Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-06HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-VINCENTTAI REZ13-167 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 6, 2014 Vincent Tai (REZ 13-167) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 10:13 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr. presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr., Ronald Gonzales, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono. ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Molly Stebbins (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), William Brilhante (from 10:09 a.m. to 10:28 a.m. and from 10:58 a.m. to 12:01 p.m., Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Kelly Gomes (from 10:02 a.m. to 11:20 a.m., Department of Public Works Engineering Division), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary). And approximately 15 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: Ok, moving on. Item 6. Applicant Vincent Tai, Rezoning 13-167. Maija? th COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This was a, this item was continued from the October 30 [sic] Planning Commission hearing. The Commission at that time requested that the applicant meet with his surrounding community to resolve some of the issues that they were concerned with and then report back to the Commission. So, if it’s all right with the Commissioners, I’d like to just give another brief overview since it’s been quite a few months since that hearing. MOSES: Yes. COTTLE: Good? Ok. All right. The subject property is located in the South Hilo district in Downtown Hilo. You can see Kapiolani Street on the right side of the slide. The police station is in this area that I’m pointing to now. Hualālai Street runs makai, towards downtown in this location, and then 1 EXHIBIT E Hualālai Street extends, to provide access to the subject property which is shown in a black outline in a dark purple color. The dark purple color indicates the current zoning which is Multiple Family Residential with a density of 2,500 square feet per, per lot or per area that they can build. The requested zoning is RM-1.5 so the applicant is requesting a higher density. And you can see the property to the north, it’s in brown, is currently zoned RM-1.5 which is similar to what the applicant’s requesting. Surrounding properties to the south and the west are zoned single family residential 7,500 square feet. That’s shown in the yellow color on the map. The General Plan designation for the property is medium density urban. Medium density urban allows for single family residential as well as multiple family residential, and also community and commercial uses. So the request is consistent with the General Plan designation. The applicant’s requesting a change of zone from Multiple Family Residential 2,500 square feet to Multiple Family Residential 1,500 square feet. He is requesting the zoning in order to develop an affordable housing project known as “Hualālai Court” and that will consist of 88 affordable housing units. This is the site plan that the applicant submitted when he originally requested this zoning back in October, and the site plan has been changed after meeting with the community members, so I just want to fast forward over this one, and show you the current proposal. Now you can see a driveway access off of Hualālai Street, Hale Nani Street turns to the south in this area here, and then loops around to the residents of the Hale Nani neighborhood to the south. You can see the parking area for each of the units, and then the buildings are oriented mainly along the property lines off of the parking areas. So the difference between the previous plan and the current plan is you’ll notice one of the things that the neighbor’s requested was an additional setback, additional building setback. The Zoning Code requires a 10-foot setback, and so that’s reflected here in this plan. And you can see in the current proposal, the applicant has set back at least 20 feet from the property lines. He’s also proposing to keep some of the existing vegetation on the site, and that’s shown with these circles. Those are existing trees or shrubs that he is planning to keep on the property and not remove so that it will serve as a buffer between the neighbors along Hale Nani and the proposed development. This is an aerial view of the property. Again, you have Hualālai Street providing access to the property. This is Hale Nani Street, and these are the residences along Hale Nani Street. There’s currently a single family dwelling and pool on the property which will be demolished if the zoning is approved. And this aerial photo is from Google. It was from January of last year, and I think it’s pretty representative of the vegetation that is currently on the property. You can see the big trees and some shrubs. This is a view of the end of Hualālai Street so the subject property is far back in this area. You can see one of the concerns that’s been brought up by the neighbors is an increase in traffic. You can also see that there’s a big wall here at the corner of Hualālai Street and Hale Nani and that kind of limits the site distance. This is a very old wall that’s been there for many years. And then this is another view of that wall. This is Hale Nani Street and it curves around to Hualālai Street so the subject property is located off of the slide on the left side. 2 EXHIBIT E The Planning Director is still recommending that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for this rezone request because the request is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area which calls for more housing and commercial uses in Downtown Hilo. There are several letters that you should have received in your package this morning, and I just want to go through them. You should have a letter from Charlene Nishida dated thth February 4. You should have an email from David Martins dated February 5. A letter from th Ann Toma dated January 26. And two-three-four, I think you have four letters from Mr. Tai thththth dated November 4, November 20, December 11—I’m sorry five letters—December 29, and ththth January 30. I think the December 29 letter and the January 30 letters were held after, were written after Mr. Tai had the community meeting so they’re probably the more current letters and most representative of the outcome of the community meeting. You should also have an email st that Mr. Tai had sent to me dated December 31, and that email just generally goes over points of agreement between Mr. Tai and the community and suggests some conditions that the Planning Commission may want to consider. And, lastly, you should have a piece of paper with five photos on it, and I’m not certain who submitted this. Maybe one of the testifiers can let us know. (Note: This was submitted by Charlene Nishida, attached as Exhibit One to this transcript.) Are there any questions? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Maija. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Ok. COTTLE: Oh, I’m sorry, Mr. Chair. I also want to add that we do have a representative here from the Department of Public Works that can answer any questions related to flooding or traffic if the Commission has them. Ok? ISHIBASHI: Commissioners, I know that we just got this info this morning, so I’ll give you a couple minutes. Try take a look at these letters and then we’ll proceed. I’d like to call up the applicant. Mr. Tai, if you could come up, please? Good morning, Mr. Tai. TAI: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: 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 so much. Please state your name and address for the record. TAI: My name is Vincent Tai. The address is 2184 Roundtop Drive in Honolulu. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. You may proceed. TAI: First let me express my appreciation for allowing the continuance from the last time. As I explained, I’ve been in business for a long time. I, I misunderstood. I thought that there would 3 EXHIBIT E be another public meeting, hearing, for the planning project approval, so I thought this rezoning is only the first public hearing and there will be a second when we deal with design which I didn’t understand that. And obviously, I, I wanted to meet with the neighbors. It’s just that I didn’t understand that I, there won’t be another public meeting for them to speak up. I just got the two letters from Maija dated before yesterday, so I told Maija that I would respond here in person instead of writing because it’s so many letters already. So let me just first respond to Mrs. Toma’s letter, real brief here. And she mentioned that, that you know I have two previous meeting planned and both cancelled on short notice for meeting, right. Actually, there was only one was planned, and I was not the one who cancelled it. Let me explain. I wrote to a, 62 owners within 300 feet in trying to set up a meeting on November 14. I even bought plane tickets to come over here. And just a few days before November 14, I got a phone call from Maija, and I understand that Mrs. Nishida insisted that I should cancel that. She asked for, I give them 10 days notice, and I was told it’s not enough. It should be a 30 days notice, and also she th insisted that I should hire a facilitator. So because of that, the November 14 was cancelled, and I cancelled my plane ticket as well. So, again, I sent another 62 letters to, for the second meeting th which was December 18. Right, again, luckily that one did not get cancelled. Ok, I was glad that a good number of attendees at that meeting, and I really appreciate their attendance, and I go over that a little later. Now, Mrs. Toma also raised a lot of questions like, you know, who should I call if someone climb over the fence, you know, if someone park in front of my property. Those, I really cannot answer those questions but I did in my statement, that obviously as the project sponsor, I have to work with the traffic department, public work department, and resolve any issues that need to—a deal with that I can be responsible, but there are things that outside of properties that a--. It’s a city, you know, you know, there are traffic. Obviously, there will be a slight increase of traffic. In fact, according to a TIAR, the traffic report, a, the impact was just almost negligent (sic). You know, he was saying less than one second of delay, you know. But be that as it may, you know, I’m not going into that because it was done by someone else. And then, a, Mrs. Nishida’s letters, little bit more lengthy here. Maybe I should address that now. A, I believe I comply with just about, just about everything that Mrs. Nishida asked for. She was the only one that asked for the delay of the hearing, for the 30 days notice. She asked for facilitator, I had complied with. But there are a few things that I did not agree with her. Number one, she said this location, this here, this property, is not in the urban area which I disagree. Ok, in fact, even the County, the city documents, the whole city, the town of Hilo, including this property is considered urban area. Now, I think there is a big difference in interpretation that may affect her thinking is what I am trying to say, ok? And also, she is a licensed appraiser, and she claims that having workforce affordable housing nearby in a two-story building next door would depress the property value which I disagreed because I have support, I have gone through many of these sources from authorities saying that that is not the case, ok, and I can detail that a little bit more. The fact, and also, I think the point is maybe urban appraisal is not Mrs. Nishida’s area of expertise, which is perfectly fine, like even for doctors, you don’t go to an oncologist if you want to have a heart transplant, right? I’m a licensed architect. If you come to me, if you want me to design a hotel, I mean a hospital, I will know what to do. You know, I’m a licensed architect, but we all have areas of expertise. So, I’m not trying to say or diminish Mrs. 4 EXHIBIT E Nishida’s qualifications. All I’m saying is that maybe her expertise is not in the urban setting is all I’m trying to say, you know. Because she pointed out that I have not agreed with the buffer zone. First of all, I checked with Maija and she confirmed that for residential zoned areas, properties, there is no buffer zone required. The section she stated applied for industrial properties which I don’t think is appropriate because we’re really dealing with residential here. So, it’s not appropriate for me to comply with an industrial zone buffer zone. But I’ll leave it up to the Planning Director. If the Planning Director said well you still have to do it, then I’ll do it, ok? But I don’t think it is appropriate because it is not industrial here. And, we talk about this non-native plants and these things that grow in the wild, they’re all kinds of trees out there you can see, ok? But this has nothing to do with the rezoning. If a problem exists now, it needs to be resolved. In fact, about 3 months ago, I told Mrs. Nishida I would get another associate, who’s a civil engineer, to identify the property line one more time, which she has fixed up here, and I even sent that latest drawing to Mrs. Nishida. I said I need that so I that I can run the line to find the exactly where the property line is because some trees could be in the neighbor’s properties, some trees could be my property. We cannot see because it’s all trees out there, ok? Now, of course, if there are non-native, they are invasive species, they need to be removed eventually, whether I get the rezoning or not. Nothing to do with rezoning, ok? There are trees that are very nice. There are mango trees, there are all these good looking trees. They should be kept. You know, nobody wants to cut healthy trees. So again, she raised the question here that I said I didn’t do it. Not, that’s not the case. In fact, I told her that after we got through all of these, we walk the property, we make sure we run a straight string, show exactly where the property line is, then we deal with this so called invasive species that move to grow into the neighbor’s property which happens all the time, you know, because even in my house in Honolulu, ok? So that needs to be dealt with but it’s nothing to do with the rezoning because that needs to be done no matter what, ok? And, also, this one about flooding that I didn’t respond. Now, perhaps she didn’t quite understand what I told her or written in letters. The supposed stream is outside of my property, so in fact it runs through my neighbor’s property. Now, if this water did come into my property and create flooding and so on, I need to deal with even now or in the future, nothing to do with the rezoning. In fact, the rezoning, I, I in the background statement, I stated a certain method that I will use to get rid of water that is coming into the site so that all the water, the storm drainage will be all done, on site, and none of the water will be flowing outside, but if outside water coming in, something we need to resolve and Mr. Tim Wright is very kind. In fact, every time, you know, something happen, he would send me pictures because I don’t live here. I really appreciate his help and I told Tim that we together, him and me would approach the department of public works and we sort out the easements, the problems, but the problem is completely outside of my property. You know, down. He told me it’s underneath Popolo Street and also to my neighbor’s property and then somehow it get into my property. So again, it had nothing to do with this rezoning. It needs to be done. It needs to be resolved. In fact, if the project is developed, they’re already certain methods to deal with groundwater and how to get rid of them. Now, I know Mrs. Nishida complained that I did not have a landscaping plan. I also check with Maija, and she confirmed that in the rezoning plan, you don’t require a landscape plan. When you do, when you come to the building design, when you request for approval, then you do need a landscaping plan. Now, I don’t, I think that Mrs. Nishida didn’t understand it because she’s a layman. In my profession, landscaping plan is not a separate easel. It’s really an intergral part of 5 EXHIBIT E the overall project design. You have to understand what kind of building is going to be there, what it looks like, where the parking area is, how to create berms, or for any visual blockage, and you plan the landscaping around the structures. And also that would be the time to survey which are the trees that need to be cut down, removed, and rebuilt. I mean replant. So, I see that this is a project. I mean the landscaping itself is not a separate easel. It really cannot be done at this point because the design is only conceptual, and once you have exactly where the buildings are, the height, where the windows are, then you do the landscape design. This is the correct way of doing it, you know. And also, in terms of timing, I did agree hundred percent with Mrs. Nishida that I would walk the space with her once the construction is just about finished when we start to do landscaping, we would survey what are the existing trees in back of her property that need to be kept or need to be removed, and I agreed that I would grow Arica palms as she suggested to fill the gaps. I would agree to that, but not today. It’s too early to do that because we don’t know exactly where things are now, and then after the building is completed just before we do landscaping, that would be the time to do it. And already we do it in writing. Although I still question you know what a 100 percent because these are plants, can’t control them. Ok, in fact, one attendee, I think her name is Doreen Friberg, she disagreed with Mrs. Nishida that there should be 100 percent blockage. She said she didn’t want that. You know, so it’s not fair for Mrs. Nishida to speak for everybody else because they all have different ideas, but I did promise Mrs. Nishida I would do that for her. But anyone who think that they need something more than what is there now, and I also made the statement that I will be glad to meet with each of them if they come to me, but I won’t impose that condition on these people because, like I said, at least one person objected to that idea. Ok, like I said the last time, if this project, if this location has not been a--under the current a General Plan, and is prime for a, developing housing, I, and if affordable housing is needed, I really want do the project, ok? I mean, I don’t want to force on anything that is unreasonable. Now, this project, under the RM-1.1, 1.5, when you compare to the project that previously approved under 2.5, and I have a table to show, to compare the two projects. This project under RM-1.5, I intend to do affordable housing for the entire project, not just 20 percent or 25 percent to satisfy the—it’s the entire project. It’s anywhere between 60 to 100 percent AMI. Now, I was told if I’m correct for the last 30 years, no such project have ever built in Hilo. Maybe a small amount built on the Kona side, I’m not sure. You see project that are low income, which is between from zero to 50 percent, mostly 30 to 50 percent, but there is none 60 to 100 percent. From my research, in the State of Hawai‘i, ok, between 60 to 100 percent is the most needed. It’s the big gap that people are not doing. Either they do very low income or they want to go 140 percent which is actually higher than the most affordability, ok? But it’s still so called still affordable. That’s why people do that so they can satisfy the 20 percent, right? And there’s a big gap for the 60 to 100 percent. These are the people who needed the housing most. They are the one who cannot afford market rate, but did not qualify for the low income. These are people that maybe your friends are—students, city workers, fireman, policeman, working families. This is a big gap, ok? Now, I own five or six properties in Hilo alone the last few years. I have two properties owned what in 30 years, are condos, supposed to be nice. One in Bayshore and one in right here, ok. I have no problem renting one bedroom. Of course, inexpensive, $1,100. I have no vacancy whatsoever because a lot of people asking for this kind of housing. You know $1,000 plus or minus. And they’re students. Half of those are students. Half maybe more than, less half are nurses to come here for six months, ok? They told me that it is not easy to find this 6 EXHIBIT E kind of housing, ok. They cannot afford $2-3,000 and they not qualify for low income, all right? So, I believe what I’m doing here is, haven’t been done in Hilo at all. Even in the Kona side, very limited. Even in Oahu, very limited, ok. So again, you know, I follow every rule, everything according to the book, and the so-called workforce housing is needed in Hilo, this is one opportunity here. Now, I went to see, I went to meet with the Honolulu office of the Hawai‘i Finance and Development Corporation . They are the one who hand out the low income tax credits. I met with Darren Ueki. He’s the finance manager. He spent more than half an hour with me. First I asked him why he’s even want to talk to me. Now, he said two things. You may or may not know, ok. First he said, oh good, this one’s in Hilo, and someone is willing to offer a piece of property. He said there is lack of properties to really do a substantial project in Hilo, number one. Number two, he said financially, it’s very difficult to do it in Hilo because the cost of construction is so high. He said you have to watch your construction, you make sure, you know, because otherwise you won’t make it, you know. I think I can make it, ok? And he told me that if I can do it, I might have a good chance in winning one of the competitions for the low income housing credits are nine percent is highly competitive. If I apply before January of next year, I might have a good shot just because of nothing happening here, but of course he cannot say that. He kind of encouraging me, ok? But then, he also stressed that 60 to 100 percent is a real big gap. Very few people are doing that. So, I think in sincerity, I believe I met with almost all the reasonable requests that my neighbors have raised, those that are even beyond what the code requires. There are issues that I cannot deal with. There are questions that I cannot answer, but I do know from reading newspapers, and going on line, that that affordable housing between 60 to a hundred percent AMI is badly needed in the whole State, and particularly in Hilo. Thank you. Any questions? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Tai. Questions Commissioners? Thank you. Ok, we have public testimony. Mrs. Nishida--Ms. Charlene Nishida, Alan Rudo, David Martins, Roy Toma, Leatrice Kishii. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? TESTIFIERS: I do. ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you so much. Ok, start with Charlene, please. NISHIDA: My name is Charlene Nishida, and I reside at 16 Hale Nani Drive in Hilo. You know, I need to start off by saying Mr. Tai has on several occasions in written and in testimony has absolutely made false statements that I’ve said, and I need to be very clear that these are inaccurate and the two things that he quoted today, I have never said. And I need to be very clear about that. That Mr. Tai has this ability to take things that people say and twist them into things they have not said. I did not say anything that stating that Hilo was not, in our neighborhood, was not in an urban area. I did not state that I was opposed to workforce housing developments that would have, and that they would have a negative effect on our property values. I have never said, and I need to be clear that letters he sent out that he’s quoting me as saying things. I have not said and I need to be on record as saying that to you. So, in moving forward, I wanted to, there’s a couple things that I want to point out, and I think that first and foremost, as neighbors, we are not opposed to an affordable housing development 7 EXHIBIT E at all. That has never been the majority of the neighbors that I’ve been speaking to, they’ve never been in opposition to that. What the opposition is, is to the changing of the zone that would increase the density in our backyards, in our neighborhood. If Mr. Tai would pursue an affordable housing development at its current density, I don’t think that anyone would object. So we need to be very clear that this is not about an affordable housing development. This is about increasing the density and the issues that come up as a result of that. Mr. Tai cites in his different letters, he’s making references that the studies that he’s showing and the research that he’s stating that show no impact on property values when a development is well designed and managed similar to neighboring houses. Well, this change of zoning, he’s not comparing apples to apples. If it was, these studies are all of affordable housing developments where they’re residential and the neighborhood is residential, what he’s proposing is an affordable housing development that’s apartment buildings. So you can’t use that research and apply it to this situation. He needs to be taking research that shows how property values are affected when you are in a residential single family situation and then you become surrounded by apartment buildings. That’s the research that he needs to be providing and that he hasn’t. I will say that as an appraiser, when I am appraising a property, I am required to report if the property that I am appraising as a residential appraiser, if there’s a parking lot adjacent to it, whether it’s an apartment building or a commercial complex, it’s something that has to be disclosed, and you have to use comparable residential properties that have that similar attribute. If you can’t find them, then you have to disclose that information and you have to make negative adjustments in your determination of market value for that property, so I don’t see how Mr. Tai can say that these are not going to, that having an apartment building that is visible, is going to be something that is not going to negatively affect our property values. I think if you talk to any residential appraiser, they will tell you we are required to disclose that and we are required to write comparables that have that similar attribute. And it’s not common. It’s not something that’s common. If any of you have recently had your houses appraised, I think you would find that the comparables that are used in your homes, and you don’t have parking lots of comparables that were used in your reports. One of the things that I provided to you was this picture that actually shows, the top two photos are from our backyard staring into Mr. Tai’s development. The middle photo is from the front of our yard, and then the two bottom photos are just samples of houses in the area. (See Exhibit 1 to this transcript.) What we have requested from Mr. Tai in the community meeting that was held here and was—this whole room was full—every seat was taken, it was a very well-attended community meeting. What I’m, one of the things that I’ve asked for is a buffer yard setback, not because its required, but because it’s a way to minimize the visual effect of having a two-story apartment style development, that we would be looking at. If it would be the way to minimize that effect on our property values. The current landscaping that he is saying is adequate is overgrown weeds. It’s invasive trees. It’s things that aren’t currently being maintained. So, he’s saying there’s no need for a buffer yard setback because of what’s in place right now is sufficient. Well, any planned development, that’s something that you can’t maintain this. This is not something that is adequate. I think that it’s within reason to ask that the land, that there be a buffer yard setback that will minimize what we’re actually visually looking at. What we, I think as neighbors, I think our bottom line is we oppose the development at an increased density. We would encourage the development at its current density. We are not in support of a rezoning to increase the density. There’s just too many unknowns. Whenever there’s been specific 8 EXHIBIT E questions asked of Mr. Tai, he, his common response is that well this is a conceptual design. It’s a proposed design. It’s subject to change later on. Well, we don’t have the opportunity later on as neighbors to give any input. Right now is our time to be able to have these things done as conditional requirements, and that’s what we’re asking. We’re either asking, as a Nishida family, we’re asking that this increase in density be denied, but if it’s not for whatever reasons, then we are asking that these conditional requirements be attached to the development so that it ensures that we’re protected for the future and it’s not something that’s just a proposed or conceptual idea. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mrs. Nishida. Any questions for the testifier. Commissioners? Ok. Mr. Rudo? You can go, can go next. RUDO: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Good morning-- RUDO: Thank you, Commissioners. ISHIBASHI: State your name and address for the record please. RUDO: My name is Alan Rudo. I’m with the Office of Housing at 50 Wailuku. I’m a housing th and community development specialist. Um, my personal residence is 15-1812 30 Avenue, Kea‘au, Hawai‘i. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. RUDO: Sure. Um, every three to five years the County of Hawai‘i has performed what’s called a housing policy study, the last one was a Hawai‘i Housing Planning Study done 2011 by SMS Research and it was um done in conjunction with the other counties in the State of Hawai‘i defined what the stock was, what kind of need there is, what kind of gap there is, island by island. Um, this study looked at the total units needed from 2012 to 2016 both for the State and for the County. For rental units within our island, there is a gap of 1,753 units. Um, in the number, the percentages of area median income of 30 to 60 um percent of median income, there is about 406 units that are um in the gap right now. Um, we’ve been completing several projects on the County level, and most of them have been in Kona. We are finding that with the help of HHFDC--that’s Hawai‘i Housing Finance Development Corporation, a non-profit—we are able to get some of the units in the 30 to 50 percent, um but Mr. Tai’s testimony to be doing in the 60 to the 100 is probably the most difficult area of um satisfying because of the lack of um financing available from public entities. Um, yeah, right now, that we’re looking below um 30 percent of median income, we would need somewhere around 770 units. This study done by SMS was done in 2011 and was anticipating regular number of units being built. I actually believe that because of the slowdown that this gap is actually higher. Um, the total units in Hawai‘i County that are needed including ownership are 3,514. So, we can see that there is a dire need and um he has been working with our office on this project, um because when he—if he is granted this change of zone, he’ll have a requirement to do at least 20 percent affordable housing. Um, he’s come to our office and recommended that he do a 100 percent affordable 9 EXHIBIT E housing, and we would require him to do an agreement, um to that level, um to be able go after um some of the financing and things that he’s asked for as well. So we’re anticipating that as well. Um, that’s actually all I have unless you have any questions. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Rudo. RUDO: Sure. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: We can, have any questions Commissioners? For that testifier? Ok, thank you, moving on if we can have Mr. Martins next. MARTINS: I’m David— ISHIBASHI: State your name and address please? Thank you. MARTINS: David Martins. My address is 815 Kūkūau Street. I have a home that I lived in at Hale Nani place since 1974. I stayed there roughly about ten years and I’ve kept the house and used it as a rental and throughout the time, one of the main problems that I saw over there was the problems with water coming in during a heavy rain. There is sufficient drywells in the area, but when we had a heavy rain, the water would be coming out of the drywells. We would have so much rain, it couldn’t handle, and the water coming out of the drywells would flood the street, Hale Nani Street. So now if you’re gonna be taking away more land in the back or building more units, this may still cause more of a problem as far as the flooding in the area. Now, with, I don’t oppose a 2.5. I, I feel that going down to the 1.5 would be even worse for the area. There was another property that was approved to the 1.5, and yet, nothing has been done on that property. It’s still sitting there. So, if this is approved down to 1.5, when will the development begin? Will it just stay at 1.5 and maybe wait several more years before anything is done or maybe it be sold? One of my things is if this is approved to 1.5, there should be something stated that they should start building within a certain time zone, not keep it for the future and make a profit. Traffic in the area will increase dramatically. People coming out from Hale Nani Street will encounter cars coming out from the proposed development. You’re talking 88 units, if it was approved, you’re talking roughly 166 cars or somewhere in that area. And a—that’s not right—putting the people in that subdivision that has been approved down to cramping of the area, and putting more people into the area that was a, was approved in the past. Now, the crime element, what’s going to happen to that with 88 units in the area? Will the police be able to come in, in proper time? Is what kind of people are going to be staying there. We cannot say. But, when you start putting a lot of people in, and you don’t have a control over that, that’s a high possibility that you have the wrong type of element in the area. And basically, that’s my opposition to the 1.5. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you Mr. Martins. Any questions of this testifier? Commissioners? Ok, moving on, Mr. Toma? TOMA (from audience): Before I testify, I’d like to give, sorry I didn’t make the copies, but I’d like to show you what I personally did in my report. (Please see Exhibit 2 attached to this transcript.) 10 EXHIBIT E ISHIBASHI: Thank you. If you can state your name and address for the record please. TOMA: My name is Roy Toma, and I live on 44 Hale Nani Street in the back of the st development. On January 31, on Friday, I was on the corner of Hualālai and Kapiolani Street mauka, taking traffic count. During the hours of 7 to 7:15. Now when I say traffic count, I’m talking cross, crossroads. From 7 to 7:15 , there was 105 cars; 7:15 to 7:30, there was 152 cars; then on 7:30 to 7:45, the busiest time, was 170 cars involved in that area; and finally at 7:45 to 8 o clock, it was 153 cars. Total of 580 cars in that area alone for one hour, plus one bicycle was going Puna side. So right now, we accept the 2.5. The bad part about it is there’s no exit road on this new development. It’s in and out of Hualālai. With this density, the traffic is going to be tremendous. We will not be able to get in and out of Hale Nani Street. So as I say, if you folks need to deny this new change, and leave it at 2.5. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Toma. Any questions for the testifier? Ok, thank you, Mr. Toma. KISHII: Oh, my name is Leatrice Kishii. I live on 30 Hale Nani Street. And I, excuse me, my main concern was the traffic and it has been discussed so I don’t have anything more to add except that the, like he said, there’s no, there’s only one outlet, in, for that 88 ah, what you, 88 ah units. So, I would think that, that a, like I said, like he mentioned the traffic going be the main problem. It’s actually up, you know there’s an S turn over there. There’s a blind corner two ways. Now when I’m going leaving for to go out, I have to slow down before I reach the corner because people are coming in, instead of staying on their side of the line, they’re right in the middle. So if I was, kept on going, I would be, have an accident. Now, there haven’t, I have lived there for 44 years. Now, they haven’t been—a—any major accidents except for one driver that plowed into the neighbor’s fence, but aside from that, there hasn’t been any accident, but if we have those 88 units plus, 88 or so many cars, I would think there would be accident, and that would be his fault. That’s all I can say. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mrs. Kishii. Any questions for the testifier, Commissioners? Anybody else from the audience would like to testify over this issue? Ok, this is--our main concern was trying to address the issue that the community had, that’s why we had, you know had extended this vote, trying to get the feedback and mana‘o from all of you, and give Mr. Tai the opportunity to try and fix, or at least address your concern. So, that’s what we wanted to do. Ok, seeing no questions, you may be, you may be seated. Thank you so much. Mr. Tai? I had one question in regards to the parking. TAI: Oh yes. ISHIBASHI: You know from your first phase, the first plan you had to the second, what, the parking changed? TAI: No, it would comply with the parking requirement, it’s 1.25 per unit—one thing that I should clarify, this, because this is going to be, the entire project is going to be affordable housing, between 60 to 100 percent, these are smaller units. They’re mainly one bedrooms and 11 EXHIBIT E studio units. Compare with the project that I proposed under the RM-2.5, they all mainly 2- bedroom units and 2 stories. Ok, so, when you compare the two projects, actually the one under RM-1.5 is smaller in terms of buildable bedrooms, in terms of the total area, just because of the nature of the project. Because for affordable housing, you cannot afford to build large units, you know, because of cost of construction, you know, the studios are in the three hundred eighties square foot range; the one bedrooms are between maybe 580 to 600, that’s the going, you know, and there’s only maybe a few two bedrooms, so actually this is something that I am trying to convey to the neighbors even though the zoning has changed, actually the project is smaller. And also because I have to be really have to conserve the cost, that’s one reason I asked for change in a, density, because you do need that density to make the project work, number one. Ok? And number two, because these are smaller units, I can pack them closer together so they stay away from the neighbors farther than the previous one. The previous one, all the houses are right almost right against the property. You know, because they’re town homes. And, the latest change, and I’m hundred percent sure, the closest is 20 feet, which is actually at an upward angle, ok, touching the corner. Everywhere else, are 30 to 50 feet setback. The previous change didn’t have that, so actually if you don’t look at the zoning either with 1.5 or 2.5, just looking at the project itself, the lastest project proposal is substantially smaller and less impact than the previous RM-2.5. I know, you know, the neighbors concern with the density, but in my profession, in development profession, it’s a number of units, the number and a square footage, you know, it’s really not the zoning itself, because I made a commitment to do affordable housing, 100 percent of them, that really restricted me to do smaller footprints. So I wish the Planning Commissioners can see that point. It’s really not the zoning change. It’s really the project itself has changed, and I believe it’s only a 5-year window for me to, a proceed with the project. If not, this is out. You know, so my time frame is kind of tight here. But again I stress that you have to look at the project itself and not the zoning. The zoning only allow me to have more units, but they’re smaller units, so the impact actually is small. And also people with one bedroom unit, not necessarily have two cars. In fact 80 percent of the renters from my building up here, they don’t have cars. Most of them are students. They use a bike. In fact they like the idea when I was talking to UH, the vice president on housing, that he really liked the idea of Kapiolani Street eventually come, come through, because then will allow student to actually ride the bike straight through. You know, without going even out, down to Kino‘ole and then up the hill. You know, so again, you know, it’s not true that the assumptions everyone that would even have two cars. That’s the magic of doing downtown development or, or in city center development. It’s people who don’t need cars, they don’t want a car. If they could walk, if they could bike, they rather do that. If this is out in Puna, you know, another ten miles away, they have to drive, you know. And this is a perfect so called in field urban site. Any urban planner look at it will tell you that. This is the perfect location for that. Close to school, close to downtown, close to a lot of struct—but again I urge the Planning Commission to look at that. Look at, it’s the project itself, and not the zoning. The zoning is only one element and because my statement it’s in writing, I’m doing the entire project 100 percent affordable. That means I’m restricted to do certain things. All the bed-all the bathroom will be ADA compliance, a, you know, this is unusual if it’s for market rehousing, you don’t have to do that. Um, but this is something that I urge again the Commission to look at. It’s the project itself. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tai. Any questions Commissioners? Ok, seeing none. So, a motion is in order. 12 EXHIBIT E MIYASATO: Mr. Chair, could we have public works? ISHIBASHI: Ok. We could have a representative from the public works come up please. Question Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Yeah, you know we had some concerns from Mr. Martins on the flooding, and we had some comments from Mr. Tai where he stated that he has a run-off coming from an adjacent property and if it comes through his property then I guess he kind of said in so many words that it’s like his, it’s not his, a--, to deal with or whatever how he stated it. You have some, a, if it comes from another property, is it his still, it’s still his obligation to contain it and I guess so, Mr. Martins concern is that, is the flooding in this area a concern, a big concern. GOMES: Well, the flooding in the area— ISHIBASHI: Excuse me brother, could you state your name and address for the record. GOMES: My name is Kelly Gomes. My address is 1703B Ainaola Drive, Hilo, Hawai‘i. The properties adjacent to Mr. Tai’s property, there is a designated drainage easement and the water should flow in that designated drainage easement, and that easement is a private easement, and shall be maintained by those private entities that own the drainage ditch. MIYASATO: Ok is, so if it does overflow, which was stated that it does overflow, it should be contained within the development? GOMES: Well, it should, it should pass. It should, it should flow downstream and then shouldn’t go into Mr. Tai’s development. It should be contained in the drainage ditch. MIYASATO: Ok, thank you. ISHIBASHI: I get one question. What would this project add to the flooding to the adjoining properties? The neighbors? GOMES: Mr. Tai is required to mitigate his developmental runoff so whatever more he creates through impervious errors, he is required by code to mitigate that and that should be done by drywells. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any further questions? Commissioners? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I have a question-- ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: I have a question for staff. Sorry to bring staff back up if I could. ISHIBASHI: Ok, Maija. 13 EXHIBIT E GONZALES: Thank you. Looking at the recommendation, that I wonder if you have it on your display up there, you make mention to the Lanikila homes public housing project. Can you show us where that is— COTTLE: Sure. GONZALES: --in relation? COTTLE: Oh boy-- GONZALES: Maybe-- COTTLE: I believe it’s off the slide. Let’s see, in this area here. GONZALES: Ok, and that’s zoned RD-3.75. What does that mean? COTTLE: RD? That’s double residential and it’s basically, it allows for, it’s townhomes, apartments, it can be a mix, but they’re usually attached units, not single family units. So, it’s kind of an in between-between single family residential which you have at a single home and then the multi-family which is like apartments, townhomes. RD can be like also duplexes, triplexes. GONZALES: Ok, I think I understand, and you also make mention that there are some add— some other properties to the north that are, have recently been rezoned to RM-1.5. COTTLE: That’s correct. GONZALES: Would you be able to point those out? COTTLE: Sure. That would be this property here. GONZALES: So, that’s already been zoned the same zoning that Mr. Tai is asking for now? COTTLE: Correct. That was rezoned I believe in 2009 or 2010— GONZALES: As far as you know— COTTLE: --and at that time, the developer was proposing a 100 units, I believe it was a 4-story townhome development. GONZALES: Is that still in the planning? COTTLE: There’s been no movement on it. And with that rezoning, as well as any rezoning the Council approves, there’s always a condition that says you have to develop within five years or 14 EXHIBIT E they can come back for an administrative time extension. After they exhaust that, they have to come back to the Commission and the County Council for another time extension so— GONZALES: Ok, you said that was 2009? COTTLE: 2009. GONZALES: So they’re just about up. COTTLE: Yeah. GONZALES: Ok, thank you. COTTLE: You’re welcome. ISHIBASHI: Ok, a motion is in order. Commissioners? GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we a send a— ISHIBASHI: Mr. Gonzales. GONZALES: —favorable recommendation to the County Council for Change of Zone Application 13-167. HENKEL: Second. ISHIBASHI: Seconded by Commissioner Henkel. Ok, we are open for discussion. Comments? GONZALES: This is a—you know, we got--obviously we have concerned community members here and this is kind of a toughy the way, it kind of looks like you’re surrounded, you know, the change is coming. Um, if this, if the vote passes and this goes to the County Council, I would urge you to please take it up there also. Mr. Tai, I would, I would strongly urge you to, if this goes through, to please be a good neighbor and keep continuing to address these concerns. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Yeah, I also think the concerns of the neighbors are valid but I think there is a severe need for --this type of housing, and I—and I truly believe that a--Mr. Tai is doing everything that he can to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. ISHIBASHI: I understand. Thank you, Commission Henkel. Any further questions, comments Commissioners? AUDIENCE: (Nishida): Can you address the conditional requirements that Mr. Tai stated that he would agree to? If he was allowed to be, allowed the change of zone application. 15 EXHIBIT E COTTLE: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask the Commission, I just want to draw your attention to the goldenrod recommendation, and I want to ask whether the Commission wants to forward those conditions or whether they want to add any conditions to address the community concerns. GONZALES: I think that my motion would be a--to a--approve with the conditions as stated. COTTLE: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Ok, we clear on that? Henkel? GONZALES: That’s good. HENKEL: That’s good. Second. ISHIBASHI: Ok, still open for discussion? Ok, Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the change of zone request to RM-1.5 as stated in the Planning Director’s recommendation. Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair. ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Ok, the motion passes six, zero. 16 EXHIBIT E ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you Commissioners. You will be notified in writing Mr. Tai. You’ll be notified in writing. This discussion ended at 11:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 17 EXHIBIT E