Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-05 THirayama PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 5, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application filed by HIRAYAMA BROTHERS was called to order at 11:04 a.m. in the County Building, ELECTRIC, INC. (REZ 06-000034) Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with First Vice-Chairman Bill Graham presiding from 11:04 to 1:15 p.m. and Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding from 1:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. PRESENT:C. Kimo Alameda (From 1:15 p.m.)ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Bill Graham Rodney Watanabe FredGaldones Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa 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 25 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: HIRAYAMA BROTHERS ELECTRIC, INC. (REZ 06-000034) Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet (CN-20) district for 20,000 square feet of land. The property is located along the west side of Manono Street, approximately 200 feet north of the Kekuanaoa Street ƒ Manono Street intersection, Waiakea Houselots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, Tax Map Key: 2-2-34.13. GRAHAM:So we€ll move on to our next order of business, which is new business. Applicant is Hirayama Brothers Electric. This is a Change of Zone REZ 06-000034 from Single- Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet (CN-20) district for 20,000 square feet of land located along the west side of Manono Street, approximately 200 feet north of the Kekuanaoa Street ƒ Manono Street intersection, in South Hilo. If Planning Commission staff is ready to go, can you -? HAYASHI:Yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Directing your attention to the overall location map, the subject property is indicated by this blue dot. It is situated along Manono Street. Just as a matter of orientation, this is Kilauea Avenue going towards the Puna direction and this 1EXHIBIT B would be in the Hamakua direction. This particular road is Kekuanaoa that goes towards the airport and this is Kanoelehua Avenue. The subject property is situated in close proximity to the Manono Street-Kekuanaoa Street intersection. This particular property shaded in purple is zoned Resort; and that€s where the Waiakea Villas Resort Complex is situated. The Big Island Candies€ property is located by this brown shaded area in this general configuration. We also have some Neighborhood Commercial zoned properties indicated with these light pinks areas. Currently these properties are vacant but are being prepared for construction of a commercial or retail facility. The yellow shaded areas are areas that are currently within the Single Family Residential zoned district. The Tripp property, Kathy Tripp property that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered at the last Hilo meeting is situated adjacent to and the north of the subject property. And the Tripps also came in for a similar rezoning of Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet. Nowgoingtothesitemap,againasamatteroforientation,thiswouldbeManonoStreet.The applicant intends to construct a 7,200 square foot one-story building and basically create 900 square foot bays. And these bays would be used for either retail or office use. Parking would be situated along this side of the property. The estimated cost of development for the property is approximately half a million dollars. The General Plan Land Use designation for this particular area is Medium Density Urban; and the 1975 Hilo Community Development Plan designates this area for Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet. The property is currently cleared and leveled. It€s actually graveled and there is fencing around the particular property. Previously there was a dwelling situated on the property but that has since been demolished. Surrounding land uses include dwellings, as well as the Atebara Potato Chip factory is located diagonally across of the property. That is a nonconforming use which is situated on the property that is zoned Single Family Residential zoning. We also have some other commercial offices along Manono Street in close proximity to the subject property. Manono Street has a right-of-way width of 50 feet with a 20-foot or 22-foot pavement. And according to the City of Hilo Zone Map that particular roadway is proposed to be widened to 60 feet. So what would happen is that, as noted in one of the conditions of approval, is that the applicant would have to provide a 5-foot road widening strip along the frontage of Manono Street for the future improvements to Manono Street. Water is available to the property. And as far as sewage disposal, the sewage, the applicant will be hooking up into the County sewer system. As noted in the staff€s background report, the Department of Public Works recommended that full improvements be provided along Manono Street, which would include the provision for pavement improvement as far as curbs, gutters and sidewalks. We are recommending approval of the subject request with conditions. These conditions are quite similar to those that were proposed for the Tripp application. Are there any questions at this time? 2EXHIBIT B GRAHAM:Thank you, Norman. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? We don€t seem to have any. Will the applicant or the applicant€s representative please come forward. FUKE:Good morning again. GRAHAM:Hello, Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Hi, good morning. GRAHAM:I believe we swore you in before -. FUKE:Right. GRAHAM:Sodon€tneedtodothat.Butcouldyougiveyournameandaddressfor the record before you give us your testimony today. FUKE:Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sidney Fuke. I€m a planning consultant. I€m assisting the applicants who happen to be in the audience today, Mr. and Mrs. Hirayama. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii. GRAHAM:Thank you. Go ahead. FUKE:Sure. The applicants have had a chance to review the staff€s background report and the proposed conditions and found them to be acceptable. Your staff€s written as well as verbal reports have been comprehensive. The only thing I would kind of like to add to that is that, you know, just to provide some measure of historical perspective, you know, relative to the Houselots area, cause I know that this has been an area of concern for the Commissioners and, you know, other members of the community. It€s kind of my understanding doing some preliminary research that, you know, I learned that the area was subdivided in the early 1900s by the then Territory of Hawaii for Residential purposes. Over time we noticed that they were Commercial and Industrial uses fronting the major streets, you know, particularly along Kanoelehua Avenue, and also like on Piilani Street and portions of Manono Street. In 1967 when the first City of Hilo Zone Map was adopted then pretty much the zoning map kind of confirmed or legitimized a lot of these existing Commercial areas. And, you know, at that time, portions of Piilani Street and Kanoelehua Avenue were then designated for different phases of Commercial and also Multiple Family Residential uses. Subsequent to that, of course, the County adopted its first General Plan, that was back in 1971. And in the General Plan on the LUPAG Map, the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map, that accompanied the 1971 General Plan, it did reflect Industrial uses fronting Kanoelehua up to Kalanikoa Street between Kawili and Piilani Streets; and there was also, the Resort designation, you know, ironically a Resort designation along the Waiakea Village Mililani Street area. The Medium Density designation was for the balance of Houselots. In 1989 in the General Plan update process the LUPAG Map was then amended. The only changes that affected the Houselots area was the change from Resort to High Density in the area of the Waiakea Village area along Mililani Street, which currently exists today. In 1992 the Council had initiated and subsequently there was an amendment to the General Plan LUPGA Map basically designating the central area within the 3EXHIBIT B Waiakea Houselots area from Medium and Industrial to Low Density. Then in the mostrecent General Plan Amendment which occurred in 2005 it expanded the Industrial area up to Laukapu Street; and the remaining area which was designated for Low Density back in 1992 was then redesignated to Medium Density. The Interim Amendment that the Planning Director is proposing, I think, you know, all of you are aware of our suggesting some changes also to the Houselots area. One particular change relates to the scaling back of the proposed industrial area along Laukapu Street, you know, pushing it back down to Kalanikoa Street. I kind of recall back about 10 years ago in 1996, 1967, thereabouts, the Big Island Candies was going through their rezoning and General Plan amendment process; and at that time the applicant, and I was involved in that, you know, we did meet with the different communities in that area, kumiai rather. And at that time I understand that there was like what is called a Lower Waiakea Houselots Kumiai and also like an Upper Waiakea Houselots Kumiai. Whether these kumiai actually exist today, I don€t know. But in reflectingonthediscussionsthatoccurred,youknow,withthemembersofthekumiaiandtheir officers, the thought was to have more of a mixture of uses in the area of what they called like the Lower Waiakea Houselots Kumiai. And then the dividing line was actually, what€s that street, right where Hilo Motors is on -. HAYASHI:Kekuanaoa. FUKE:Kekuanaoa. Yeah, Kekuanaoa was the dividing line between the Lower and Upper Waiakea Houselots Kumiai. The thought was to have in that area on the makai side of the Houselots area, you know, to be more like a mixture of uses; and for that area on the upper side or the Volcano side of Kekuanaoa Street would be primarily a different form of Residential uses. If you look at the whole concept of Medium Density, in my estimation I think the concept of Medium Density is really like it€s fostering the notion of mixed uses. Historically, you know, when towns or cities used to grow, you have like a mixture of uses. And then came in the early 1900s and after like I guess the Supreme Court confirmed the, you know, the city of Euclid (phonetic) versus this guy who wanted to do this kind of industrial development, and the Supreme Court then kind of confirmed that, yes, government has a right to establish zoning. And since that time then the emphasis has been really more like one of segregated land uses. You know, you don€t put industrial uses next to residential, you put commercial uses away from residential, so on and so forth. And it became more like segregated type of uses, as opposed to in years past, you know, you used to have more like a mixture of uses. But more recently, you know, we€ve all heard the terms like new urbanism, the smart growth and all of that stuff; and it€s basically trying to talk about how you want to get away from this so-called automobile culture; and you want to bring, have a mixture of neighborhoods that kind of promote walking, cycling, close to places of jobs and employment, you know. And that€s kind of like the so- called, what they call, like the smart growth kind of theory. Whether we subscribe to that or not, you know, it remains to be seen. But I think that if you look at the concept of the Medium Density, that€s what the Medium Density is really intended to do, trying to provide a mixture of Commercial, Residential, and different forms of residential uses all within a particular area. So I know the Commission has a major task in terms of trying to figure out, well, what kind of uses go where, and all that stuff. 4EXHIBIT B And I think one of the major things, when you look at the Medium Density area, that you might want to consider is look at like more performance standards. Because when you have mixture of uses, you know, there are certain things that maybe an existing neighborhood may not want so you try to find ways that you can best ameliorate or mollify that kind of concerns, whether it€s through additional setback, height limitations. As a case in point is that if the Commissioners will recall that as we went through the rezoning application for Janice Oshiro,just off of Kilauea Avenue, for example, you know, there were concerns related to, the neighbors concerns relative to not necessarily drainage but in that situation it was height, noise, so on and so forth. And so you try to structure conditions so as to mitigate or mollify any potential neighbor€s kind of concerns. And that I think is the whole concept of a mixture of land uses. It€s a long way of saying -. You know,going back again to this particular proposal, if you look at this proposal it€s a request for some commercial uses along a relatively heavily traveled area but yet it€s kind of proximate toresidentialareas;andintermsofbasicinfrastructure,asthestaffpointedout,thebasic infrastructure is already there. If it€s not there, then it will be provided by the applicant, for example, the curb, gutter sidewalk section fronting the property, hooking up to the County sewer system, providing additional rights-of-way that may be needed to make the roadway much more safe. There is an additional landscaping requirement, setback. And I think, in my estimation anyway, if you look at the whole concept of mixed use, this is the kind of use that could appropriately be considered within this section of the area. GRAHAM:Good. Thank you. Do we have any questions or comments from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Thank you. I have two questions for clarification. On page 2 of the background report, under description of project site, it says that the property was previously used as a dwelling site but it is presently cleared and leveled. Did this happen before or after the Hirayama€s purchased the property? FUKE:After. SIRACUSA:Okay, that€s one question. Number 2, under the traffic impact, the applicant does not anticipate vehicular movements to and from the site to be substantial, etc., average no more than 10 movements every half hour during the course of the day. I also understand, however, that the number of bays is sort of open. They€re going to sift things around depending on the needs of their prospective tenants. And, therefore if we don€t know how many businesses there are going to be or what types of business, and different types of business generates different kinds of traffic, how can they anticipate the traffic volume? Is there a formula or something that€s used here, or do up, average out, or -? Could you explain that to me, please. FUKE:Yeah, you pretty much average out and you look at the overall square footage of the project, which would be -. In this situation the proposed square footage is like 7,200 square feet. And so whether you have bays like 900, or even smaller, or 1800 square feet, cumulatively what you are looking at is an impact of a 7200-square foot rentable area. 5EXHIBIT B SIRACUSA:And you€ve got 18 parking stalls for assuming 9 bays. That€s likesaying, okay, we have one employee parking -- or is there going to be employee parking somewhere else --one employee parking and then they can only have one customer at a time? FUKE:No. The parking ratio was as stipulated by the Zoning Code, which is one stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area that they have, in addition to handicap and loading zone. SIRACUSA:One more. FUKE:Sure. SIRACUSA:Okay. A lot of times the maps and the graphic materials that€s presented to us, we get not only a plan of the site, a map of the entire area, not only the footprint of the buildingbutanelevation.Doyouhappentohavethatsowehaveanideaofwhatit€ssupposed to look like? FUKE:I don€t have the proposed elevation, except that it€s going to be a single story structure; and being a single-story structure definitely not taller than a 25-foot high structure. SIRACUSA:Is it going to be one of those steel buildings? FUKE:I believe it would be, the structure material. Excuse me, could I call Mr. Hirayama -. SIRACUSA:Yes, oh, yes. FUKE:He€ll be able to answer it. GRAHAM:Is this Mr. Hirayama? Before you speak, could you give us your name and address for the record. HIRAYAMA:Okay. My name is Melva Hirayama. My address is 728 Wainaku Avenue. GRAHAM:Thank you. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission here today? HIRAYAMA:I do. GRAHAM:Thank you. Go ahead with any comments that you€re like. HIRAYAMA:What was the question? SIRACUSA:I was wondering what the building is going to look like, if it€s one of those steel buildings or -? 6EXHIBIT B HIRAYAMA:Yes, metal building. The outside is going to be metal, metal siding, metal building. SIRACUSA:Okay, thank you. GRAHAM:All right. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Fuke, could I ask you a drainage-related questions? FUKE:Sure. GRAHAM:I know in the previous application we had today we were dealing with drainage concerns and all. And I know that one of your conditions here is that, and one of our general situations is that any development-generated runoff should be disposed of on property. Since the elevation here is relatively low, relative to sea level and all, I was just wondering if you couldgiveusanideaofhowyou€llactuallyaccomplishthat,youknow,onthegrounddisposing of the runoff, and if there€s any way that the County Department of Public Works could ever actually, can verify that it€s successful, what€s done and all. FUKE:Sure. Generally like there€s going to be like two separate drainage report requirements. One is going to relate to the site itself. Cause if this rezoning goes through and he submits his plans for a building permit, in conjunction with the submittal of the building permit application he has to submit civil drawings that show how the on-site drainage will be disposed of. And, generally, in situations like that, and this situation here, the on-site generated runoff will be handled through a system of drywells. The drywells would have to be reviewed and approved by not only Public Works Department but the State Department of Health under the Underground Injection Control System. The other sets of construction plans that he€s going to have to prepare would be the construction plans as required by your staff€s recommendation, construction plans for your curb, gutter, sidewalk section along Manono Street. And so when you have your curb, gutter, sidewalk section, there€s also going to have to be provisions for accommodating the drainage system and probably they will have to install a system of drywells, you know, like within the road frontage to accommodate the additional water in that area. So both plans would have to be prepared, have to be reviewed and approved by the County, and subsequent permits by the Department of Health under the Underground Injection Control Permit System would have to be issued. GRAHAM:Okay. And then maybe like kind of like on the ground since you€re 20 feet roughly above sea level of something like that, so probably if you drill down 20 feet you would actually kind of hit a water table or something. And so what you€re effectively doing is taking any extra runoff and getting it down below the level of the surface, and somehow it will dissipate laterally or into the water table enough to keep up whatever rains coming down or something. Is that the idea? FUKE: Correct, yeah. And so like through UIC and as well as the MPDS permit they both govern water quality as well. So if, for example, the proposed zoning wouldn€t allow it, but say if you have an Industrial zoning and you have like an auto body fender shop or something that may cause like gasoline spill or something like that, then your catchment system would also have to be different to be able to protect the groundwater in that area. 7EXHIBIT B GRAHAM:Good. Thank you very much for that. If we have no more questions from the Commissioners, hold on just a second, we also have no people signed up on this, on our public testimony sheet here. But if there is anyone here in the audience who would like to come forth at this point and make any public testimony you€re welcome to do so. YUEN:I have a question. GRAHAM:We have a question then from the Planning Director. YUEN:I€m not getting your parking spaces being enough. You€ve got 7200 square feet and you€ve got 18 parking spaces where you need one per 300 square feet gross floor area. So you need 24. SIRACUSA:Excuseme,onthatsamething,isthat18plusoneADAorthe18includes the ADA? FUKE:It€s inclusive. I don€t have my calculator; but if it€s insufficient then, you know, through the plan approval process then, you know, obviously the building would have to be reduced to accommodate the required number of parking stalls. YUEN:The other thing is that the site plan doesn€t show an area, the Rule 17 requires landscaping on the parking lot side, actually on both sides that adjoin the RS zones; and you don€t show enough space for the -. You could put this landscaping in the setback on the building side, but you don€t show enough space for the landscaping on the other side. FUKE:Yeah, you are correct. So definitely the plans would have to be modified to address the Chapter 17, your landscaping requirements. GRAHAM:So then if I understand, may I ask the Planning Director here if I understand the situation that we€re in, that like the specifics we€re looking at the drawing on the board, they are really probably not quite in conformity with what€s required for landscaping and perhaps for the number of parking places. So maybe there will be some revision of that before it goes to the Council. But then we can proceed with our action here today? FUKE:My sense is that like, you know, just given this dialogue that the plans are going to have to be reduced a little bit to accommodate the required setback requirements for the landscaping as well as the parking. If in fact like the mathematical, you know, I€m not doing the math right now, but if it turns out to be insufficient parking, for example, then the way to cure that is to reduce the size of the building. And the Director is correct that they have to provide accommodations for setbacks for landscaping on properties that are adjoining the residential zone, which are on both sides of the property. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. SIRACUSA:Commissioner Graham, I have a question. GRAHAM:Commissioner Siracusa. 8EXHIBIT B SIRACUSA:I have a question of the Director. I€ll hold it a minute until he can hear it. GRAHAM:Okay, holdon just a second. YUEN:I€m sorry. GRAHAM:Mr. Fuke just responded; and also Commissioner Siracusa has a question for you, Mr. Yuen. Go ahead. YUEN:Yes. I think that the conditions don€t change because the conditions refer to the standard conditions. I was just pointing out that I think that what has been presented doesn€t actually work. They presented something that looks like it maximizes the site as far as the use of the site. But there would have to be more parking spaces. So you€d have to have, I don€tthinkthere€sroomformoreparkingspaces,sothatit€sgoingtowindupwithasmaller building. Plus there has to be landscaping that is going to cut this down a little bit more. The landscaping, it€s not, the landscaping requirement is not really strong along the side boundary. It€s only a 5-foot wide strip with plantings. But it€s still something that they€re not showing on their site plan and will cut down the site a little bit. And the question, I€m sorry? SIRACUSA:That was my question but I have a follow-up question to you for that one. And that is so does that mean that we have to defer until they come back with another plan or does that happen at final plan approval? YUEN:No, you don€t have to defer it because this is a conceptual plan; and, in fact, as with many other rezonings, with the current conditions, they could do something totally different. I was just pointing out to Mr. Fuke that there were some problems with the site plan that they presented here. SIRACUSA:Okay, that segues then into the question I was going to ask you. And that is regarding your Conditions L and M that have to do with the housing element of the General Plan, and this is not for housing. Was that put in, is that a not applicable thing or did you put that in just in case because CN-20 would allow Single- and Multi-Family Residential uses and if they changed their minds and decided to do something else you€ve got it in here? YUEN:Yes. Because the CN zoning does allow for Residential use, in fact, Multi-Family Residential use at quite a density, one unit per 1250 square feet. So people will often come forward like these applicants with a particular plan. But we always have to remember that if you grant the zoning without special conditions they can change their minds and do something different that€s consistent with the zoning. And in this case that would include Residential uses, including Multi-Family. So we put the affordable housing condition in to cover the possibility that they will develop housing there rather than the current Commercially-oriented plan. SIRACUSA:Thank you. I suspected that but I wanted to hear it from the horse€s mouth, so to speak. 9EXHIBIT B GRAHAM:Any other questions from Commissioners? Mr. Fuke, I think maybe you referred to this but I didn€t ask you specifically. Are you in accord with the conditions that the Planning Department has recommended for us here today? FUKE:Correct. Those conditions were also reviewed by Mr. Hirayama and they were acceptable. GRAHAM:All right, thank you. All right, you can step back now. So, Commissioners, we have a recommendation to the County Council on a change of zone application before us. So we could accept a motion at this point, or any comments, or discussions that you would like to put forward. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a Change of Zone Docket No. REZ 06- 000034basedonthePlanningDirector€srecommendationandproposedconditions. GRAHAM:Thankyou.Dowehaveasecond? GALDONES:Second. GRAHAM:CommissionerGaldones,thankyou.Anydiscussionbythe Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:For the record, I€d like to reiterate my on-going concerns about the process that we€re going through to create in the Houselots area basically. The only example that comes to mind right now is another Kihei kind of strip mall development; and one that I cannot support as I€ve stated numerous times earlier. I really believe that the process that needs to be followed to develop this area is the implementation of the Community Development Plan process which is authorized under the General Plan Amendment adopted last year. The Council has the authority to proceed with that process. And I€d like to make it clear on the record that I believe the Council should do that, that it should implement the Community Development Plan process for Hilo, not just for the Houselots area but for the entire city; and that whether or not a project like Mr. and Mrs. Hirayama goes forward in this particular area in this particular manner should be addressed, as Mr. Fuke so accurately set out in discussing how we got to where we are today in terms of our planning process.‚ In the big picture, what Mr. Fuke described basically got us what we have today, all of the benefits and all of the problems. We are today engaged in basically that same process, nothing different. And it€s the same process that got us to where we are today, got Maui to where it is today, got Oahu to where it is today, and got LA to where it is today. None of the laws are any different. Our laws are all the same. Our zoning and planning and subdivision laws are all the same; and we€re headed down that road unless we do something different. Our General Plan Amendment adopted last year provides a way to do something different; and that is the Community Development Plan. I€m very pleased to see all of you here today showing an interest in where Hilo is going and what we do and how it affects that development. The Community Development Plan Process hopefully the Council will do something about it. So in the next couple of years, plus or minus, we can get something done that is specific as to design, whether or not the community wants to have a strip mall on Manono Street, and a strip mall on 10EXHIBIT B Kekuanaoa Street in the future and see how, you know -. If that€s what they want, fine. If it€s something else, then we€ll know what that is. Mr. Fuke talked about smart growth and the new urbanism. And, you know, it€s obvious if we focus our development in the mixed use as Mr. Fuke described and have people be able to live in places where they can walk to work, and the kids can walk to school that we cut down on our car problems, which we all have our car problems all over. And so that is a process that I think needs to be done. In particular in this case, you know, the map shows that we have abundant, I will characterize, Commercially zoned areas that are not developed that can provide the kind of office and commercial space that this change of zone is asking to add to that surplus. What we don€t have is sufficient affordable housing; and what this does is take out a potential site that is now designated for, you know, it€s supposed to be for Residential and we have a proposal for Commercial use. So all of those issues, I think, needs to be addressed in the Community Development Plan Process. And to be consistent with my past actions, I will be voting against thismeasure. GRAHAM:Thankyou,CommissionerIwashita.DoanyoftheotherCommissioners have any comments in regard to what was just said or any other comments of your own? GALDONES:Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can understand where Commissioner Iwashita€s concerns are, where he€s coming from; and he has been consistent all along in all the applications that have been coming forth to the Planning Commission, especially in those Houselots area. Now in absence of the Community Development Plan, then the Commissioners have to be guided by some other means. And, for myself, it€s the testimony that we get from the public. Now in this particular case we didn€t have any public testimony in opposition to this project. So what my take on it is that the community is, if the proper notice has gone out to the community, that the surrounding property owners are acceptable to this project; and that is the reason why I am supporting this application. It€s contrary to the next coming application before the Planning Commission where there has been a lot of testimony in relation to that application. So that is the guidance for me as a Planning Commissioner. In this particular case there has not been any opposition to it; and that to me means that the community is acceptable to this application coming forth before the Planning Commission. GALDONES:Thank you, Commissioner Galdones. Do we have any other comments from Commissioner Salavea, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah, I€ll share. My feelings sort of runs half way between Commissioner Galdones€ and Commissioner Iwashita€s. For I, too, have been very consistent in this area about not wanting to see affordable housing taken out of the area. In this case there is not, however, a dwelling on the parcel which was the case in the other applications that we have had to consider. And the people in the room today who are here for the townhouse application are from the same area; and I haven€t seen any of them step forward, as Commissioner Galdones points out, to say 11EXHIBIT B yea or nay on this one. So I feel that under the circumstances I will be supporting it, cause I don€t feel it€s taking away from affordable housing. GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Since we are at a bare quorum with five of us here at the moment because our Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. Alameda, is out for an hour, it naturally arises in the mind that, well, for the most fairness to the applicant we could put off a vote until we have as many as we get here today, which would be six. But I don€t want to appear like we€re gaming the system in any way. So I€d like Commissioner Iwashita to say how he feels about that, if you would please. IWASHITA:Well, I think, procedure there€s a problem with the Chair returning and considering this matter because he hasn€t heard, he would need to review at least the minutes of the testimony presented; otherwise he wouldn€t have had the benefit of the entire record on this matter. So I think procedurally that is a concern that I would have. Whether that€s a legitimate concernornotontherulesoftheCommission,I€mnotcertain. I€dliketoaddressthequestionraisedbythefactthatthehousethatusedtobeonthisproperty has been demolished and how that should or shouldn€t affect the consideration of this proposal. My view is that if this Commission looks at vacant land different from a lot that has an existing dwelling that is being used and saying, well, we€re not going to take that into consideration, to me what that does is it will encourage speculators to buy property, raze the land, knock down any buildings on it and then come in for proposals that will get better consideration. And so to me it€s not a good way to proceed, you know, with that kind of a rationale. I really believe that the best way to proceed, you know, since we really don€t have a Commercial shortage, you know, properties that are zoned Commercial that can be developed to meet whatever needs there are commercially, that we can forego this and really encourage the Council to take steps to spend a couple million bucks or whatever it€s going to take to get the Community Development Plans done. And then it will be a real clear picture for developers, like Mr. Hirayama and his company and others, in terms of where development will occur. And they won€t have to come to this body to get it approved because the Community Development Plan would be relatively clear in terms of what uses will be done where, and with what kind of design perhaps, you know, that the community wants to see in how the commercial developments are done. You know, do we want nice storefront wide sidewalks, on-street parking, public transit available to get to these areas or do we want a Kihei strip mall, right? I mean that€s what a Community Development Plan allows the community to choose; and that is, to me, the preferred smart way to go. GRAHAM:Mr. Torigoe, I might just ask a little bit for your counsel on this. If in fact we do take a vote and we don€t have a five-vote majority going for or against, then presumably this moves forward to the next Planning Commission meeting; and I for that reason suggested that maybe we wait for Mr. Alameda to return so we have six. But Commissioner Iwashita brings up the good point that he hasn€t been here listening to the testimony we€ve put forth. So do you have any comments on what you think would be proper and fairest? TORIGOE:Okay, let€s see. There are two things that you mentioned. One was what would happen if you don€t get five votes; and I think staff has indicated that this would have to come back again at least one more time within the 90-day timeframe. 12EXHIBIT B HAYASHI:The background report and recommendation was forwarded to the th Planning Commission on March 30. So -. TORIGOE:Okay. So as you go, under the rules you have a 90-day timeframe in which you should be considering, you know, some kind of affirmative or negative th recommendation. And so we would have, let€s see, you said March 30 so April, May, until th roughly June 30. And so it€d probably come up maybe at least once more. HAYASHI:Well, if we do have a meeting in June, it will be -. TORIGOE:Maybe twice more. Okay, so it will come up again. The issue of voting without having, let€s say the Chairperson comes back and would like to participate in the vote, this is not a contested case hearing. And the rules and the Statutes I think regarding the necessity of mastering the record speak to contested case matters. This is an advisory matter. So, let me just take a look at this a little more closely. GRAHAM:One other thought comes to me in this regard is that if we do have a vote, let€s say if we were to put off voting for now and maybe take lunch recess and then have a vote when Mr. Alameda comes back, if he were to consider what Mr. Iwashita suggested that he is not privy to all what we€ve discussed without him having to vote against the project, is it appropriate andwithintherulesforhimtosortoftakeanote,youknow,passonthevotesothat Mr. Iwashita€s concern about lack of information could get heard through his action in that way, or he€d pretty much have to vote yea or nay? TORIGOE:No, I think if he in his conscience feels like he does not have enough information to vote, I mean, he could abstain. Another possibility is if the applicant would basically stipulate to having a vote on that basis, that is a possibility. But, you know, again, I think the rules basically regarding the necessity of mastering the record apply to contested cases. This is not a contested case, so there€s a kind of a, it€s an option that could be considered. But I think obviously it would be cleaner if every one who votes has an opportunity to master the entire record. GRAHAM:Okay. Do we have any other comments? Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Mr. Chair, I just want to float this idea out. We kind of put the applicants at a handicap because the Commission has been struggling to provide a quorum; and if we do we just probably barely make it, and it€s not really fair to the applicants who come before this Commission. And I€m probably just preaching to the choir here. However, that being said, you know, in fairness to the applicants, instead of having it delayed because we€re not able to provide the necessary quorum or a full contingency of Commissioners to be voting on the subject matter, if perhaps we probably, if the Chair is willing to, withdraw his motion, I€ll withdraw my motion. And perhaps we can get a unanimity in submitting this to the County Council with an unfavorable recommendation. So at least the process can move forward, and it€ll give the applicant the opportunity to present it to the County Council for further action. I don€t know that, having said that, counsel, if that would appropriate, or would it look kind of tainted and the process would be not a favorable way to go? 13EXHIBIT B TORIGOE:Well, I think if it€s clear what your intent is, you know. And what you€re basically expressing is something that would be on the record that because of various circumstances it is not apparently possible to get a five-vote positive recommendation at this point but that the intent is to move this on to Council. And the entire record would be sent up to the Council sothat your individual comments regarding the merits of the matter would be on the record. GRAHAM:Yes, Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Can I butt in on this? GRAHAM:Yes, please. YUEN:I would recommend against that. Your role is to consider the matter, to takeavote,andtotrytomakeafavorableorunfavorablerecommendation.Idon€tlikehaving these come back repeatedly before the Commission; but I also don€t think that there€s, it€s not an imperative -. The rules provide for these to be at the Commission for 90 days. I don€t think it€s imperative that it be voted out on the first time. And I don€t want to encourage the Commissioners to vote no on a, to vote against an application when they are actually in favor of it. GRAHAM:Yes, I would personally concur with the Planning Director. To me that would be like gaming the system role; and I don€t feel like I want to be doing any gaming. So I guess my sense is, you know, I would prefer that we take a recess for lunch and have Commissioner Alameda come back and let him decide whether he feels it€s appropriate for him to vote on this along with the rest of us. But I certainly do not feel like I should call any recess, unless you€re all in agreement. And if Commissioner Iwashita doesn€t like that plan or if any of the others of you don€t like that plan, I will withdraw that suggestion; and we€ll go ahead and take a vote. IWASHITA:Let€s eat. GRAHAM:Pardon? IWASHITA:Let€s eat. GRAHAM:Let€s eat. Well, thank you. RECESSEDThe Chair called a recess at 11:57 a.m. RECONVENEDThemeetingreconvenedat1:15p.m. ALAMEDA:WillthemeetingofthePlanningCommissionnowcomebackinorder. Aloha, I€m back. Thank you, Commissioner Graham, for filling in. So may I ask for kind of an update?If,Mr.Graham,youwouldliketosharewithmewherewe€reat? GRAHAM:Sure.SowewereconsideringtherecommendationtotheCouncilona rezoning request by Hirayama Brothers. And we didn€t have public testimony, but we went 14EXHIBIT B through the usual process with the applicant and the Commission€s questions and all. And then we went and had a motion for approval of the recommendations, for a favorable recommendation based on what we got as a recommendation from the Planning Department with no changes. And it was relatively apparent because Commissioner Iwashita explained due to his, the way he consider these requests in regards to Community Development Plan absence and such that he was not going to be able to support it. So we knew we weren€t going to have five votes in support even though the motion was in support. So we had the motion, finished our discussion. And rather than vote and get inconclusive, we decided to go ahead and adjourn for lunch, and come back so that you would be in a voting position. And I also asked Mr. Torigoe if you didn€t feel like you were enough up to speed for having missed what was there, whether it was appropriate for you to also abstain if you felt that was right; and he said, yes, it was. So we€re in a spot now where I guess we€re still open for any commentary from the Commission Members. But we have a motion on the floor and we€re going to, you know, presumably vote, as soon as we finish our discussion. ALAMEDA:All right, thank you very much, Mr. Graham. It sounds like there are severaloptionpresented.Iheardtwo.Oneofthemistoperhapsformetogoaheadandjoin you all and cast a vote; another option is to abstain and you guys can go ahead and cast your votes. I€m just thinking of a third option as well; and, I don€t know, this is kind of off the top of my head, Mr. Torigoe, as our counsel. I would like to participate. However, I do feel a little bit uncomfortable cause I don€t have the full and complete record. I€d like to acknowledge what Mr. Iwashita had to say. I didn€t get a chance to read the transcript, so to honor that perspective as well. Everybody€s voice is important to me. And so I€m wondering if a third option would be to continue or to defer. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think certainly if there€s consensus then it would be appropriate to continue to allow everyone to master the record, that is an option. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, you know, I don€t know the deliberations or what happened in terms of the discussion prior to me being here, but are there any objections to continuing? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:I don€t have any objections to continuing. I was just wondering if maybe you could avail yourself of the opportunity since there are people here already to ask any questions that might have come to your mind while you were reviewing the materials before the meeting. Would that be appropriate for him to do that at this point, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Well, you have a motion pending at this point. But, again, if there are no objections from any of the parties or the Commissioners, I think that would be all right to do. ALAMEDA:You know, looking at my notes here from the Hirayama Brothers Electric Incorporated application as well as the recommendation made by the Department and, you know, Houselots. I didn€t see anything sticking out that would make me feel different from the recommendation made by the Department. So without hearing what was on the table prior to me leaving, I would, my leanings would be to accept the recommendation made by the Department. Commissioner Graham? 15EXHIBIT B GRAHAM:In the discussion, we did have commentary by Commissioner Iwashita, Mr. Galdones, and Ms. Siracusa also about how they felt about it. So if you wanted a brief replay or something for your benefit, I presume we could do that, too, without being too lengthy. But that€s up to you whether you think it€s appropriate. ALAMEDA:It€s up to you guys. I feel that if we were to go through that route, then we might as well accept the Option 1, and that is I might as well vote. Then it will make me get almost a complete record, one that I would feel comfortable with. If you guys are okay, if there€s no objections to that, then if you can give me your synopsis and highlight your issues, then we can move forward in that way. Any objections? Seeing none, Commissioner Siracusa, why don€t you start off? SIRACUSA:Well, actually, I came between Mr. Iwashita€s comments about the need for a Community Development Plan and Mr. Galdones€ comments about there not being any communityopposition.AndIsortofwassortofstraddlinginbetweenthembecauseIfeltthatI like to listen to what the community has to say, but at the same time there wasn€t an affordable housing issue here which had been the issue in a lot of the other Waiakea Houselots applications we€ve had. And, quite frankly, I€m still -. ALAMEDA:Okay. That€s cool. SIRACUSA:Yeah. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well, Commissioner Galdones, did you get a chance to share? Would you like to give me your take? GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. My comment was centered around the concerns that was raised by Commissioner Iwashita where there was a lack of a Community Development Plan. And in the absence of a Community Development Plan, then the way I would rule is what does the community feel about the application. In this particular case there was no testimony submitted from the community or from the public. So I interpreted that to mean that they are in favor of the application. So if you€re looking for a Community Development Plan and raised a question to the community, is this acceptable to the community, I would say, yes, they are saying in absence of any testimony that, yes, they are in favor of this. And I for one believe that the community should determine what their community should look like. And in absence of that, I€m taking that as an affirmative, they€re okay with it; and I was guided by that in supporting the motion made by Commissioner Salavea to approve the application. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Graham, would you like to add anything or -? GRAHAM:I guess I€d only say that, yeah, I will also vote in the affirmative for a favorable recommendation based on the fact that it conforms with our General Plan. It is intended by our General Plan by prior actions of the Council to be like a mixed use neighborhood. And as long as there€s no specific issues that I feel like they€re problematic for the community like road issues, or drainage issues, or sewage issues, or something, that being that it conforms to the General Plan and we don€t have public opposition, I certainly would support it. 16EXHIBIT B ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Iwashita, do you care to -? IWASHITA:You dare ask? I think the Chair is aware of myfeelings as I expressed when we considered the Tripp matter, which is the adjoining property. So I€ll rely on your recollection of all that I said there, which is essentially what I reiterated on this record. The only other thing I think that I would like to add is that, you know, as far as community input, I guess my view is that we have a 1975 Hilo Community Plan which designates this area as Residential. We have the most recent General Plan Amendment which took this area from Low Density to Medium Density Urban zoning, I mean, General Plan designation. And, you know, that doesn€t change directly the Hilo Community Plan€s designation of this area as Residential. So if we look to the history of the planning process that€s applicable to this lot, the more specific designation is in the Hilo Community Development Plan. It says Residential. Yes, Medium Density Urban designation in the General Plan does allow for changing zone to Commercial. Whereas before last year€s change the Low Density Urban did not allow for Commercial change. So what€s happeninghereistheownerasalltheotherownersintheothermatterswe€veconsideredinthis area have come in and, because of the change to Medium Density, are essentially taking advantage of that to change the use from the Residential designation in the Community Development Plan which has not been changed and they want to change it to Commercial. So there€s a conflict there. And I understand the Department€s position is, well, because the Department initiated change from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban was done basically without any real community input, you know, that that justifies having this Commercial change of zone done. I don€t agree that that history by itself justifies this change of zone to Commercial CV-10, or whatever it is, no, I don€t want to be inaccurate, CN-20. So, again, I think that because there really is no shortage of Commercially zoned properties that have not yet been developed that can be developed to meet whatever Commercial needs are there, that the best route to take is to everyone in this room go to your Councilperson and say let€s get the Community Development Plan done. We have $25,000,000 extra. Let€s use some of that to get this done. And then we won€t need this debate because the discussion about what€s going to be done, where, how, is going to be done in the community by those people like yourselves that care about these issues. And that is, to me, the better course to take and the way to avoid Kihei and other strip mall developments. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. I appreciate that. Commissioner Salavea, you want to add anything that€s different? SALAVEA:I didn€t provide any comments during the initial discussion. But my feelings run along the same lines as Commissioner Galdones, that in the absence of an updated CDP public testimony is probably the most useful and current information that we can use to make decisions such as this on applications, especially regarding the Hilo Houselots area. Unfortunately we don€t get the same type of, or consistent type of testimony from application to application which can cause the perception of the Commission spot zoning or approving some applications and not approving others. And that€s my concern, is that if this application was to come on separate agendas as other agenda items in the same area the absence of any community input for or against the proposed project would in most cases in my mind in my opinion allow the project or the application to get approved. It€s only when we do get public input that we can use that as information, current information, to base our decisions from. So that€s my train of thought or where I€m coming from. Thank you. 17EXHIBIT B ALAMEDA:Thank you. Thank you, Fellow Commissioners, for your input. Let me just ask, Mr. Torigoe, or Commissioner Graham, was that pretty much a highlight of the discussion? GRAHAM:Yes, I think so. ALAMEDA:Okay. Okay then, Mr. Torigoe, I would recommend that I participate in the voting at this time. Does that fit in with the protocols or maybe you want to enlighten us on previous -? TORIGOE:Yeah. You know, I don€t know that I€ve ever seen a case like this where the Chairperson has stepped out for a while and then come back and voted. PUBLIC:You€resettingaprecedent. ALAMEDA:I€msettingaprecedenttoday,folks. TORIGOE:AsIwassayingearlier,therulethatrequiresmasteryoftherecordin order for a vote is one that arises under the Statutes and the rules that applies to contested case procedures. I haven€t been able to find over the lunch hour anything that specifically deals with this situation. Generally speaking, you know, I think you would have the authority to go ahead and cast a vote in a non-contested case situation such as this. There is always, you know, you always have the discretion, I think, to ask for a continuance so that you can go ahead and look at the transcripts and whatever else is available. So that remains an option for you. I€ll just leave it at that. ALAMEDA:All right, I understand. I recommend that we move forward with the vote at this time. Unless my Fellow Commissioners have any major objections that I would want to -? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the motion is to recommend approval of the change of zone application based on the recommendation by the Planning Director with proposed conditions. With that, I€ll call the roll. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. 18EXHIBIT B HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Abstain. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion does not carry. ALAMEDA:All right. The applicant will be notified -. TORIGOE:So you have no decision at this point. You have to have five votes up or downandyoustillhavetheremainderofthe90-dayperiodinwhichtheCommissionoughtto consider the matter and try to come to some kind of decision. ALAMEDA:So does it come back on the agenda, Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:Yes. ALAMEDA:All right. We want it for the next Hilo meeting or -? HAYASHI:We€ll put it on the next Hilo meeting. ALAMEDA:Okay. Do we need a motion for that, no? TORIGOE:No. ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe, that ends that? TORIGOE:Yes. That€s so, you know, basically under the requirements of the rule that you consider this for the 90-day period, it will come upon the next agenda. ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you for being patient. Thank you for waiting. The discussion ended at 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 19EXHIBIT B