Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-01 TYAMADASAFARIK PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 1, 2004 PUBLIC STATEMENT OF COUNCIL CHAIRMAN GARY SAFARIK The following is COUNCIL CHAIRMAN GARY SAFARIK€S PUBLIC STATEMENT on the application of GERALD AND WENDY YAMADA (SPP 04-018) at 9:17 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Second Vice- Chairman Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones C. Kimo Alameda Jeffrey McCall BillGraham Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 9 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: GERALD AND WENDY YAMADA (SPP 04-018) Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial retail and office complex(gas station/convenience store, auto repair and sales store, supermarket, financial institution, personal services, restaurant, hardware supply, medical and dental office, other professional services such as real estate, attorney, insurance, etc.) on approximately 3.17 acres of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located at the northwest corner of the Keaau- Pahoa Road (Highway 130) and Aulii Drive intersection, Orchidland Estates, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-9: 418 (portion), 419, 420 and 421. SPRINGER:We do have a request for testimony, and if there is anyone else who would like to testify on any of the items on our agenda today, please fill in the sign up sheet and submit it to the staff. Also, if you have any written testimony on any of the agenda items, please submit those to the staff. At this time we have a request from Commissioner Gary Safarik to testify at 9 o€clock because he has another meeting, so thank you for your patience with us. And you€ll be testifying on Agenda Item No. 10, the Gerald and Wendy Yamada item. Please come forward, Mr. Safarik. SAFARIK:You called me Commissioner Safarik. EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:I€m sorry, Councilman Safarik. Will you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm totell the truth on this matter now being heard before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? SAFARIK:I do. SPRINGER:At this time, could you please state your name, your residence address, and proceed. SAFARIK:Okay, thank you. Chairwoman Springer, Commissioners, new Commissioners, Director Yuen, staff members, thank you for allowing me the courtesy of testifying first. As I mentioned, I did have a meeting, and I appreciate that. My name is Gary Safarik. I€m the chairman of the Hawaii County Council. I reside in the AinaloaSubdivision.Theaddressis16-2161AinaloaWay,andthatiszipcodeofPahoa.I€ve lived in the Puna region for over 25 years; and I€m originally born and raised in Hawaii. And I know you didn€t ask for all that history, but I thought I shouldgive it to you anyway. I€m speaking to you today primarily as a private citizen and then, I believe, secondarily I€m speaking to you as the Council representative of District 5 for this particular area. Ihappen to have the handout and my testimony primarily on my letterhead, but I€m not speaking to you as Chair of the Council. So this is a personal testimony. Let me just read the first two paragraphs of my testimony so that it€llbring you up to speed on where I€m coming from; and then I€d like to make a few comments outside of this testimony, if you would allow me. SPRINGER:Proceed. SAFARIK:I am writing in support of the applicants Gerald and Wendy Yamada who are applying for a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial retail and office complex on approximately 3.17 acres of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. Proposed uses for the parcel may include a gas station/convenience store, auto repair, sales store, supermarket, financial institution, personal services, restaurant, hardware supply, medical and dental office, other professional services such as real estate, attorney, insurance and others. I believe the concerns regarding traffic control as related to this project will be mitigated by traffic signals at Ainaloa and Orchidland Drive which are presently being studied by the State Department of Transportation. In addition, access to the property would be from Aulii Street, which is a street that runs perpendicular with Highway 130, rather along the Highway 130, as residents would no longer need, oh, I€m sorry. In addition, access to the property would be from Aulii, rather than from Highway 130, as residents would no longer have to travel to Pahoa, Keaau or Hilo to access retail and office services, primarily the region that we€re talking about or the entire Puna region along Highway 130. Right now, according to the 2000 Census it says it€s the fastest growing district in the State of Hawaii, population-wise. Paradise Park which is a subdivision, along with Ainaloa, runs on both sides of Highway 130. The Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision has currently 8800 lots that are available for building in the Ag-1 district, or Ag-1 classification. If you look at the buildout today in Hawaiian Paradise 2 Park,there€s approximately a third, 33 percent or so, of that subdivision that has been built out. Currently, Hawaiian Paradise Park has over 10,000 residents, 10,000 residents. There is no place to buy a loaf of bread, other than the Wiki Wiki Mart which is on Orchidland Drive. There€s no place to access dental or medical services. There€s no place to address the need for automobile repair or any other type of retail experience for those folks. They have to get onto the highway and they have to travel either to Pahoa or they have to travel to Keaau to access these services. When I looked at the plans, and I won€t go into all of the issues regarding the pros and cons of this development. What I€m suggesting here is that will provide for the residents of the District 5 of the Pahoa and Puna regions another opportunity for accessing retail, accessing professional services, and the like. Currently, in the Puna region in ratio to the rest of this island, we have 4 percent of all retail designations or all urban expansion commercial type designation, four percent. As opposed to Kona, Kailua and surrounding areas have 76 percent commercial and retail. So you can see right off that we are underserved when it comes to retail and urban expansiontypeareas.Somyhopeisthatyou€lltakealookatthisprojectnotspecifictothe project but specific to the region. We have always mentioned as a group in Puna that we wanted to protect the pristine coastal areas of our area. We wanted to protect some of the designated areas along that coastline with designated and exempt trees, and other flora and fauna, archaeological sites, historic burial sites. We have decided that that coastal area should remain pristine and undeveloped. However, with that said, we need an area that we can develop and designate so that the people in that region are served, which is now starting to hit about 40,000 people. So if you would take a look at this project, based on what the needs are in the district, I believe that some of the traffic issues that surface would be mitigated by, as I said, a traffic signal or signalized intersection at Ainaloa and the highway, Highway 130, also at Orchidland Drive and Highway 130. This particular project is right in the middle of those two areas. And if anybody gets on the highway in the early morning going to work on Highway 130 they€ll know that there€s a long stream of cars. If you come home at pauhana time, you will also run into this long stream of cars traveling back and forth between Puna and the Hilo and Keaau area. The same type of issues occur, of course, in Kona, but we€re not as bad yet as that particular area of Queen K, but we€re starting to get there. So the issue, again, is not that we€re exploring building in an area that would not be, I believe, acceptable to most of the people in the Puna region; and I think that, I€ve talked to Commissioner Siracusa from the Puna region about some of these broader issues. So, with your indulgence, I will conclude my testimony and ask for your consideration on this particular permit. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Safarik. At this time I€d like to welcome our third of the new Commissioners to the table, Allen Salavea. Welcome, Allen. SALAVEA:Aloha, aloha. I apologize. I had an appointment, prior commitment that I couldn€t reschedule, but thank you for having me here, and good morning. SPRINGER:Good morning. Commissioners, are there any questions for Mr. Safarik? Commissioner Graham? 3 GRAHAM:Mr. Safarik, as you I€m sure know, our Planning Director is recommending denial of this application; and the reason he€s recommending denial is more for planning reasons. It has to do with highway, but on broader plane reasons also. And you€re speaking of the great need in your district. So I€m wondering are you feeling the need is so great that planning issues can kind of go to the side or are you disagreeing with the Planning Director about the fact that this is not proper planning, given that the Orchildland Drive is already being developed commercially? SAFARIK:I believe that the planning issue is never going to be, should never be put aside. That should be first and foremost. I believe in that wholeheartedly. What I€m suggesting is that, and Mr. Yuen and I probably agree on most of the things when it comes to planning. But I also believe that the percentage that we have in the Puna region for commercial activity, for giving the people choices is lacking and we€re underserved. And with all respect to the Planning Director,I€vetoldhimthat.Sointhisparticularcase,Idisagree.ButIamnotgoingtodisagree that it should not be first and foremost a planning issue and then, secondarily, or maybe on equal plane as planning issues, we€ve got to start serving the needs of the majority. And that€s all I€m suggesting here at this particular time. GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:Other Commissioners? Commissioner -. IWASHITA:Morning. I guess the, my question is about the General Plan, and the General Plan was just passed in January. How do you, I guess my concern is that, you know, it seems like this concern about more commercial space being allocated for the area would have been addressed or considered in adopting the amendments to the General Plan. And if you can explain to me why it wasn€t and why we have to deal with it on this basis? SAFARIK:Okay. That€s a good question. And I think that the number of steps that we€re referring to here, we€re still in the interim amendment stages where Mr. Yuen is going to provide the Council now with some interim amendments to the overall General Plan. Moving back a bit, Director Yuen and I, along with some other people in the community wanted to, and one of the interim amendments that€s going to be coming forward from Director Yuen is the Ainaloa and Highway 130 intersection and the Orchidland Highway 130 intersection designated as Urban Expansion. My hope, and I€m still in discussion with Director Yuen, is that Aulii location would also be in one of those bubbles. So I envision a bubble at Orchidland Drive approximately 50 to 70 acres, a bubble at Ainaloa and the Highway maybe another 50 acres Urban Expansion, and then this particular project area at Aulii for another Urban Expansion. So for three areas along Highway 130, I would hope to see the opportunity for Urban expansion. Therefore, it would make it a lot easier for anyone that is looking at the Puna region in the future, would know from a good planning perspective -. As Mr. Graham mentioned, we€ve got to maintain that planning status as always first and foremost in how we do things and how we rezone. But we also have to address some of the lack of area that we have in the Puna region and, especially, in this most populated corridor that we call Hawaiian Paradise Park-Ainaloa and Hawaiian Beaches. 4 Andjustasa side note, Mr. Iwashita, there was a, and it finally came to fruition, about 8  acres right outside of the Pahoa area that€s just, I guess, they just had their grand opening. It€s call the Malama Village Market Place. And there€s a gas station there, there€s a Subway, there€s a hardware store, there€s a Village Market Place that is run by Foodland. That place is packed every day. There is a pent up need in an underserved community. And when I look at the people that are accessing that particular Pahoa Village Market Place, it€s primarily from the lower region, or I shouldn€t say the lower region but the makai region that we call Leilani Estates, Nanawale, Hawaiian Beaches, Pahoa, Kalapana, Sea View Estates, Kaohe Homestead. All those areas are being serviced by that particular development, but we still have an area that we call Hawaiian Paradise Park, Ainaloa, Orchidland that is not being serviced. And I submit that this project would provide for that particular service. So to answer your question in a round-about way, I€m hoping that these two areas, plus Aulii, would be considered for Urban Expansion designation in the General Plan. SPRINGER:Thankyou,Mr.Safarik.CommissionerSiracusa. SIRACUSA:I€vehadquiteafewpeopleapproachmeaboutthisproject.Andoneof the things, one of the comments that have been made repeatedly has been isn€t this the first step, isn€t this setting the standard for strip development along Highway 130? And if we have three bubbles then what€s to prevent us later on from connecting the dots and making it a solid strip mall all the way? How would you respond to those people? SAFARIK:That€s an excellent consideration. But the whole notion of doing these bubble-type Urban Expansion designation is precisely for good planning. I would respond to those people that once we designate this in the General Plan as Urban Expansion, and we allow those areas to be rezoned for Urban Expansion, that will serve the greater Puna community for the next 25 years. In between those areas are residential homes, people are living in those homes there. So I don€t believe that we€re going to get into a strip mall issue, because a strip mall would note that we€re not planning, we€re just going and building as the need arises. What I€m suggesting is that we€re directing the need for the Urban Expansion into these three areas and leaving the rest of the areas that we want to keep pristine out of that quotient. I don€t know if that would answer your question or address the people that you€ve talked to, but that€s how I would respond to them. SIRACUSA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Safarik. Commissioners, are there any other questions for the testifier? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:You know, I€m not against the development per se. I think where I have some problems is with the recommendation from the Land Use Commission where they€re suggesting that this may not be the proper method of reclassifying the land use here. And in light of the recent Hokulia dealings, it kind of troubles me, especially since in reviewing the history in that immediate vicinity it seems as though we have been somewhat inconsistent in approving or denying. Would it help you if this Commission were to even say, like recommend to the Land Use that this be approved but not approve it on its own? 5 SAFARIK:I don€t know that the LUC, Land Use Commission, at the State level would review this, because this is under 15 acres. Soit€s going to be primarily a County function. WATANABE:Okay, 205 suggested, okay. Then-. SAFARIK:I think maybe what they€re referring to is, you mean, our agricultural classification at the State level? WATANABE:Well, what I€m seeing here is from Anthony Ching, the executive director, he€s saying that Based on the description proposed, the proposed commercial shopping complex appears to be of such magnitude and scope as to constitute a major urban use in the Agricultural District. As such, we believe that establishment of the complex should be more properlysought through a district boundary amendment rather than a special permit,‚ which implies to me the venueiswrong,notthattheprojectiswrong.Andinmaybeerroneouslyimpliedthatweshould go back to the Land Use, but I€m wondering if we€re taking the right process. SAFARIK:I would hope that we would have, we being collectively, Council, Commission, Director, community groups, would be able to identify the needs, I think, more appropriate, especially in that area, than maybe relying on some of the recommendations or opinions of, let€s say, somebody that does not live in that region. In fact, that person, Mr. Ching, lives on Oahu. I€m not sure how the land use -. Director Yuen, the Land Use sent a letter of recommendation on this particular project? Cause I wasn€t, I didn€t get a copy of that. But I€m not sure where or how they reviewed this project, Mr. Watanabe, so I couldn€t comment. But I€m just hoping that we would have more of an input and more of an impact on the decision based on issues on this island as opposed to the LUC. WATANABE:I don€t disagree with you, not in the development or the need. I just don€t want to wind up in a situation where we took an improper procedure and then all the decisions coming to question at a later date. That€s my concern. SAFARIK:I hear what you€re saying. And I don€t know that we all have crystal balls to know of what€s going to happen in the future. But I think that what we are is prudent and thoughtful people, and I€m hoping that we will not have any implications on this particular area. And I look to the guidance of Chairwoman Springer, yourselves, our Corporation Counsel, the Planning Director, to keep us out of that type of problem. SPRINGER:Than you Mr. Safarik. And, Commissioner Watanabe, this discussion will continue when we get to the agenda item; and, for your benefit, the record will reflect that when it comes into the public record. And are there any other questions of the testifier? Any follow up, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:No. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Safarik. SAFARIK:Thank you very much. 6 The discussion ended at 9:41 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary 7