Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-03 Windward Transcript Tai WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 3, 2013 VINCENT T.C. TAI (REZ 13-167) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 10:00 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Wallace Ishibashi presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wallace Ishibashi, Ronald Gonzales, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono And 12 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: VINCENT T.C. TAI (REZ 13-167) Application for a Change of Zone from a Multiple-Family Residential–2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) to a Multiple-Family Residential–1,500 square feet (RM-1.5) zoning district for approximately 3.292 acres of land. The subject property is located at the end of Hualālai Street, just west of the Hualālai Street/Hale Nani Street intersection, Waiākea, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 2-4-028:009. ISHIBASHI: We’re on Agenda Item No. 5, Vincent Tai, Change of Zone (REZ 13-167). Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next application is a change of zone request. And the subject property is located in the South Hilo district, just above the police station in Hilo. So if you look at the map, the subject property is located in the middle of the map. It’s an irregular shaped lot and it’s kind of a dark red color. The police station is located in this area right here where the red dot is. Kapiolani Street is running in a north-south direction in the middle of the slide. Then you have Hualalai Street heading down towards the bay. And then coming off of Hualalai you have Hale Nani Street. This is the public housing area here. As I mentioned the police station is located here, and then in the yellow color are Single-Family Residential lots known as the Hualalai Subdivision. The subject property is currently zoned Multi-Family Residential-2.5. The applicant actually changed the zoning about three years ago. It was zoned Single-Family Residential-7.5 like the surrounding area, but it was successfully rezoned back in 2009. You can see the property to the north is zoned Multi-Family Residential-1.5, so that is consistent with the zoning that the 1 EXHIBIT A applicant is currently requesting. This is the General Plan designation for the property. The areas in orange are Medium Density Urban. The areas in red are High Density Urban. In the Medium Density Urban Multi-Family Residential zoning is allowed, and, as well as some commercial uses. The applicant is requesting a change of zone from RM-2.5 to RM-1.5 in order to develop an affordable housing project known as Hualalai Court. He’s planning on developing 88 affordable housing units. This is his current development proposal. This is conceptual so it can change. But you have Hualalai Street on the right side of the slide, and then Hale Nani comes down off of that heading south. So he is proposing to extend Hualalai Street and then drop it down into a driveway. And you can see the units here, the Multi-Family Residential, units here in this location here. He’s also proposing some playground areas along here and on the northeast side of the property. This is an aerial view of the property and surrounding neighborhood. These are the Single- Family Residential homes making up the Hualalai Subdivision. The property is outlined in red. You can see there is an existing dwelling and pool on the property that the applicant is planning on demolishing. And then this is a view from the end of Hualalai Street looking towards the property. So this curve here curves around to Halenani Street. And the subject property is in this location here. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation for the change of zone request. And before I take questions, I just want to call your attention to a few correspondence we’ve received. You should have two letters from Charlene Nishida. One is dated February 4, 2010. These were comments that she submitted when the applicant first rezoned his property three years ago. And then you should also have a letter dated October 1, 2013 from Charlene Nishida. And we’ve also received a letter from Roy Toma, Roy and Ann Toma, and that letter includes the applicant’s response to the Tomas at the bottom of the page. Then you should also have an email st from David Martins dated October 1. And that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Maija. Any questions of staff, Commissioners? Could we have the applicant come forward, please. Good morning, Mr. Tai. TAI: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: If you could raise your right hand, please. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? TAI: Yes, I do. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Could you state your name for the record. 2 EXHIBIT A TAI: Vincent Tai, T-a-i, last name. ISHIBASHI: And address? TAI: Oh, I’m sorry, 2184 Round Top Drive, Honolulu, 96822. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Have you reviewed the conditions? TAI: Yes, I did. ISHIBASHI: Any concerns or questions? TAI: Not at this time in terms of the Planning Commission’s approval. ISHIBASHI: Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners? Anything you’d like to say? TAI: Well, I’m aiming for, let’s see, 80 percent median affordable housing, not 100 percent, not 140 percent. The numbers are very, very tight. That’s one reason that I need to increase the density, because the infrastructure cost is constant. I need to spread it out with more units. I’ve been in this business for 40 years, many in urban development. So the density here being RM-1.5 is median by the stretches. I mean it’s not high density at all. And the site being like 3.3 acres it could be planned so that some of the neighbors concerns could probably be mitigated. Now keep in mind this is really a very conceptual plan at this point because this is a zoning change. Once I receive approval by the Council then I will work diligently to try to come up with a plan that tries to mitigate as much as possible. There’s no 100 percent solution, no 100 percent perfect solution here. But as you know, it’s not easy to develop in Hilo, given the cost of construction here being probably as high as Honolulu or even higher. But the value, the rental value, sales value, is probably 50 percent or even less. So I do need the cooperation from all sides. Financing is an issue. If my numbers are correct, if I really can control the construction cost part -. The rental income I cannot control because it’s published, I have to follow the County’s guideline. I haven’t seen any publication since 2012. This is the last published numbers. So I’m going to stop by the office and see if I can talk to Jeremy and see what the 2013 and proposed 2014 is like. Because these numbers are very important. The cost of construction is not going down, you know. But I, I think it will work by having a little bit more density but still low by most standards. Okay? It has the possibility of working. Now there are reasons why there hasn’t been any development in Hilo for the last, I don’t know how many years. There are reasons, right? And, and just change of zoning is really probably evolution in an urban city, urban development, you know. It’s, I see it as a positive. Of course, some of the neighbors see it as a negative, which I have some response to those concerns. I just received this letter this morning, so I just read it. Okay? And this is something that I’m not quite familiar with. But I think these should be dealt with when I get to the stage to submit development plans and not during the change of zoning application. For instance the suggestion 3 EXHIBIT A that I should comply with the Rule 17.6 which is like between Industrial and Residential use, okay? But this is all residential here. It’s not change of any use, in the sense. It’s only the density here. And in my preliminary plan, conceptual plan, I adhered to all the regulations and codes the best I can. It doesn’t mean that they cannot be more generous. It’s just that I need to work on it once I know that the, my application for the rezoning is successful. Now in terms of property value, in fact I just read it too, five minutes ago. Charlene was saying that, because, was saying that they are probably, may be affected because it may not be in uniformity. Okay? Now when I looked at this, and this is really off the top now because I just read it a few minutes ago, I would agree, depends on what kind of uniformity or lack of uniformity. Right? If it’s changed from Residential to Industrial, I would say, you know, there’s not a consistent conformity, therefore their property value will be affected. But here it’s all residential. So the question is just the density. Now, again, this is just in general, I’m not talking about specifically this particular location. In Urban areas, land, let’s say single family homes, and it’ll probably apply here in Hilo as well but I’m talking about in general. In general value, okay, the property value of single family homes, the majority of the value is on land, it’s not on improvement. I’m pretty sure the same here. Okay? Now that is to say if the density can be increased, the land value will be increased. So from my experience in the Urban development in the Urban environment, when you have mixed density those with lighter density that is contiguous to areas of high density, they foresee or predict in the future they can increase the density, therefore increase the value of the property. Actually, property value could be increased, not decreased. But I’m not here to argue one way or the other. I’m just trying to point out, because her letter pointed out there’s a lack of conformity, therefore their property value will be reduced. But I don’t understand, I mean, that’s not the way, from my experience, understanding in an urban development. Okay? But there are probably other things that I’m not able to address at this moment. But I’m certain all of the neighbors will have plenty opportunities to voice their opinions when I’m able to come up with a more definitive, final development plan. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners? KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Vincent, you represent that there will be other opportunities for people who have concerns about your project when you get into your further design stage. Is that, is that your understanding? TAI: Yes, correct. That’s always the case, yeah. KANUHA: How is that going to happen? Because from here on, once the zoning goes through the plan approval process is a ministerial process. There’s no public hearing, there’s no notice, etc. So how do you propose that these folks who have concerns about the development will have any input on what you’re going to do? TAI: Well, first I didn’t understand that in order to get the final development plan before I go for 4 EXHIBIT A the building permit, there won’t be any public hearing. I didn’t know that. Okay? Be that as it may, as an architect we work with the neighbors, we work with communities through a design process. Like I said, there’s no 100 percent perfect solution to satisfy everybody. That’s, that’s the way the world is. I have, like 35 years, 35 years experience as architect/developer working in the Bay area. And I can tell you the Bay area is far more intensive in terms of community development. So I’m used to that. And I can be very patient. Like I said, you know, I have to be reasonable, I have to come up with a plan that I can look at it and I can say it’s a reasonable solution, irrespective of what the neighbor says. Okay? And then I can, from that standpoint, I get the opinion. Now some people may have unreasonable demands. Now those I cannot adhere to. But there will be a process. Okay? Now exactly how I go about it, I’m not sure yet. But like I said I need to come up with a plan that I can look at it and I can say to myself it is a reasonable and doable plan. And then from that point on I will meet with the neighbors, I will meet with the community members, staff, your staff, or anyone who is interested in this particular project. Unless you have proposed suggestions, but that probably would be my tick -. KANUHA: All I’m suggesting is you need to think this through, how you’re going to present it because these questions won’t go away. This Commission will give a recommendation to the Council. And if these concerns go up to the Council folks, they’re going to be asking you the same questions. That’s all I’m suggesting. TAI: I appreciate it, yeah. Yes. But I think, you know, like I said, this change in the zoning is rather mild, in my opinion, okay, given the urban setting here. It’s not like asking for something that is extraordinary. And if I remember correctly there hasn’t been a lot of development here, although no development lately, you know, in many years. So this kind of process, it’d be kind of new even, you know, for the neighbors. Because there’s really no other opportunities that they can, or no other examples, you know, they can refer to. Okay, thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Tai. Any further questions, Commissioners? HENKEL: Chair? ISHIBASHI: Yes, Mr. Henkel. HENKEL: Mr. Tai, do you know currently what the parameters are that define affordable housing? TAI: I believe I do. I have those documents from, I’ve been getting from Jeremy McComber; and I have a list of the things that, the rental rates, selling rate, I’m talking about 80 percent because I’m focusing there for now. Okay? And also the plan is going to be for affordable use. There’s, under certain kind of financing, they have to conform the ADA. This project most likely will be a one- to two-story building. It will not be a three-story building. I have to defer answering, you know, exactly what the plans are going to be like because I will be working on it 5 EXHIBIT A as soon as I can get the rezoning approved. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. So for now all your questions have been answered? GONZALES: I have a question. Mr. Tai, looking at all your conditions here, under Condition F, it says that the development shall be completed within five years. Is that realistic? TAI: I don’t know. I don’t know. Once I get the, I really don’t know. I wish, you know, no sense of holding on to the property and not doing anything. Since I’m working on my own plan, I’m not relying on someone else’s schedule -. So once I know that the rezoning is successful I will work on the development plan immediately. And I will be meeting with either the departments or companies or individuals who, I think, have experience with working on affordable housing. Then I’ll know how the financing would come about. But to answer your question, I would like to push it as fast as I can, and not just to sit around there and waiting. GONZALES: Okay, thank you. And have you look over all these conditions? Are you okay with all those? TAI: Yes, except for one that I just brought up with Daryn. But this is not for the Planning Commission to decide. And I need to bring this up with the Council after they approve the rezoning. It’s the fair share costs. Okay? Now I understand the reason for fair share costs. It’s not that I don’t. But the fact is it’s so difficult to develop in Hilo, as you can see, you know. This fair share is adding additional burden for affordable housing. Because affordable housing you get very little rent, you know, the value of the property is only worth so much, it’s determined by someone else. And this fair share really may affect the viability of affordable, developing affordable housing in Hilo. So that’s something that I wish to bring up, not at this stage but later on. GONZALES: Okay. And one more thing, you do understand like the Director said that we’re going to give you a recommendation, and this is going to go to the County Council and you’re going to get all these questions again? It’s going to be probably scrutinized a lot more? You realize that? TAI: I understand it perfectly. I’ve gone through this before. GONZALES: Okay, very good. Thank you. TAI: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: No other questions? You may be seated, Mr. Tai. Okay, we’d like to call up our testifiers, Charlene Nishida, Roy Toma, and Tim Wright. You can come up, please. Okay, we have three minutes for you each. If you’ll raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? 6 EXHIBIT A TESTIFIERS: I do. ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you so much. Charlene, you can go first, three minutes. NISHIDA: Thank you for letting me meet with you today. I’m Charlene Nishida at 16 Hale Nani in the Hualalai Subdivision. And we have, we’re in opposition, the neighbors are in opposition of the change of zoning. However, we also recognize that our attempts have failed miserably to stop it, so we’re trying to take a new approach here. And what we’re proposing is that we have, three things be amended and adopted so that it can mitigate the impact that the higher density is going to have on our properties. And specifically we’d like to have a creation of a buffer yard and using the buffer yard standard defined in the Rule 17 as indicated on the letter. I think it gives a very clear picture of what we hope to have, which is to provide as much privacy to our properties as possible. If you look on the subdivision proposed map that he, or the development proposed map that he shows, the development literally comes right, you know, almost to the edge of our property line. The second thing is we’d like to increase the sideyard setback to 20 feet. And, again, that’s to be able to have a greater buffer between the development and its impact on our privacy. The third thing is there’s actually a rock wall that’s on the boundary. And in nowhere has there been any, in the drafts or in the conceptual plans, has there ever been an acknowledgement of that? And that’s something that we’d like to make sure gets maintained. So what we would like to ask of the Commission is that if you are going to approve allowing for the rezoning, that at a minimum, you please consider our needs and that you add these additional items as part of the mitigation. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Questions, Commissioners? HEAUKULANI: I had a couple of questions just on that testimony. Ma’am, in your request No. 1, is your concern about the buffer yard primarily during construction or just generally the impact that you anticipate from the new subdivision? NISHIDA: Not just during the construction but, you know, that’s certainly part of it. But actually even once the development has been finalized that buffer yard will mitigate the higher density that our properties are going to be experiencing from its current -. What we, when we bought the properties we expected it to stay Residential-7.5. And now that we’re going to have that higher density, whatever compromise that we can make that would allow for, to decrease the impact. So it would not be only just during the construction but then afterwards as well. HEAUKULANI: What impacts are you concerned about? NISHIDA: Well, I’m a certified residential appraiser and, I’ll tell you one thing, that I’ve actually worked for Bank of America. I’m not here on, you know, representing the bank at all. But we have to provide in our reports aerial views of developments. And when you have a Single Family 7 EXHIBIT A residence next to any kind of, you know, high density development you have to disclose that and you have to discuss that in the report. And I, you can only imagine that if you have a single family residence and you’re going to purchase a home, are you going to look at a property that right behind it has the higher density, higher development? It’s something that it absolutely affects property values. There are privacy issues, there’s noise issues, there’s the, you know, the -. There’s going to be a parking lot so there’s going to be street lights, there’s going to be an obscuring of the views. The quiet enjoyment that we currently have is going to be no more. So I just don’t see how anyone could not acknowledge that. And at this point, that’s all we’re asking, is that, you know, we realize that there’s this push to allow for that rezoning, but you need to meet us half way; and we feel that this is the point to be able to have the Commission support us. Because if it gets past this point and you don’t add these provisions, then it’s, you know, you’re having to go off on someone’s word who can’t even give us any specifics on his conceptual plan. And we’ve given this testimony before, so if he was so committed to getting our involvement and having this be a model, which I think it really can be, it can be a model for development, why hasn’t he, why hasn’t he come to us? This isn’t the first time that these opinions have been voiced. So we can’t just go off on his word. We’d like to have the Planning Commission be able to add an amendment so that it makes sure that these things are addressed. HEAUKULANI: Thank you. I had one other question. On your No. 3 you talked about a rock wall that’s on the boundary. Whose property is that rock wall on? NISHIDA: It’s right on the boundary between both -. HEAUKULANI: On both, both parcels it sits on -? NISHIDA: Yeah, it’s on both. And it’s about three feet high right now. And it’s not a cement- built rock wall, but it has been there a long time, and it’s over multiple properties. So the concern is that in the development process that’s going to be removed or altered without something being done in its place, or without an agreement of what to do with the rock wall. ISHIBASHI: Further questions for this testifier, Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Toma? TOMA: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Good morning. TOMA: Originally I had opposed the zoning from 7.5 to 2.5. So, it was approved, which is accepted. We accept that. However, he wants to change the zoning to 1.5 to include, as you look at the map, there’s only one way in, one way out. There’s no street parking allowed in his proposed plan. So where are the traffic congestion going to, where are the people going to park? Park on Hualalai Street, Hale Nani Street, Hale Nani Place. Now if this is approved, where are they going to park? Park on Hale Nani Street, Hale Nani Place, Popolo Street. They’re going to jump across our properties, trespassing our properties. Is that what the Council wants, your Planning Commission wants to encourage the development? There was no set proposal to us on 8 EXHIBIT A what he’s planning to do to alleviate this problem. There is on his proposal 110 parking stalls for 88 units. Each unit has one stall. Every four units have another stall. Where is that other 20, 22 cars going to be parking? There’s no room here. So, we, there’s no traffic light, there’s no proposal for that. And we feel that the change should be disallowed; and if it’s approved please have a retaining wall throughout the adjoining properties so we’ll have privacy on our own. I don’t want to call the police department every time somebody trespasses on my property going to their car. I don’t know them. So that’s, that’s our proposal. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Toma. Questions, Commissioners? Mr. Wright. WRIGHT: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Good morning. WRIGHT: You guys are about to approve this 104 unit development on this area. I live on Popolo Street close to 30 years, and I’ve seen a lot of development. And over the 30 years, you know, you get to know your area. One thing I know is there’s flooding. That bottom of Kapiolani Street and Kukuau and Kapiolani Street, it floods like crazy. I talked to the late Mayor Yamashiro who lived up the road from me, and I said, you know, Mayor why don’t you do something about this flooding; and he said, you know, the County had look at it numerous times, there’s nothing we can do. There’s a stream, on Popolo Street there’s actually a bridge. There’s a steam that runs directly into this guy’s property. What is the County going to do? Has it looked at the flooding that’s going to occur if you approve this development? I mean you already approved 60 houses. He’s asking you to double it to 104. My main concern is the flooding. Please look at the flooding. I’m here on record to just bring up this concern so I can sue the County one day when it floods my house. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Questions, Commissioners? Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant, Commissioners? Okay, none. A motion is in order. GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we go into executive session so we can consult with counsel. Is there anyone who would like to second that? ISHIBASHI: Is there a second to the motion calling for executive session? HENKEL: I second. ISHIBASHI: Okay it has been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ISHIBASHI: Motion carried (unanimously). EXECUTIVE SESSION – The Commission went into executive session at 10:36 a.m. The 9 EXHIBIT A Commission came out to executive session at 10:56 a.m. by a motion made by Commissioner Henkel, seconded by Commissioner Gonzales, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. ISHIBASHI: I’ll call the meeting back to order. And I appreciate you allowing us the time. So, Commissioners, there’s a motion required for this change of zone application (REZ 13-167). Commissioners? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council on the change of zone application (REZ 13-167). ISHIBASHI: Motion by Commissioner Gonzales. Any second? MIYASATO: Second. ISHIBASHI: A second by Commissioner Miyasato. It’s open for discussion. Commissioners? GONZALES: I’d just like to say that I think, Mr. Tai, I think you should, might do a better job, and also the neighbors in the community, you guys should work together. You should talk. No matter how this vote turns out, it’s still going to the County Council. So this isn’t the end of it. But we just think you two should have a little more communication. That’s all I’ve got to say.` ISHIBASHI: Okay. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: I’d like to add that the concerns that have been brought up by the neighbors should and need to be addressed. That is my feeling. They’re legitimate concerns. And so that’s where I stand. ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you. TAI: Mr. Chairman, can I -? ISHIBASHI: Sure, come up, Mr. Tai. Okay, Commissioners, any more discussion? TAI: Let me, I want to make it clear – The concerns that were raised today, it was not brought to my attention back in 2001. The two letters that Charlene sent was never forwarded to me. The first time I heard about this was maybe three days ago. I had a conversation, telephone st conversation with Charlene. And today is the first time I’ve seen the letter sent in on October 1. So to be fair I have no knowledge on all the concerns that were even expressed by the neighbors until maybe three days ago over a telephone conversation. And at that time actually I encouraged Charlene to put it in writing because that will put it on record, so that I have a chance to deal with it. Now it is true all of this is completely new to me until maybe three days ago over the phone. And only today, this morning, I discovered that it’s finally in writing. And, in fact, I encouraged Charlene, you know, send me an email so that I can send it to the Commission here and put it on 10 EXHIBIT A record. That’s true, right? That was, so it’s not my modus operandi not to work with neighbors. Because I had no knowledge at all, absolutely. So at this stage I would like to request for a continuance of this hearing because, like I said, I’ve done it many times, got used to it. Okay? I always work with the neighbors. Now, so this is a misconception that I refused to work with them because I never, knew only about three days ago. Okay? And I only saw the letter this morning. Okay? Now it’s strange, the letter sent in on 2001, I believe, was never sent to me. Because at that time there were two projects. The one above me, I think it was sent to the other developer, but not sent to me. So I have absolutely no knowledge, okay? And I expressed this to Charlene. This is a rezoning application. So my plan only reflects what’s the minimum requirements by Code. That’s the way you work. Right? You look at what are the requirements, you stay with that, and you come up with a plan, and knowing that this is not the final plan because this is really for rezoning. So, to be fair to me, and I’m speaking it truthfully, I had no knowledge of all these requests until three days ago over the phone and only in writing today. When, they suggested that I should conform with the buffer zone that’s similar to, between industrial property and residential, which I never even heard of it. Okay? So I would sincerely ask for a continuance of this hearing to give me a fair chance, and also for the neighbors too, to have a chance to see what I am doing. Now I may have to do a little bit more work now because I had no intention to really spend a lot of time and do the final plan until the zoning approval is granted, which is normally the case, you know, because there’s so many details here. So maybe now I’ll just go ahead and do that. Okay? I tried to deal with some of their concerns. They asked for 20 feet, maybe end up 18.5 feet. Okay? But what I’m saying is I need to know what I can do, now that I know their concerns. Okay? But there are concerns that I may not agree with. I, just off the top of my head now, okay, the separation between industrial and residential, which to me it doesn’t make a lot of sense. It may set a bad set of precedence too because this is not with industrial rezoning right? But if you can allow for a continuance of this hearing then it will also give me a fair chance, and also for the neighbors, to see what I can come up with. And we can sit down and work things out. It’s all within the process, and I intended to be in the process, you know, before the final plan is done. In fact, only today I heard that there’s no other public hearing. I kept thinking most often than not the final plan also you have public hearing. At least it’s true in the Bay area. Okay? In fact, in many, many public hearings even before that. So I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request to ask for a continuance instead of just turning it down or in favor, unfavorable recommendation, because I have not been given a fair chance to even look at their request. GONZALES: Mr. Tai, how much time do you think you would need if you come back? In one month, two months, three months? TAI: No, it would be less than that. Because like I said I’m my own schedule. I don’t have to th rely on somebody else’s. Good thing, I just finished my taxes, it’s due on the 15 of October. I’m just done with that. Within a month, within 30 days. GONZALES: Okay. Mrs. Nishida would that work for you if we decide to go that way? 11 EXHIBIT A NISHIDA: The only thing I’m not clear -. NOMURA: Excuse me, microphone. NISHIDA: The only thing I’m not clear on is if there is something that needs to be reviewed, we have the whole neighborhood that would have to review it. Are you asking if we can have dialogue or -? NOMURA: Microphone, please. NISHIDA: I’m sorry. Are you asking if we can have dialogue or -? GONZALES: Well, if we decide to, if I withdraw my motion and we put in a motion to continue this, of course we’re going to have to check with staff and see when we can get you on the agenda -. But he’s saying 30 days is plenty of time for him. But you’re saying maybe that’s not enough time for the whole neighborhood to get involved to address -? It’s not only your concern. I’d also like to see the flood issue addressed also. I mean I know what it says in here. We’ve read everything and the recommendation, but I think all the community’s concerns could be met. So what would be a timely manner to you? NISHIDA: I’m sorry. I’m not clear. And is he going to actually, does he want to get together with the neighbors and figure some of these out before he comes back, or are you asking him to -? GONZALES: That’s what he’s asking. I’m not even -. I mean we still have a bunch of other things we need to do before we get to that point. But I’m going to put it on him to get in contact with you folks, and you’re all going to need to get together and talk about this and come back with some solutions. TAI: Yeah, Mr. Gonzales is correct. NISHIDA: He needs to do what he needs to in 30 days, but he still hasn’t submitted anything to us for review. There hasn’t, that’s not, there’s not going to be enough time for dialogue before we come back to here. So I think what we’re trying to do is set a model of how do you, as a community how do you address these issues so that it’s fair for all. And I’m not sure how 30 days is going to influence that. MOSES: I don’t even know if there’s a need to require a timeline just to approve a continuance. And then when they have it all settled, then they can come back and we can schedule them in. GONZALES: Does that sound correct to staff, Daryn? ARAI: The way the rules operate is that the applicant must agree to any continuation that goes beyond the 90-day period where we’ve got to send, the Commission needs to send its recommendation to Council. So as long as the applicant is willing to agree to a continuance to 12 EXHIBIT A that appropriate time where, you know, they’ve hopefully resolved their issues, or whatever, then at that point I think you won’t run afoul of that rule. But the applicant must be in agreement. TAI: Well, I’m in agreement with the continuance, whatever it takes. It’s, like I said, it’s not a really complicated process. You know, first I have to study their requests or their wish, you know, and how I can implement it in the plan in a reasonable manner. Then we need to either sit down in here, or somewhere else, we need to communicate and see how that might work. There’s always some give and take. And like I said, you know, I’ve done it many times, particularly with community groups or even just with individuals until you have the whole -. You just have to deal with them, you know. So I’m asking for the continuance because I had no opportunity to try to implement some of their concerns. And now I need a little bit more time. As I said I can probably do it within 30 days. I think it’s between us, me and the neighbors, you know, how we communicate. NISHIDA: One question and then we can just cut to the chase right now. Would you be agreeable to do this, the rear setback of 20 feet and create a, as stated in my letter, buffer yard? GONZALES: You know, I’d like for you to work this out. We’re already bogging down more than we need to. So I think we’re done with question and answer with the applicant. NISHIDA: Okay. ISHIBASHI: Daryn? ARAI: If you’ll allow me, if you’ll allow me. One suggestion, and I think it’s a good suggestion from the staff, was that the continuance be also predicated on an agreement with the applicant upon a community meeting being held in order for them to resolve their differences. And the outcome of that meeting, whether good or bad, be presented to the Commission. And at that point, well, at least we’ll hear from both sides whether there’s a resolution or not, and then at that point we can schedule the meeting, put it back on the agenda, in writing. GONZALES: Okay, you folks can be seated. I think we’ve got it. TOMA: I want to reiterate -. MASUNAGA: Wait, wait, you’ve got to come up here. ISHIBASHI: Okay, come up, use the mike and -. MASUNAGA: State your name. ISHIBASHI: Fast one, name again for the record. th TOMA: Roy Toma again. Thank you. I’ll try and keep it short. On September 18 I sent an 13 EXHIBIT A email to Mr. Tai. My name is Roy Toma and we met at the last hearing. I live on 44 Hale Nani Street. Your revised plans call for 88 units and 110 parking stalls, it comes out to 1.25 stalls, per allowable unit and every 4 units an extra stall. Are you going to enforce the 1.25/ratio? Where are the excess cars going to park? Your recreational playground and garden is a great idea but who will monitor the areas? Even if, if it cannot be monitored for late noise then move it within the units, according to the plan. And are you planning to erect 8’ walls to retain your tenants from trespassing in our properties? We hate to call the police every time we have trespassing in our properties. Your kind reply is appreciated. Sincerely, Roy Toma, Roy & Ann Toma.” This th was dated September 18. nd September 22 he sends me a reply -. MOSES: Excuse me, Mr. Toma. We have that information. We have that. TOMA: Oh, you have this? MOSES: Yes. And we have his reply. So thank you. We are fully aware of that. TOMA: Oh, okay. MOSES: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Okay. Commissioners? GONZALES: Okay. Mr. Chairman, with that, all being said, I would like to withdraw my request for an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. MIYASATO: I’ll withdraw my second. ISHIBASHI: Okay. Discussion, Commissioners? Okay, seeing none, motion is withdrawn and second withdrawn. So what’s the pleasure of the body? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman? ISHIBASHI: Yes. GONZALES: I would like to make a motion to continue the public hearing on the application, with the consent of the applicant, or that we reconvene when time permits. Is that? MASUNAGA: And that he waives the right to the 90-day -. GONZALES: And that you waive your right to the 90-day -. I don’t know the word. MASUNAGA: Deadline. 14 EXHIBIT A GONZALES: The 90-day deadline for us to reconvene. And I’d also like to add that we’d like you to have at least one community meeting, and we would like you to report back to us on the results. ISHIBASHI: Is there a second to that motion? MIYASATO: I second. ISHIBASHI: Okay, there’s a second by Commissioner Miyasato. Discussion? GONZALES: Work it out, please. Come back and see us. ISHIBASHI: This is one of the important issues, is having open communication with the community. So we encourage that process to take place. And, Mr. Tai, if you could set that up and report back to the Commission, we’d appreciate that. Okay, any questions, Commissioners? Discussion? Maija, you can take the vote. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion to continue this hearing passes 6-0. 15 EXHIBIT A ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tai and Mr. Toma, and others. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT A