Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-16 Western United Life PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 16, 2004 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of WESTERN UNITED LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (REZ 03-023) was called to order at 11:30 a.m. in the County Building, BntmbhkqnnliQnnl1/0+25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Vice Chair Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT AND EXCUSED:Fred Galdones Bill GrahamFlorence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Patricia O'Toole, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 50 people from the public in attendance. WESTERN UNITED LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (REZ 03-023) Application for a Change of Zone for 171.504 acres from the Agri Neighborhood Commercial Î 40,000 square foot (CN-40), Single Family Residential Î 7,500 square foot and 10,000 square foot (RS-7.5 and RS-10) and Open (O) district to a Project District. The property is located on the west (mauka) side of the Komohana Street-Ponahawai Street intersection and makai of the Mohouli Street Extension, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-3-44:19, 2-3-49:53 and 2-3-37:1. FUJIKAWA: This an application for Western United Life Assurance Company, REZ 03-023. Application for a Change of Zone of 171.504 acres of Agricultural 1-acre (A- 0`(+MdhfganqgnncBnlldqbh`ki3/+000 square foot (CN-40), SimfkdE`lhkxQdrhcdmsh`ki 7,500 square foot and 10,000 square foot (RS-7.5 and RS-10) and Open (O) District to a Project District. Staff, proceed. Do you want five minutes? O'TOOLE:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Why don't we take a five-minute break. 1 HAYASHI:That would be great. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Let's take a five-minute break. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a short recess at 11:32 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:37 a.m. FUJIKAWA:Will the meeting of the Planning Commission please come back to order. Staff, you may proceed. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are you going to be reading the agenda item or do you want me to do that? FUJIKAWA:I did. I did. HAYASHI:Oh, you did? FUJIKAWA:Yeah. HAYASHI:Oh, I'm sorry. FUJIKAWA:You may go ahead and read it. HAYASHI:Okay. I'll refer to three of the maps on the board. First of all, this would be the overall site map. This is a portion of the map for the City of Hilo. This is Komohana Street running in the Puna direction. This would be Wainuenue Avenue and this would be Kamana Drive. The new Mohouli Extension runs in this general direction up towards `inak and hooking up with Kamana Drive. Ponahawai Street is located in this direction. The subject property is identified in this general configuration on this zoning map. The yellow shaded areas are lands that are currently zoned Single Family Residential, either 7,500 square foot zoning or 10,000 square foot zoning. We also have some 15,000 square foot zoned lands. The pink areas are areas that are currently zoned for Neighborhood Commercial. One of the pink shaded areas is part of the subject property. The brown areas are areas that are designated or zoned for Multiple Residential zoning. We also have some Open zoning, which is the darker green areas, and also the lighter shaded green areas are areas that are currently zoned Agricultural-1 acre. The Applicant is requesting that some of the existing zoned lands -, for the existing zoned lands on the subject property, which consists of Agriculture-1 acre, these light shaded areas, Neighborhood Commercial-40,000 square feet, Single Family Residential-7,500 square foot 2 areas, and the Open zoned area be rezoned to a Project District. The total land area is approximately 170+ acres. The Applicant plans to develop 600 -, up to 600 single family and/or multiple residential units within the area, and I'll refer to the site map that was presented by the Applicant. This particular project is being referred to as the University Terrace project, project district. The Applicant, as I indicated, would be -, is proposing 600 multiple or single family residential units, and these lands would be in this configuration. The yellow shaded areas are areas proposed for single family residential, and the -, single family residential, and the brown shaded areas are areas proposed for multiple residential units. The Applicant also intends to provide up to 150 transient accommodation units, and that would basically consist of approximately 10 acres. Within the pink shaded or orange shaded areas, the Applicant will be providing or will be constructing approximately -, up to 350,000 office or retail commercial spaces. The Applicant will also be providing an open area, and this is the current Alenaio Stream, and if you are familiar with the -, this particular area of Hilo, there is the Alenaio Stream channel that is located in this general configuration. The proposal is to build this project over a period of 10 years. The Applicant intends to commence construction in approximately year 05 and hopefully to complete build out by year 2014. Previously, this particular property received a use permit to allow the development of an 18- a hole golf course formerly referred to as the Ponhawai Golf Course. Since the Applicant intends to do this project district, they are also -, simultaneously requested that the use permit application be nullified, and that is a separate agenda to be heard after this particular request. We have received numerous letters from surrounding property owners, and I'll refer to -. First of all, I'll point out some of the affected subdivisions. One is the Sunrise Ridge Estates Subdivision, which abuts the subject property to the -, I believe this would be the south. And these properties are developed into 10,000 square foot size lots. We had also received a number of correspondences from individuals within the Sunrise Estate Subdivision, and the Sunrise Estate Subdivision is located in this general configuration and consists of one-acre size lots. The concerns that were expressed by those that submitted the letters on this petition cited that the density of the project is great. I believe they indicated that the project would consist of six to 10 acres, 10 units per acre. The Applicant, although not cited in the application itself, did inform the public or the communities that they would be able to -, or they would construct some of the structures up to 10 stories. Some of the applicants, I mean some of the adjoining property owners in their letter expressed concern regarding the additional height being not in 3 character with the surrounding properties. Okay. Finally, they also commented on the magnitude or the size of the proposed commercial development in this area. All of you had received the Planning Director's recommendation for approval with conditions, and I'd like to just point out some of the conditions that may be of public concern or may satisfy some of the public's concerns. First of all, as -, on Condition D of the Staff's proposed condition, we do state that the maximum number of units, including the transient accommodation units, would be 750. We also note under Condition K.2. that the height limit would be 45 feet for this particular project, and that would be the areas that are designated for Multiple Residential development. The areas within the Commercial area would be limited to a maximum height of 40 feet. Those areas designated for Single-Family residential would be limited to a height of 35 feet. We are also requiring that -, or recommending that this particular project provide underground utilities. The sewer, as noted in Condition M, would be required to be connected to the a County sewer system. There is an existing sewer line along Ponhawai Street. We are also requiring, as noted in Condition N, and also portion of Condition J, that aa Ponhawai Extension, Ponhawai Street Extension from Mohouli Street to Komohana Street be constructed within a 10-year period, or before issuance of any occupancy permit or certificate of occupancy for any structures on the property or before final subdivision approval of any residential subdivision, whichever occurs first. a Condition O also requires that only one access be provided from Ponhawai Street and Mohouli Street to the project area. The Applicant, based on this proposal, is identifying an a access, three accesses from Komohana Street. This would be the primary Ponhawai Street Extension. There is also another exit in this location as well as one across of the medical facilities in the close vicinity of Punahele Street. Also, based on the original proposal submitted by the Applicant, they also intended to utilize Wiliwili Street as a secondary access to the project site. We are also requiring that -, or recommending that a four-acre active neighborhood park be provided and that park shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any of the structures on the property, excuse me, for any multiple residential units or occupancy of any single family units on the project site, within the project site. The Applicant may dedicate the park site to the County or it would, it could remain in private ownership. Condition Z also requires that a drainage study be provided and that construction be done meeting with Department of Public Works approval. ` We are also requiring under Condition JJ, letters JJ, that Puu Honu Hill, the hill referred to as ` Puu Honu, be preserved. 4 And finally, although there are many more conditions recommended for approval, Condition KK states that a fair share contribution shall be provided relative to the -, for police, fire, solid waste, parks and road improvements. Are there any questions at this time? FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, to the Staff? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Norman, when you lay out the project for how it was anticipated to be built over there, it's clear, but our rezoning application is for a project district, so I'm just wondering what flexibility the developer has in the future to change around those uses and locations and what the public input process would be if that were to occur, that kind of thing. HAYASHI:Okay. As far as that, the Applicant, as one of the conditions of approval, and that is Condition H, would provide -, would have to provide a master plan, a detailed master plan of the project district to the Department for review and approval prior to proceeding. So once that is done, then that fixes the project location. GRAHAM:Right. HAYASHI:Or the various uses on the project. GRAHAM:But there's no further public input at that time, right? HAYASHI:Well, this is -, these would basically be administrative reviews and approval. GRAHAM:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question, Commissioners? No questions? If not, thanks, Norman. Will the Applicant or the Applicant's representative please step forward. Good morning, Virginia. Kindly raise your right hand, please. Do you affirm to tell the truth ` on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? GOLDSTEIN:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Could you state your name and your address. GOLDSTEIN:I'm Virginia Goldstein. My address is P.O. Box 1116, Volcano, ` Hawaii. I am the consultant and agent for the Applicant, Western United Life Insurance Company. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You may proceed. GOLDSTEIN:Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing us to provide testimony and further information. I have with me here today Stephen Yamashiro, who is the project 5 manager, and consultants Glenn Kimura from Kimura International, and they are our planners, and Jimmy Yamamoto with R.M. Towill, our project engineers, one of our project engineers, and also Bob Miyasato, here to respond to any kind of economic questions that you may have. And I'd like to call on Mr. Yamashiro at this point to provide a brief overview. FUJIKAWA:Okay, Mr. Yamashiro, come forward, please. Mr. Yamashiro, can you come up forward so I can swear you in. Oh, that's fine. Could you raise your right hand. To ` tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? YAMASHIRO:I do. FUJIKAWA:State your name and address. YAMASHIRO:Stephen K. Yamashiro, P. O. Box 626, Hilo 96721. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You may proceed. YAMASHIRO:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners. The University Terrace Project is planned as a mixed use community incorporating design concepts intended to promote a more livable pedestrian friendly community, and this is designed to enhance and ` support the growth of the educational complex surrounded around the University of Hawaii at Hilo. If we look at this map here, the project site is in here. This is the Mohouli Extension. The planned Federal Pacific Basin Agricultural Center is in this area, along with the U.S. Forestry Service. The balance of this parcel is designated for the community college. The University ` of Hawaii-Hilo occupies the land below Komohana, with the tech park in this area, and the ground facilities for all of the astronomy facilities. We are looking at an educational complex at grow-out would probably have seven to 10,000 people within their community. The project, as envisioned, will provide residential opportunities and service to support this population in a manner which will minimize the need to travel outside the community for goods, services, and entertainment. As presently zoned, the project has approximately 160 residential units, five acres of commercial, and 45 acres of open space. The proposed request will increase the impacts on the community and the developers are willing to pay their fair share of those impacts as a result of this project. It is important that the impacts be identified and the costs be determined so that all present and future developments pay their fair share. All improvements will be placed in the time that they are needed. We thank the Staff for their thorough review of the project, and I would, with the foregoing statement, would like to address some of the conditions that were stated. Condition C, the University Terrace Project shall consist of not more than 172 acres of single-family and multi- 6 family residential, and what we would suggest here is that the designation use the Zoning Code as either a Village Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial as opposed to Retail Commercial uses. This I think would clarify the intended uses of the area and make it clear as to what could be placed there. If there are any specific uses that the Department wants excluded, I think we can work that out and accommodate that. Same with regards to Condition G. G.3 and G.4. should be replaced with "All uses allowed as a matter of right in either the Village Commercial or the Neighborhood Commercial district." a Condition J deals with the construction of the Ponhawai Street Extension. If you look on this a map here, Ponhawai Street Extension is on the Facilities map of the General Plan, and it is -, connects with Mohouli in the area of the existing culverts or drainage structures which allow the Alenaio Stream storm waters to pass under the street. I think what we will have to do is a construct the mauka-makai road, the Ponhawai to Komohana, Komohana to Mohouli road, but this road alignment and scheduling should be negotiated with the Department of Public Works till we get exactly where that road is going to be and the time schedule for its a construction. If we use the Ponhawai Extension as the designation, we are identifying a road that is on the General Plan and which right now probably cannot be built the way it's connected into Mohouli. We would suggest that the condition should read that "The alignment and construction schedule a for the Ponhawai Street Extension from Komohana to Mohouli Street be mutually agreed to by the Department of Public Works. The improvements will be constructed or a surety bond issued assuring the complete construction of the roadway and shall be given to the County prior to the commencement of Phase I of the project." Under Condition K, a new d. would -, we would suggest where "The County Council, acting by resolution, may approve any structure, the construction of any structure which conforms to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code." a And the -, this deals again with the Ponhawai Street Extension, "shall be built to County dedicable standards. The location and design shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works." On Condition O, we would suggest that you eliminate the first sentence of that condition which a limits access to the project to -, from Komohana to only Ponhawai Street and just leave it that "The location and design of roadway accesses from Komohana Street shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works." And we ask that because there is a possibility of right turn in, right turn out accesses from the southern proposed access point. And looking at either signalizing, you have an intersection at this point already, and the Public Works comments seem to indicate they wanted to keep the nature of Komohana, so we're saying where that intersection would come onto Komohana, you already have an existing intersection and would create a tee intersection. But Public Works does have the right or ability to say no 7 if they so choose, but this gives them the ability to at least, to discuss that for traffic circulation within and around the project. Condition P, the present traffic study is an analysis of the project at full build out. A revised study of the impacts for the various phases will be given to the Department of Public Works, and we suggest the condition read that "The schedule for the construction of the following improvements and any credits due the developer for their construction shall be approved by the Department of Public Works." And this will allow the Department to determine which improvements they want constructed at which time and allow the Department also to consider there are several project improvements to roadways that were requested by the traffic study, even if the project was not done. There's substantial impact by the construction of the Saddle Road, that they anticipate the traffic on the Saddle Road going from somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 400 to 6,000 in the construction period. All of this is outside the project scope, not a result of what's happening on the project, so we would be able to coordinate with Public Works on the construction schedule and approvals. Condition X, we'd add a new sentence that "The cost of land and improvements shall be credited to the developer as part of their fair share contributions as set forth in Condition LL and Condition KK. The developer shall make a fair share contribution to the Department of education pursuant to a uniform policy adopted by the Board of Education and uniformly ` applied in the County of Hawaii." We don't have any objection to making a fair share contribution, but we think it should be pursuant to some kind of policy that is adopted by the Board of Education and uniformly applied, not an ad hoc condition. The way the condition reads now, it literally puts the project at the mercy of the Board of Education, and so they can ask for whatever they want and without regards to the reasonableness or the actual impact generated by the project. These basically are our comments. We think the rest of the conditions are things that we can live with and will surely help both the project and the community. Thank you very much for the opportunity, and I'll be available to answer questions or our consultants. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, do you have any questions with the Applicant's representative? Director, do you have any questions? Commissioner Springer, go ahead. SPRINGER:To the Applicant's representatives. We routinely address requests for time extensions to approve projects based on financial hardships. Can you discuss with us your reasons for financial optimism, anticipating the completion of the proposed project by 2014? FUJIKAWA:Mr. Yamashiro. YAMASHIRO:What we're looking at is the stated growth by the university for an ` additional 2,000 students just at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. We have met with the 8 university, and they indicated to us even at this point more than 400 students were turned away because of a lack of housing. We are also looking at the creation of the Mauna Kea education facility at the tech park, as well as the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. All of these projects seem to be coming together within the next few years, which will create a demand not only for housing but for services, and that is why the commercial area. If you would look at the present growth in the Hilo commercial area, most of our commercial area has gone south into the area of Puainako and Kanoelehua. Most of your food and retail is out in that direction. And Downtown Hilo, you have Sack and Save and a small KTA. We think the growth on the north side of Hilo, with the opening up of C. Brewer lands, has created an opportunity to create a commercial center catering to not only the nearby university but also to the population that is growing up north of Hilo. SPRINGER:Thank you. Can you repeat for me again the name of the agricultural -? YAMASHIRO:Pacific Basin, PBARC, Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. I understand it'll have about a hundred researchers plus related staff, and they will relocate all of the Federal Department of Agriculture research facilities for tropical agriculture to Hilo. U.S. Forestry Service is also intending to relocate with this facility. And then there's the hopeful growth of the community college, which has about 300 acres, like I said, right in -, the balance of this area, is designated for the community college so -. SPRINGER:Did I correctly hear that there's a federal component to this ag research center? YAMASHIRO:It is a federal -, it is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it's not the state. And the forestry service is also the U.S. Forestry Service. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? Director Yuen. YUEN:Do you have that list of proposed changes to the conditions in writing that I can review it during the meeting? YAMASHIRO:Sure. YUEN:That would assist in making response to this. Just in -, and just as a comment to the previous question about the timing, our recommendation doesn't have a time frame for the completion of the project, it does have a time frame for the commencement of the project and the building of the Puainako Extension, which would be the major infrastructure cost involved. For a long term large project to say, to give a time frame for the completion is a little difficult because say your time frame ends and the project is 80 percent built, then to say that well, the time is now up, there's no, really no good reason for saying that at that, at a point 10 to 20 years in the future to say that the time frame is up. At 9 the same time, we don't want to have something on the books that doesn't get started and has, was presented at an earlier time and never gets built and then is just sitting there with live zoning while conditions may change all the way around it. So that's why the time frame that's proposed only involves beginning the project, finishing the major infrastructure, and doesn't have an ultimate deadline for constructing homes or commercial buildings within the project. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? YAMASHIRO:Would you give the Director a copy. FUJIKAWA:You can hand it over to Staff. No other questions? We do have 10 people signed up to testify on this application. Virginia, you may sit in the back there; no problem. Thank you. Yeah, just to remind you all that we're going to be breaking for lunch at 1:00 p.m., so we're going to take say about 10 minutes to one, I'll make an announcement on that then go to lunch. Okay, we have one, two, three, three chairs. Norm, is that all we got, three seats? Being that we got three seats, will Cheryl Reis, Francis Woo, and Wally Wilson please step forward. We got four seats now, Paul Supp. Okay. Would the four of you please raise your right hand. ` Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. And as I call your name, please state your name and your address. We'll start with Cheryl. REIS:Cheryl Reis, address 65 Punahele Street in Hilo. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed with your statement. REIS:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission. I'd like to thank you first of all for the opportunity to comment on this project. I, along with 50 or more neighbors from Lower Kamana and Punahele-Komohana areas attended two informational meetings, one in October and the other in December of 2003. Both meetings were conducted by Ms. Virginia Goldstein and developer representative Mr. Mike Teramoto. In the first meeting, we were told that a maximum of 300 single family homes and 150 transient units, green space, and 350,000 square feet of commercial space were planned for the subject area. Mr. Teramoto elaborated on how Western had developed several projects on `` Kauai and Oahu, all of them upscale. Someone alluded to Steve Yamashiro's comment of a minimum of 300 family units in the Sunrise Ridge and Estates meetings that had preceded our meeting. 10 When questioned on the details of infrastructure plans for the development and the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, Mr. Teramoto stated that sewage lines would probably merge with those on Punahele Street, and now I see that they are talking about Ponahawai, and that adequate dry wells and other drainage mechanisms would be in place to prevent adverse effects to the adjoining areas below the project site. There were tentative discussions on their ingress-egress proposals, particularly a signalized ` intersection meeting Puuhonu Way at Komohana, and now I see that that also has been addressed, and another possibly meeting Wiliwili Street in Lower Kamana. We also discussed several Hawaiian hawks which lived in the proposed development area. These hawks are endangered and have been there and were probably joined by another family a of hawks that had lived in the area between Punahele and the original Ponhawai Medical Buildings that were driven out by construction in that area. These birds and their offspring are ` enjoyed a lot -, by a lot of us in their daily cruising over thelai and the project areas. During the second meeting we were in informed that a maximum of 600 single family homes were planned. A few home owners from Sunrise Estates were also in attendance and stated that Steve Yamashiro had said a minimum of 600 homes were planned. Mr. Teramoto then informed us on matters of drainage, traffic, etcetera, previously questioned, were again discussed, that his company would provide minimal infrastructure and allow the subdevelopers to refine the specific needs of their own projects. He further stated that his company was seeking a blanket type variance on the project that would encompass a maximum, the maximum allowable number of structures and 10-story building heights and probably take around 10 years to complete. Most of us left the second meeting with as many questions, if not more, as the first meeting, and a deepening sense of frustration. It doesn't appear that the developer group has any real plan on how they will address this huge project and its adverse impact on all the surrounding areas. There is no real plan presented on the traffic impact to an already congested area. Most of us on Komohana and Kamana had a short respite from the noise, exhaust fumes, and lines of cars when Mohouli Extension opened. With the project's proposal to establish a link a with Wiliwili and Ponhawai Extension link to Mohouli Extension, traffic impacts would be considerably, considerable to the relatively quiet neighborhoods. There is no real plan on water diversion and containment because the developers are unfamiliar with the amount of water and its flow through the terrain. And this was evident when we asked them questions about how they wanted to do things. We got the usual proposed drywells and containment, and these are of little comfort to us who live below Komohana since we have development at our backs with the surgery center and we could also be adversely affected by a domino effect when it adversely affects those projects. As one of four families who have a development directly against our backyard, I can tell that developers will say one thing to secure your support for their project and then do what is 11 financially expedient for their project, even if it compromises what they originally guaranteed you. Additionally, the final County Council approval and conditions are not a guarantee that all of the conditions will be followed and enforced. For all the residents of Punahele and Lower Kamana, the noise from vehicles, noise, car and burglar alarms, traffic in daily or night lives of the transient town house residents will seriously impact the lifestyle which most of us one time homeowners have paid into for a long time. Mr. Teramoto states that the project is high end, and undesirables will be kept out because the units will be priced too high for them to afford. It might be true if Mr. Teramoto's group retained ownership and control over the buildings, but as he stated in the second meeting, the subdevelopers will be responsible for the specifics since Western is only interested in doing the basic, minimum infrastructure and selling the properties to subdevelopers, equaling no control, no guarantees for what we want. Shoppers, though transient, will add to the general noise, congestion, and aggravation to where we live. Lights for these parking lots, security checks, and other attendant business functions like building burglar alarms that go off in the dead of night when there are power failures, malfunctions and maybe even sometimes when a burglar actually enters a building. I am not anti-responsible development when the developer listens and hears and acts in genuine consideration of the neighbors, human and animal, whose lives he impacts. Members of the Commission, there is no real plan in this project and, therefore, I oppose approval of the carte blanche plan proposed. I further ask that the Commission require the developer to one, familiarize themselves with the area so that we are comfortable that their plans are realistic. Address concretely and completely the issues on noise, drainage, sewage, traffic, impact on the Hawaiian hawk, etcetera that we raised in our meetings. Discuss the solutions and combine the meetings with all the affected areas so that we hear one story, not conflicting information. And then appear before the Commission with a real plan for discussion. More importantly, that the Commission not give blanket approval to the project and require that each -, and that you require each subdeveloper to be, to submit their individual plans for consideration and approval, using community informational meetings and Commission hearings as we're doing now. In a 10-year project, a lot of demographics, geographics, etcetera, can change and harmful effects are almost a given. The project is unacceptable and inappropriate, and I ask that you consider all that you heard today and will hear and reject this plan. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions on this testifier? Commissioner Springer, go ahead. 12 SPRINGER:Regarding the Hawaiian hawk, you've observed birds on the proposed development parcel? REIS:They come from that area, they fly up there. They fly around that area. ` They come down to Hlai Hill in their search for food and along around by Rainbow Falls and Pnwai Street. SPRINGER:Have you observed -? REIS:And they go back up there. SPRINGER:Have you observed any nests or nesting behavior? REIS:No, it's still too tangled in there, but they do fly into the trees there. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other question? If not, thank you. Francis, state your name and -, full name and your address, please. Your full name and address. ` WOO:My name is Francis Woo, and my address is 327 Ohukea Street, Sunrise Subdivision No. 1. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. Go ahead. WOO:Well, before I go ahead, I just want to comment on two phases and let many other phases, we have other experts willing to testify. I'm a licensed civil engineer and a licensed public health engineer or sanitary engineer. I have a masters degree, a masters in public health, and I've been with the Health Department for almost 29 years, and the Board of Water Supply in Honolulu for one year. I was sent up here to be Chief Sanitary Engineer for the Health Department for nine years, and we -, usually the Department have a health officer, but we couldn't -, the Department couldn't find any qualified. So I had to take over as the acting health officer for three years without pay. By the way, when I joined the Board of Water Supply, I only received $100 a month salary. That was during the Great Depression years. I only heard about this thing just a few weeks ago. As I'm 94 years old, I had to go down, I had an emergency operation in Honolulu. They had to bore a hole through my skull because I had hemorrhage and drain. And because of that, anytime you play around with your brain, you have side effects, so if I speak incoherently at times, or I break in my speech, please excuse me and have a little patience. 13 I looked through the announcement that we have. I haven't seen these maps until today. It was such a generalized report to the land. By the way, I'm a landowner right next to the Alenaio Stream. And we couldn't get enough information, I couldn't get enough information to make a really honest decision. You have such a big -, they have such big development there with housing. What are they doing? What are they proposing to take care of the human waste? Are they going to build a treatment plant or hook up to the County sewer system? Now they say they will tie up to the County sewer system. Did they really have a written statement from the County sewer system that they will take, pick up all the sewage? It's a great volume of sewage. Or they will change and let -, try to get the public and the County to build that? I don't think so, because in my experience in Honolulu, the developer put in all the infrastructure, including water and sewage. And that question is a little moot when I read it because I don't think the County presently set up can handle all the sewage that's coming out from the development, far from it. ` When I -, when Henry Kaiser developed Hawaii Kai, and it's a much big development, it's a city by itself, some of the people want to use the cesspool and I said no way, so I had many meetings with Mr. Kaiser himself to build a treatment plant. And Mr. Kaiser were very fair minded, and he did build a treatment plant, a private treatment plant, not donated to the County, and it still exists today. Well, cesspool is out of the way. There's a law on the books that prevent cesspool because it's just a hole in the ground and the sewage just seeps down into the water table and contaminates the drinking water for the people. So I can't endorse, can't recommend that they do that. And the second thing is where are they getting their potable water? They also state they will hook up with the County. I think we should have a written statement from the County to the developer saying that they will do that. I haven't seen anything to that effect. And this is why I'm against this development. My home is right next to the Alenaio Stream that two years ago flooded our neighborhood, and thanks for the County Fire Department, they pulled my wife and I out with ropes because my house was ready to go. And are they draining all the drainage down into that same stream, even though they built a new bridge? They took 5,555 square feet out of my lot. I don't think they can bear another 100-year flood. They must divert it somewhere else. And that problem has not arisen in the proposal. So people think because of my age I kind of lose my mind, but no, I don't have Alzheimer's disease, and the doctor says I can probably live up to 100, and I'm waiting for the period to see if they will finish the development in that period. Thank you very much. FUJIKAWA:Thank you, Mr. Woo. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier, Mr. Woo? Okay, none. Wally Wilson, please state your name and your address, please. 14 ` WILSON:My name is Wally Wilson. I live at 337 Ohukea Street in Sunrise Ridge. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. WILSON:I am here as a concerned homeowner and also as representative of Sunrise Ridge. I'm president of the homeowners association. FUJIKAWA:Okay. WILSON:We are not in favor of this development, as proposed. We have sent a letter -, excuse me, we have sent a letter to the Planning Commission outlining the problems we have with the development. I will just highlight them. One, we understand that there's -, it's up for approval for 10-story buildings. We don't believe 10-story buildings in that area would be good for the entire city of Hilo. The surrounding area seems to be all two-story buildings, and we would ask the Commission to require the minimum height to be two stories. And we also feel that it's a very high density project, and we don't think that's good for Hilo. It will be a lot of traffic, a lot of commotion, congestion. And we are also concerned about the hawk that lives up there. We support that situation that this lady brought up. And I'm missing something, but I can't remember. Anyway, all these things are in our letter to you. We are not supportive of this, and we hope that you will not approve it as designed. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Any questions, Commissioners, with Mr. Wilson? If not, go ahead, Paul -. WILSON:Oh, excuse me. FUJIKAWA:State your name. WILSON:Excuse me, can I make one more point? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Wally. Our subdivision is made up of 10,000 square foot lots, and we fe WILSON: right, and we would hope that if the development does proceed over there, that things would be limited to single family 10,000 square foot lots. We think that would be much better than as proposed. Thank you. 15 FUJIKAWA:Thank you for your testimony. Paul, go ahead with your testi -. State your name and address. SUPP:Aloha, my name is Paul Patrick W. Supp. My address is 427 Street. I'm a resident of the Sunrise Estates Subdivision. I've been one of the residents of Sunrise Estates Subdivision that has attended the majority of the meetings that the developer has held for the entire community areas that they have talked to. I do want to personally thank the developers for including our subdivision and inviting us to attend their informational meetings. We are not in the required mailing area. They, therefore, did not have to notify us and they did. My concerns are many, but I'll address just a few of them. First of all, from the conception, from the first meeting that we, that I attended to the very last meeting that I attended with the developers, there has been a major change in a lot of the different points. A lot of the changes have been reactionary changes to concerns from the community. Access of roads. I personally have got a major concern that the Planning Department is recommending to the Planning Commission and to the developers that Ponahawai Street's the only major road in the subdivision that -, in that development area, that there's only going to be one way basically in and one way out. There had been talk of connecting into Wiliwili Street. The Punahele area people and the Lower Kamana and Crescent City area people felt they didn't want extra traffic through their area. So the developers stated at one of the meetings that, well, they might make a street abutting the Wiliwili in the development area and they'd put poles in the streets so it wouldn't be for through traffic but it would be available to the emergency vehicles if they needed to come through. The emergency vehicles could come to a dead stop and somebody would get out and take these poles out, similar to some of the ` poles we've got down on Bayfront area. As a resident of East Hawaii for 25 years, I'm really concerned that if we do that, if that's allowed in any plan of development that comes down the road in this project, the liability exposure to the County. As a resident of the County, I'm concerned about that, that if an emergency vehicle would have to stop for any reason at all on a street, that they are told they can take things out, and a house burns down or somebody dies or the police have a -, you know, somebody gets murdered, they are, you know, responding to something, that that's a potential liability issue that I think we all have to look at. Very concerned with the density, the increase in traffic, the increase on the strain on our Police Department, our Fire Department, and our Emergency Service Department. The developers have stated at different meetings that those departments have basically kind of signed off on the project, including Civil Defense. And a concern -, I was a resident in Sunrise Estates. My property backs to the stream with the flood canal behind it, and in the 2000 flood, back of my property line there's a nine-foot, approximately nine-foot high stone wall with a cyclone fence on the back of it. The water came within two inches of overflowing that back part of the stream in the 2000 flood that got the lower part of Sunrise Ridge. In the area on the map, the dark green area that we've been 16 told is approximately 49 acres that's going to be kept open for green space, possibly jogging and biking areas with, and I do stress this, it's been told to us, with possible future development but currently they're looking at keeping it open, that's the current flood area. We've asked, I've asked specifically a couple of times, and I asked of the representative that came over from Honolulu for one of the meetings, what flood plan were they working with, because my understanding, and I may be wrong, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not completed the study that they started after the 2000 storm. And my big concern would be that this is sent on to the County Council with this Commission's approval without the most accurate flood plain plan available. If you look at the area where they're talking of developing residential homes above the flood plain, the flood plan area, once you start putting asphalt i for streets and building sites in and you start taking away the drainage area, got a major concern of where that run-off, the added run-off coming into the stream would be immediately there and then down below the Sunrise Ridge Subdivision to the lower part of town. I've got a extreme concern with the statement that was made of the possibility of a 10-foot -, story commercial development on the site. Now I do -, I listen to the comments that there's going to be height limits requirements of 45 feet, 40 feet for commercial, and 35 feet for residential. In a bizarre scenario, they're talking of possibly doing 350,000 square feet of commercial space. Now if that commercial space at 350,000 square feet, if some future developer wants to spend the money, they could put that amount of space up to 40 feet high. That would be probably four stories, I don't know, maybe only three, they might only be able to get away with three, but they could literally go up that way if the approval to go from the size of commercial development that it's currently zoned at to this area, and all it would take would be a developer with money. A personal concern that I've got, and it's been expressed by a lot of residents in my subdivision and in the Sunrise Ridge Subdivision and in Crescent City and Punahele and Lower Kamana, is the fact that the current owners and the developers, they do not have a definite development plan for actually doing this. They would like to get the zoning changes done. They want to get it changed from Ag-1 with some, and I'm not even sure how many existing RS-7.5 areas are approved on it or -, and it says there's currently one acre of RS-10, which is 10,000 square foot, but they want to change it, get the approval for the zoning to happen. It has been stated that the current owners may do the commercial development, but they're not really even sure about that. We, in the community and, personally, I've never seen anything other than this is what they'd like to do but there's no plans. I've asked if they're going to try to get, or if the County would allow zero lot line development, which has happened on the `` Ewa plain of Oahu, where you have back-to-back properties so that the green space is on the outside. You can get a whole lot of people into a small area of development if you do it that -, if that way's done. There's a concern about that. It has been stated by a representative of the development team at one meeting that they were looking at a minimum of 600 residential units. I don't know if it's going to be a minimum or maximum now, but I'm concerned of the density, and I go, I'll go back to that of the traffic, the impact on the schools, just general air pollution change. 17 I was the one that brought up at the meeting about the Hawaiian hawk. I watch the hawk that - , one of the families that fly from that area and they come and they stay in the tops of the `` hia trees on my property because I kept a lot of trees. But they don't nest there. They fly back and they head back to the site. I have not actually seen where their nest is. I would guess that it's probably on the cinder cone, because that's the highest point on that property and there are large trees up there and there are no way for other predators to get up to the nest. And by being at the high point, they also have the best advantage to protect their small hawks, I don't know the correct name for a baby hawk, but the baby hawks when they're in the nest. I am glad to see that the Planning Director and the Planning Department said that the cinder cone area should be saved. At one of the meetings, and I believe it was with the Punahele/Crescent City group -, people, there was a gentleman there, and I forget his name, he mentioned something. He's grown -. I've only lived here for 25 years, so I don't have a long family history of stories, but I've heard it from friends, and this gentleman mentioned that he had heard as a young child and growing up that there were actual burial sites on portions of that area, and particularly in the area where the cinder cone area is. I don't know if that's accurate or not. I'm glad archaeological reports are going to have to be done. But I think these should be done or more definitive, and maybe they are, but when the community is asked what information's been gotten on it, we've been told they really haven't been completed yet or haven't been done. Before a blanket approval to change this zoning, and the majority of it is Ag-1A, to this Urban Village high density development which is -. It has been done on this u Island, and it was mentioned by the developer's representative that it was done over at Hallai because they needed to be able to quickly react to problems in the development phase. Well, Huallai is probably the most expensive residential development area and resort area that's been developed on this Island ever, and this project is not with -, in the same classification, from what we've heard. I have a concern that there's no real addressing affordable housing in this whole plan. We've asked that question. I'm concerned because the County has -, we've got a shortage of all ` house inventory in East Hawaii right now, it's really a tight market, but affordable housing, which has got to be affordable for the general public. And it has been mentioned that maybe they would look at -, you know, so it could be affordable for starting teachers and starting policemen and start -, you know, new people coming into the work force. It's got to be affordable housing in the general concept of what affordable housing is, and it doesn't seem to be, it's not being currently addressed in this plan. And I would like somebody, if the Planning Commission knows or if Mr. Yuen knows, actually, what's the exact acreage that they're planning to build on for the residential and the transient housing? Because when you start cutting out -, the cinder cone's going to be protected; how many acres is that? The flood plain is approximately 49-plus acres for that. Ten acres was mentioned for the 150 transient vacation units that they're talking, or short term rental units, but how many actual acres are being planned to put residential development on? 18 And I would strongly ask the Commission to consider if they approve for residential rezoning that they do not approve any more 7.5 zoning, the 7,500 square foot zoning. There are a few on there, let them be there, but if they're going to change it, change it to at least a minimum of 10,000 square feet so the development doesn't end up looking like when you ride out towards `` the Ewa plains on Oahu and everything is just high, tight, and boxed in. And that's all I've got to say. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions to the testifier? If not -. YUEN:Just I -, I want to make -. Just for the audience, as a point of clarification. The final decision on this is made by the County Council. The body before you, the Planning Commission, makes a recommendation to the Council, and the conditions that are recommended by the Director are just recommendations to the Council. SUPP:Can I ask another or make another statement, continuation statement? I would then ask to have the Commission today think then of postponing approval. The majority of the Hilo community only found out about this project from the article that was written in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald this week, and previously we had asked the developers to please contact the newspaper so that the general community -. By law, they only have to inform the people in a certain area, and they did that and they did -, they went beyond that by informing other people, but this project will affect the entire, the entire community, and not just the Hilo ` community, it will affect entire Hawaii County. FUJIKAWA:The Commissioners can make a decision on that. SUPP:Okay. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. SUPP:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay, I'm going to call three -. You may sit, go back to your seat, and call three of you. Al Beeman, Wally Palmer, and Gail Shiraoka, Shioshita. PUBLIC:Say those names again, please? Can you repeat the names, please? FUJIKAWA:Okay. The names are Al Beeman, William Palmer, and Gail Shioshita. Just two of you. What I'm going to do is take your testimony right now and then call for a lunch recess, okay. Let's start off with -. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to ` tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. I do. 19 FUJIKAWA:Okay. As I call your name, you state your full name and your address. Let's start off with Gail. `` SHIOSHITA:My name is Gail Kaneshiro Shioshita. I live at 115 mao Street, Hilo. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. SHIOSHITA:I am adjacent to the proposed project, and I am against being surrounded by townhouses. And there's a drainage problem, also. I have an easement, a drainage easement in my property, and I don't think the drainage has been addressed for the proposed project. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:All right. Thank you very much. Questions -, Commissioners, any questions to Gail? If not, you may proceed with your full name and your address. PALMER:William Palmer, 725 Kaulele Place, Hilo 96720. I'm a general contractor, licensed in good standing. I am not against development by any means. I am, you know, I am basically a builder, so I'm all for development. What I am against though is what has been proposed in a couple of these meetings that I have attended, and it just seems to me that it doesn't quite fit in with the what this town is all about. A lot of questions were asked at these meetings, and no real concrete answers were given to us, and it was always oh, we're still looking at that and oh, we're still proposing this. So I would like have a little bit more time to maybe review what these people are actually going after. It sounds like some changes have been made from what was said at these meetings that I've attended, and it sounds like it's maybe for the better. This development could be a good thing for Hilo if it's planned right. For the surrounding subdivision that is there and the people that will be accessing this project, whether it's a new supermarket or movie theaters or whatever for entertainment or restaurants, I think will be, you know, a nice addition to this town. The high density issue of all the homes and the town homes and the transient accommodations, I think that will have a negative impact on the surrounding community. Issues that I have would be traffic issues. What's it going to be like the impact? What's there now? Drainage issues, like some of these other people have brought up. The impact on the school district, you know. Where are all these kids going to go to school? If they're assuming that whoever moves into this area is going to be at the university only, I think is a poor assumption on their part. There's just -, there's too many issues that haven't been addressed, I feel, so if we could maybe have a little bit more time reviewing their plan or something, I think that would be good for the community to maybe hear a little bit more about it. So if you could just defer any recommendation to the Council, it would be appreciated. 20 FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Palmer? If not, thank you very much. And I'm going to call for a recess for lunch, returning back at 2:30, right here in the same location. And a reminder to Commissioners not to discuss this among each other. Thank you. Dismissed. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a lunch recess at 12:45 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 2:03 p.m. FUJIKAWA:Before we left for lunch, we were listening to testimonies, so we are going to continue on. Could the persons come up forward, Al Beeman, Henry Horton, John Ross, Neil O'Brien. You may sit up front. That's it? Okay. Gentlemen, kindly raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Please -, state with your name and address, you may -, on the right. ROSS:Yes, my name is John Ross, address is P.O. Box 5045, Hilo, Hawai`i 96720. I'm a resident in Orchidland. I've been on this Island since 1996. I've been doing environmental work since 1988. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. ROSS:Principally, what I have are some questions of concern for the committee that may or may not have already been addressed before you today, but it appears that they are still valid based on some concerns that were raised earlier this morning. Mr. Woo pointed out that the sewer line is going to connect to existing sewer system in Hilo, and he brought out a very valid point. Is the sewer system in Hilo, is the new wastewater treatment plant large enough to accept the additional load that this new community area is going to establish and place on it? Will the current water source support this new load for this new community? If these sources will not support the load off of this community, who is going to be forced with paying for supplying the new source and improving your wastewater treatment plant? Is it going to come off of something supplied by your contractor or is the City of Hilo going to have to foot the bill? If rezoned to a project district, once we do, once you complete the zoning to a project district, what control do you have over the ownership's use of that district? Okay. Do you, does the community have any input? In other words, once you approve the zoning, can he now say well, instead of putting, setting aside this area here for these items, I want to move them over 21 to this corner over here, all right. The reason I'm asking that is because it changes your layout, it changes your visibility and everything. We were talking about fair share contribution this morning. It might be desirable that you consider instead of fair share contribution from the planner and developer to go with a joint `` project venture like they're doing on Oahu for the school systems, okay, over on the Ewa plain, where the contractor is building the structure and turning around and leasing it back, okay. Also, recommend that you consider requiring the contractor to set aside a certain parcel of land to support your education system for building of a school at some point in time in the future as the project develops and grows. Also, Mr. Wilson made a statement this morning that a two-story minimum on the height on the 10-story buildings. I think he meant two-story maximum on that, based on the written report. My final question is has an environmental impact assessment been completed for this project? If so, who has a copy of it? If not, is a -, is it required by the State Department of Health and when will it be completed? And the reason I'm asking that question is that one document would have answered all the questions that have come before this committee this morning. That's all I've got, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your time on that, and I don't envy you one bit, sir. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Commissioners, any question for the -? YUEN:Just a couple of -. FUJIKAWA:Planning Director. YUEN:Since there were some questions asked. The County sewer treatment itself is well over-sized. There is quite a bit of capacity. There -, in speaking to the engineer from the County Environmental Management Department, there are three possible ways to connect the project to the sewer. All have some engineering issues associated with them and so that has not been finalized how that would happen. There is no environmental impact assessment required, however, there is a County environmental report submitted by the Applicant that addresses many of the issues that would be covered by a formal environmental assessment. FUJIKAWA:Are there any other questions, Commissioners? If not, you may grab the mike there and state your name and your address. O'BRIEN:My name is Neil O'Brien. I live at 1021 Kukuau. I'm a resident of Sunrise Estates. 22 My objection to this plan is that it really isn't a plan. I was lucky or unlucky enough to sit through about four of the sessions that Mr. Yamashiro put on and Ms. Goldstein put on, and what came out of those, my general feeling that came out of those is, for instance, they're going to put in maybe 150 transient accommodations. Can anybody explain to me what a transient accommodation is, what it will look like, how much space it takes up, how tall it is? Anything about it? I don't think so. Certainly, Mr. Yamashiro couldn't do it. If you do the arithmetic, there are 171 acres available, approximately 40-some of which are not usable and will be a green belt. There's so much available for commercial. You finally whittle yourself down to an area where you're going to put 600 dwellings. Now, Mr. Supp said, well, maybe these dwellings are going to be on 4,000 square foot parcels and share common walls. Other people have proposed no 10-story buildings. Now 10-story buildings are out. But what is going to look like? Is it going to be apartment buildings? Is it going to be common walls? Are we going to be packed like sardines as they've done in Honolulu? We don't know. And nobody's able to tell us. However, finally, what -, after a lot of questioning during those hearings, or hearings, during those meetings, what came out was the developer not only doesn't know, they don't care. Their plan is to pump and dump. Their plan is to change the zoning, put in the minimum infrastructure required, not even complete the road, for instance, and then sell the real estate off to other developers. Now, obviously, whatever promises that Western Insurance makes, those other developers won't be held to. All of this other stuff about how much of it's going to be transient housing, how much of it's going to be regular housing, that's all pie in the sky. It's not really relevant. The developers are going to get rid of the property. We have the opportunity here to look around the State of Hawai`i and see what's been done and what's been done wrong and what's been done right and the opportunity to start doing it right in Hilo, or the opportunity just to continue on what's going on with the rest of the State. That's all I have to say. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? If none, you may sit back, and would the Applicant's representative please step forward. You have heard the testimonies from the various people. Do you have any questions at this time, Mr. Yamashiro? YAMASHIRO:Mr. Chairman, we have consulted our environmental report about the question about the Hawaiian hawk. We do an avian transect, and no hawks were seen on the site, although the consultant did indicate that the hawk probably foraged over the area as it does over a majority of Hilo. It did indicate that the habitat on the site is not necessarily suited `i for the hawk and that the hawk preferred nesting in native trees like h`a. Also, that the dense vegetation of the area was not a suitable hunting area for the hawk and that there weren't open grassy areas where it could hunt. There are some recommendations that were made as far as what to do with -, in case the hawk was encountered, and I think we intend to address all of those. 23 We have, you know, questions were raised about the drainage, and we have R.M. Towill is preparing a drainage study, a drainage plan. One of the drainageways, the Alenaio Stream, has its basic flood elevations already determined, and we will respect those. The other, which crosses Komohana in the neighborhood of Ponahawai Street, goes through that 120-inch culvert, does not have its base elevations determined and we will be doing that prior to any development on that area. We are aware that a lot of the water that's coming to the project is actually what is passing through from our neighbor subdivisions and other properties, and we will be addressing the processing and transport of that water without adding any additional burden to the Alenaio. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any of you have any questions with Mr. Yamashiro? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:I'm looking at the section on thd`uh`mrodbhdrqdonqs+`mcHllknnjhmf`s Page 10 where the recommendations are found, and I'm looking at recommendation No. 2 which says that to ensure that the clearing of vegetation on site will not impact nesting hawks, and then it goes on to have a discussion of that. What if nesting hawks are found there? YAMASHIRO:We will follow the protocol that's established by the consultant. SPRINGER:And that's what's found in the rest of the paragraph? Where is that found? YAMASHIRO:Whatever the consultant recommends with regards to avoiding the contact with the native hawk. SPRINGER:Yeah, this seems a little general. YAMASHIRO:Right. SPRINGER:So would we have a chance to review that protocol or where would that be found? YAMASHIRO:We can make it available to you. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? Go ahead, McCall. MCCALL:There was a note by one of the testifiers about a drainage easement. I'm just not familiar with that. Can you explain to me what -, I assume that means that 24 somebody's property is draining into this area and you just need to respect that and take that water? YAMAMOTO:Yeah, we just have to -, that's part of what we'll be doing next is basically showing to the County Department of Public Works how we will capture the off-site water, whatever is draining onto the property, how we will get it down across Komohana. YAMASHIRO:I think part of the problem here is the property was all under common ownership at one time, and the developer that did that subdivision Crescent Heights or -, also owns the lower piece of property, and when he developed the subdivision, he just dumped the water onto the remainder of his property without any benefit of any easements or anything like that, so we just -, we'll respect that and have to convey the water through the property. MCCALL:Okay. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other questions? Go ahead, Graham. GRAHAM:I would address this either to Mr. Yamashiro or Ms. Goldstein, whoever is appropriate, but we've heard a number of comments today to the fact that this is really a work in progress. Each time we have a meeting, there's a new set of -, a new set of things proposed, some of which is in response to issues that came up before but some of which may not be. And I guess I kind of wanted just a casual explanation from your side of the fence as to kind of what it looks like and, you know, why you're moving forward or why aren't you taking more time, and why does it appear this way to the people, and what's really going on with you folks that has given this impression that we have heard about today? YAMASHIRO:Well, the question as far as the number of units, I am not sure how they got that impression because I have always been very clear as to 600 units and 150 transient accommodation units and 350,000 square feet. Where they got the idea that it may be different or less, I don't know. Some of the changes have been in response to comments that were made by the participants in `` the meetings, like the access on mao and Wiliwili Street, that the communities in that area did not want to have the roadways tied in together, so it was decided not to make them through streets. But as far as the use, the project has always been projected as a mixed use residential- commercial subdivision of a given density. GRAHAM:I feel like you've spoken to the particulars, which may be what's appropriate, but as far as the general feeling, am I to understand then that when these public meetings started, you did have a plan which is very close to what you have now? YAMASHIRO:Basically. 25 GRAHAM:That you had planned right along to have it introduced to Commission about at this time and that it's a little bit of a mistaken impression on people's part that this thing is jumping around and -? YAMASHIRO:Isn't that the -? GOLDSTEIN:Yes. YAMASHIRO:That plan was the one that was taken to all the meetings. Basically, that's -. GOLDSTEIN:Yeah. GRAHAM:Okay. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Does the Director have anything to say? YUEN:In response to some of the comments, I'm working on some modifications of the conditions and I think it would take me 10 or 15 minutes to have those finished. FUJIKAWA:So you want to call a recess, a short one? YUEN:I would appreciate a recess if there's nothing further that the Commission wants to do with the Applicant or that the Commission wants to do spending time discussing the project among themselves. There are relatively small wording -. FUJIKAWA:Okay. YUEN:Type issues. FUJIKAWA:I'll give you a chance. But prior to that, Commissioner Springer, do you have anything? SPRINGER:Yeah, I have a question for the Applicant. The impression that we got from some of the testifiers earlier was that they might appreciate having more time to be in discussion with you. Do you feel that there would be any merit to deferring or granting a continuance here, or do you feel that you've been into the community and have been accessible to community members? YAMASHIRO:I think we have been accessible to community members and it does not mean we will stop being accessible. When this Commission acts and we still have to go 26 through the County Council, we could still -, we will still participate and take some -, see if we can address some of the concerns now that we would have the recommended conditions of approval and the recommendation by the Planning Commission, that we have a little firmer basis to discuss this with them and we will continue to do so. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thanks. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Is there any other questions, Commissioners? Graham. GRAHAM:Notwithstanding the response that Hannah got, given what we heard today, I would be in favor of having a continuance for one more meeting. I don't want to draw it out because we're not the action body, the Council is the action body, however, I think we are kind of the primary body for taking public testimony, even though the public can testify before the Council. And so given what we've heard, plus the extent of the changes which Chris is working away on and the whole digestion of the project, I would certainly be in favor of a continuance for another month. I'd like to hear how the rest of the Commission feels about that. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? McCall. MCCALL:Well, maybe just as comments. I'm uneasy about this project. I guess my primary questions here are it does seem to me to be somewhat up in the air. I know this is sort of the way that these things are done. Now I would much rather say, you know, hey, this is where we're putting the hotel, this is where we're putting this. These are going to be 6,000 square foot lots or whatever they are. I would -, I know that at the same time, you do need, you will be looking for financiers for different parts of the projects and they are going to have their own ideas. But as far as I see it, once, you know, not necessarily after it gets through us, but by the time it gets -, if this is approved by the Council, that is the end of public testimony. And then at that point, I know there is still, you still need to get, you still will be working with the Planning Department, with Chris and whatever, but the public really, at that point, it seems to me, does not have any more say in it. And I just feel somewhat uncomfortable. Maybe it's just my general feeling is I am uncomfortable with such an open idea. I would like to see things a bit more concrete just as to what is being planned. What that means as far as a continuance and whether a month's continuance would help me, I'm not quite sure but -. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Yes. SPRINGER:May I ask -, just have a discussion with Commissioner McCall? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. 27 SPRINGER:Since we know that we won't necessarily have the site specific plans or recommendations that might bring you greater comfort, would just having more time for public discussion, maybe even incorporating what recommendations the Director may come up with at this time, would that help assuage some of your concern? MCCALL:It certainly would. I would think so. I'd say given, I mean it is clear to, I think, there are a number of parties who really only -. But there are a number of members of the public who really did not really hear a whole lot about this until they read it in the Tribune-Herald. I think it -, granted, that brings in all manners of things into this, but I think this is a large and a -, a large step for the tiny town of Hilo. Maybe it's time for Hilo to grow up, but I think it is, I think it would be good to allow the public a little more time to digest this, and if more public testimony is needed and more meetings with the public, I think that would be, that would certainly allay some of my fears. SPRINGER:We've certainly had some exposure recently, both at Kohanaiki in Kona ` and the Pepeekeo development that's before us now where we've seen some benefit to more structured dialogue in the community, and particularly in the Kohanaiki case, a really rather surprising amount of community support for something that initially had not received it. So I think we've all had some recent experience with the benefits of structured dialogue in the community. I don't know if that's the case here. Could you maybe discuss that with us? YAMASHIRO:I guess the hard part is that the plans are up to zone by density. It's a mixed use project which will maybe have some of the residential and commercial together, and that's why it can't -, you know, that was the idea behind the project district concept. We can - , could take more, but does that mean that we'll go out and beat the drums and haul in a busload of people and, you know, that kind of thing? I think the Staff has done a fairly thorough job of going about the pluses and minuses. The list of conditions are extensive, and I think address most of the concerns that were raised by the public, and I don't know if -, what -, we can always take more testimony, but what do we -, where are we going to go, you know? At some point in time a decision has to be made and maybe getting it to the County Council sooner rather than later and having the action body take as much time as they can would be the most appropriate in this situation, allowing, you know, the Planning Commission can always add more comment to the input as they see fit. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:Have there any -, are there any individuals or community groups that you're working with in particular or is it a general public meeting being called and so everyone is welcome? YAMASHIRO:We've had statutory meetings with the neighbors. We've also made ` presentations to various groups like the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board. We've ` also made presentations to the University of Hawaii Chancellor and her staff and other groups 28 of that nature. And I guess we should have gotten them to send a letter in to support it. It would have given you a little bit more balance. SPRINGER:Thank you. ` YAMASHIRO:Understanding of the -. But the Hawaii Island Economic Board had, has taken a formal position in support of the project. They have not sent anything. And they voted it at their last meeting up at Kahu Ranch. SPRINGER:Yeah, we did just get something during the lunch break; something came in from them dated today. YAMASHIRO:Oh. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Director, you need a little bit more time? Go ahead. GRAHAM:Notwithstanding our Director working real hard there, but I would like to hear from Mr. Yuen on -, just his general ideas about this project and how he sees it fits into the, you know, greater plans for Hilo. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:Long term, it's definitely a part of town that would, you would expect and look for residential expansion and some commercial expansion, as well as office areas. Across the street is, you have a large office area that's already been developed. It's -, the -, we've had a great deal of testimony about some people wanting it to remain single family only, 10,000 square foot minimum lots. I would support a mix of single family and multi-family buildings. Although we don't have any direct control over the price ranges that things are offered at, a multi-family is much more likely to be in the affordable range. There's also a life cycle and lifestyle element to apartment living. At a certain stage in people's life cycles, they often live in apartments. People getting -, young people moving away from home for the first time, young couples without children, and then at the other end of the life cycle, older people who may not want to keep a yard up anymore. And so we need to have a mix of housing opportunities in Hilo. As far as the general location of this, it's -, it is shown as medium density in the General Plan. It is -, there's already some residential on that side of the highway. It's a logical area for there to be further residential expansion. There are site specific issues here, and the primary site specific issues are traffic impacts and flooding. The flooding would -. We know enough about the flood situation to be comfortable with the conditions that we put on it. In the actual development of the site, it would require a detailed drainage plan that would handle the specifics of how the water would be handled and put into the major drainageways. That level of detail is not something that we expect at the zoning stage. There is a flood map, a FIRM 29 map for the area that tells us, and judging from past history, we know where the major problems are as far as the floodways. On handling the road situation, that's why we have this condition of making this Ponahawai Street mauka-makai road between Komohana and Mohouli so that you don't have a development that just dumps more traffic onto the existing road network but also makes a contribution to making the traffic flow better. The scale of the commercial is large, but I'm willing to let that be a market situation rather than trying to put another square footage limitation here. It would -, just because of the existing road network and the population network, it isn't likely that this would be an area that would have a strong attraction for people outside of the area where it's convenient to drive to. As far as the big picture, one of the problems that we have in the Big Island now is that the affordable housing, in particular, is so far from job centers, you have a great deal of commuting. If you don't open up housing opportunities in town where the bulk of the jobs are, then people will continue to move out to the Puna subdivisions where there are plenty of available housing opportunities and then commute in to go to the university or to work in town or to go shopping. And the long term result of that is that we will be, we and the State will be backed into spending a great deal of money someday improving the highways when the snarl and congestion inevitably come. So -, and I'm just expanding on the thoughts that I think are in the recommendation, the Staff recommendation, as far as the underlying reasons for basically going along and making a recommendation for approval of this project. FUJIKAWA:Does that help answer some of your concerns? Go ahead, Graham. GRAHAM:Just a little more input along the same lines. I certainly have some positive feelings in some of the directions that the Planning Director just put forth about, you know, not running to more sprawl, issues like that. However, I still am concerned about the unease that Commissioner McCall spoke of. In my particular case, maybe other Commissioners are in a different spot, but this material has Planning Director recommendations from A to Z and from AA to PP, so that's a lot. I didn't get this material until Wednesday afternoon, and this is Friday. And Wednesday afternoon there was a power failure, so I was reading by candlelight Wednesday evening. And then yesterday I had to do my regular work, so before I went to bed last night, I read some more, but I cannot feel like I'm really on top of this to the degree I'd like to be. So even without the testimony that we got today suggesting that we hold on, it is our duty to vote on this thing, even if we're not the final approving body. And presumably our attention to the public testimony and the Planning Director's recommendations does refine this somewhat before it goes to the Council. So I don't feel like just voting yes or no without a sense of confidence of what I'm doing, and I also don't feel like sort of abdicating the Planning Commission's role to sort of chew and refine what we hear from the public and the Planning Director. 30 And given all that, I don't feel like it's a waste of time to have another Planning Commission reading, meeting and go through these recommendations more at leisure, along with the adjustments that the Planning Director may make and along with further public testimony. So I certainly don't feel like I can vote in favor of this project at this time given all of that. On the other hand, you know, I don't feel like the bulk of what's behind the project is something I'm averse to, so I wanted to say all that. FUJIKAWA:Any other comments, Commissioners? SPRINGER:I concur with Commissioner Graham and his concerns with the short turnaround time from when we received this material to make a decision on it. If we do decide to continue our discussion though, I think that it should be for the very next Hilo meeting rather than an open-ended time frame such as we approved earlier in the day. FUJIKAWA:Could I ask the Staff, what is the schedule on the next Hilo meeting, Norman? HAYASHI:Well, the next meeting is February 6 th, I believe, but we weren't planning to have -, we didn't have anything on the agenda for that day, so from the Staff's standpoint, we were thinking, oh, whoopee, no meeting. FUJIKAWA:So that's another thing to, you know, think about. SPRINGER:I think for a project of this size, we've already been in discussion on it for about two hours today, and some of the other items before us, we've either deferred or I guess we wouldn't have anything back from the contested case, on the contested cases. FUJIKAWA:Well, if you feel like continuing, the next available Hilo spot would be when, March? Latter part of February? March? HAYASHI:That's up to the Commission to decide whether they want to schedule it for the 6 th or the subsequent meeting in March. FUJIKAWA:It's up to you, Commissioners. GRAHAM:I'll make a motion that we reschedule for February 6 th and see how everyone feels about that. That certainly feels most appropriate to me. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Go ahead. GRAHAM:I so move. MCCALL:I'll second. 31 FUJIKAWA:Okay, it's been -, a motion was made by Commissioner Graham that we th continue the hearing to -, is it February, February 6. It was seconded by Commissioner McCall. Is there any question? No questions. If not, Staff, check your calendar. HAYASHI:Yeah, we're checking the calendar whether we can meet the publication requirement, so we're trying to work backwards. FUJIKAWA:I understand. HAYASHI:So if you can give us a minute. FUJIKAWA:Sure. GRAHAM:Could we make the motion that it's February 6 th if we can make the publication times, and if not to the next available Hilo meeting? FUJIKAWA:I'm pretty sure we could. Go ahead. HAYASHI:We can put it on. FUJIKAWA:Put it on February 6 th? Okay. HAYASHI:February 6 th. FUJIKAWA:So the motion having made for February 6 th Hilo meeting. Any other questions? If not, Staff, go ahead, a roll call. HAYASHI:I'm sorry, I didn't get who made the motion and who seconded it. FUJIKAWA:It was motioned by Graham and seconded by McCall. HAYASHI:By Graham? FUJIKAWA:Yeah. HAYASHI:And seconded by -? FUJIKAWA:McCall. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? 32 MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:No. No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:I'm missing someone. Oh, Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries, five aye votes. FUJIKAWA:The motion has been carried, so the hearing will be set in Hilo on the February 6 th Hilo meeting; it's a continuance. Okay. Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janet L. Kama, Transcriber 33