Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-03 THONPA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 3, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of HONPA HONGWANJI HILO BETSUIN (REZ 08-000082)was called to order at 1:18 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo C. Kimo Alameda Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And nine people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HONPA HONGWANJI HILO BETSUIN (REZ 08-000082) Change of zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Multiple-Family Residential 1,500 square feet (RM-1.5) district for 4 acres of land. The property is located along the south side of Kawili Street, adjacent to and east of the Waiakea High School complex, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-1:116. WATANABE: The next agenda item is Honpa Hongwanji Hilo Betsuin. This is a Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000082), and they want a change of zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet to Multiple-Family Residential 1,500 square feet (RM-1.5) for 4 acres of land. And I’ve been informed by Mr. Iwashita that he’s going to recuse himself from this discussion because he was formerly on the Board of Directors with the Honpa Hongwanji and I guess he spent something like 15 years in that position. Is that correct, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: The Spiritual Affairs Board for like ’85 to 2000, so -. WATANABE: Okay. So with that I’ll turn it over to Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next application is a change of zone request from Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet to Multiple Family Residential 1500 square feet on 4 acres of land. And the property is located along the south side of Kawili Street in Hilo. On the slide this is Kawili Street running East-West, and Kapiolani Street is running North- South, just to the west here. And Kinoole Street is on the other side of the property. The EXHIBIT D 1 majority of the area around here is zoned Residential, Single Family. There is a 7-Eleven and other Commercially zoned areas just at the intersection of Kawili Street and Kinoole. And there’s also a Multiple Family Residential zoned area just to the North across the street of the project site; and that’s the future location of the Hawaii Veterans Memorial Center. This is an aerial photo that shows the property outlined in red. There are ten existing single family dwellings on the property that would be demolished in order to develop their property for the proposed development that the applicant has; and the aerial photo also shows the university parking lot off to the left side of the slide. The university is within about 500 feet of the subject property. And the applicant’s development that they’re proposing at this time would serve the university. They’re proposing to build and operate a 106 unit 400-bed student housing facility. It would be contained in one 461,000-square foot building that would be three stories of the residences and four stories of parking which would contain approximately 392 spaces. The building will consist of about 24 three-bedroom three-bath units and 82 four-bedroom four-bath units, as well as common areas such as a study and computer lab area and fitness and game room. The applicant submitted a site plan showing the proposed building; and as you can see it comprises the entire lot and is built up to the setbacks. They’ve also submitted a conceptual elevation that shows the view of the proposed building from Kawili Street, as well as a conceptual site plan for a four-unit. And each bedroom unit has its own bathroom as well as a computer desk area. And then there is the kitchen, the common living room, and a dining room. The Planning Director is recommending that the Commission send a favorable recommendation for this change of zone request. And before I take questions, the applicant has submitted I think two articles as well as amended conditions, that’s Conditions P and R. You should have that with you. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of staff? Doesn’t seem like it. So I believe you’re up again, Mr. Fuke.You’ve already been sworn in. Have you had a chance to review the Director’s recommendations and conditions? FUKE: Yes, we have. Again, for the record my name is Sidney Fuke, I’m a planning consultant; and in this situation I’m before you in the capacity of not only as a consultant but as a member of the church as well, Honpa Hongwanji. I’d like to acknowledge the presence of Rimbum Hagio, Rimbun is really like the equivalent of the head minister. We also have Byron Fujimoto who is the currently president of, they call it a kyodan which is really the basic organization for the church. And we have also other members of the kyodan, Jane Yoshida, Barry Mizuno, and Karen Maedo. The staff’s background report and the recommendations understandably because it’s a favorable one, you know, were well received by the applicant. I’d like to just kind of share with the Commission some of the general background, you know, the genesis behind like why we are where we are today. About two years ago the church was actively trying to see how they can generate additional funds to support its on-going operation and, you know, also try to help find funds for its future expansion programs. And, you know, they looked at this property, the subject property, and, you know, there are ten rental homes on the property which provides a good source of income. But, you know, it’s kind of maintained EXHIBIT D 2 right now by the church members. And the membership, in spite of the increasing membership those who are, you know, like have the talent and the desire and the time to maintain all of these facilities are kind of like getting up there in age, and so they’re looking at alternative ways to help generate funds off this property. You know, we looked at the possibility of having the land subdivided and sold and then, you know, maybe putting it in an interest bearing account; and we’re glad that didn’t happen in light of what’s happening today. Then along, you know, we were looking at also some other potential uses for the property that would be very compatible with the community and the surrounding areas. One of the uses we looked at included possibly like an elderly care facility, and more recently the possibility of the student housing. We were approached by representatives of Place Properties to consider like student housing. And what I shared with you was initially a couple of things. One was a background report in terms of like who Place Properties actually is. And the Place Properties actually is, the person, his name is Cecil Place; and Place Properties comes after Cecil Place. It’s an Atlanta-based company. And what it is is like their company specializes in developing, and renting, and maintaining student housing. They have, at this point in time, according to the brochure that I passed out, 405 employees and their primary headquarters is based in Atlanta. They own over 2300 beds and they manage over 19,000 as of the year 2005. What Place Properties does is they develop on a turn-key basis and they try to privatize student housing as opposed to going before a Board of Regents and trying to get State or government funds to kind of, you know, develop a student housing program along that line. So they specialize in privatize housing, you know, for students. Their local representatives had a meeting with the Planning Director like just about a year ago; and what I did was also passed, shared with you, because it’s kind of buried in an environmental assessment, I kind of shared with you the letter that was generated, you know, from Place Properties representatives to the Planning Department, and likewise a response from the Planning Director. And because of the favorable response received by the Planning Director on this project in concept, that basically encouraged Place Properties to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the church. As Place had indicated in the letter to the Planning Department and also like as they reviewed the proposed conditions, what was of concern to Place Properties, of course, is like, you know, when you do a privatized student housing it’s almost like doing an affordable housing project, so your margin is very, very, very narrow. And so every time you add on conditions then it makes the project even more questionable, you know, particularly in light of this time to get financing. They have asked us to see whether they can, you know, when the Commission or the County Council ultimately considers this application whether they can get relief from certain things. They wanted certain relief that when we had reviewed it, we being the members of the church had reviewed some of the things that Place Properties wanted to have relief, we didn’t feel comfortable. For example, in getting relief from putting in curbs, gutters and sidewalks, we felt that that was like a very important safety measure, largely because there’s a heavy school traffic in that area and this project is predicated upon a lot of foot traffic between the facility and the University. So, you know, we felt that was something that we didn’t feel comfortable about gaining relief. However, there were like two areas that we thought that possibly, you know, we could ask this Commission and ultimately ask the County Council that they could consider. And one was to gain relief from the fair share requirement. The fair share right now calls for like approximately $10,000 per unit, and that translates to giving them $160,000, or whatever it comes out to. So, EXHIBIT D 3 you know, that was one thing. The other one, as was kind of noted in the correspondence between the Planning Director and the applicant, you know, relates to the affordable housing, the affordable housing requirement. And, you know, I think that the Planning Director’s note is very clear on that. If I can just direct the Commissioners to his letter dated October 24 (2004) to Dennis Hirota, who coincidentally is presently a member of the Board of Regents right now. In the second paragraph, and I’ll just kind of read it if you can’t find it. It just says that “The proposed rental rates would be considerably in excess of the amounts considered ‘affordable’ by Chap. 11,” which is the Affordable Housing Code. “Only the Council, at the time of rezoning, could decide to exempt this project from Chap. 11 requirements, and the administration, at this time, cannot commit to support this waiver. The affordable rental rates were set with a different model in mind -- a family renting a unit -- rather than students sharing apartments, so there may be grounds to adjust what should be considered affordable.” And the reason why is that, you know, if you look at the schedule that they have right now, you know, for like at the 120 percent of median income level, you know, the rental rates would probably run like around, according to the table, would run for a three-bedroom for example, $1,978 inclusive of your utilities. However, like what the applicant has in mind would be, you know, charging by room per the students. So at that time when they were discussing it with the County they were talking about $975, $980 per student per month per room. So that increases the threshold, you know. So what, you know, we would like to have the Commission and ultimately the Council consider is that if this project is developed into an affordable housing project that there be exemptions from the affordable housing requirement because this is really like a unique situation that was not really considered by the current Affordable Housing Code. So in that regard what we’re suggesting, which was my last handout, was that if Conditions P and Q could be amended by just including this as a rider; and that would read like “This condition shall not be applicable to any and all units on the subject property that are planned to accommodate students attending the University of Hawaii at Hilo system and other institutions of higher learning within the city of Hilo. This determination shall be made by the Planning Director upon consultation with the UHH, University of Hawaii at Hilo, prior to issuance of final plan approval.” So what this does is that if the project is, in fact, going to be utilized for student housing and the Director then has this kind of discussion or confirmation or affirmation from the University of Hawaii at Hilo that the project will be for affordable housing, then they would like to get relief. Alternatively, if it doesn’t turn out to be, for some reason Place Properties or whoever is ultimately the developer of this site decides to do something else, maybe just do a conventional, you know, apartment rental or whatever then, you know, we can feel that, yes, the affordable housing and the fair share requirements should be left. So that’s all we’re asking for right now. So if there are any questions that the Commissioners may have of myself or members of the board, I’d be more than happy to answer. WATANABE: I have a question for the Director. I can see the need for student housing, and I think you would probably share that feeling. Is it overly burdensome though to insert the proposed language and make that determination, or do you feel that’s something that you could endorse? YUEN: Well, I can’t give a blanket endorsement of it at this time, but let me make a couple of suggestions on these issues, one of them on the affordable housing side. There is a EXHIBIT D 4 catch-all clause in the current Chapter 11 that says that the housing administrator, that’s Ed Taira at the present time, can accept alternative forms. What it says is that the housing administrator can agree that housing that addresses a critical housing need in the area satisfies the affordable housing requirement. So that’s something that the housing administrator can do under Chapter 11. So I don’t want to, you know, the Commission in its recommendation can say something favorable about allowing this project. I would not want to advocate a condition that took out the affordable housing language simply because there’s another law in the County, you know, this Chapter 11, that says that all new zonings to RM and other zoning districts have to conform to the affordable housing policy. So I can’t sit here and say we should pass a rezoning that takes out conformance with affordable housing. They may be able to do it with a rent schedule that they have in mind and have that considered as something that, you know, addresses the critical housing need. That’s a possibility. Or the Council which is a legislative body can decide that, well, this isn’t what we meant when we passed Chapter 11. But as far as this Commission, you know, as I said if the Commission wants to say something about that we see this as a little different than the kind of project that affordable housing should be tacked on to, that’s fine. But I really can’t recommend it as doing what they are suggesting and taking the clause out of the rezoning ordinance. The rent rates are, you know, if you multiply 975 times four you get 3900 a month, which is way in access of a per unit affordable housing rate. If they were not covered by that clause and they had to do affordable housing, their alternatives are to do something offsite within a 20-mile radius. There are possibilities for doing something like that. But that’s what I suggest on the affordable housing side. WATANABE: It’s 15 actually, yeah, not 20 miles? YUEN: I’m sorry, I’m sorry. It’s a 15-mile radius, yes. WATANABE: Okay. Any further questions of the applicant’s representative? Fred? HOUSEL: Question now. This would be a privately-owned structure, is that right? FUKE; That’s correct. HOUSEL: Okay. And who would manage the facility? FUKE: Currently if it goes according to plan, then it would be Place Properties. HOUSEL: Okay. And who would determine the rental rates? FUKE: Place Properties would have to make that determination based upon, you know, at this point in time, based on the preliminary analysis like as the Director had indicated, like about 950 to 975 a room. So they would internally determine. And if the marketplace doesn’t support that rate then obviously they would have to kind of scale it back. HOUSEL: Okay. Obviously for students affordable housing is very important. Does the University have any say so as far as the rental rates? EXHIBIT D 5 FUKE: No, they would not. HOUSEL: Okay. FUKE: But the idea is to kind of have a cooperative relationship or understanding, you know, with the University because you would want to have -. When a person goes to the University for student housing, for example, the University then would say, well, you can consider this, this and this. HOUSEL: Okay. The traffic to the campus and back you say most of that you expect to be foot traffic? FUKE: Yes, correct. I know that there have been, you know, although we had the traffic study done, I think -. And they had like 400 parking stalls for 106 units, and I guess they were predicated upon like maybe their own different experiences in Georgia or wherever. But in this particular situation, you know, we don’t believe that that number of parking is really required because the reason why they choose this site is its proximity to the University. And so it doesn’t make sense to drive half a mile and have to pay parking on the University campus and then drive back again. So that’s why we don’t think that the number of parking stalls that are proposed is really realistic. So as they get, if the rezoning is approved and, you know, Place Properties studies the situation more carefully, I think they will begin to make some adjustments to their proposed building design. This design was kind of predicated upon the need for having 400 parking stalls, and so they had a parking structure. But I think that at the end of the day they’ll probably scale back that requirement. HOUSEL: Okay. Now I believe I read in here most of the traffic corridors are unsignalized. Is that correct? FUKE: The closest signals would be, I don’t believe -. We have the traffic engineer here, his name is Warren Yamamoto. And if you have, maybe I should just call him up. Warren? YAMAMOTO: Sure. WATANABE: Mr. Yamamoto, may I swear you in please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? YAMAMOTO: Yes, I do. WATANABE: And then just for the record, name and address, please. YAMAMOTO: Warren Yamamoto, M&E Pacific, 841 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii. WATANABE: Okay, you may proceed with your response. YAMAMOTO: In response to Commissioner Housel’s question, most of the intersections, they are signalized. They are not unsignalized. EXHIBIT D 6 HOUSEL: Okay, okay. YAMAMOTO: There are several unsignalized, but most of them are signalized. HOUSEL: So pedestrian safety would not be an issue you don’t believe? YAMAMOTO: In terms of crossing the street they have the signals. I think what Mr. Fuke was referring to earlier was on the, having sidewalks as a pedestrian safety feature. HOUSEL: Thank you. YAMAMOTO: Okay, and I think so, yeah. HOUSEL: Okay. Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Well, do we have any further questions for the applicant? No, none? Oh, yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: And I think you also asked me about fair share. Again, this is something I would leave it to Council to decide if Council wanted not to assess fair share rather than the Planning -. I as Planning Director would not make a recommendation on this. We have, you know, there have been fair shares assessed on worthy projects including affordable housing projects. WATANABE: Okay. So then, yes, Ms. Ogata. OGATA: I have a question about the parking, the parking situation, I guess. I can see that most of the students that would be staying in these apartments would be probably, would probably choose to walk to campus rather than take a car and pay for parking and all of that. But as far as other services and other resources, supermarkets, shopping, those kinds of things they would still need some kind of transportation, right? FUKE: That is correct. And I think that if we, I’m kind of reflecting on my own personal college experience. I think like, you know, if you have like four persons living in an apartment unit probably only one person has a car and you all kind of like pool your way through. Cause if you’re going to pay, you or your parents or somebody is going to pay 975 a month then it’s probably going to be very tough to also at the same time own and operate a vehicle. Can I just further comment? WATANABE: Sure. FUKE: I can understand what the Director is saying. And likewise, too, like one of the things that Place Properties have asked us is like whether this body or like, you know, through a condition there could be relief from paying real property tax, you know, in the same way like how the University of Hawaii is exempt. And we had informed them that, you know, this has to be taken on a separate track. I mean, you know, if they want to have amendments to EXHIBIT D 7 the Real Property Tax Code that provides exemption or some reduced rates for a project such as this, then it has to be handled separately, you know, as a separate measure. While we understand what the Director is saying relative to getting relief on affordable housing and, you know, the fair share, you know, given that this has been a long-standing policy requirement of not only necessarily by the Commission but also by the County Council, we would at least appreciate it if there could be a statement or two in your favorable recommendation when it goes to the Council that, you know, these be considered, such that it gives us an added case, so to speak, when we go before the County Council. WATANABE: Sort of like with a cover letter, yeah? FUKE: Correct. WATANABE: Indicating being in favor of allowing some flexibility? FUKE: That’s correct. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay. So if there are no other questions then you may be seated, Mr. Fuke. Right now then we, oh, by the way, for the record, there is no one signed up to testify for this agenda item. So right now we’re at the juncture where we could entertain a motion; and potentially that motion could also direct staff to include some of the requests of the applicant with regard to fair share and affordable housing as a recommendation. Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, thank you. With regards to the application submitted by Honpa Hongwanji Hilo Betsuin (REZ 08-000082), I move for a favorable recommendation to the County Council with the attachment or a letter stating to the effect that, the fact that the housing and the -. WATANABE: Fair share. DOMINGO: Fair share should be considered. WATANABE: Flexibility -? DOMINGO: Yeah, that flexibility. WATANABE: And enforcement of. Okay, so we have a motion. Is there any second to that? HOUSEL: I’ll second that. WATANABE: Mr. Housel, thank you. Okay, we have now a motion to send a favorable recommendation -. DOMINGO: Yes. EXHIBIT D 8 WATANABE: Along with a favorable recommendation for flexibility in the affordable housing as well as fair share requirements should this project materialize into a student housing program. Okay, any further discussion on this? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I have something to say. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: I’m sure Mr. Fuke would be capable of presenting a fair presentation to the County Council with respect to consideration on the issues that’s stated. I’d just like to mention that perhaps it was about 15 or 10 years ago, might be even before that, the former Councilman Jimmy Arakaki envisioned Hilo being a college town. And then he went on further to say that within the proximity of the University that multiple family housing should be established, a commercial area be established, so that the students can be within a college town in itself so that, you know, traveling to other places that we normally travel to go to buy grocery or, can be obtained within the proximity or close proximity to a college. And I think what we’ve seen here is a fruition of all the efforts by, for one thing, Councilman Arakaki; and now we have people who are willing to invest in this project to see that this can be done. And I think it’s, I know when this is done other projects would come in which would supplement and would complement the University itself. And I know that a few years ago there have been statements or articles that I read with regards to other foreign investors who are willing to come and build a college, provide college housing for the students at the University. But here we find someone who is willing to do it and just put their foot forward or a positive foot in the right direction. I totally support this effort.And I think our letter to the County Council should strongly emphasize that some flexibility or consideration be made with regards to establishing this college town. Because if you make it hard or really difficult for them, you know, it will stop there and the plan would probably stop, will never go forward. And I think we should support initiatives such as this; and the whole community will profit by it and benefit by it, as well as the whole island. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: I had a question for Director Yuen. I want to make sure I understood what you said regarding the affordable housing requirement. If later they choose not to use this as student housing, would the affordable housing and impact fees apply? YUEN: Well, under the terms of the ordinances we have it would apply in either case. Under what they’ve written, it would apply only if they didn’t do it as student housing. HOUSEL: Okay. Will that be a condition of this approval? YUEN: Well, our recommendation is that we keep it as is and let them either, see if they can administratively get an agreement from the Office of Housing that their project as a student housing project meets a critical regional housing need, in which case then the project itself would satisfy Chapter 11 without changing anything of the ordinance. It would fit Chapter 11. And then as far as the fair share it would really be up to the Council to decide if they wanted to waive the fair share for a student housing project. EXHIBIT D 9 HOUSEL: Okay. And if they chose to do that and later it was determined not to use it for student housing, would that impact fee then apply? YUEN: Right. If they use the condition that Mr. Fuke proposed, the fair share would kick back in if it wasn’t done as a student housing project. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further comments, discussion on this matter? Well, personally, I think we do need to diversify and certainly education is a clean industry. So I’m hoping that you’ll get a favorable recommendation, ruling at the Council level. With that, Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council regarding this change of zone application as the Planning Director has recommended, along with a cover letter that was described by Commissioner Domingo. I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata OGATA: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Aye. COTTLE: Thank you. Motion carries five-zero. WATANABE: Okay. So good luck at the Council. FUKE: Thank you. The discussion ended at 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT D 10