The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-05-04 TMILLER PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 4, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of GUY MILLER (REZ 07-000063) was called to order at 3:20 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT:William Graham C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Rene Siracusa AndrewIwashita Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, PlanningDirector Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 6 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: GUY MILLER (REZ 07-000063) Change of Zone from Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to Multiple-Family Residential 4,000 square feet (RM-4) for approximately 1.298 acres of land. The property is located on the south side of Ponahawai Street approximately 400 feet east of the Komohana Street/Ponahawai Street intersection, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-3-37: 17. GRAHAM:Our next item of business is another change of zone in the same area. In this one the applicant is Guy Miller. The change of zone is from Ag 1 to Multi-Family Residential 4,000 square feet (RM-4) for approximately 1.3 acres of land. Its also located on the south side of Ponahawai Street and is about 400 feet east of the Komohana Street/Ponahawai Street intersection. Well take a minutes pause here and then Jeff will be ready for a presentation. Id also like to point out if anybody in the audience wishes to make any testimony on this, please sign up over here. Jeff, you can proceed when youre ready. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, if I can direct your attention to the location map. The area of this application is very near our last area of that change of zone request. Again, just for reference, this is Komohana running in a north-south direction. And we have Ponahawai running in an east-west direction. The area of this application is identified with the blue dot. This is nearer to the intersection of Komohana and Ponahawai. The applicant in this case, Guy Miller, is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 1-acre to Multiple-Family Residential 4,000 square feet. This is for approximately 1.2 acres of land. The applicant has 1EXHIBIT C submitted a proposed site plan identifying the layout, as well as proposed floor plans and elevations of the structures. The applicant is proposing to construct two buildings. Within each building there are going to be four dwelling units. Two of the dwellingunits will be two- bedroom units. The other two will be three-bedroom units. Theres again a proposed parking layout. The concern is, or a condition to bring to your attention is Condition E which states that No structural improvements shall be allowed within the designated drainage easement (D-2) and areas designated Flood Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). That map should have been passed out to the Planning Commission so you can get an idea of where the Flood Zone A is in relation to this property. Identified on the site map is the drainage easement, but this map appears not to identify the Flood Zone A which comes out a little bit further here. Because of the fact that this change of zone is going to be going to Multiple-Family Residential, several conditions do kick in. One is affordable housing, I believe thats Condition O, as well, or ConditionN,aswellasfairsharerequirementsConditionO.ThePlanningDirectoris recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. Are there any questions? GRAHAM:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Although the application is talking about two buildings, the map that we have shows a potential third building. And then in places there are discussions about certain things and Im not sure if those things are based on two or three buildings. For example, the th Department of Water Supplys letter dated March 29 states that the applicants engineer has indicated that the development would need approximately 6,000 gallons a day. Now is that based ontwo buildings or three? Also, the very last page that we have here from the Planning Director it says only five septic systems are allowed on this property, each septic system can serve two units. So it looks like theyre talking about two buildings rather than three buildings. So are we going to make any decisions that affect three buildings? I mean, Im a little confused and Id like some clarification on how were going to handle this. In the future if they decide to putupathirdbuilding,dowehavetogototallybacktothedrawingboardabouteverything, including water allocations and septic systems, or are we going to deal with those things now? Andifwearegoingtodealwiththemnowthenweshouldbereallyspecificinourwordingasto when were talking about septic systems and water allotments, whether were talking about two buildings or three. Does somebody want to talk about that or address that concern? YUEN:Well, reading the applicants mind, and you can ask them when they come up, but the problem here is that theyre limited to the number of units in the two buildings because of the Department of Healths rules on individual wastewater systems. Okay? So under those current rules they would only be allowed to put up the two building with the number of bedrooms that are shown. If those rules change or if there was a sewer line put along Ponahawai Street that they could tap into, the zoning would permit them to build additional units on the site. They would have to be able to get water commitments for those at that time. But the zoning would allow it. SIRACUSA:So, just to make sure I heard you right, and for the record, basically everything were talking about here is based on two buildings, and not three? The number of 2EXHIBIT C septic systems, the amount of 6,000 gallons, thats all based on a two-building understanding in this application? YUEN:The 6,000, yes. The 6,000 gallons are based on two buildings. Now realize that with this application, as with any other zoning applications, that dont have specific controls, you know, other than the Zoning Code, they dont have to put the buildings where theyre showing on the site plan here. If the zoning passes, between the time of the zoning and the time they build the building, they can change that. They could put five buildings with one unit each or something. You know, they could change a number of things connected with this. The zoning would allow it. But the discussion of the number of individual wastewater systems is based on the two-building configuration; and the number of water commitments needed is also based on that. SIRACUSA:Thank you. Thats what I wanted to make clear. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Going off Mr. Yuens comment, so Mr. Yuen, then if there is a proposal for a change in, lets say maybe they want to make five buildings like you said, then the water commitments would need to change as well, huh? YUEN:No. What I meant was if they wanted to put the same units in five buildings, for example, they dont need any more water. But what Im reminding the Commission is that very often -. You know, we see a site plan come in with a change of zone, and thats a good thing to have to get an idea of, people really should have that by the time they come in for a change of zone. However unless we put in a special condition, they are not bound by that site plan or the other things that they may be intending to do, and instead of having a two- story building theyve got a one-story building. And you always have to remember that; and sometimes I think we dont remember it. And if you want them to have a, if they showed a two- story building and you wanted them to have a two-story building for sure, you have to say it in the conditions you shall build a two-story building. Otherwise, once theyre in the door with the zoning, they can do any of the things that are allowed by the change of zone and not prohibited by the specific conditions of zoning. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Jeff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been brought to my attention that the Planning Department would like to delete a portion of Condition G, and that would be the first sentence that states No direct access to the property shall be allowed from Ponahawai Street. The remainder of the condition will stay as Condition G which states, Access shall be limited through the Road and Utility Easement (RU-5) and shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawaii County Code. This access point shall be shared with the adjoining parcel (TMK: 2-3-37: 18). 3EXHIBIT C GRAHAM:Is that because the original wasa mistake or because its a change of thought? HAYASHI:Basically what the intent was originally was to clarify that they couldnt put the access wherever they wanted on Ponahawai Street. There is a roadway utility easement already delineated on the subdivision map. So basically what we want to do is have them take access from that RU-5 which is off of Ponahawai Street. But to say that no direct access to the property shall be allowed from Ponahawai Street would be in error because actually they would have to come off of Ponahawai Street. YUEN:Could I suggest a way of doing that a little bit differently, though, where we would say -. I just want to really hammer it home that their access is only from the easement. So if we just said No direct access to the property shall be allowed from Ponahawai Street except that access shall be allowed through the Road and Utility Easement. DARROW:So well just add in the word except. Just for the Commissioners understanding,thisisPonahawaiStreet.Thisistheareaidentifiedfortheroadandutility easement identified in yellow right in this area, as well as on the adjoining property. Additionally the area that is not identified with these road and utility easements have a no planting screen. So it does on the subdivision map prevent them from being able to access to any other area, except for these easements. GRAHAM:Thank you, Jeff. Any other questions before I ask the applicant to come forward. Could I have the applicant or his representative come forward, please. Could you raise your right hand and let me swear you in. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GRAHAM:Okay, then whoever would like to speak, just give your name and address first and make a presentation to the Commission if you would. ROSS:Well both introduce ourselves. My name is David Ross. Im a civil engineer in Kona. I prepared the application for Mr. Miller, whos on my right. And my address is 77-6219A Kaumalumalu Drive, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725. MILLER:Aloha. My name is Guy Miller, and my address is 75-6081 Alii Drive, P201, Kailua-Kona, 96740. GRAHAM:I do have your names on the testimony sign up sheet, but given youre the applicant no need for this, I think. So you can go ahead and make whatever representation or presentation to the Commission youd like, and also be aware of that change in that one condition that we spoke to there. ROSS:Right. One comment Id like to start with is in the Planning Departments summary for the project on page 2 they list the Hilo Community Development Plan (CDP) adopted by the Planning Commission Resolution 1 identifies the area for residential uses; and thats what were proposing with this rezoning request. And then maybe Ill make a few observations on the site plan which is with the application. Its up on the Board but I think you 4EXHIBIT C have an 11 by 17 in your packet. Its Figure 4 I think it is. Just a comment on the access that the Planning Director was commenting on, we have every intention of using the existing easement as an access. I might note that we have an angled driveway shown on this drawing. The reason for that is we dont have any right to have our access encroach on the neighbor beyond the access easement. Just take a look at that. And the reason I make a comment on that is I think theres a possibility that this alignment on the driveway will be modified some if we can get agreement with the neighbor. But the existing easement only goes, it looks like about 40 feet into the property; and we wouldnt be permitted to put pavement on his property unless he agreed to it. So this looks like a little bit funny as far as the layout goes. But we dont have any right at this point and we dont really want to approach the neighbor until were clear about the zoning. But I think that probably that driveway will come further in just right there in the common area, just the way its laid out. The other comment I would make is on the overall layout the applicant has been working with a local architect to develop the concept that he started, which you see the elevation up here. He has developed his own floor plans and conceptual plans, which is what they are. And theres a possibility that whats now shown as a three-story building will become a two-story building. Instead of having covered parking it will be on the site instead of under the building as its current shown. And, lets see, the other thing I do, Mr. Miller, would you mind just passing these out to the Commissioners. They can take a look -. He has prepared these colored photos. You can just take a look at that. Its sort of a conceptual presentation to get a little bit more of a feel for the idea that hes trying to present. So this is pretty straight forward. There are four apartment units in each building, so thats 8 units. So if you take a two-bedroom and a three- bedroom thats five bedrooms, thats one wastewater system. You do that twice in this building, thats two systems per building. So actually these two buildings will use four wastewater systems. And there will be one additional wastewater system that could be used, and so we say the future potential building. We dont know but that is a possibility, thats why we labeled it that way. The drainage easement is noted. And I take note of the comments by Planning Staff that the actual boundary shown on the FIRM map needs to be shown on this drawing and may not completely line up with whats shown there. But we understand that we have to honor the FEMA flood boundaries. And other than that, under plan review we have to meet all the parking requirements, and the access requirements, and the Department of Health requirements. Its a pretty straight forward project. Were aware of the requirements; and if the zoning is granted we certainly will meet that all. Mr. Miller, would you like to add anything? MILLER:No. ROSS:So maybe if there are any questions I need to answer? GRAHAM:Thankyou,Mr.Ross.DowehavequestionsfromtheCommissioners? CommissionerWatanabe. WATANABE:SothenItakeitthatthereispotentialforathirdbuilding,isthatcorrect? ROSS:Yes. WATANABE:AndyouwouldntbeinviolationofStateHealth-? ROSS:Therearesomanydetailsonhowtheactualfinalfootprintofthebuilding comes in, how many bedrooms are actually in each building, which are all sort of in flux. But we can say theres five systems allowed, thats maximum. And so anything the applicant decides to do -. 5EXHIBIT C WATANABE:So 25 rooms? ROSS:Theoretically. WATANABE:Right. Max. ROSS:Yes. Could probably less, but theoretically yes. WATANABE:Okay. Ive got one follow-up question. GRAHAM:Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I wasnt going to bring this up but maybe I will anyway. In your proposed design youre talking about two parking stalls per unit. And I believe the Code is 1 per unit. And would you have objections to placing that as a condition, two per unit? ROSS:I havent asked the applicant that question so I dont know if hes prepared to answer that. MILLER:I guess I would probably partially object to that. Its I would want to meet the current requirements; and thats what I would like to move forward with, the noted requirements, in case there was modifications or something like that. Wed want to comply with current recommended requirements. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Just two things, more for procedural matters. Id like to, just for the record, mention that the photos have been circulated amongst Commissioners of the proposal, both property buildings, for the record. Also I dont know if Mr. Miller shared his name and address for the record. Did he? GRAHAM:I believe he did at the beginning. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right, I have a question for the applicant. So how far in is the proposed project from Ponahawai Street? ROSS:I think its 400 feet, more, plus or minus. I think its 410 feet to the closestpropertyboundary. ALAMEDA:Andthatstheintention? ROSS:Thatstheexistingboundary.Wedonthaveanycontroloverthat.Thats justwhereitis. GRAHAM:Andwhatisthat400feetmeasure? ROSS:IthinkitsfromtheintersectionofPonahawaiandKomohana. GRAHAM:Was that your question Mr. -? 6EXHIBIT C ROSS:Yeah, the frontage is from Ponahawai to the corner of the property. Is that what you asked? ALAMEDA:Thats correct. ROSS:Yeah, as far as I understand its like 400 to 410 to the closet corner. ALAMEDA:Okay. Yeah, cause thats -. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Oh, to Komohana, Komohana. ALAMEDA:Yeah, to Komohana. YUEN:Okay, sorry. ALAMEDA:How about from Ponahawai from that street? ROSS:Im not sure Im following -. GRAHAM:From Ponahawai to the building themselves, you mean? ALAMEDA:Yeah, right. ROSS:Oh, you mean how far are the buildings set in? GRAHAM:Yes. ROSS:Id have to estimate that. But on this plan as shown about a hundred and, a little over 100 feet to the face of the first building, I would say. ALAMEDA:Okay, all right. I have a question then for Mr. Yuen. So, you know, with the rezoning we dont have too much control over kind of what actually gets laid out in terms of where the building is located and things like that? Because once it becomes rezoned they can change their site plan, according to what you said earlier. So how does the visual impact and all the, so where does the community have input then if the County Council goes ahead and approves it? Like what if there are visual impacts or -? How can the community feel comfortable providing testimony if they dont know how its going to look like? GRAHAM:Well, the way, it looks depends on how it gets laid out and how much the setback is from the street and all. ALAMEDA:Yeah,andthereasonImentionthisisbecausewiththeLatterDaychurch, theyhadtheirsiteplanandthecommunitycouldcomegivetestimonyandtheycouldsay,you know,Idontlikethattowertheresodontputitthere,orIdontlikethewaythebuildinglooks orwhereitfaces,andIdontlikethat,itssoclosetotheroadorsomething.Butwiththis,you know,wecangoaheadandsayyeah,butIdontknowif-.AndthereasonImentionthisis causethisismyarea,thisismydistrict.So-. YUEN:Well,actually,theanswerunfortunatelyisthatthereisntany.Thereisnt anycontrolwhenyouhaveazoningapplicationandwedonthaveadesigndistrict,forexample. Youknow,therearepost,therearetypesofpostzoningcontrolsthatareimplementedinsome places and not currently being implemented in Hawaii County. The difference that you see, with the special permit or an SMA Permit, were looking at a specific site plan. And the general philosophy of zoning is that you allow a range of uses and that youre not trying to control every, youre not trying to control the details of the development outside of the things that are required 7EXHIBIT C normally under the Zoning Code. And there have been a fewsituations where we have put very site specific controls that typically have been, let me give you a couple of examples, where people have come in and said, look, I want to convert an existing home to a commercial use, and we looked at it and we felt that was fine. We were concerned about a more broader scale project. But we would put, so we had a couple of zonings where they have been conditioned on using the existing dwelling. But in this one, no, unless the Commission wants to and thinks of a specific control. Yes, they can build a cinder-block building, you know, they can build a wooden building, they can build a flat roof, they can build a hip roof. And you have to, when youre making a decision on zoning you really have to decide, well, if those are not acceptable then you should not vote for the zoning. You have tolook at the range of things that can happen at the time of zoning and say, is this acceptable, is this right for the location, and go forward with it. That or you put very specific conditions that handle the things that you want to see. GRAHAM:Any follow-up? ROSS:No, thank you. GRAHAM:We dont have any public testifiers signed up on this application. YUEN:I just -. GRAHAM:Yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN:I just want to make sure that I ask a couple of questions to put it on the record. You know, the site plan that you have, you show the drainage easement. You do not show the A Flood zone. ROSS:Were out of the A Flood zone. YUEN:And I just have to make it, you know, our condition of zoning -. Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code, which is the general Flood Control Code of Hawaii County, will let you build in flood zones provided you do certain construction type things. At the stage of zoning, Chapter 27 applies across the board. It applies to properties that are zoned, people have zoning and they just want to come in and get a building permit. At the stage of zoning, our philosophy is that the County should be more restrictive, be careful, dont let people build in the flood zone even if they flood proofed the lower level of the building, etc. We have no reason to zone in a way that lets people build in a flood zone. You know, Chapter 27 is written with the idea that you have properties that are already zoned and people could otherwise build in them. So, you know, we have this as a standard condition. And you understand that youre not, cannot build anything in the A zone? ROSS:IguessIwouldhaveonequestion. YUEN:Yes. ROSS:Couldthestaffthatreviewedthisgivemesomeideaofhowfarbeyond thedrainagedelineation-.Normallythelegallydelineateddrainageeasementsthataredone duringsubdivisionmatchthe100-yearfloodzonething.Sointermsofevaluatinghowthe Countyislookingatthis-. YUEN:Its-. ROSS:Okay, so what youre showing me is the blue line is the 100-year flood zone. So were talking about 20 to 30 feet beyond the drainage easement, just looking at this? 8EXHIBIT C YUEN:It looks to me like its a considerable distance beyond the drainage easement and well into your building. ROSS:Okay. So what Im looking at then iswhen the subdivision was approved they approved a legal drainage easement that didnt match the 100-year zone, is that correct? YUEN:Thats correct. ROSS:So was that an error on the Countys part? Is that practice from the County? YUEN:It was an error in somebody not recognizing that the subdividers drainage easement as laid out didnt match the flood zone. ROSS:And this latest subdivision application was approved in the last five years, I think, wasnt it? YUEN:Thats right. The tentative was in 1999. The final was in either 2001 or 2002. ROSS:Okay, so in the last five years this has happened? YUEN:Yes. MILLER:Id also like to make a comment that there have been improvements to the upstream drainage into a channel, I believe, in 2001. So much of the flow that had gone through that property was rechanneled into the main artery of drainage I believe south of that, I dont know the name of the channel. But I believe there was rechanneling and reassessment of the flood zone after that. I believe there were also a couple of studies done to that, which I may or may not be able to provide you with today. YUEN:Yes. Theres a process for changing the map; and if you change the map, then where the line is changes, then you can build in a different place. But as it stands, -. ROSS:Okay, so Im looking at the staffs work here. Youd be opened to an independent review of this layout and comparing to see if this is -? I mean, I dont know how they produced this, you know, with a light table or how they did it. I know how we do it in our office. Im just going to say, well have, theres room to discuss what this actual map is. YUEN:Right, in the sense theres no -. ROSSInotherwords,wecangetyouacertifiedengineer,withmeasacertified engineertoreviewthemapsanddecidewherethatboundaryis.Becauseitsalarge-scalemap thatssuperimposedontheseTMKsandtheressome,howshouldIputit,theressome engineeringjudgmentusedtoactuallylocatethoselines. YUEN:Iunderstand.AndifitDPWtellsusthattheAzoneisinaslightly differentlocationthanshownonthismap,wellrespectthat. ROSS:Right.Sowellworkwiththemtogetthatfinalized. YUEN:Right. MILLER:Right. And Id like to make one other comment. The date on that particular map is 1988. As I mentioned, there were drainage improvements uphill from this 9EXHIBIT C property that have rechanneled a majority of the flood that was through that corridor; and I believe in 2001 the Department of Water (sic) had changed the map. There is an updated version, other than this 1988. ROSS:See, are you sure you have the latest one? DARROW:Well, this was the one that the Department of Public Works Engineering Division provided to us. ROSS:Okay, so we can easily verify that. We can check that. Okay. Well, were going to meet the Code, no question. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Miller. YUEN:Wait -. GRAHAM:Excuse me, Mr. Miller. YUEN:Wait a second. When you say were going to meet the Code -. As I said, this is rezoning, all right? If you had zoning and you were following Chapter 27, you could build on the floodway fringe. You know, you could flood proof the lower elevation. As a zoning condition our standard zoning condition says no construction in any part of the flood zone. ROSS:The 100-year flood? YUEN:Yes, whats shown as Flood Zone A in the FIRM maps. ROSS:And thats your standard procedure now? YUEN:Yes, right. ROSS:Im informed. YUEN:Wait. Youre not going, are you going to fight us on this point? ROSS:You know, I dont think so; but I want to go and look at this map. Its amazing to me that the subdivision map that was done five years ago could be 50 percent of the width of the FIRM map. Thats not just a small error. Thats a huge error. And so I dont know, but to have confidence -. I dont know if Mr. Miller is correct and whether we have the latest FIRM map in our hands or not. So, I mean, what Im hearing you say is thats your standard procedure. We need to accept that. I mean, but Im just saying lets make sure we have the latestmap,letsmakesureitsoverlaidcorrectlyontheplotsothatwhenwehavethelines drawnitsdrawnintherightplace.Becausethisisnta10percenterror.Thisisa100percent errorthatwasdonewhenthesubdivisionwasapproved.So-. GRAHAM:Mr.Ross,IthinkwhatthePlanningDirectorisjustsayingisthatour conditionofzoningsaysyoucannotmakestructuralimprovementsinthatZoneA,butwerenot passingyouanofficialmapthatgoeswithyourzoningthattellsyouwhereZoneAis.Sothatif youandtheDepartmentofPublicWorks,youknow,workoutaboundarythatissuitableto themaboutwhatisZoneA,thenthatswhatthisrezoningappliesto. ROSS:You know, I guess Im trying to digest the impact of whats being told us right here on my feet; and what Im hearing is that there is a policy that the Planning Director is following. Really, it doesnt really matter what I think about that policy, thats the policy hes following. So I dont know other having heard what he said whether I like it or not, you know -. 10EXHIBIT C I mean I wouldnt have a problem with it if the legal boundary was where it is. But since weve just widened the flood zone by 100 percent, thats a substantial impact on the thing. Now we didnt do a full-on site study. This was a zoning application, not an engineering study for this project. So perhaps its something I should have looked at more closely at the beginning. But as you say its standard procedure that you have the surveyor prepare a subdivision map that has the legal boundaries of the drainage easement in line with the 100-year flood zone, that is standard practice. And for a subdivision thats only five years old to be 100 percent off is a substantial surprise. So I should have checked it. SIRACUSA:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Excuse me. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I had a procedural question. And I was just wondering that when its time to make a motion on this I would like to have either the Director or Mr. Torigoe work up some wording that would reference a new engineering study or whatever it is thats, a new drainage study, whatever would be necessary to bring reality in line with the maps so that everything is very clear, you know, and there shouldnt be this discrepancy between whats on paper and whats on the ground. GRAHAM:Yeah, I think Mr. Ross is surprised by the extent of the difference compared to what he had expected. If you would like us to continue the hearing maybe so that you can work this out. ROSS:No, I dont think, I mean at the end of the day the Commissioner -. Its unfortunate but it really doesnt matter whats on the ground. What matters is whats legal; and thats a whole other story. If were going to change to get legal maps to match whats on the ground, it costs a lot of engineering funds which this project is not large enough to do. So once we get clear on what the boundaries are, and theres ways to do that, and Ill work with Public Works, it wont be a problem, well establish what that is. I understand what the Planning Director is telling me, I dont hear an invitation to have something else done, so I dont know if theres any more discussion needed. GRAHAM:All right, thank you. Sir? MILLER:Id just like to add one more comment. As I stated before I believe there was a study done in 2001 which I can provide to the Planning Department to review which took into account to the new channeling of water from upstream into the conduit or corridor adjacent from the property. GRAHAM:Okay, thank you. Any further questions from the Commissioners? We do haveMr.JustinPittullosignedupforpublictestimonyhereforaminute.So,Mr.Pittullo, maybeyoucancomesitontheendthere,andyoufolkscanstaythere,andjustusethat microphone. PITTULLO:Goodafternoon. GRAHAM:Andmaybejustgiveyournameandaddresssincethisisanewitem. PITTULLO:MynameisJustinPittullo,POBox67,Hilo,Hawaii96721.Mr.Millers propertyisabovemineandImveryfamiliarwiththedrainageissuesathand.Imnotan engineer but Id just like to add my two cents. Ive looked at this section of land extensively for the last probably 8 or 9 years. I bought this property in 2005. And what Mr. Miller is saying is accurate. The water flow is not nearly what it was before. I mean things were getting washed away to where I wouldnt even consider buying this property before the corrections were made. 11EXHIBIT C I dont know the dates involved, but I can testify that the water issue is not what it was. Thats all. I just thought Id add my two cents. GRAHAM:Thank you very much for that. MILLER:I believe -. GRAHAM:Mr. Miller? MILLER:As a comment the Sonomura Contracting had done a large amount of work I believe as I said in 2002, 2001, which had reduced it. So the flow through the property in that area has greatly been reduced as stated. GRAHAM:Okay, so I guess the issue for you then is its in all your initiative to change the paperwork; and thats what could be costly that you are surprised by. ROSS:Maybe I can, may make one more comment? GRAHAM:Certainly, go ahead, sir. ROSS:Well, I would, I guess, ask the Commissioners to consider this, the impact of what, everything that has been said just in the last few moments is to have probably 40 feet more of the land we thought that was available to be used not to be used. Thats, you take the north side boundary of the flood easement. What Im hearing the Planning Director say is that the Code, County Code, allows you to do certain things in that fringe area that hes saying no to, is that correct? In other words, there are ways to build foundations and let the water run through that youre saying no to, were not going to allow any structures in that area? YUEN:Right, right, structural improvements. ROSS:Okay, right. So I just would have the Commissioners consider this, we have not only the owner but another landowner testifying about drainage improvements that have been made that have reduced the flow. In my earlier comment about whats legal, it really doesnt matter whats real, its whats legal is. If anybody is familiar with letters of map revision with the FEMA folks, thats a fairly long extensive process to get those 100-year lines moved. Its probably a 2-year process and at least $50,000 or more for even a small project, so thats not really a realistic thing for this project. However, if you had a foundation that was set in the fringe and supported a building up above the flood zone that was engineered according to standards, which is done, -- and Im not saying thats even necessary, I think were probably going to be able to do it without it -- in an area where we just lost 40 feet that isnt going to get wet anyway according to not engineering legal things but in terms of public testimony, is it necessarytopushthatlimitonthisproject? WATANABE:Mr.Chair? GRAHAM:CommissionerWatanabe. WATANABE:MayImakeasuggestion,Mr.Ross?Youknow,theDirectorcancorrect meifImwrong,butinthepastwehaveallowedparkingstructures,meaninglikeyourparking stallscouldgointhatarea,butnotthebuilding. ROSS:Right. WATANABE:Yeah. And so my suggestion to you would be to structure your, redo your design so that, if anything, the parking area goes into that area and its not going to affect the size 12EXHIBIT C of your building, which means you dont have to go and spend $50,000 and two years. And I think what the Director is trying to make sure you understand is they dont want structures in there. That structure does not include parking. ROSS:Right. Okay. DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Okay, for just a second here, I really have a deadline I need to make so Id just like to pass over control of the meeting to Commissioner Alameda when I go, and Mr. Torigoe lets me know its okay to do that, just kind of right in full flow here. So if Commissioner Alameda will take over, Id appreciate it. (Chairman Graham left the meeting at this time, 3:57 p.m.) ALAMEDA:Aloha, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kimo Alameda. Ill be the facilitator for today. And the reason Im here is Im the First Vice-Chair. If I pass out and die Commissioner Rodney Watanabe will be in my position. WATANABE:Wed lose a quorum by then. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. Just to let you know, Im a stickler for Roberts Rules. Id like to push the meeting as fast as possible but without losing the integrity of the meeting. So I want us to refocus and keep our comments direct and clear so we can be out of here before dinner. But Commissioner -. DOMINGO:Domingo. ALAMEDA:Domingo, you had a question, go ahead. DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman, weve been discussing and we have indicated to the applicant and recited to them some of the prohibited uses of the land with regards to it being in a flood zone. And weve done some time discussing it. Im wondering if this can in fact be addressed at the plan approval process when the applicant comes in and when all of these things are revealed, then he can then work with the administration and see if he can comply with it or make amendments to it and everything. And I feel what we should consider in general is whether or not the zoning is appropriate for this area. And certainly we have other mechanics in place so that they can go through the hoops and address all the concerns that were mentioned here. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. That sounds good to me. Let me justcheckwithMr.Yuen.Doesthatsoundfairly-? YUEN:Well,youknow,asfarasImconcerned,wecanmoveforwardwiththis conditionasworded.Andthereasonweputthisconditioninissoasnottogetintoanargument laterwithpeople,becausewedohavepeoplesometimeswantingtobuildveryclosetoflood zonesandwheretherewasntaspecialconditioninthezoningand,becauseChapter27willlet themputpartsoftheirbuildinginthefloodzones,andwedrathernotseethathappen.Sowe canmoveforward,youknow,asfarasImconcernedwiththeconditionasitstands.Ifthe applicantwantsachangeintheconditiontheycan,well,Imnotcomfortablechangingthe conditionbasedonbeingtoldthatsomethinghappenedandthefloodzoneisntaswideasit used to be. You know, the other alternative is to defer and they can go to the Department of Public Works and see if maybe there was an error. You know, sometimes people make mistakes, maybe there was a different flood zone map. And, you know, we can defer and look at it and let them take it. But the only way Im comfortable acting today is with the condition as worded. 13EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Mr. Yuen, would another course of action be the applicant and Mr. Ross could just take it up to Council, keep the condition as is and whatever concerns they have? YUEN:I, you know, I make a recommendation. The Commission doesnt always follow my recommendation. But this is my recommendation, is this is a condition that we should have in rezonings and keep people from building in floodways, building in the floodway fringe which Chapter 27 would allow. They can, we can go up with the condition today and we can work on it between now and when they go to Council. Thats an option. But as I say, the only way that Im comfortable with my recommendation is if were going to go forward and have a recommendation come out of the Planning Commission today would be with that condition as worded. ALAMEDA:Mr. Ross, do you have any comments or responses to Mr. Yuens statements about keeping the condition as is? ROSS:Give me 30 seconds to talk to my client. ALAMEDA:Sure. How about we take a five-minute break? ROSS:Yeah. ALAMEDA: Well be right back, five minutes. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 4:05 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 4:11 p.m. ALAMEDA:The meeting will now return to order. Okay, so we gave you more than 30 seconds. ROSS:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Why dont you use themike and tell us what youve decided. ROSS:We agree to the conditions the Planning Director has proposed; and well work with the Public Works to clarify any discrepancies with the map that we currentlywere given. ALAMEDA:Very good. Thank you for your consideration. Now let me turn it over to the Commissioners. Theres no public testimony. We had one actually but were done. So any further comments before I ask my Fellow Commissioners to entertain a motion? Okay. DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:CommissionerDomingo. DOMINGO:Inlieuofthediscussiontakenplace,ImovethatweapproveZoning Application07-000063withtheconditionsofapprovalasstipulatedinthedocument. ALAMEDA:Isthatafavorablerecommendation,CommissionerDomingo? DOMINGO:Favorablerecommendation. 14EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Okay. SIRACUSA:Second. ALAMEDA:All right, motion made by Commissioner Domingo, seconded by Commissioner Siracusa. Discussion? Mr. Darrow, you have a question? DARROW:Would this motion also include the added word except to the Condition G? DOMINGO:Yes, we can use that. Discuss -. DARROW:Thank you. We had added the word except after the first line on Condition G -. ALAMEDA:All right. DARROW:Do you recall that? DOMINGO:Yes. DARROW:Okay. SIRACUSA:It had to do with access, yes. ALAMEDA:Okay, very good, Mr. Darrow for picking that up. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, Jeff? DARROW:Just for clarification, Im sorry, I didnt catch who seconded the motion. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Siracusa. DARROW:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Youre welcome. DARROW:Okay, this motion is to approve with the amended Condition G. With that Ill take the roll. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerRho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Woodward? 15EXHIBIT C WOODWARD:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes six to zero. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Mr. Ross and Mr. Miller, you will be informed in writing of this decision. ROSS:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Youre welcome. Have a good day. The discussion ended at 4:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 16EXHIBIT C