Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-06 Exh A PD Initiated Vincent Tai REZ 13-167WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 6, 2020 A regularly advertised hearing on the Planning Director Initiated Change of Zone (VINCENT TAI REZ 13-000167) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Thomas Raffipiy presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 26 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED (VINCENT TAU REZ 13-000167) The Planning Director has initiated rezoning of the property from Multi -Family Residential - 1,500 square feet (RM -1.5) to Single -Family Residential - 7,500 square feet (RS -7.5) due to the landowner's non-compliance with Conditions B and R of Ordinance No. 14-056, which became effective May 12, 2014 to change the zoning of the subject property from Multi -Family Residential - 2,500 square feet to Multi -Family Residential - 1,500 square feet. The subject property is located at 364 Hualalai Street, east of the Hale Nani Street- Hualalai Street intersection, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-4-028:009. RAFFIPIY: First up is Planning Director initiated item. The Planning Director has initiated rezoning of the property from Multi -Family Residential - 1,500 square feet to Single -Family Residential - 7,500 square feet. With that, the staff will do the presentation. JACKSON: Good morning, everyone. Okay, our first item for today is a Planning Director initiated rezone request. The property is in the South Hilo District. It's TMK 2-4-028:009. The Director is requesting to rezone the property from Multiple -Family Residential - 1,500 square feet to Single -Family Residential - 7,500 square feet. As I mentioned, the property is in the South Hilo District in Hilo Town. The property is shown on the slide outlined in black. And, let's see, you have Kapi`olani Street running in a north -south direction to the east of the property. The police station is generally located in this area here. Then you have Hualalai Street coming up from the bay towards the property, and just off of Hualalai Street is Hale Nani Street. EXHIBIT A The current zoning for the property is Multiple -Family Residential with a minimum building site of 1,500 square feet. That's shown in the darker brown color. And then you can see the surrounding community to the south and to the west is Single -Family Residential - 7,500 square feet, which is shown in the yellow color. There is also Double -Residential density that is in the lighter brown color to the east, as well as Multiple -Family Residential - 1,000 square feet where the police station is located. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban, which is shown in the orange, and then east of Kapi`olani Street is High Density Urban. The subject property was rezoned twice from its original zoning of Single -Family Residential - 7.5 by the current landowner, Vincent Tai. In 2010, it was rezoned from RS -7.5 to RM -2.5, and then in 2014 it was rezoned again from RM -2.5 to RM -1.5 with Ordinance 14-056. Ordinance 14-056 states, "Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate zoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." So, there are two reasons the Director is initiating procedures to rezone the property. The first reason is that the landowner is not complying with Condition R of the ordinance. That condition states, "The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements." Specifically, the landowner has not complied with Chapter 20 Article 2 of the Hawaii County Code related to unsafe flora. The second reason for initiating rezoning of the property is that the landowner has the property listed for sale and does not intend to develop the property with the multiple -family residential units as represented to the County Council and the Commission when the property was previously rezoned in 2010 and 2015. So, I'll go through a few slides and talk about the first reason, compliance with Condition R, and then the following slides after that will discuss the lack of development on the property. So, lack of compliance with Condition R, the Department of Public Works has issued two unsafe flora violation letters to the landowner. One was issued on June 21" of last year, and then one was recently issued on January 28h of this year. These letters indicated that trees on the property pose an imminent danger to eight neighboring properties, and DPW required that they be removed. The letters said that in lieu of tree removal, a letter from a Hawaii State certified arborist could be provided, stating that the trees are deemed safe and healthy. On January 7h of 2020, the landowner provided a Tree Risk Assessment and Risk Reductions Assessment Report by a certified arborist. The report evaluated the trees that were subject to the June 21" unsafe flora letter. On February 4h, that was just a few days ago, the arborist submitted a letter indicating that if their recommendations of the assessment and the February 4h letter from the arborist are implemented, that would negate any hazards to neighboring properties. The report and the February 4 1 letter recommended trimming the branches of trees 0, 1, and 3 through 6, and then removing several trees, tree 2, 7 and 51, I'm sorry, 7 through 51. And the Department of Public Works went through on the property and tagged and numbered all of the trees. I believe that occurred sometime in December. They also, the arborist also recommended removing roots that were encroaching onto neighboring properties as well as providing on-going annual maintenance. EXHIBIT A 2 As far as I'm aware, from Public Works, the report that was done by the arborist does not address trees related to the more recent DPW unsafe flora violation letter that they issued in January of this year. So, the landowner has been aware that the overgrown trees on his property are negatively affecting his neighbors. Properties for several years now, when the property was rezoned in 2014, there was discussion on that transcript and in that Planning Commission meeting of the large trees on the property, so this has been an ongoing issue for some time. It wasn't until last year that I believe the landowner started to actually file complaints with Public Works to address the issue. So, the landowner was directed to remove the trees by Public Works in June and January of this year, and the Planning Director has provided ample time. The department's first letter to the landowner went out in October, so he's had several months to comply with the County Code and conditions of the ordinance. Over this period of time, I think, as the record reflects, you'll see that the landowner has consistently shown a lack of concern for the well-being of the neighborhood and has not taken responsibility for properly maintaining his property. The landowner did not make a serious effort to resolve the violation until the Planning Department informed him the Director may initiate procedures to downzone the property. So that relates to a lack of compliance with Condition R. The next few slides will talk about the property being for sale and the developer not intending to develop the property with RM zoning. So, this is a site plan that was submitted by the landowner for the 2014 Change of Zone. It shows Hualalai Street here, the entrance to the property. This is the Hale Nani neighborhood, and you see a driveway into the property and the multi -family residential units along the north and south side of the property. A community garden is this shaded area on the bottom, and then a community playground at the end of the parking lot. This is an aerial view of the property and surrounding community. You can see again Hualalai Street, Hale Nani Street here. I believe that these, these are the neighboring properties that are subject to the unsafe flora violation letters. These, this is Mr. Tai's property. You can see a lot of the very large invasive trees surrounding the property boundaries. There is also one single- family dwelling on the property and a pool that was built several years ago. And just as a note, the property if it were to be developed under Single -Family Residential — 7,500 square foot zoning which is what the Director is recommending, it would allow 18 more residential lots or units on the property as opposed to the 88 units that were proposed in 2014. So, there has been a lack of development of the property. Although the landowner has attempted to development multiple -family housing units on the property, as well as affordable housing units on the property, as of the date of this hearing, the landowner has not developed the property, and the property has been listed for sale since April of 2019 for $3 million. The landowner also has not submitted any plans to the department. I'm sure the Commission is aware there is always that condition in the rezone ordinances that say please submit plans for Plan Approval or a Final Subdivision Approval, and there has been no movement on any grading EXHIBIT A 3 plans, building permits, or Plan Approval. There has also been no work on the property, and by that, I mean any groundwork or construction, to indicate that the landowner intends to develop the property with multiple -family residential units. So, you know, while the landowner did intend to develop the property, that isn't happening now, and the General Plan discourages speculative development which this is. This is becoming a form of speculative development now that the property is up for sale. One of the criteria for granting a Change of Zone is that the zoning is consistent with the goals, policies, standards of the General Plan, and that the zoning would promote the general welfare of the community. The housing section of the GP also states to continue to study and implement appropriate measures to curb property speculative practices that result in increased housing costs. The land use section of the General Plan recommends establishing controls to discourage speculative land development. Specifically, the multiple -family residential section states to assure the use of multiple -family residential zoned areas, and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning which shall be based on performance requirements. And then another policy states support the rezoning of those multiple -family residential zoned lands that are used for other purposes to a more appropriate zoning designation. In this case, the property is more appropriate to be zoned Single -Family Residential because at this time, that is what it is being used for. So, the Director's recommendations, the Director believes the current RM -1.5 zoning district for the property is not the best land use pattern, and it will not promote the general welfare of the surrounding community at this time. Therefore, the Director recommends rezoning the property to its original designation of RS -7.5 so that up to 19 Single -Family Residential units and lots can be provided. If a subsequent landowner wishes to develop a multiple -family project on the property, they would need to come in for a Change of Zone to RM and at that time, the Planning Commission and County Council could look at these, the requested zoning and project to determine if the proposed zoning and density would promote the general welfare of the community. So, based on all of that information, I provided to you, the Director is recommending forwarding a favorable recommendation to County Council to rezone the property from RM -1.5 to RS -7.5. And, since we sent out your Background and Recommendation report, we've received several additional letters of testimony, so I just want to go through those with you. The first thing you should have is a map. We forgot to include that in your ordinance package. This is just a map that we typically include with a rezone ordinance. Let's see, we also have an email dated January 31" from Melanie DeMello at Department of Public Works to Mr. Tai; a letter from Mr. Tai dated January 31" to Mr. David Yamamoto of Public Works; a letter of testimony dated January 31" from Charlene Nishida to the Commission; a letter dated February 3rd from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yee; a letter dated February 4 1 from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto; an email dated February 4d' from Ms. Nishida to me for the Commission; and an email dated February 5h from Mr. Tai to Melanie DeMello at Public Works; a letter dated February 5 1 from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto at Public Works; another one-page letter from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto dated February 51h; an email from Melanie DeMello to Mr. Tai and the arborist, Justin, dated February 5h; and lastly an EXHIBIT A 4 email from Ms. Nishida to Melanie DeMello dated February 5h. And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the staff? think there's no questions from the Commissioners. Will Mr. Vincent Tai please come forth? Mr. Tai TAI: Yes, sir. RAFFIPIY: Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TAI: Yes, I do. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. TAI: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Please state your name and proceed with your testimony. TAI: My name is Vincent Tai, T -A -I. I dispute almost, most of the statements just made by Maija, and I'll explain. And everything I'm presenting today is the truth. Now, first we talk about Condition R. Let's go to the latest, okay? I believe I have satisfied all the requirements and the violation is all satisfied. Now, even if the Public Works Department didn't agree, I'm doing all the things that based on what they said, even though I didn't agree, and let me explain. You see, the system of identifying trees or vegetation, what is deemed imminent danger? It's not really defined, and also the process of identifying or determining what is "imminent danger" is not defined. It should be clearly defined because whatever is shown by the inspector, it will be recorded as a violation, whether it's legitimate or not. Now, let me go to the letter that I received, and I will explain it. I'm looking for the letter. Now, this is a typical letter sent by certified mail to me. The first one was on January 21 ", 2019, and the second one was just a few days ago. I just received it, and I have a question, too. Basically, I was offered two options. Number one is to remove all the trees that they claim HALL: Sorry, Mr. Tai? Can you tell me who the letter is from? TAI: I'm sorry? HALL: Can you tell me who the TAI: Oh the one from the Public Works I said. HALL: Oh, it's from Public Works, okay. EXHIBIT A 5 TAI: Oh yeah, yeah. HALL: Okay, and January 291h you said? TAI: The 21st, 2019, right. HALL: Okay, thank you. TAI: Sure. Now, the letter says, you know, I can remove all the trees identified by, the trees that was identified by the inspector. If you look what was sent to me, he said, various trees and identification for the tree name and almost everyone, it says causing damage to dwelling and landscaping so that means damage have occur, okay? Now, so I'm given two options. The first option is to remove everything the report says although it's not clear how many trees or it says various trees. The second option is very important is, is that in lieu, in lieu of removal, a letter from a Hawai` i State certified arborist stating that the trees are deemed safe and healthy. Now, I wanted to go with option one in the beginning, just remove everything, but I have questions. What is everything, because it didn't say, it says various trees okay? And, also, and I've been asking the question, I asked a number of questions to the Public Works Department. So far, I have received zero, none replying to my questions. I believe my questions are legitimate and reasonable. First, is who decides which tree is posing imminent danger? Who decides that? Number two, what is the definition of imminent danger, okay? To me, those are important questions. Now, I've been in this building trade, or architectural and design, construction trade for almost 50 years, okay. I know inspectors. The Public Works Department inspectors, there are many. They are all very qualified, but they qualify for a very specific field. For instance, an inspector who knows about retaining walls, foundations may not know anything about electric substations, right? Now, I have to admit, I live in Honolulu. I don't live in Hilo here. And I know very little about trees. I know a lot about buildings. I know very little about trees. I don't have a green thumb. I planted many fruit trees on my property—only a few bear fruits, and I fail completely on vegetables. Now, so, I have to admit that I know very little about trees, and I own this property, and my only information is based on what my neighbors inform me. Now, if I know so little about trees, I wouldn't be able to tell which tree would pose imminent danger because I don't know the characteristics of the trees. I don't even know the name of the trees. In my, if I may say, I believe there are two inspectors in the Public Works Department. They sent out the two separate reports if you look at the reports. I have a hunch, and I cannot say for sure, these inspectors do not know about trees more than I do. Now that being said, when I look at the first patch, all it says is various trees, various trees, the property is causing damage to [inaudible]. Almost every single place, okay? So, what do I do? I ask a number of questions. These questions to me is crucial for me to understand what's going if anything happen. So, I have no choice but to go to my second option. Now, my second option is in lieu of removal. Now, the dictionary says in lieu means "instead of or "in place of right? That means, in lieu of removal, that means, I don't have to do removal. If I do removal, I would go to the first option, right? So, in lieu of removal, a letter from a certified arborist saying that the trees are deemed safe and healthy, a letter. Instead of EXHIBIT A 6 doing a letter, I instructed the arborist that I selected to do a full-blown analysis, risk analysis on each of the trees that are being tagged, not just a letter. Now and also, I instructed the arborist to take care of all the trees he identified which is from zero to 50, I mean 51 trees. So, I'm doing more than what I, the option that I'm choosing. If I chose, I did choose the second option. All it says is to go do the letter, right? It said in lieu of removal. If I have to remove, it belonged to the first option, but here, and I assure the Commission, although I selected number two, instead of just writing a letter, I have a full-blown detailed analysis on each tree and also I'm doing option number one even though I'm not required to. So, all of these been proven, I already signed contract. In fact, the first part was completed two days ago, February 4h. Now, if the Public Works Department have offered me the kind of cooperation that I hoped for, that I expected, this item would not be on the list today. Let me explain. I did not delay any of these procedures as mentioned, and I can go through the dates, but I don't think I want to belabor the Commission on that. The fact is, I told the Public Works Department. Because the report, the survey that done by the inspectors is not sufficient, and the arborist actually went through every tree being tagged, right, and I explained to the Public Works Department it's very, very important that I should be there when the inspector tags the trees because they're various trees, right? I don't know how many trees. Very important. So, it was scheduled on December 9h that I would come over and meet with one of the two inspectors. In fact, I was expecting to meet the first inspector, which is the Inspector Saplan, okay, at 10:45, December 9h. You know, in the morning, I had to fight the traffic on the H-1 in Honolulu, 7 o'clock, get to the airport, fly over here. I arrived at the site at 10:35, then I was told no show. No inspector was showing up. The Inspector Saplan was not supposed to work on Monday anyway. It was a Monday. I wasn't told. And, then the other inspector was busy. He cannot show up. So, I came all the way from Honolulu and was standing there. Nobody showed up. Now, if, any of the inspectors had showed up on that particular day, I would have known exactly which tree is being tagged. In fact, on the same day, I made three appointments with three arborists. I had to cancel them. So, I went home. Now, that was in December 9h. If that didn't happen, if the inspectors showed up, all the work that I'm describing here would have been done by now. Now, I expressed to the staff of the Public Works Department it is awfully important that I have to be there when they tag the trees because there are so many trees there. I have to be the one to show the arborist which tree is being tagged. So, I received an email from the staff on about December 14 or 15. She said the trees been tagged by Inspector Saplan on the 13' of December. I said, "How come? I wanted to be there. You cannot just tag the trees because they are hard to find." So, finally she agreed that I would meet with the inspector to see exactly which trees are being tagged. Because of the holiday after mid-December, with Christmas coming up, I tried to get together on the 24h, the day before Christmas. It didn't happen. So, finally, an appointment was made on December 26, which is almost 20 days later, right—from December 9h. So, on the 26h, I show up, and Mr. Visaya, I think his name was Visaya name, yeah, appear—he has not been to the site before as far as I know, the first time, okay? Then we finally found about 35 trees or maybe 36 trees tagged by the previous Inspector Saplan. And, yet, on the spot, he added a few more. I said, "why these trees?" I don't think he even know the name of those trees, okay? He said, "Oh, they are tall." EXHIBIT A 7 Okay? Some trees are supposed to be tall, and I, of course, I didn't press him for more details, you know, what does he mean by "tall" okay? A six-foot guy is tall, or six foot seven is tall, right? There's no definition there. Nevertheless, he added another 15 trees so total is about 51 trees exactly, from zero to 50. In fact, Mr. Barrios, the arborist, was there. He also met with the inspector. So, after the inspector left, myself and Mr. Barrios went through every tree making sure that he knows exactly which 51 trees was about, and that was in December 21st. He worked very fast. He came up with the assessment, risk assessment on January 2nd because of the weekend. So, I sent the whole documents to PWD. I believe my letter was on January 51h So, now we have the 51 trees. These were tagged by the inspector. Whether they pose whether they pose imminent danger is not the question now, because they didn't give me the answer what that means, right, and I think in my letter to the Planning Commission, I look it up what Wikipedia says about what is the meaning of "imminent danger." It has a legal concept to it, you know. It's not just a hey, this is dangerous; therefore, it is imminent, right? Apart from that, I'm not even questioning that now. He identified, I mean the 51 trees being identified or analyzed by Mr. Barrios. I said fine, do it. It doesn't matter. Even though I'm not obligated to do it because I took up the second option that said in lieu of removal. In fact, that sentence, that phrase, I asked Public Works Department more than four times, "What does that mean?" In lieu of removal means I have to remove, not the same as option one, all right? But, I say, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm taking option two, but I'm doing everything that are required in option one. So, I'm doing it. Now, if the inspectors had showed up on December 6h, it was a wasted day for me. I rented a car, okay? All this work would have been done by now. Because of the schedule of Backyard Monkey, Mr. Barrios, he can only do on a certain day because he has clients. So, the schedule was he only can complete it between March 3rd and March 6th. Luckily, one of his clients cancelled the appointment, so he was able to perform three days ago, okay? The first part. For that reason, I have been urging the Planning Director, and Michael, I'll call Michael, because I've been talking to Michael, okay, delay this after March 4th because they are doing it, you know, because of the schedule. I mean, I cannot control that, and it's not even my responsibility. If I pick up number, option two, but of course, Michael didn't agree to that. Now, like I said, this system of identifying trees that are posing imminent danger and to issue violations, which may result in rezoning and everything. The system is not perfect. I've gone through this, and I, yesterday I tried to making an appointment to see Mr. Yamamoto and his staff today, but I got no reply. I'd like to offer, you know, I'm the landowner. I think I am entitled to make suggestions, to even challengeI haven't challenged it yet, but I do want answers, okay? And, see how they can make it more perfect, because the reason I take up number two instead of one is because I want to establish help Public Works Department, to establish a more perfect system. Not just for me in the future, but all the other properties in the County. You know, the whole County is covered with trees in residential areas. Even with trees that belong to the County, okay? So, I do think that this system needs to be improved, and in my mind, I have already, by my interpretation, I have already fulfilled the violations, because I produced more than a letter. I produced aI don't know how many pages—like 30 pages, of detailed analysis of each tree being tagged whether or not they are posing imminent danger. EXHIBIT A RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Mr. Tai. Do we have any questions from the Commission? AU: Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a question. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. AU: Okay, so, thank you, Mr. Tai for that lengthy explanation, but a really quick question. So, I see a letter dated yesterday, March 5h [sic] from Melanie DeMello, and I guess my question to you is that what are your intentions moving forward? It says that you have a—what is your intentions moving forward with Backyard Monkey as far as trimming the trees. TAI: Oh, I thought I did explain it. They identified in the report, not the survey report, there's really nothing here, okay? All it says is various trees. Backyard Monkey identified each of the 51 trees, and he laid out exactly what to do with all of them, and I've already given, sign-up for them to do everything they identified. Now, in addition, if you see the latest letter, I even asked him to, because I live in Honolulu, and know very little about trees. Please tell me what needs to be done on the site. Now, when I said what to do with the trees on the site, are not just to avoid having my neighbor to complain. I'm talking about trees within my site or is in your house, I want to take care of them, because like I said, I know very little about trees, and I don't live here. And, I trust Backyard Monkey, because they are the certified arborist. So, I signed another contract to have them to take care of that for the following year. This would be on an annual basis. I think I listened to you on the same thing that, this all in addition to all of that. To answer your questions, yes, I have instructed Backyard Monkey to do everything they identified in addition on top of what PWD expected me to do. AU: Okay, thank you. RAFFIPIY: Any other questions from the Commission? I do have a question, Mr. Tai. So, you retained the assistance of Backyard Monkey. When you retained them, did they know that you have a letter from County Department of Public Works, and did you show them what the Department of Public Works cited? TAI: What I told them it was cited a violation. In fact, the inspector was there when Mr. Barrios was there, and I said more importantly is to address each of the 51 units, 51 trees being tagged. That's more important. The violation, and I'm not even arguing, okay, in fact, if you go on into arguing, most of the trees are not be definition imminent, posing imminent danger. But, that question I completely, you know, take it out of the equation now. So, the most important thing is that 51 trees was tagged, and these trees have to be taken care of so it will be safe and will not involve any violation. I think that is important. RAFFIPIY: So, did the DPW, Department of Public Works, did they when they tagged each tree, did they identify what's, what the issue is with each of the trees? EXHIBIT A 9 TAI: None. That's what I am saying. I, like I said, I am only speculating, okay? I doubt both inspectors know trees more than I do. I know very little. In fact, the 15 trees that Mr. [inaudible] added on, okay, on the spot, those most of those, I believe, they call African Tulip. I don't think he knows. Those I think are trees that are totally useless, okay, and invasive, okay? Now, like I said, I don't really care what's, what is violation and not violation now. The fact is the 51 trees being tagged, whether they are posing imminent danger or not, I have instructed and paid Backyard Monkey to do whatever it needed to take care of it, and you can confirm that by talking to Mr. Barrios. RAFFIPIY: Okay, so Backyard Monkey knew about the letter that you got from the Department of Public Works? TAI: I think they would know, because I told them when they were there. I said, is this a violation, that's why the inspector was there. The letter was very simple, all right? It only says is you either remove the trees or you do a letter, right? This is exactly what I told them. In lieu of removal, a letter, I said I'm more than a letter, I need a complete report, because I want to know what's happening to trees on my side, not necessarily what is affecting the neighbors. There are many trees there if you go out there. You know, you cannot find, and these numbers, they put on, and some only like a three when you see the first—you know, it's hard to tell. I'm glad that Mr.—I forgot his name now was there, and it was the first time for him, too. You know, he still has to look, all right? But, the fact is all these are being taken care of or will be taken care of. It would have been taken care of if the inspector showed up on December 9h. RAFFIPIY: All right. Thank you very much. I don't have any more questions. CLARKSON: I, excuse me, I have a question for the Director. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. CLARKSON: While I see that this issue speaks to the inclination of the applicant or, not applicant in this case, the property owner to conform with the conditions of the original rezoning, isn't it true that this tree issue would be identical regardless of whether the property was zoned Multi -Family Residential or Single -Family Residential? So, is it really relevant to the zoning of the property? YEE: It's not relevant in terms of the specific zoning. There was a violation that we were then made aware of on this property which led to now this action. I guess I would say this violation is only one of the issues that Maija had gone through in her report to us. So, there are other issues beyond just this violation. CLARKSON: Thank you. AU: Mr. Chair, I have another question. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead, Mr. Au. EXHIBIT A 10 AU: Maija, can you bring up a slide for me, please? So, Mr. Tai, this is a question in regards to the other issue that the Planning Director has, the slide with the proposed development. So, from—from what Maija had said that if this property was to be rezoned based off the Planning Director's recommendation, we're going to be adding more units. So the, your existing proposed development, you're saying, 88 units. Is that correct? TAI: No, sir. I'm not sure your understanding, maybe Maija didn't mean 19 additional. JACKSON: Yeah, the existing zoning, the RM -1.5 allows for this development, which is 88 units, and that's the development that Mr. Tai proposed back in 2014 when he got the RM -1.5 zoning. If it were to be rezoned as the Director is recommending, it would allow for 19 units on the property instead of 88, so it's a downzoning. AU: So, Mr. Tai, you know, another slide indicated that your property is on sale for $3 million, it's listed. Do you have any potential inquiries or developers that are interested in that property? TAI: I think we're moving on to the second subject. Now, I assume that we are done with the first one which is Condition R that, claiming that I have not satisfied with the removal, I mean, satisfying the violation decided by Public Works Department, which I accept. In my belief, I have already done that because I submitted more than a letter. In addition, even though I'm not required, I'm doing everything as option one even though I picked option 2. So, I assume that we are done with the Condition R. Then I'll move on to the properties. May I do that? AU: Could you RAFFIPIY:—Yes—sorry. AU: Could I have my question answered first before you move on? I just want TAI: —What is your question to me? AU: a brief answer. So, my question is, do you have any inquiries about your property at this point? TAI: Okay. In order to answer your question, I have to start with 2014, the year that it was rezoned to [RM-] 1.5. I sent the Commission a letter dated February 41h. It's a relatively long letter. I don't know if you had the chance to read it or any one of the Commissioners had a chance to read it. If not, I'll go into more detail. May I ask if you read the letter of February 4h about the use of the property and the process that I went through in trying to build affordable housing? Have you seen that letter? DELA CRUZ/AGUINALDO: [Nodded yes.] TAI: Okay. Then, I'll be brief, okay? I can tell you, this property I put it on the market in April. If what happened to me had happened on February 15 of the same year, this property would not be on sale. Now I'll explain that. Now, ever since the property was rezoned to RM -1.5, my EXHIBIT A 11 intention is to build affordable housing. When I say affordable housing, it means workforce housing. I have to go into a little bit more detail here, because I don't think I explained in my letter. Workforce housing in Hawaii basically means from 60 percent AMI, area median income, to 140 percent, some 60 to 140 percent. One hundred percent is say average, okay? Now, in Honolulu, even 140 percent, that's over hundred percent AMI is what people are trying to build, trying to qualify, so-called workforce affordable housing so that they can get government funding. A 140 percent is pretty close to market rate. In Hilo, as you know, the housing prices is far less. Now, based on the HUD guidelines, the market rate here on a condo or a house is probably equal to affordable housing AMI hundred percent or 120 percent. So, what that means, market rate is basically equivalent to what HUD designated as affordable housing. I'm an architect. I'm a developer. I've been doing that for 45 years. I've developed quite a few market rate. I've never done affordable housing as I explained in my letter. When I first bought this property, I tried to rezone it to 2.5 to 1.5. It was to build affordable housing because no one can build market-based housing in Hilo. Nothing was built here the last 30 years. In fact, even workforce housing, from my research, during the last five years, probably less than 200 units, so called workforce. What is workforce housing? It is for people who cannot afford market -rate housing, but people who are not qualified for so-called low-cost housing that is built by the government, okay? Now, during the last five years, there are probably about maybe, Michael had more details than me, probably maybe about 800 units built, in the last five years in the entire County. The most I think happened in the Kona side. These 800 or 900 units, most of them are not workforce housing. They are low-cost government built, you know, like housing authority. So, the question is do we need affordable housing here? I don't think any politician would say, "no, we don't need affordable housing." According to the latest publication which I believe I sent to you, in the Hawaiian public housing authority, from year, the five years 2014 to 2019, Hawaii County needs close to 15,000 units. Fifteen thousand. Affordable housing now, not market rate. More is being built market -rate out here anyway, right? Out of 15,000, probably less than 200 units are really workforce affordable, the kind of project I want to build. Okay, let me go back to 2014. It's got very important to answer his question. RAFFIPIY: Can you keep your comments to talking about your property, please? TAI: Okay, all right. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. TAI: But, I thought all of this are very important, because when I bought, changed it to [RM-] 1.5, my sole intention is to develop workforce housing in the 60 percent AMI, because with 60 percent AMI, I can get special points if I have to apply for public fund, like low-income housing tax credit. Now, no one in Hawaii can build workforce housing without getting what you call LIHTC which is low-income housing term. No one can do that, and Hawaii gets very little money, the State, and most of the money that is being allocated have gone to the Island of Oahu. Very few here. That's why I wanted to mention February 151h is so important. The only EXHIBIT A 12 HHFDC was in Hawaii housing in—something like, HHFDC is the only agency that you have to go through. Only except an application once a year, February 151h, okay? On February 15'', last year, 2019, my last chance of even getting in, my application in was gone, and I explained that, okay? If I need to apply again, it will be the following year. Now, from the letter I sent to you back on February 4h, as soon as, as soon as I received the rezoning to [RM-] 1.5, I started working. I have met with many potential developers that can work with me, particularly the most important one that I sent to you is I worked with a company called JSM. We spent a few months, prepared all the documents to submit to HHFDC for the LIHTC nine percent. The application arrived at HHFDC on February 161h because they tried to send it by UPS from San Jose, and the UPS plane developed a mechanical function, and the package did not arrive the next day. Well my drawings were delivered there on the 14'', so they were disqualified, okay? In fact, from 2014 on, I don't want to repeat, if you have that letter, I've gone through many, many processes trying to get that. The last process, that's why I mentioned why I put it on the market, on RAFFIPIY: Mr. Tai? TAI: Yes? RAFFIPIY: Excuse me, do you still intend to develop that property? TAI: Yes, that's why I put it on the market. Now, let me explain. No, it's very important, because you can see all my previousI have exhausted all my contacts in terms of finding someone to do with me. In fact, for the HHFDC for the LIHTC, I only found out in early 19 no, 2018, if it's a for-profit company, they cannot accept a non-profit entity to be their partner. They cannot. Now, so I've exhausted all my contacts. Up to this February 15, 2019, I went to try to get EB -5. EB -5 is the immigration loophole you can call, people invest $500,000, they can develop. Now, that one, I don't have to go through HHFDC, because, you know, it goes through to the LIHTC, they require me to have previous experience, which I don't. That's why I also need a partner, okay? But, once I use the EB -5, I don't need that because I'm not going through HHFDC. Strictly from people who want to immigrate to US, but that also fell through. That's why that was my last ditch, or not on February 15'', I was not able to get my application, because I just don't have the money. There's no funding, there's no project. I'm talking about to build workforce housing now. You cannot build market rate [sic] housing here. You can only build market rate, you know, because of the pricing. Now, the only way that I can attract developer that I don't know is to market it. If I market it, anybody comes in, either he will accept me as a partner or they can develop it. If someone is willing to develop affordable housing, which I imagine, all the politicians will ask for, then what's wrong with it, all right? But, I cannot sell it now, and also because the February 151h, I have to advertise in April because they need always a year to get the application in for the next April 15'h deadline. RAFFIPIY: Mr. Tai, can you wrap up in a minute? EXHIBIT A 13 TAI: I can wrap it up anytime, because I sent you RAFFIPIY: —And then we're going to move into public testimony. TAI: Okay, sure, I sent you the RAFFIPIY: —Thank you, sir. TAI: very long, those letters was not sent to the public as far as I know. YEE: Mr. Tai, just for the record, did you have experience building, developing affordable housing prior to purchasing this property? TAI: No, I don't but I didn't know that HHFDC had that requirement. They have at least one. YEE: SecondI just lost it. It'll come to me later. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. We're going to move into public testimony. CLARKSON: I have a question for staff. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead, Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: Related to this issue. Was the zoning that was done in 2014, I believe that was the year, or 20—well, 2013, 2014, was that a conditional rezone? JACKSON: Yes. CLARKSON: Conditioned on affordable housing? JACKSON: No, the conditions are in, I believe, your Exhibit 2. CLARKSON: That would, I misspoke my question. JACKSON: Okay. CLARKSON: Was one of the conditions of the zoning to Multi -Family 1.5 that the, it was only should there be multi -family housing built? JACKSON: No. There was not a condition limiting the units to affordable housing. However, when Mr. Tai applied for the Change of Zone from RM -2.5 to RM -1.5, at that time, he had represented that he couldn't make the numbers work with the 2.5, that he needed more density in order to do the affordable housing project. So, there weren't conditions limiting it to affordable housing but he had represented at the time that that what he was going to build. EXHIBIT A 14 CLARKSON: And, so I have a question for the Director. So, at the time this property was rezoned, even though it's in Medium Density Urban, apparently, the County Council felt that it was appropriate to rezone it because of the possibility of getting affordable housing. Now, do you believe that that was a mistake on the part of the Council to rezone the property and it should have always remained Residential 7,500? YEE: In the presentation, we said at this time it doesn't make sense. You know, obviously, if the market forces were there to have it happen, it probably would be happening, and I remembered my question so let him answer this question, because this is kind of important. So, prior to buying this property, Mr. Tai, did you have experience upzoning properties? TAI: Yes, I do, many times. YEE: Okay, thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Mr. Tai. We're going to move into public testimony. JACKSON: Chair Raffipiy, if I may ask Mr. Tai one more question before— RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. JACKSON: public testimony. Mr. Tai, as far as I understand, Public Works in their January 301h email to you said that the Backyard Monkey report that was done and Mr. Barrios' February 4 1 letter only addressed or evaluated trees that were related to the June 2019 unsafe flora violation. And, then you were issued another violation letter in January of this year? TAI: June 31 [sic]. JACKSON: June of last year? TAI: No, you said January? HALL: Twenty-eighth. JACKSON: January 281h of this year. TAI: January 281h, I didn't get it until January 301h, yeah, but is that the one you're talking about? JACKSON: Yes. TAI: I'm sorry. JACKSON: Yes. TAI: The one that dated January 28h? EXHIBIT A 15 JACKSON: Yes. TAI: I think I received it on January 301h, which is a few days ago. JACKSON: Okay. TAI: And I questioned that, too. I send some questions, because again there's no explanation on the diagrams, and I said please explain, because I need to get Mr. Barrios involved if I have no more detail. But, that was only a few days ago. Of course, it would not be included in here. JACKSON: Okay, so I think you partly answered my question. I was going to ask do you plan to hire an arborist to evaluate the trees that were subject to that violation, and how do you plan to resolve the January 2020 violation? TAI: January 201h? Or January 28h? JACKSON: Yes, January 281h 2020. TAI: January 281h letter I did not get until January 30''. Today is February 6h, okay? As soon as I got that letter, I look at it, I couldn't understand it, because there is no explanation, okay? Just some diagram, okay, so two days ago, I sent an email to Public Works. I said please give me some written explanation what this is about. So, I'm waiting for that. I can assure you if indeed those are trees that would pose imminent danger, I will have them removed. Most likely, I will take the second option which is in lieu of removing, I will have an arborist produce a letter, and even if I take the second option, most likely I'll do the first option even though I'm required because I just want to do it. Would that answer your question? But, keep in mind, I just got it on the 30'h which is a few days ago. YEE: So, before you moved onto the second topic here, you said, you felt like you had resolved the violation issues. You felt like it was settled, that you've done everything to settle it. I would then question that it may be a little premature to say the issues around the violations are settled. TAI: I don't understand that. First, we're talking about two violations. One was issued back in June; one I received a few days ago. The few days ago, of course, that has not been resolved, because I'm asking questions, and they have not answered my questions yet. I said just explain to me what this diagram means. No, in written form, okay? So, to answer your question, the second one has not been resolved, because I just received it. The first one, I maintain that I have complied because you said in lieu of removal, you produce the letter. Instead of producing a letter, I produced a 30 -page or 35 -page detailed analysis, and also I said I would do everything that is identified. JACKSON: Let me rephrase the question into a yes or no answer. Can you provide the Planning Commission the assurance that if you hire an arborist and they determine that there are unsafe trees on the property, you will remove them? EXHIBIT A 16 TAI: I believe I said that already. I told you. Whatever what was identified in the January 281' letter, which I just received, once I get the explanation RAFFIPIY: Is that a "yes" Mr. Tai? TAI: That's a yes. I believe I said yeah four times already. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. AGUINALDO: Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for him, a quick one. Mr. Tai, you gotta look back and think what got you here, okay? You really gotta look. My question to you, when the time of purchase of your property, how much time have you spent on your property to get this far? Ironically, we can all say, oh I don't know what tree to cut. We gotta put some common sense in it. You're surrounded by a residential neighborhood. If you feel it was unsafe, shouldn't you have hired an arborist because you don't know trees at that time to prevent all this, and the question was asked by one of my Commissioners, are you going to pursue in building this out. And, you know, over here is all residents, live here in Hilo, wherever the live, and they fear for like oh, it's going to be on sale, who going do `em now? What going happen? So, to me, with that honor in your heart that you wanted to do a development, you should hang onto this property until you cannot. When you put things on the market, it's like you're letting it go. If you need partners, you gotta seek partners, but to get you this far, Mr. Tai, obviously, for me, you haven't spent enough time on this property to really look and assess encroaching trees going over somebody else's property. That's what got you here in my honest opinion, because the surrounding, you know, neighbors, maybe there's leaves flying in their gutter. Clogging their gutter. I don't know. It's only based on assumption, but my question to you, how much time have you spent on this property or maintaining your property, because you are surrounded by neighbors? That's my question. TAI: Okay, I think I can answer the question. It is just common sense to me. Yes, I own the property. I don't live here, and I know very little about trees. I see trees, okay, I like the trees. They are tall trees. I love tall trees. Now, the only way I know that these trees are presenting problems to the neighbors, if they inform me or if the trees actually damage their property, all right? Otherwise, I wouldn't know. So far, only two neighbors is in contact with me, Ann and Charlene. No one else. Now, if no one told me, how would I know? You said how much time I spend on the property? Not much, but even if I spend time, I wouldn't know, because I don't know about trees. If there are complaints, I would know, okay? So far, there's two situations, two neighbors contacted me. There's one case, I forgot the name again, the tree actually damaged one of the shacks that I informed the State Farm to repair. And, this is the question here, too. They said causing damage to dwelling; then if there is damage, why couldn't they file a claim? I have been urging Ann and Charlene to talk to the insurance company and so that we can work my insurance company, file claim, we get it done. We pay insurance, right? And, you want insurance companies to take care of these things, but to answer your question, yes, I didn't spend a lot of time there, and I didn't know anything about, anything about trees, but I would know if someone tells me so. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. Any other questions? EXHIBIT A 17 AGUINALDO: I'm good. Chair Rafpiy called a recess at 10:15 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:26 a.m. RAFFIPIY: The Windward Planning Commission is back in session. Thank you, Mr. Tai. You can take your seat. We're going to move into public testimony. [Chair Rafpiy tapped the gavel to call the meeting to order.] The Windward Planning Commission is back in session. Mr. Tai, thank you very much, you can take your seat. We're going to move into public testimony. We have six testifiers who signed up for, to testify on this item. I'd like to call up—if the following can come forward: Mr. Dwight Vicente, Mr. Wayne Deluz, Ms. Ann Toma, please come forward. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? DELUZ/A. TOMA: I do. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. Let the record show that Mr. Vicente is not sworn in. All right, we're going to start from my left to right. Please state your name, the area where you reside, who you represent, and proceed with your testimony, please. DELUZ: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, my name is Wayne Deluz. I represent the property—I have a property adjoining to Mr. Tai's. It is listed in the DPW June 21 ", 2019 correspondence to Mr. Tai, which I will reference very briefly, but DPW I think did an exceptional job on this report. It does list in detail what is wrong with these trees and where it encroaches. Even had really nice aerial photos of the breakdown. But, I'll be brief, I know which is hard because I'm Portuguese, but I did promise the Commissioners. But, I want to say good morning to all the Commissioners, Planning Director Yee, and all the wonderful staff. You know, I've served on several commissions, and I can't think of any one tougher than the one you guys serve on. So, really, I want to commend the Commissioners for a lot of your time and patience in going through a lot of these things that make it difficult. But, once again, my name is Wayne Deluz, and I am an unfortunate property owner that has a unit that borders to Mr. Tai's property, and it has been negatively affected by Mr. Tai's irresponsibility to maintain his overbearing tree line. I do not reside at this property, but have owned and managed it for over 17 years, and I just love and respect the wonderful neighborhood there, and so have my tenants. We own and operate numerous residential and commercial properties throughout the Big Island, and respect all our surrounding owners, and I think as mentioned earlier by Commissioner Aguinaldo that—what it really comes down to here is what is a good neighbor. You know, we shouldn't be sitting here taking up valuable time and having DPW going out and making assessments is, I've always found as a property owner, that I personally pass out my business cards and talk to the property owners and ask them what can we do to improve it or what's the problem and work it out because I don't believe that that needs to go to the extent of where we stand now. The question was, I don't occupy my properties either, but I do check on them, and I check with the neighbors. EXHIBIT A 18 They are the neighbors have united. This is how close this area is, this subdivision. These people are they live there, I respect them, they respect me, I do as they ask, and I've always done it that way. I've had chicken problems, dog problems, they're all gone, yeah, because they asked me to remove `em, and I let the tenants know that this is to be a good neighbor. And, I think that's the key here is what is a good neighbor? You know, Mr. Tai is very disrespectful of his neighbors, and at best, uses a band-aid approach to fixing it, as he had proved just two days ago by clipping, not cutting down these dangerous trees and removing the roots that have grown into our properties. I think his testimony of I don't know trees—well, these trees are falling, all right? These trees are overbearing, their roots are going under our houses through the rock wall, so I don't know what more you need to see about a tree, right? And, this has been going on for years, yeah. He disregarded the condition of the rezoning, shows contempt in his compliance of the Planning Department in addition to the Department of Public Works. He is deceptive on his true intention on developing on the property by not following through on his promise to build, rather profit by the rezoning, which brings me to summarize that my testimony today that I strongly agree with Planning Director Yee's rezoning of this TMK: 2- 4:028:009. I want to thank him and his staff for bringing this action, to make this a better neighborhood, and its consistent with the zoning, current zoning of this neighborhood. Thank you, Commissioners, for your service, and I pray that the wrong that has been done can be corrected and set a positive precedence for our Big Island. And, please do not allow any deferment on this pressing issue. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Mr. Deluz. Ms. Toma? A. TOMA: Okay, my name is Ann Toma, and I live at 44 Hale Nani Street. I've lived there for 40+ years. Most of our neighbors are elderly, so they are not going to come out and say anything. In fact, I first encountered Mr. Tai when he first applied for zoning changes for this property. Of course, we were not happy with it. We tried but were not able to convince the Council or Planning Department about what the residents would likely go through should the affordable units be built. Mr. Tai convincingly said he wanted to be a good neighbor and listen to our complaints should any arise. September 5h, 2016, was the first time I contacted him regarding the tall trees, these trees are abutting our property and the potential of it falling and landing on our home. His response? He's not responsible for any damage caused to our home and that I should speak with my attorney and insurance company, and whenever I emailed him, that's the thing I got back. Contact your attorney; contact your insurance company. I did say we'll see what happens when the time comes. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Tai's thoughts are always about money and nothing about the welfare of the long-time residents in the neighborhood. Our homes are our greatest asset, and of course, we want to take care of it. However, why should I have to initiate and pay for cutting of trees that are not on my property? Whenever there was an approaching hurricane or tropical storm, I would never stay in the family room for fear that one of the trees would fall. This is the reason why I continue to email Mr. Tai. He is response always came back, "contact your attorney and insurance company." Once he stated he would consider, well, he was willing to work with us to come up with the solution regarding the cutting or trimming of the trees. However, of course, we would have to pay a portion of the cost. My thinking is why do I have to pay a penny towards cutting a tree down or trees down that does not belong to me. EXHIBIT A 19 The leaves and branches are causing havoc for our home, to our home. Today, I need to put out all my laundry today, I need to put all of my laundry into the dryer even if it's hung out to dry because of the residue that has fallen onto my laundry. The leaves are falling and cluttering our gutters. Periodically, Roy has to climb the ladder to clean it out. More so, when it rains since there is more potential of something happening if the gutters are clogged. As seniors, well Roy is 80 years old, he has had bilateral knee replacement, our balance is not good. And, it gets worse as we get older. But, it has to be done or we end up facing potentially worse consequences. Recently, a branch fell onto our property landing approximately five feet from our home. Mr. Tai, you once said you wanted to be a good neighbor. Do you really say it's neighborly for putting us through all of this misery these past years? I am truly afraid of what will happen if the affordable housing is built especially with the maintenance of the property. I really believe that all of your thoughts are about money. Comfort and safety of the surrounding neighbors are secondary or not even thought of. For Roy and I, our greatest asset is our home. We do want it maintained and not have to worry about potential harm due to negligence. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Ms. Toma. Mr. Vicente? VICENTE: Good morning, my name is Dwight Vicente representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. I hear people once say a Federal law, State law, County law well, Federal law does not apply to this Kingdom. State law if you look at the history, the Admission Act, Section IV, limited to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. That's 1,750,000 acres, and the County Charter says the whole island is the County which is not true. You cannot be greater than the fake State of Hawaii. So, the County, the State is limited to the 1,750,000 acres called Hawaiian Home Lands, which was illegally ceded in 1898 by the banana Republic of Hawaii to the US. These lands did not have lease contract at the time. The leases was to end in 1915, and the, all this is resting upon the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty, which King Kalakaua and the US President did not sign. It does not fall under Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution Treaty. This Reciprocity Treaty would have placed this Kingdom under the protectorate status under Article IV, Section III, Clause II of the US Constitution. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 and 2 is limited to Article V of the Northwest Ordinance. For those that don't know, it's the Ohio River Valley, and that was Indian lands that the United States was trying to steal from the Indians by going to war with the Indians. This is why we have the Indian Wars, and in 1898, you have the Spanish-American War that brought about the reciprocityI mean, the ceding of 1,750,000 acres. This Kingdom was not a party to the war, the Spanish-American War. The Spanish- American War consists of Cuba and the United States bought the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico for $7 million, and it became unincorporated territories under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. The other ones is the these guys who claim to own these lands do not own them. It still belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom and falls under the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Hawaiian Kingdom, you don't own land, these lands have native tenant rights and political EXHIBIT A 20 rights to `em. Now a foreigner cannot come in here and claim that you own lands. Treaties all ended in 1897 for the other countries and for the US, the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty is what I call the treaty that never was. And, I hear about developing for low-income housing. Have any of you seen the show "Sugar Cane Fields of Dreams?" Build it and the illegal aliens will come. That's all that's been happening. Hawaiian Homes has over 26,000 on the list of tears. They're still waiting. For the Indians, it was called "Trails of Tears." Hawaiian Homes is "List of Tears." It would also act as an Indian removal act. It's based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Mr. Vicente. Do we have any questions for the testifiers from the Commissioners? No questions? Thank you. I'll call up the next testifiers: Roy Toma, Charlene Nishida, Robert K. Lee. Please come forward. R. TOMA (in front of the Commission table): Excuse me, before I testify, I'd like to give you some of the [inaudible]. [Mr. Toma passed out photographs to the Commission.] Am I first in? HALL: Anywhere— RAFFIPIY: Anywhere, anywhere you'd like to sit. All right, will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. We're going to start from my left going down. Please state your name, where you reside LEE: —Yeah, my name is Robert Lee. I've lived at 73 Hale Nani Street since 2002. I attended the December 18'', 2013 Planning Department community meeting to express my concerns regarding the rezoning of Mr. Tai's property. At that meeting, Mr. Tai reassured me and others that our concerns as neighbors were understood, and that he would address them. He actually stated that he wanted to be a good neighbor. History has shown that he does not care about his neighbors' concerns for safety, and that he simply chooses to ignore them. Of particular note, is his failure to maintain the abundant amount of large trees on his property despite many and repeated requests to limit their intrusion on adjacent properties. Only this week, and after many complaints and requests, have some of the trees finally been trimmed. It would appear that this very belated response is motivated now only by the immediate threat of zoning reversal. Very clearly, Mr. Tai has not been a good neighbor. I strongly support a reversal of the property zoning to it's original RAFFIPIY: —Could you speak directly into the microphone, please? LEE: Oh, I'm sorry. Very clearly, Mr. Tai has not been a good neighbor. I strongly support a reversal of the property zoning to its original Residential 7.5. EXHIBIT A 21 RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Please go ahead. NISHIDA: My name is Charlene Nishida, and we own a home at 16 Hale Nani Place which is adjacent to Mr. Tai, and our property back in 2011 was one of the ones that had one of Mr. Tai's trees actually hit our property and cause property damage of which State Farm actually paid the claim, and I find it ironic that Mr. Tai referred to that property damage as being caused to a "shed" because it was actually my home. It fell on our porch and adjacent to the main bedroom, so I find offense in the fact that he can't even acknowledge the damage that has already been done. So, since 2011, we have, my husband and I have put in multiple requests to him in email, and are documented, requesting that his trees are a hazard and to have them maintained and removed. This [Ms. Nishida had a wood stump and two branches on the table] was cut, two of his trees which are monkeypod trees, are overhanging our home, actually over our home, and this was one of the branches that was removed on Monday. That was over our home. So, these are not trees that are on his property solely. They are overhanging into the neighboring properties. This right here weighs about 25 pounds, and this is only one small sliver of a branch that was hanging over at my home, not my shed. These branches, they show decay. There is worm rot in them. These are branches that came from the pruning that was done that landed in our yard. In 2014, we, many of us neighbors, we attended the Planning Commission's recommended community meeting, and at that time, this is on February 41h, 2014, Mr. Tai states that he will preserve the already extensive growth of vegetation and trees along the property lines, but this growth is overgrown weeds and not a planned landscaped design. In fact, that the trees he is referring have caused previous property damage to our home when one fell on our roof above the porch and main bedroom. These trees are non-native, they are invasive, rapid growing, which requires reoccurring trimming, and these concerns are not addressed in Mr. Tai's proposed development, and if you look on his proposed development, there aren't any trees even on there. So, these problems have been in existence going back to 2011. We have multiple documentation that where he had that has been previously presented to the Planning Commission on November 20'', 2013, in an 8 -page letter to property owners within 300 feet of his. He states, "As you know, there are existing heavy growth of vegetation and mature trees next to the existing stone walls at the property lines... Some of these [those] trees and vegetation will be removed and some will stay .... A landscape plan will be submitted for plan approval in due course." I have three pages of testimony that is in writing that he has stated over and over again, another incident on May 15, 2017, in an email. Mr. Tai states he is not responsible for maintaining his trees and for us to consult an attorney to address the problem. He goes on to say that we do not have permission to enter his property. Again, on March 15, 2017, on April 16, 2019, again he said there was no provision regarding property maintenance particularly tree branches extending over the fence and into neighboring properties. That is a neighbor's responsibility to remove as they wish. The Toma's are in their eighties, and they're having to climb up ladders. I don't understand the insanity of it, but what I do know is that this has been a consistent behavior that has been going on back to 2011. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Ms. Nishida. Mr. Toma? EXHIBIT A 22 R. TOMA: Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for your time. The night of January 13, when we had that heavy rain, 14, my wife heard a big crash, so the next day I went out, and I saw this branch five feet from my house, almost got damaged. So, I cut it, threw it back in his property, and if you look at one of the pictures, you can see all the debris. So, every time, I go work in my backyard, I gotta look up and make sure that there is no dead branch going to fall on me. I gotta worry for my safety and safety of my wife when she goes and hangs her clothes. There's a huge tree between—it's on, closer to the neighbor, and every time I look up, when I go there, I gotta look up, and make sure that nothing is going to fall in our area. So, anyway, my name is Roy Toma, and I live on 44 Hale Nani Street, which is bordered to Mr. Tai's property. I am one of the original property owners. Mr. Tai is not a good neighbor. I give my thanks to the Department of Public Works for a job, thorough job in identifying the tall dangerous trees. I need to constantly climb my 8 -foot ladder. I need to clean up the gutters of leaves, seeds, small branches. I'm only 80 years old. Whenever I do yardwork, like I said, I worry for my safety and for the safety of my family. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from the Commission? No questions? NISHIDA: Can I make one small little additional note? RAFFIPIY: Go ahead, ma'am. NISHIDA: Mr. Tai's property is adjacent, as you've seen on the map to three actually different subdivisions. The notices of violation that he has received so far don't include all of the adjoining properties. It only is a handful of them, and so, our position is that he's received two notices of violations that have affected about ten properties, but his whole entire property is a noticeI mean is a problem. And so, what he has, what he has done so far is not addressing his whole entire property, and in fact, the trimming that he's done, he only hired Backyard Monkey to cut and to trim in place, meaning that we have now eight- to ten -foot piles of debris adjacent to our boundaries along the whole entire property line, which is, you know, a potential hazard for projectiles. So, there is, this is not something that is going to remedied anytime soon, so I just wanted to be on record about that. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. R. TOMA: Oh, can I say something else, too? RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. R. TOMA: We've been very lucky in Hilo, for example, and our homes, too, with those tall trees through hurricanes, high winds. We haven't had that yet, so although he's done, he is doing trimming now for the last couple days, and that's it, it's piecemeal. You know, there's that's all I can say, is piecemeal. Thank you. EXHIBIT A 23 REPLOGLE: Thank you. I would like to just say that the eight- to ten -foot piles of branches and rubbish will eventually present another threat, and that's fire. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. You may take your seat. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this item? If none, I need a motion to close public testimony. REPLOGLE: I move that we close public testimony. CLARKSON: Second. RAFFIPIY: It's been moved and seconded that we close public testimony. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. RAFFIPIY: Any opposed, nay? Motion carried. Now, I need a motion for action on this item. REPLOGLE: I move that we have a favorable recommendation to the Planning Director's initiated Vincent Tai REZ 13-[0]00167 be adopted. RAFFIPIY: Any second? CLARKSON: I'll second. RAFFIPIY: It's been moved and seconded that this item be a favorable recommendation. All those in favor say "aye?" COMMISSIONERS: Aye. RAFFIPIY: Oh, excuse me. Any discussion on this matter at this time. CLARKSON: Yes, I'd like to explain my second. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. CLARKSON: But, I'll defer to my, Mr. Replogle if you wish to go first. REPLOGLE: No, please do. CLARKSON: My reason for recommending that the County Council revisit this is that apparently there has been significant change in financial circumstances all around and that the Planning Director who has been intimately involved with this believes that the original zoning or at least as it exists now is a mistake, and I'd like to give the County Council a chance to revisit that and if they choose to maintain the existing zoning, put additional conditions on it that would hopefully make Mr. Tai or whoever succeeds him do a good job in developing the property. REPLOGLE: I would EXHIBIT A 24 RAFFIPIY: —Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Replogle. REPLOGLE: I would say my decision was based on the fact that this rezoning has been 15 years in the process to get to where we are today, and that the vegetation growth, these big trees, that didn't happen in the last six months, and that Mr. Tai probably is looking at this as an investment versus sincerely doing a development and this happens a lot in Hawaii County as it is, and I think we need to hold developers' feet to the fire when they say they are going to do something, and they are given a time limit that they sincerely do that. They don't just sit on it and wait for economic times to present an opportunity and then sell. Anyway, that's why I support this taking it back to its original zoning, and I agree with the community. The zoning is appropriate for that community. Thank you. AU: Mr. Chair, I have a comment. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead, Mr. Au. AU: I do not support the motion, and let me explain why. I support the intention of the motion that the Planning Director has with the trees and all the issues that were stated by the public, but the main reason why I don't support the motion is because, you know, we have a housing crisis in the State of Hawaii. Just a couple of weeks ago, Governor Ige said that he wants to build 17,000 affordable units by the year 2030, and the only way he is going to achieve that is to have public-private partnerships like this. So, I support the intentions of the Planning Director, but I do not support the motion. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. Any other comments from the Commission? [Audience member raised her hand.] HALL: Oh, sorry. RAFFIPIY: Sorry, public testimony is already closed, ma'am. Okay, we'll proceed to our roll call vote. Maija, please poll the Commission. JACKSON: Okay, the motion is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council to rezone the property from RM -1.5 to RS -7.5. Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. EXHIBIT A 25 JACKSON: Commissioner Au? AU: No. JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Raffipiy. RAFFIPIY: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries five to one. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 10:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 26 EXHIBIT A