Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-02 TDJSMLL PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 2, 2004 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of DJSM, LLC (ORD. NO. 92-91) was called to order at 10:03 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Second Vice-Chairman Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones C. Kimo AlamedaEarl Fujikawa Bill GrahamBill Thibadeau Jeffrey McCall Francis Smith Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager PhyllisFujimoto,StaffPlanner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kelly Gomes representing Ex-officio Member Bruce McClure And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: DJSM, LLC (ORD. NO. 92-91) Continued hearing on the request for an amendment to Condition C (Time in which to secure Final Plan Approval) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92-91, which rezoned approximately 47,680 square feet of land from a Single Family Residential ƒ 10,000 square foot (RS-10) to a General Commercial ƒ 10,000 square foot (CG-10) district. The property is located along the east side of Kilauea Avenue, across from Tyke's Laundromat, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-28:29. Mr. Darrow oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the location map and site plan, summarized the request, and noted the Planning Director recommends approval of the application with conditions. SPRINGER:Thank you, Jeff. At this time, I€d like to ask the Applicant or the Applicant€s representative to please come forward? We€ll begin at this time by swearing both of you gentlemen. And, at this time, if we could have all those who will giving testimony on this agenda item to please raise their hands at this time. Thank you. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you. We€ll begin with the gentleman at the desk. Could you please, beginning with Mr. Moore, give your name and address? MOORE:My name is Bill Moore. My address is 159 Halai, H-a-l-a-i Street, Hilo, Hawaii. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Moore. FANG:My name is Yen Wen Fong, my address is 2262 Kilauea Ave., Hilo, Hawaii. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Moore, will you begin? MOORE:Yes.Firstofall,IamrepresentingDJSM,Dr.AlanTakase.Yen is the engineer, the civil engineer on the project. Before I begin, I do want to apologize for the last hearing. I had a family, it was a funeral for my nephew that I was called away to the week before, so I didn€t have any time to prep or get Mr. Tsukazaki ready. So I put him in a very untenable situation, as well as the Commission. So I really apologize for the problems and delays and the confusion it caused and, hopefully, we can get a lot of that resolved today. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Moore. MOORE:Just to go over, there were, as I went through the transcripts there really were two issues, two major issues; and within that one major issue two separate, what I would call sub-issues. The first is the appropriateness of the zoning, should this area be in commercial. The area was zoned in 1989, it was reconfirmed in €92 when a proposed subdivision condition was deleted. At the time, the General Plan for this area was High Density Urban as part of the current revisions. And there has been no change to that designation over these years, so it still is in High Density Urban today. In terms of the current General Plan amendments, the amendment was actually to expand the High Density Urban in this area up to Kinoole Street and further over to past Lanikaula. So it is not just acknowledging that this area is appropriate but this area and the surrounding areas are appropriate. You know, we do understand the transitions. There are the residents there and, you know, are willing to work with them. But in terms of the zoning we really feel it is appropriate. The foundations haven€t changed since this was adopted, and we want, again, I think that€s reflected in the staff€s recommendation for approval of this time extension. In terms of the flooding, I will do a little bit of discussion and will turn it over to Yen, and we€re going to kind of work together. Yen has given me a broad and strong education over the last couple of days in terms of drainage and flood studies, and I really 2 want to separate it out. There€s two different sub-elements or two elements of the flooding issues here. The first is the FEMA floodway, and that is the area in dark blue. There€s really three elements to that. There is a floodway itself, which is in a little cross-hatch we looked at. There€s a 100-year zone which is an area that would be potentially inundated through a 100-year flood, and that€s in the blue without the cross-hatch. And then there€s another line which is a 500-year flood fringe; and that is an unregulated part, so we don€t have to worry about that. Areas outside of that area are not in the FEMA floodway, which doesn€t mean that they would get flooded, that doesn€t mean there€s water. Yes? I€m sorry. SPRINGER:Mr. Moore, can you identify the map to which you€re referring for therecord? MOORE:Yes,ifIcan.ThisisthefloodstudyforDr.AllanTakase-.I would want to point out that we did, as part of the record submit a map during the field study. This is an exact replica of that, except we have colored in a bright yellow the property, so it€s a little harder to see. We€ve also darkened in, again, from this distance a little harder to see, the road and the property lines. So up close it stands out a little bit, but from this distance it€s a little harder. But we€re entering this into the record so if -. Jeff has now two of my maps. So, again, it is the flood study for Dr. Takase that we€re referring to. Again, this is a representation of the official flood maps that has an overlay over some background information. So this is not an official flood map, but it is a map prepared by Yen Fong as part of his flood study and his submittals and information that was done as part of this report, his reports. I would like to separate these issues and then really try to separate the discussion. What we€d like to do first is talk about the floodway and the FEMA requirements which goes through a letter of map revision and the like. There is a separate issue here that we looked at; and that€s the little drainage-way, the drainage-way on the Hamakua side of the property. That is a localized drainage-way. It€s really collecting road runoff from the region and flowing it through the property. And the impacts and implications of that are really looked at through a separate study, and they€re integrated. But in order to deal with anything in the floodway, Yen has to do what€s called a Flood Study,‚ and that looks at the overall impacts of the FEMA floodway. That FEMA floodway encompasses thousands of acres within this drainage area, including the water from this little sub- drainage-way, so that water is accounted as part of the overall flooding. What happens in the FEMA studies is that they will look at tributaries; and as tributaries add in, it accumulates water and, so, as you move downstream, more and more water is in the floodway. This little drainage channel is not a tributary study by the Army Corp. So the water flow is already accounted as part of the floodway in the blue. So we just added 3 in, and we have to do specific studies, and that€s called the Drainage Study.‚ So the total water volumes for this little drainage area is already accounted for in the floodway, and Yen can confirm this. But because of that, we wanted to discuss the two things a little separately. We€ll talk about the floodway first and how we get there. And then we€ll talk about the drainage and the drainage studies that have to be done to look at the localized drainage issues related to the construction of the property, the creation of impervious sites, and the like. So with that, I would like to ask Yen to talk a little bit about, first of all, how the FEMA floodways are designated and what do they mean, and then how development is allowed. Cause we are proposing to do fill and actually to improve per the record. There has been review and approval of the flood study and even the drainage study already by the Department of Public Works to allow the fill. And, again, Yen will go through the process as to what we have to go through to get there and give a little bit of overview as tohoweventheFEMAdesignatedthesefloodways.Yen? FANG:Thankyou.First,I€dliketoclarifysomeofthedefinitionsof flood plain versus flood fringe versus floodway. Generally speaking, the entire shaded area, the blue shaded area, is called the flood plain, like everybody knows. And then the floodway, the flood fringe is between the 100-year boundary, okay, and the floodway. So it€s the, it€s the -. MOORE:Why don€t you go up there, if you want to -. FANG:Okay. Again, we€re referring to the flood study for Takase. Flood fringe is between the dash line, which is the floodway, and the flood boundary. So it€s in this region, and the floodway is in here. How we determine floodway versus flood fringe is if you look at river a that€s, say, about this wide, and if you start squeezing in by filling both sides in -. MOORE:This is theoretically, by the way, -. FANG:Yeah, if it€s filled in and, as an encroachment, the water will rise because, you know, the cross section reduces. The water will rise and it€ll rise to a point of one foot, and that limits the floodway; and that€s how we come up with that line. So the floodway is a calculated width. It€s not really, you know, a physical, you cannot really see it in the field because, you know, it€s very hard to do that. And to the FEMA, the Federal government allows us to develope in the flood fringe. MOORE:If I can, before you go there, just in terms of the total water amounts, can you briefly determine how the process of FEMA uses to determine what water use to model. 4 FANG:Okay. For this particular flood plain, from my research there was an aerial topo done back in 1979 by the Corps of Engineers and then in the subsequent year the Corps of Engineers did a flood study, that€s 1981 it published, and that was adopted as the flood study for this particular Palai Stream. And from there, the stream started way up above Waiakea Uka, and it€s, you know, in a reserve area. And there is a lot of water now coming through, and in the same region a portion of it is going to Waiakea Stream. So that€s why we have a lot of, you know, water drainage coming through into town; and they all join to end up at Waiakea Pond. MOORE:Again, the map, to determine the flood boundaries are based on aerial survey and not on ground survey? FANG:And this aerial survey has accuracy of a five-foot contour, that means with very little or nonground shots. That means that, you know, the accuracy mightbeasgoodasplusorminus2.5feet;andthat€showthefloodplainisanalyzed. Andletmegointohow,theprocessofdevelopinginsidethefloodplain.FEMAdoes allow involvement in the flood plain but they only, the requirement is for floodway, which is the middle, the cross-hatched area. If you put a building in there, they do not allow any rise in the flood, the BFE, which is the Base Flood Elevation. And if you put it outside of the, if you put it outside of the floodway, which is the flood fringe area, you can fill it and you can rise up to one foot. MOORE:Okay, you€re talking about two things, a theoretical flood, base flood elevation calculated and, number two, these are the FEMA requirements. FANG:Okay. The County has even stringent requirement than FEMA. It does not allow rise in BFE even in the flood fringe. So, you know, my analysis is to prove that this development will not increase the water to be above the BFE as published by this flood study. And the way I performed my flood study is I did a very detailed topo of the block between Kilauea Aveenue and Iolani Street and Lanikaula and -. MOORE:Excuse me, Yen, for the record, I€d like to introduce a map, again, it says Flood Study Map‚ that shows the topographic lines that were used in terms of what Yen did. And it shows the areas that were used by the Army Corps, again, to show you the level of detail that was done in trying to come up with this flood study that he had to submit to the Department of Public Works and FEMA. Again, you can€t see it very well. There€s some yellow lines that show the cross-sections that are used by FEMA in determining the width of the flood zone. The magenta/ maroon around, pink lines, are the lines that were surveyed, specifically surveyed for this flood study that Yen used. So it€s a lot more detailed and a lot more information; and this is ground survey versus aerial survey work. 5 SPRINGER:Before you continue, Mr. Moore, Mr. Darrow, I wonder if you could point out for us where the yellow lines that Mr. Moore were referring to are? Thank you. DARROW:In between each yellow line there appears to be somewhere in the, approximately five to six magenta lines, so it looks like it€s much more detailed. The blue is the property that we€re looking at. SPRINGER:Thank you. FANG:So after doing this detailed ground study topo, and I cut a lot more sections, you know, through this stream and I incorporated the original flood study data which I got from FEMA and incorporated my data input and did a modeling, such as modeling of this area. And then from there I, you know, I added in the fill that, the proposedfillthat€sgoingtogointothepropertyandfoundoutthatthewatersurface elevation is not exceeding, it€s not above the original BFE, the Base Flood Elevation. And I submitted this, the whole document including supporting data to Public Works; and they reviewed it and, you know, they made their comments. I addressed, and then it was accepted by Public Works. Then this package is sent to FEMA for their verification. And in the package I also included a CD with my electronic data which, you know, prove to them that I did not just using typewriter to change the number; and in my printout, it€s, everything can be replicated with their own computer, with their software. So, and then, I think, two or three months later I received, you know, the letter saying, you know, they approved it. This is the KLOMAR-F, you know, F stands for fill; and County, you know, with this letter, I got their approval and I got Public Works€ approval. MOORE:And, again, just to reiterate the total flooding, this is water in this region, is part of the calculations within the flood fringe. So if there are any questions on the flood study? And then the KLOMAR, we can address that now. Then we can start talking about the localized drainage, and that little culvert, and the like, and start looking at these sites specific, what we call the drainage study. SPRINGER:Commissioners, you have any questions for the Applicant€s representatives at this time? Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:I€m trying to get in concise form what we should take out of what you just told us. Seems to me that maybe what, what I€m hearing you€re saying is something to the effect that if we€re putting in the fill that we are proposing, we are not going to impact the movement down that major floodway. Is that correct? And is there something more that you€re saying or -? FANG:Okay. When FEMA published this Base Flood Elevation, this is a calculated level. It€s not really somebody go out there and, you know, during the peak of 100 year storm and actually document that. It€s a calculated number. And is it really going to be that high? Nobody really knows. But this is a baseline information and we compare our calculated number to that number, and say is it higher or lower. Because 6 there€s no really, you know, if there€s no -. Because this flood plain is really, really several miles long and there is no document on how high at each point is. So, you know, the entire flood analysis is based on a calculated number. MOORE:I think, you know, there€s two points here. One is on what€s happening in the flood way itself during a major flood event, and this is a theoretical assessment. We€re looking at regulations in terms of flood levels, and that is what he€s showing, is that the Base Flood Elevations as calculated by FEMA will not change by the fill in this area. And just to, you know, the, anecdotal, there was amajor flood event a couple of years ago and, you know, we walked around and spoke to the resident right here, and there was no flooding from the stream coming into his house. So there€s anecdotal information that the floodways don€t, and I think there were some other representations. But in terms of thefloodway,now,there€ssomelocalizeddrainageissueswhichwecantalkabout.SoI think there is, you know, some comfort that the calculated levelsand the actual levels are there, but he€slooking at calculated levels based on information and modeling provided by FEMA. SPRINGER:Any follow-up, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No follow-up. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:I understand what you presented is atheoretical calculation. And even myself as I do research, there€s no guarantees on the theoretical part, but there is probabilities. And I know that in my own research, you know, like, for example, when I publish a study, you know, there€sa 95percent chance that the results that I€m publishing is indeed represents truth and there€s 5 percent error, which is the unknown. In your calculations, what would be the percent of error or the unknown? Is there any -? FANG:I think the error is, there€s so many factors in the floodstudy and I cannot say, you know, what is my calculation of FEMA€s calculations compared to the real life situation. All I can sayismysituation compares with FEMA€s situation. And, because I use the same volume or the same flow volume as FEMA,and I try to keep all the factors the same except the topography. MOORE:I think, you know, theother factor that he has built into this is and, Yen, correct me cause I€m, you know, when FEMA calculates their flood zone they said they squeeze it down and looked at the one-foot rise. So we€ve already got in one-foot free board as kind of a safety valve which FEMA allows you to fill back up to, the County does not. So there already is a built-in safety valve within the County€s more conservative interpretation of the law. So I think, you know, and, again, I think it€s hard for Yen to go back to look at the entire process for determining flood zones. So what we 7 have is a process that FEMA has come up with that they€ve used across the nation that they follow; and, again, there is some built-in safety valve within that, if I€m correct. FANG:Yes. ALAMEDA:As a follow-up. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:On the anecdotal kind of information that you just shared, could you clarify that? I mean, I didn€t read any or see any documentation on that. MOORE:No, again, it was just talking with the resident at the home right next to this property. And, again, during the major flood event which theoretically was a 100-yearflood,hishome,therewasnowater,eventhoughhishomeisintheflood fringe, there was no water coming in from the stream side. He said that there was water, just to mentioned there was water coming down from Kilauea Street, but not from the stream rising up on -. So even though his house is in the fringe, there was not any flooding. And, again, I€ll go to the map. Again, easier to use this piece here. This is the property. I was talking with this gentleman in this house here. Again, so, right next to the property, upstream from him. ALAMEDA:Thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Commissioners? I have a couple of questions. Did I hear correctly that the FEMA-based map is a 1981 map? MOORE:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. Are any topographic changes either due to flooding or urbanization accounted for in the calculations made based on that 1981 map? FANG:Are you talking about upstream, way upstream in Waiakea Uka area? SPRINGER:Even the aggregate or, in this case, specifically? FANG:No, there€s no change because there was no later study done. SPRINGER:Thank you. How many 100-year floods have there been since 1981? FANG:I don€t have that record. SPRINGER:And, Mr. Moore, you were not here at the last meeting but it was explained to us by Mr. Kelly Gomes that a 100-year flood is a statistical term. 8 FANG:Yes, yes, I€m aware of the -. SPRINGER:Thank you. So we don€t know how many 100-year floods there have been since 1981? FANG:No. The biggest one I know of is the 2000-year flood and that was the big surprise to a lot of people. And, so, there€s talk about calibrating what is a 100- year flood but that€s in the making right now. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Moore, with regard to insurance requirement, who bears that burden if it€s a result of any changes, even within that foot of, I guess, the margin of error, that is allowed by FEMA. Who bears the insurance burden for any damage? MOORE:Again, I€m not familiar with the insurance requirements. Again, I believethatwiththeLOMARorLOMAthatthebuildingandthefacilitieswere insurable. And, again, if, it€s, you know, again, I€m not familiar with the insurance. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Mr. Yuen? YUEN:This is for Yen. The subject property, according to the FEMA map, it looks like there€s a lobe of the flood plain that extends towards Kilauea out of the regular, the rest of the flow of it. If I€m gathering, and I saw that there€s a little flow of water from Kilauea Street down a culvert that flows into the floodway. Does that lobe of supposedly flood plain in the subject property come from that creek or is that spilled over from the main floodway? FANG:Okay. It€s a combination of both because the topography has a low point in the, if you€re looking down the main Palai Stream flood plain, it has a low point on the side, where the side stream comes in. The water, when the water level comes up, the water will flow to the side. It€s creating a, we call it the back water effect.‚ It€s actually, it€s shifting to the side and, because the water is over, coming in, so it actually rises even more. So if you, you know that water seeps to the level surface. And if there€s no water coming in, the water -. You know, if the upstream section is this wide, the water stays here. And when it sees that the side stream, it actually like turns like this. So, you see, that€s why the lobe is there. But because there is that side stream that comes in from Kilauea and the upper tributary area, the water surface slightly rises up on this side. And that is addressed in my local drainage report that, you know, I noticed that little shift but, you know, we accommodate that for. YUEN:So, I mean, is the gist of what you€re saying is that if you fill in this lobe that you€ll allow that little creek to flow through underneath the fill, that you€re not having very much of an effect on the main flow in the floodway? 9 FANG:That€s correct and -. YUEN:Because there€s not, just there€s not that much water that goes into this lobe from the floodway? FANG:There is quite a bit of water. But if you look at it on the main stream, the water is going this way and the side stream coming this way. And for the main stream, the water is panning out on this side, so there€s not much movement in this lobe for the main stream. The movement of water is now coming in from the side. And the majority of this, after this development, the majority of this side stream is not going underneath the, you know, not going into the culvert. It€s actually going around the corner of the wall and it falls right back to where it used to go. MOORE:Again, we€ll talk about the specific mitigation measures. You know,thekeyhereis,Ijustwanttopoint,isthatYen,Ithink,lookedatallthesefactors as part of his flood study. This was reviewed and approved, reviewed by Public Works before it got submitted. And, so, you know, there€s a lot of technical issues. The bottom line is that we have the, he has done what he needs to do to get the KLOMAR; and we sure are going to follow that, cause if we don€t then we€re in real trouble. YUEN:There was also just this question about flood insurance. This property and the people in our community, generally, and the neighbors of this property are eligible to purchase federally-supported flood insurance. The Federal government, and the reason that there€s eligibility in this community is that the County does have this flood control program where it follows this regulatory program. If you don€t have this regulatory program, they won€t let your community, they won€t support this insurance in your community. So that€s the carrot and stick of this and how it works. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of either the Director or the Applicant€s representatives? I have a question, Mr. Director. Given that Mr. Moore has explained to us that the flooding issue has already been thoroughly examined by the Department of Public Works, how much weight should we be giving it in our consideration of their request for time extension? YUEN:We€re satisfied with the treatment of flooding in the application. SPRINGER:Thank you. Members, is there anything else either for the Director or the Applicant€s representatives? Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:Maybe I€m just hurrying up here, but my understanding from having major presentations from Mr. Moore was that following the main floodway issue which we€ve just discussed, you€re going to talk about the local issue, and that remains to be dealt with, yes? MOORE:Yes, yes, that€s correct. I will just say this is a great time to stop; but we promised to talk about the local drainage, and we will. As you saw on the field, 10 there is a culvert, again, it€s just collecting water from the road. You€ll notice on the road that is a low point. There€s water coming from the Hamakua side, as well as from the Puna side, collects in two 24-inch culverts, flows to the Mormon Church property and diagonally across the DJSM property. What was represented to you at the last hearing was that there is going to be two 24-inch culverts within the DJSM property and that is, I€ll let Yen talk a little bit about that, but that is not the final piece. What was talked about, in fact, if I can, I think it may be easier if I go up there; and I€ll point things out, and Yen can explain the details if we need to. Again, I€m not sure how well you can see this but the subject property is situated here on Kilauea Street. The culverts come in just adjacent to the Hamakua side of the property line and, again, I€m referring to the flood study for Dr. Allen Takase as prepared by Yen Fong. Again,there€stwo24-inchculvertscomingacrosshere.Thewaterflowstoalowpoint through the property. Again, to accommodate the water from those two 24-inch pipes, what Yen had looked at initially was two 24-inch pipes coming through the property in a culvert. I want to point out, first of all, that this area is proposed to filled, so the water from the property itself can€t get into this culvert. So this culvert is handling off-site flow. And it€s not, there€s no connection in dry wells or anything to any of these culverts on the property. So all we€re doing is taking flow that€s already there and continuing it on. In discussions with the Department of Public Works, what they€ve come up with is actually putting in one 24-inch pipeline through this area. What that does is it creates less capacity for the water to flow, and it would create a ponding situation within the designated floodway here. It will slow the water down and then move it along. So, again, it€s not going to be shooting out, there€s less water coming through. So, again, there was asking of whether there€s mitigation measures that could be done and, again, I think Yen in his response to comments from Public Works and concerns has looked at that. So, again, the original capacity, we€ve choked it down a little bit creating a ponding. What happens then is if there€s overflow, it€ll go around and come back into the stream a little further downstream. So you don€t change any of the total flows within this area; but we€ve slowed down, we€ve ponded up and moved it in a slightly different area, a little further downstream possibly. So, again, that is what we€re looking at, is that -. The other thing I think, you know, Yen pointed out to me, and then you can confirm, is that there were concerns about, this is an open channel and, you know, there€s ability for water to seep down, and we€re going to lose that in a culvert. In a situation as soon as there€s water flowing in, what that means is the ground is saturated and it€s not seeping in anymore. So there€s no change in the water flow at the point. So, again, your ground is 11 saturated, the water is just going to be flowing. So what we€re doing is actually creating a bigger area through this tolet saturation to occur by ponding it outside the wall and letting it seep around, if there€s an overflow. And that would occur in a high flood; and this beyond a 10-year flood situation in a major rainstorm. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham, any follow-up? GRAHAM:I€m not sure I want to dominate the microphone on this issue in any way. The only general thrust that bothers me a little bit is it feels like all this is good preparation what you€re doing but it€s sort of like -. I always want to kind of cut to the chase and then walk back to the specifics, rather than just walk back to the details, rather than just do with all the details. But since we are talking about extending the zoning that was granted years ago which failed to follow through on its time commitments -. And you mentioned that we€re probably not dealing with, you didn€t feel we should be dealing withthegeneralissueofthosethings,it€sappropriate,andIgenerallyconcurwiththat. And if they€re really different as Tsukazaki said, suggested the last time, we should notify you guys so that you can present it that way. But it does seem like one of the issues from our site visit that might come up to me as to what would be in our power, or would be a responsible action by us if it were helpful, was that whole road area, where it looks like the culvert flows into right now, is proposed to be filled. So that kind of no longer serves as a seeping ground for water that would land in there in relatively normal flooding times. So it seems to me one thing we could do is to suggest or to ask that that area not be filled that€s presently used as sort of an absorption area. I don€t know whether that€s going to help in a considerable way or no way at all, but it doesn€t feel like we€ve addressed that yet. So since that€s something that came up in my mind on the site visit I feel like, you know, let€s talk about that, because that is in the realm of things that we might consider doing at this point. That€s all I have to say at the moment. SPRINGER:Mr. Moore, before you answer, I€d like to ask of either the Director or Corporation Counsel, we have a specifically worded agenda. It sounds as though Commissioner Graham is discussing an additional condition or an amendment to an existing condition. And is that discussion proper at this time? YUEN:Well, I think, we€ve discussed that issue. I€m not sure whether it comes to the point of whether, by adding conditions, I€m just not sure whether we ought to add conditions to a time extension. I suppose we could add conditions to a time extension. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Director. The only thing I would add is that looking at what the County Code seems to indicate about how changes or alterations of conditions is handled, it says that they should be processed in the same manner as a zone change, which would imply that we have the ability to, you know, tinker with the conditions if that€s appropriate. 12 SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Moore? MOORE:Again, a couple of things. One is that there is a specific condition, it says the drain system shall be installed in accordance withthe requirements of the Department of Public Works. That€s what they€re talking about now. That€s what Yen has done in a flood drainage study. Okay, we talked about the flood study. He also had done a drainage study to look at these specific issues, about the fill, about this drainage way, whether it€s appropriate or not. The first requirement is that, again, for the water flowing through the stream, there€s no absorption already, as we talked about. The ground is saturated, if it€s going to be flowing in the first place. The second is that the County requirement is that any drainage generated on site as we putimpervioussurfacesontheproperty,wehavetocollectthatandaddressthatthrough drywells. That has been done. That€s part of the specific drainage study that Yen has done that has been approved by the Department of Public Works. So I would believe that it is, the condition is already addressed, that we have to do this work. That is appropriate for the Department of Public Works, your expert, to make sure that we€re doing it and in accordance with the law, which we believe we have. And, again, that€s, I would be, I think, strongly opposed to usurping of really what is the Public Works€ responsibility. We have to, Yen has to work with them, he has to make them comfortable and prove to them that we€re not changing the flows, the amount of flows, or the direction or locations of those flows. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Moore, and for my fellow Commissioners, that€s Condition G, as it appears in the ordinance. MOORE:Thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Is there anything else either for the Applicant€s representatives or the Director on these subjects we€re discussing right now? If there is none, I€d like to invite the three members of the public who have signed up to testify. That€s, I believe, Iva Goldman, Robin Black and Nancy Cabral. SMITH:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Could we take five before they testify? SPRINGER:Yes, we€ll take a five-minute recess before the public testifies. RECESSThe Chair called a short recess at 10:50 a.m. 13 RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 10:56 a.m. SPRINGER:We€re reconvening the meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission. We are in discussions on Agenda Item 1. We just invited members of the public to testify before us. If we can start with Ms. Cabral? If you can give us your name and your address, followed by Ms. Goldman and Ms. Black. CABRAL:My name isNancy Cabral and my address is 2 Kamehameha Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii. SPRINGER:Thank you. Ms.Goldman? GOLDMAN:I€m Iva Goldman and my address is 1396 Kinoole, Hilo. SPRINGER:Thank you. Ms. Black? BLACK:And I€m Robin. My address is 43 East Lanikaula Street, Hilo. SPRINGER:Thank you. You€ve all been sworn in and if we can begin with your testimony please, Ms. Black. BLACK:Well, first of all, I really want to say thank you very much for comingbecauseitwaswonderfulforusthatyouguysmadetheefforttocomeandtakea look, and we€re very grateful, and that was part of what we wanted, wasto have people actually look at the issues and make an informed choice. So, thank you again. I€d like to start with some things that Yen had said with respect to the flood study, and I realize the difficulties in trying to project something that€s unpredictable or predictable as the case may be with water. I realize that how you determine a 100-year flood is a statistical thing, but we live there. So when they say that the chances of something like this are kind of minimal or the percentage, that, that€s all very well and good. But at the end of the day, I€m the person who€s sitting at home with an umbrella wondering where the heck it€s all going to go. So, to that end, I just want to point several things out. Number one, and let me show you on the map if that€s okay. SPRINGER:And could you please wait for the microphone to be given to you when you get to the map? BLACK:Okay. Now, let me find myself. I think I€ll use this one since it has the houses. This is the subject property, and the neighbors that are represented by our presence today are these that are clustered in the back. And, in particular, the site in question that disturbs us the most, which had the most damage is right here at 87-E. When we had that flood, the water did come partly from Lanikaula Street and partly from Kilauea. And I described this to you guys a little bit last time what was happening which 14 was that the long block that accompanied the tree nursery has no drainage into the sewer on Kilauea, so the water builds up along Kilauea. And when it gets to the Lanikaula Street intersection which, unfortunately, is right underneath the fold here, it comes right this way, half of this, oh, okay, half of it comesdown Lanikaula Street and the other half crosses Kilauea, and the Kilauea water is flowing down the street. Yes, this way it does get to the little stream. But last time only half of it came through. You were saying about Mr. Moore had been saying he had spoken to Mr. Horiuchi, and Mr. Horiuchi had said that the flooding from the stream did not come to his house; and that is absolutely correct because the flooding from the stream came from Kilauea Avenue. And it came where there was a break between the dentist office rock wall and his rock wall, and it came right inside his driveway and it flowed right underneath the little home that you guys saw this morning. So there was a running water underneath his post and pier construction on the adjacent property. Now,Mrs.Miyamoto€shomeflooded.Iknowyou€retalkingtheoretical.ButIwent over there 5 o€clock in the morning and got her out of her home when I saw that her first five steps on her house had disappeared; and it was damn near up to her waist, now she€s tiny. But the reality is when FEMA came and did this, the claim, the water had come in the first floor windows and out the other side. Everything on the ground floor of the home was lost. So I appreciate the theoreticalness of this stuff, but we€re living in reality. And after she filed her FEMA claim, the mortgage lender on our home at 87 made the flood insurance a requirement between, $1,800 a year flood insurance. So this is a mystery that is hitting close to home. Now, I realize you say, oh, let me do this and then the other thing. But the bottom line is if it all goes awry who pays? I€m curious. I mean, I know you said something about there was a County situation with respect to the flooding and so that -. I believe you spoke to this a little bit earlier with your comment about how the, I€m not sure where it stops. YUEN:No, no, what I said is that it is available and you can purchase it. But, honestly, the homes in the area, they should purchase flood insurance. BLACK:We had to. YUEN:You should. BLACK:It was the condition of the lender. And they said we won€t continue to hold this mortgage unless you have that. So, on the one hand, we€re sort of reluctant to be filing claims that are going to increase the financial hardship on the residents in the neighborhood, and that at the other time everything in the ground floor or the home was lost. And we€re talking about, you know, homes that have been there for quite sometime. So we€re pretty comfortable with where the water goes and how to deal with it in its concurrent figuration. 15 When we talk about, I believe this morning when we had the site visit, Mr. Ishihara pointed out that property pin and he said, okay, three feet, three feet from what? And that€s where we€re just not clear. So I appreciate that the studies are done. I give pause to a study that is done in 1981 before the, and part of the reason that this hits me personally is that, you know, I€m directly adjacent to the dentist office on the corner, and the water consistently bypasses their drywells and comes into my bananas. When we had the 100-year rain, I was awakened to the sound of something really loud making a lot of noise, and it was my kayak slamming into my barbecue grill in my basement; and I€ve never had flooding in my home. I€ve lived in that house longer than I want to say and I€ve never had flooding in that home till that 100-year rain. So I understand that the conditions are extreme, but I also know that my immediate conditions were changed by the construction that already took place on the corner, and that the drywells were insufficient to address the issue. So when we€re talking about these hypothetical situations, I€m concerned, deeply. And, you know, it€s kind of scary because when you€reinthosebackhousesandit€sflooded,youcannotgetout.Ourstreetwasclosed. When we that rain, it was closed from the dentist office to Iolani and we were stuck in that water. So, for whatever that€s worth, what we€re talking about is something between Kilauea and us. I suspect that there is -. I just would like to know where it all stops. If they build it and everything is fine and then we get this kind of rain, where do we go as residents? What is our recourse? Who do we take it to? I don€t know. I€m asking. So -. SPRINGER:Is that your testimony, then? BLACK:For now. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Ms. Black? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Hi. BLACK:Hi. GRAHAM:Thanks for your help in the field tour today and for also testifying. I just want to say, as a Commissioner, since we€re going to be making the recommendation to the Council on the specifics, a lot of these issues that you face are very real for you but are not ones that we can sort of say, well, this is this particular Applicant€s problem. BLACK:I understand. GRAHAM:So as much as you and the other testifiers can suggest what part of your problem relates to something going on at the Applicant€s property or what the Applicant could do to make sure that his property, whatever he does to develop it, doesn€t worsen your problem, you know, those are the kind of things that, to me, you know, ring 16 a bell in my head. But when you€re talking about your general situation,which I understand is difficult and is, I can€t really go anywhere with that with regard to this Applicant because I don€t feel like it€s his responsibility. BLACK:Okay. I can address that. Here, right now, yes, I am speaking in general terms as to what our concerns are. But it was my understanding when we left this meeting last time that if the conditions were extended as per what I thought was why you were here was to discuss to extend or not to extend, that was the question, not to take it back to RS-10 or something more appropriate, which was my interpretation of the ordinance. So when we looked at that issue, based on Mr. Yuen€s comments at the last meeting, as I understand it, if you approve those conditions to extend the time length for the conditions, that the window of opportunity for dialogue with the neighborhood as far as the County is concerned, is technically behind us; and that leaves us in a direct dialogue with the developer or their agent as far as sorting out the nuts and bolts of it. Is that,amIincorrect?Dowehaveanothergo-aroundtohavealegitimateconversation about size and scope and everything, or is this it? Because, you know, according to Mr. Moore, the high density plan allows him to put a 120-foot structure there if you guys say commercial zoning is acceptable. Now, I don€t believe that that€s their intent, but I want to know what we€re dealing with. SPRINGER:For one thing, Ms. Black, we will make a recommendation at the County Council so there€ll be at least one more public hearing on that matter. Mr. Director, some general characteristics of the neighborhood have been voiced by Ms. Black regarding flooding which is impacting them coming off of Kilauea because of an overflow from Lanikaula Street. Can, who bears responsibility for that? That€s an existing condition. It€s an existing concern that really is beyond, I believe, the scope of this application. Do you have any suggestions for Ms. Black as to where she might seek to address this concern, Public Works, your office? YUEN:Specifically, handling drainage off of County roads is a Department of Public Works€ issue. The properties are in a natural flood plain and water in a heavy rain, water flows across the surface of the land in Hilo; and, unfortunately, if there€s, this is one of the places where it does flow, apparently in the natural condition of Hilo. Perhaps there is something that Public Works can do that might make it a little better. As far as the streets, I don€t know. Our responsibility in looking at this particular development is to see whether we have adequate professional assurance that by approving it we€re not making the situation worse for the people in the area. However, it does, without this, with an empty lot there, apparently, there was flooding in that neighborhood in the year 2000; and that€s why I said what I said about that people should purchase flood insurance. Because whether this property is zoned or not, or whether a building gets built there or not, it looks like they are definitely subject to repeated flooding events. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Director. Commissioners, are there any more questions of Ms. Black? Thank you. Thank you, ma€am. Ms. Goldman? 17 GOLDMAN:Good morning. SPRINGER:Good morning. GOLDMAN:I, too, would like to thank those of you that came out andwalked through the site. Because we all know that the map is not the territory, and that what we explain when we actually put ourselves into a situation is different than when we€re giving the symbolic representations of it. I was not able to come to the last hearing because I had a family situation on the mainland that required my presence, but I heard a little bit about it. And I€m gratified that you did not come to hasty conclusion, and I hope that you will continue to deliberate this looking at all of the aspects. I€d like to clarify one thing because I feel that the neighborhood group has been characterizedassomewhatself-servingandonlylookingtopreserveanexistinglifestyle, and that our concerns don€t need to be on that; and I thinkthat that€s an unfair characterization of our group. We never intended for this to turn into any kind of adversarial proceeding. We felt that an issue was being debated that ought to be discussed. Debate immediately polarizes the issue. We felt that many decisions would be made on the basis of information that it€s quite outdated, it€s quite theoretical as he pointed out, the percentage of error in his predictions is itself not predictable. And it€s true that we are the ones that are directly impacted. But it€s also true that the larger community of Hilo is impacted by the nature of these decisions and the decision-making process. We know the existing directive in place and people go ahead without regard to that directive, and they retroactively want the things changed. I think that€s a dangerous precedent. We came asking for clarification. We thought there was a regulation and that it was not being enforced. And my question was, Why wasn€t it being enforced?‚ But we did not have all the information, and you folks did not have all the information. So my feeling is that we should all proceed in the spirit of goodwill, to try to create for this area of Hilo which is our community. We€re all going to be impacted by things like the traffic in that area. When you walked that area this morning, did you picture 71 cars in the parking lot there. I think that€s what the plan calls for. Seventy-one cars is a lot of cars to put into the traffic pattern in that area; and we don€t know what the impact is going to be from the Subway building that€s going in the corner. So that€s a real concern to us. The concerns about the flooding, our question was who€s responsible if something goes wrong? Is it the County, is it the developer of the property? Where would we go for recourse if our yards turn into marshes because of the change in configuration? It seems to us that some of the planning and some of the decisions that apparently were being made were premature. It felt to me as though the bridegroom was going ahead planning a honeymoon, and how many children there were going to be, and down to the 18 details of what was going to be served at the wedding reception, but the girl hadn€t yet said, yes, and that sequence of dealing with the issues. Now some of that has changed. I€m happy to say that there has been some additional dialogue, it has been open, and finally and mutually supportive; and that€s good. Because, you know, engineers deal with numbers, and with hard facts, and with a very concrete visualkind of knowledge. But there are other values here that need to be taken into consideration. The preservation of a feeling of harmony within the community, aesthetic considerations, and considerations of who€s responsible for what€s down the line, all of that needs to be part of our dialogue; and I just urge those considerations. Again, thank you for hearing my testimony. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Commissioner Graham or -. Thank you, ma€am. Ms. Cabral? CABRAL:Thank you very much for hearing me today and last month at the priormeeting.Ididtestifyatthattime,andIwon€trepeatthoseissues.Ithinkthathas been clearly stated. Obviously, there€s a problem in the neighborhood; and the properties and this is vacant land, they did have flooding. And those properties have flooded by way of, from this morning and the testimony is that they€re upstream of this property. So, and if Public Works has made that determination and FEMA, I think that that€s a separate issue. I€m speaking on behalf of the need for commercial properties in Hilo. And as all of you I€m sure are keenly aware, we€re in an economic growth period right now. And there€s a high demand for commercial properties that have occurred during recently and there has been very little growth in that, in terms of buildings. And I think that, I feel the real estate agent€s need, and I get a lot of calls in having a nice quality building. And a property of that, what is envisioned for this property will help. I think that the zoning that was determined by your predecessors in that entire area has been going into being commercially zoned, that this is the, there€s a need for that type of a building. There€s the ability for it to be a quality building and the neighborhood is perhaps unfortunately for those speaking today from the neighborhood but that is the direction of a somewhat determined prior to this group being in a position by your predecessors. And, so, I€d like to speak in behalf of allowing this building and this kind of growth to go forward. I am going to be, hopefully, working to lease that space and we have some real quality occupants that we€d be looking to put there. And the realtor, they can€t help but say that while these neighbors speaking today don€t want to see change in their neighborhood, growth and change is taking place, and it€s really hard to not have that happen. I think that the quality of that growth and changes are we can speak to and that we€ll have a quality building in that neighborhood that while they may not want to sell and they may want move now, it will increase the value of their property; and so should they want to sell now or in the future, they have a higher financial package. It€s not, I know what they€re looking at but then in the future should those lot owners now or in the future come to this group to look for a zoning change that 19 might provide the opportunity, when the County, you and the Public Works Department can really look at how are we going to deal with this upstream waterway as it goes through this neighborhood. You know, that might be the time cause these house obviously were built way before there was, you know, real understanding about where the stream-ways were versus the fringes. So, I just would like to speak in favor of allowing this quality project to go forward. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions of the testifier? Seeing none, thank you all for testifying before us this morning. I€d like to invite now the Applicant€s representative toreturn to the table. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer, I have a question. I was just wondering whenwould it be appropriate for me to make public for the record Public Works€ documents we don€t have in front of us. SPRINGER:What I€d like to offer is the opportunity for the Applicant€s representativetorespondiftheycaredtoanyofthecommentsthatweremadein testimony and then when we go into discussion that would be the appropriate time. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Mr. Moore, do you have any response to make, given the testimonies we€ve heard. MOORE:More in context. You know, again, we talked about the Base Flood Elevations, which is theoretical. The flooding is not. We understand that. And there is a problem there, it is not caused by the Applicant; and, again, we€ve looked at that. Again, the flooding is there, it will be there and it will continue to be there in the future until, you know, either major changes are made or -. You know, it was just, the people have built in places that€s a wonderful neighborhood; but it is in a flood zone or floodway, and there€s not a lot that we can do with that. What we can look at is do we impact it in terms of the regulations, and we don€t; can we take care of the drainage situation, and we believe we have. We believe that we€ve come up a process of, makes it a little better, not a whole lot. Cause if we€re in a bad situation, but it doesn€t add to it, and that€s really the standard here that we€ve been held to. And we believe that Public Works has done a, done it€s responsibility in making us go through all of the necessary hoops. There is another requirement that we need to comply with all of the regulations, which ties us into the FEMA regulations, as well as the grading permits and everything else, which is what Yen has been looking at. You know, with that, I think the Applicant is sensitive to the neighborhood and we need to know that. You know, we€re going to be there a long time, they€re going to be there a long time. You know, we are willing to talk to them. We believe that that is an appropriate way do it, you know, just us and them talking. You know, they have certain 20 processes which they have, you know, they can hold us up on, and we understandthat; and we€re not taking that as a threat, but we€re looking at continuing the dialogue. And I did point out, just for the record, that the zoning does allow a 120-foot story building. You know, the original plans for this area with the old HiloCDPwas for multi- family. Multi-family also allows a 120-foot building. Again, the commitment and then, again, we€ve tried, will be trying to keep the building within the height limits allowed under the single-family zoning regulations; and that has been part of the design that we€ve done, you know, just on our own. So there has been an attempt; and we€ll continue this dialogue, again, assuming that we can move forward. And that really, again, that€s really all I have to offer in terms of response. And, again, I€d be happy to answer any questions. SPRINGER:Thankyou.Commissioners,doyouhaveanyquestionsfor Mr. Moore? Mr. Moore, I have a question that came up, a comment that was made in the field and then was voiced again during the testifier€s time before us, and that€s with regard to the three-foot elevation change. And can you give us a reference point for where that three-foot elevation change is from the lay of the land as it is now or some other point? MOORE:It€s from the front of the property. FANG:Three-foot elevation change, okay. Because the ground is rolling or it€s going up and down, and the grading is up and down, so we need to say there€s a three-foot elevation change is partially correct. But, you know, some places will be shallower, some places it will be higher. That€s probably an average value. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. And that€s just a question that has come up a couple of times. So that€s an average value. Some places it would higher, some places it may be less than that. MOORE:Yes. Clearly, now in the low spot it€ll be higher than that. Other parts of the property will be at existing grade, so it€s not taking the property and raising everything up. Again, there are portions that we€ll just be maintaining existing grade, portions that will be filled more. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Moore. I€m awfully glad to hear that the window is still open for dialogue with members of the community, as I heard that correctly. Commissioners, any questions of the Applicant? Commissioner McCall, followed by Graham. MCCALL:Okay. Now in your plans, you are putting drywells in, which I believe will, are supposed to hold that ten-year -. FANG:That€s correct. 21 MCCALL:Ten-year waters, okay. And, in my understanding, that actually should be an improvement over the current no-build situation where even in a ten-year storm, you are going to have water flowing off the property. And so what you€re setting up should actuallybe somewhat of an improvement over that? FANG:Yes. MCCALL:I€m not sure this is appropriate, but is there, I€ll just throw, you know, is there anything, is there any way to help the neighbors? I mean, could the drywells be designed to a larger holding capacity? I mean, you know, if you€re going to have the equipment out there to drill a drywell, is it possible to put another drywell in that would perhaps take some -. I mean, it may be unfair to ask this of you cause I think you€re doing your part anyway. But is it possible to put another drywell in to take some ofthis,someoftheCounty€sKilaueaAvenuewater? MOORE:Letmeanswerthisway.Youknow,thereare,again,the requirements have been met; again, the drainage study has done that. We€ve already been talking about other things that we can do; and we€re looking at that. It€s a balance of, it€s not a simple question. There are some walls, and then you put a drywell in and there€s some hydraulic issues on those walls. So there€s all kinds of implications that come into play here. But we€ve already started these discussions internally and they€re looking at that. So I will say the door is sure open to that. But it has to be balanced with, again, the numbers have to work for this to go. Again, as anything else it€s not a non- profit. But, again, we have looked at that, we€ve talked to Yen, we€ve talked to the contractor, and we€ve talked to the owner about this; and that is an on-going discussion. Again, we understand that we€re intruding in the neighborhood that has been there a long time; and, you know, we€re not going make them happy, I can guarantee that. But can we, can we, in working with them can we do things to try and make this better? I think we already have in the sense of, again, taking that two 24-inch culverts, and necking it down, ponding water so it slows the flow down, and it gives more of an absorption time. So we€ve already started this process. And will we continue that? Within reason, absolutely. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Mr. Moore, I guess, I regret a little bit that we spent so much time talking about the floodway because, to me, you know, the floodway is really not the Applicant€s problem. And when Yen spoke to the fact about how the water, that lobe that comes out, that was Mr. Yuen€s question, is not really carrying water down, it€s more like an overflow area. So I don€t feel concerned about your fill as a result to his work, substantially messing with the movement of floodway. But I am still concerned about the culvert. When you say culvert, I assume you mean a pipe, right, a pipe and a culvert, same animal? 22 MOORE:That€s correct. GRAHAM:Okay. And when we were out on the site, I asked the question, well, what is the constraint on the water leaving off Kilauea Avenue, is it the entryway into the culvert system or is it the excess from the culvert? And my understanding was we were going to talk about that later, but I haven€t heard anything more about that. On the same vein, I mentioned the idea that there was two 24-inch pipes going to carry it down. And our concern was what happens at the exit of these pipes, right? So, now, we hear that it€s going to be one so that whatever would happen at the exit is only going to be half as bad. But still, I haven€t seen presented to this body or presented to the neighbors exactly what the specific situation will look like when that happens if you do that. Will that cause a bunch of extra water? You talk about ponding, if you put the fill in, is that water going to wind up on the Mormon Church site, is that water going to pond back there, where€s the ponding going to take place? If the road is trying to move 24 timestwowateroffitandyoucanonlytake24timesone,thatseemstomealotoftimes it€s going to run down the street probably. I don€t know any of the answers to that, and I haven€t heard any in the presentation. Thank you. MOORE:Let me, first of all, the drainage study, the flood study, drainage study, the drainage study had to look at all of that. That was part of what Yen had to do as part of the drainage study which was submitted to and reviewed by the Department of Public Works. The, and Yen can speak to this, but the bottom line is that when there is an existing flow of that stream, you cannot, any development cannot increase it. They cannot change the points where those waters enter the property or where it leaves, and they cannot change the speed of the flow where it enters or leaves. So to the extent there€s impact from that stream on the neighboring properties, that€s not going to change. Is it going to be there? We think we made it less a little bit by having some ponding, you know, and the water can€t flow around; but it€s going to still go back into the floodway, it€s not going to disappear. But, you know, having made the situation better -. We know, again, the flood study will again have to show or prove this would not make it worse, and that€s the bottom line. And then we think we€ve made it better by, again, providing some ponding areas, again, within the floodways so it does impact the Mormon Church property but it€s also within the floodway that€s designated, you know, right now. So that€s the best, I think, you know, we can look at it now. In terms of the flow what I understand is that during a major flood event, as indicated, the stream will flow, I mean, the street overflows. It looks for all kinds of, it doesn€t just come down into those culverts. So it€ll top, it€ll flow in through areas; and that€s part of the 100-year flood. And, again, to the extent that those are existing conditions, the key and the requirement of this project is you cannot make it worse on adjacent properties; and that€s part of what Yen had to look at as part of his calculations. So correct me if I misstated anything. GRAHAM:Where is the ponding going to take place that you€re saying there€s going to be? 23 MOORE:Again, I€m referring to the flood map for Dr. Allen Takase prepared by Yen Fong. Again, the stream is, again, this is the property here, this red; and there€s another piece in red, cause, you know, it€s symbolic of other color, other things. The stream right now enters the property here. There will be a culvert at this point, the 24-inch culvert. If there€s any backup, it€ll backup into this portion of the floodway. That€s already, again, within the FEMA floodway. The pond in here, a little bit, slow it down. The water will still collect through there and flow. But, again, the requirement is that the location and the speed of that flow doesn€t change. But keep in mind the pipeline is at a 1.2 percent of the grade, so it€s really flat. We cannot increase the speed. We€re not picking it up and trying to accelerate the water through there, which would really be a problem. So it€s going to flow, it€s going to flow slowly through the pipeline and, again, 1., just a little over one percent grade. And, again, this is the requirements that Public Works has to look at. Yen has to show the calculations, show all of this as part of his drainage study. SPRINGER:Mr. Moore, before you leave, Commissioner Graham, do you have anyfollowupbasedonthemap? GRAHAM:Iwasjustgoingtosay,andyourfillproposalisthatessentiallythat whole parcel fills up so that that low area where we have now where the stream runs through is going to be all filled up to a higher elevation and that the culvert is going to carry water through there? Is that correct? MOORE: It€s going to carry water under the fill. GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:Mr. Moore, so that the discharge point from that culvert that€s going to be built under the fill, is that the property line? MOORE:Yes. Again, it€ll exit where the current stream exits. Again, if you notice from the back there, there were some gravel areas that were devoid of vegetation, where the stream, you can see it running through the adjacent property. That is where it will exit again; and Yen€s requirement was we cannot increase the amount of water, nor the velocity of the water, at that point. SPRINGER:Thank you. Ms. Black, I was just inquiring of the Corporation Counsel if it was appropriate to invite your additional comments, we saw your hand being raised. BLACK:It€s just about the ponding, cause I can tell you where it goes. SPRINGER:Please come to the table and use the microphone. And we€re looking for new information from you, please. If you need to use the map, Mr. Darrow will help you to a microphone. 24 BLACK:Okay. This morning when you guys came, we went along the street, and then we went inside the Mormon Church property, and we worked out way towards the back, and that€s where Mr. Ishihara asked the question about three feet. And at that time you could kind of clearly see the stream bed. When the water comes across the subject property and goes into the stream bed, and you kind of hopped over that little stream by that lemon tree and those macadamia nut trees, it fills this whole area. This is a good place if kids want to practice skin boarding because the Mormon Church mows their lawn. But the water is in excess of 8 inches deep, standing water, when it rains. So, I realize it€s not on the subject property and I realize, we realize we€re trying not to make it worse. But you want to know where the water ends up? It€s over here. It goes through the little stream bed, past the Uratani€s house and this whole area, which is currently lawn for the Mormon Church, is where it just sits. So when we have lots of rain, we could have standing water there for days. How many days? PUBLIC:Wouldbe,therearetoadsthatare-. BLACK:Yeah. PUBLIC:Youknow,beingbornand-. BLACK:Andlivetheirwholelifecyclebeforethewaterisgone,yeah, that€s a pretty much, it€s a lot of water. So that€s where it goes. SPRINGER:Thank you. BLACK:Okay. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda, you had a question? ALAMEDA:Yes, thank you. I had a question about the Public Works document. It has been referred to several times in this discussion, and I don€t have it in front of me. And I just was wondering if Mr. Pavao -? SPRINGER:Gomes, Kelly Gomes. ALAMEDA:Mr. Gomes, could speak on that? And my concern is just to see if there€s any conditions or any kind of other information that might be helpful to our committee. SPRINGER:Mr. Gomes? GOMES:And I don€t know what specifically you€re speaking about. Is it in the Background Report or the Recommendation -? ALAMEDA:It€s basically, it€s just the report that the Applicants are referring to when they said that Public Works had looked at it, they approved it. I don€t have that in 25 front of me. And so if you could just state for the record thatit is indeed, you know, approved, and if there€s anything that we should know about or could know about? GOMES:We did review and approve the KLOMAR application, that€s the application to revise the flood zone, and did pass it on to FEMA, which I reviewed and the Public Works Director signed. And there€s a form that we must sign before even FEMA looks at it. We also did review and approve the development right now. From what I understand, I think there€s a building permit for the retaining wall that the Engineering Division has approved. They approved the stockpiling permit. We have not yet seen nor approved the building permit application. So, to this point, a building permit for the retaining wall. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners,beforeMr.Gomesleavesthepodium,arethere any other questions for him? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Maybe just one. There was a statement that I thought Mr. Yen mentioned that the old plan was to have the two culvert pipes and now there€s a plan with one that he worked out with you folks. Is that correct? Is that regarding the retaining wall or -? GOMES:That€s basically, I think, it€d more to relieve the pressure or, you know, it€s going to pond along one side of the wall, yeah, and it€s just to pass the water through, to kind of retain that same drainage path of that little river or whatever you want to call it on Kilauea, yeah. GRAHAM:So it doesn€t, it€ll just run on the side of the wall? GOMES:Yeah, and because that area is a little lower they didn€t put any culvert through the property. It would be a pond up even higher, yeah. There€s no relief valve. That€s why, it acts like a relief valve; and then it takes it back to its natural course, yeah. GRAHAM:And do you have any sense of what the water will look like coming out of that 24-inch culvert? I mean, is it going to be roaring water at sometimes or is there going to be a gentle flow? Have you looked at that? GOMES:Maybe Yen Wen can answer that question. I don€t know specifically how much water is going to come out or, -. FANG:Okay. From my analysis, the water collecting on Kilauea Street is very large. It€s not, you know, we tend to say it€s a little stream, but it carries a large tributary area and from, all the way from the University down to this point. And that€s why, you know, the people that live there, they€re testifying water flows over the curb into the lawn, into the driveway. And that all holds true in my calculation. Because 26 before you are talking, I hear this, my calculation is showing me it€s over-topping the curb, it€s going into people€s driveway. And it€s going to do the same at this proposed project site, and it€s coming into the driveway. All, what I did is I make sure it doesn€t go in the building, but it will flow in the parking lot. It€ll be caught by drywells, but the excess will continue to flow down. To answer your question about how fast the water is coming out of the 24, because the 24-inch pipe at 1.5 percent slope, it€s coming out at a velocity pretty much the same as what it is now. And the majority of the water, becausethe majority of water when there€s a big event, it€s flowing around the corner. It€s not going -. Well, if I show it with this, if this is the wall, if the pipe is here, the ground is a little bit higher on this corner. So the water will pond up and the water will be flowing into the pipe, but at the same time it€s overflowing, too. Okay? And when there is a larger than, say, like 10-year, 50-year or 100-year storm, the water on the major stream is already up here, it€s already, it€ll be a lake.That€swhatthefloodplaintellsyou,you€reseeingalakeinthere.Andyoudon€t see the type, you don€t see, the wall will be, you know, instead of 3, 4 feet, it€s finally few inches high, that€s all you see. And that€s all, it€s actually like so, because the ground is very gentle in this area. MOORE:And keep in mind as part of the flood study all of this water was accommodated or calculated as part of the Palai Stream, which is calculated into the specific entry point. So we€ve already accommodated for that water within the flood zone, flood area. And the drainage study accommodates how can we make it through the property or through it natural courses to get to where it naturally goes; and that€s what the drainage study does. And, again, both of those have been approved. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any other questions? ALAMEDA:I have another question. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Thank you. At the site I noticed the culvert and the maintenance of it, you know, I don€t know where it came out actually. I was just guessing that it was coming to the pond. For this particular culvert, who would be responsible for the maintenance? GOMES:The County maintains that portion within the right-of-way; and the outlet side or the side the water comes out from, it€s actually the Mormon Church property. So I think what we need to do is send them a letter to tell them to clean out that drainage way. ALAMEDA:And then this particular culvert that is being proposed, who would maintain the out part of that? Would that be the Applicant? 27 GOMES:Yeah, well, whose ever private property it€s on. But on both sides there is debris grates so that you can have so much debris, you know, it€ll pick up the debris before and after, or if it enters -. And there€s grates on both sides so that animals can€t go in or children, and to pick up the debris. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any other questions of Mr. Gomes? Thank you. Commissioners, any further discussion with the Applicant€s representative? I have a question. Mr. Moore, with regard to water then moving off of the subject property, are you in discussion with the landowner onto whose property the water runs? MOORE:You know, again, the requirement is that we cannot change the flows that are there and, you know, that€s what is. So there€s, you know, the requirement, that€s what Public Works has to see. If we€re changing the flows and then really redirecting things in different directions, then we need to do that. But, in this case, my beliefisthatwedonotneedto.Again,everythingisendingupinbackwhereitisand it€s supposed to end up the same. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, is there any further discussion on this agenda item? If there is none, then we€re ready to hear a motion on the matter, and the matter is the Applicant, DJSM, LLC, requesting an amendment to Condition C (Time in which to secure Final Plan Approval) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92-91. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah. Because, I would like to make a motion that we forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92-91 (REZ 686), amendment to Condition C, and just Condition C. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there a second? SMITH:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you. It has been moved by Commissioner McCall and seconded by Commissioner Smith to send a favorable recommendation to amend Condition C of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 89-50, as amended by Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92-91 and that it be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council with the Findings and Recommendations made by the Planning Department. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I€d like to hear other Commissioners€ opinions, too. I felt somewhat better about the application from our last exchange with Mr. Gomes and with Yen in a sense that if they€re going to be constructing that retaining wall on the side so that water will move along the retaining wall on the Mormon Church property, perhaps the impact on the house down below would be less and not more if it€s being diverted a little bit towards here, and if the flow coming out of the 24-inch pipe is not going to be high velocity. So, you know, I€m not real comfortable on my vote but I did feel somewhat mollified by understanding that part of it. 28 SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, in response to your thoughts, I, too, kind of, in my mind at least, am struggling with the balance of what the Applicant has presented and the concerns of the contestants. And a part of me, and I know that, you know, that kind of growth will continue; and I just wanted to make sure that I have all the kind of information to make an informed choice on how responsibly the growth continues. So, in my mind, I€m still kind of unsure and still struggling with the notion that, you know, cause there€s a lot of information that has been presented, you know, the aesthetics, the density, that area. And, I don€t know, I feel kind of uneasy right now and I€m kind of inclined to not be in favor, but I need more assurances that maybe being in favor is in the best interest for this community. If you all could share with me kind of your thoughts more on kind of where you might be at? SPRINGER:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I guess I, well, obviously, am considering voting in favor of this. Myprimarythoughtshavebeenthefloodingissues.Ikindof,Iguessmyfeelinghad been that that should be our primary thing that we look at. I feel that some confidence, not, that what is being proposed here will at least not make the situation any worse. I, you know, there is some information that it will make it better but it is, water is definitely an unpredictable item; and in this area there is going to be a lot of water, there is going to be a lot of ponding. I think the engineer€s comments that, you know, during the 100-year flood, you€re not going to see this culvert because that whole area is going to be under water. That€s, you know, I think that the culvert is only something that, and the flow from that, is only something we€re going to really be concerned about with a 10-year flood or something. After that, it really, the whole area is under water; and that€s just what the situation is. You know, in a better world we could maybe have things set up so that there would be, you know, the County, I mean, the County would not put a road in like this nowadays. There would be drywells where each of those drainages are. But that€s not what the current situation is; and that, and we don€t, you know, we have to live with what the current situation is. And I feel that this is probably generally in the best interest of the community, so -. ALAMEDA:Thank you. SPRINGER:I have reservations as well, as I listened to today€s discussion and heard Mr. Moore€s repeated comment that their obligation is not to make existing conditions worse. My reservations or my concerns have shifted to the capacity of the County€s infrastructure to handle high waters; and this is not the Applicant€s burden to bear. Our recommendation, whatever it is, next goes to the Hawaii County Council; and I hope that this aspect of concern on, surfaces in their discussion. Because what we€re hearing and described, water flooding over from Lanikaula Street and down Kilauea Street on, as I listened today, it sounds like that€s a County infrastructure issue, perhaps 29 something that goes back to the Department of Public Works. But thosehave been my reservations; but, at this point, I€m inclined to vote in favor of the measure. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Could I ask a question, I think, of the Planning Director or someone on the Planning staff. We were concentrating on flooding today but I know at the last meetingthe community spoke a little bit about issues of massive building, and Commissioner Alameda spoke a little bit about the character, right now he€s concerned about the character of development and all. At some point I did look through the Zoning Code a little bit and it seems like we have sort of a different situation where a commercial property abuts other commercial properties versus where it€s sort of the end of the commercial area and it€s abutting residential properties. It seems like I saw in there somewhere that the Zoning Code requires on a commercial development that abuts on residentialpropertiesthesamesetbacksthatresidentialpropertiesmustadhereto,but maybe that€s on the side boundaries and not on the real boundary. So if there€s any kind of setback or whatever issues that would help to mitigate a large office complex with parking right next to residential properties that€s already in the Zoning Code that we can rely on or -. I don€t have any expertise and understanding of that issue particularly, so I just want to bring that up. YUEN:If that€s a question, I€m not sure what the setback is for this. There would be a landscaping requirement between a residential and the commercial. We really have more information about that, Jeff? DARROW:The setback for this particular property is going to be front and rear 15 feet and then the sides are going to conform to whatever is the adjacent zoning, so the adjacent zoning in this particular situation is Single-family Residential. Depending on the size of those lots we€ll be able to determine the setback whether it€s 8 feet or 10 feet or 15 feet. So this property will have to conform to that setback. But when you€re looking at a retaining wall, that€s a different item. That actually can be set up to the property line. But structures will have to comply with the setback. GRAHAM:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners, further discussion? Motion has been made by Commissioner McCall and seconded by Commissioner Smith with a favorable recommendation on this matter be forwarded to the Hawaii County Council. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Jeff, do the roll call. DARROW:Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? 30 SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Themotionpasses,fivetozero. SPRINGER:Thankyou.Mr.Moore,you€llbeinformedinwritingofour decision today. MOORE:Thank you very much. SPRINGER:You€rewelcome. Thank you all for participating in the discussion. The discussion ended at 11:53 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 31