Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-09 TBigislando PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 9, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of BIG ISLAND CANDIES, INC. (REZ 05-023)was called to order at 10:20 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom ƒ Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Bill GrahamRodney Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Jeffrey McCall Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa (left at 1:30 p.m.) HannahSpringer IvanTorigoe,DeputyCorporationCounsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager (left at 3:00 p.m.) Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kelly Gomes representing Ex-officio Member Director of Public Works Bruce McClure And approximately 7 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: BIG ISLAND CANDIES, INC. (REZ 05-023) Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to General Commercial 20,000 square feet (CG-20) for approximately 45,450 square feet of land. The properties are located north of Kekuanaoa Street, at the northeast corner of Kekuanaoa Street and Hinano Street and the northwest corner of Kekuanaoa Street and Laukapu Street, Waiakea House Lots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-34: 66, 78 & 79. ALAMEDA:We are on unfinished business. This is our Agenda Item No. 1, Big Island Candies; and this is a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to General Commercial 20,000 square feet (CG-20) for approximately 45,450 square feet of land. The properties are located north of Kekuanaoa Street, at the northeast corner of Kekuanaoa Street and Hinano Street and the northwest corner of Kekuanaoa Street and Laukapu Street. Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning members of the Commission. Referring to the overall location map, the subject properties are indicated by these two red dots. They are situated, one of the properties is situated at the corner of Hinano Street and Kekuanaoa Street. This particular facility is, brown-shaded area is where the existing Big Island Candies EXHIBIT C facility is located. The other red dot, property, is situatedalong Laukapu Street, at the corner of Laukapu Street and Kekuanaoa Street. This would be towards the airport or Kanoelehua Avenue. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts. The yellow-shaded areas are areas that are currently zoned for Single Family Residential purposes. The existing Big Island Candies facility is zoned General Commercial 20,000 square feet. And this particular property was rezoned back in 1998, I believe, 1998. Across the street, there are some properties that were recently rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square feet. That would be these pink shaded areas. We also have these areas indicated in gray that are zoned for Industrial uses. Going to the site map that was prepared by the applicant€s architect, first of all, again, this would be the existing facility. This is Hinano Street, this is Laukapu Street, and this is Kekuanaoa Street. These two properties is where the proposed two story 25,000-square foot building would belocated.AtthisparticularlocationatthecornerofHinanoStreetandKekuanaoaStreet,there are two existing dwellings on that property. Both of them are currently being rented out. Those houses will eventually be removed and a visitor recreational area or visitor stop area would be located at that particular property. Again, going to the top map, the proposed production and storage facility, the two-story building would be located at this particular corner. This particular property is currently vacant. ALAMEDA:Very good. SIRACUSA:Norman, excuse me. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. To the left of the proposed facility in the upper-right hand corner, to the left of it, is that an access on to Kalanikoa Street, I mean, that Laukapu -? HAYASHI:You€re talking about this -? SIRACUSA:Yes. Is that an -? HAYASHI:Yes. This is basically an access that provides access to the employees€ parking in the rear. SIRACUSA:Okay. Well, when I look at the other map with the color coding, I see that the Commercial is on Hinano and it€s all Residential across the street from Big Island Candies on Laukapu Street. And putting an exit or entrance on to Laukapu, it seems to me would suddenly create a whole impact of commercial-oriented traffic onto Laukapu that isn€t there now and impact the houses there. Where if it were put onto either Kekuanaoa or Hinano Street where there already is some of that development, then it wouldn€t be as much impact. Had the, is there any special reason, like DOT or something, reasons for having that driveway on to Kalanikoa, I mean, Laukapu, as opposed to having it on Hinano Street? 2EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Well, let me backtrack a little bit. The existing driveways for this facility, this is the existing Big Island Candies facility. The primary access is at this location off of Hinano Street. And we also have an exit at this particular location off of Hinano Street. This already exists; and that particular driveway is basically for the employees parking to the rear of the property. So that€s already permitted. SIRACUSA:Will that also be used for the trash pick-up trucks that Ms. Weeks was complaining about? HAYASHI:Okay, I€m not too sure. So that question has to be -. SIRACUSA:I€ll hold that one for Ben. HAYASHI:Yeah, but if I may complete my presentation. SIRACUSA:Okay. ALAMEDA:Yes, you may. HAYASHI:Okay, according to the applicant, there will be no significant increase in employeesasaresultoftheadditionofthisnewstoragefacility.Theimprovementcostswould be $2.5 million according to the applicant. There is, for those of you who are familiar with the area, an existing church is at this particular location. So the Big Island Candies facility will surround an existingchurch, which is the Alpha and Omega Church; and that was granted by use permit back in 1984. As I indicated earlier, there are some other Commercial zoned properties in the area, as well as Single Family Residential uses. The current General Plan is Medium Density Urban development; therefore the General Commercial zoning is not an appropriate zoning under that General Plan category. However, the Director is initiating an amendment to the General Plan. All of you have or will be receiving a copy of that proposed amendment to the General Plan; and basically the area surrounding the Big Island Candies facility including the two areas under consideration today are being proposed for High Density Urban development. So basically as our recommendation would show that we will be recommending approval; and the effective date of the zone change would be upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment that would appear before you and subsequently to the County Council. We did receive a letter from Debra Weeks, an adjacent property owner, and she lives across the street of Laukapu Street; and that would be at this particular location. All of you received a copy of that letter; and the applicant also provided some response to Ms. Weeks€ concerns. Going to the recommendation, we are recommending approval with several conditions. And we also will be adding a new Condition E, which we circulated, and that€s the yellow sheet. And it basically states that, and I€ll read that, a new Condition E, A 5-foot wide future road widening strip along the Hinano Street and Laukapu Street frontages shall be subdivided and dedicated to the County within 5 (five years) from the effective date of this ordinance.‚ And all other conditions will be realphabetized. 3EXHIBIT C There is one other addition, change that I wanted to make,andthis is to be consistent with prior conditions regarding drainage; and that would becurrentCondition I in your orange sheet. And at the very end the condition should read, well, let me read the whole thing. Condition I, All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works,‚ and we€re adding that, prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy.‚ And that is a standard language that we€re now using for this drainage condition. Okay, there are several changes that are being handed -. Okay, Condition G is also being amended, and it starts off Commercial;‚ and what we want to do is delete the word Commercial‚ and start the condition with Access shall be prohibited from Kekuanaoa Street,‚ and also adding except for access to the two existing homes until they are demolished.‚ And those are the changes that we€re proposing. Are there any questions at this time? Oh, by the way, we were also handed a set of conditions for changes; and these were prepared by theapplicant€srepresentative,orapplicantandtheirrepresentative.Sotheywouldbediscussing those proposed changes. ALAMEDA:Okay. HAYASHI:And that is the white sheet like this. ALAMEDA:Okay. Fellow Commissioners, we also have the presence of Mr. Kelly Gomes over here, so if you guys have any questions for Public Works as well, he€ll be happy to answer that. Any questions for our staff? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Norman, I can see in the map there where we have mostly Residential and some Neighborhood Commercial, the brown area which is not today€s application but it€s for the existing facility and all in a different zoning category which as you said took place in €98 or something. I also notice when I look at a General Plan map of the area, the General Plan itself has change currently, already changed just for that existing area. So can I assume that the General Plan was changed just in one spot to accommodate this applicant to have that facility in the currently location in the past? HAYASHI:You€re referring to the existing facility? GRAHAM:Yes. HAYASHI:Okay. The General Plan was amended back in 1997; and that was initiated at that time by the then Planning Director for a change from, I believe it was Medium Density to -. GRAHAM:High density. HAYASHI:Oh, Low Density Urban to High Density. 4EXHIBIT C GRAHAM:And that was specifically for thisapplication? HAYASHI:Yes. GRAHAM:Any sort of general planning principles -. HAYASHI:Yes. GRAHAM:Went behind that at all? HAYASHI:Well, there must have been reasons for the initiation of the General Plan Amendment based on land use principles or General Plan principles. GRAHAM:Allright,thankyou. HAYASHI:Justoneotherchangebefore,andthiswasalsohandedtome,Condition B. We are also deleting the word interim.‚ So the condition would state, The Change of Zone Ordinance shall be effective only if the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map for the project area is amended to High Density Urban. SIRACUSA:Excuse me. What condition was that, Norman? HAYASHI:That would be Condition B, B as in boy. ALAMEDA:We have several questions for you, Mr. Hayashi. SIRACUSA:Would you repeat that then, please. HAYASHI:Okay, Condition B, all we€re doing is taking out the word interim.‚ SIRACUSA:Oh, interim?‚ HAYASHI:Yeah. SIRACUSA:Okay. MCCALL:Mr. Chairman? SIRACUSA:I -. SALAVEA:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:I€m going to go to Commissioner McCall, and then Commissioner Siracusa, and then Commissioner Salavea. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Norman, two things. One is that before Big Island Candies was here, it was a nursery, right, that was -? 5EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Yes. That used to be Orchids of Hawaii. MCCALL:Orchids, that€s right, that€s right. HAYASHI:Yes. So that was, well, actually itwas a nonconforming use way back for several years. MCCALL:Yeah, but it was zoned RS-10 at that point, is that right? HAYASHI:That€s correct, yes. MCCALL:And we have the church that€s their RS-10 property with a use permit. Are there any other parcels around there that have, that are commercial but without Commercial zoning?IknowtheoldHiloMowersandSawsisalittlefartheraway.That€sanotherblock away. But I€m trying to remember if there€s anything else over there. HAYASHI:I can€t recall if there are lands in this particular area that are used for commercial purposes that are currently zoned for single family residential purposes. But there are other commercial activities within these areas here indicated in red or orange, I guess. Like Don€s Grill is located in this general area. There are some apartments here and several other commercial establishments. MCCALL:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah. I just wanted to clarify my understanding of something, that the General Plan was amended a while back in order to allow a change of zone from Low Density to High Density Urban, is that what you said? HAYASHI:Yes. SIRACUSA:And now the Director is planning to put through another amendment to the General Plan specifically to accommodate this parcel that€s under consideration today. Is that correct, Director Yuen? HAYASHI:Well, it€s not only for those two properties. Based on the map in the General Plan proposal, it shows other properties abutting the existing facility proposed for High Density Urban. YUEN:If I can explain, this has to do with the -. The underlying issue here is the integration of the General Plan and the Zoning Code. A manufacturing type facility like this would be possible in a Light Industrial -. They have both manufacturing and retail sales here. The manufacturing side is, if you look at the Zoning Code, perhaps unfortunately, it cannot be done in a CN or a CV zone. All right? It needs to be in a CG zone or General Commercial zone, which by practice of the, if you read how the Zoning Code works and the General Plan, the CG zone should go in a High Density area. A CN zone could go in a Medium Density area. Now 6EXHIBIT C maybe we should be working on that aspect of the Zoning Code,but, all right, be that as it may -. That was the reason why when this proposal came up in €97 the Planning Director wouldn€t allow it without the General Plan Amendment. But they initiated a General Plan Amendment to High Density Urban for the immediate area and then they processed the change of zone to CG; and, essentially, we€re doing the same thing. SIRACUSA:Okay. So to beat Commissioner Iwashita to the punch on this that we still do not have a Community Development Plan for this area and things keep coming up, recommendations and requests keep coming up in this area, without a Community Development Plan to address that, it looks to me like we€re looking at spot zoning. And I€m wondering, would you say that it€s not spot zoning because the Big Island property adjacent has already been or should -. You know, I€m wondering if it€s the same owner do we really count that in as being a consecutive property, that would, according to the rules, not then be spot zoning because it€s not separated by anything else? Am I making myself clear? YUEN:Yeah -. SIRACUSA:I€m not clear myself, so -. YUEN:Well, it€s not spot zoning if it€s consistent with the General Plan; and so youchangetheGeneralPlan,it€snotspotzoning.That€sonething.Andthenit€sadjacenttoan existing facility. And we have to get down to the -. SIRACUSA:Yeah, but it€s their own facility. It€s the same owner, you know. YUEN:Yeah, we have to get down to the real life of it, is that it is -. I mean from the standpoint of what is the use of the property, I support it. And we really had no difficulty with it from the beginning. The business is there, it€s a very busy location. If they had a different site plan, for example, for example if they were doing just parking on the site, we could have done it without a General Plan Amendment. We could have just done a zoning amendment. But because of the production portion of it going on to the site, we had to do the zoning amendment. But as far as just the use of the property, the location along Kekuanaoa Street, which is one of the busiest streets in Hilo, adjacent to existing facilities, just an expansion of the existing facility, we support it as far as the use of the property. We have to be consistent with the Codes, the General Plan; and so we€re going through this double jump procedure rather than the one jump of the rezone. SIRACUSA:I have another question. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? SIRACUSA:Yes. I noticed that in our conditions of approval that are before us today, there is no condition related to hours of operation. We have had conditions in the past for other things where we looked at hours of operation and stated specifically what those should be. And considering that we have had a complaint about hours of operation and that in their application it says that during the holidays when they€re increasing production they would be working at night shift also, I am concerned that we haven€t bothered to put something in about that. 7EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Is that a question to somebody? SIRACUSA:Is there a reason why that has been -? ALAMEDA:Okay, Mr. Hayashi? SIRACUSA:Not included? HAYASHI:Yeah, I can respond to that. As far as imposing hours of operation, we€ve done that for special permits; but we€ve never done that for any kind of change of zone requests, to my knowledge. SIRACUSA:Is there a reason for that, Norman, I mean, a legal reason, or is it just, we haven€t done it? HAYASHI:Well, basically what we€re looking at is what the zoning should be for this particularproperty.Andtheymayhaveotheroperationsthatcouldgoonthepropertythatmay not be, it would have lesser impacts. So in that case I guess that€s the reason why we decided not to put any kind of hours of operation. From a legal standpoint, you, I don€t know whether we can do that for a change of zone application. That question could be perhaps better directed to legal counsel. ALAMEDA:Okay, Mr. Torigoe, you have any thoughts on that? Good question, huh? TORIGOE:I€m not really prepared to give you a definitive opinion on that. I think I€d have to do some research on it. ALAMEDA:All right. Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? SIRACUSA:Yeah. I have a concern that we€ve got all of these residences around the property. No matter what the zoning is, there are residences and people live there, and they have to get a good night€s sleep so they can go to work the next day or school the next day with their kids. And I€m concerned about, you know, this complaint about noise at night which would be increased during the holidays when they€re in increased production. And the fact that we haven€t even put a, any kind of a limit on decibel levels, or hours, or anything like that does cause me considerable concern. Because one of the things we€re supposed to take into consideration as criteria are impacts on neighboring properties. ALAMEDA:Very good. Thank you. Point well taken, Commissioner Siracusa. And I€m sure we€ll include that in our discussion. I wanted to go to Commissioner Salavea and then Commissioner Iwashita. SALAVEA:Two questions, points of clarification, Norman. The first is, it€s the understanding of the Planning Department that the existing roadways on Kekuanaoa Street will not be used once the landscaping and the open area is developed or these, both of these new sites are developed? Is that true? 8EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:That is correct; and that is the reason for thechange to that particular condition. There are two existing single family dwellings on the property which are currently taking access off Kekuanaoa Street; and once those structures are demolished and improvements as proposed are provided on the property, then those accesses shall be deleted. SALAVEA:Okay. And then just a quick follow-up to that, it will be, the ingress and egress will be contained to the two existing on Hinano and the existing on Laukapu, is that correct? And that€s it? HAYASHI:Yes, that is my understanding. Perhaps if it needs further clarification then the applicant€s representative could perhaps explain any changes that may or may not occur. SALAVEA:Okay. But from the Planning Department€s perspective that is what has been submitted? HAYASHI:Yes, based on the information that was provided to us and the maps. SALAVEA:Okay, thank you, Norman. My second clarification is for, I€m not sure if it€sChristheDirectororNorman.IstheinitiationfortheGeneralPlanrevisionsfortheCG zoning, is it just to include these two parcels and the existing where Big Island Candies is right now, or are there other parcels, surrounding parcels, that€s part of that General Plan change? I didn€t get the clarification on -. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:It includes the one more property on Kekuanaoa Street, that fronts Kekuanaoa Street. If you look at the amendment, the Zoning Code amendment map there, you€ll see three parcels that are colored in as part of this change of zone. The General Plan Amendment would also include that other RS-10 property fronting Kekuanaoa Street. ALAMEDA:Follow- up? Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. We€re going to turn to Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. And is that other property also owned by Big Island Candies, per chance? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:I don€t know, but I don€t think so. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Okay. Im wondering if there would also still be the, the church would be the only one then that would have access from Kekuanaoa? ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi? 9EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Based on our condition, yes. And just as a matter of information, the General Plan proposal does also include the church property to be included in the High Density Urban. ALAMEDA:Okay. Follow-up questions, Commissioners, before I invite the applicants up? Oh, Commissioner Graham, of course. GRAHAM:Thank you. Norman, it does seem a little unusual to be doing the zoning change before the General Plan change; and I understand it€s conditioned on a later General Plan change. Just so that we have some sense of the process and the time involved, could you just tell us how that General Plan revision is going to be treated process wise and time wise from here forward? HAYASHI:Yes. The General Plan proposal has been transmitted to the Planning rd CommissiononMarch3. You may not have a copy now but you should be getting it either in your packet today or in a day or so. The Planning Commission has 60 days in which to conduct a hearing and act on the proposed General Plan Amendments. So based on, from a timing standpoint, the proposal is to have two hearings, one in Hilo and one in Kona; and we have tentatively set the April meetings for the General Plan Amendments. So should the Commission decide to review, oh, after reviewing the application then it goes to the Council. So that goes through our normal process. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM:And in that regard presumably the Council would also act on this prior to acting on the General Plan revision? HAYASHI:Well, we can€t speak for the Council; but, you know, that€s a possibility because we do have that proposed condition that states the zoning does not become effective until the General Plan Amendment is adopted by the County Council. GRAHAM:Sure. And the General Plan revision, does that include a number of other propertieselsewhereontheislandbesidesthisonerighthere? HAYASHI:Yes. There are a number of proposals. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, other questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Condition E addresses full, the old Condition E addresses full improvements to the project€s frontage along both Kekuanaoa and Laukapu Streets. I€m looking at the correspondence from Debra Weeks of October 28, 2005 where she discusses impacts from traffic to Big Island Candies on the roadway fronting her property, which is across Laukapu Street, apparently, from Big Island Candies. Is there any relief for this resident from impacts made to her frontage by traffic from Big Island Candies? ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi? 10EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:I don€t quite understand the possible relief. What do you mean by possible relief? SPRINGER:For her, in her correspondence she€s talking about having large potholes and depressions in front the property generated from traffic from Big Island Candies and their, among other things, the trash pick-up, the heavy trucks associated with that. So I€m wondering if while we€re asking Big Island Candies to make certain improvements to their frontage, I€m wondering about any properties across the street from them that may have been affected by traffic to their property. HAYASHI:I think that question would be better directed to the applicant. However -. SPRINGER:Well, I€m wondering how the County, if the County took that into considerationwhentheyweredevelopingtheoldConditionE.I€mwonderinghowtheCounty would process a comment like that from a resident describing impacts from the business activities of Big Island Candies. So this is a question as to how the County processes that sort of complaint and if there€s any possible relief for the complainant from the County. ALAMEDA:That€s a fair question, Commissioner Springer. Thank you for that. I wonder if Mr. Director or Norman would you like to answer that? YUEN:On the sidewalks and the frontage, a standard condition for commercial zoning would involve putting in sidewalks on your frontage, the notion being that a commercial area should have a sidewalk. The complaints about, I have to say that I don€t have a solution for the homeowner, that some of this is generic with having a commercial, busy commercial facility across from your home. And it is a decision that was, it€s a weighing process in whether to rezone something like this. I think that her primary impact is from the zoning that was done, you know, back in €97 or €98 which allowed the facility in the first place. I€m sure that it did increase the number of people using both Laukapu and Hinano Streets and there are impacts to people in the neighborhood from that. And I don€t have a real solution for the neighbor. It sounds like the maintenance of the road itself is a public road, so it€s really up to the County to maintain the road. There are badly maintained County roads that are not used by commercial facilities as well, so I don€t know that Laukapu Street would be worse if Big Island Candies weren€t there. And there are downsides to the immediate, to people living in an immediate area from having a commercial facility next to it. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer, follow-up? SPRINGER:I wonder if the Planning Department in any way can influence Department of Public Works in placing any sort of priority on doing repairs, if not increasing regular maintenance, in the event where there are residential units across from High Density Urban zoned or Commercial properties? YUEN:I wouldn€t want to make that commitment that we really can do anything on the Planning Department about that. 11EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer, is that something that you want Mr. Gomes to answer or, since he€s here? SPRINGER:Okay, please. ALAMEDA:All right, Mr. Gomes, you€ve heard the discussion. Any thoughts? GOMES:Yeah, generally, if we have a complaint, I guess, about potholes, we would refer people to our Highway Maintenance Division, because they are the ones that maintain the roads. SPRINGER:Have you received a complaint from Debra Weeks? GOMES:I don€t think I got that in my packet. SPRINGER:I wonder then if, Mr. Yuen, when Debra Weeks submits her testimony suchasthistothePlanningDepartment,istherearesponsetoherthatindicatesreceiptofher letter and a recommendation that if not Public Works the appropriate agency would be -, that she should correspond with them? ALAMEDA:Director? GOMES:Well, I think that€s a good suggestion. We do send a response saying that we got it, and that it would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and made a part of the record on this. Something that€s in the nature of a complaint to another department, I think that would be a good suggestion for us to send that on. SPRINGER:So would that be done in this case? YUEN:We€ll do that. SPRINGER:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Springer, very good discussion. Commissioner Siracusa, any questions for our staff before we let them go? SIRACUSA:Yes. There€s a big blank area up there on the upper left; and it€s not filled in with anything indicating what the use is of that. Do you see which part? It€s the L, upside down L part that€s sticking out. Could you inform us what that€s about? ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi, on the big map. SIRACUSA:The colored, the middle map, the upper middle map. HAYASHI:Yeah, I know where it is. I€m trying to recollect as to what I saw there. Can I defer that question to the applicant? SIRACUSA:It€s blank except for an outline of greenery. 12EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Yes, I understand. That€s this particular area. SIRACUSA:And there€s nothing to indicate what that is or what the plans are. HAYASHI:Yes, so if I could defer that to the applicant. ALAMEDA:Okay? SIRACUSA:Okay. ALAMEDA:Very well. Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Just a follow-up on that. Is there anything that prevents the new facility frombeingbuiltonthatspacethatstaffisawareof? HAYASHI:Iwoulddeferthatquestiontotheapplicant. ALAMEDA:CommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:Iguess,yeah,Iwantedtoknowifthere€sanyBuildingCoderestrictionor -. ALAMEDA:Or encumbrance? IWASHITA:Or, I looked through the prior approval and I didn€t see anything in the prior approval for this area that would prevent the building from being made there. So I€m just wondering if there€s any legal or regulatory administrative impediment to making this additional structure on that area. HAYASHI:I don€t think there was any kind of legal requirement to prevent them from using that particular property. IWASHITA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. All right, without further adieu, I€d like to invite the applicant or its representative up to the front, please. We do have testimony on this matter as well, so let us proceed in that fashion. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission TSUKAZAKI:Yes, I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record. TSUKAZAKI:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ben Tsukazaki. I€m an attorney in Hilo. My address is 142 Kapaa Street. I represent the applicant. With me here this morning are representatives from the applicant: Mr. Ikawa, the president, Sherry Holi who€s the chief operational officer, and Bonnie Honda who€s the chief financial officer. 13EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you and welcome. By the way, did you get a chance to read all of the recommendations and -? TSUKAZAKI:Yes, I did. ALAMEDA:I also notice that you€ve added a few conditions or modified the conditions as well. Would you like to go over that with us? (ATTACHMENT I, on file) TSUKAZAKI:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. TSUKAZAKI:Now in talking with Mr. Gomes prior to the hearing starting, I understand thatstandardconditionsareusedbytheDepartmentofPublicWorksasjustthegeneralpractice with regard to change of zone applications. So I€m mindful that, you know, there was not an intent to say with this specific project that all the requirements or improvements that are mentioned would necessarily be applicable. I understand that to be more standard language; and he can speak to that himself if he wishes. As to the new Condition E proposed by the Planning Director, we have no problem with that. So assuming that it is incorporated then the conditions that we had addressed would indicate the former designation, the Condition E. The previous Condition E was one of those conditions which contain standard language. And the discomfort that I have with it arises from other projects dealing with other agencies where the language is so broad that there€s often subsequent disagreement with those agencies when it comes time to actually implement what is going to be designed, what is going to be built. So we offer that initial phrase there in order to address the potential impacts of the project, because we would understand that that would be the intent anyway, that the Department wouldn€t be asking an applicant to make improvements which are unrelated to the impacts of the project. So we have added that phrase just to make that clear. Again, we€ve no problems with dealing with Mr. Gomes, but I€m not sure if we€ll be dealing with Mr. Gomes later or someone else. So the changes that we offer in that particular condition are consistent with the idea that Public Works will later on determine what type of improvements are related to the project; and that€s what we€ll be asked to do. Condition F, the previous Condition F, upon my conversation with Mr. Gomes before the hearing and talking with my client, we understand that the 20-foot corner radius is really related to an area to round out the corner of Kekuanaoa and Laukapu Street. Right now it€s a rectangle. And even if there is a dedication of a future road widening with a strip along Kekuanaoa without a corner radius, an area to round out that corner, it would be a rectangular corner; and we agree that that would not work. So I€d like to withdraw the amendment that we had proposed there for the existing Condition F. The applicant, in other words, is willing to provide the area of the minimum 20-foot radius, changing the property line right at that corner. Condition H, again the previous Condition H relates back to the kind of improvements that are determined to be necessary based upon the traffic impact analysis report that was done and as agreed to by the Traffic Division of the Department of Public Works and, again, trying to provide some relationship between what is going to be done and the actual impacts of the 14EXHIBIT C project. As the Commission may have noted that the construction of this production storage warehouse building does not involve the hiring of more employees; and if there would be, it would be, you know, just one, or two, or three employees. So the traffic impact analysis report does not reflect any additional significant traffic impacts on the streets surrounding this project. So, again, we just want to be careful now that we€re not representing to you that, you know, we€re going to be putting in traffic control devices, and street lights, and everything that will not be related to the impacts and that, in fact, Public Works itself may not ask us for later on. So I don€t know if you would like me to be open to questions on that right now or whether I should just finish the rest of my comments. Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Why don€t we hold off on the questions for now; and we€ll come back to that issue. TSUKAZAKI:That€sfine. ALAMEDA:Youcancontinue. TSUKAZAKI:Allright,thankyou.Youknow,Iwouldlikealsosomeclarificationfrom staff. There was a question from one of the Commission Members relating to the General Plan LUPAG Map designations for this area; and I think what has been described are the amendments that are going to be initiated, that are being initiated at this point. We believe that in the 2005 General Plan Amendments there was an amendment which redesignated a number of the properties, including the properties that are subject for this application, actually changed them Low Density to Medium Density Urban. And I believe those amendments, that redesignation, also covered the church property. It€s just to, for the record, be clear that, you know, there have been other gradual General Plan Amendments. And if we€re wrong on that information, then we would like to be corrected, because I think we€ve made that representation based on our review of the General Plan, we€ve made that representation in our application. So if what we€re saying is true then these properties, including the church properties, you know, are in Medium Density Urban right now. And from what I€ve heard from staff earlier they were being proposed for High Density Urban in the current round of amendments being initiated by Mr. Yuen. So -. ALAMEDA:I have that noted. Could you maybe proceed in your -? TSUKAZAKI:Sure. ALAMEDA:And then we can come back to that. TSUKAZAKI:Sure. YUEN:Well, that is correct, that the surrounding area was redesignated from Low Density to Medium Density in the amendments that were passed in 2005, and that we are initiating an amendment to High Density for the Kekuanaoa Street frontage of the block with the current round. TSUKAZAKI:Right, correct. 15EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Okay, continue. TSUKAZAKI:I just wanted to make sure we got that on the record because we had talked earlier on the record about the 1997 General Plan Amendments and then the ones that are being proposed now. Okay? ALAMEDA:All right. TSUKAZAKI:Regarding complaints, I€d like to talk a bit about Ms. Weeks€ allegations and I€d like to approach the Chair to present some colored prints (ATTACHMENT II, on file) of the property. ALAMEDA:I wonder if you can give it to our staff. TSUKAZAKI:Okay.Thankyou. ALAMEDA:Mr.Tsukazaki,wouldyoulikethisaspartoftheofficialrecord? TSUKAZAKI:Yes,please. ALAMEDA:Okay,sonoted.Thankyou. TSUKAZAKI:If everybody has a copy, at the top of the first page we€re on Laukapu Street. The photo is taken looking towards Volcano. And Ms. Weeks€ property is that property on the left there with some canoes. Is that a canoe or -? Yeah, looks like a canoe. Okay, and then I€d like to make also or register a complaint with Mr. Gomes to fix my street while we€re at this -. Mine looks a lot worse than this. Okay so the bottom photo is another, you know, angle on Laukapu Street still looking at our property. ALAMEDA:All right. TSUKAZAKI:Turn the page, please, again, we€re on Laukapu Street, I believe looking at her driveway. And then we€re looking on Laukapu Street kind of more towards the makai direction, another view of the canoes and whatever else she has up there. It looks like a little -. ALAMEDA:Are these recent photos? TSUKAZAKI:Yes, hold on, this past Tuesday. ALAMEDA:Okay. TSUKAZAKI:So, and I€m sorry, and our office did this. Okay. And then the last page, I guess, a closer view of some water that has collected. You know, I don€t know how you would view this. The pavement, actually the roadway pavement is pretty much intact. Off the 16EXHIBIT C roadway, you know, the shoulder, some of which is pavement, some of which is gravel, yes, there€s ponding; and there are a couple of holes as you move makai up the street. And I think as someone may have pointed out, it€s all within the County right-of-way. I wanted you to have a visual idea of what we€re talking about here because I think, you know, Mr.Yuen, you know, was bringing some reality to it. And I wanted to bring a little more to it, that while the Commission wants to be sensitive to what neighbors€ comments are, you know, it€s not always that the allegations made in a written form really portray a very accurate picture of thing. In our response to her letter, which we have filed with you and you may have had a chance to read that, or maybe not, what we were trying to say there is that it€s wear and tear, I would call this wear and tear, or just, you know, a need for periodic road maintenance, just like all of the public streets we have here. We have a lot of rain, the rain causes erosion and we have similar situations to what exists in front of her property. But we strongly take exception to the allegation that the traffic from Big Island Candies€ operation itself is the cause of any deteriorationhereoftheshoulderinfrontofherproperty.Shehashadherselftrailersmoving canoes, those all have an impact on your shoulders. And, again, you know, these photographs do not reflect any serious impairment of the roadway pavement itself. So we€re not talking about a safety hazard created on the roadway portion of the street itself. I do not, I€m sorry I need to add one other thing, you know, because she did, Ms. Weeks did make a complaint to Big Island Candies regarding late night traffic. And as I indicated in our comments there was a change made and the trash pick-up is not using the access on her side; and that has, you know, been the case for quite some time. The cleaning that€s done at night, we€re talking six people. We€re talking some regular vehicles, not big large trucks. So it€s, you know, it€s a low intensity type of cleaning operation. Noise, I don€t think she has really alleged or expressed the concern about noise from the production process. But as many of you may know the process in there is making chocolate, and making the candy out of the chocolate. It€s not a heavy industrial operation. And I would note that she had not made any allegations of noise from the production activities at all. So evidently that€s not a problem. Oh, there was a question regarding the future use of property, that€s kind of towards the east, yeah, of the existing retail production center. That is going to be a future parking area for employees and/or whatever. So it has been graded. Initially quite a while ago this production facility had been considered to be located there; but the amount of infrastructure work and design and change to the existing building makes it cost prohibitive. So it€s not being located there at this point. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right, thank you. TSUKAZAKI:Any other questions? ALAMEDA:Well, I wanted to go back to Condition H, just to make sure that we address kind of your question first and then open it up for Commissioners if they have other additional questions. Would you like to help me revisit that Condition H on your part? 17EXHIBIT C TSUKAZAKI:Yes. What we did was add some wording to the, what I understand from Mr. Gomes to be a standard condition. And, you know, it may be worthwhile to have Mr. Gomes speak to this. Because when I talked with him just before the hearing, you know, he, I believe, indicated to me that he didn€t, you know, and after reviewing the traffic impact analysis report, he didn€t think it would warrant installation of, you know, traffic control devices and things like that. So if that is the case and he wants to say that for the record, then some of our concerns would be alleviated. So, okay? ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you. TSUKAZAKI:But, again, we€re just trying to reign in the scope of possible improvements to what is said in the traffic impact analysis report and what the Traffic Division of Public Works feels is appropriate. ALAMEDA:Okay.Iwouldliketoattendtothatatthistime.Mr.Gomes? GOMES:Yeah,Ibelieveapplicantsareafraidwhentheyhearthetermtraffic control devices. I think in a case like this what they€re concerned about is traffic light; and what I told Mr. Tsukazaki is that traffic control devices can be, you know, something as little as pavement markings and that sort of thing, yeah. And I think in this case we would not require a traffic light but we may require some pavement markings and that sort of thing, or our Traffic Division will. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Mr. Tsukazaki, that has been noted for the record. Does that suffice or would you like a more formal -? TSUKAZAKI:No, I€m fine. I€m fine with the representations. It€d be better to have it in writing but I, you know, place a lot of credence in what Mr. Gomes is saying; and we just, again, don€t want to create an impression that the applicant is committing to install signals at an intersection or something where it would not be appropriate. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. We have, I€m sure, a bunch of questions. We€ll start off with Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:Yeah. My question is for the Planning Director. Now on a situation like this where these are conditions for the rezoning of the property, not necessarily conditions, I mean, they are conditions based on what Big Island Candies is proposing to do with it. But our zoning conditions, the conditions are for rezoning of the property which, I mean, market conditions could indicate ten years from now that they want to put up apartment houses here or something else, in which case these zoning conditions need to be somewhat generic for that. Is that correct? Is that an error or am I off-based? YUEN:Right. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Right. 18EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner McCall, follow-up to that? MCCALL:No, that€s it. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. Looking at that map and the blank area on the upper left that you say is being set aside for future parking, I look at that and then I look at the garden park-like area on the lower right which seems to be to my naked eye to be considerably smaller, and that€s an area where there are already two homes. And I was wondering if Big Island Candies had considered keeping the homes there, since we do have an affordable housing shortage in Hilo, and using the big blank upper left-hand portion as a combination park-like garden and parking as well. In other words, so you can have both of everything, if that had been considered; and if not then, you know, what were the reasons why that wasn€t considered as an option? ALAMEDA:Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI:Yes. Two things, first of all, the plan is to make the Kekuanaoa Street fromavisualperspectiveaverypleasantone,averyaestheticone.Sothat€swhylandscapingis envisioned there. Also, if you€ve been to their retail center, there€s no place for people to sit and have coffee and have a cookie. So there have been some suggestions, you know, to eventually have an area, a rest area. Some of the people, many of the people actually who visit the property are on tours and they€re brought in on tour busses; and so the idea was to eventually plan an area where people could sit and take a break and have, you know, have something to eat before moving on. There€s no immediate plans to demolish those dwellings. One of the Big Island employees, actually, rents one of those homes. The other one is in a rental pool that€s managed by a real property management agency. But that is something that is not as immediate as being able to create the production and storage building because that€s a rather urgent need. As to whether, you know, single family dwellings or other kind of dwelling structures should be located to the back area, I don€t recall that we€ve had any conversation about that. SIRACUSA:No, you had me backwards. TSUKAZAKI:I€m sorry. SIRACUSA:Okay. What I was talking about was retaining the single families where they are now and moving that garden area where people could relax and have a cup of coffee and a cookie to the big blank upper left portion which you€re saying will be future parking. Because since it€s larger than that lower right portion it seemed to me that you would have room for both there, that you would have room for parking and there would be an area there where people could sit under a tree and have some refreshments. That€s what I was talking about. TSUKAZAKI:Okay. The parking, again, I mean, I think your suggestion is definitely, you know, worthwhile discussing with Big Island Candies as to the future design there. But I wanted to be clear the parking area for the back open area that we€re talking about was to be an area where they could move employee parking right now. Because where it is right behind the building, it€s an inadequate area. And so they€d like to concentrate all of the employee parking 19EXHIBIT C in one place. They also did not want to mix employee parking with the retail parking out in that front area. So, again, that was what was intended, what is intended. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I see, I was just sort of looking for a win-win situation here where we could retain two affordable housing units and say accommodate the plans that you wanted. Because if you extended the employee parking along the Laukapu end and still had the lower part in, you know, for recreational use, you could always separate it out with a planting screen, or even a low stonewall and a planting screen. That€s, you know, that€s doable and would allow for both. I€m just trying to figure out a way that all of this can happen at the same time and addressing all those concerns. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Let me go to Commissioner Salavea andthenCommissionerGraham.CommissionerSalavea. SALAVEA:Ihaveaquestionfortheapplicant,butpriortothatI€djustliketoget clarification from Norman. The big open area on the upper left-hand part, that is currently designated on the General Plan as, or is it currently designated on the General Plan as High Density? HAYASHI:That is correct. It€s designated for High Density as well as zoned for General Commercial. SALAVEA:And it is, all right. And then for the area on the bottom right-hand corner where the houses currently exists, to do such a, to do landscaping of that nature that they€re proposing, does it need to be in, does the designation in the General Plan need to be changed to High Density, along with the zoning change to CG? HAYASHI:Well, I think this would be the overall development of the Big Island Candies€ facility. Therefore, to include that, or not to rezone that property or change the General Plan -. SALAVEA:Could they do the landscaping without the -? HAYASHI:See, they cannot have any commercial-related aspect to that property since the property would be zoned for Single-Family Residential use. So, yes, I guess, my response would be, yes, they need to have it changed. SALAVEA:Okay, okay. Okay, my question for the applicant now is, from my perspective, and I€ll be candid, is -. I€m seeing a lot of areas being put into High Density Urban uses with very few, let€s say, infrastructure developments, like buildings and then that sort of, you know, for Industrial use, for a higher use, parking area and there€s no structures going up. And I guess my great concern is that if permitted and the General Plan designations go through and the zoning changes are made that I see later on we may be, and I€m not saying that you would do this, but later on we€d be open to a lot more development because of everything being in place in terms of the zoning changes and the General Plan changes. And that€s my great fear. Because of the surrounding nature of that neighborhood, I€d hate to see, you know, 10 years 20EXHIBIT C from now the nature of the neighborhood be pretty much the same and then the plans for Big Island Candies€ expansion, you know, be exponentially increased and, you know, the two areas where the landscaping and the parking lot is proposed, boom, we get two new two-story buildings and the area, that plat, becomes very heavily industrialized right in the middle of a, kind of an older neighborhood. So how would you respond to that concern? TSUKAZAKI:I think it€s a good issue. I mean I think you€ve raised a good point because from my perspective this House Lots area is one of those areas in transition from a land use policy standpoint and from the County€s own land use long-term growth policies. And I think what you€re pointing out is if there were no residential area there at all, you know, then you would not expect the kind of impacts to come from the transition to High Density Urban uses. So I think that, you know, it is definitely a challenge, there are definitely issues. And I believe when zoning applications such as this one comes before you and the County Council, there are going to be issues regarding those kinds of impacts that need to be dealt with, and, because, again,it€sachangingareaandyouhaveresidentialusesthatareaffectedormaybeaffected.I don€t think there€s any easy answers, but the plans promote Urban use gradually in this area. There are ways to mitigate what those impacts will be. I don€t know if there€s a foolproof way to avoid them all, but quite frankly I think a local government will just have to use its best efforts to deal with them as time goes on. So, and just an example, in this case, you know, right, we€ve had a neighbor raise concerns; and I think that€s just indicative of how the community, surrounding neighborhood will react as this transition takes place over the next, you know, 10 to 20 years. ALAMEDA:Director Yuen has a response. YUEN:Yeah, can I, let me give you my idea of Waiakea House Lots because it comes up over and over again; and this is what is proposed verbally in the General Plan and in the interim amendments and the map, and partially in the map amendments. We€ve had a lot of rezoning applications in the Waiakea House Lots area. Some of them, this area, there was an area in here that was already Industrial and Piilani Street was Commercial; and so you had a number of rezonings previously. And the 2005 General Plan made a big Medium Density area in the House Lots area and then made an Industrial area along Laukapu Street in this block here. The major map change is that we€re proposing to take the Industrial out of the Laukapu Street block and make that Medium Density. I think it was a mistake to change that to Industrial. When I drive down, it€s a street of, there are just houses on the street. And to take a Residential area and have Light Industrial businesses come in, I don€t think it€s that compatible. And so that€s the map proposal on that. As far as what happens in the, you know, Medium Density in the General Plan is a big, there are a lot of different things you can do in Medium Density. You can have, potentially Commercial zoning, you can have a 7-Eleven, you can have businesses that don€t look any different from the house that€s there, like the mortgage company rezoning that we saw a couple of months ago, you can have apartments or townhouses. All of these things are really different. So, and we don€t have a fine tuning in the General Plan that€s better than those categories. And, hopefully, you know, if we had a Hilo Community Development Plan we€re able to do that. 21EXHIBIT C One of the amendments in the General Plan says that we should encourage, that the Commercial should be on the major streets. And if you know the area, Kekuanaoa is a major, major street in Hilo. It takes people from the airport to the main part of Hilo; and there are lots of people going on Kekuanaoa every day. Lanikaula, and Lanikaula and Kawili are also major streets; and there have been quite a few rezonings along both Lanikaula and Kawili. Manono is another major street for people going across. And the major streets are the better locations for Commercial zoning; and so there€s an amendment that says something like that. And then the side streets like Leilani Street or Hinano Street off of, say from Hinano Street going from Kekuanaoa toward Lanikaula Street, my feeling is that if somebody wants to come in and rezone one of those lots for a townhouse, a small apartment building, that sort of use, that that€s compatible with the neighborhood; but I would not encourage it for Commercial. And the General Plan Amendment basically says that. So that is my picture of how to be more refined from just saying Medium Density Urban. Asfarasthisapplicationhere,certainly,youknow,KekuanaoaStreet,asfarastheresidential component to it, I have to say, to me, it€s not going to be a great residential area in the coming years. I mean, it€s just a really busy street that naturally channels people from the airport area, from Kanoelehua into the rest of urban Hilo. Upper part of Kekuanaoa not too far from this you have the Department of Water Supply building, you have Leo€s Rubbish, then at the top of Kekuanaoa you have Hilo Motors. And I just don€t think it€s a -. It€s a street where I think it€s inevitable to transition to more of a Commercial use. As far as, again, Big Island Candies, one of the things that probably made it palatable as a rezoning in €97-€98 was that years ago there was a business there called Orchids of Hawaii. Actually I had my second job there. And they did tour business, they had tour busses going in there. That was what they did, they sold flowers to the tourists off of busses. After that closed it was Paradise Plants, not as busy but still a commercial business. So it was something that had evolved within the neighborhood. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, question for the Director. If this whole proposal, this proposed rezoning is going to wait on the General Plan Amendment, how is that going to affect the timeline? YUEN:Well, it just wouldn€t come into effect unless and until the General Plan came into effect. And -. SIRACUSA:So the clock wouldn€t start ticking until the General Plan Amendment had passed? YUEN:It just wouldn€t take effect; and so in a way it doesn€t really matter which passes first. But just in a timeline of trying to move this along, and we had the application and we didn€t want to move it to -. We had a negative recommendation before we, while we had the General Pan Amendment pending, but before the actual decision had been made to forward it. We had workshops on the General Plan Amendment but there€s not a final decision to forward this on, so we had to go through that, and now we have forwarded it on. So the timeline on the General Plan -. The General Plan Interim Amendments may get acted upon at different 22EXHIBIT C timeframes. This is kind of what I expect, not so much from the Commission but at the Council. Some of them, I think, are going to be relatively easy. I think this one is not going to be that hard for the Council to approve. There are some that may be controversial. Because they€re interim amendments and they€re stand-alones, they€re not like the comprehensive review which is more of a package. So I wouldn€t have a problem with the Council acting separately on the various amendments. SIRACUSA:So we have no notion at this point which one of these things, the General Plan Amendment or this change of zone request, would come before the Council first? YUEN:Well, if you act on, it€s almost bound to get up to the Council before the General Plan Amendments do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Graham, I know you had a question earlier. Is itdirectedtotheDirectororMr.Tsukazaki? GRAHAM:ToMr.TsukazakifirstbutperhapstotheDirectoralso. ALAMEDA:Okay,goahead. GRAHAM:IwaskindoffollowingupinmythoughtsonCommissionerSalavea€s comments about, you know, what future intensification of development could take place. And it seems to me looking at that park area that you spoke of that you, like on Kekuanaoa, I also feel like it€s like a public amenity to have a green open space park area there and all. And so, you know, I feel like that would be an asset to the application to have that somehow set into what we€re doing. So I€m wondering, I would presume that the Planning Director can probably come up with an appropriate zoning designation where it could be used for the intention you have and not be turned into some commercial/industrial development in the future. So I€m wondering if he was able to do that, come up with a different zoning than the CG-20 you have here which would permit you to use it as a park, is that okay with you? TSUKAZAKI:Just a moment. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Well, I€m going to jump in before he answers. ALAMEDA:Sure. YUEN:Before you answer, let me jump in? TSUKAZAKI:Go ahead, please. YUEN:We€ve had this kind of discussion a lot. And because, you know, sometimes somebody does have say like a mortgage company, they€re asking for a CN zoning, there are a lot of different things that can be in the CN zoning. The site, the project itself does not look particularly offensive; but the potential ones do. All right? And so that has led the Commission at times to make very site specific conditions or recommend very site specific 23EXHIBIT C conditions. It is always tempting to do that. I, on this one, I would recommend against it; and I would say to the Commission if you€re not comfortable with rezoning this to some kind of, to just saying it€s a Commercial rezoning, don€t rezone it. If they didn€t have a particular proposal, all right, and it was Medium Density Urban and they just wanted CN zoning, I would favorably recommend it, based on this is the kind of site that this is within the town. It is on, as I€ve talked about it, a busy street, it€s a logical place for a Commercial zone. We would have site specific conditions like the sidewalk, like the access from the side; and we would recommend in favor. So rather than put a condition on that€s very site specific, I would not recommend it in this instance; and I would say let€s just go ahead with the Commercial zoning. I think that the reality of what€s going on here, I mean if I read their own minds for them, they don€t have good visibility from Kekuanaoa right now, which is something that a business wants, and that for them to have some relatively open site line from Kekuanaoa is in their interest. But I would not, you know, I would not recommend us putting on a highly site specific condition to try tolimitthemtohavingalandscapedareaonKekuanaoaStreetinthisrezoning. ALAMEDA:CommissionerGraham,follow-up? GRAHAM:Yeah,Ithinkwe€retalkingaboutthesamethingbutmaybewe€restarting from a little bit different place. I€m not talking about site specific condition. My understanding is that park part is one specific parcel. So without any conditions is there not a more appropriate zoning designation for that parcel that provides that kind of open space for it, and guarantees that it will remain in something akin to that in the future? No condition, just ask to change the application to a different rezoning designation for that specific parcel. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Open. GRAHAM:Okay. YUEN:Yeah, I mean, again I€m not recommending it. I don€t think that, I wouldn€t recommend that as a zone. But just to give you a technical answer, Open, an open landscaped area can be done in an Open zone; and very little else, but, yes, you can do it in an Open zone. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Then I guess I could pass that on to Mr. Tsukazaki since he has got all this background. ALAMEDA:Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI:Yes. Again, what the applicant proposed there was to have an aesthetic frontage to its project, okay, and to incorporate landscaping, to continue the landscaping that they have which is aesthetically pleasing in the frontage of the existing operation and to continue the landscaping theme around to Kekuanaoa. I also said and our application does say that it€s envisioned as a possible, you know, rest area for people who are buying products within the 24EXHIBIT C operation to be able to have some place to go to just sit because there€s no resting area, no seating, no restaurant, no coffee shop, nothing. And it€s not to have a coffee shop operation up there, it€s toprovide some shelter in a very well landscaped environment. So that€s what€s envisioned; and I just spoke with Mr. Ikawa and he said that€s all that€s intended there. The Commerical use, if that concept that we€re proposing was to be implemented, I don€t know if from Mr. Yuen€s standpoint we€d be able to have, you know, customers of the existing retail facility be using that area if it were just an Open area. I don€t know, you know, at that point there looks to be some relationship between that area and the operation, the business operation that€s going on. So, in a way, it€s kind of an accessory use. But again, you know, there€s no intention to do that. And beyond that, you know, again, there€s no intention to be removing those dwellings in the near future. The first step is to address the area of most need, and then to transition into that landscaping when they can afford to do so. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM:Well, I think I hear you clearly on all that. If the timing is a problem wheremakingitOpennowhassomekindofdifficultywiththeexistingdwellingsthencertainly this particular parcel could be rezoned at a later date if there€s nothing you plan to do in the near future. And as far as you€re concerned about it being an accessory use where folks who are there in your main facility are coming over to drink coffee and all, certainly as you and I know the resort areas in South Kohala that were planned with their golf courses and their open areas and all, they sure zoned them open here and there; and that€s certainly intended for the hotel guests and others to be able to use those facilities. So I don€t think there€s any legal problem doing that. ALAMEDA:You€re asking for a follow-up, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:If he wishes, that€s all. ALAMEDA:Okay? TSUKAZAKI:I really don€t have any response to that. ALAMEDA:All right. Very well, I know Commissioner Iwashita wanted to voice something, or did it pass? IWASHITA:Oh -. ALAMEDA:How about Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. IWASHITA:Oh, I€m sorry. Can I -? ALAMEDA:Go head. 25EXHIBIT C IWASHITA:I wanted to, thank you. Sorry for being misunderstood. Can I make my comments from the podium? ALAMEDA:Sure, you may approach the podium. IWASHITA:Thank you. The reason I wanted to come up here was to use the map of the House Lots and how, I guess, view -. Thank you, Norman, what is this? HAYASHI:It€s a pointer. IWASHITA:Oh, for the record. You know, we all agree that House Lots is an area in transition. I think that term applies to this whole island right now. But, specifically, and you all knowmyviewsabouthowthiswholeareaisbeingdealtwith.AndwhatI,andIdon€tespouse to have any kind of vision, you know, for really how this ought to turn out. But when comments are made or suggestions are made that Kekuanaoa Street is a busy street and we need to deal with it, and I think there€s sort of an assumption that it€s just going to get wider and we€ll put street lights and all that kind of thing in the future, and so commercial development should go around it -. I really think that those kinds of issues should be dealt with in the Community Development Plan. And that, you know, the consideration about, Council has talked about it, we€ve talked about it, how this community -. I mean, this is a large enough area where with the Medium Density zoning that, or General Plan designation, that, you know, the community can be developed in a way where people can walk, hopefully, to their schools and there would be commercial development that will allow the people to live in the area and work in the area, as one fortunate employee of Mr. Ikawa can do now, you know. And that really should be the perspective in terms of how this area is developed. Big Island Candies is a very successful company and it€s really great; and, you know, the expansion of it is something that I hope they can do and make more money and pay more taxes to our government. Our job as Commissioners on the Planning Commission, I think, is really the bigger picture; and that, you know, this map represents what we have today, in terms of how Kekuanaoa Street is going to be developed, how the businesses, assuming that that€s what€s going to happen along the street, are going to be there, whether people are going to be able to walk there, whether there€s going to be on-street parking, sort of maybe a thought that doesn€t enter in most people€s mind for a street like this. But, to, to me, that€s not outside the realm of what€s possible in this area. And we have in the future a vision or, you know, that Kekuanaoa becomes a pedestrian friendly kind of road with medians, on-street parking, businesses along both sides of it where people can walk from their apartments and townhouses, you know, to patronize those; and then they also have, you know, we have set public parking areas for people to come from outside, you know, to patronize those businesses. Then I really think that that€s a different vision, not vision, I said I don€t have one, I better not use that word, a different way in which this House Lots area can be developed and, you know, Big Island Candies, hopefully, go along with it, and grow as a business in doing so. What really concerns me about how we€re going about this right now is that basically the General Plan designation is improper for the zoning we€re considering; and we€re doing essentially the cart before the horse. You know, the zoning should be changed first, we ought to 26EXHIBIT C consider it with all the ramifications. The big picture, zoning is the big picture. If we say okay we can do this specific use and we approve this, right, then it€s like the zoning is almost a done- deal. Because if you don€t do it then you€re contradicting yourself, you know, and all of that is going to come up to us. But the considerations are not all the same. The condition I would put on this would be as long as the Community Development Plan, as amended, allows for this project, fine, do it, right, but do the Community Development Plan first. We have the legal authority to do that; it just needs to be done. And I understand that under present Department resources you really, you know, can€t do it. The Department can€t do it, but maybe there€s other ways to do it. And that is my comment. If the applicant wants to respond to it, I€d be happy to hear. ALAMEDA:All right, Mr. Tsukazaki, you€re free to respond, or you don€t need to respond. It€s up to you. TSUKAZAKI:IthinkIunderstandthepointbeingmade.And,youknow,without knowing whether the Community Development Plan will be amended, you know, in the near future, it€s really difficult for me to say anything. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. And it also sounds like little bit we€re going to kind of our discussion, too. So I wanted to ask if there€s any other questions for the applicants or Mr. Tsukazaki that we could ask them at this time before we ask him to be seated. We do have a testifier. Seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you. Will David Kimo Frankel please come forward. By the way, good middle name. I like that name. FRANKEL:Good morning. ALAMEDA:Good morning. Let me swear you in. Will you please raise your right hand. FRANKEL:All right. ALAMEDA:Okay. This is just protocol. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FRANKEL:Sure. ALAMEDA:All right. Could you please state your name and address for the record. FRANKEL:My name is David Frankel. I live on Laukapu Street; but that€s the Laukapu Street in Volcano, not the one down here. ALAMEDA:Okay. FRANKEL:I don€t really have any interest in this particular proposal, although my son would like to see as much Big Island Candy as possible. But I do want to point out something that I think that Ivan needs to look at, and based on comments on both what Chris and Norman made that I don€t think accurately reflect the law. And that is there is a Hawaii Supreme Court 27EXHIBIT C case from 1969 that€s called Dalton versus City and County of Honolulu, the citation is 51 Hawaii 400, in that case the Court emphasized the importance of long-range comprehensive planning. In that case the Honolulu Charter prohibited zoning changes unless the change conformed to the General Plan, just as Hawaii County Charter does. The Court held that this provision puts teeth into the requirement that the General Plan be long-range by providing a test for courts to use in reviewing zoning ordinances.‚ The Court went on to say To allow the City to amend the General Plan and then adopt the zoning ordinance contrary to the unamended General Plan is to allow the City to accomplish by two ordinances exactly what the Charter sought to prohibit.‚ In other words, if an applicant comes before you and wants to make a change to the General Plan and change to the zoning at the same time to conform, essentially conform the General Plan to the applicant€s desires, there is a strong, there€s a problem with that. And there€s another case where the Court talked about the importance of the County doing a very comprehensive review when it does these amendments, and that€s the Hall versus City and County, that€s 56 Hawaii 121. So I just want to let you know about that. Thanks. ALAMEDA:Okay. Very good, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it, Mr. Frankel.Iappreciateyourbringingyoursonaswell.It€sgoodtoseethenextgeneration. Well,weareindiscussiontime.CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:CouldIaskMr.Frankelaquestion? ALAMEDA:Mr. Frankel, will you please come back to the seat. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:From what I heard, from my initial understanding of what has transpired at this place and from what I€ve heard from Director Yuen before, the situation you€re talking about essentially making a General Plan Amendment along with a zoning change in order to accommodate a specific thing like this, that was already done in the past. And I feel like what the Planning Director is saying because of a slight modification, I don€t know how slight, but because of some modification in how the applicant wants to expand, conform his facility the Planning Director is willing to make similar modifications to the General Plan and the Zoning Code. So to me that€s not quite, it€s certainly not as heavy as an intrusion in the process as was initially done back in 1997 or €98. And I wondered if you have any comments on that with regard to the legal ramifications? FRANKEL:Well, it€s clear to me that this County has acted lawlessly in the past and has made changes and approved projects that are inconsistent with the County Code and State law. Regardless of that, it seems to me you need to have your attorney look your, your Corporation Counsel with whom I will have many disagreements, but you should have, in due diligence, you should have your Corp. Counsel look at this case and assess whether what is being proposed here is really any factually different from what happened in the Dalton case. That€s all I€m -. GRAHAM:All right. Thank you. 28EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Thank you. Hold on, Mr. Frankel, we may have other questions for you. Fellow Commissioners, seems like Mr. Frankel has some expertise in this area. You have any other questions for him while he€s here? Seeing none, you may be seated. Thanks again. Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA:Restatement of the facts in Dalton? FRANKEL:I don€t have it in front of me but I believe it was -, no, I can€t. I don€t have it in front of me. I€m going to confuse it with another case. IWASHITA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. All right, seeing none, you may be seated. Thanks again. I appreciate your time. Fellow Commissioners, now we are in the discussion phase. You could makeamotionandhaveadiscussion,orifyouneedalittlebitmoreclarificationaswell-. SIRACUSA:Canwehaveafive-minuterecess? ALAMEDA:Wait,wait,holdon.Commissioner,Imean,Mr.Hayashi. HAYASHI:Itwasbroughttomyattentionthatregardingthefutureroadwidening strip, Kekuanaoa has a right-of-way width of 40 feet and is proposed to be increased to a 60-foot right-of-way. So on that basis we€re also recommending that Condition E include a 10-foot wide future road widening strip along Kekuanaoa Street frontage. Just for the Commissioners€ information, the properties to the west of this section of Kekuanaoa Street there is already a 10-foot wide strip added to the existing right-of-way. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. Hearing that, there was a request for a 5-minute recess. I will grant that at this time and we can proceed in five minutes. RECESSEDThe meeting recessed at 12:03 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 12:10 a.m. ALAMEDA:Hawaii County Planning Commission now return to order. All right. A testifier has left but I did forget to ask Mr. Tsukazaki if he wanted to just respond to the testifier€s comments. I forgot to give you the opportunity. TSUKAZAKI:I€m aware of the cases that he mentioned. And I believe that unless an ordinance, you know, if the zoning ordinance is not effective because there€s no General Plan Amendment that has been adopted, I think that might be outside of that case. But in any event, if, you know, and when this matter gets to the County Council, you know, I€m sure they will weigh that issue. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you for your response. Also, Fellow Commissioners, just to letyouknow,wewillbelosingCommissionerSiracusaat2o€clockandCommissionerSalavea at 3 -. 29EXHIBIT C SIRACUSA:No, 1:30. ALAMEDA:Oh, 1:30. So, and also Commissioner Graham and 3:00€ish, so I€m fixing to just go ahead and push it through and suspend lunch. So if you guys don€t mind, if there isn€t any objections, I€d like to do that. Also, I€d like to just thank you for addressing me first prior to speaking. I was told it makes really good for the transcribing, for the minutes. Sometimes they don€t know who€s talking. So when I say Commissioner Graham or Commissioner Siracusa, it gives them a little break in the transcribing. So Sharon is happy with that. All right. Well, that brings us to a discussion. Any thoughts? Or would somebody would like to make a motion and then discussion -? SALAVEA:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Go ahead, Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:I move that we enter into the discussion mode regarding this issue, or this application ALAMEDA:Okay. Sure. Okay, Commissioner Graham, a little discussion? There€s no motion made yet so we€re still in the discussion phase. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I might say that my general feeling is I€m generally supportive of what they€re doing. But I€m concerned about a number of things. And probably the biggest concern is the timing concern of doing this before the General Plan comes about. And, I don€t know, I wish that, you know, some of the Commissioners like Commissioner Springer we haven€t heard from before if she had any comments on how she felt about processing a zoning code change which is contingent upon a later General Plan that would make it fit. It seems worrisome to me. We often process things together like, maybe in our Ouli applications down in South Kohala where we€ll have a State Land Use Amendment and Zoning Code at the same time. But they have a cart before the horse in this situation and it€s worrisome to me. So I invite other comments. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Springer, I heard your name, Would you like to comment on that? SPRINGER:I concur with what Commissioner Graham said. I too am in general favor with the application. I do have some concerns about the timing of it. But aside from those concerns I€m not disinclined from voting in favor of it. ALAMEDA:Thank you. And, again, this is a recommendation that we€re making to the County Council, so they€ll have the final say on this. But I suppose they do take our vote into the matter. Commissioner Siracusa, any thoughts? 30EXHIBIT C SIRACUSA:Well, yeah, very, very similar concerns, you know, and there are a few other concerns I have as well. I would really prefer, and I don€t know if this can be done, to see the whole thing go back to the drawing board and resurface again a while down the road when more of these issues are settled and dealt with. ALAMEDA:All right, Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:Sure. IWASHITA:Must be something to do with my background, but I really would want to have our Corp. Counsel brief us on the two decisions that was brought up, that were brought up by Mr. Frankel and, cause it sounds to me his recitation of the principles that are applicable mirrormygeneralconcernsabouttheprocessandalsomyoverallviewofhowandwhatthe Planning Commission is supposed to be doing in this process. And I for one definitely, I don€t want to come close to the line that apparently has been drawn in the Dalton case and the other case cited by Mr. Frankel. So assuming that both cases are still good law, then I would want to know that, and what the decisions hold, and some of the facts, and if the facts are similar in any way, you know, to the facts before us, and so what weight if any we should put on those cases. ALAMEDA:Point well taken. Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. Bearing this in mind, I€m wondering if instead of us working on a motion to either approve or deny the permit we should consider tabling to allow time for Corp. Counsel to come back to us with a legal opinion and possibly the applicant come back to us with some, you know, more, some proposals to address some of the concerns. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Director? YUEN:Yeah. Let me make a suggestion on the timing aspect of this because we get into another timeframe, which is the applicant€s ability to move this up to the Council. And what I would suggest, if the Commission is inclined to approve this on the merits of the rezoning, that the Commission send it up to the Council. We will definitely have Corp. Counsel give us a formal opinion as to whether this, or the zoning action should be held at Council until the General Plan Amendment is adopted. And if Corp. Counsel says that, then that€s what we follow. And the reason for this is that the application was submitted and I believe that we€re, the applicant has a right to send this up to the Council after 90 days. And that will run out before our next meeting, is that correct, before our next Hilo meeting, right? Is that correct, Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:Well, the application was forwarded to the Commission I believe the first week in January. So 90 days will take it to April. YUEN:When is our April meeting in Hilo? th HAYASHI:It€s on April 7. 31EXHIBIT C rd YUEN:And it was January 3 I think you said that it was in front of the Commission. Yeah. So, I mean, if the applicant wants to go and get it to Council, they can go with a negative recommendation. If we defer today, for example -. I mean that part is up to the applicant. I would rather have a recommendation from the Commission and send it up to the Council and have them deal with the legal issue. The Council does not have a timeframe when they get a zoning amendment. You know, they can hold it. And, again, if Corp. Counsel says, no, don€t pass this until the General Plan is passed then they should hold it. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? SIRACUSA:So are you then saying that the motion should be worded provisionally? YUEN:No. I think that the Commission should, again, you know, if the Commission is basically in support of the rezoning, you have to make that decision. But if you€rebasicallysupportingtherezoningandyou€reconcernedaboutthetiming,Iwouldsayjust pass it and send it to Council; and we will have Corp. Counsel look at this before Council has the hearings on it. And I have to assume that the Council will follow whatever Corp. Counsel€s recommendation is as far as timing of action on this. As a practical matter, it doesn€t matter, it shouldn€t matter that much to the applicant because the General Plan has to go through before the zoning can take effect anyway. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:You know, that€s what I€m saying is that, you€re saying that if we make a motion to approve then would we be saying in the motion that this approval is contingent upon the passage of the General Plan Amendment, or provided that Corp. Counsel finds this action legal, or something along those lines. YUEN:The condition already says the zoning is not effective until the General Plan is amended. We felt that that was enough to meet the requirement that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan. I€m certainly willing to have Corp. Counsel take a look at it and advise us as to whether that works. And if it doesn€t work, then Council should hold the rezoning until they act on the General Plan Amendment. ALAMEDA:Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just on the skeletal representation of the Holding and Dalton, the facts of this case which are, one, we have zoning, we have Medium Density General Plan designation which does not allow a General Commercial zoning within that area. On the face of that it€s clear we cannot approve this, neither can the Council. The question then raised by the condition being placed in this proposal that says, well, we€ll approve it subject to, basically, as a condition precedent the General Plan being amended so that the zoning can conform seems to walk right into the Holding as represented of the Dalton case. You are doing a zoning change not in conformance with zoning, and then you€re changing the zoning specifically to meet this zoning change, you€re changing the General Plan specifically to meet this zoning change. You know, and that€s why I for one cannot agree to go forward with this. And, I, you know, I would vote to deny it actually just based on that skeletal understanding of the Dalton case and how we€re supposed to proceed. You know, so my, what I would prefer is, I guess in 32EXHIBIT C this procedural posture, that the application be denied just based on what appears to be, clearly, you know, in conflict with the Dalton decision and the ruling in that case, or taking into consideration the fact of the condition precedent and that if there€s going to be a change to the General Plan, then let€s process that; and then if that€s approved then the application can be refilled. But that€s the way it€s supposed to be done, and to say that we can try and, you know, what we€re talking about is trying to figure out how to get away, and, you know -. I for one have contributed a lot to the profitability of Big Island Candies and I was sincere in saying earlier that, you know, I wish the company more and more success, even though that probably means I€m going to put on 10 pounds in the next couple of years if that€s the case. But in terms of what we have to do and the practices we have to follow and the procedures we need to take care of in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court decisions, you know, I really cannot support going down this road the way we€re going down; and we need to do it in the right way. ALAMEDA:All Right. Commissioner Salavea had this hand up; and then we€ll go on theleftside.Mr.Salavea. SALAVEA:Thankyou,Mr.Chair.Intermsofgettinginformationfromtheapplicant about the proposed expansion or the uses for the rezoning of the parcels and hearing what Director Yuen had on his vision of the area and how he saw development occurring there, I am satisfied on the face of the application that I have not any major opposition to the application itself. However, the issue raised by Mr. Frankel regarding the legality of the action that we€re taking, I wouldn€t feel comfortable passing, even provisionally passing, or putting forth a favorable recommendation to the County Council, only because I don€t think we have a strong enough or, we don€t have an opinion as of yet from Corp. Counsel. And until that issue is clarified for me I wouldn€t feel comfortable even provisionally putting forth a favorable recommendation. ALAMEDA:Commissioners, I€m kind of feeling the energy that the motion could go either way. If the motion goes to deny the recommendation made by the Department, just keep in mind that we would have to state some clear reasons for that. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:We€ll, in terms of expediting this, and we do want to move thing along today and we don€t have a motion on the floor yet and, of course, if somebody makes a motion at this point, no matter what the motion is, we can continue discussion. So just to, based on that I will make the motion that the rezoning be denied, that an unfavorable recommendation be passed up to the Council; and then let€s take it from there and see how this moves along. ALAMEDA:Let me check with Corp. Counsel. Will we need specific reasons for that, or could we start with it then and continue to the second and move forward? TORIGOE:Well, it would be preferable if there were specific reasons stated along the way. And along the way, of course, in discussion you can elaborate on those. But basically you want to make sure that the Council gets a record of the reasons why this is happening. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa? 33EXHIBIT C SIRACUSA:I can give some reasons. I can just say based on the concerns that have already been raised not only about the legality but about impacts to the community and -. ALAMEDA:Okay. There€s a motion on the floor to deny this recommendation. Is there a second? IWASHITA:Second. And can I offer a friendly amendment? ALAMEDA:Friendly amendment, okay, sure. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:And a part of the reasons include that the General Plan designation of Medium Density does not allow for -? SALAVEA:Wait until Sharon gets the stuff on record. Sorry. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Sorry, the tape is being changed by Sharon. I€m not sure if what CommissionerIwashitaissayingisgoingtogetonrecord.Ifit€snot-. ALAMEDA:Okay.Letmecheck.Sharon,canweproceed? NOMURA:Yes. IWASHITA:It€s okay? NOMURA:Yes. IWASHITA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:That the proposed zoning change does not conform to or is not allowed under the current General Plan designation of Medium Density, that in order to properly conform with our procedures in the normal course of what we should be doing that the General Plan should be first amended to properly process this. And after that is done, then this rezoning can be submitted. ALAMEDA:Okay. Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I will accept that friendly amendment. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Motion was made by Commissioner Siracusa, seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. There€s opportunity for discussion. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:It looks as though Mr. Torigoe has brought back perhaps the decision or the information regarding the cases cited by Mr. Frankel. I wonder if he has anything to share with us. 34EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you, Commissioner Springer. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I just went to my office and got a copy of the Dalton versus City and County of Honolulu case and I shared it with the Planning Director. Haven€t had a chance to review it yet, basically on its face it seems that it€s dependent on the specific provisions of the City and County Charter regarding how you do the amendment process. So we€d have to take a closer look, I think, at our process, you know, here under our Charter and the General Plan and zoning ordinances, or amended ordinances, and make that analysis. I don€t know if the Planning Director has any other comments at this point. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Yeah. What we threw out in Dalton is, and Hall, is not what we€re doing here.Allright?InDaltontheydidaGeneralPlanAmendmentthatwasforaspecificarealike what we would call an Interim General Plan Amendment, then they did the Rezoning Amendment. Then the validity of the General Plan Amendment was challenged on the grounds that it didn€t follow the proper procedure for a General Plan Amendment. Then the Court threw out the General Plan Amendment because of the improper procedure; and then following that, of course, the Court then throws out the Rezoning Amendment. So it, as a basic proposition, a rezoning has be consistent with the General Plan. Again, I was, maybe I€m too pragmatic now to be a lawyer any more. But the reason I say that is I failed to be, maybe I don€t look at these things as technically, but I look at it, I say, well, the rezoning doesn€t take effect until our General Plan has been passed, so you pass the General Plan the rezoning takes effect. But, so that€s the way I look at it. And again I think that, the specific point, we should have Corp. Counsel look at it before the Council takes up the amendment. But what specifically happened in Dalton is not what we€re doing. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita -? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham and Commissioner McCall. IWASHITA:Oh, sorry. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the recitation of the facts in Dalton. My residual concern is still that the General Plan does not conform to what€s being proposed. And knowing that the Department is inundated with lots of work and actually overworked, I€d say that for the record, I think that we need to have at least one, well, there should be some criteria in terms of accepting, you know, for processing these kinds of applications; and I don€t know if we need a different rule or whatever. But it seems to me if the proposed rezoning does not conform to the General Plan, there should be an administrative, here, takes your papers back, go get that General Plan amended, and then bring it back. Cause we€re not, you know, the Department has lots of other things to do, you know, to take care of, than to basically use its 35EXHIBIT C resources to process an application that does not conform to the General Plan and do the whole thing on the hopes that the General Plan will be amended. The other concern I have is that we€re really doing it backwards. What we€ve developed up to so far is basically saying let€s do this rezoning and then if we need to we€ll change the General Plan. On its face, that€s really, I understand the point that, you know, once you change the General Plan it€s not spot zoning. But I humbly disagree with that. That if you go around making zoning approval changes and then you go ahead and change the General Plan to conform to the zoning, the zoning change, that, as a matter of fact, is a spot zoning act. There€s no way to plug -. You know, you€ve dictated what the result you want and the long-term goals, long-range policies be damned, excuse my English. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Graham and then Commissioner McCall. GRAHAM:Yeah,I€mlargelyonthesamepageIthinkasCommissionerIwashita.To me it€s not just the legal issue of whether we€re legally violating something that may come back to bite us. It€s, I think as he said, maybe more clearly when he was over here talking, the General Plan decision, the General Plan process doesn€t involve the larger picture of what the community wants over there, all that kind of stuff. And the zoning we€re dealing with has to do with a lot of real specific things that we€ve been also talking about today. So by the time the General Plan gets heard and changed or not changed, there will be a lot more input for us to work on when we deal with the specifics. So there€s real value to having a General Plan heard first, also, in my mind. So, yeah, I€d like to go forward with the recommendation, with the motion by Commissioner Siracusa, and also, you know, make it clear that we€re not expressing our disapproval of the merits of the application but we would like to deal with the specific conditions and other issues which we think may be possibly worked out at the appropriate time, and don€t try to deal with all them right now, and make it contingent upon a General Plan revision which may not take place for five or seven years, for all we know, and in which case what we€re doing specifically may not be so relevant anyway. Thank you. ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you for sharing. Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:Yeah, I guess, I€m speaking in favor of the zoning, and the recommendation, and against the motion. My feelings are, number one, we are making a recommendation to the Council. As far as the merits of the legal case, I think that€s up to the Council. We are not making the decision. We are making a recommendation based on what has been presented to us under the public testimony, etc. I believe that there is enough, the fact that in our recommendation, in the terms of it, it says that it needs to wait until the County General Plan is amended. That seems sufficient to me; and I think our duty to the applicant is to make a decision. If our decision is, you know -. I don€t think we should defer any decision. If the decision of the Commission is to deny it, then so be it. But I think we need to make a decision on this. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well, motion was made. Discussion took place. Any other comments? Staff? 36EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a motion for an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. With that I€ll take the roll call. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. HAYASHI:CommissionerSalavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:CommissionerSpringer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:No. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. An unfavorable recommendation will be forwarded to the County Council. ALAMEDA:Thank you. HAYASHI:The Planning Director€s recommendation will also be forwarded to the County Council. TSUKAZAKI:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Tsukazaki and your Big Island Candies. The discussion ended at 12:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 37EXHIBIT C