in the open. (27) Family child care homes. (28) Farmers markets. When the vending activity in a farmers mazket involves more than just the sale of local fresh and/or raw produce, plant life, fish and local home- grown 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 compatibil- ity with the existing chazacter of the surrounding azea. (29) Financial institutions. (30) Group living facilities. (3l) Home occupations, as permitted under section 25-4-13. (32) Hospitals, sanitaziums, old age, convalescent, nursing and rest homes and other similar uses. (33) Hotels. (34) Ice storage and dispensing facilities. (35) Laboratories, medical and research. (36) Laundries. (37) Light manufacturing, processing and packaging, where the only retail sales outlet for products produced is on the premises where produced. (38) Medical clinics. (39) Meeting facilities. (40) Model homes, as permitted under section 25-4-8. (4l) Mortuaries. (42) Neighborhood parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, and similar neighborhood recreationalazeas and uses. (43) Offices. (44) Personal services. (45) Photography studios. (4(~) Public uses and structures, as permitted under section 25-4-1 1. (47) Printing shops, cartographing and duplicating processes such as blueprinting or phocostating shops. (48) Repair establishments, minor. (49) Restaurants. (50) Retail establishments. 25-73 Ordiwnce Nn. 96-160 (a.{ amended by pull §25-5-t l3 H,awr,u COCUTY CooE (51) Schools. (52) Telecommunication antennas, as permitted under section 25-4-12. (53) Theaters. (54) Time share units. (55) Utility substations, as permitted under section 25-4-1 1. (56) Veterinary establishments (b) In addition to those uses permitted under subsection (a) above, the following uses may be permitted in the CG distric[, provided that a use permit is issued for each use: (I) Crematoriums. (2) Golf courses and related golf course uses, including golf driving ranges, golf main- tenance buildings and golf club houses. (3) Major outdoor amusement and recreation facilities. (4) Yacht harbors and boating facilities. (c) Residential uses in connection with the operation of any permitted use shall be permitted in the CG district. (d) Buildings and uses normally considered accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the CG district. Section 25.5-113. Height limit. (a) The height limit in the CG district shall be forty-five feet, except in those areas designated in subsections (b) and (c) below. (b) The height limit in the City of Hilo shall be one hundred twenty feet. (c) The height limit in those areas in the North Kona district designated as high density urban on the general plan land use pattern allocation guide (LUPAG) map shall be ninety feet. Section 25-5-114. Minimum building site area. The minimum building site area in the CG dis- trict shall be seven thousand five hundred square feet. Section 25-5-115. Minimum building site average width. Each building site in the CG district shall have a minimum building site average width of sixty feet. Section 25-5-116. Minimum yards. The minimum yards in the CG district shall be as follows: (1) Front or reaz yards, fifteen feet; and (2) Side yazds, none, except where the adjoining building site is in a RS, RD, RM or RCX district. Where the side yard adjoins the side yazd of a building site in a RS, RD, RM or RCX district, there shall be a side yazd which conforms to the side yazd requirements for dwelling use of the adjoining district. Section 25-5-117. Landscaping of yards. (a) All front yards in the CG district shall be landscaped, except for necessary access drives and walkways. (b) Where any required side or rear yard in the CG district adjoins a building site in a 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 neces- sary drives and walkways. Ordinance Nn. 96-1601 amended (ry nrrntl 25-74