Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-02 TOSHIRO PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 2, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of JANICE OSHIRO (REZ 05-016)was called to order at 9:07 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Second Vice-Chairman Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Hannah SpringerBill Graham Jeffrey McCallAndrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director NormanHayashi,PlanningProgramManager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: JANICE OSHIRO (REZ 05-016) Action on an application for a Change of Zone for 28,002 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 and approximately 120 feet north of the Kilauea Avenue ƒ Lanikaula Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-28:30, 32 & 33. ALAMEDA:Agenda Item No. 1, applicant Janice Oshiro. This is a rezoning. This is an action on an application for a Change of Zone for 28,002 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 and approximately 120 feet north of the Kilauea Avenue ƒ Lanikaula Street intersection. Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman. If I could direct your attention to the location map to refresh your th memories. This is a continued hearing from our October 7 meeting. The applicant in this case, JaniceOshiro,isrequestingachangeofzonefromRS-10toGeneralCommercialƒ10,000 square feet for 28,002 square feet of land. The property consists of, or the subject site consists of threeseparateparcels:LotA,LotB,andalsoRoadLotC.Theareaofthisapplicationis located in the south district of Hilo. This line running in an east-west direction is Lanikaula Street;andthislinerunninginanorth-southdirectionisKilaueaStreet.Theareaofthis application is identified with a blue dot. EXHIBIT A At our last hearing there was a motion to recommend approval to the Hawaii County Council. The motion did not pass with four ayes and three noes. Since our last meeting we€ve received several correspondences, one from, the comment letter from Civil Defense and also another letter of support from Concept Development. The Planning Department also distributed a revised Condition I, which should be with the Commissioners. The matter is before us for a revote. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Okay. DARROW:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Seeing that there are no questions, will the applicant -. SIRACUSA:Well, -. ALAMEDA:Oh, go ahead. Commissioner Siracusa. th SIRACUSA:At the October 7 hearing, Jeff, I asked you whether either of those structures were inhabited and you thought that one possibly was because there had been a truck in the carport and some indications. But you weren€t sure about the other. I€m wondering if in the interim you had time to check that out. DARROW:No, I haven€t, Commissioner Siracusa. Hopefully, today, the applicant€s representative could answer that question for us. SIRACUSA:I€ll hold that question then. DARROW:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay, will the applicant please come forward, or the applicant€s representative. Will you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record. FUKE:Sure. My name is Sidney Fuke. I€m a planning consultant. I€m here representingtheapplicant,JaniceOshiro.I€dliketoapologizefornotbeingthereatthefirst meeting. I had another commitment. Regarding your question, Commissioner Siracusa, both dwellingsarepresentlyvacant,accordingtowhattheapplicanthadinformedme,Iguess,abouta month ago. Whether it has been rented out currently, I€m not sure. But as of last month when I lastconversedwithher,theunitswerevacant. 2EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:And to yourknowledge, I don€t know if you€ve been inside either of those houses, would you say that they are habitable? FUKE: Oh, yes, both units are habitable, correct. SIRACUSA:Okay, thank you. FUKE:At the last Commission meeting it was kind of like my understanding that the concerns raised by members of the Commission who were not supportive of the favorable recommendation offered by the Planning Director, I think, focused on two things. One related around the need for more affordable housing and, secondly, relating to what, I guess, one of the Commissioners may have termed like creeping commercialism. And in response to what, what I€d like to just kind of share with the Commission is that one of the guiding force, you know, for land use direction, of course, is the General Plan. And the General Plan is a dynamic document, andasaresultitrequiresconstantreviewonamandatorybasisaccordingtotheCharterevery ten years. You just had a General Plan Amendment, the revision was recently adopted this year. Prior to that revision and the current revision, the existing version, it had, the General Plan did designate and provided the commercial expansion for the City of Hilo to occur in this particular direction. And it€s pursuant to this direction that, you know, rezoning applications occur. If it just so happens that this is not the direction that the community wants, then I think that the responsible thing to do is to have the community, or individuals, or Council Members, or whomever, you know, petition and request to have the General Plan in that direction, redirected to another area. Having said that, you know, if you look at the existing situation and not so much what the zoning map shows, because if you look at the zoning map the zoning map would kind of like suggest that there€s like a sea of yellow colored area which would suggest a lot residential. But if you travel along up and down the street like most of us do, you know, those of us here who live in Hilo, anyway, you will find that there€s a lot of commercial activity, you know, abounding that area. Specifically, to the, adjoining this property you have this Lanikaula Professional Center that€s soon to be occupied; and on the opposite side of the Lanikaula corner of course is a, although it€s residentially zoned, you have a medical office building, medical office/dental complex in that particular area. Across of that property is nothing but commercial uses. And so we believe that, you know, notwithstanding the color‚ on the zoning map, that if you look at it from a practical standpoint you do have like a sea of commercial uses in this area; and this is pretty much the only pocket that€s not utilized in a manner that€s consistent with the adjoining properties. Relative to the affordable housing question, yes, you know, you do have those two vacant and possibly they may have been rented, I€m not really sure at this point in time; but as about a month ago there were not rented, based on what the applicant shared with me. But if you notice that if you have the property rezoned to what is being requested, you create an opportunity for more residential uses, you know, unlike the present RS-10 zoning which would limit the number of units to what you have right now. The Planning Director€s condition does provide for that accommodation, that is to say that if you do, if market conditions change such that the owner decides to convert this area into more residential units then, of course, that person would have to absorb the impact fee responsibilities. So I think the Director€s condition does address the possibility for more units and, of course, if you have more units then the affordable housing 3EXHIBIT A requirement kicks in. So it creates thatkind of option. Whereas leaving the property under its existing zoning would not allow you, provide you with that kind of opportunities. So, having said that, I€m prepared to answer any questions the Commission may have. ALAMEDA:Commissioners? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I guess this is to Mr. Fuke and the staff as well. Condition I has been amended, is that correct? FUKE:That is correct SPRINGER:And the purpose of that amendment is to -? FUKE:It€s just to make sure that, you know, like portions of the property fall withintheAEfloodwayzone;andit€sjusttomakeclearthatnostructureswouldbeallowedin that area, although a portion of an existing structure already occurs in that area. But any expansion or any teardown of any new construction of structures cannot occur until first there is a, what has been suggested over here, an amendment to the flood zone map. And only after that occurs, then, of course, the structure would be allowed. So I think it makes clear and it provides adequate protection for the owner and subsequent owners of the property with having this condition in. SPRINGER:Thank you. May I continue? ALAMEDA:Sure. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, an amendment to the Flood Zone Map, what€s the time frame for that? FUKE:Probably like I€d say about a year, a year and a half. What you need is like you need to have an engineer come up with a study to show like how the flood waters are going in that area, and then it has to be reviewed and recommended for approval by the County Department of Public Works, who then forwards it to the US Corps of Engineers for consideration and formal amendments. SPRINGER:One last question. So that extends the planning timeline for this project? FUKE:Correct, again, only if the applicant elects to construct any structures within that area. SPRINGER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Is there a sort of conflict there between Condition I which talks about no additional structures and Condition M which discusses developing additional residential units on the property, or are we assuming that they can go up? 4EXHIBIT A FUKE:I don€t see that as beinga conflict because -. SIRACUSA:I mean, is there enough land area to keep out of the flood zone and still put in some additional residential units there? FUKE:I wouldn€t think so, not if the applicant intends to have like a multiple- family structure. You know, like if you€re going to do like a two or three structures you probably would have to penetrate a portion of the floodway zone. SIRACUSA:You mean if you wanted to keep the existing units? FUKE:No, if you wished to expand it and create more structures, you know, construct more structures. SIRACUSA:Inadditiontotheexistingunits,orareyoutalkingabouttearingdownthe existing units and putting in a multiple-family, a multi-level structure? I€m having trouble envisioning this, that€s why I€m asking you these questions. FUKE:The improvements would pretty much have to be, I€m looking at the flood map that was provided. You know, I think that€s also in your attachment, it€s found in Exhibit E. The improvements would pretty much have to be, you know, based on the existing flood zone, would have to be pretty much on the front side of the property or like the Kilauea Street, excuse me, yeah, Kilauea Avenue side. SIRACUSA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioners, other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you, Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:We have one testimony or person to testify, a Robin Black. Will you please come up, or come forward. Would you please raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? BLACK:Yes, I do. ALAMEDA:Can you please state your name and address. BLACK:My name is Robin Black. My address is 43 East Lanikaula Street in Hilo. I have two properties that directly join the subject property; and I have not prepared formal remarks, and I am shaking. SIRACUSA:Excuse me, could you speak into the microphone, please. BLACK:Sorry. I said I haven€t prepared any formal remarks and I€m kind of shaking. And you notice, my entourage is missing. You notice my missing entourage this time? When we talked about the original property, not the subject property, we did our homework. We 5EXHIBIT A went to the Planning Department, wegot the drawings. We read the stipulations. We came in force and spoke our piece. And you came and you looked and you decided. And now, the very thing that you decided is being held as a good reason why this should also continue. Talk about creeping commercialism, that building is not creeping. It is hovering and luring. The mountain is gone. The traffic is terrible. Come to my house at 3 o€clock in the afternoon, you can€t make a left-turn out of my driveway through four changes of the light at Lanikaula. I can taste the exhaust fumes in my dining room. Okay? Now what we€re talking about is a narrow property that has two homes, that there€s absolutely nothing wrong. I looked at the two homes. Mr. Horiuchi offered to sell me those two homes for a mere $600,000. The neighbors and I seriously considered it as a means of our sanity. When Mr. Fuke says that one of the suggestions, recommendations comes from Concept Development I couldn€t suppress my anger. Because if you called the Police Department and you asked them how many complaints our neighborhood filed against the existing project, the existing project, theprojectthatiscurrentlyunderconstructionthatdoesn€tgivearat€syouknowwhat,aboutthe noise ordinances, the bulldozers that start before dawn, the equipment that goes on and on, the compressors that get left on during the night; and they don€t care. And the Police Department says that they don€t understand the noise ordinance, so I went to the Internet and I downloaded it, and I faxed it to them; and they said thank you so much, you know we can€t enforce this, all we can do is tell them that there€s a complaint. I said would you please send a police car so that the neighbors can physically see that the contractor understands that we are upset? Okay? We went through this. We€ve been with it for almost a year now. The neighborhood is under siege. Why don€t you just come and shoot everybody and put us out of our misery. You know, he built that thing on the corner, the Pepsi trucks comes at 4 a.m., beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. We live there. We€ve lived there for a really long time. And it€s not an isolated pocket. It€s a neighborhood, with people, and pets and kids. The reason I€m here alone is because they all lost faith in you. We sat here, we asked you questions. One of the members said can we answer these questions? And somebody said no. It was a gentleman who was sitting there where Mr. Torigoe is, I don€t remember his name. He said, well, if we€re not the appropriate body to answer these questions, who is? No one answered. No one cares. You guys came, you looked. And I€m sorry, Mr. Fuke, but you know what, not to like mention a little loophole, but that whole little song and dance just now about going to the Planning Commission, and going to Public Works and the flood study, you already saw that that doesn€t exist. You can just go right around you guys and go straight to the Army Corp of Engineers and certify that that thing is outside of the flood zone, bypass Public Works altogether. That€s what happened last time. Don€t try it, please don€t try it. You know, if I thought for a moment that the people would actually care about what else is going on in the neighborhood, then it might be different; but they don€t. And we look to you for some sort of measure to protect what people are already there. I don€t know what to say. I trust you guys. But you know what? You made one really, really bad decision that is just drowning us all. And I€m horrified that you€re about to make another. ALAMEDA:Ms. Black? BLACK:I€m sorry, I€m just -. Yes, yes? 6EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:Are youokay for us to entertain questions? BLACK:Sure, that might help. ALAMEDA:Commissioners, any questions for Ms. Black? SIRACUSA:Yes. SALAVEA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa, then Commissioner Salavea. SIRACUSA:First of all, you€re talking about you guys, and I would like to bring to attention -. BLACK:I€m sorry, I was speaking of -. SIRACUSA:That at least three of us in the room today were not on the Planning Commission,andanotherwho€snothere,noneofuswereonthePlanningCommissionatthe time that that large building was approved. BLACK:Yes. I didn€t mean it in a personal way. I was speaking collectively about the Planning Commission body. SIRACUSA:Thank you. BLACK:Because we came before that body in good faith. SIRACUSA:Yeah. Then you€re talking a lot about that building, but that€s not the issue here today. The issue is -. BLACK:No, the issue is what€s next door. SIRACUSA:The Oshiro property and whether we should grant the change of zone to allow her to develop an office complex. That€s what she wants to do, put offices there. BLACK:I understand. But the two are related. SIRACUSA:Yes, they€re right there -. BLACK:The two issues are closely related. SIRACUSA:They€re right there. And I can see where, you know, if she were to build up it would block your view even more than -. Is that what you€re saying that if she -? BLACK:You know, when Mr. Hansen was talking about the other property, he said forget about the mountain, it€s gone; no one in your neighborhood will ever see that mountain 7EXHIBIT A again. And he€s right, except for me. I€m the only one left at No. 43 that has anything like a view. And if you put a 10-story, or 3-story, or 5-story building then my view of that mountain goes, too; and I will be very sadden by that. But worse than that will be what you do to therest of the neighborhood. Look at the traffic in the neighborhood. Let€s be real. You€re talking about between the University and the Community College. It is a nightmare. I requested before the previous -. SIRACUSA:Excuse me. You€re going off the question. BLACK:I€m talking about the impact on the neighborhood. The subject property should it be zoned commercial, should it go to higher density, will add even more traffic to an area. We are already at the breaking point of traffic and that new building isn€t even open. Okay? SIRACUSA:I€mawareofthat.IpassedthatbuildingonthewayintodayandIhave passed it while they were blocking traffic with their heavy equipment also. What I want to know from you is, all right, you€re opposed to this change of zone. BLACK:Yes. SIRACUSA:If, however, and some of us on the Commission have some concerns especially because we feel that there is a housing shortage and that we don€t like to see two units taken out of the housing market. And yet if Ms. Oshiro had decided to put in say a multi-family dwelling on that parcel which would be, say, two stories would you object just as strenuously? BLACK:To the traffic issue, probably. It€s too much. It€s already too much. You can€t get into Tykes, you can€t get out of Tykes. SIRACUSA:And on the viewplane issue? BLACK:I€m sorry? SIRACUSA:And on the issue of the viewplanes, would you -? BLACK:On the issue of the viewplane, I am close to rage, just because Hilo is a beautiful town. First the trees go, then the views go, then there€s nothing left but the stench of the traffic. It€s a neighborhood, you know. They all point to everything across the street. They all point to, you know, what€s out there. Well, I€m sorry, what€s out there is previous bad calls. Those were lovely homes once; and now it has become more cost-effective to sell the house to somebody who wants a nice old plantation style house in Paradise Park and build something new. But it€s just too much, it€s too much traffic, it€s too much, -. The whole intersection is just kind of a nightmare. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Black. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Ms. Black, for your comments, and I appreciate your passion. I€d just like to say, first of all, that you contain all your comments and direct them to the Planning Commission, and not directly address -. I€m not sure if this is my responsibility, but -. 8EXHIBIT A BLACK:Oh, to Mr., I€m sorry, okay. SALAVEA:I€d just like to make surethat you direct all of your comments towards the Planning Commission. BLACK:Okay, excuse me. SALAVEA:Regarding, thePlanning Commission has to balance what€s on the land use planning guide and the uses of what, or the intended desires of landowners in this area. And we€ve had a few items that came before the Planning Commission that the major issue had to do with rezoning and how a higher use was desired by the owners of the land. And what, this is more of a comment for you as opposed to a question, that we€re trying to balance keeping the neighborhood characteristic of that area with the commercial uses coming -. You know, it€s naturalbecauseoftheareaandtheamountofpeopleintheareaandit€s-.Whatwereallyneed is input like what you€re giving now to be taken up in a community development plan. And my question on that point would be how willing would be you and your neighborhood members to putting together something or being involved in a, I guess, a neighborhood planning initiative for this particular area? BLACK:Well, there are several factors to that. No. 1, I think that we would absolutely be delighted to have some formal opportunity to have some input instead of being in a situation where we€re always responding in this manner, which is upsetting to all of us. My neighbors are elderly. They€re not mobile, some of them aren€t well. When we came before they were all present in the room, but they wouldn€t take the mike because they don€t, they no like talk. So, really, what needs to happen is somebody that€s supportive and knowledgeable that can come and draw some of these responses out. If you ask them to all show up here and take the mike and list their concerns, it won€t happen. But I think that when the Planning Commission Members that viewed the prior subject property that I was speaking of came, they were thrilled. They felt like you guys really cared, they felt like, you know, they were going to come and look. I know they€re receptive. But you€ve got to understand that they kind of lost faith, you know. We don€t have lawyers, we don€t have Corporate Counsel. We€ve spent hours and hours and days writing our letters and looking at the stipulations on the Planning Department stuff. We did a lot of huge amount of work on our own time with our own resources. And I think after that experience everybody is just a little -. We don€t have much faith. So if we can find a mechanism where they can participate in a way that is nonthreatening to them and they can make their feedback known and work with somebody, yes. If it€s a form like this, once again, they€re going to push me in the front and tell me, Robbie, you go girl. SALAVEA:Okay. And just for your information, if you look at the minutes from the previous meeting that this issue came before the Commission, a lot of Commission Members wrestled with not having a clear community development plan to use as our guiding document; and therein, I think a lot of issues lies therein. So we€re trying to balance both the landowners€ right to use their property accordingly and also the wishes of the greater community surrounding. So, just for your information. BLACK:I have a question. Maybe this isn€t the right way to ask the question, but, you know, we€re talking about the landowner€s rights. Okay, that property was just sold. 9EXHIBIT A Mr. Horiuchi lived in that house my whole life. And, you know, he came to my family and said, I know how you feel about this, but we want money. You want to buy us out?‚ And we said No.‚ We couldn€t afford it. The whole neighborhood couldn€t afford to buy it together. We tried. Okay, so when it comes to a situation, I mean, when you go and you buy a property and they do a title search, they tell you, single family residential. You take your chances when you buy something and then you want to go and try and change the zoning after the fact. It€s not like they didn€t know. And as far as the houses inhabited, there was a party there three weeks ago, the house in the back, for whatever it€s worth. So I don€t know -. Do you understand what I€m trying to say? SALAVEA:Yes, yes, yeah. BLACK:Okay. SALAVEA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:No. I yield. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Springer, you had your hand up. Go ahead. SPRINGER:Yeah. I€m wondering if the Planning Director might respond to some of the concerns that the testifier had brought up. When we previously heard this application, there was no public testimony. But the testifier today has brought up the issues of viewplanes, noise, nuisance, traffic burden at the intersection, loading of the intersection; and the question raised about the community development planning schedule. How should we take into consideration, or do you have any suggestions for us when the value of community plans is recognized, it has been espoused by the administration but might not be happening in a timely fashion for citizens such as the testifier today? YUEN:Well, there€s a -. You went through a list of things. The first project that€s being complained about was the office building which had been zoned in either the late eighties or early the nineties, it was never developed and came to the Planning Commission, and ultimately to the Council for a time extension of existing zoning. We did recommend the time extension. It wasn€t a question of a new zoning. And the difficulty with the protecting the viewplane of an individual from their, say they have a back window of their house, over a piece of what had been a vacant property. I€m not sure what the zoning of that had -. It was probably a residential zone before it became a commercial zone. And we€re talking about the other office building. BLACK:It was RS-10. 10EXHIBIT A YUEN:There are so many things that can happen even in an RS-10 zone that will affect your view over your neighbor€s property that it€s difficult to say that that€s going to be the deciding factor in how you treat a rezoning. The people, they can plant trees, they can build a house. I€m not sure how tall a house would be to block the view from the neighbor€s property there; but you can build a single family home that€s not much lower than that building. So it is difficult to protect the viewplane of an individual neighbor in a land use process like this. I mean, I€m not talking about, when we have SMA permits, when you€re talking about big projects, there€s, the SMA permit talks about protecting the viewplane from a public highway to the sea. That is something that we€re supposed to protect. But in the context of an individual rezoning application it€s a -. I understand completely why the neighbor wants to have the view that they€ve always had. But to say that we are not going to allow a rezone because of that, it€s not necessarily going to have that effect because they could possibly do something that blocked it anyways. And it€s also, it has the effect of giving an easement over the neighbor€s property for the sake of the neighbor.Inotherwords,it€ssomethingthatpeopleactuallypurchasesometimesin developments is a viewplane easement. There were a lot of complaints about -. The building is not occupied yet, right? BLACK:The new building? YUEN:Yeah. BLACK:No, close. They€re painting and stuff. YUEN:All right. There were a number of complaints about problems during the construction process. BLACK:That€s such an understatement. YUEN:The noise, noise enforcement is with the State Department of Health. I€ve not, you know, I€ve had issues, I€ve contacted the State Department of Health myself about noise issues and not been very impressed by the enforcement. But that is the enforcement level. They have noise regulations for construction next to residential areas; and that€s where the complaints are to go. I don€t know if the complaints were made and they had an unsatisfactory response with that. The traffic is a function of other things happening. The, any traffic that€s increased in the area because of this office building is not, the office building isn€t occupied, there may be some increase that€s due to construction workers coming in and out or construction vehicles, dump tricks, and the like; but it€s not currently due to the office building. And you€re going to have, there€s going to be a level of commercial development in Hilo as the population increases and it is going to cause some traffic in one area or another. What did you, you wanted to talk more about a community development plan. One, this, the issue that€s coming up here is very similar to an issue that was raised in our rezoning for the Ameri Quest Mortgage Company, it€s very similar. And it€s, similar issues have come up in the Waiakea House Lots area. And I have to say I€m not, you have this question of some kind of commercial development next to residential neighborhoods, when and what is the level of 11EXHIBIT A compatibility. I mean, I don€t live in the neighborhoods myself. I can see that there are many residential neighborhoods in Hilo where you can say that there have been commercial activities and residential activities that have co-existed for a long time. I don€t know to the satisfaction of the people in the neighborhood or not; but they€ve certainly -. You can think of Kapiolani Street or Ululani Street in Hilo, let€s say behind the Central Fire Station, say the block from Haili Church, the block on Ululani Street from Haili Church going to Ponahawai Street where you have the fire station. You can go down that block and on one side you have Dr. Chock€s office and you have, I think there€s a nursery there, and then you have some multi-family buildings, and then there€s a Japanese School; and there€s a mix of uses. And I don€t see, at least externally it looks like they€ve co-existed and been compatible for many years. I do think that the kind of, say the Ameri Quest Mortgage proposal where they€re occupying an existing building is the kind of thing that is basically more compatible, I mean, physically you€ll look at it and it will look more like a residential building; and the level of activity is not markedly different. Theofficebuildingthatwe€vebeentalkingaboutisabigbuildingandithasabigparkinglot. On the other hand, it fronts Kilauea Street which is one of the busiest streets in Hilo and it is a natural area for a commercial enterprise, for a major commercial enterprise. It€s on a four-lane street. So, I mean, this is a long discussion. I€m not satisfied that we have the proper tools in trying to make commercial development compatible with residential neighborhoods. I think it worked sometimes sort of its own. I think it can, there are some times that it can be incompatible. I think, you know, returning back to this application, we do have a favorable recommendation, we did have a favorable recommendation, on the previous time extension; and it basically turns on that in this location, this is actually the last residential property in residential use on the block and it does front one of the busiest street in Hilo with commercial activity all around it. SPRINGER:Chris -. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Just the community development planning schedule, is this neighborhood envisioned to be part of the community planning? YUEN:I think we, yes, it would be. I think we do need a plan that more specifically looks at Hilo and particularly neighborhoods of Hilo rather than as the General Plan does. The General Plan has this broad approach where you have, say, say you have a large area that€s medium density urban and so the landowner can come in and request a rezoning for a commercial, that€s consistent. They can request a rezoning to a multi-family residential, that€s consistent. Yet within that idea of commercial, there€s a broad range of things that can happen; and some of them may be more compatible, some of them less compatible. I think even more necessary than say a mapping exercise of where things should be located, we need to review the kinds of things, the scale of things, and the types of things that are allowed in different kinds of zones. On an administrative level, we are now encouraging, when people come in for a rezoning in an area like Waiakea Houses Lot where it may be predominant, in the area there are parts of it that are still predominantly residential but shown now as medium density in the General Plan, we€re 12EXHIBIT A recommending it go to a RCX zone rather than a CN type of commercial zone. And the reason for that is that there is a more, a slightly reduced range of uses in a RCX zone. You can€t do things like a gas station; and it€s a zone that€s meant to be more neighborhood friendly, although it€s not perfect in itself. And there may be areas where, that are in medium density urban, where a more focused community planning effort would say it€s fine to have a small apartment building, duplexes and the like and it may be okay to have say an office building, a professional office building, something that doesn€t have a high degree of traffic, but you don€t want to have a retail business, a 7-Eleven or something like that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:When might the community plan in process begin? YUEN:We€re going in for the 06-07 budget cycle, the Planning Department is goingtoaskformorefundstogooutformorecommunitydevelopmentplans.Ican€tpromise right now that we would make Hilo town a part of that. I think that€s likely that we would make that part of what we do with that next wave of money. We have two major planning, community development plans going on right now; but we are going to ask for more funds in the 06-€07 budget to expand that to other parts of the island. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Any more questions for the testifier, Ms. Black? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Hi, Robin. BLACK:Hi. MCCALL:I was one of the Commissioners who did vote for the thing. BLACK:Yes. MCCALL:I want to, I guess, primarily make some comments and explain my thoughts. BLACK:Okay. MCCALL:I mean, you know, I was born and raised on this island, I have seen a lot of changes, we€ve all seen a lot of changes. I guess my general, without going into the specifics, I guess where I€m coming from is that the changes are coming whether we like it or not. We cannot close the door and tell people that they€re not allowed on this island any more. We can€t tell our sons and daughters that they have to move away, that they can€t live here. As the population increases, we need to have places for them to live, we need to have businesses for them to work at. Hilo€s population I think is somewhere l ž or 2 times what it was when we were in high school together. And it€s a difficult decision. I mean, I think back to where, you know, the house where I grew up used to have a cow pasture across the way, now there€s 13EXHIBIT A affordable housing there. My parents cannot see the mountain any more, they used to be able to. You know things do change. I would like to see things stay the same, but I think the reality is that we have to look at what is in the best interest of the population at, the whole population trying to take into account the needs and the pains that it will cause to individual residents. My general feeling is that this is where -. You know, the County General Plan as it says says that this is where the urban expansion should go, and my general feeling is that they€re correct. And I do see that it does mean, you know, quite a bit of pain for individual homeowners, you know, such as yourself who has lived in that house all those years and are, in effect, getting pushed out. I don€t, I mean, I do find it to be a very difficult decision. But, you know, but at the same time the other, you know, it has to go somewhere. We can€t just say there€s not going to be any more expansion of Hilo. We can€t say that, you know. ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall, thank you for your comments on that. Does that lead to a question or you just want to kind of lay it out? MCCALL:It€s primarily a comment, yeah. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any other questions for Ms. Black? Ms. Black, you have any final comments? BLACK:IhaveacoupleofthingsI€dliketosay.Firstofall,Iappreciateyour comments, Jeff; and I understand that things do change. But I thought that part of what this process was was trying to have some sort of controllable change that people could actually live with as in people who already live there. So, -. The other thing is, and I€ve heard your comments, I understand, I€m so grateful that you keep asking that question because we do need this. And I feel compelled at this moment to bring one other piece of this into this which does impact the whole situation. And right now with the lack of a larger community development plan, I€m in here all the time, well, not all the time, but it€s on this bit-by-bit basis. So I just want to show you one thing. Okay, so this is the property that we€re talking about, the blue dot. This is the building we€ve already been discussing, the monster that€s going in now; and this is the dentist office. And, you know, Chris you were saying about ways that residential and businesses work together, I would say that the dentist office that€s on the corner is about the best example of a commercial enterprise that is harmoniously integrated into a residential neighborhood. And they did a bunch of things, including putting their building down in the ground so it didn€t impact the viewplane, and doubling up on the parking stalls for the employee and staff so that it didn€t have to be constant cars going in and out, in and out all the time because the girls that are the dental hygienists pull in and the docs pull in right behind them. It works very well. So this corner is an example of something that€s working. Okay? We like those guys. But, right now, so this is my house right here, this is my other house right here, this is my cousin€s house right here, and this property on Iolani Street they just bulldozed this double lot. The Suzuki family is going to build a warehouse for Hilo Products. So now add those trucks backing up, yeah, try go take a look. Right over here, you go down Iolani Street, you€re going to be shocked, they bulldozed that huge double lot. And that is going to be, we€ve been told, the 14EXHIBIT A neighbors have been told that it€s going to be a warehouse, food and vegetable warehouse. So, again, we€re talking about the truck backup noises 4 o€clock in the morning. Now, Jeff, you don€t live in town, you€re not hearing it. Okay? Four a.m. you come to my house, you hear the Pepsi truck. This property right here on a beautiful Sunday morning in the Subway at 5 a.m. I heard a leaf blower. I got out in by PJs, I walked over there. I said, Excuse me what are you doing? You can€t do it, you can€t have a leaf blower at 5 a.m.‚ He said, Sure I can. The property owner told me that this is a commercial zone, this building was zoned commercial, we can come in here.‚ I said, Yeah, but think about it, you€re surrounded by residents, everybody in here is asleep. Come on, turn it off.‚ And he did, and he went back home, and he came back at 9:30. It was very civilized of him. But if we€re letting the proposed developer set the tone of what€s acceptable in our neighborhood, it€s a slippery slope. ALAMEDA:Thank you. All right, we€re going, to, this is a public hearing so are there anyothertestifiersintheaudiencewhowouldliketocomeforward?NowI€mgoingtothank Ms. Black for your testimony. BLACK:I€d like to just say one thing and that is, for the record, as I came here this morning I came here with the full support of my entire neighborhood. That would be Kats Kojiro, Fusae Miyamoto, Marion and Henry Aguiar, Eric and Anita Ishihara, myself, my nephew Michael Black, and my mom, my dad. Everybody knew I was coming here. Nobody wanted to come. Nobody wanted to go through, again, what we went through the last time. But I just want you to know that you see my body, I represent an entity of people that are deeply concerned. And I thank you very much. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Black. Okay, we€re going to close testimony at this time. I€d like to, Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Actually I have a question for Mr. Fuke if -. ALAMEDA:Sure, he€s going to come back up. SALAVEA:Okay. ALAMEDA:Yeah, Mr. Fuke, please. Would you like to entertain your question now? Or, Mr. Fuke you have any comments to say prior to Commissioner Salavea€s question? FUKE:Oh, okay. Well, I can say that, you know, like we€re all human beings and we do understand when things come around us that, you know, whether we appreciate the change or don€t appreciate the change. And in, you know, kind of like my profession I always try to put myself in, as if I were in a neighbor. And so to that extent I can understand the concerns that Ms. Black had raised. At the same time, I share a lot with what the Planning Director had mentioned about in terms of the growth of the City, the General Plan, this property fronting a major thoroughfare, you know, like within the City of Hilo. And yet, you know, you€re just trying to kind of balance it off. And I cannot help but feel that a lot of the so-called, the negativism relating to this project is kind of 15EXHIBIT A like a spill-over over what happened or what€s happening really like on the commercial office building that€s under construction right now. I would like to suggest that, if the Commissioners are willing and, you know, in partial deference to what Ms. Black has raised that, you know, like several things ƒ One is like, you know, I can€t really, we can€t really answer the question about the drainage issue, like how the other project got through the drainage system and got their approvals. All I know is like what the law says, like what we must go through, and what the Planning Director is recommending as a condition with respect to what you can or cannot do within the floodway area. Relative to the traffic, it is a major thoroughfare and it€s something that€s, it€s kind of expected. You do have high volume traffic in a commercial area and the surrounding areas are all commercial. But,lastly,intermsoflikethevisualaspectsand,youknow,I€mjusttryingtoputmyselfinMs. Black€s position or one of her neighbors. And I would like to suggest that under that basis that maybe a condition can be imposed where the height limit of any structures on the property would be limited or capped to no more than what is presently allowed, which is 35 feet under the single family residential zone. If the property were zoned to CG then conceivable the structure could go as high as 10 stories, provided that you have the required parking, setback, and all that. But, and so I think that if you have a condition that would say like all structures on the subject property shall not exceed 35 feet in height, then you pretty much as much as possible while you€re allowing the use you€re still trying to show out of deference to some of the adjoining property owners which, some of the adjoining properties which are residentially used some deference in terms of the kind of scale that a project on the property could be constructed on. That€s pretty much my comment. SALAVEA:Mr. Chairman? WATANABE:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Okay. We€ll do Commissioner Salavea and then Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, can you tell me, is it the intent of the applicant to have the two existing buildings, use the two existing buildings as is for an extended period of time or is it their intention to eventually reconstruct a commercial building with a higher use? FUKE:Based on what the applicant has shared with me, you know, her original intent is just to have the existing structures converted and utilized for office space. Whether that remains to be seen like over the next four or five years, it still remains, you know, it still remains to be seen. Because if there is a strong demand maybe for like office uses which on the other hand considering what€s happening on the adjoining property may take a while -. But let€s assume that there is a demand for office use, then I can conceivably see a situation where the two structures would be demolished and a new structure would be constructed on the property, subject to making the changes to the floodway designation. But I don€t see that happening, you know, in light of what€s under construction right now, that to happen like within the next four or 16EXHIBIT A five years. But we cannot dismiss that possibility if the economy shows, you know, proves it to be that such activity can happen. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Yeah, I have a question. First of all, I appreciate your willingness to make a compromise with regard to that 35-foot cap on the height. But I€m wondering if, like the Director had mentioned, currently I believe they€re recommending RCX zoning as opposed to the straight commercial. Would that be within your power to offer up as -? FUKE:Well, you know, I think that like what the Director is suggesting is that if you€re in the RCX area then, number one, you have some severe limitations in terms of commercial uses. Secondly, considering like this is a street frontage, you know, a heavily traveled area, you know, having RCX type of use may provide, may not really like be the best use,youknow,consideringthesurroundingareaslikeheavilyintoofficeandretailuse.Soat this point in time I probably would say no to that answer, I mean, to that question rather. And that€s why I was thinking that if, on the other hand, like from a structural standpoint there may be ways that you can try to achieve some visual compatibility; and so if that visual compatibility could be achieved by having a cap, you know, comparable to what€s already allowed in that RS zone, then I think that would be reasonable. ALAMEDA:Other questions for -? SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman? WATANABE:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer and Commissioner Watanabe following. SPRINGER:Is that follow up or something new? WATANABE:Oh, follow up, if you don€t mind. SPRINGER:Then I defer to Commissioner Watanabe. ALAMEDA:Let me just make note, let me just make a quick note to -. Ms. Black, I know your hand went up, we closed testimony already, so I€m sorry, I cannot entertain your question. So what we€re going to do, again, protocol wise we€re going to ask questions to our applicant, and then Commissioners we€re going to go make a motion, then we€re going into discussion. And then at the discussion we can go ahead and put our views on the table for our fellow colleagues to think about. SPRINGER:He has a follow up. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? 17EXHIBIT A WATANABE:Yeah, my follow up would be towards the Director. And I wonder if you would share comments about the RCX zoning you folks have been recommending as well as the 35-foot cap that the applicant€s representative has offered as a compromise? YUEN:The 35-foot height cap is a good idea. I think I would phrase it as height limited to that allowed in an RS zone, rather than as a height, as a footage, because then it€s consistent with whatever the zone, if it were to change through the Zoning Code. The RCX we started doing that after this application came in. This is not an application that would have necessarily triggered us to recommend RCX, given that it€s on Kilauea Avenue. An application, you know, within this Waiakea House Lots side streets would have, we would have urged that, I think, as, especially when the proposal is consistent, when the specific business proposal is consistent with an RCX. Like this one here, what they€re saying would be allowed in a, what they€re proposing as an office use would be allowed in an RCX. So it would be possible todoitthatway. WATANABE:Ontheotherhand,itiswithintheGeneralPlannotedascommercialand, you know, the entitlements run with the land, so for future development that might limit the applicant. And so, in general, I guess what you€re saying is you€re kind of in agreement with what Mr. Fuke said that because it€s on a thoroughfare this would not be one that you would normally recommend RCX on? YUEN:Without the applicant€s consent, we would, we continue in our favorable recommendation for a CG-10. I appreciate the offer of the height limit. I think the Commission should take that up. I want to make a couple of things really clear. One is that I don€t view the General Plan as compelling you to take a particular action on a rezoning. It is consistent with the General Plan to rezone this to General Commercial. There are always site specific issues that you have to look at. The other thing is that as we develop adjacent to residential areas, we do need to try to think about how this, people should feel able to stay. I mean people should not feel that it€s incompatible with their residential use. People have a right to stay, you know. Even if the General Plan say it€s medium density urban or high density urban people, you know, there should be ways to make it compatible. So far most of the, I think virtually all the rezonings that we€ve seen in the Waiakea House Lots area have been immediately adjacent to other commercial developments and so are not, it€s hard to say that they€re changing the basic character of the area. ALAMEDA:Let me go real quick to our staff. Jeff, had a quick comment he wanted to make, and then Commissioner Springer following. Jeff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of the discussion regarding the possibility of multiple family residential units being allowed in the general commercial zoning, the Planning Director would also like to add the affordable housing condition. This would be the new Condition M, all conditions after will be realphabetized accordingly. The condition will read as follows, To insure that the goals and policies of the housing element of the General Plan are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, Article 1, Hawaii County Code, relating to affordable housing policy. This requirement shall be approved 18EXHIBIT A by the administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development.‚ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, you€ve heard the discussion about the noise nuisance from other commercial activities. Would you be willing or what are your thoughts on a condition regarding noise limitations? FUKE:Well, there have been some other situations where I€m familiar with where there were, I think there was like a residential rezoning up in the Kona Palisades area where some of the neighbors had raised concerns, noise concerns with respect to construction activity, as opposed to operational activity. And so I think there was like time limits within which construction could occur, like no weekends, you know, I think it was like a 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. or somethinglikethat,andMondaythroughSaturday,andnoSunday.Ithinkthatwouldbe reasonable. But in terms of like the operational aspects, it€s more a function of like what actually occurs on the property, whether it€s going to be a commercial office, or limited retail, or whatever have you. And to that, as the Director had pointed out, the enforcement responsibility on noise falls with the State Department of Health. You do have a condition, as already proposed by the Director, which requires full compliance, you know, with all other applicable rules and regulations; and I think the noise would fall under that. But with respect to, and I know that in the Kona Palisades situation there was no noise restriction relative to weekend and hours of operation, except just decibel levels. So I think that having a condition that would limit construction activity to Monday through Saturday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., I think, you know, that really would be reasonable. . SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:So then that may be -. Could staff and the Director work on that condition? YUEN:Okay. ALAMEDA:Okay. FUKE:I think, the other thing, I think, like what the Director pointed out made me think about another issue. Like there may not necessarily only be height issues but when you come in with, under the CG zoning, you know, it€s possible that you could have like a zero setback provided that you have a firewall. And so perhaps, again, out of deference to the residential, you know, single family residential area and trying to retain a sense of scale that perhaps you could tighten it up further by stating that the height and setback, you know, of all structures on the property be consistent with the RS zone. So that way at least, you know, you would know that they would have setbacks that would be, again, no different than what€s currently allowed by any residential structure. 19EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. May I just continue? ALAMEDA:Go ahead, sure. SPRINGER:This notion of the Department Health then being the enforcement agency for any noise nuisance, I was wondering if Ms. Black maybe has some new information. And I wonder if it would be of value to request through the proper channels and any payment necessary to get a copy of these transcripts to show the deliberation here and the concern that has been expressed for your benefit? BLACK:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:This is for Director Yuen. My question is once the land is rezoned to CG- 10, any new construction or redevelopment would only require Planning Department approval rather than coming back in front the Planning Commission or the County Council? Is that correct? YUENRight, as long as it was something that was allowed in the CG zone. So 20 years from now, yes, if someone decided to put a 7-Eleven on the property, yes, it would be allowed; and then the only thing that would come, it would just be an administrative approval with the Planning Department. They would have to, we have a thing called plan approval -. But it looks only at things like, it€s almost like building permit review. But it will look at did you put enough parking spaces, did you, is the entrance too close to the corner, those kinds of issues, and not, it€s not a strict level of control. SALAVEA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioners? And for the public, just so you know that as Commissioners we have a lot of information so -. We€ve got the application, we€ve got the recommendation report, we have an opportunity to ask the applicant more questions. So I€d like to ask you if there are any more questions to ask the applicant before we take all this information and start moving forward? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Just a comment. I€d like to thank Mr. Fuke for making the concessions or offering up those concessions. And I think with that, you know, I feel fairly confident that they€re going to be a good neighbor. 20EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:Okay. Other questions before I ask for a motion? Thank you, Mr. Fuke. While this application does come with a favorable recommendation of the change of zone request and that it be forwarded to the County Council, is there a motion? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:With regard to the Janice Oshiro change of zone application (REZ 05- 016), taking into consideration the discussion here today and the recommended amendments to the conditions and the findings and conclusions of the Planning Director and Planning Department, I move that a favorable recommendation of the change of zone request be forwarded to the County Council. ALAMEDA:Anysecond? WATANABE:Isecond. ALAMEDA:IthasbeenmovedbyCommissionerSpringer,secondedbyCommissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Just to discuss those amendments, we have an amendment to Condition I which was distributed in writing prior to this meeting. We have a new Condition M that will reflect the affordable housing element; and all the subsequent conditions will be renumbered. And we also discussed with the Planning Director an amendment to the height and setbacks that will be consistent with the RS zoning; and a condition regarding noise limitations during the construction phase of development. And I€m relying on the staff and the Director to provide us with that language. ALAMEDA:Sure. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:If this would be okay with the Director, the condition regarding the height limit and setback would state All structures on the properties shall comply with the height limit requirements and setback requirements for single family residential zoning.‚ Does that sound okay? YUEN:Yes. Let me just check one thing. The thing that I don€t want to miss is that there is a special landscaping requirement for a CG adjoining an RS. That is put in the landscaping, I mean, is put in the setback section. It says -. No, I think that will be okay because it€s not in the setback section. That, we would preserve that. So we can just say that, yes. DARROW:Okay. Additionally, for the construction activity condition, it would state, Construction activities on the property shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays.‚ YUEN:That€s fine. ALAMEDA:Our Corp. Counsel would like to add? 21EXHIBIT A TORIGOE:I just wanted to check, one of the things on trying to keep the height limits and setbacks consistent with RS, I think what we should probably make clear is whether you€re talking about in effect at the time of the construction or in effect currently. Because it says the Planning Director mentioned that there may be changes in that. ALAMEDA:Director Yuen? YUEN:I think if we just leave it as we€ve just said it, it would follow whatever standards are in effect at the time they build. TORIGOE:Well, you know, I sense a little ambiguity though, you know, if you don€t say something about -. Because if you just say that it will follow RS then there€s a little ambiguity about whether you€re talking about current RS or -. YUEN:We can say the RS standards at the time of issuance of the building permit. ALAMEDA:Mr.Torigoe? TORIGOE:That€sfine. ALAMEDA:Okay. There was a motion made by Commissioner Springer, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe, and Mr. Darrow did clarify the additional conditions. Discussion? SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:I was skeptical on the insurance building which occurred on a two-lane, road and I was not here for the final decision making on that. With regard to the other building that we€ve discussed I was skeptical of that too. A greater portion of that property was in the AE zoning; and that was the primary reason for my skepticism there. In our earlier discussion on this matter, no member of the public had come forward and that made my favorable vote at that time somewhat easier. Ms. Black having come forward and raised a number of concerns that I think we all feel as citizens and then have to address and consider as members of the Planning Commission added a burden that was not present at our previous discussion. But like Commissioner Watanabe, I thank the applicant€s representative for his willingness to consider conditions that may ameliorate some of the concerns, certainly not all of the concerns that were mentioned by the public testifier; and I speak in favor of the motion. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Do we have any thoughts or feedbacks before we do a vote? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:One of the, I guess, recently we€ve been having a lot of applications come before the Commission that had primarily the same issue at heart in mixing commercial with residential. And in this instance, I think we come across an issue that is unique in terms of the level of commercial activities in the area and its close, very, very close proximity to residential 22EXHIBIT A lots, and not only just residential but residents that have been living in the area for substantial amount of time, I mean, established neighborhoods that have lived and seen things in a certain way for a pretty extended period of time. And I think that factor in itself makes this issue more difficult and the decision to go ahead and either approve or disapprove a difficult one. I myself am, as these issues are coming to the Commission, I feel less and less confident about giving favorable or approval only because I€m hearing, from my perspective, I€m hearing the older established community try to speak out and influence us in retaining their way of life there, what they€ve grown accustomed to. And I understand that change is inevitable. But without a community development plan and without direct input from a greater, a source greater than just one or two or three individuals I€m feeling less comfortable about approving this type of spot zoning. I know previously that we had some items come before the Council or the Commission and I voted in favor; but I€m just not feeling comfortable as we keep getting these isssues. And also thelevelandpassionoftheresidentsiskindofresonatingwithme.Somygutfeelingisto maybe not give a favorable vote for this particular -. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. Other thoughts? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:I want to echo Commissioner Salavea€s feelings because I€m feeling the same way about it. In addition, I was struck by, you know, a comment that the Director made which we€ve seen before like when we had that DLNR rezoning in Kawaihae and that there were certain things that we felt could be done in that zoning that we didn€t feel would be appropriate at all for that particular location. And I agree with you that that€s where we really have to look to make some changes, is, you know, the things that are allowed under certain zonings. There are some things like the professional building that she mentioned that€s down in the low area, that€s where my dentist and my eye doctor are and, yes, it is very compatible; and yet we know that there€s commercial ventures that are totally incompatible. You know, and it€s really hard to make a decision to change the zoning to commercial when you know that what could be put on that property in the future could run such a broad range, such a huge gamut from really, you know, mellow, keep the old building, just put a little sign up, low key, you know, still retain the ambiance of the neighborhood to something that€s totally garish and ugly and inappropriate. And it makes it very hard to make decisions about these kinds of rezonings when you know that you could start off thinking, oh, this might be something, you know, that€s amenable to the community and then you turn around, they€ve sold the property, and before you know it a nightmare has gone up and people looking at you and saying, you agreed to rezone that? And you feel like crawling under the rug. I€m not going to crawl under the rug. I€m just going to vote against this motion. ALAMEDA: Any other thoughts before we go into voting? Okay. Okay, staff. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion that was made is to approve, recommend approval with amended Condition I as well as added conditions regarding affordable housing, height and setback limits in the RS zoning, and also limited construction activities. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. 23EXHIBIT A DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Nay. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion does not pass four to two. ALAMEDA:I want to ask our Corp. Counsel, Mr. Torigoe, to explain now the next steps. TORIGOE:Okay. Under your rules, if the Commission fails to make a decision within 90 days after receipt of the application from the Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicants, then the application shall be considered an unfavorable recommendation and transmitted to the Council with that recommendation. Staff informs me that this was first heard th in October and that basically the next Hilo meeting would be falling on about the 89 day. Is that correct? HAYASHI:We haven€t confirmed the date. We still need to set it. But right now it th seems like it€s going to be on January 6. th TORIGOE:Which would be about the 89 day after the first meeting on this matter? HAYASHI:Correct. TORIGOE:So under the practice as it has been, technically, this could come up before you again one more time or also Mr. Fuke could request more time to bring it up one more time. That€s basically what we have been doing. I don€t know if Mr. Fuke would like to address that. Perhaps he would like to ask the Commission just to allow it to go up with a negative recommendationand,it,beingrightatthethreshold,youknow,wemayhavetoconsiderthat. But, anyway, Mr. Chairman -. 24EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe, could we invite the applicant up and ask him that question or -? TORIGOE:I think it would be appropriate at this time to see what his position would be. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Fuke, in response to Mr. Torigoe€s thoughts, your thoughts? FUKE:Sure, thank you very much. I think that inasmuch as this application has been heard by this Commission and debated quite extensively and all of the record, you know, both pro and con will be forwarded to the County Council for its disposition, I would request that this matter just be forwarded to the County Council with the full record noting that the Commission€s position is four to two, technically it€s a negative recommendation, and have it disposed of by the County Council. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Let me ask the Planning Director, any comments? YUEN:I do not believe that the applicant can take the matter to the Council before the90daysareup,unlesstherehasbeenavotebyfivememberseitherfavorableorunfavorable. And let me read the ordinance, it starts by saying, The Commission shall review any application initiated by a property owner or other person for a change of zone and shall forward its recommendation on the application to the Council through the Mayor for the Council€s consideration and action.‚ And I€ll skip some of the procedural stuff. And then it says Within 90 days after receipt of the application from the Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the Commission shall transmit the proposed change of zone ordinance, together with its recommendations thereon, through the Mayor to the Council. The Commission shall recommend approval in whole or in part with or without modifications or rejection of such application. In the event that the Commission fails to act on the application within the 90-day period, the application shall be considered an unfavorable recommendation by the Commission and the application shall be transmitted through the Mayor to the Council with such recommendation.‚ Under the Charter the final action by the Commission, as actually with all Commissions, requires a majority vote of the full membership. If the 90 days passes then according to this, without that recommendation, you know, without five votes one way or another, then according to this section it goes up to the Council with an unfavorable recommendation. But with the 90 days not having elapsed, I don€t think the applicant can just decide to go up with an unfavorable recommendation. ALAMEDA:Corp. Counsel, Mr. Torigoe, your thoughts? TORIGOE:Well, there are some things that we really should clarify next time we revise this rule. For one thing, the 90 days begins after receipt of the application from the Director; and that is a matter that is up for interpretation. As I said, the practice has been to interpret that as saying from the date that you have your first hearing on the matter. But you know, I mean, it doesn€t say from the first hearing, it says from receipt of the application. And so, I mean, it could be interpreted in a case like this where we€re right on the threshold, you know, I think it€s very reasonable for someone to say that, hey, if you€re having your meeting on day one then the application must have been transmitted to the Commission at least a day or two before that. But, anyway, I guess, based on what the Planning Director, the Planning Director€s 25EXHIBIT A interpretation and, you know, frankly when it comes down to it, I would defer to the Planning Director€s interpretation because after all he is the Planning Director. If you feel that you want to make sure that you are in full compliance with the Code as it is interpreted by the Planning Director, then you just put it on the agenda for the January meeting; and then when it comes up you€ll have to allow public testimony again, and then deal with it as expeditiously as you can; and let it move on one way or the other. ALAMEDA:Thank you, counsel Mr. Torigoe. Mr. Fuke, are you okay with that. FUKE:Well, apparently I have no choice. ALAMEDA:That€s true. Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Would a motion be in order to defer to -. ALAMEDA:Continue? SALAVEA:Yeah, continue to the next scheduled Hilo meeting. TORIGOE:Yeah, although the way that the Planning Director is interpreting it, again, there€sreallynochoiceifyoutakethatinterpretation.Andso,butIwouldadvisethatifthere€s no objections, objection to that, we just continue it by consensus in that way. ALAMEDA:All those in favor of continuing this application to the next hearing say aye. COMMISSIONERS:Aye. ALAMEDA:All those not in favor say nay. We€re going to continue this to the next hearing. Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura East Hawaii Secretary 26EXHIBIT A