Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-02 TMochida PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT June 2, 2006 IVAN MOCHIDA AND LES A regularly advertised hearing on the application filed by ABURAMEN (REZ 06-000035) was called to order at 1:46 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Bill Graham Jeffrey McCall Rodney Watanabe Fred Galdones 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 8 people from the public in attendance APPLICANTS: IVAN MOCHIDA AND LES ABURAMEN (REZ 06-000035) Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple- Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district for approximately 90,400 square feet of land. The properties are located on both sides of Laukapu Street between Lanikaula Street and Leilani Street,Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-36: 60, 102 and 103. ALAMEDA:Final agenda item is Item No. 5, Applicants: Ivan Mochida and Les Aburamen. This is Rezoning 06-000035, Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple-Family Residential 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district for approximately 90,400 square feet of land. When staff is ready, you may proceed. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as a matter of orientation, the subject property is indicated by this red dot. It is situated along Laukapu Street at this particular location. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts and the yellow areas are currently zoned Single Family Residential. We do have Industrial zoning at this particular location, some Industrial/Commercial uses here; and we also have some Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial land use designations in this general location. This is the Big Island th Candies’ property. As previously indicated at the last meeting on May 5, the applicant is proposing to do a 34-unit townhouse development on both sides of Laukapu Street. This 1EXHIBIT B particular property which is the Aburamen property is being deferred since the current General Plan is Industrial. So the only area under consideration for rezoning at this particular time would be the Mochida property consisting of two lots. th At the May 5 meeting, there was a motion to send a favorable recommendation on this particular request. The motion did not carry. There were four aye votes for an unfavorable recommendation and one no vote. This matter is being brought before you again for discussion/deliberation. ALAMEDA:Norman, can you share that, what was the roll call the last time? HAYASHI:Okay, those voting for the unfavorable recommendation were Commissioner Iwashita, Commissioner Galdones, Commissioner Graham, Chair Alameda; and the sole no vote was by Commissioner Salavea. ALAMEDA:Thank you. This is a round two again. Fellow Commissioners, any additional questions that you might have regarding this? Any more information we might need? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Norman, do we have two more meetings on this or just this one? HAYASHI:This would be the last meeting. WATANABE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Will the applicant or his representative please come forward. Mr. Fuke, all right, we swore you in, got your address already. Again, anything to add or take away regarding this application? FUKE:Well, first of all, I’d like to acknowledge the absence of the owner. He had a prior commitment on Kauai so, you know, he’s not here today. Essentially, if I can just kind of summarize, as you mentioned, you know, Mr. Chair, this is the second round so I don’t want to go into detail. But, in summary, the property is like about an acre and a half because we’re focusing only on Mr. Mochida’s property. And, you know, one alternative that he has is that given the size of his property he could do a 6-lot subdivision and create like 12 rental homes on the ohana basis without paying any impact fee, satisfying affordable housing requirement. What he’s proposing to do, on the other hand, is to basically double the density and try to create like about 25 townhouse units on the property; and in so doing having to be responsible for impact fee, and having a 20 percent affordable housing requirement and more critically fostering home ownership at a more affordable level, rather than having 12 rental units on the property. I do understand that there are concerns relative to infrastructure, drainage, traffic. As we pointed out at the last time I think like on the drainage issue there are already appropriate mitigative measures that can be taken or will be taken by the applicant and further enhanced or required by the County, if the County accepts the staff’s proposed recommendation relating to curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting the property. There will be ample on-site parking, because these are all townhouses, a project, basically you have to look at like a typical residence where you would 2EXHIBIT B have two covered garage parking stalls and the possibility of having two additional stalls right in the back on the, tandem style in the back of the units. Unlike this other project and partially, you know, this is a residential project. This is not a commercial project. It’s not like, I would not characterizes this as what Commissioner Iwashita did on the other one. This is not like the Kihei type of project. It’s a residential project. It’s not a commercial, it’s not an industrial. And with that, I’ll just leave it up to questions or comments by the Commissioners. ALAMEDA:How about questions? Comments we’ll save it for our discussion. Any questions for our applicant? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Fuke, for that. Could you elaborate for me, again, the alternative that you had spoken in your testimony? FUKE:In the beginning? SALAVEA:Yeah. FUKE:See, the property is roughly about, he has about 67,000 square feet of land. And with 67,500 square feet of land, given the RS-10 zoning, then, you know, he could just do a straight 6-lot subdivision. And you do a 6-lot subdivision under the existing Code then it is possible to put up one basic and one ohana unit. So essentially you would have like 12 units, single family or duplexes units, on the 6 lots. Obviously, they’re going to have to be rented, much more than fee simple, I mean, unless person owns one lot and decides to live in one and rent the other one. And so what I was suggesting here is as opposed to taking that route, he’s proposing to construct 25 town homes which would essentially amount to doubling what he is currently capable of doing. But in so doing he would have to obligate himself by having an affordable housing requirement through the zone change and paying an impact fee and also fostering the notion of home ownership. Whereas, on the traditional rental approach then you won’t be able to do that. And I think that by having home ownership it creates a greater sense of community rather than a transient condition created by rentals. SALAVEA:So as I understand then under the alternative he wouldn’t be obligated at all towards providing affordable housing? FUKE:There’s no affordable housing requirement. And the Director can correct but as I understand no affordable housing requirement and no impact fee requirement. SALAVEA:Director Yuen? YUEN:Right. If you develop under existing zoning, no affordable housing requirement, no impact fee, no fair share. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea, follow-up? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Director. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. 3EXHIBIT B ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, I’m thinking, for one thing, that, of course, you would also have half of the density if he developed the lots as six separate lots even with ohana; and so the density in that community is a very important issue according to a lot of the letters that we got from people opposing this project. I also note a bit of elitism in the idea that the minute you rent to somebody they’re transients and therefore they don’t have a sense of community and therefore, you know, with all the implications, oh, they’re going to trash the place because they’re only renting, they don’t have a vested interest in it. I think that’s a very unfair kind of preassumption that you’re making about the kind of people that are going to rent. We do have a really strong need on this island for rental units, especially for middle income, low and middle income. And this is being all geared towards upper income. I don’t see that there’s much of a need for upper income housing as there is for lower. And I understand that a developer wants to maximize the amount of money he’s getting out of it, but that’s not what our kuleana is here to decide. I’m sorry, I should be asking a question and I’m not. I should have saved that for discussion. I apologize. ALAMEDA:But you picked up on that, that’s good. SIRACUSA:I just couldn’t keep my mouth shut. ALAMEDA:We’re getting better, we’re getting better. The subawareness is the first step to recognizing -. SIRACUSA:It’s catching. I’m sitting next to Commissioner Iwashita. ALAMEDA:So I’m glad we’re at this stage now. We’re getting better at this. YUEN:I’m going to you hire next time I really have problems. SALAVEA:I have a question for Director Yuen. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Regarding the General Plan and, maybe, Mr. Hayashi if you could help me with this also. It’s my understanding that the Medium Density land use designation is developed through the General Plan process. HAYASHI:That’s correct. SALAVEA:And through the General Plan Process community input towards what is the community’s desire for that particular area is taken into account and incorporated into the General Plan, as well as the Land Use Pattern? 4EXHIBIT B HAYASHI:That’s correct. That process is available to the general public, as well as residents of the area, when we come up for any kind of revision to the General Plan or development of the General Plan land use for that area. SALAVEA:And so notice for the community’s participation in that process is also given out prior to the meeting so that as much community input can be given at that particular time? HAYASHI:Yes. As far as the General Plan Amendment Process, we don’t necessarily notify all of the landowners; however, there is a process where we do have public meetings, which were conducted by the Planning Department. We also had public hearings by the Planning Commission, workshops, and subsequently Commission’s review of the proposed changes, as well as the County Council hearing process. SALAVEA:All right. And given that process, is there an alternative for the community to give input into redesignating the area in terms of going from Medium to Low, Low to Medium? HAYASHI:That process is available by commenting on the proposals by the Planning Director when we initially go out for notifying the public that the Planning Director will be reviewing the General Plan. We do publicize that people can or the general public can propose changes or recommend changes to the Planning Director. SALAVEA:All right. Thank you, Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:Thank you. We do have testimony on this matter. So I’d like to ask the applicant to be seated at this time. I want to call up a Kelly Kent and Miriam Hamakawa. Please have a seat up forward. I’ll have to swear both of you in at this time. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I guess we can start on my far right. Will you please state your name and address for the record. KENT:My name is Kelly Kent. I reside at 165 East Kawili Street, Houselots, Hilo, Hawaii. ALAMEDA:Thanks for coming today. KENT:Yeah, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Siracusa, and Members of the Planning Commission. ALAMEDA:You can proceed with your testimony and then we’ll move to Ms. Hamakawa after. Ms. Kent, go ahead. 5EXHIBIT B KENT:Okay. My beginning started, I have been here for a long time. My beginning started when my grandfather moved to Hawaii in 1900, married my grandmother Yukie Matsuura from the original Kapoho town. So I’ve been here a little while, or at least my family has been. SIRACUSA:You can move your microphone closer to you. KENT:Thank you. I’m nervous. ALAMEDA:No problem. We’re just as nervous. So, go ahead. KENT:Okay. I would like to show support of Mr. Mochida’s project in the Houselots area. He’s not looking at putting in a commercial structure. He’s looking at putting in residential. I’m a parent and independent business person, I’ve been a law enforcement officer with the State of Hawaii for 15 years, and I’m a property owner in the Houselots area. Ms. Siracusa, yes, the homeless are living in abandoned homes in the Houselots area, and that was brought to my attention very recently. I’ve seen the transition of the Houselots area from the original family to rentals, to rebuilding residentials, through allowing commercial industrial uses of the area. I consider myself becoming now one of the older or second generation in the Houselots area. I got to know the first generation. I’m not giving away my age. The population increased in Hawaii from 03 to 04 by 2.7 percent. My son recently moved back from Las Vegas to Oahu to Hilo, lived in a townhouse in Honolulu, and has to live with relatives here now because he can’t afford the $500,000 to $600,000 for a residential home. By building a project such as this, it will allow the young kids to move back to this area, and further their lives here, as opposed to having to stay away for jobs and housing. Our population in Hilo is now 41,000 and climbing. I feel that Mr. Mochida is not wasting this property but making an excellent use of the property in providing residential. He’s a responsible member of our community, a responsible contractor and has always shown himself to be responsible to the County and its various agencies. A townhouse is a low density structure as opposed to an apartment which applications in some of the areas have brought in larger apartment units. I think Mr. Yuen had given examples of potential apartment buildings and their various densities. The maintenance costs in a townhouse are shared. The infrastructure is shared, and there are several other things that make a townhouse more feasible than trying to go out and buy a regular single family dwelling. So with that I would ask the Commission to please consider Mr. Mochida’s application and move favorably on it. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Kent. We appreciate your testimony today. Any questions? It was very good, very articulate.Thank you. You may be seated. Ms. Hamakawa, could you please state your name and address for the record. HAMAKAWA:Hello. ALAMEDA:Hello. 6EXHIBIT B HAMAKAWA:My name is Miriam, Miriam Y. Hamakawa, and I live at 1143 Puhau Street in Hilo. ALAMEDA:Okay. HAMAKAWA:I also own, am part-owner of the property at 757 Laukapu Street in Houselots. ALAMEDA:Okay, you can proceed. Go ahead. HAMAKAWA:I want to personally appear before you, the Hawaii County Planning Commission, to ask you to support us. We who have lived in the area and still own property in the neighborhood are strongly opposed to this rezoning from Single Family Dwelling RS-10 to Medium Density Multiple Family Dwelling RM-2.5 which is located directly across from our property. So that is my point. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mrs. Hamakawa. Wait, maybe we’ll have questions. Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Could you please point on the map where your property is in relationship to the applicant’s property, on the smaller map, on the map on your right-hand side. No, the end one. HAMAKAWA:Oh, this -? SIRACUSA:No, the end one. HAMAKAWA:Okay, we’re right across from this. SIRACUSA:So you’re directly across from that one. And are you directly adjacent to the Aburamen? HAMAKAWA:Well, it’s about two house away from our property. SIRACUSA:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa, for helping us locate her house, Mrs. Hamakawa. We have any questions for Mrs. Hamakawa as she speeds out towards the back? Thank you so much for coming today. We appreciate your being here. HAMAKAWA:Thank you for your attention. ALAMEDA:Yes. All right, will the applicant, his representative return. Mr. Fuke, you’ve heard testimony from actually two sides of the coin. Do you have any additional comments? 7EXHIBIT B FUKE:No. At this point in time, no. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, what’s your pleasure? We could have a little more discussion if you’d like. WATANABE:May I make a suggestion? ALAMEDA:Sure, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I obviously wasn’t at the last meeting when the vote was taken. And in light of all of the discussion over affordable housing, I was wondering if my Fellow Commissioners who voted against this would share their reasoning behind it. It seems like it’s an opportunity to actually provide affordable housing. I’m not sure that affordable housing can be developed in this economic environment in the same single family type of dwelling that we, you know, pretty much have become accustomed to. Cause let’s face it, the land cost has gone up, construction cost has gone up. We can talk about affordable housing; but unless we look into multi-unit housing I don’t know that it will ever be affordable. So are we saying we want affordable housing but only if it’s single family dwelling with 15,000 square feet; and it’s impossible to attain? I’m not trying to be critical of how they voted the last time. I’m just wondering if they would share their reasoning. ALAMEDA:Sure. Let’s be brief. Let’s share a little bit and kind of bring Commissioner Watanabe up to speed on perhaps why Fellow Commissioners who voted against, maybe why that affordable housing perspective wasn’t the overall perspective in your vote. Who would like to share? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you. My concern and I believe the shared concern of the others that voted in favor of a non-favorable recommendation was primarily based on, if you look at the record from the last meeting, you know, the Houselots community almost unanimously testified against the project, mainly for infrastructure concerns and current problems that exists that essentially this project alone cannot address, you know, in terms of the flooding and so forth that occurs now and that this project can only do certain things that front this property and it’s not going to be able to mitigate the larger problems that we were presented the last time. So that I think was the main concern that was addressed by the votes for an unfavorable recommendation. And the record that we saw, and it’s part of the record here, includes all of those pictures by Mr. Nekoba that showed different levels of flooding and so forth that, I guess, existed essentially at the time because that was during the raining time that we were having and not this sunny clear weather now that we’re having. So that was primarily the, I think, the basis of an unfavorable recommendation. And I do, you know, we all want to promote affordable housing, I think; but in this particular case because of those circumstances, that’s why the unfavorable recommendation was voted on. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would pretty much act on the same thing that Commissioner Iwashita had said. But on the other hand, also, I would like commend the applicants, Mr. Mochida and Mr. Aburamen, to try to promote affordable housing, provide 8EXHIBIT B affordable housing. Because all of us know how other real estate market is at right now at this point in time, and providing this affordable housing would help. Unfortunately, the location, I had a problem with the location of where they’re going to be putting this project. The street in itself when we had viewed some of the pictures that were presented by Mr. Nekoba who had testified at our last meeting, there is not much room to improve the street so that it would allow or handle the density that this project was going to be providing. And so I see that as an adverse impact on the environment and also the ecology because of its location. So I had some difficulty in approving this application. If it was located in a much more desirable location and allowed, to be able to density that it was going to provide I would have supported this project. But it was primarily the location. ALAMEDA:The location. Thank you, Commissioner Galdones, for sharing that. I can speak. You know the affordable housing argument is a real strong one for me. And I had a real hard time denying this application, simply because I’m at the age where many of my peers are pretty much looking for a house, and some of them have to move away for that. And the disconnect with family and all, it kind of tears me apart. I don’t like to see families dislocated because they cannot find a home to live in there and where they were raised. So it was tough for me. But then I see the ladies in the back and I hear their testimony this time and the last time, and this is really their community, too, and they spoke pretty sincerely on it; and it kind of tore at my heart as well. So I kind of went with that. And I do feel that the density in that area would increase, double. And it’s tough, that was a tough place. So not so much the Community Plan issue for me. It’s the density issue and the testimony that’s kind of leaning me towards the “no,” so just to let you know, Commissioner Watanabe. Other thoughts? Anything else? You need more clarification? WATANABE:Yeah, I have a question for the Director. ALAMEDA:Sure. WATANABE:You know, flooding is a safety concern so I don’t think you can just overlook that easily. And I realize when you’re putting up a rather large structure and two parking stalls per units, you’re going to have a lot of impermeable surface. I also recognize that apparently the elevation here is somewheres around 20 feet above sea level. But I’m still wondering is there any way to mitigate against potential additional flooding through drywells, etc., in the parking area that, you know, would be part of Public Works’ oversight? YUEN:Well, in the end, they would have to comply with Public Works’ storm drainage standards. Basically they would be required to accommodate what Public Works calls a 10-year one hour storm on site into drywells. What I’m hearing from the neighborhood is there’s ponding under the existing conditions, ponding on their properties. I’m not clear exactly if it’s runoff from the street or what, but the area is poorly drained and that they have some kind of a ponding condition. I mean if it were strictly that issue we could work on some enhanced drainage condition, you know, that they would work on something beyond what they generate on 9EXHIBIT B site. But I’m not sure what the solution is because I’m not sure what is causing the current problem. . ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe, for stirring up the discussion. I appreciate that. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:To continue the discussion on drainage, as I understand it with the current situation with the single family home there or whatever, where there is no requirement right now for disposing of runoff on site, it seems to me that if we allowed this we would actually be improving the situation by they’d have to engineer it and control any runoff with drywells or something, that the situation as far as ponding should be improved. YUEN:Well, that’s hard to say; and the reason is that you have an existing ground surface that’s -. What’s there now? Has it been cleared? It’s an open area, right? So what you have is whether there was some grass planted or some grave. And I’m not sure what the percolation characteristics are there now, but they’re better than asphalt and they’re better than a roof, you know. So how much runoff you’re getting from, so the first question is, you know, how much runoff are you getting from the current bare ground condition. If you did either this project or you did a subdivision, there’d be an engineering study that would estimate increased runoff; and then that has to be accommodated on site up to a certain level. Whether that would end up being less flowing off site than the current condition, I can’t validate that, because I don’t know how much is percolating through the existing bare ground that’s there. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? MCCALL:My point is that the current situation now with bare ground, it appears there’s a ponding issue. And at least anything that is done there would, in my opinion, probably improve the situation because they’ll have an engineer coming in and most probably drywells or something would be implemented to help with the ponding. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Follow-up on that. This is Flood Zone X so apparently this is not a low- lying area although it’s more than likely a very level area that is very close to sea level. So I’m thinking that by your description of ponding we’re not so much talking about flood waters per se as just major puddling of water on properties. YUEN:I don’t know anything more than really the photographs that we’ve seen and the description that we’ve had. It’s not mapped as a floodway under FEMA Mapping. There are places that flood, you know, that are not mapped under FEMA Floodway. So we don’t take it strictly, you know, that’s not end of story, they’re making it up, nothing happens. But I use the term ponding because that seemed to be more what they’re showing rather than -. There is a flood type zone that refers to ponding, I think that’s AO or something, but rather than -. The vision of flooding is like, to me, you have water flowing across your property. It does seem like the homes are in a low-lying area and water runs into the low point and creates this ponding around the neighbors’ homes. 10EXHIBIT B ALAMEDA:Any follow-up questions? Anything that we missed before we go into voting? SIRACUSA:I’ll make a motion. ALAMEDA:Sure, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:On the matter of Change of Zone Application REZ 06-000035, I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application based on the following reasons: Number one, the very strong opposition from the community. Number 2, the density that I feel the current infrastructure cannot handle. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Motion made by Commissioner Siracusa. IWASHITA:Second. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is for an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council based on the reasons that: One, there is a strong opposition from the community; and, secondly, the infrastructure cannot handle the proposed density. With that I’ll call the roll call. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda. 11EXHIBIT B ALAMEDA:Aye with reservations. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, there are four aye votes and three no votes. Motion does not pass. ALAMEDA:All right. And what’s the follow-up, the next step? HAYASHI:Since the time limitation will expire, we will be sending this application to the County Council stating that the Planning Commission was not able to reach consensus on this application. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. HAYASHI:Unless the Director has some other comment? YUEN:Yeah, we’ll explain what the vote was; but it does constitute an unfavorable recommendation. HAYASHI:Oh yes, I stand corrected. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, question? IWASHITA:Just point of information. ALAMEDA:Okay. IWASHITA:Will it be clear on the record to the Council that, I guess, presumably had Commissioner Graham been here today, I guess, his vote cumulatively would have constituted the fifth vote? HAYASHI:I don’t think we can do that since he’s not here to vote. IWASHITA:Okay. Well, I was just wondering if both votes are going to be, the Council is going to be informed of both votes instead of just this last one. HAYASHI:We’ll be sending up today’s vote to the County Council. IWASHITA:So they won’t be aware of the last vote where it was also four? HAYASHI:Oh, we’ll be sending the record to them, including the hearing transcript from the previous meeting, so -. IWASHITA:Okay. So if they knew what to look for they could figure it out? HAYASHI:Yeah. ALAMEDA:Any other comments? Thank you. 12EXHIBIT B FUKE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Fuke, I appreciate your time today. And the public, thank you very much for coming. The discussion ended at 11:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 13EXHIBIT B