Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-21 TORCHIDLAND PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 21, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of ORCHIDLAND GULSONS, LLC (SPP 569) was called to order at 11:00 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom- Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairperson Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Geraldine Giffin Earl Fujikawa Hannah Springer Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Bill Thibadeau Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner Susan Gagorik, Staff Planner Esther Imamura, Staff Planner Glenn Ahuna representing Department of Water Supply And approximately 17 people from the public in attendance. ORCHIDLAND GULSONS, LLC (SPP 569) APPLICANT: iQdptdrsenq`m amendment to Condition No. 4 (complete construction) of Special Permit No. 569 (formerly Sure Save Supermarkets, Ltd.), which allowed the development of the Orchidland Convenience Center on approximately 2 acres of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located in Orchidland Estates Subdivision, the site of the existing Wiki Wiki Mart, located on the Phoa side of Orchidland Drive approximately 450 feet from its intersection with the Phoa Government Road `` (Highway 130), Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-9:386. ` GALDONES:The Hawaii County Planning Commission will be back in order. Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 6. The Applicant is Orchidland Gulsons, LLC, SPP No. 569. This is a request for an amendment to Condition No. 4 (complete construction) of Special Permit No. 569 (formerly Sure Save Supermarkets, Ltd.), which allowed the development of the Orchidland Convenience Center on approximately 2 acres of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District. Esther? IMAMURA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can direct your attention to the ` location map, this black line is the Keaau- Phoa Road, Phoa would be to my right, ` Keaau to my left. The subject property is located across from - I'm sorry, let me -. The light green is Paradise Park Subdivision; Orchidland Subdivision is in the blue 1 EXHIBIT A here. The subject property is located about approximately half a block in on Orchidland Drive, indicated by this blue circle here. For your added information, there was a special permit for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is adjacent towards the road of the subject property. This red circle is the current Woods application for the Orchidland Trade Center, also coming in for an amendment. Moving on to the site plan, the subject property is outlined in blue. Current improvements include the Wiki Wiki Mart in red, gas station in orange, water tanks in green. This property further in adjacent to the subject property has been cleared, but that cleared area does not belong to the Applicants. For your information, I have the following chronology. The original permit was approved on December 19, 1984, to allow for the construction of a neighborhood convenience store including gas pumps and related uses. Effective August 8, 1990, the special permit was amended to allow the addition of a general store, laundromat, postal service, fast food operation, video rental and arcade stores, real estate office, and a neighborhood convenience center office. Two administrative time extensions were granted, one in 1992 and the other in 1995. Effective December 16, 1997, the special permit was amended to allow for a five-year time extension to complete construction, or by December 16, 2002. This amendment request is for an additional five years to complete construction. As indicated by the site plan, improvements includes the Wiki Wiki Mart, the gas station, two water tanks, and the paved parking area. The proposed buildings, A, B, as well as the fast food structures, were not constructed. Those were on the original plans. The owner was currently working with an architect, but was not able to complete construction by December 16, 2002; therefore, the request for a five-year time extension. In your folder and distributed this morning were five different pieces of submittals. One is a letter from Vern Wood dated February 15, 2003. Several of the others just came in this morning. One is a letter dated February 21, 2003, from Mark and Jerry Kunzer, an email from Gaila Vidunas dated February 21 st, and the last item was a letter dated February 13, 2003, from Robert G. and E. Anne Chase. Currently being distributed to you is a submittal from Sure Save, Mr. Carl Okuyama, two items from him. GALDONES:Commissioners, are there any questions of Esther? IMAMURA:If I may continue? GALDONES:Please. 2 IMAMURA:Thank you. The recommendation was sent out, however, the Director would like to add a new condition. And the new condition would be Item No., would be inserted as Item No. 6. I will read what it says, "Applicants shall pay their reasonable share for infrastructure improvements that may be required of other commercial developments in the immediate area." So that would be a new Condition 6, and a subsequent renumbering. YUEN:If I could explain the purpose behind this. We have a pending application for another commercial development at the, across from Orchidland Drive, a block mauka. That's referred to the Vern Wood application. Pending, that's pending preparation of a traffic impact assessment report, which was never, which we required of this, for the new application. It was never required of the earlier application. There may be, that still hasn't been done yet. There may be, the department, State Department of Transportation, which has the State highway there, potentially could require some improvements to the intersection in connection with further development of commercial activity in the area. We think it's only fair that all of the new commercial activity would share in that and pay a reasonable share of that, rather than, in effect, grandfathering in a permit that has not been used for over 12 years. So that's the purpose behind that condition and other infrastructure that may be required in -. We don't know whether the Commission will, in the end, approve the other application. If it does, with certain, if there are infrastructure requirements along with that that would be, in fact, shared by and to the benefit of this particular application. We would require that those be shared between the two developments. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Esther? IMAMURA:I forgot to include testimony from Richard Howard as part of the submittals that were received this morning. GALDONES:Thank you. IMAMURA:And the Planning Director recommends that the amendment to the special permit be approved subject to conditions. Are there any questions? GALDONES:Commissioners, questions of Esther? Hearing none, I have a list `U of people who have signed up for testimony. Mya Paw, Richard Miner, John McElvaney, and Carl Okuyama. If there are any others who wish to testify, please let the Staff know so we can include you on the list of testifiers. Could I have the Applicant or its representative please come forward. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 3 GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Before we get into the testimony by the Applicants, can I ask you a question regarding the correspondence that we have received from the neighboring people, as well as from the Applicants and their supporters? They seem to speak, for different reasons of their own, favoring of the extension of the approval of this request for extension of time. Am I reading them correctly? GALDONES:I believe that some of the documents that you have received, the individuals who have submitted those documents will be testifying, and at that time -. KUBOTA:But generally they all speak, while for different reasons, they are not opposing the project itself, but there seems to be some unresolved problems that each of them see. So, therefore, an extension of time might give them a chance to resolve these or mitigate them? Am I reading them correctly, or am I coming from left field? GALDONES:I believe your assessment does generally coincide with what the individuals who have submitted those documents, what they are requesting. Some of them are either requesting a denial or to a continuance. Any further questions or comments? Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this ` matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your resident address, and please speak into the microphone because we'd like to have your testimony recorded. `` HOWARD:My name is Richard Howard. My residence is 2114 Ahapii ` Place, Honolulu, Hawaii 96821. GALDONES:Sir? MCELVANEY:My name is John McElvaney. I live in Volcano, at Post Office Box 1080. GALDONES:Okay. Did you receive a copy of the Background Report and also the Recommendation, along with the amendments to Condition No. 4? MCELVANEY:Yes, we did. HOWARD:Yes, I did. 4 GALDONES:Do you folks, either one of you, have any comments to those documents? HOWARD:No. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Howard or Mr. McElvaney? Hearing none, could you two gentlemen step back while we give room to the testifiers? HOWARD:I would like to read my testimony, if that's -. GALDONES:You may do so. HOWARD:Okay. GALDONES:Sure. Proceed. HOWARD:I'd just like to start by giving some background information on Orchidland Gulsons' involvement with this project. Orchidland Gulsons, LLC purchased the property from Sure Save Supermarkets through the Bankruptcy Court in August of 2001. Orchidland Gulsons immediately began work to correct the deferred maintenance to the existing convenience store building and build gasoline pumps. The gas station was opened for business on January 2002. Orchidland Gulsons has agreed to extend the water line 500 feet running, that runs ` along the Keaau-Phoa Road to the property. Orchidland Gulsons originally retained the services of Eugene Leucht, Sure Save's original architect for the project, to complete the development. Unfortunately, after working with Mr. Leucht for several months, he informed us that he could no longer continue with the project due to personal reasons. This forced us to hire a new architect, and we hired Oda/McCarty to work on the project. Although Oda/McCarty has changed the layout that originally was drawn by Mr. White, the square footage has not increased on the project. The layout was also, what also forced the change of the layout was the orientation of the gas pumps that we put in. Originally, they were drawn at a different orientation. But the way they were installed required that we change the layout of the buildings. 5 Orchidland Gulsons has accomplished in a relatively short time much more than the previous owner did in the ten years that the permit was issued. And if the request for an extension is granted, Orchidland Gulsons is ready, willing, and able to complete the project quickly. The only issue before the Commission today is whether or not to grant an amendment to Condition No. 4 of Special Permit 569, extending the time period for us to complete the project. That is the only issue under consideration. The following agencies have declined to comment or do not object to this request. Department of Public Works, the Department of Environmental Management, the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Real Property Tax Department, both the Land Division and the Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation. ` The State Land Use Commission deferred judgment to the County of Hawaii and offered no further comment on this application. The Department of Water requested that Orchidland Gulsons submit a commitment deposit of $4,500 for the 20 units of water or 18,000 gallons of water per day, that is the projected usage for the project, and that Orchidland Gulsons install 500 feet of 12- ` inch waterline extending from the existing waterline running along the Keaau-Phoa Road to provide adequate water pressure and volume under peak flow and fire flow conditions. And as I mentioned earlier, we have agreed, we do want to do this and we have agreed to do this. Orchidland Gulsons has abided by the law in its request for an amendment and mailed ` notification to all surrounding property owners pursuant to County of Hawaii regulations. Throughout this process, Orchidland Gulsons has acted in good faith. I would like to take this opportunity to personally apologize to the Board Members of the Orchidland Community Association for not meeting with them prior to this hearing. It is, however, necessary to first obtain this extension in order to have an actual project to present to them. It would be a tremendous waste of the board's time for Orchidland Gulsons to do a presentation for a project that cannot be built due to lack of a special permit. And that's all I have. And I would like to conclude by again requesting that the permit be extended. GALDONES:Mr. McElvaney. MCELVANEY:Mr. Chairman, may I say something? GALDONES:Sure. 6 MCELVANEY:I would like to comment on the fact that this has been extended many times since 1984, and each time construction could not be completed. When Gulsons Orchidland bought the property, they immediately fixed the building. I don't know if you were familiar with the Wiki Wiki, but one whole side had serious wood rot, the awning was just about to fall off the building. They came in, and they fixed that. They applied for their permits. They put the gas station in, with full expectation that they would complete the project as originally designed. The fact that they put the service station in slightly awkward to the original plan caused them to change some building layouts; but the square footage is still the same, the usage is still the same. So I think they've really acted quicker, faster, and in good faith. For the future, they have agreed also to put the water line in. They have also agreed and have no objection to Planning Director Mr. Yuen's suggestion that they work with the Vern Wood project and make sure that traffic studies or whatever else is necessary -, and that's an exclamation point, will be done. So we have interest in the project. We've got about close to 8,000 square feet spoken for, some serious interest, and therefore would like to go forward. But we don't want to go forward, really, if the Orchidland community is not involved, because this is their community. I went to a meeting the night before last, was called kind of urgently to go talk with the Board, and had no idea of some of the problems that they perceive or, you know, that we didn't know ab apologize that we didn't know. But I tried to explain at the meeting that we would address the issues with them, we'd be happy to share the plans and discuss the problems and help mitigate whatever is necessary to help them and help th you very much. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Howard or Mr. McElvaney, you heard Esther mention the new Condition No. 6. MCELVANEY:Yes. GALDONES:Do you wish to comment on that? MCELVANEY:If that's what is required to extend the permit, we don't have a problem with that. HOWARD:That's fine. GALDONES:Do you have anything further to say before I call on the other testifiers? MCELVANEY:Just that I've read some of the other letters that wer I think each one of the complaints that were raised I think are being addressed. The waterline from the Kea`au-Phoa Road seems to come up, seems to be recurring, a recurring theme in the letters, and that's going to be addressed. The uses are not changed, the square footage is not changed. So you know, we are sensitive to the issues of the 7 community and we will work with them to, you know, make the center a place that, you know, everybody wants to visit. GALDONES:After the testifiers are through and the discussion has taken place, you will be allowed to give a closing argument or a closing statement. I would like to call on the -, these individuals who have signed up -. IMAMURA:Mr. Chair? Could I just intervene just for a minute? GALDONES:Sure. Esther? IMAMURA:The Director would like a new Condition 7 to the Recommendation. GALDONES:Okay. IMAMURA:Just to highlight on the concerns about the water, the new condition will read, "Applicant shall extend the existing 12-inch water line from the Kea`au-Phoa Road approximately 500 feet to the subject property," and again, subsequent renumbering. GALDONES:Mr. -. YUEN:That is just to make it a specific condition. As a general rule, when we get a representation from an Applicant of something that they're going to do, then it's best to put that in as a specific condition of a permit. GALDONES:Okay. Mr. Howard or Mr. McElvaney, do you wish to, at this time, address new Condition No. 7 or you would like to -? MCELVANEY:No, that's fine. GALDONES:Thank you. Okay, those who have signed up to testify, Paw`U, I hope I pronounced your name correctly, Richard Miner, and Carl Okuyama. Could you please come forward. MINER:Richard Miner? GALDONES:Yes, Richard Miner and also Carl Okuyama. Are there any others who wish to testify? Okay. Gentlemen, could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. 8 GALDONES:Okay. Please state your name and your resident address. We shall start with Mr. Paw`U. PAW`U:My name is Mya Paw`U. My residence address is 16-320 Laniuma Street in Orchidland Estates, Kea`au, Hawai`i. I come before you today as not just as a resident of Orchidland but as the president of Orchidland Community Association, representing over 2,400 lot owners who are concerned of development, especially development that will be using our private roadways for ingress and egress. GALDONES:Mr. Paw`U, you may proceed with your testimony. PAW`U:Okay. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Mr. Planning Director, ladies and gentlemen. I testify before you today as the president of Orchidland Community Association by power of a unanimous Board of Directors Resolution to represent the interests of over 2,400 property owners in Orchidland Estates. Our community encourages responsible development, development planned with the community input from the outset. Another proposed project, the one you referred to as the Vern Wood project, came before our board, came before this Commission; and because that developer had come to our board prior to coming to agreed to satisfy our committee concerns. We came previously to testify in favor of that project wholeheartedly. We wish we could do the same this morni The Applicant in today's matter, Orchidland Gulsons, LLC, was personally invited some months ago by myself to come to our board in a timely manner to discuss past promises and concerns over this project. They chose not to do so. They did not make contact with our organization nor give us any notification that they were seeking a permit renewal until this Wednesday, February 19, 2003. We did, of course, get the public information as published. This is a memorandum sent to Orchidland, I mean by Orchidland Gu property owners. They did not send it to us, even though we are the roadway owners that will be -, or managers who will be controlling ingress and egress. We were not notified by them nor given the information they gave to other property ow We, therefore, have had a limited opportunity to discuss our concerns with Orchidland LLC, Orchidland Gulsons, I'm sorry, LLC. It appears that the Applicant is seeking renewal regardless of and without our full community input, even though the project intends to utilize our private roadways and other resources and will have a substantial, mostly negative, impact on our community. The existing anchor tenant for the project began in 1984, almost underlying permit was granted over a decade ago, and many parame specifically the traffic concerns at Orchidland Drive and Highway 130. A different organization is now the developer. Unlike the original developer, this company is not locally based, nor are they a part of our community. A different set of plans, plans that 9 have not been shared with Orchidland Community Association but have been shown to prospective tenants are intended to be used for development. As Mr. Richard himself, Mr. Richard Howard testified, they have a new architect, therefore, they have new plans. The needs of our rural community have also changed in the intervening decades. The only constants that are the same are the piece of land being developed and that the Orchidland community will be impacted by the development. Thus, we request that this Commission either require the project to apply for a new permit with up-to-date traffic counts and studies and full community input during the planning process or at least incorporate the fulfillment of our stated concerns, and I have given other testimony which I believe you all have a copy of, or at least incorporate the fulfillment of our stated concerns as a condition of the renewal We have limited opportunities, ladies and gentlemen, to give community input, and we do, are going to be affected substantially by the project. If these solutions are not acceptable to the Applicant or the Commission, we request permission, even though it is statutorily different in time, to have a contested case hearing, even though it would be a hardship financially and time on our community-based volunteer-run non-profit association operating on a shoestring budget. Would you like me to read our testimony as presented to you this GALDONES:I would leave that up to you, Mr. Paw`U, if you -. PAW`U:Okay. GALDONES:Feel compelled to read it. PAW`U:I would like to do that, if you grant me the time. GALDONES:You may proceed. PAW`U:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pursuant to a motion unanimously passed on February 19, 2003, by the Board of Directors of the Orchidland Community Association, after a presentation and briefing on this project by Mr. Carl Okuyama and Mr. Jon McElvaney, the Orchidland Community Association voted unanimously to oppose this application unless the Planning Commission makes the conditions of the amendment or extension of this permit. A.That the Applicant be required to fulfill previous commitments m Orchidland community by the original permit holder, that is asphalt paving of Orchidland Drive, and we have varying information because of the and the fact that our organization changes boards as volunteers frequently. The best thth information we have was to 35 or 36 Avenue, at their expense. Please note in this intervening time, we have already paved at our expense a lot of the area that they should be paving. And pay us in lieu of the promised square footage, 350 square foot 10 of office retail space in their project, a contribution toward the office planned for our new community's lot of equivalent value. A ballpark estimate, and I may be way off base on the cost per square foot, but a 350-square foot at $140 a square foot, would be about $49,000. B.That the Applicant present site plans to the Board of Directors of Orchidland Community Association for OCA's approval and input prior to submission of said final plans to the County of Hawai`i for County approval. This would include plans for visual mitigation of the project in our rural community. The gas station looks like something out of Honolulu, not something in rural Orchidland. C.That any agreements between the Applicants and Orchidland Community Association be made in writing before any plans are submitted to the County agreements concern real estate, it would appear that written agreements would be required under the statute of frauds. Frankly, the previous agreements that were made should have also been done in writing. The statute of frauds does require, and Mr. Corporation Counsel may correct me if I'm wrong, that all matters regarding real estate or the lease of real estate for a year or more be submitt That is State law. D.That the Applicant be required to mitigate the project's impact on any water, traffic, sewage, refuse, and utility or similar infrastructure as a condition of granting the extension or amendment of this permit. We specifically expect t flow at the intersection of Highway 130 and Orchidland Drive to be resolved prior to issuance of permits and completed prior to groundbreaking of the project, and that the water and wastewater management issues also be resolved. And that has already been added since I wrote this. E.That the Orchidland Community Association be notified in writing at least 60 days before any application is made to transfer this permit to any subsequent developer. We ask for this because we were never notified that Sure Save was going to be a -, that Orchidland Gulson was taking over as a successor permit holder from Sure Save. We were never notified as a community, even though we are majorly impacted by this. So we request, require, ask that this be a requirement in the future. F. That the development not be -, excuse me, that the development not be permitted to include any fast food or take-out restaurant with a drive-through facility nor tavern, or bar, even though the original permit did allow for -. My humble apologies. The ` initial permit did show fast food as a permitted use. That was before the Keaau ` McDonalds was opened. When the Keaau McDonalds opened, even though it is over four miles from our subdivision, we had a noticeable negative trash impact within 24 hours, hours, ladies and gentlemen, we had a negative impact. Mr. Miner was on the side of the road one day, and I stopped my vehicle. He was using his garden tractor, and he had a trailer behind him picking up trash. Over half of the trash was readily identifiable as McDonalds wrappers; they have a very 11 distinctive color, and it's very distinctive on the side of the road, too, not compatible with our rural subdivision. Should this request -, should they not follow this request, even though they have said they are not intending to have fast food at this point, we request that it be a condition of the permit that they pay us an impact mitigation fee of $100 per day with a seven percent annual cost escalator. Since the Applicant has stated that such establishments are not to be part of their plan, it should be no hardship. By the way, as you know, we are a non-profit. We do not hire employee help through people like Altres Staffing Services. The amount, $100 per day, would pay for one person full time at about $7.00 an hour to be out there picking up trash. We do have 40 miles of roadway that would be used. They are only suggesting that people would ` come from Orchidland Drive to the project; however, inaloa and Hawaiian Acre residents routinely already cut through our subdivision to patronize their existing businesses, the anchors of this project. It has created substantial problems for our community already. G.And lastly, we would ask that the Applicant agree to pay the road maintenance fee which has been, by the way, approved by the Board, of $500 per month from the time of groundbreaking of any further development of the project and, effective 7/1/03, which is when the new fee schedule will go into effect, a fee of $250 per month for the existing development, which is the Wiki Wiki Mart and gas station. This project has a vehicular impact of over 500 times an average normal lot usage; and if we pro rated our standard fee that we charge our residents, it would be over $35,000 a year. We are not asking for that, but we are asking for reasonable contribution toward our expenses. These fees have been approved under a new schedule of mandatory road maintenance fees which we do collect under a court order issued by Judge Kimura in 1992; and we have the power to change the actual amount of the fee. And these fees will be effective July 1, 2003, and will also apply to all other commercial projects within Orchidland Estates. There will be a schedule of fees, the top end of which will be for shopping center types, which would apply only at the present time to the Vern Wood project and the Orchidland Gulsons project. However, we would be applying the same standards to any subsequent projects; and we will be also charging extra for things like Bar-King Dog Kennel, which is a single use project but is a commercial project within our community. Please bear in mind, and I'm sure it's redundant to you ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure, but we are a rural development. We are zoned Agricultural, we are not zoned for Commercial. We do want to have commercial development, but we want development that's compatible with the needs of our community. Just so you know, also, as a side bar, the existing development has already attracted negative impact to our community in that the Wiki-Wiki Mart is basically a drug swap 12 meet most afternoons. You can get any type of drug you want out there. They do have a security man standing there, but he appears to do nothing for it. I have personally witnessed this on numerous occasions. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. Thank you. GALDONES:Any questions, Commissioners, of Mr. Paw`U? Hearing none, Mr. Miner, could you please -. Have I sworn you in? MINER:Yes. GALDONES:I don't think I've sworn -. MINER:I have been sworn in. GALDONES:Oh, I have sworn you in, good. Could you state your na resident address, please. th MINER:Richard Miner, M-i-n-e-r, at 16-1446 36 Street in Orchidland. GALDONES:You can proceed with your testimony. MINER:I have been involved with the community association for the last 18 years. We have the commercial development which has made pro have not been fulfilled. And I would like to have this request rejected, if not permanently at least temporarily, until the developers can come to the community the same as the developer Vern Wood has come and tell us what they're going to d agreement before this permit is extended. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Miner. Any questions of Mr. Miner? Mr. Okuyama, could you state your name and your resident address, please. OKUYAMA:Yes, good morning. My name is Carl Okuyama, and my address is 1346 Kilikina Street in Hilo, Hawai`i. GALDONES:And you may begin your testimony. OKUYAMA:Good morning, and thank you very much for allowing me to testimony. Sure Save Supermarket supports Gulsons, LLCÓs request for a time extension of Special Permit No. 569 to complete its plan and building permitted uses permit approved in 1984 and additional uses added in 1990. Due to financial difficulties stemming from building a six million distribution center and project in Kea`au in 1993, the Orchidland Convenience Center could not be built as 13 originally scheduled. Thus, two requests for time extensions were requested and approved by the County of Hawai`i Planning Commission. The last request for a time extension was granted on December 16, 1997. At that time, both the Orchidland Community Association and the Chevron USA supported the project. Chevron USA was to provide Sure Save Supermarkets, Ltd. dba Wiki Wiki Mart funds to complete needed deferred building improvements and assi community road improvements. Unfortunately, due to Sure Save's insurmountable problems, the company filed for Chapter 11 reorganization on June 8, 1999. I was given the dubious responsibility of Chairman of the Board, as requested by the Unsecured Creditors C there is much work ahead, I am pleased that the company, with the help of its creditors, emerged from bankruptcy and case dismissed on December 14, 2002. As part of the community, excuse me, as part of the company's re company sold and leased back the Orchidland Wiki Wiki Mart to Gulsons, LLC. Their prior commitments, the prior commitment by Chevron USA did not c to Sure Save not being able to complete its plans. Therefore, Chevron USA moved its interest to other sites in Puna. We are pleased with Orchidland Gulsons, LLC's progress on the project since its acquisition in 2001, not mentioning those challenges relating to the events of Ð911Ñ shortly after the purchase of this property. Their track record on this property development has been good, and they would like to act in the best interest of both the community and their investors. I have not forgotten my pre-bankruptcy commitment to the Orchidl Association. In October 2002, the company put up for sale its last fee simple property located across the street from Orchidland Wiki Wiki Mart. The business transaction listed with Aina Hawaii Realty, with offices located in Kea`au, is a ÐSale Lease Back With Option To Buy Back.Ñ The sale will be contingent on getting a special use permit for office spaces. Included in this transaction is to allow us to sublet to others or lease for free any part of the property. My intent here is to assist the Orchidland Community Association and another non-profit association. To assist in the overall development of the District of Puna, our company will support efforts to urbanize the area around Orchidland Drive and Kea`au-Phoa Highway. This was the vision that was discussed by former Planning Directors Sidney Fuke, Norman Hayashi, and Virginia Goldstein. For informational purposes, I have consistently opposed commerci highway as our company was told in 1984 to plan for development was good foresight by our past Planning Directors and Planning Commissions. With 14 Puna's continued growth, we see why keeping development off the important. Thank you for allowing me to provide testimony in behalf of Sure Save Super Markets. We look forward to working with all parties to help create needed services in the community as well as work with community associations to give proper input. If I may be of assistance, please give me a call at 935-9680. T GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Okuyama. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Okuyama? FUJIKAWA:I have a question of Mr. Yuen. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, a question with the Director. On Mr. Okuyama's paper, letterhead here, about the development being off the highway, this was a good foresight by our past Planning Director and Planning Commission. How do you feel about that today? YUEN:It was. It's, in a situation like this, it's much better to have the commercial development perpendicular to the highway on a side road rather than along the highway, especially if you're going to -. The worst thing is to allow direct access from the highway, then you got cars pulling in and out all over the place. It's also visually less attractive to have it along the highway where you create a commercial strip than it is to have it off the side road. So I continue to support this concept. And in the Draft General Plan that we have, we have a General Plan amendment showing an Urban area along Orchidland where these special permits are located so that it's clear that this is the target area for commercial use in Orchidland. FUJIKAWA:I see. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen, Mya Paw`U stated that there were some conditions that they would like to be added on to the permit. Now can it be included or is it already going to be covered under the final plan approval? YUEN:The Department would not recommend these additional conditi Some of them are included, but we would only recommend adding conditions to the original permit that are related to changed conditions. Like when, like the waterline, for example. When the permit was granted in 1990, there wasn't the 12-inch line along the Kea`au-Phoa Road; now there is. So if we were looking at the permit, a commercial permit today, we would say bring in water. Now they are agreeing to bring in water, but we did want to put that in as a specific condition. 15 We also have this other possible commercial development that may have to do some improvements due to increased traffic along the road, since the main highway, since when this was granted in 1990. So that's -, we put that in as a condition. Some of these others are not related to any passage of time. They are things that they wish were in the permit from the beginning. We would not recommend those. I think the road, the paving to the, the paving I think is covered by Condition 5 of the 1990 permit that says access improvements to and along Orchidland Drive shall be provided meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. That, I think, in practical terms, I think the Department of Public Works would have required the paving had they, had the -, now the Community Association has done it. But that would have been, that already is a condition there. The specific request, it's, the office retail space that was promised and repeated was apparently promised before 1990 but not made a condition of the not recommend making that a condition of the time extension simp only asking for a time extension. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:I have a question with Mr. Okuyama. Prior to your closure of your business here, what percentage of your project was completed? Was it 100 percent? According to this picture, is it all the building, the gas station and the convenience store was already up? OKUYAMA:The photograph that you are showing now are the -, was taken after the sale of the project. The building was Î, deferred maintenance was completed by Gulsons, and the gas station also was completed by Gulsons. In addition to that, other uses that were permitted included a general store, laundromat, office space, I can't remember them all, but they have to be built yet. FUJIKAWA:Oh, they have to be built yet? OKUYAMA:Yes. And that's the reason why we're here, is to allow complete that, the permitted uses. FUJIKAWA:So what Alice is putting on the wall right now, the -, which building is completed, orange one or the yellow one? OKUYAMA:Right now what is completed, the yellow one is completed FUJIKAWA:I see. OKUYAMA:The gas pumps are completed, and the orange pieces are n completed. FUJIKAWA:The long one? 16 OKUYAMA:Yes. Now regarding the, there is a second drawing which is behind the -. FUJIKAWA:Right. OKUYAMA:Orange one. That is I guess -. NOMURA:Please use the microphone. OKUYAMA:Oh, I haven't seen that. But basically, we have only th convenience store and the gas station built. The other uses still has to be built, and they have to be approved within the special use zoning part of this. FUJIKAWA:So in other words, if you didn't face this hardship, the building would have been done by now. OKUYAMA:It should have been done a lot earlier, yes. It's a good project. We had the support of the community, with another gas station; but because of the hardship, we couldn't complete it. We eventually had to sell it. We're n we were the landlord, but -. FUJIKAWA:Sure. OKUYAMA:Now we're the tenant. And we want to encourage the comm and the County to work quickly to provide services for the community and, as well as getting, hopefully, bringing some federal funds maybe to help the County as well as the community, to help with some of the infrastructure, because it's really needed. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Thank you. IMAMURA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Esther. IMAMURA:Just a point of clarification. This was the site plan submitted in 1990, and you'll notice there's a little bit of discrepancy in that the gas pump was moved a little further forward towards the highway. And this, again, is the most updated map. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you, Esther. Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Mr. Paw`U. PAW`U:Yes, ma'am. 17 KUBOTA:You represent the community association. My understanding is, as I understand it anyway up to this point, the community association in the initial, the onset of this project, supported the project. Today, your testimony is flipped; it's entirely against this project, it seems to me. And the conditions that you are proposing that the Commission impose on the time extension seems, as Mr. Yuen point outside of the realm of the initial "agreement" that was made some years ago. The fact that the developers have not come out with the extension of the waterline, the improvements of the road, and so forth and so on, are things tha agreed to as this project goes on with the extension of time. Now can you tell me what other event or events occurred that makes the community organization so totally opposed to something that they were totally with before? Other than the fact, excuse me, other than the fact that Mr. McElvaney et al and the developers didn't get in touch with the community association, but the developers gave an explanation of why they didn't do that. Now tell me, other than that, am I missing something? I feel this vast turnover of attitudes. Something must have occurred, and I'm curious. PAW`U:Yes, ma'am. What our concerns are, number one, our community has changed over the intervening two decades since the project was, the inception of the project. We also, at that time, were not incorporated as we -, we're the same corporation but we were not collecting mandatory fees until 1992, when we were given our issuance and permit by Judge Kimura. Since then, we have formed a very p association. Before that, it was very, very loosely run, it was not very effective. Since then, we've become much more effective in representing the commu community input, getting community feedback. At the time of the previous permits and renewals, we did not understand the problem with the effluent, the trash of fast food; and that has changed our viewpoint on the fast food portion of it. We also have had a subsequent problem with the neighboring subdivisions, Hawaiian Acres and `inaloa. Since the County has closed the road from Hawaiian Acres to the highway along `inaloa Boulevard, there has been a lot of traffic through Orchidland, a lot of it destined for the Wiki Wiki Mart and the gas station. Many of these are four-wheel drive vehicles, four-wheelers, dirt bikes that are doing substantial damage to our semi-improved roads. These are unlicensed drivers with unlicensed vehicles. We consider the existing development to be what's called in legal terms an attractive nuisance. They attract people, in addition to our community, people from outside our community using our infrastructure, a large amount of it, without any compensation to us for the negative impact, the fees, the money we have to pay to m infrastructure. We feel that it would be fair that this be a condition of the extension, that they be instructed that they must meet with us, they must meet our concerns. And we are not going to be unreasonable, as you -, as we evidenced by coming before this body to testify firmly in favor of the other project, Mr. Vern Wood's project, because he did include us and meet our concerns. And, by the way, he has agreed to put no fast food in his project. That was agreed to. And this -, your body, I believe it was at that time you were Madam Chairperson, did agree to that condition. 18 We would ask that, that is our most important, I think, point, is that we are very much worried about that negative impact, the trash in our community as we try to improve it and pave it. We are also worried about liability, cars by the -, traffic of unlicensed vehicles, and with the drug traffic that's already happening at the existing, part of the project that has been completed; and it's not being addressed. So we have to -. So we do have community concerns that have changed since the project has been started and, therefore, it has changed our feelings. Please let me reiterate, we are not against this project, we are for the project. But we are for it being done with community input and with the developer pa mitigation of the financial impact negative to our community. H months ago, we would have probably been able to iron this out and come before you this morning and say we are for this project. We would like to do so development in our community. It produces jobs, revenues, services for our members, which is what we are charged with doing as a board, and therefore, we -. So please do not take our statements as being anti-development or anti this developer. We're anti this development as it stands now without conditions and safeguards that we see necessary for our community to be put in place. We do understand that there are other permits required to complete this project. But we feel if some of the safeguards are put into the special use permit that it will be much easier for us to appearing before further boards and further commissions, further planning hearings, to say that this has not been met or has been met. That's why we're requesting that it be added as a condition of the permit. We feel that that way we'll protect the interests of our community in the future. As Mr. Okuyama himself has stated, they have made promises to us in the past that were verbal outside of the permit process. They have not been -, the commitments have not been met. And therefore, we are therefore now asking that they put in writing, be codified, so that we have a so-to-speak legal leg to stand on should they not be fulfilled in the future. Thank you, ma'am. KUBOTA:Thank you for your complete answer. I have another quest related to the question that I just posed. It's a legal question. What are the -? We have a permit that we granted under certain conditions. They are coming in for an extension of that particular permit. Now what are the legalities of adding additional conditions on it? I mean, are we allowed to do that? Is it legal to do that? I mean, where do we stand on it? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:Well, I think it's certainly legal to add conditions that a the passage of time and changed conditions, yeah. KUBOTA:Excuse me, I meant over and beyond that. YUEN:Yeah. 19 KUBOTA:I understand what you're saying related to the passage of time and related, relevant -. YUEN:Yeah. KUBOTA:To the conditions that were in the original permit. I'm talking about these other additions to -. YUEN:Ivan, you want to take that or you want me to wing it? TORIGOE:I think you've pretty much laid the foundation for the answer already. And that is, you know, I think that, you know, you have the authority to deny the extension. But that -. KUBOTA:Deny the what? TORIGOE:You can deny, you have the authority to deny the extensi altogether. KUBOTA:Yes. TORIGOE:As Mr. Yuen has stated, if there are conditions which you think are related to the changes in the passage of time, then those would be appropriate. But it probably would be stretching things to go ahead and add other kinds of conditions which are not, which you don't find, based on the record, are needed n circumstances over the passage of time. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:All right. I understand what you are saying. How does -, is there a vehicle through which the community association can, outside of this extension, request -? Yeah, of course. No, I erase that. I can see where they can get together with the developers and go and negotiate. Erase my question. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners? Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:So, in other words, to the Corp. Counsel, on this extension of this permit, if we grant the extension, they may just keep on the original agreement of the development? In other words, whether they, on the add on bit, it would be added into the condition, right? TORIGOE:I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. FUJIKAWA:What I'm trying to say is let's say when they pulled th years ago, and it wasn't a neglect on the structure, it was the neglect of the development 20 because of hardship, okay. Now, in the meantime, is it fair for adding things to it, or can they just maintain the original agre TORIGOE:Well, it depends on your judgment as to whether, you kno have been changes in circumstances because of the passage of time that require for the public good and based on the special permit criteria that would, that in your judgment require that there be some additional conditions. I think, and you've had a couple of conditions that have been presented to you and that the Director agrees with, so those are some examples of that. But if in your judgment there are, there's no need for such things, then, you know, you could make the extension without changing th GALDONES:Mr. Yuen, in Condition No. 3, it speaks of the fine plan approval being secured from the Planning Department within one year. Does the extension of the time retrigger that one year? YUEN:Yes. Well, the, let's see. If you approve the extension of time as we've written it up, let's see here. Did they get a final plan approval? Did they ever get a final plan approval? IMAMURA:Final plan approval was granted for the Wiki Wiki Mart and the gas station. YUEN:Okay. So are we saying -? Are they, did they comply with No. 3? IMAMURA:Not for the whole development. YUEN:Not for the whole development. It doesn't say for the whol development. Well, we are saying that they complied with No. 3 by having a plan approval for the first phase, and so all that's, we don't have a deadline for them -. Under the way this is written now, there is, they would have to get a plan approval for the second phase for the new construction, but we don't have a deadline for that. The only deadline would be that the construction would have to be completed within five years after the date of this amendment. So they could come in for the plan approval for the second phase in four years if that's -? Is that what you're asking? GALDONES:Yes. YUEN:Yeah. Okay. GALDONES:Thank you. Okay. KUBOTA:I have one more question. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. 21 KUBOTA:Mr. Paw`U, one more question for you. In your testimony, I thought I understood you to say that traffic, increase in traffic was a major, one of the major problems. Because of residents from other communities com I mean that road that is privately owned to access to the Wiki Wiki Mart; and therefore you expect an inundation of more traffic when the full-blown plans are developed. PAW`U:That is very correct-. KUBOTA:Okay. PAW`U:Ma'am. KUBOTA:Might these people trafficking your private road, private owned road, be destined somewhere else? PA`U:We have personally observed them coming to the Wiki Wiki Mart and gas station. Personally, I have observed them as have many other board members and members of our community, we have watched them come through there. They are -. And we've tracked them, actually. They do come -. KUBOTA:Well, I'm sure some of them but yeah, -. PA`U:A large number of them. Obviously, when our own residents themselves of these convenient services, it would not be something chargeable to a developer. That is our responsibility to provide ingress and egress for our residents, including to the Wiki Mart and gas station. Our concern is non-residents, primarily, using our roads who do not pay impact fees; and we expect the developer, who is going to be producing revenue from this development, to pay those fees Again, our other impact is trash. We did not know about that years ago because we didn't have that fast food in Puna. McDonalds has since been there. We have noted there is a substantial change in the environment; and we feel like the substantial changes should be addressed by this body. Lastly, the traffic on Highway 130 from the time of this initial permit to now has increased substantially. I don't have figures at hand, but my guesstimate would be that it's probably tripled, therefore, the, or more. So the underlying information that was used for the existing permits in 1984 and 1990, the permits are based on very obsolete information. And considering again that it's already an expired permit, we feel that one of the appropriate things would be to deny the permit and ask the developer to start over. We are, we realize that's costly for them and are willing to work with them to incorporate our needs into the existing permit, for their convenience, and for their cost saving measures. However, we do want to have our concerns codified by the Commission so that we have, again, a legal leg to stand on showing that the development must meet our requirements. 22 GALDONES:Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Paw`U. PAW`U:Thank you. GALDONES:Hearing none, we have to excuse you three gentlemen, there is another testifier. Thank you. PAW`U:Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. GALDONES:Vern Wood. Mr. Vern Wood, please. Could you please r your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the -? WOOD:I do. GALDONES:Hawai`i County Planning Commission? WOOD:I do. GALDONES:Thank you. Could you please state your name and your resident address. ` WOOD:Vern Wood, 1416 Kuulei in Hilo. I'm the developer of the Orchidland Trade Center. And I've chosen to speak today because I recognize two different issues that were brought up, one by the Corporation Counsel referring to passage of time, which I consider to be a very relevant issue in the development in this area, and the other one brought up by Mr. Yuen regarding cooperative expenses of developing this area. I drafted a letter, as some of you may have a copy of, referring to a request on my part that this developer cooperate with me in some of these expenses. As of this time, I have not -, the developer has declined to work with me on this. I'm fine with that. I've gone ahead and told my traffic engineer to continue with the traffic report. And I figure I would complete it on my own expense as per your request the last time I was here. The reason I thought I should bring this subject up at this time is that although I'm not an engineer, my traffic engineer has indicated to me that based on the traffic study that I did eight years ago, and the traffic study where we're at right now, we've already experienced a severe increase in traffic, partially because of the gas station being installed and also because of residents coming into the subdivision off of the highway. There is a possibility that the Department of Transportation will have some serious concerns about the traffic count that we have noticed in the process of conducting this study. As I say, I'm not an engineer, I don't know what it all means. But from what I understand, they grade these reports like a report card, starting with the letter A 23 through to F. And at this point, I'm guessing, based on what I'm being told, that the current condition of traffic on this intersection does warrant your previous concern and that your request for me to do this study was a valid request. Because the report card at the intersection at this particular time is somewheres in the area of a D or an F, and I think that should be considered. The idea of granting an extension on this permit without addressing this issue would grant the developer the opportunity to start building and to build his development with the current uses as determined in 1990 without actually addressing passage of time. Passage of time has changed the traffic impact, you know, for this development. And as you may be aware, this particular project has never done a traffic study. And because of that, they're in a situation now where they can move forward and build out this center without actually addressing the issues that I've discovered in the last few months in the process of doing this traffic report. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you. Any questions or comments of Mr. Wood? Mr. Wood, are you aware that in the Background Report, the Department of Transportation did a study dated January 7, 2003, and their report says that the five- year extension is not going to impact the State highway facility? WOOD:I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. GALDONES:The Department of Transportation report that was in the form of a letter dated January 7, 2003, they said that granting the extension is not going to impact the highway facilities. WOOD:I'm glad to hear that. I suspect that my project won't have that much impact either. However, I'm merely relaying the information that my traffic engineer has given me as to the current condition without any development. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or comments of Mr. Wood? Otherwise, thank you very much, Mr. Wood. Could we have Mr. Howard and Mr. McElvaney come forward. YUEN:You know, I just wanted to make a comment on the Department of Transportation -. They tend to not really look at things very carefully when it's a time extension. So I don't know that we can interpret that as them saying there's no problem at the intersection. They are just saying, oh, it's just a time extension, no big deal. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Mr. Howard, Mr. McElvaney, you have heard the testimony and the discussion that ensued. Do you have any closing statements to make? 24 HOWARD:Yeah, I'd like to address some of the issues that were raised by the other testifiers. Again, I'd like to reiterate that there is one issue that is to be decided today, and that is whether or not to grant the extension. We have offered to work with the Orchidland Community Association. We have, we don't have plans drawn, as was suggested by one of the testifiers. In fact, you have a letter from our architect saying that the plans won't be ready until mid-2003. The traffic issue has been addressed. We've agreed to cooperate with Mr. Woods to split the cost with him as part of the condition of the extension. So I think that has been addressed. The water issue has been addressed, and that was another one of the issues that was raised by some of the submitted testimony. And it was suggested that we are not part of this community, and that upsets me a little bit. You know, we own on this Island the Waterfront Row in Kona, the Kona Trade Center, the Kona Marketplace, the Kea`au Shopping Center, the Mi down on Kilauea, the Pizza Hut building down on Kilauea, 20 Lanihuli Street and also this Orchidland development. So I think we are a part of this community. As far as commitments that were made prior to our purchasing this property, I have no control over whether those were kept or not. But, you know, we business is we keep our commitments; and if something was promised, we intend to do it. So if the paving issue is still outstanding, we'll address that. If that needs to be done, we'll do it. I think there is some acrimony between the Orchidland Community Association and us; and again, I apologize for that. I didn't want to put the cart before the horse. I wanted to be able to go to them with some plans, some firm plans and say this is what we're planning to do and get their input. And if that's alienated some people on the board, I apologize for that. As far as the Orchidland Center being a drug supermarket, I have never seen any illegal activity taking place there. I'm not there 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And I'm not sure that's not the only place in Orchidland where illegal activity takes place. To blame illegal activity on this development I think is really a grasp. And, again, as far as Mr. Wood's concerns about the traffic study, we never declined to cooperate. We did not give him an answer whether we were going to cooperate and that's, again, the landlord's decision. He hadn't decided what to do yet. But if itÓs part of the condition of the extension, we'll do it. And that's really all I have to say. GALDONES:Mr. McElvaney? 25 MCELVANEY:Yes, I'd just like to comment. I think that the new owners felt that if they didn't have a time extension, there's nothing really to cooperate with. They're very, very good at cooperating and keeping their word; I've known them for years. In terms of trash and security, if you look at the Kea`au Town Center, you won't find any trash in that parking lot or around those buildings. The lawns are mowed. They have 24-hour security there. They're very responsible for that, and they would be the same -, they would have that same responsibility in Orchidland. I think there's a fine for littering of a thousand dollars if you throw paper out of a car window. But it's very hard -, it would be very hard for the developer to control waste from any source, whether it be from Phoa or Kea`au or Orchidland. But we would definitely, I'm sure, help in any way we could address the issues because it's part of the community. As far as the approval of extension of time in 1997, Orchidland approved the extension of time for the exact same conditions that are allowed in the special use permit. They did that with a qualifying letter from Carl Okuyama to the th Association saying that he would pave the road up to 35 Street and he would allow them 300 square feet of office space. The new developer -. But that condition was outside the special use permit, if you notice. So that condition wasn't made a part of the special use permit, but it was a separate agreement with Carl Okuyama and the Orchidland Association. Carl now has said when he gets this building across the street ready, he will th provide the space for the Orchidland. We have said we will pave the road up to the 35 Street if it is not done, which I guess itÓs done now, so that's not an issue. What I'd like to know is, and like same thing as you asked, was what changed when they gave their approval in 1997? We didn't change, the developer didn't change. The conditions of the special use permit haven't changed; and all of these demands were not made then. Also, when Vern Wood's proposal came up, those demands from the Orchidland Association were not made to Vern Wood; and his project, as amended, if it does get amended, is a little bit more square footage than the one that Gulsons Orchidland is proposing. So it would be fair, I would say, that those kind of remarks and those kinds of conditions should be equal to both developers. And, again, we have agreed, if we get an extension of time, to go before the Association and discuss all the issues. And we would especially communicate with Vern Wood and try to organize the expenses of the whole project for both sides, and everybody work together and make it a better place for everybody. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. McElvaney. Commissioners, any questions or any comments, further comments? If not, Commissioners? KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? One -. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:One question, if I may, to Mr. Paw`U, if it's okay. 26 GALDONES:Well, if it's nec -. KUBOTA:If not, I'll just, I just won't ask. GALDONES:If it's necessary for, that information is necessary fo making a decision, I will grant that. KUBOTA:Well, I just heard something, and I thought maybe I misun what Mr. Paw`U was saying. GALDONES:I will allow the question. Mr. Paw`U. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Could you please come back. KUBOTA:Mr. Paw`U, was it my understanding that these requests for payment for the use of your private road be from now on assessed commercial venture that uses your road? PAW`U:Yes, ma'am. KUBOTA:Just yes or no? PAW`U:Yes, ma'am. KUBOTA:Thank you. So that would include Mr. Woods, also? PAW`U:Certainly. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Paw`U. Commissioners, any further questions or comments? If none, Commissioners, the recommendation from the Director is to approve this special, the extension of this, the change to Condition No. 4 on this special permit and along with that, there were two additional conditions, Condition No. 6 and Condition No. 7 as was stated by Esther. The Chair is prepared to entertain a motion. Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, I would like to make a motion on this particular application, Special Permit No. 569, it's the extension and amendment of Condition No. 4 with the changes to added, of Condition No. 6 and 7. Anything else I forgot? So I will make a motion to accept this extension of this and also the conditions presented by the Planning Director. GALDONES:Is there a second to the motion? 27 SMITH:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded Commissioner Smith that Orchidland Gulsons, LLC Special Permit N to Condition No. 4, along with the additions of Condition No. 6 and Condition No. 7 as stated by Staff, be approved. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Esther? IMAMURA:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. IMAMURA:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. IMAMURA:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. IMAMURA:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. IMAMURA:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. IMAMURA:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. IMAMURA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Aye. IMAMURA:Mr. Chair, the vote passes seven to zero. GALDONES:Thank you, Esther. You will be informed in writing of Commissioners' actions today. HOWARD:Thank you for your time. GALDONES:You're welcome. The discussion ended at 12:25 p.m. 28 Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Planning Commission 29