Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-12 TWORLD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 12, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of WORLD BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. (SPP 04-005)was called to order at 4:29 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai€i, with Second Vice-Chairman Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones C. Kimo Alameda Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita Jeffrey McCall Allen Salavea Rene Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager PhyllisFujimoto,StaffPlanner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WORLD BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. (SPP 04-005) Continued hearing on the request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of a visitor center, parking lot and related improvements on approximately 154,010 square feet (3.53 acres) of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The site is part of the existing World Botanical Gardens situated on the north side of Leopolino Road between Highway 19 and the Old Mamalahoa Highway, Kamaee, North Hilo, Hawai€i, TMK: 3-1-1: portion of 15. SPRINGER:We now move to Agenda Item No. 2. The applicant is WORLD BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. This is SPP 04-005. This is a continued hearing on the request for a Special Permit to allow the construction of a visitor center, parking lot and related improvements on approximately 154,010 square feet (3.53 acres) of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The site is part of the existing World Botanical Gardens situated on the north side of Leopolino Road between Highway 19 and the Old Mamalahoa Highway, Kamaee, North Hilo, Hawai€i, TMK: 3-1-1: portion of 15. Mr. Hayashi, can you give us the background, please. HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. Going to the map on the board, first of all, the overall location map, the subject property is indicated by this orange dot. It is situated on the mauka side of the Hawaii Belt Highway or Highway 19. This would be going towards the Hilo direction, and this would be in the Hamakua direction. As a matter of orientation, this would be 1EXHIBIT C Hakalau, and Hakalau village located to the southeast. Besides the Hawaii Belt Highway, I just wanted to let the Commissioners know that there is the old Mamalahoa Highway situated on the mauka side abutting the subject property. Leopolino Road which accesses off of the Hawaii Belt Highway is situated in this orientation. And if I may go to the overall site map, excuse me, the site map submitted by the applicant, again, this would be the Hawaii Belt Highway going towards Hamakua, and this would be in the Hilo direction. Leopolino Road provides access to the subject property. Currently, the access would be from Leopolino Road to the Old Mamalahoa Highway; and there is an existing shack at this location where people would check in before entering the existing gardens. The applicant intends to construct a two-story 7,000 square foot visitors center at this particular location, with an area set aside for 55 parking stalls. Once the visitors center is constructed, then access to the property would be from the Hawaii Belt Highway to Leopolino Road, and coming through Palm Avenue which would be 30 feet wide; and this used to be an old cane haul road. . The current daily visitor count is approximately 80 visitors. In the short-term they expect to have150visitors,andlong-termwouldbeapproximately1200visitorsperday.Theyanticipate at that time to have five tour buses coming on site with a capacity of 50 visitors each. So you can expect from the tour busses approximately 250 visitors per day. The Planning Director had recommended approval of this particular application when the th application was first submitted back on June 4 to the Planning Commission, June 4, 2004 which was the first public hearing. However the public hearing was not actually held since he applicant nd had requested a continuance. The subsequent meeting was July 2, that was a public hearing. At that time there was public testimony. And we did hear from the applicant as well as some of the surrounding property owners; and some of the property owners are situated at this particular location which is makai of the Hawaii Belt Highway. There are some lots along this section of the highway. The Planning Commission at that time on July 2, 2004 deferred action on the application. They requested that the applicants submit a TIAR before proceeding with the final decision. The applicant then submitted its traffic impact analysis report on January 30, 2005, at which time the TIARwassubmittedtoboththeDepartmentofTransportationaswellastheDepartmentof Public Works. The County Department of Public Works did submit its response on the TIAR andbasicallystatedthatbecausetheaccessfromLeopolinoRoadwouldbefromtheState Highway, that they would defer comments to the State Department of Transportation. Unfortunately,tothisdate,wehavenotreceivedanycommentsfromtheStateDepartmentof th Transportation regarding the TIAR. On April 12 , we did sent another letter to the applicants representative asking that they look at traffic safety issues as part of the TIAR and, basically, th these would be thesightdistance issues as well as the turning movement. On May 10, I believe,theapplicantdidsubmittheirsightdistancestudy,whichallofyouhaveacopyof. Today, we did receive a letter from two individuals. One is from Brent Gallagher stating their oppositiontothisparticularrequest.WealsoreceivedaletterfromJeffandWendyHaunwho also requested the Commission deny this particular request; and they will be presenting their testimonytoyou.Mr.andMrs.Haunhavebeenactivelyparticipatinginthehearingsprevious to this. 2EXHIBIT C The Planning Director has, as a result of comments made bysome of the Commissioners at the July 2, 2004 hearing -. Some concerns were expressed by some of the Commissioners relative to the findings that were in the staffs recommendation at that time, so we did make some adjustments to those recommendations; and you do now have a copy of the revised Planning Departments recommendation and proposed conditions. As far as proposed conditions, basically Condition No. 5, the initial Condition 5 indicated that a traffic impact report shall be submitted. Since the traffic impact report was submitted, we had deleted that portion, and indicated that any improvements that are required subsequent to this hearing by the Department of Transportation, that the applicant would be required to construct those improvements. And should, at some point in time, a revised TIAR be submitted, then the applicant will be so notified by the Planning Director. Are there any questions at this time? SPRINGER:Commissioners? SIRACUSA:Yes. WATANABE:Yes. SPRINGER:CommissionerSiracusa,thenWatanabe. SIRACUSA:Yes.Youwerementioningthetestimonythathadlettersthathadbeen received already. And something was passed out to us, hand-written by Cory Harden, and you didnt mention that. So -. HAYASHI:Yes. I believe -. SIRACUSA:So the record should reflectthat. HAYASHI:There was a hand-written note that was submitted, or testimony that was submitted from that individual. However, I dont have a copy with me; but yes, they are being made a part of the record. SPRINGER:Thank you, both. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:My question, Mr. Hayashi, is regarding the distance from the Hawaii Belt Road, the Highway, on Leopolino Road. How far is that to the proposed entrance? HAYASHI:The scale of this map is 1 inch equals 60. So I would assume 60, 120, 240, it will be about 500 feet from the -. WATANABE:So not that far then? HAYASHI:Yes. WATANABE:The reason I brought that up is, I guess, most of the letters were addressing traffic mitigating issues, specifically on Leopolino Road. And Im wondering if you made that new entrance a condition, you know, at an earlier stage, ifthat would help with the people above. 3EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Well, I cant speak for those that arestating their concerns relative to the traffic. Perhaps they can better state their position. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions for the staff? ALAMEDA:Madam Chair, just on the lines of Commissioner Watanabe -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi, and maybe you can defer this to the applicant, but just to refresh for some of our new Commissioners, maybe highlight the top issues that were brought up as concerns, and just so we can get our minds back to this. HAYASHI:I think the main concern was traffic; and because this particular area is at a curve right here, and so there were some concerns relative to sight distance. So this is why we asked when, after the TIAR was submitted we noticed that there were no reference to the sight distance in some of those turning lane movements; therefore, we requested the applicant to addresstheseconcerns. ALAMEDA:Thankyou. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any further questions of staff? There has been a request that we take a five-minute break at this time; and then when we come back, well hear from the applicant and any members of the public that are here to testify. Five-minute recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 4:45 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 4:50 p.m. SPRINGER:Members, staff, audience, Id like to call this meeting of the Hawai€i County Planning Commission back into order. And if we can begin with, Mr. Hayashi, you have some more discussion for us. HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just approached by Mr. Alderson, I believe, that indicated to me that he had submitted a communication to our Department about a monthago.Idontseemtohaveitinourfile.Buthehadindicatedthathehadsubmittedaletter in support of the petition. SPRINGER:May we have that name again, please. ALDERSON:Richard Alderson. HAYASHI:Richard Alderson. Also, Madam Chair and Commissioners, regarding Condition5,wewouldliketofurtherrecommendachangetoConditionNo.5.Thatsinthe revised recommendation that was submitted to you. And the wording wed like to have for Condition5wouldreadasfollows,‚Theapplicantshallconstructanyimprovementstothe 4EXHIBIT C Highway 19 and Leopolino Road intersection requiredby the Department of Transportation or Planning Director, including improvements necessary to improve the sight distance.ƒ And it will continue on, ‚The Planning Director may require the applicant to submit,ƒ etc. That concludes the staffs presentation. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Hayashi? Mr. Hayashi, I have a question regarding Condition No. 10 where you make mention of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wild Life. Is that taking into consideration their correspondence, which Ive lost my place -. HAYASHI:That is correct. There is a letter from the Division of Forestry and Wild Life, a memorandum dated March 10, 2004. SPRINGER:And then this discusses invasive species? HAYASHI:Correct. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Hayashi? IWASHITA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Does the Old Mamalahoa Highway exit onto Highway, the Belt Road closer towards Hakalau than Leopolino Road? HAYASHI:The road exits, Im not too sure on this side, that is the Hakalau side. I didnt traverse that section there. But it does exit off of Kauniho Road. And this is, I believe, where that orchid grower has their orchid farm, which is the -. IWASHITA:Thats at the end of that Umauma stretch? HAYASHI:Yes, yes. IWASHITA:Or the beginning, depends which side, okay. HAYASHI:I think Kamela Orchids, I think thats the name of that Orchid Farm. And this is the access that the Police Department indicated that they would not like to see the primary access from this particular road, but they would like to have it seen from Leopolino Road. IWASHITA:I have a question about Leopolino Road. In the Public Works letter it indicates title to Leopolino Road is uncertain. HAYASHI:Its one of those roads that we call as roads in limbo. And its uncertain as to whether its a state or county, well, Im not too sure as to what exactly it is, whether it is a State or County road. 5EXHIBIT C IWASHITA:So am I to understand that he County doesnt claimtitle to this road? HAYASHI:Maybe the Director can better respond to that. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:Im not sure. I believe its a County road, simply by the fact that it provides a connection from the old County road to the State Highway. Its definitely not a State Highway. The applicant says its a County road. The County Public Workss letter says its not currently maintained by the County and that ownership is uncertain. Unless its included in somebodys title as a private road, then its either State or County; and its not State so it almost has to be County. In answer to your other question on access on the Old Highway coming out to the main Highway closertoHakalau,theanswerisno.Themapshowsthatbutthatconnectiondoesntactually exist on the County -. IWASHITA:So thats just paper? YUEN:Thats just paper, yes. IWASHITA:And the County owns that paper, that part of the paper road? YUEN:The County, that would be a paper County road, yes. IWASHITA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner. Are there any more questions for Mr. Hayashi? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. Considering that Hakalau Forest National Wild Life, National Forest is mauka of the property and that on-shore winds have the potential to disperse seeds mauka, and because of the fact that we had so much trouble at Onomea, especially regarding the dispersal of miconia seeds all over the Hamakua coast but elsewhere on the island as well, Im wondering why there was or if, Im wondering if there were letters sent to the National Wild Life Reserve at Hakalau and to the Ag Department, especially their Big Island Invasive Species Committee, regarding input from them on this project; and if not, why not. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:Both agencies were not submitted the application for comment. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa, follow up? SIRACUSA:Yes, I feel uncomfortable about that. I feel that the input from those two agencies would be extremely germane to this decision, even though were not talking specifically about them increasing their plant collection in this. But it still is a matter of grave concern to me. 6EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Commissioner, sorry, Mr. Hayashi. With Commissioner Siracusas th comments in mind, looking at that March 10 memo where theres a recommendation that the applicant follow the weed risk assessment contained at the following website, is that part of what your discussion is on Condition No. 10? HAYASHI:That is the intent of Condition No. 10. SPRINGER:€Cause we dont often see the DLNRDivision of Forestry and Wild Life in these -. HAYASHI:Thats correct. Our normal condition would be to comply with all applicable State, County and Federal requirements. But in this particular case, we wanted to expand it a little more. SPRINGER:And with some specificity to that. HAYASHI:Yes. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa, follow up? SIRACUSA:The Weed Risk Assessment is a procedure whereby plants that have the potential to be invasive here in Hawai€i are studied in relation to various factors that could make, you know, for example, how old the plant is before it starts creating seeds, its dispersal mechanisms,andallofthat.Butitisnotrequiredbylaw,bytheDLNR,orevenbytheAg Department. It is only recommended. So it would not then come under an applicable rule, regulation or requirement although it is definitely a really important guideline that has been handed out recently to as many local nurseries as possible to spread the word. So I would like to see something maybe a little more specific because its not only a rule, regulation or requirement. Maybe include, you know, follow the Weed Risk Assessment in determining new plants to bring into the State. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Mr. Director, do you have any comments or recommendations? YUEN:I think thats a good suggestion. Its not actually a requirement. We could have a condition that says that they shall go through the Weed Risk Assessment guidelines in selecting their plants to introduce. SPRINGER:Would that be a new condition or an addition to No. 10? YUEN:You could make it a new condition. SPRINGER:So well get back to that in -. SIRACUSA:Thank you. I would like to see that happen. 7EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:I have a question on the application, actually. From what I understand, its to allow, request them to allow construction of a visitors center, parking lot and related improvements. But I dont see anything that includes bringing in plants from different places and all. And so do we take that into consideration or, you know, to me its like a tangential, we just went tangential. So any thoughts on that, Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Mr. Director. If we can have the Director respond first. YUEN:Its true that you can plant anything you want without a special permit and you can have a botanical garden without a special permit. However, we do have an application forrelatedfacilities;andtotheextentthatwecanencouragethemtohavearesponsibleattitude towards the kinds of plants that they introduce, I think we ought to do that. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Thank you, Director Yuen. And I dont believe it is tangential because increasing the inventory or the, you know, the scope of the plants that they want to show at the garden could be considered part of what theyre asking for. Although theyre not specific, but they left that part a little vague. So I just wanted to make sure that its covered. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, any more questions of the staff before we move into public testimony and invite the applicants to come forward? At this time Id like to invite the applicants or their representative to come forward, please. Ill swear you three in together. Could you all raise your right hands, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai€i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. Will you all be giving testimony? If so, moving from your left to right, could we please just have you give your names and addresses into the record. S. ERICKSON:Good afternoon. Im Sherrill Erickson. Im the attorney for the applicant and my address is PO Box 307, Hakalau, HI 96710. SPRINGER:Thank you, Maam. N. ERICKSON:I am Neil Erickson, Sherrills husband, also PO Box 307, Hakalau or 321-461 Laupalua Road, Umauma. And, Lanny -. 8EXHIBIT C NEELY:And Im Lanny Neely, the current director ofthe World Botanical Gardens, and I live here in Hilo at 254 Kaiulani Street. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Did you receive the Planning Departments Background Report and Recommendation? N. ERICKSON:Yes, we did. SPRINGER:Do you have any comments to make on that? N. ERICKSON:No. I just want to reiterate something that Chris just now said, is that this is an existing botanical. It has been in existence since 1995. Were here because we want to do the right thing. We have been seeing visitors and we understand were allowed to do that, and continue to do that without any of these conditions. However, we want to create a better experienceforvisitors.Wewanttocreatesomething,abuildingthathasaHawaiianaflavor.We want to be able to provide them restrooms and a safe place to park, handicap accessibility, and all the other things that I think make a visitors center attractive to Hawai€i. The only reason were here is because we want to expand the kind of things that the garden can provide. In other words, if we want to sell a hat, or a t-shirt, or a book, then we need to have a special permit. So I appreciate your patience and tolerance, I thought, everything Ive heard today, and pardon our five oclock shadows, right? SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Do your colleagues have any testimony to make at this time? S. ERICKSON:Thank you. I really dont want to go over the criteria, the legal criteria thats in our application. I just want to make one small point regarding the visitors center, and I think the point has been made that were an existing botanical garden thats allowed. And what were trying to do is really a very small change from what, I believe, is allowed or would be allowed as an accessory building that would support our permitted use. And the reason were here is just because we want to sell a few things to make money to help keep the garden running, and pull the weeds, and kept it maintained. SPRINGER:Thank you. Maam, youve heard a discussion regarding the March 10, 2004 memo from the Division of Forestry and Wild Life and some of the suggested language for a new condition. Do you have any comment to us on that? N. ERICKSON:I think Lanny is, can answer that. S. ERICKSON:Yeah, Lanny, to my right, is the Director. He has got 22 years experience as a professor of horticulture, so Im going to defer to him on that one. SPRINGER:Okay, thank you, Maam. Mr. Neel. NEEL:With your permission, Id like to read these prepared remarks to kind of make it more concise, save a little time. 9EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Okay, please proceed. NEELY:Thank you. Aloha and thank you for yourtime. Id like to give you a brief history of the Gardens, and how I came to be here from Wisconsin, and tell you about myself and my vision for the Gardens. The World Botanical Gardens was founded by Dr. Walter Wagner 10 years ago on land previously farmed in sugar cane by C. Brewer & Co. The combination of the rich soil, and the beautiful Umauma Falls, and the proximity of the site to a well-traveled road made the site an excellent choice for a botanical garden. Dr. Wagner provided the vision and the labor and marshaled the resources to plan, organize and plant the gardens as they exist today. Without his efforts, there would be no garden there today. Itcostsalotofmoneytodevelopanenterprisesuchasabotanicalgarden,andittakesalong time for the plants to begin to mature to the point where people can begin to really appreciate how such plant appear in their native habitats. Initially, the Garden was financed by a few investors that were interested in Walters plans. As more and more tourists visited the Gardens, share s of the Gardens were sold to interested people, until the point where now we have a few more than 500 individual investors who each own a few shares of the Gardens, these are like mom and pop investors. They are very interested in the Gardens and theyve invested on a personal level, really. Many of these people come to Hawai€i each year to see their investment. They are all hopeful of seeing a financial return on their investment, but they enjoy the beauty they see as they watch the Gardens grow. I myself bought four shares of stock back in 1998 for $3,000 each. After that, we bought a time share in Waikoloa Village so we could come regularly to Hawai€i. Others have done the same. The gardens consist of the original 27-acre portion, which is the portion that you have been looking at on the map, and this is located along and mauka to Highway 19. Theres an additional 165 acre portion mauka to the 27-acre portion, above which is the forest that you referred to, Commissioner Siracusa. The Gardens also leases an 80-acre section of land on which is located the viewpoint to (as well as) the Umauma Falls, this is leased from Doc Buyers. Visitors to the Gardens arrive primarily by rental car and purchase a ticket giving them access to the Falls viewpoint, and a quarter mile walk along a beautiful stream under tall trees (mostly African Tulip trees) which is a pestiferous weed -- which is what we call the ‚Rain Forest Walkƒ -- and then a walking tour through about 5 acres of the 27-acre portion that has been intensively planted and landscaped with several thousand species of interesting and beautiful plants. Visitors also receive complimentary fruit and a fruit juice drink. Every so often I will walk along the walkway with a few of the visitors and point out and name plants of interest, much to their delight. On a typical day, we may have anywhere from 80 to 100 visitors arriving in about 45 cars throughout the day. In the ten months that I have been there, visitor count has slowly but steadily increased from about 75 to 80 per day. I would like to tell you a little about myself now and how I came to be here from Wisconsin. I was raised in Fresno, California, and majored in Ornamental Horticulture in Fresno State College 10EXHIBIT C from 1961-1966. I then went to graduate school at UC-Davis, and received a MS and a PhD in Botany, and graduated from there in 1971. I became very familiar with sub-tropical horticulture and agricultural practices as I grew up in California. And I learned at least a thousand different ornamental plants in California. Upon graduation from UC-Davis, I accepted a position with the University of Florida and went to work at the Ft. Lauderdale agricultural research center. There I worked with ornamental tropical plans that are typically grown in South Florida by nurserymen and used in landscapes and plant interiorscapes. I worked for the University of Florida for 7 years and I became familiar with several thousand other tropical species of plants, and with tropical horticultural practices. And here is very important information: During that time, I authored a research paper, along with Dr. Albert Will from the community college on the dangers of invasive plant species in Flordia. Because, one of the goals of my research was to introduce new plant species to South Florida nurseries via the University of Florida plant introduction system, and get these into the landscape industry.Anditwasveryimportanttobecarefultointroduceplantslesstheyspreadandcrowd out native plant species. We found such a plant that would endanger the environment that was brought in by Mr., Dr. Will from Australia; and we determined that it was an invasive species; and we took steps to destroy it; and we wrote an article about that. This was a Referee Journal and it had national circulation. So I am aware of the dangers; and I know of the many, many weedy pestiferous plants that plague Hawai€i and threaten the existence of the native plant environment, and are very sensitive to that issue. After 7 years with the University of Florida, I went to work for a commercial tropical foliage plant nursery and set up a 5,000 square foot plant tissue culture laboratory, a two-acre propagation greenhouse complex, and 40 acres of shade cloth. I also planted a 20-acre field nursery. After almost 4 years of non-stop work, I decided to look for a slower-paced job in an academic setting and found a teaching position at the University of Wisconsin in River Falls, that is just to the east of that Mall of America. Most of you might be familiar with that Minneapolis, St. Paul area. SPRINGER:Mr. Neely, can you address the application, which is to construct a visitors center parking lot and related improvements? NEELY:Okay. My vision for the Garden: First and foremost, I want to see the Gardens as a place where people can learn about and enjoy the beauty of plants in a setting here in Hawai€i. As a former educator, I am very much interested in increasing the awareness and knowledge of plants in people of all ages and walks of life. In order to be of the most service to most people, we need to increase the quality and size of the facilities we have at the Gardens, and we also want to be able to offer our visitors the opportunity to purchase items that will enhance their visit to and their memories of the Gardens and of Hawai€i. We presently have a very small (200 square foot or less) temporary wooden greeting center, which has been in place for 10 years, along with two porta-potties that are serviced twice a week. We want to construct permanent restroom facilities for our visitors, many of whom travel the distance from Kona, on the way to see the Volcano. They are grateful to be able to get out and stretch and to see the beauty of the Gardens, and they are often looking for a snack. We need to have an office to replace the rented office in Downtown Hilo. We need to have a ticket sales 11EXHIBIT C area and a small store for our visitors. We need to have a small snack bar and beverage center. We need to have a classroom facility where we can offer educational sessions to our visitors as well as to local residents on topics of interest to them. Of course we will also need to provide nearby parking for our visitors, and we need to pave the avenue of palms that leads to the site of the planned visitors center. We have a 50-acre ‚Hawaiian Sectionƒ in the Gardens that is dedicated to growing native Hawaiian species. I have been working with a French College student on coming over here for a 6-week internship this summer, and this is going to happen „ actually, hes coming over to begin working on native Hawaiian plant conservation in the Gardens. We also have individuals who have volunteered to give their time to come out and talk about Hawaiian culture and plants of Hawai€i in that section once we get it going. Ive also spoken with people that, faculty and staff at the University, as well as the Chancellor on cooperativeworkwiththemandsharingfacilitiesandallowingstudentstoworkonprojects,as well as internships at the Garden. I would like to make the observation that a conventional farm has operations facilities, barns, shops, storage buildings, as part of its business. I believe that most people would agree that a botanical garden is an agricultural enterprise. Botanical gardens are, in most cases, established to educate people about plants and to provide opportunity for people to enjoy plants. Therefore, it is only logical that a botanical garden should have facilities that enable people to get the most out of their visit. Facilities like clean restrooms, a place to purchase mementos of their visit and/or snacks, and a place where they can obtain information about plants and gardens. So, in reality, were not really seeking to use the land in a way that is incompatible with its agricultural zoning, given that a botanical garden is a people-oriented business operation and its to provide services that most people expect. And I think Ill conclude there. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant and their colleagues? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Well, I think the question to the applicant was regarding the weed reference or screening process. Im not a plant person so -. SIRACUSA:Its a process, excuse me. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa, can you clarify? SIRACUSA:Yeah. Its a system that was developed in, I cant remember if it was Australia or New Zealand called the Weed Risk Assessment; and there is a whole list of questions that you ask about a given plant and its reproduction and its the extent, elevations that it will grow at, and things like that. And each question is weighted so you give so many points for yes or so many points for no; and at the end you tally them all up, and thatll give you a pretty good indication whether that plant has the potential to become an invasive problem here in Hawai€i. And if it is, then you say no thanks. There are lots of other plants in the world; and I get the impression from what our testifier just said that he is fully aware of that. And since you 12EXHIBIT C are working on a Hawaiian section, a 50-acre native, I assume that youre very aware of the dangers to our, you know, native plants. I wasnt aware before that you, anyone at the Garden was. And having had some negative experience with other botanical gardens, I was naturally concerned. But thank you for clearing that up. And -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Salavea, does that address your concern? SALAVEA:Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. SPRINGER:Youre welcome. Any other members of the Commission? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I have a question for either one of you. You know, as you know there havebeensomelettersrecommendingagainstapproval;andsomeofthedissentionisbecauseof the traffic that may be increasing to the road. And from Mr. Hayashis description, it seems that new entrance will be constructed later on in this process. Would you all have any objections to creating it sooner since then the traffic to your facility would be only like 500 feet, yeah, from the highway? N. ERICKSON:I might address that. We intend to improve Palm Avenue so that it is, you know, a hard surface, and the right-of-way down to the highway. The question, I think, that has been at the Directors mind is the sight distance turning on and off of the Highway. And right now theres foliage, vertical and horizontal curves that restrict sight distance; and so some of those issues weve brought engineers from Oahu and locally to discuss if you have specific questions or concerns. WATANABE:Yeah, I understand there are two issues as far as traffic is concerned. Its sight distance being on the Hawaii Belt Road, right -. N. ERICKSON:Yeah, but off of Leopolino Road is -. WATANABE:But, well, let me put it this way. As far as Palm Highway, youre going to improve that but its not going to be for traffic -? N. ERICKSON:Oh, it will indeed. In fact that will be the ingress and egress to this project, and not onto Mamalahoa Highway, directly off of Palm Avenue onto Leopolino Road, thats correct. WATANABE:But that is not planned to be done until -. N. ERICKSON:No, it is. Thats part of this project. WATANABE:But not until a later date? N. ERICKSON:No, no, thats one of the first things were going to do, and that is -. 13EXHIBIT C WATANABE:Oh, that is the first thing youre going to do. N. ERICKSON:Yeah, that is part of this whole project, the parking and the access to the road, yes. WATANABE:Oh, I understood it to be -. N. ERICKSON:So, yeah, the things down the line are triggered by the number of vehicles expected and improvements to the highway intersection. So, you know, if the visitor count should rise, there are thresholds that the State had dictated; and we brought people to describe what those things might be. WATANABE:Oh, okay. Thank you. SPRINGER:Yourewelcome.Commissioners,anyfurtherquestionsforthe applicants? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Regarding the traffic improvements, I know we received this from Ms. Erickson about the, Im not sure if its a, I guess, my question is Im not sure what this is, it refers to a study done by Yen Wen Fang as the principal of Engineering Partners. Id just like to know what are the improvements that are going to be made. N. ERICKSON:The information we provided was simply informational purpose, all right. And to make improvements, I think, would be at your discretion. And Chris has indicated that certain improvements may be required when it becomes an issue; and I think traffic count is the issue. Right? You know, just like all the other applicants today, this is a very emotional topic for the neighbors, for and against; and certainly the issue of traffic and use, special permits, are all relevant here. And I dont know how to address them on a broader sense; but certainly were going to do what we need to and have to make it work in a proper way. SALAVEA:All right, thank you. Mr. Director, so the improvements havent been, I guess, recognized yet or -? YUEN:The biggest issue for me IS the lack of sight distance at the intersection of Leopolino Road and Highway 19, the main highway access to the property. Particularly if you, as somebody goes out of Leopolino Road onto Highway 19, if you look off to the left theres a quite limited sight distance. So we had asked that they actually quantify that. And thats what their engineering study did. Theres about 450 to 500 feet that you can see a car approaching from the left on the main highway. Thats less than standard engineer would call for in that situation. Now it is an existing intersection; but we would be approving, if we approve this, were approving a special permit with the idea that it becomes a visitor attraction to the area. As far as what specifically we would require, at this point because we dont have anything from the Department of Transportation, we dont have a specific condition. I would think that we would, and this is something where then the applicant has also got to look at what is feasible in the area, what is limiting the sight distance. I mean, it may be a matter of cutting back the embankment, keeping vegetation down, it may also involve construction of turning lanes or something like that on the highway. But, at this point, were leaving it an open-ended condition that says that 14EXHIBIT C theyve just go, if this permit is granted, then they have to make improvements that are required by the DOT or by myself. But thats what thats all about. The entrance to the property that they show on the site plan, those are the entrances from the small roads. Their plan is to continue using the same main entrance to Highway 19; and thats where there is a safety issue. SALAVEA:Okay, all right. Thank you,Mr. Director. ALAMEDA:Madam Chair, I have a question. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:What triggers a traffic count and who follows up on ensuring the count? SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Well, we get a report from them, but this is something that I would want to seeaddressedwiththeconstructionofthefacility,thequestionofsightdistancefortheon- coming traffic. SPRINGER:And, Mr. Yuen, the recommended amendmentsto Condition 5 that Mr. Hayashi read for us, that covers these concerns that you have lacking DOT correspondence? YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I guess, I needed some clarification €cause the graphic site plan was, whats encompassed within the blue, is that the entire 26 plus acres? Is that supposed to represent that? N. ERICKSON:No, thats not. Thats a portion of the properties that are owned, and were only improving the small portionof that lot itself, so thats intended to show only the improved areas within the blue area. I believe thats approximately 15 acres right there. Theres adjacent properties, and properties across the street. IWASHITA:No, let me, let me try clarify my question. Im looking at the tax map or a reproduction, a reduced reproduction of the tax map, Exhibit 9; and that shows Parcel 15 as, its hard for me to see, but I believe thats the 26.27 acres which is the area between Leopolino Road, Highway 19, the Old Mamalahoa Highway, and what I perceive to be the stream bed of Hanapueo Steam. Is that correct? N. ERICKSON:That is correct, yes. IWASHITA:And then that, the graphic that shows the blue lines on the exterior, that is supposed to represent basically those boundary lines on the tax map? 15EXHIBIT C N. ERICKSON:The entire lot, thats correct, yes. IWASHITA:Is that yes? N. ERICKSON:Yes. IWASHITA:And then the representation in the application of the 3.5 acres, theres actually no specific delineation of that anywhere, right? N. ERICKSON:Its not, its difficult to see. Theres a dash line around the portions of our improvement. And the existing Garden is surrounding the areas where were proposing to, if youd like I could point it out or Norman could do that. We just took a line around of the proposed improvements and calculated the area within the 26 acres. IWASHITA:Soitsjustalinethatmeandersaroundtheproposedimprovements? HAYASHI:Yes.AndIcanshowyouwhereitstartsandends.Thiswouldbethe3.5 acre area that is covered under the special permit application; and that would be within this area here. IWASHITA:And that excludes that existing, what is that -? HAYASHI:Botanical garden area. There are some areas that may be included; however, these areas here are the existing garden. IWASHITA:Okay. I had one other last question for the applicant. You have any information about the title to Leopolino Road? S. ERICKSON:We did try to purse that with the State DOT when the County indicated that they werent clear on whos, the ownership was, and we pursued it with DOT with numerous phone calls and letters. And I went down personally to their office here in Hilo and he brought out some maps, which should be in your file, where he showed me that history had indicated that it had been transferred to the County; but he was unable to produce to me an instrument of conveyance where I could show the County, here it is, its your road. So he gave me a name on Oahu of someone to contact to do research and see if they had an instrument of conveyance, actually conveying that road to the County; and to date I havent received anything back. You know, Ive continually checked with them to see if theyve completed their research but to date they havent. IWASHITA:I, maybe this is just overly concern of one old law student. But I would, counsel, you know, well, maybe a bad thing about lawyers is you always have to think about the worst things that can happen and uncertainty is really where all of that arises out of. And, you know, the fact that title to Leopolino Road is not certain, I would not want to have us do something that directly impacts the use of this road and somehow jeopardizes the County. Probably, I cant think of a scenario in which it would right now, but I would like an assessment from Mr. Ashidas office as to whether or not there should be any concern about the Commission 16EXHIBIT C taking this action that authorizes or, you know, at least we make a semblance of having some authority over Leopolino Road when title is not clear. SPRINGER:Just amoment, Mr. Erickson. Mr. Director or Mr. Torigoe, do you have a response to Commissioner Iwashita? YUEN:Id like to ask a couple more questions though along, just to straighten some of this out. Is there documentation that LeopolinoRoadis a government road of some type? S. ERICKSON:Yeah, because my initialresearchwas at the Tax Office to determine if it perhaps was privately owned. Andit would, they said if they could locate a TMK that was assigned to it, it would indicate there was a private owners, and I would want to contact that person; and there was nothing of that kind. I have some stuff that I mailed to you guys previouslythathavemapsthatwouldbehelpful.Idontrecalloff-handexactlywhatindications they had it was a government road, but it was convincing that it was a government, it was either State or County; and very likely County, very likely it had been transferred to the County, but somehow the instrument of conveyance was lost. The State usually, what Im told, only owns highways. So anything, they dont want to deal with anything thats, you know, coming off of a highway, or thats not a highway. So that would be their position, thats my understanding. YUEN:Well, it would be quite normal for a government road for there to be no documentation of its ownership. What you would have is old records, old tax maps, old maps that refer to it as a government road. If its not part of the State Highway system the end result of this old roads in limbo controversy is that its going to be a County road. What, but you first have to, at the initial stage you have to determine whether its a government road at all because sometimes there are roads that are used by the general public that everybody thinks its a County road but are, in fact, privately owned. I could name a few of them that are that the County, in fact, paves once in a while. But on Leopolino Road, do you know if the parcels are described as being along a government road when they were originally conveyed? Is there some record of the title of these lots being conveyed along -? S. ERICKSON:You know, I really cant say as I sit here right now. Im pulling out my file to see if I could find a map, and refresh my memory on some of the stuff I looked at. IWASHITA:Can I clarify my concern? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you. The Director is right. The title to these roads in limbo issue derives from the fact that from the time of the Great Mahele when the title to all of our lands were issued. These government roads in limbo basically shows up, they show up on maps, right, I think, generally, as a government road or as a road. And the old, the very, very old -, that establishes jurisdiction over the roads basically says, as it applies today, the State is responsible and owns only the roads that it claims title to. So the State has control over that. You know, if this was a State road, then the State would have a record of it somewhere, because they would claim title to it, as a general proposition. And, as the Director said, every other road thats not 17EXHIBIT C claimed by the State would end up ultimately at some point becoming a County road if it were, in fact, a government road to begin with from the ancient times. So the concern that I have from the Countys perspective or from our making a decision about this is that one of the principles of the law, as I understand, it is possession or the exercise of possession and control exposes you to liability, okay. So if the County does not, if its not clear now that the County has any liability arising from this road because of uncertainty of title, the fact -. I just want a clarification from the Countys top lawyer that our taking action, which incorporates, you know, were asking for improvements to be made by the applicant on this road as it adjoins the highway; and if doing so then exposes the County to liability which it didnt have before? Thats the kind of question that I would like to have addressed by Mr. Ashidas office, and, you know, so that it can be addressed up front and not just sort of left in limbo. SPRINGER:Commissioners Iwashita, are you then suggesting that we continue this matter until we have that written opinion? IWASHITA:Yes. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Just my thoughts out loud, Madam Chair. Again, Im going back to the purposeoftheapplicationandImnotsureifusasCommissionersneedtomakethatkindof decision of liability to the County. So Im kind of confused on -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I agree with Commissioner Alameda, we shouldnt be making that decision. My concern is because of the uncertainty of the title of the road we may, and the conditions that were proposing to place, we may be actually doing that. And I dont want to, you know, do that inadvertently as it were or, you know, as a side effect. So, and I can see counsel is having these questions about my point. But I really would like to get, at least, you know, Id like Mr. Ashida to tell me, you know, Commissioner Iwashita, dont worry about it; and thats fine. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe, do you have any comments? TORIGOE:Well, our office is not in the practice of doing basically what would, you know, doing historical research and legal opinions on a case-by-case basis for applications that come in before the Commission or other boards. If our office is asked to do so in a particular case, I would hope that the applicant would bear the burden of producing the historical evidence to be analyzed or at least give us as much information as is available for that. And that would mean the kind of things that the Director was talking about, you know, maps that may indicate that there were some recognition of this road as a government road from territorial or pre- territorial times, evidence that would show that this was laid out by the State or the Territory as a road and was created by the government as a road. A typical case of this sort of thing would be when a homestead, you know, the government lays out a homestead and puts out a paper road that approximates where the current road is. And I suppose, even, I guess, the bottom is if there is such evidence and it seems that this was an old government road, then under HRS Chapter 18EXHIBIT C 264, then if the State has not included the road on its highway system, then by Statute it becomes a County responsibility. Another way of approaching this would be to approach, or would be to deal with this application with the assumption that it may turn out to be a County road and build in some safeguards. SPRINGER:Such as -? TORIGOE:Well, thats what Im trying to think about right now, what would be a safeguard would perhaps to require the applicant to research the matter and provide a legal opinion of some kind from their counsel for the Corporation Counsels Office to review and make recommendations to the Department of Public Works regarding the matter. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen, youve heard the discussion so far. Do you have any comments onit? YUEN:Iwouldproceedundertheassumptionthatthisis,LeopolinoRoadisa County road. If its not, then a lot of people are trespassing over somebodys property. NEELY:Could -. SPRINGER:Just a moment, Mr. Neely. Commissioner Iwashita, youve heard the discussion, Mr. Torigoe and Mr. Yuens comments. Are you still of the opinion that you might request a continuance? IWASHITA:Yeah. You know, I still have this concern. And if the Director is saying, you know, if the rest of the Commission is comfortable in basically assuming, right, that this is a government road and we proceed under that basis as the Director suggests, I guess you can take that assumption. I, you know, I guess, again, as a conservative legal perspective you shouldnt, you know, I dont think the County should take on exposure that it doesnt have to. SPRINGER:Thank you. So we have, the applicants representatives would like to make some comments. Please proceed, starting with Mr. Neel. NEEL:Immediately to the right of the blue line on the right side is a 3-acre parcel that has at the State Highway there a Helco power station. Youre familiar with that. That has a parcel number of 55. That was part of the grant that connected with the rest of the garden. When that road was put in there, that road cut off that grant and made a separate parcel. Would a private road do that or only a government road? SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen or Mr. Torigoe? SIRACUSA:I -. SPRINGER:Just a moment, Commissioner Siracusa. 19EXHIBIT C YUEN:Generally speaking a private road would not subdivide the property and create another lot there. And the way this road is shown in the tax maps leads me to think that it is some kind of a government road, along with the fact that it has been used by the general public for a very, very long time. Well, Ill leave it at that. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well, several things. I do know of a situation where a private road went up a, the middle of a spaghetti lot and, because it was owned by the same people at one time and then they just subdivided, the road continued to be -. But, at any rate, one of the indications we might look at is whos maintaining that road. Because if the County, if somebody is paving it or grading it periodically, then theyve taken responsibility already. Does anyone here happen to know? N.ERICKSON:Thatwasgoingtobemypointexactly.Aboutthreeorfouryearsagothe County did repave that road, and replaced the stop sign and put in a new sign called Leopolino Road. And we have a copy of the metes and bounds of this property and it indicates a property boundary along that, that 40-foot access road. Id be happy to share that with you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Erickson. Norman, should we have copies made of that or can it be circulated at this time? HAYASHI:Yes. ALAMEDA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:You know, as a non-attorney, I think the reason that we have counsel is for that sole purpose, to counsel. And, so for me, I feel totally comfortable with our counsels recommendation and insight. Thats all. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Salavea, do you have any comments at this time? So far its one-one. SALAVEA:I guess Id like to know what the ramifications, or the options would be, yeah, ramifications if it was a County road and these improvements were asked, whats the difference between it being public or, I mean, private and County? Im not sure if Director Yuen or Mr. Torigoe would be able to address that. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Youre asking what would be the -? I guess, the primary problem would be whos going to maintain it and if somebody gets hurt on the road whos liable for it. And so, obviously, if its a County road and the County is maintaining it and somebody slides off the side of the road because of the condition of the pavement or lack of proper drainage facilities, then County would end up being sued. 20EXHIBIT C SALAVEA:And if it was a private road but somehow according to what the documents just presented the County maintains it, and we ask for improvements along with approving this application -? TORIGOE:Right, well, you know -. SALAVEA:It gets too complicated for me, sorry. TORIGOE:Actually, no, if in fact the County has gone in and repaved it and basically taking control of it, then, you know, were kind of on the hook at this point, where -. You know, thats what the plaintiffs attorney would say, is that, well, the County has gone in there, did this work, the work was negligently done and the County is taking control, so were going to sue the County. So in some sense now, for practical purposes, if that is in fact true that the County went in and did the work, its probably a pretty safe assumption that to allow further use is going to subject the County to some kind of liability. WATANABE:Madam Chair? S. ERICKSON:I -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe and then Ms. Erickson. WATANABE:However, its my interpretation, and Im not an attorney obviously, but all ofthatisnotapplicablespecificallytothisspecialpermitapplication?Itwouldonlybe applicable to this special permit application if we required through this permit some type of improvement to something that eventually we discovered was private. But then Im wondering then whats the exposure? That, you know, you had this private road was 25 feet wide and now its 30 feet wide, so what happens now? I mean, I guess, from my point of view I dont see where were taking on much additional liability. I could be, you know, maybe Im nieve. IWASHITA:No, no, no -. SPRINGER:Mr. Iwashita, can Mr. Torigoe respond to the question and then well hear your -? IWASHITA:Well, I just wanted, well, what counsel just expressed relying on the representation that, you know, the County has in fact paved this road, I agree with what counsel has represented. And based upon that, I agree with the Director in proceeding on the assumption that it is a County road, even though its not so on paper. SPRINGER:Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Iwashita. Ms. Erickson? S. ERICKSON:Thank you. I just was looking in my file and I have a map dated 1950 that I got from State Highways Division when I was researching this matter and it refreshed my memory. And in this map, Leopolino Road is called as 21-D and 21-E. I can pass this around also for you guys to look at if youre interested. But, essentially, what this means is it was a 21EXHIBIT C State Road. The issue is was it ever transferred to the County. So theres no, without question, its a State Road or it was at one time. And whether it was transferred to the County by a written instrument of conveyance, nobody knows at this point. But the County is maintaining. So if I may, Id like to just go ahead and have you guys look at this, too. SPRINGER:Mr. Hayashi, can you retrieve this map that they, or Mr. Darrow, or -. Maybe if the Director would like to have a look at it. Were all territorial roads turned into State roads? YUEN:Well, first question. All territorial road, yes, became State roads. And then by operation of several State Statutes in the sixties and seventies, all State roads except what the State took as being in the State Highway System became County roads. So, well, I dont know what Im looking at here. I just dont know what Im looking at here in either of these. At any rate, if this was a State road, whether or not there was a deed to the County, it became a Countyroad. SPRINGER:Mr.Iwashita,doyouhaveanyfollow-uptothisdiscussion? IWASHITA:Idlikeittoend. SPRINGER:Thankyou.AnyotherCommissioners? IWASHITA:Well, no, Im glad it pretty much got clarified in terms of based upon the representation by the County that it was, the County has, in fact, paved the road and ostensibly maintained it, that satisfies me. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Other Commissioners, any questions for the applicants and their colleagues at the table? Seeing none, this is a public hearing, and we do have a number of members of the public who have signed up to testify. If the applicants representatives could please stand back from the table, we have Cory Harden, Richard Alderson, Jeff Haun, Mya Pawu, Walter Wagner, and George Leonard. SIRACUSA:Excuse me, Madam Chair. SPRINGER:Yes. SIRACUSA:Cory Harden left quite a few hours ago and has not returned. SPRINGER:Okay, so we have, Richard -. Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. So we have Richard Alderson, Jeff Haun, Mya youre back, Walter Wagner and George Leonard. ALDERSON:Im Richard Alderson. SPRINGER:And Richard Alderson. And Cory Harden has submitted written testimony, and that has been circulated to us. Thats the hand-written testimony that we have all received. At this time, I would like to ask you all to raise your right hands, except for Mya. 22EXHIBIT C Raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai€i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. If we can begin at your left, could you please state your name and your address for the record and then begin your testimony. J. HAUN:My name is Jeff Haun. My address is PO Box 248, Hakalau. And aloha Commission Members. My wife and I, Wendy, are here to speak to you about why you should vote again, the Special Permit application by the World Botanical Garden. But first I would like just to say my wife and I have lived in Hawai€i almost 20 years and ten of these years on the Hamakua coast. We want to be clear that we are not opposed to the Garden. WeareopposedtotheirSpecialPermitrequestasisbeforeyoutoday. Theapplicationisrequestingpermissionfor1200touristsperday,thats15timesasmanyas they have per day now. The main problem is that such a large increase in tourists will in effect change agricultural use into commercial use. Everyone knows that we are losing more and more agricultural land. The garden is located in a 12-mile stretch of Rural Ag land and fantastic natural beauty „ waterfalls and views of the ocean and Mauna Kea. As the traffic increases so will its interference with the farmers that use the old road and residents and tourists who appreciate the natural beauty. Another major problem is that the increased traffic will be hazardous and cause delays. We believe that more people in the area should have been notified of this application. The 500- foot requirement is really not appropriate for Ag-20 zoned land. The property lines of one square 20-acre parcel are about a thousand feet on a side. The same road that serves the garden also serves many parcels that spread for several miles up the mountain. We havent had time to look at all the TMKS but there are probably 50 to a hundred parcels that will use that road. Dont you think these people should have been notified of this special permit application when they will be using the same road that all the traffic going to the garden will use? My wife and own some land and a home within 800 feet of the garden and we own and use an easement across land that is within 500 feet of the garden. The planning commission rules state that the applicant ‚must notice persons with an interest in land within 500 feet.ƒ We believe that our easement constitutes such an interest yet we were not noticed of this application when it came before you last year. If we had been noticed we would have had time to request a contested case hearing. We have read the gardens application, its quite lengthy, and the Planning Departments recommendations. We have read the traffic study and done our own traffic study. We circulated a petition against the gardens special permit application, we have 23 signatures, and we wrote a letter to the Commission and testified at the last hearing on this application. 23EXHIBIT C Their application, if you read it carefully, has a lot of inconsistencies, contradictions, and doesnt answer the basic questions required by a special permit in a lot of cases. Im not going to go over all of them, but I have to go over some of them. According to Section K of their application, the assumption is made that traffic will not increase because the buses are already going to Akaka Falls. Clearly, the Garden is not at Akaka Falls, it is about 3 miles further north and off the highway some, and it will add significantly more traffic on the highway. Come on, 1200 people a day? On pages 5 and 6 in the application the applicant explains that the use of Ag land for a botanical garden is allowed and that the Visitors Center (sales of food, gifts and plants) will create cash flow that will help promote the garden, therefore the Visitors Center should be allowed. Lets be clear, a botanical garden is allowed now but a visitors center is not allowed now; and they are claiming that it is. In our opinion, this does not constitute a justification for sales of good, gifts and nursery items that are not produced on the garden property. They claim that they have made ‚long neglectedƒ waterfalls visible by removing‚impenetrableweedsandgrasses.ƒWehavebeentothesefallspriortotheWorld Garden and do not consider them neglected nor the weeds impenetrable. On page 6 they claim that ‚clearlyƒ the Visitors Center is an allowed use. Actually, a visitors center with sales of the proposed items is not allowed and the resulting traffic will likely have detrimental effects to agricultural activities in the area. They claim that they have pristine forest in a sugar cane land in a gulch. I mean if youve been in there its full of, and, you know, new species. Theres very few ohia and other native plants. And they claim that they will have 30,000 species of plants. This is not pristine forest and Hawai€is fragile ecosystems are not the place for a contest for the most species. Their approach seems to be really to get the most tourists and make as much money as they can. The application claims that the garden will create jobs. Most development creates jobs, including agriculture. This land can support a variety of agricultural endeavors that will create jobs and that will not bring lots of tourists and traffic. But, more importantly, in a rural area the impact of tourists and traffic outweighs the benefit of any jobs created. Please remember there are negative impacts to tourism. We must find a balance, and that balance is already close at hand with the World Botanical Garden. After reviewing the application, Anthony Ching, the Exeuctive Officer of the State of Hawai€i Land Use Commission states in his letter dated March 9, 2004, this is in the file, ‚Given the large-scale, commercial nature of the tours, there is the potential that they may impact or detract from these existing agricultural activities by generating noise, air quality and traffic impacts.ƒ He also states, ‚We also suggest that as the feature attraction and the reason for the proposed improvements, consideration should be given to include the entire 300-acre botanical garden under the special permit. We believe that inclusion of the 300 acres would also be consistent with recent circuit court decisions affirming the comprehensive and integrated manner in which developments should be reviewed.ƒ He also states, ‚the application should include an assessment of the proposed use in relation to each of the ten objectives of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program.ƒ World Botanical Gardens attorney, Sherrill Erickson, responded to these concerns with a letter dated April 12, 2004. She downplays the projected number of visitors to the garden, but then includes the World Gardens mission statement that says ‚large visitor centerƒ and ‚the species 24EXHIBIT C count for the main garden shall become one of the worlds largest.ƒ Regarding traffic, she claims that there will be no discernable increase in traffic on Highway 19 and says nothing of the traffic impacts on Leopolino Road and the Old Mamalahoa Highway. As we will explain in a minute, the traffic impacts will be significant. On the matter of inclusion of the 300 acres, she resists by stating that ‚future ideas for the €300 acres are extremely germinal and there are no plans for development as acquisition has not been consummated.ƒ The reality, the garden has already done extensive development of these lands and they contain the waterfalls that are currently the main attraction of the garden. Regarding the CZM review, she does not recognize that the CZM and SMA are two different regulatory systems and does not indicate that they will do an assessment in relation to the CZM objectives. The State Division of Forestry and Wildlife expressed concerns in a letter dated March 20, 2004, you mentioned that earlier. They state that the ornamental industry has contributed to the introduction of invasive plants to Hawai€i. The World Garden and particularly its sales of nurseryitemscanonlyincreasethechanceofmoreinvasiveweedintroductions.Thegarden states that it wants to some day have over 30,000 species!! And I think, I mean, Rene you had a good idea about asking some other environmental groups about what could be the impacts. As we mentioned before, the Planning Directors recommendation has flaws. The Planning Directors recommendation is misleading. It states that there has been no objection from the community. In fact, the community was not consulted and only a handful of the local residents were notified. The Directors recommendation also states that the land is ‚unsuited for the uses permitted in this district.ƒ How could land that is growing hundreds of kinds of plants be unsuited for agricultural use? We were looking at the gardens website last week and the gardens director, Lanny Neel, says on the website, ‚Doing business in Hawai€i certainly has the same goals as on the mainland (make money, network and make things happenƒ). The garden has mainland investors who want to see a return on their investment. Maybe they should have invested in a garden like Nani Mau that does receive tour buses, has a restaurant and gift shop, and most importantly is located in an urban area or close to one. The website also says that several long time employees are no longer with the garden and the new director has been here less than a year. Check it out. The World Botanical Garden should have requested the Special Permit before starting the garden and investing time and money. If you go to the garden today youll see a sign with an artists rendering of their new visitors center and words indicating that this is the site where it will be even though they still dont have the Special Permit to build it. Also, according to their application they still have not officially acquired some of the lands that they are developing. It seems the garden has the cart before the horse. The traffic study they had prepared is flawed. Read it, its hard, its tough reading. Page 2, Section B- Purposes and Objective of the Study - #1. ‚Provide supporting documentation for the Application for Special Permit.ƒ This is clearly and admittedly biased. Section C says that the objective of the project was to attract visitors from the background stream along Hawaii Belt Road. This doesnt make sense because they are proposing to transport visitors in tour buses and have 1200 visitors. I mean you dont pull that many people from the background stream and not have any new traffic. 25EXHIBIT C On page 4, the study says, ‚Level of service D is typically considered acceptable for peak hour conditions in urban areas.ƒ You know, they rate Level of service from A through F, F being worse and D not so good, but its acceptable for urban area. And on page 8, the same TIAR says, ‚The assumption used for the level of service analysis wereƒ a number of things. And Item 4 says the assumptions were ‚Level of Service D is considered an acceptable level of service for peak operating conditions,ƒ for this project. What they are saying is the study assumes that what is acceptable for urban areas is acceptable for this very rural area. The study does not address the impact of traffic on the 4 mile stretch of the Old Mamalahoa Highway from the garden to Ninole. This section of road, excuse me, this section of road -. W. HAUN:My turn. Hi. I did it last time but Ill step in again. SPRINGER:Can you raise your, may I swear you in? W. HAUN:Yeah, sure. I swear. SPRINGER:Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai€i County Planning Commission? W. HAUN:Yes. SPRINGER:And may we have your name and address, please. W. HAUN:Im Wendy Haun and my address is PO Box 248, Hakalau. And -. SPRINGER:Proceed. WATANABE:Can you speak into the mike. W. HAUN:Sure. Lets see, right here? J. HAUN:This section of road, right here, right here. W. HAUN:Okay, this section of road is already in the tour books for its natural beauty.Itisnarrowandonelaneinmanyareas.TheCountyhastroublemaintainingit.The bridges are very old and on one bride the railing has completely rusted away with about a 20-foot drop or more. Many of the garden visitors will drive this section of highway, and the traffic study does not address this. And, most importantly, the people who have lived for many years along this section of the road have told us that they dont want any more traffic and theyve signed our petition. On the past page of the traffic study there is a table that shows guidelines for when a left turn lane is needed; but it is for a 40 mph road, and the Hawaii Belt Road is 55 miles per hour at that section. The traffic study also didnt have any information about sight distances. We understand th that this information was requested and was provided on May 10.Wehaventhadtimetoseeit 26EXHIBIT C but we want you to know that it is a very dangerous intersection. Leopolino Road enters Hawaii Belt Road on an inside curve and where the speed limit is 55 miles per hour. J. HAUN:I think I can take over back again, thank you. I had time to look at the information that just came in day before yesterday about the sight distances today; and having reviewed it, it gives you new recommendations. Its a factual report about sight distances and this and that. Director Yuen did make a comment to you that it was unacceptable. I didnt see that in their report. Correct me if Im wrong, but you said something about it being shorter than standard sight distances. YUEN:The sight distance, the available sight distance is shorter than called for by modern engineering standards. J. HAUN:Was that in the report that they gave? Well, Im wondering where you got thatinformationbut-. SPRINGER:Ifyoucanproceedwithyourtestimony,please. J.HAUN:Okay,Imsorry.Iunderstand.Also,onethingaboutthatintersection also that has not been mentioned about why its so dangerous, besides Leopolino Road going into the inside of a curve on a 55 mile per hour road, is that Leopolino Road is downhill going to that point. So you can imagine all the tour buses and cars backing up on a downhill into this highway. Weve seen farm vehicles stalled out on this hill, right, you know, within 100 feet of the main highway and that could easily bog traffic. We did our own traffic count for an hour and a half on Monday morning. We also recorded video of all the cars and trucks that went through the intersection of the Hawaii Belt Road and Leopolino Road as evidence of our count. We counted a period of time from 9, I think its from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. that, their study also counted traffic. And their study counted the traffic on one day. And we counted about 15 percent more cars and trucks than the study counted on that one day they did their count. The traffic study does not foresee the rapid growth in traffic that is beginning now that C. Brewer has sold most of its land in the area. There are a lot of houses being built in the immediate area, and this growth will probably continue for many years. The traffic going to all the parcels of land above the garden is increasing. There are probably 50 to a 100 parcels above the garden. And the road directly across Hawaii Belt Road from Leopolino is the entrance to the 15 oceanfront lots, you can see that on the map. Also, the TIAR talks about buses carrying 8.5 passengers, its on page 3, and it explains that, that theyre talking about 15-passenger vans. So the traffic study doesnt talk about tour buses but yet their application says theyre going to have tour buses. So, you know, their traffic study isnt so good, I think. And, still, you dont have the feedback from the Department of Transportation on their traffic study. So, in summary, the traffic study is biased and has some major holes in it. As you probably know, the Planning Department has been working on an Ag Tourism Ordinance that describes a level of tourism in Ag areas that they believe would not need a special permit. 27EXHIBIT C The current draft limits the number of tourists to 30,000 annually, or about 82 persons per day. Although botanical gardens are not mentioned in the ordinance, botanical gardens are allowed in Ag land; and when tourists visit the garden it is a type of Ag tourism. The World Botanical Garden has been open to visitors for 10years. And they stated in their application a year ago that, for this special permit, that they are currently receiving about 80 people per day coming in 40 vehicles. At this level the Garden is close to the upper limits of the proposed Ag Tourism Ordinance. As such, their impact has been acceptable to most people. We would like it to stay at this level. If the number of visitors increases even a little more the impact will be much more noticeable. If it should increase as they proposed in their application, it will be a traffic nightmare. The other night we were at an Ag Tourism Workshop, and Larry Brown with the Planning Department said that any business on Ag land other than agriculture is supposed to have a special permit.ThismeansthattheGardenshouldhavehadaspecialpermitthedaytheyopenedtheir doors 10 years ago, but we dont believe they do. They also are selling things that were not produced on site when they are only supposed to sell things that are. We also asked Mr. Brown how the limit on the number of tourists is enforced. He said when people complain then they try to do something about it. If people are complaining isnt it already too late? This doesnt seem like the best way to enforce limits on the number of tourists. As you know, many people in Hawai€i who were born and raised here, they dont like to oppose their neighbors or speak up against what someone wants to do. But if a bunch of mainland investors come up with an idea that will dramatically change the area someone has to speak up and, hopefully, people with the power to stop it will use their judgment and not let it happen. We have a petition, its attached to our testimony, of people who are opposed to the Gardens special permit application. In a few hours we collected 23 signatures of residents, many of whom were born and raised here and own large properties in the area. A copy is attached. Our main concern is not traffic. Thats what you guys have been hearing. I heard one of you say it seems like the main concern is traffic, okay. Thats not it. But it is a close second. A special permit as dramatic as this, allowing 1200 visitor a day in an area that is just agriculture, is a major impact. It will forever degrade the rural beauty that this island is known for. This is the wrong place for a major tourist attraction. We believe their request is not consistent with the purpose of agriculturally zoned land. Please insure with your vote that the quality of life for the long-term residents of this area is not overridden by the interests of mainland investors. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you for that testimony. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the testifier? Mr. Yuen, I wonder if you could respond to some of the issues raised by the testifier, in particular, the correspondence from Anthony Ching of the State Land Use Commission which, among other things, believes that the inclusion of the entire, ‚We believe that the inclusion of the 300 acres would be consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions,ƒ 28EXHIBIT C and also some discussion of the traffic report and those level of Service D, that level of Service D is acceptable service, peak-hour operating condition. YUEN:On the question, the significance of having more acreage is that if the special permit asks for more than 15 acres, it would also have to go to the Land Use Commission for approval. We have been processing special permits for a portion of peoples property when they can show that the permit application is, they can show a reason why the permit is limited to a portion of that property; and we accepted that in this case, that the facilities that theyre asking for occupy much less than 15 acres and certainly not the whole 300 acres. Let me, could you point out this, I dont have the traffic study in front of me. J. HAUN:Page 3 and 8 are the conflicting statements regarding urban -, or page 4, Level of Service D, and Page 8, I think, from my notes. YUEN:My main issue with this is not congestion per se. At a certain, and I would notsaythatwe,thePlanningDepartmentortheStateDOT,wouldacceptthatthisfacilitywould not have to make any improvements if it caused the level of service at the intersection to drop to D. Thats not, the condition is written in a way that its open-ended, that as the traffic increases we can require an additional traffic study and we can require additional improvements. So the fact that the applicants traffic study says that they feel that D is okay and that they would only mitigate if it got to be worse than D, I wouldnt agree with that. However, you should note that D, I believe at this comes at something like, depending on the scenario, I believe you dont hit D till we get to 600 visitors a day, which is a huge increase from the present. So improvements that relate to congestion at the intersection can be deferred. The immediate question is just the safety of people of, you know, anybody pulling out. And that would be my main issue. SPRINGER:And, Mr. Yuen, were impacts to traffic on the old Mamalahoa Highway considered by the Planning Department and are they addressed? YUEN:No, because I do think its a fair assumption that most of the visitors are going to be people that are traveling the Hamakua coast anyway. Certainly some visitors may make a special trip out just to this site to go to this botanical garden, but there is, of course, a considerable stream of visitors who are going on an around the island trip and decide to stop at Laupahoehoe Point, or Akaka Falls, or any number of other points of interests along the way simply because its part of the travel. This botanical garden in itself using Leopolino Road doesnt induce anybody to travel on the Old Highway. People can make that decision, a visitor can decide on their own to take a side road. The garden itself is not leading them to do that. I live on the back road about 2 Ÿ miles from here. Once in a while a lost tourists looking for the garden stops by. I wouldnt consider that a significant effect. I mean, its the kind of thing that if Im out working in my yard might happen once every ten hours that Im out there. So -. S. ERICKSON:Excuse me, I have to interject something. Mr. Yuen, your neighbors are there during the day, and youre here in town working, and I dont think you have a very clear 29EXHIBIT C idea of how many cars go down that road. Because we used to live on that road just about a half a mile from your place, as you well know, and the traffic on there gets really thick; and all the old residents are tired of saying, ‚Yeah, the Garden is down that way.ƒ And so I dont really accept your evaluation of the road traffic on the Old Mamalahoa Highway. Excuse me for interrupting, but, you know -. YUEN:Well -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Maam. Moving on. YUEN:Yeah, moving on. So if the Garden relied upon Kauniho Road as a primary access, then people would have to go up Kauniho Road, then go half a mile or so on the Old Mamalahoa Highway to get there, then we would have to evaluate the use of Old Mamalahoa Highway. But, in this case, because the Garden, the access is directly off the main highwayuptheshortspurofLeopolinoRoadacouplehundredfeet,andthatsitasfarasthe Old Highway is concerned, no, there wasnt any particular evaluation of the use of the Old Highway. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Okay, thank you both. Mya. PAWU:Thank you, Madam Chair, and Commission, and Staff. Im testifying at this point as a private citizen and not as a representative of anybody else. I had visited the World Botanical Gardens a couple of years ago; and, frankly, I was very disappointed in the lack of infrastructure, ability to go to the bathroom or to get a cold drink. Theres very little infrastructure in that area. The State and the County both have departments and divisions that spend many dollars a year to bring visitors to our State and to our island, and it behooves us to give them a decent experience; and that would involve at least the basic necessities of bathroom sanitation, a place to wash their hands, maybe a place to get something refreshing to drink. I dont believe that this use would be inconsistent; and, as I say, even though Im a resident of this State and the County, I visited that and I found it to be lacking in services that I would expect as a visitor. And I believe every time that we disappoint a visitor we hurt the entire community. The visitors are one of the primary economic engines of our state, and it behooves us to make their experience good as long as it is not overly detrimental to the local population, the kamaaina who live here. Thank you. SPRINGER:Youre welcome. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the testifier, Commissioners? Thank you. Sir, if you can begin with your name and address for the record, please. LEONARD:George Leonard, 240 Kaiulani Street, Hilo. Madam Chair and Commissioners, I also am speaking as a private citizen who would like to support the enterprise of promoting the natural beauty of Hawai€i in these limited terrain. I think its an appropriate use of space for a visitors center. Its part of a sustainable business development with low impact, it will provide jobs, yes, I think so. And the visitors center will pay State excise taxes. And the Gardens need the visitors center to help pay their bills and remain fiscally sound to provide this service to the tourism and to the public. As an aside my dad was a professional horticulturalists, 30EXHIBIT C and I have specific appreciation for what theyre doing there. And I think this will promote the introduction of more of Hawai€is beauty to more people to the benefit of all. Okay, thank you. SPRINGER:Youre welcome. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the testifier, Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Alderson, if you could please give us your name and address for the record. R. ALDERSON:Yes, Richard Alderson. Its PO Box 166, Hakalau. We came here about five years now but we bought property here in the eighties, early eighties, 1981, and always wanted to retire here. I would like to try to clear up a little bit of the road issue that you were concerned about with a little bit of a history, because I have studied many of the maps and the original old Government Roads and, just to help clarify it a little bit for a second. Ill show you on the map. IWASHITA:But, if I may, sir, thats really not an issue for me at any point. R. ALDERSON:Okay. I did write a letter in support of this application and it will be re- readnow?Youregoingtoreadit? DARROW:Yes. R. ALDERSON:Okay. DARROW:If its okay with the Commissioners, Im going to read a letter that was submitted by Richard and Virginia Alderson. SPRINGER:Proceed, Mr. Darrow. DARROW:‚Dear Mr. Yuen and Commissioners, ‚Our property surrounds the World Botanical Gardens property on 2 sides, and their access to the waterfall tour runs through our property for .6 of a mile. ‚We have studied their proposal for expansion and realize that we are the most impacted neighbor, as we border their operation on almost all sides. ‚We see the World Botanical Gardens as a plus to our neighborhood, and their presence was one of the reasons we purchased our home-site property next door. ‚We have also found them to be very cooperative neighbors over the past 3 years. They have maintained the county road bordering their property and ours along the County Road (Old Government Road) to a higher standard, even than the County does. ‚We do realize that the World Botanical Gardens will grow as it becomes more mature, and that it will slowly generate additional traffic in our area. This impact is a small price to pay in comparison to the positive attributes that they bring to our neighborhood. 31EXHIBIT C ‚Thus we want to support Special Permit Application (SPP 04-005). ‚Thank you. ‚Richard and Virginia Alderson.ƒ SPRINGER:Thank you. Do you have anything to add? R. ALDERSON:I do have a little bit more to add. SPRINGER:Okay. R. ALDERSON:I guess I believe in dreams. You know, I believe -. Walter Wagner started this ten years ago, he had a dream. He spent his heart and soul into producing this garden. Along the way he took in over 500 investors to help create this beautiful scenic area, which I think if any of you who have gone out there where you would be real proud to see what they have done. I think that the fact that they have a new manager, Professor Neel, is really a plus becauseheunderstandshorticultureandtheinvasivespeciesproblemthathasbeencreatedby other botanical gardens. When you talk about agricultural use, this particular property Im very familiar with because I own the property around it, like I said in the letter, and I only do lease to farmers and ranchers cattle. I lease to George Hirowatari. Theres only real two immediate neighbors to this entire garden; and that is myself and George Hirowatari. George Hirowatari has never said anything against this use going in. Like I said, George Hirowatari is on the south side of the property. I am on the north side of the property. And were both on the west side of the property. On the east side of the property is the highway, the main highway. So if anyone is impacted by the traffic, the tours, the noise, I think it would be myself and George Hirowatari. Now I work on my property all the time €cause were building a house and, yes, I do hear noise, I do hear doors slam, sometimes I go out to the front or Im coming in and someone will ask me a question, ‚Well, where do we pay?ƒ I believe that the center could be greatly enhanced with bathrooms and a better facility. I think they start with a nickel and they rubbed it together and it worked for ten years to get to this point. And I just cant help but feel a lot of compassion for what has happened over the last ten years. When you start hearing people talk about 1200 people coming to this site, and when theres a hundred people that are coming now and theyre using 45 cars per day, thats only six cars per hour. Thats only one car per every ten minutes. I mean, youve got to listen to the facts that is represented here and what the true facts are. The true facts are that the impact of the traffic is so little its ridiculous. There are 3,000 cars that travel on that highway, and there are six cars an hour that turns on this intersection and goes up the hill? I mean what is that? Thats nothing. Now if it was true that there were going to be 1200 tourists coming there, then I would be very concerned myself. But if it has taken ten years to get 100 people or 45 cars, surely, the road can handle more cars than that. And I just dont see this traffic impact as very -. It has blown all out of proportion by people for some reason who are completely against this project. 32EXHIBIT C Now Mr. Haun lives across the road. He doesnt even drive by this property. I drive by this property everyday, many times. And its really hard for me to understand. I came to Hawai€i and the people here are wonderful. And you help your neighbor, you dont hurt your neighbor; and I just cant understand being against a wonderful project that needs some help and at least have facilities that will help them operate better. J. HAUN:Were not against the Gardens. R. ALDERSON:Wait a minute. J. HAUN:Were not against the Gardens. R. ALDERSON:When Im done, you can talk here. I think youre way off base. I think youve exaggerated so many of these points. Youve gone to neighbors that arent even near the project-. SPRINGER:Mr.Alderson-. R.ALDERSON:Whenyoucame-. SPRINGER:CanyouaddressyourcommentstotheCommissionratherthanyour fellow testifier? R. ALDERSON:Yes. When, he came to my house and wanted me to sign this petition against this. I tried to explain to him that, you know, this is a good use, this is a much better use than any other use that could be there. I really, its a shame that each of you have not gone up and looked at the Gardens, because I think you would feel like I do, that its a real asset to our community, its an asset to the university, its an asset. These are the things that were spending all sorts of money trying to bring to Hawai€i. And its right here that these people are giving their heart and soul to create it for us; and we get to enjoy it. Its just -. I think thats about all I have to say. I know its late and youve been very patient listening to a whole bunch of different things all day. And I just, I hope that you will give the Garden the consideration because I dont feel the impact is going to be very great at all for a number of years; and if you have a benchmark where you address this increased traffic at future times, thats fine. I think that would be very fair. Thank you very much. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Thank you. You folks who have given your testimony may step back from the table. Theres still that one other person, Walter Wagner. WAGNER:Im going to defer. I think the other people already explained my position. SPRINGER:Okay, thank you, Mr. Wagner. Commissioners, weve heard from the public. Can the applicant and their consultant, or Professor Neel, can return to the table. We can go into deliberation on this now. Youve heard the testimony. Do you have any responses to make? 33EXHIBIT C S. ERICKSON:I probably wont spend any time making responses, unless there are specific questions, given the lateness of the day and we dont want to be too redundant. SPRINGER:Thank you, Maam. Commissioners? N. ERICKSON:I just have one, one more comment. I dont think the Garden, Walter Wagner or Lanny knew when they came to me for architectural services that we lived in the area; and we drive up Leopolino Road, and Laupaloa Road, and Mamalahoa Highway, and along the stretch every single day. And we were very encouraged for what they were doing and wanted to help this project, and Im just saying that aside from our position as representing the Garden. But, you know, we live right next to 300 acres of crude timber; and when that started to be harvested, I think the impact of that is something we should all be more concerned with than visitors that are going to continue to come here and buy land and enjoy our State. SPRINGER:Thankyou,sir. ALAMEDA:MadamChair? SPRINGER:CommissionerAlameda. ALAMEDA:IveheardtestimonyandIvelookedattheconditionsandImreadyto make a motion if my fellow Commissioners are okay with that. SPRINGER:Please proceed. IWASHITA:I have one. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. IWASHITA:One clarification, sorry. SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I just have a residual concern about Mr. Chings suggestion as to the extent to which were considering this application, the extent of the use that were considering as far as what this application applies to; and I understand the use of the perimeter of the improvements. But its my understanding that the people who, however number theyre going to be, are not going to limit their activity to within this area, is that correct? SPRINGER:Mr. Director? YUEN:Correct. IWASHITA:And that they, I guess, its my impression that all of the people will go up through the northern boundary and cross another persons property to view the falls and so that, in effect, in the Garden area that theyll go to view is actually outside of the actual 3 Ÿ acres that were talking about. Is that correct? 34EXHIBIT C YUEN:I believe that is correct, yes. IWASHITA:So that, Mr. Chings suggestion is that we should consider not just the 3 Ÿ acres but that this application should include those other areas that actually are being used by the people, the customers that show up. And I dont understand why were not doing that. SPRINGER:And he also suggests an alternative, and Im looking at his nd April 22 memo, the second page, the top paragraph, and the second half of that paragraph discusses an alternative which recommends an agricultural conservation easement. I wonder if the Director can respond to Commissioner Iwashitas concerns as, and his reading of Mr. Chings letter. YUEN:In our view, theyre asking for a special permit to establish a visitors center, and the bulk of the property is used for purposes that are allowed in the agricultural district. The impact, and so the area thats being built up is limited to an area of about 3 acres. The implications for this, I mean, let me give you an example on our Ag Tourism Ordinance that were considering. We, theres a level that we would still request people to have a special permit. But if somebody had a 300-acre farm, for example, and they were, but they needed a special permit because they were going to build a visitors center, restrooms and other facilities that are larger than what we call for in our Agricultural Tourism Ordinances, its allowed without a special permit, but they were going to have then the visitors waunder or use 300 acres of the farm, we would not say that that pushed them over the 15-acre limit, because theyre not, the special permit part of it is covering a small area. The fact that the farm itself is a bigger area or the botanical, the area theyre growing plants on is a bigger area shouldnt push them over the 15-acre limit. This is, I mean, the sense of, the reason for a 15-acre limit is to have some kind of a scale cutoff. When you get to a certain scale, the project should go to the Land Use Commission. To include areas that are just being planted in that 15 acres and are being used for purposes completely consistent with the agricultural district, I think it would be against the, its not really in keeping with the spirit of why that 15-acre rule is there. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen, how about the agricultural conservation easement that Mr. Ching discusses later in that paragraph, to ensure that the undeveloped portions of the parcel remain so for the life of the special permit? YUENId have to defer that to the applicant because that is putting a burden on the property. What we would be allowing is only a special permit for the 3 acres. If they were to do to something nonagricultural with the remaining property, there are other things that you have to do. So if they want to come in for a rezoning of 100 acres to a residential development and not use it for a botanical garden in the future, they have to go through a public process, they have to come to the County Council, they have to get a rezoning. So to say that we need them to put an easement on the remaining property as a control, I would not myself, I wouldnt ask for that. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Mr. Iwashita, do you have any follow up? 35EXHIBIT C IWASHITA:If the people that access or the customers show up and instead of walking through these gardens and going to the falls they got on some motorized vehicle, would that change -? I guess what Im trying to clarify -. You know, Mr. Ching makes reference to a court case which Im not familiar with and with another case in which he represents that this Commission and the Land Use Commission has taken a position that is different from what it appears to me as were taking in this case, the Toyama Gardens case. Mr. Chings suggestion is that the inclusion of the area, the Garden area in this case, and the falls area, that they should be included because such treatment of the project would be consistent with the position taken by the County of Hawai€i Planning Commission and the Land Use Commission in the Toyama Gardens case. And I dont want to be inconsistent. YUEN:I believe Toyama Gardens case is Nani Mau. DARROW:Yes. YUEN:All right. Well, if Im not mistaken that application came in at a time it reallydidntmakeanydifferencehowmanyacresyouincluded.Ibelievethatapplicationcame in at a time when all special permits went to the Land Use Commission. I could be wrong on that; and Im not sure. But, anyway, that was the issue there. SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Then in my mind, my familiarity, my limited familiarity with Nani Mau Gardens, if thats the same situation, I dont see that this case is different in terms of the type of use and the type of activity thats allowed. And so in my mind it should be treated the same way. SPRINGER:Director Yuen. YUEN:Ive got to talk with Norman about Nani Mau a little bit. SPRINGER:Would you like a recess? YUEN:No, I think it can -. SIRACUSA:I -. WATANABE:Madam Chair -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa and then Watanabe. SIRACUSA:Yeah, okay. On page 5 of the second revised recommendation near the top, it says that the proposed use has to be consistent with the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and consistent with the Intensive Agriculture designation. And then I look at what they want to do there, okay, I have no problem with an educational center, a place where you can, you know, inform people; and I think thats a good potential use. What, I understand you need restrooms, I know people are going to be waundering around, theyre going to get thirsty, 36EXHIBIT C theyre going to want to have a cold drink. What is supplements? Are you talking about selling vitamins? N. ERICKSON:Lanny probably could answer that. I dont think we have anything for sale now really, but, I mean, the idea of selling a horticulture book, or even a can of soda, or stick of gum, or a t-shirt, or a cap, you know, those kind of things require a special permit. And so -. SIRACUSA:Okay, €cause youre -. But youre asking for a special permit and youre mentioning the sales of fresh fruit smoothies, health beverages, supplements, I have a little question mark over that one, and other food items, theres another question mark. I mean that could open up to, God forbid, fast food. And then maps and literature, retail nursery items, okay, I can see where those can be tied into Ag. Memorabilia gifts and sundries, are you going to sell shaving cream? I mean, it looks some of this is getting pretty far away from agriculture, and from plants, and from nursery type stuff. And Im wondering how much of a carte blanch are we givingyouhereifweapprovethis?AndIwouldbeverywaryjustonthebasisofsomeofthat stuff that you would suddenly turn your visitors center into ‚Schlock Central.ƒ N. ERICKSON:Oh, my God. Lanny, the managing director probably has a better handle, but I dont think thats the intent. NEEL:This application was written prior to my arrival and I really wasnt consulted as to what went into that. I do know that its not our intent to become a Walmart or something like that where we sell everything under the sun. It would need to be related to plants, and horticulture, and biology, conservation and what have you, and not fluffs that you couldnt buy at Hilo Hatties or something like that. SIRACUSA:Well, I would hope so also; and thats why Im concerned that its left so vague. And I would hope that we could maybe tighten that up a little bit so that instead of leaving all that vagueness -. It leaves us wide open for all sorts of things, which we might not want to approve otherwise that -. NEEL:That would be quite acceptable to us if you would care to do something like that. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa, where are you? SIRACUSA:I was right on page 1 of the revised recommendation. Lets see, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines from the bottom where they talk about ‚The visitor center will provide education and orientation, as well as generate revenue for the World Botanical Gardens through sales of fresh fruit smoothies, health beverages,ƒ and then I started having problems, ‚supplements and other food items.ƒ Its too vague to be -. NEEL:I think that word ‚supplementsƒ refers to things like vitamins. SIRACUSA:Well, that was the first one I came across that sent up a red flag. And then maps and literature, I can see that, especially, you know, literature related to plants. Retail nursery items, that fits in. But then memorabilia, gifts, and sundries, that starts looking its 37EXHIBIT C pretty far afield from agriculture. And so Im wondering if you folks would mind if we deleted some of those things. N. ERICKSON:I dont think theres any objection to that. Lanny? NEEL:Whatever you feel its be appropriate. N. ERICKSON:Just to bear in mind the size of the building that has the retail portion is almost identical to the size of this room. And so, certainly, there could be a lot of things. But the intention is educational; and wed want to have a map of the island as well as an area where you could buy something that you could ship back to the mainland, well package it, right. So -. SIRACUSA:Well, I can even understand, you know, pictures, postcards or flowers and native plants, because theres an educational component in the blurb with each photograph also. N. ERICKSON:I dont think any of us have any objections, you know, striking the word ‚sundriesƒand‚supplements,ƒandotherthingsthatmayseem-.Youknow,Iunderstandwhat youre trying to say, but its going to be really hard to define. Our intent, of course, is educational and promotion of the nursery, right, the garden. SARICUSA:Yeah. I just want to see something in there that specifies that anything you sell has to have some sort of an agricultural connection. SPRINGER:I wonder about the staff who prepared the recommendation, youve heard the discussion. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? What were looking, the suggestion has been to strike the words ‚supplements,ƒ and ‚sundries,ƒ in particular. HAYASHI:Well, basically, what we wrote here was what the applicant had requested for. And on a normal gift shop, you do have like sundries, you have candies, drinks, maps, post cards; and we felt that that was okay for this particular use. So to limit them, I dont know how were going to enforce it. But if the Commission wanted to delete some of these uses, you know, thats your prerogative to do so. SIRACUSA:Well, maybe I should poll my fellows Commissioners then and ask them how they would feel about deleting the words ‚supplements,ƒ and ‚sundries.ƒ SPRINGER:Commissioners, youve heard -. ALAMEDA:Madam Chair, how I perceive supplements, its a direct relation to -. Im thinking like medicinal. You know, like noni is very educational, which could be used as Hawaiians call it as laaulapaau. SIRACUSA:I hadnt thought of it that way. ALAMEDA:So I think its very appropriate for a botanical garden to have those medicinal types of educational things, if you will. 38EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:I think if the intent of the use of the building is for educating about products related to plants, nature and Hawaiiana in general, the usage from my perspective would be fine. I agree with Mr. Hayashi that the regulation of what is and isnt allowable is a nightmare trying to regulate that. So in general as much as you can cram into a room to -. I think the fear that some of us may have is, we hope that itll not turn into a full-blown commercial enterprise where you get Jack-in-the Boxes popping out of the windows and, you know, its a little mini Disneyland where, you know, everything is for sale, even the building. So thats my manao. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I would tend to agree that, you know, policing is an issue. So if you want tolimittheamountofactivitytherethenyoulookatthescaleoftheproject;andtothatextent,I think that has been addressed. And I would feel comfortable that way. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. And, also, you have a comment for us? WATANABE: I did have a comment, well, actually, its a question for Mr. Torigoe. And I, too, have some concerns with regard to that letter from the State and Mr. Ching, but not as much concern as Mr. Iwashita has. €Cause I can see where, yes, from the Countys point of view okay, a botanical garden is allowable within the current Ag zoning. So its not like, you know, youve got a golf course or some of these other stuff going on that might make it more prone to a persecution as a spot zoning. But my question is, you know, how hot an issue is spot zoning? Because essentially what were doing is carving out 3 Ÿ acres out of 300 and saying, hey, were going to do this with this. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Thank you, Madam Chairman. With respect to the interpretation of the zoning laws, of course, I would generally defer to the Planning Director in terms of the substantive interpretation and application of those. But just to try and answer your question, it has already been mentioned, and as youve stated, the use of a botanical garden is probably something that should be considered in itself a permitted use. And so I have a hard time, you know, from my perspective and as one who has had to defend some of these kinds of actions, I have kind of a hard time trying to say that when you have something that is supportive of the already permitted use that that somehow should bring the whole permitted use into question, you know. WATANABE:In, can I follow up? SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. 39EXHIBIT C WATANABE:In that regard then you would tend to agree with the Planning Director then that why put them through this onerous LUC process when in general the usage is allowed in the area anyway? TORIGOE:Right. And, for instance, even if this were A and B soils, which it isnt, things like open area types of recreational uses including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, riding stables, these are allowed uses. And you would almost certainly have to have things like restrooms and certain basic accessory facilities in order to support that sort of thing. So, you know, I think its kind of, I just have a hard time going to the extent that, I guess, the Land Use Commission sometimes expresses its concern about parceling or spot zoning in circumstances where you already have what would ordinarily be a permissible use and then youre trying to add on some kind of uses which are fairly inherent in support of those uses. Now in this case you have some things which are probably, as I say, fairly inherent like just havingsomerestroomsorsomekindofshelterforpeople.Butwhenyouretalkingabout selling, you know, retailing items that are not produced on the property and included -, thats the kind of thing you want to have a special permit for. But, you know, to say that a special permit request that asks for some small retail sales in relation to the large botanical garden requires you then to consider the whole botanical garden as part of the acreage to me is a little bit artificial. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe, any follow up? WATANABE:No, I need to think about it. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Yuen, do you have anything to add on the Toyama case, Toyama Gardens. YUEN:Mr. Hayashi could explain the situation there. HAYASHI:Yes. As far as Nani Mau Gardens or Toyama, basically what they did was come in for a special permit originally for I believe was 20 something acres, then they increased it to 53 acres or 55 acres because within the garden they also had some snack shops. So what they wanted to do was incorporate the whole thing rather than just to parcelize or carve out maybe 2 acres here, 2 acres here. So they included the whole thing. They eventually reduced the size of the garden and decided not to go through with that snack shops within the back portion, so they took that out from the special permit. That back portion is still being used, portions of it are still being used as a botanical garden, which is a permitted use. Now they have about 22 acres which is part of the special permit. Within that 22 acres they have their restaurant, they have their office building, they have another building that was previously used for their trolley cars and warehouse, and the huge parking lot that they have. So what they did was incorporate that as part of the special permit. I dont know whether that totaled 22 acres or not, but its close to it. So their botanical garden is outside of the special permit area because its a permitted use. So all of the 22 acres is basically for their other activities, which are not permitted by Chapter 205 of the Land Use Law. SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita, do you have any follow up? 40EXHIBIT C IWASHITA:So what youre saying is that, well, why is there a Land Use Commission LUC docket number SP 73-159? What is that case about? HAYASHI:The 73-159 regarding, that the -. IWASHITA:Thats Toyama Gardens Hawaii. HAYASHI:Oh, there still is that special permit. Because the area involved in the special permit is still 22 acres which is more than 15 acres, it had to be approved by the Land Use Commission. IWASHITA:I see. Okay, okay, I was getting the wrong impression when you were speaking earlier. SPRINGER:Andtheactivity,sorry. IWASHITA:Imsorry. SPRINGER:Imsorry.Andtheactivitiesweredistributedthroughoutthe20plus acres? HAYASHI:Right now its more concentrated. But when they had the 53 or 55 acres in the back portion, it was all over the place. But they decided not to go through with that proposal, so they cut it back down to 22 acres, which still needs to be approved by the Land Use Commission because its more than 15 acres. IWASHITA:Okay, so what Im understanding in my, again, you know, I havent been throughout the entire Nani Mau Gardens area, but the actual improvements, the parking lot, the buildings that they have there, those dont occupy, in my mind, 4 or 5 of those 20 acres. HAYASHI:Because you have your parking lot, you have your restaurant area, you extend all the way down to the other side where you have your former cart and warehouse area, which later on portions of it was converted into a salon and spa, that may not actually be 22 acres. But rather than, and some of those areas are still in botanical use. But I think from Nani Maus standpoint they felt that rather than try to carve out, you know, pieces within the 22 acres, they took the whole thing and retained that portion for the special permit area. If they were to do something like this, then it probably could be less than 15 acres that is actually being used for nonagricultural purposes. IWASHITA:So what Im understanding what youre saying is that in the Nani Mau case basically the applicant took both the improved areas that resulted in the improvements and portions of the botanical garden area and included that within the permit process, and the special permit in that case covers that extended area? HAYASHI:Thats correct. And legally they could have cut carved out the botanical garden portion and left that out and made the special permit area even less than 22 acres. 41EXHIBIT C IWASHITA:I guess, because Im not, and maybe I have to address this to counsel, what case is Mr. Ching talking about? TORIGOE:You mean when he refers to the Circuit Court case? IWASHITA:Yes. TORIGOE:I dont know. He doesnt mention it. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah. Mr. Hayashi, at the time this special permit was granted, did that also include the existing building now for Nani Mau Gardens? HAYASHI:Youmeantheexistingbotanicalgarden,NaniMau? WATANABE:ImreferringbacktoNaniMauGardens,yeah. HAYASHI:NaniMau,oh,okay. WATANABE:Atthetimethatthatspecialpermitwasawardedforthat22acres,didit also include that building, the existing building now -? HAYASHI:Yes. WATANABE:The one where they hold receptions and all of that? So I dont know if you would recall at the top of your head, but as far as scale is concerned, how large a building is that in relation to what were discussing now? HAYASHI:Its much larger, I believe, than the area that the applicant is proposing, because that has an upstairs and downstairs. WATANABE:Two stories, right? HAYASHI:Yeah, two stories, and its quite long. I dont know what exactly the square footage was for that property. WATANABE:I guess, from my point of view, thats why I didnt see it as much as a concern, because from what Im reading here were looking at something much smaller it seems, not something that you could hold wedding reception and additional parties, etc. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Iwashita, do you have follow-up discussion? IWASHITA:I guess it seems to me, well, I understand the factual distinction that is being raised here. But my concern is I still have a residual concern that in that case, which basically I have it, you know, in my mind, I really cant distinguish it, even in scale, because I 42EXHIBIT C dont know what the daily count was at Nani Mau Gardens, but it probably was maybe twice what were projecting out in this case. But, in any event, you know, what Im hearing is basically the applicant is being allowed to determine by choosing an area whether or not the 15 acres is going to be included or not. Im, I guess I view our role as to determine, make a determination that, as counsel is earlier stating, you know, the use, what area is actually being used. And given, you know, I agree that that botanical, obviously, if he just raises plants and thats what all youre going to do, thats a permitted use. Thats not what were talking about here. Were talking about adding a use, and that is allowing 1200 people to go and, you know, walk about and view, and be charged a fee for doing that. And its not a haphazard thing. The intent is that these 1200 people will be going all around these garden areas, and to the falls and back, and that this facility that were asked to approve is basically to accommodate that traffic. So I have a hard time just, you know, taking that out of the picture and saying, well, its an allowable use anyway, because thats not an allowable use in mind; and thats what were being asked to approve. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Iwashita. Commissioners, is there any further discussion? TORIGOE:Madam Chair, can I ask the Planning Director a question? Just -. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:Something like, and Im looking at HRS 205-4.5, a public and private open area type of recreational use including day camps, picnic grounds, parks, and riding tables. Is that in any way in your mind something that is related or comparable in type to a botanical garden that would allow people to come on site and view, it would seem that it might be something that would be in the same sort of category as a recreational use, an open area recreational use? YUEN:Yeah, where weve drawn the line has been the facility. There are examples of open air tours without facilities where people go hiking, for example, on agricultural land, and we are not requiring a special permit. They may go hiking across hundreds of acres of agricultural land. There may be a fee charged, maybe a regularly conducted tour by people. Were not requiring special permits for them as long as there are no special facilities involved in there and falling under that outdoor recreation. Similarly, if this operation didnt have, didnt plant anything but charged people a fee to walk and look at the waterfall, walk across the agricultural land and looked at the waterfall, we would look at that as outdoor recreation, as long as they didnt have a fee, I mean, didnt have a facility for that. And so, and then returning to Mr. Iwashitas question, we have had disputes with applicants before over how many acres are going to count. Its not something that we simply accept what they give us. Weve refused to accept boundaries drawn by applicants in the past where they seemed, lets say, highly artificial and cut off areas really that should have been included. In this case, the facilities are confined to a pretty small area. That, and thats probably the biggest difference between Nani Mau, is that Nani Mau, the facilities were spread out over a fairly large area; and so the whole area was counted in that. 43EXHIBIT C TORIGOE:The reason I ask is because this really gets to the heart of what 205 is all about; and weve had to deal with this in various forms recently. But, you know, things like day camps, riding stables, dont those inherently involve a certain level of facilities? YUEN:This is one of those line drawing issues that the Department has struggled with over the years; and it has come up in a variety of contexts including cave tours, hiking tours, the flume in the ditch, kayak tours, the Chalon. And there are quite a number of commercial outdoor recreational ventures that dont involve a facility on agricultural land, where the activity is on agricultural land, its commercial, doesnt involve a facility, and we have not been making people get a special permit. On the other side of the line, Doutor Coffee, this application here, Fire Mountain in Volcano where you have a facility, its on agricultural land, there may be some outdoor tie-in, there may be some agricultural tie-in, but you have a facility thats associated with it, like a visitors center, both in my administration and the previous administration, they have been requiring special permits. I cant say that you can walk out and take every example thatexistsontheislandandsaytherehasbeenaconsistentline.Therearemanythingsthat, there are things that possibly could be cited that have never been cited usually because nobody has ever made a complaint about it. But as far as operations that are alike, I would say that there has been a consistency in taking an operation like this and when they want to build a facility to say that that needs a special permit. And the examples I would give would be Nani Mau, Onomea, Hawaii Tropical Botanical Garden in Onomea. And Im not sure what other examples on the botanical garden side I would give, but those are ones that I would give on the botanical garden side. And on the side of not making them get a special permit, this operation was never cited strictly as a botanical garden; and in that sense its like the hiking tour or other kinds of outdoor recreation without facilities. TORIGOE:I defer to the Planning Director with respect to application of 405. I just wanted to raise that issue. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Torigoe and Mr. Yuen. Commissioners, is there any further discussion? Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:One question for you, Madam Chair. If my motion, theres no second, what happens? SPRINGER:Another motion may be in order. ALAMEDA:Another motion is in order, okay. Im ready to make a motion if were ready. With regard to applicant World Botanical Gardens (Special Permit 04-0045), its a continued hearing on the request for a special permit to allow the construction of a visitor center, parking lot and related improvements on approximately 154,010 square feet of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District, I move that we approve this special permit, along with the recommendations made by the Department and the conditions as so included. SPRINGER:And Commissioner Alameda, I believe that there was an amendment to th Condition 5 and a new condition inserted to reflect the March 10DLNRmemo. ALAMEDA:Sonoted. 44EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Does your motion include those? ALAMEDA:Yes, Maam. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there a second? SALAVEA:Second. SPRINGER:Director Yuen? YUEN:In looking at this, there is a condition that I think is implied but I think we should add that, and that is that there wasnt a size limit put on the visitors center or parking area. Its in the text, but I would say the applicants representation is the visitor center would be 7,000 square feet and the parking area 20,000 square feet. I would ask that that be put in a specific condition, that the total square footage of the visitors center not exceed 7,000 square feet and the parking area not exceed 20,000 square feet. SPRINGER:Is that a new condition then? YUEN:That would be a new condition, yes. SPRINGER:Thankyou.Sowehaveoneamendedcondition,whichis5,andwehave two new conditions. Is there discussion on the motion? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I would like to suggest another amendment consistent with Mr. Chings recommendation, that there be an agricultural conservation easement or other similar mechanism to insure the undeveloped portions of the parcel, other than the 3.5 acres or so, remain so for the life of the special permit. And that is, to me, consistent with the discussion which says that, as I heard it, that the rest of these lands are really being used consistent with the agricultural, the State Land Use Agricultural designation. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Norman, do you have some language to that effect? Watanabe:Question? SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Assuming were to consider that, what kind of area are you recommending, the remaining 297 acres, or 10 acres, or -? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Whatever is not included in this 3.5 acres that were talking about today, I mean tonight. 45EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Im interested in other Commissioners thoughts on this proposal. ALAMEDA:Just a thought -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:And a comment. I just noticed one of the testifiers giving a document to a fellow Commissioner. I just want to make note of our sunshine law to ensure that whatever communications, that we are also privileged to that. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Commissioner Siracusa or Mr. Torigoe, how should we handle this? SIRACUSA:Yes, the note that was just passed to me, shall I just read that out, and then werenotinviolationoftheSunshineLaw? SPRINGER:Justamoment,please.Mr.Torigoe,doyouhaveguidanceforus? TORIGOE:Yeah,Iguess,whatwasmentionedbyCommissionerAlamedawasthat Mr. Haun handed a note, a hand-written note, to Commissioner Siracusa. And I dont know, Mr. Haun was that meant to be a private personal communication in relation to this hearing or not related to this hearing? If its related to the hearing then it really should be on the record. J. HAUN:I dont mind it being on the record. Im just trying to help the process. I hear a lot of good discussion and I feel some things may be falling through the cracks here, some ideas that were mentioned. I was just trying to remind Rene about some things that she already said to you guys, and it has already been discussed , you know, about restricting the sales item to Ag-related things related to the land, and restricting the numbers of 1200, I mean, Director Yuen said 600 was a major increase. I mean, come on, 12000 is just so vast. Please at least restrict the numbers if youre going to approve this to something more reasonable. And they can come back for a larger increase after we see what the impacts are like. Please. TORIGOE:Okay, so -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Haun. YUEN:Just as a matter of procedure, members of the public should not hand things to the Commissioners during testimony. You have a chance to testify and to say what you have to say during testimony. So, and Members of the Commission, if you do receive something, we shouldnt receive them. And then staff has to take note of that. We, its just not proper to bring something up to a Commissioner during the hearing. If you have something to say, thats what the testimony is for. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. SIRACUSA:So in light of the Sunshine Law, shall I read the note so that no one can say were in violation? 46EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe, Mr. Haun came to the, spoke into the record. Do we need to -? TORIGOE:Why dont we just, just for clarity to make sure that theres no question about it, why dont you just read whats on that paper into the record? SIRACUSA:‚Please restrict items for sale and number of visitors.ƒ TORIGOE:And thats all it says? SIRACUSA:Thats all it says. SPRINGER:Thank you all. I believe that we were discussing a motion, and Commissioner Iwashita had made a recommendation that we incorporate the recommendation from Anthony Ching of the State Land Use Commission regarding the conservation -. WATANABE:The Ag use. HAYASHI:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes, Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI:Just reading what Mr. Ching had indicated in his correspondence, its difficulttounderstandorcomprehendastowheretheundevelopedareathathesreferringto. And, basically, what hes saying is that the County should consider a condition providing for an agricultural conservation easement or other similar mechanism to ensure that the undeveloped portionsof the parcel remain so for the life of the special permit. First of all, we dont know where its referring to, the undevelopedportion. Is it the undeveloped portion of the 26 acre or the 300 acres? And, if so, these areas should remain vacant or undeveloped for the life of the permit, is that the intent? IWASHITA:No. I think, let me clarify what Im suggesting, that a condition of the special permit be that the applicant agree to impose as a matter of record an agricultural conservation easement to be recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawai€i or the Land Court if this is land court recorded property that insures that those portions of the 300 acres which are not included within the 3 Ÿ acres designated by the applicant on the drawings submitted by the applicant remain as agricultural use in accordance with Chapter 205 for the life of the special permit. SPRINGER:Mr. Director, do you have a response? YUEN:To being with, I believe theyve said that a good portion of that property they dont own, but its under a lease. So that would be hard. I think that the normal range of land use controls is adequate. 47EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:May I make a suggestion. Do they own the 26.27 acre, that parcel, thats fee -? And just look at that rather than the whole botanical garden? I mean, then youre restricting it, but its sizeable. I mean for 3.5 acres youre restricting usage on 26 -. IWASHITA:I dont see it as a restriction. The representation is that, by the applicant, if I understand correctly, is that anything outside of this 3 Ÿ acres is being used for agricultural purposes consistent with Chapter 205, correct? If thats correct, then this is not a restriction. This is just a mechanism to address the concern that, you know, that Mr. Ching raises, which I view as a valid concern, and that is if the applicant wants to limit the extent of this permit to the 3 Ÿ acres, right, then so be it; and this just makes a record of it. And if the applicant is using lease land as part of its operation and part of what the customers have access to, then the restriction can be limited to the life of the lease, if thats what its going to be. But it should extendtothatlandandwhateverinteresttheapplicanthasintheland.Thatrestrictioncanapply for that interest; and I think that is consistent with what the applicant is asking for. I mean, hes not asking to impose anything other that whats being represented the use is going to be. And if theres concern about that and the use may be anything other than that, then I think perhaps the extent or the area thats being covered by this application has to be reassessed. SPRINGER:Other Commissioners? Commissioner Salavea, do you have any thoughts on this discussion? Weve heard both from Commissioner Iwashita and the Director and have opposing views. SALAVEA:Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand where Commissioner Iwashita is coming from; and basically I have, I agree with what he is proposing in terms of insuring that the remainder of the land remain as is and in that level of use, that agricultural use. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I would agree with Commissioner Salavea. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I dont particularly have objections, except Im looking for something that is less onerous. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Not a problem for me as well. SPRINGER:Mr. Director, do you have any suggested language to incorporate what Commissioner Iwashita has expressed? YUEN:I think you should ask for comments from the applicant. I still, if the intent is that the remaining, whatever property that they own, be kept in agricultural use, there 48EXHIBIT C are land use controls that ensure that. If they want to change it from out of agriculture, then theyve got to go and get rezoning, or another kind of an approval to do that. SPRINGER:Before we go to the applicant, what if instead of a restrictive easement there be a condition of the permit, of the special permit, that the 300 acres remain in Ag use consistent with HRS, Chapter 205? YUEN:I dont have a problem with that because I think that just restates what the restrictions are currently. SPRINGER:To the applicants, youve heard the discussion and we have, were weighing a couple of options at this point for a new condition. Do you have any comments on this? S.ERICKSON:Yeah,Idohavesomecomments.Iguess,wedonthaveanyproblems with the Ag condition, but it seems to me the land is zoned Ag and Mr. Yuen has, I thought, you know, done a good job explaining that if we were to do anything other than Ag we would have to come and go through procedure and get permission. So were kind of saving whats, were putting a condition on there thats just verbiage for what is already there. And I dont know that it really does any good or amplifies, you know, whats already an Ag zoning in any way that would really help. SPRINGER:Thank you, Maam. YUEN:If I could ask Mr. Iwashita what, just run through some scenarios of what is he trying to accomplish with this. And one scenario, and I dont know how many parcels are involved in this 300 acres. One scenario is that the applicant, say they have several parcels and they decide they want to sell one parcel, 30 acres, is that prohibited under this scenario? Does that still have to be encumbered by an agricultural easement after they sell it under this scenario? IWASHITA:The easement would apply only to those areas affected by the Special Permit, as I stated it. So -. YUEN:Well, the area of the special permit is only 3 acres. IWASHITA:Well, no -. YUEN:Yeah, so you mean something aside from the 3 acres? IWASHITA:Okay, I misspoke. The areas, whats being represented by the applicant is that the Gardens utilizes 300 acres and they want to cut out 3 Ÿ acres out of this area to, for purposes of making this application and allowing the buildings to be made. The easement is, in my mind, provides a purpose of making very clear to the applicant that, you know, uses of these non-permitted areas have to conform to 105. And I guess the concern is that, that I see it addresses is that, you know, in fact, the use of the land by these 1200 tourists/visitors is not going to be limited to the 3 Ÿ acres. Thats the problem that I see, and that their use of the property may not be a use allowed under Chapter 205. And, you know, so Id like the 49EXHIBIT C Department basically to have the ability through this easement to, if that comes to pass, to have the power to say, well, youre not, you know, we can revoke the permit, we have this expressed condition, and youre violating it. YUEN:Well, see, I think that the visitors center, the permit that were giving, its clear that it has to be tied to the existence of a botanical garden. So if in ten years time all you had was a visitors center and you didnt have any plantings, you didnt have a botanical garden, and people just came and it would say effectively be a tour bus rest stop, gift shop and place to buy food, that would be, to me, a violation of what was presented at the application. Because its, what theyre presenting is a visitor center thats in connection with a botanical garden Their long-term goal is to utilize something like 300 acres. But if in ten years time theyre utilizing 50 acres as a botanical garden, to me, thats fine with me. If theyre using 20 acres of botanical garden, thats okay with me. What happens to the rest of the property is, if financially they cant hold on to the rest of the property, they cant maintain a lease on it and they sell the rest of the property,Ihavenointerestatthispointinhavingacontroloverthat,becausethatscontrolled by other land use controls. So say if theres this 50-acre piece of property that ultimately they dont put in the botanical garden they sell to somebody else, if we encumbered that with an easement now, when does that become unencumbered? And then my other question would be what kinds of things are not allowed? Example, they have, they may have several parcels that they own. They can put a house on one of the parcels now. Is that prohibited? My view of this is by granting this special permit on these three acres youre not necessarily prohibiting them from building a house on, say, a 50-acre parcel that they own, that they may also be using as part of the botanical garden. Is that prohibited in your view? Now, as I say, I dont have a problem with what Mr. Torigoe suggests because under that formulation the use of the houses, the building of a house would be covered by Chapter 205. So whatever is -. IWASHITA:Itd be a farm dwelling. YUEN:In this case, no. These properties are lots that were created before June 4, 1976. Theyre not lots that were subdivided afterwards. The law that was passed in 1976 says that on lots created after June 4, 1976 you have to be a farm dwelling, but it allows the construction of single family dwellings on lots that are in existence prior to that time. So Im pretty sure that these properties are not involved in a post-1976 subdivision; and, hence, you could build one single family home on a lot of record. So thats where this question of you say, you just say you have to have an agricultural easement. If thats meant to, we need to say what does that mean. Does that mean all you can do is grow things on the remaining whatever, 200, 300 acres that they have or is it as Mr. Torigoes formulation its a little more flexible, is whatever is allowed under, for an agricultural district under Chapter 205? But this is why its really complicated to try to put some kind of easement that covers the 200 or 300 acres of property thats not directly covered, is not directly involved in this special permit and just say, well, we want to have an agricultural easement on it. IWASHITA:I guess thats the dynamics that I see, the tension between the effort to cut out this 3 Ÿ acres when, in fact, you know, it appears that the entire 300 acres is somehow projected to be used for this botanical garden. And, you know, as I understand 205, you know, we wouldnt have to be here today if all they wanted to do was to build a warehouse, if he 50EXHIBIT C wanted to, you know, do, make structures that are related to raising plants, right? But youre wanting to make the building to, you know, basically create a store, you know, and other activities that are not considered directly accessory to the agricultural use. And thats why were here and thats the dynamics. And the concern I have is because these buildings, you know, are intended to be used by people who are going to be, you know you have improved pathways to the falls1, right? You know, theyre intending to use the entire property; and were, in my mind, artificially cutting it off at 3 Ÿ acres. And thats the concern that I have, and thats why, you know, and I understand what youre saying, Director; and it is difficult. And maybe the better solution is to say, you know, call this what it really is. Its you have a botanical garden of 26 acres right now thats being used, thats developed, and that should be the area that were talking about. And it should be treated that way, and not try and draw a line around where the driveway is going to be, around the perimeter or setbacks of the buildings and say thats all were talking about, you know -. Maybe Im lolo, but I have a hard time just saying that thats what it is. WATANABE:MadamChair,mayI? SPRINGER:CommissionerWatanabe. WATANABE:Youreference,Mr.Iwashita,rightjustinthatlastfewsentences,tothe 26.27 acres, which is one parcel which I believe the waterfall rests upon which is probably one of the greatest assets of this botanical gardens as the exists today. I think as a compromise we can look at possibly restricting to Ag use or the Ag easement for that 26, that one parcel, that 26.27 acres, as opposed to the entire 300 acres that, you know, you were referring to earlier. Would that be satisfactory? Would that address your concern? It would be one even parcel. It makes everything real clean; and then the permit dies if theres an issue. WATANABE:Well, I, given what Director Yuen says, and I appreciate the gist of what hes saying, is that as a scrivener, you know, as a lawyer having to draft what this easement is going to apply to and how youre going to limit, or you know, and make it clear to anyone that reads it under what conditions it terminates, as to what portions of land and all those kinds of things that, you know, those are all legitimate concerns. So, you know, I think that when you get right back down to the bottom of what my concern is and why I brought it up, I thought the easement was the way to try and address, you know, all the different concerns. Based on what the Director has said, I see that it raises like a lot of things, maybe more questions than answers. And I, you know, its my gut feeling, my basic feeling that this application should cover the 26 acres, because, you now, were drawing an artificial line around these buildings and improvements and saying thats all were talking about. The reality is these 1200 people a day are not going to stay there, theyre going to go to the falls, theyre going to go look at the other areas; and thats what were talking about. And those, and so I think that the application should be expanded to that area. And so I dont know -. So my druthers would be to, after all of this, continue this matter, have that addressed more particularly, or, you know, maybe the applicant can consider whether or not thats the way to proceed. I understand the LUC ramifications but, to me, thats the reality. You know, drawing the line is a way to get around that LUC requirements. But in my mid, you know, it seems like it really should be applicable as Mr. Ching says, maybe not to the 300 but at least to that 26. SPRINGER:Commissioner Salavea? 51EXHIBIT C SALAVEA:Thank you, Madam Chair. May I make a recommendation that maybe we poll the Commissioners on what they see the usage as. ‚Cause I think in my mind I do see the special permit being that of the support structure for the botanical garden activities that are currently existing. And, therefore, I dont see it quite from the same perspective in terms of bundling the usage. I think the usages are different. So thats just what my manao -. SPRINGER:And, members, being mindful that we do have a motion on the floor. Were now discussing the scale, I guess, of this permit. Were having a suggestion that it be expanded to include the 26.27 acres. That is not the motion thats before us yet, though. WATANABE:Commissioner Watanabe. SPRINGER:May I address -. Mr. Iwashita, to me you kind of changed everything on us. €Cause it was like okay, were adding conditions to a motion that was live, right? And were talking about an agricultural easement which was a condition of approval of a special permit. Now were talking about, well, lets change the whole thing and take away this spot zoning because Im troubled with the spot zoning, which then takes it completely out of the jurisdiction ofthisCommission.And,butIguess-. IWASHITA:Ithinkthat,well,myunderstandingwouldbethatitwouldntbeoutof our jurisdiction, it will be adding the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission, you know, to review the matter also. And -. WATANABE:Well, let me respond to you this way. Reading from Mr. Chings letter th dated March 9 on page 2, the second to the last paragraph he indicates ‚In alternative we suggest the County consider a condition providing for agriculture conservation easement or other similar mechanisms to ensure that the undeveloped portions of the parcel remain so for the life of the special permit. So the question now is are we talking about a 26.7 acre parcel or a multitude of parcels that may constitute 300 acres or thereabouts and in my mind it would suffice to, and it wouldntgivetheimpressionofthumbingyournoseattheLandUseCommissionbyputting some type of wording in there that would restrict the deed on that one parcel, 26.27 acres I believeitis. IWASHITA:Madam Chair, can I ask -? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:There was a suggestion made earlier that the applicant be asked to address this issue, and maybe we can do that at this time. SPRINGER:Okay, to the applicant? N. ERICKSON:I think Sherrill tried to address this, that, you know, our intention is accessory to the botanical use and with staffs direction, you know, we outlined the proposed improvements that are accessory to this use. And, obviously, any mechanism that helps encourage the continued use we believe is already part of the current zoning and planning rules, 52EXHIBIT C although we wouldnt object to writing it in to some form for the 26 acres. It becomes very, very complicated though, you know, to go beyond that portion. I think it would be something that wed have to step aside and discuss with the Board members that are here. S. ERICKSON:I can, if I may -? SPRINGER:Maam, Ms. Erickson. S. ERICKSON:The notion of a, you know, an ad-hoc sort of infusion of an urban development I think is what Andy is getting at as far as including the whole thing rather than what weve marked out. And what weve got here is, again, an existing permitted use of a botanical garden and our structure is supportive of that. So its not an ad-hoc infusion. Its a supportive use. And, in that sense, I think that I would have to disagree with them. And I dont feel that this is appropriate for a Land Use Commission review, €cause its not greater than 15 acres.NoteveryinchofNaniMauGardenwasdevelopedbutalotmorewasdevelopedthan what were asking for. Were asking for a fairly modest structure. Its clearly accessory, but for the fact were going to sell a few items. So I dont think submission to the Land Use Commission is warranted in this case. WATANABE:Madam Chair -. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe if I may ask Mr. Torigoe a question before we continue on. Theres a motion on the floor. If this motion does not pass, what recourse will the applicant have? TORIGOE:Well, if the motion doesnt pass you can still entertain any other motions, you know, that may have different conditions or different approaches. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I think, I just wanted to make a comment to what you just stated; and its not really your use. Its the process that kind of concerns us, and largely because what has been delegated to the County level really isnt limited to 15 acres; and what were doing is carving out 3.5 out of 27. So its the process thats kind of odd. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Just my own, you know, getting back to the polling idea that -. I dont feel that the extra usage outside of the 3 acres, if you will, I mean see it as walking, I see it as liken to hiking, I see it as liken to the other types of activities that you wouldnt need a special permit anyways. So Im okay to keeping it within the 3 and just kind of taking a vote on that, my motion. SPRINGER: We have a motion before us. Commissioners, that does not include the recommendation from Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Siracusa and then Commissioner Watanabe. 53EXHIBIT C SIRACUSA:Well, I wanted to say that it seems to me that since the rest of the garden is already permitted, what were looking at here is a special permit just for this extra construction; and thats fine with me. Im having trouble really following Commissioner Iwashitas reasoning on this. The note that was passed to me about limiting the number of visitors, I must say that I dont even see how something like that could done, how there could be a mechanism for that. What, do you put a gate and count off 1200 and say, okay, stop right there? I mean, I dont see that thats possible anyway. And I think they would be very happy probably if they got that many. But considering the rate that they have been growing, it doesnt look, that seems more like pie in the sky to me than anything else. So, but I would appreciate if you would repeat the motion because there has been so much talk between the time you said it and now, and its late in the day, and my mind isnt functioning all that well anymore. So -. SPRINGER:The motion is to approve the special permit with the amended Condition 5 and with two new conditions: one, incorporating the DOT sight distance discussion; and the th othertomemorializetheDLNRconcernsexpressedintheirMarch10 memo. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Seeing as, you know, we have only six members here and were required to have five affirmatives for this motion to pass no matter what form it takes, may I suggest that we make an amendment that would incorporate the agricultural conservation for the one parcel, the 26.27 acres in which the building resides. SPRINGER:Mr. Hayashi, did you have a comment? HAYASHI:Yes. There was one other condition that was proposed by the Director, and that was to limit the size of the visitors center to 7,000 square feet and also to limit the parking area to 20,000 square feet. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Mr. Watanabe, do you have some language for that proposed condition? WATANABE:Create an agricultural conservation area for the parcel to run with special permit-. SIRACUSA:The27-acrepart-? WATANABE:Onlyrestrictedtothat27.2oris26.2,IsaiditsomanytimesIm confused, 26.27 acres. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Yuen, is that sufficient language? YUEN:Just to flesh this out because this may, we need to know what the Commission wants to restrict here. Would it restrict the, say, the construction of a home for a staff member, to give an example? And Id like, first, is that the desire and what would the applicants response to that be? SPRINGER:Mr. Watanabe? 54EXHIBIT C WATANABE:Personally I had not considered that. From my own point of view, I see no problem with one additional residence on the parcel, but Im one person. SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I appreciation the suggestion by Commissioner Watanabe. But, I guess, because I share the training that Director Yuen has, I share his concern about the difficulties in terms of crafting this easement in a way that is not overly obtrusive or denies the applicant rights that it otherwise has. And I dont wish to do that. So, and this is what, let me try and explain. The training that the Director and I share as far as legal training, we both know, right, that the words are ameliorable, and that if its too general and its not really specific that lots of different conflicting meanings can be put to it; and thats the recipe for litigation. Okay? And so that is, I accept that suggestion fully on the part of the Director and I dont, you know, and given that -. And I accept the suggestion of the Director also that Chapter 205 as far as its Land Use Regulation that those, that the Director can impose those and make sure that those are complied with as a condition of any special permit. My main concern, okay, and so thats why Im willing, and I dont mean to make things more confusing, but thats why mainly Im willing to setasidemyinitialsuggestionforthiseasement,evenastothe26.27acres.Andmymain concern really is that my perception is were not talking about, you know, I dont have any problem with the botanical use, I dont have any problem with people going and looking at these plants. WATANABE:Your opinion is that it should go to the LUC? IWASHITA:I dont have any problem. They can continue doing that, they dont need a permit to do that. They can build bathrooms, they dont, you know, they can make any building that is normally consistent, considered directly accessory to the botanical garden use. They dont need a permit for that. The applicant is coming to us because this use does not fall within that exception under the Statute. And so the question becomes what area of use is this covering? And, to me, its very artificial to say that because the building has a 7,000 square foot footprint and the parking lot has a 80,000 square foot footprint that thats all were talking about because, in my mind, thats not what were talking about. How -. WATANABE:Okay. I withdraw -. IWASHITA:Because those uses, those improvement are intended to increase the use of the rest of the property. Its not intended just to be used, you know, in that area. WATANABE:Okay, Ill withdraw my recommendation then. So shall we just focus on the other -? SPRINGER:Thank you. We have a motion before us. Are there any, with several, with an amendment and three new conditions. Are there any other recommended conditions? Is there any further discussion on the motion? HAYASHII dont believe there was a second to the motion. 55EXHIBIT C SPRINGER:Commissioner Salavea. HAYASHI:Oh, you did, okay. And the three added conditions to be sure again: One is that revision to Condition 5, the second one was limiting the size of the facility and parking, and third was the weed risk assessment. SPRINGER:And I believe also there was one to the DOT with regard to sight distance. HAYASHI:Yeah, I think thats in the amendment to Condition 5. SPRINGER:So theres one amendment and two new -. HAYASHI:And were also including the suggestion that -? WATANABE:No, no, I withdraw that. HAYASHI:Okay, so those three. SPRINGER:So Condition 5 as amended and we have two new conditions. IWASHITA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:There was a paragraph 13 condition in the original recommendation by the Director which was omitted in the supplemental. And that should be added with the correction, the language, 13 originally talked about rezoning, and we have here a special permit process. HAYASHI:Yes. IWASHITA:So it should talk about revocation. HAYASHI:Well, we do have that phrase at the beginning of the condition, if you look onpage7;anditsays,beforealloftheconditions,itsays‚Shouldanyoftheseconditionsnotbe met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate procedurestorevokethispermit.ƒNormallywedohavethisconditionintheend. IWASHITA:Okay, Im sorry. HAYASHI:We can move it to the end, you know. IWASHITA:Thats fine. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioners. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Erickson. 56EXHIBIT C ERICKSON:I dont think weve had an opportunity to comment on one of the conditions that were added as far as the building size and the parking lot size. SPRINGER:Please proceed. N. ERICKSON:And I just have a question. The building size isnt the problem. But the parking lot that we propose as part of our application was shown half as big as we had wanted; and Im not sure if 20,000 square feet is including our future growth or its just limiting to what we have shown. YUEN:Well, its what you show. Thats what you showed in your application. N. ERICKSON:Okay, I just want to make that clear. SPRINGER:Isthereanythingelse,Mr.Erickson? N.ERICKSON:No,thankyou. SPRINGER:Commissioners?Mr.Hayashi,youcantaketherollcallvote,please. HAYASHI:Thankyou,MadamChair. SPRINGER:Youre welcome. HAYASHI:Mr. Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Ms. Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA:Nay. HAYASHI:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. 57EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion carries five to one. SPRINGER:Thank you. Youll be informed in writing of this evenings decision. The discussion ended at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 58EXHIBIT C