Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-12 TYAMADA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 12, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of GERALD AND WENDY YAMADA (SPP 04-018)was called to order at 5:18 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Second Vice-Chairman Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones C. Kimo Alameda Jeffrey McCall Andrew Iwashita Bill Graham Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director NormanHayashi,PlanningProgramManager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 9 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: GERALD AND WENDY YAMADA (SPP 04-018) Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial retail and office complex (gas station/convenience store, auto repair and sales store, supermarket, financial institution, personal services, restaurant, hardware supply, medical and dental office, other professional services such as real estate, attorney, insurance, etc.) on approximately 3.17 acres of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located at the northwest corner of the Keaau- Pahoa Road (Highway 130) and Aulii Drive intersection, Orchidland Estates, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-9: 418 (portion), 419, 420 and 421. SPRINGER:We€ll begin with our first agenda item. It€s Unfinished Business. The applicants are Gerald and Wendy Yamada. It€s a Special Permit 04-018. This is a continued hearing on the request for a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial retail and office complex (gas station/convenience store, auto repair and sales store, supermarket, financial institution, personal services, restaurant, hardware supply, medical and dental office, other professional services such as real estate, attorney, insurance, etc.) on approximately 3.17 acres of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located at the northwest corner of the Keaau-Pahoa Road (Highway 130) and Aulii Drive intersection, Orchidland Estates, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-9: 418 (portion), 419, 420 and 421. 1 EXHIBIT A When we left off at thelastmeeting, Commissioners, we had granted the applicant for contested case standing in the matter. That came to us from the Orchidland Community Association. At this time, we will begin the morning€s deliberations where we left off with that discussion of the contested case, we€ll receive public testimony, and continue with decision-making as is appropriate. So, at this time, I€d like to invite the applicant and his representative, and the representative from the Orchidland Community Association to the table, please. At this time I€d like to swear the applicant and the representative from the Community Association in for the record. Will you all please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. At this time I€d like to ask the applicant and the applicant€s representativetopleasestatetheirnamesandaddressesfortherecord,andwe€llbeginwithany statements that you have for us. YAMADA:Gerald Yamada, 16-212 Melekahiwa Street, Keaau, Hawaii. FUKE:Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke, I€m a planning consultant. My residence address is 1358 Melemanu Street here in Hilo. SPRINGER:Thank you. And, sir -? PAWU:Good morning. SPRINGER:Good morning. PAWU:My name is Mya Pawu. I am here this morning representing the Orchidland Community Association where I am the president. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. PAWU:I€m sorry, my address is PO Box 1707, Keaau, Hawaii. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, do you have anything to apprise us of this morning? FUKE:Sure. Since the last meeting on this matter, the applicant has had like a number of meetings with the Orchidland Community Association; and we are, hopefully, proud to report this morning that a resolution with that Association to obviate the need for a contested case had been reached. So, to that extent, I€d like to defer that to Mr. Pawu for his confirmation. 2 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Pawu? PAWU:Yes, Madam Chair. The Board, after much deliberation and many discussions with the applicant have decided that we would be willing to withdraw the contested case hearing only with certain conditions. And those conditions we would ask that if this Commission, this body, wishes to approve the permit, to definitely include them in there to protect the interest of our community. They are detailed by applicant in their statement. They would include that the developer will put a traffic light and other traffic improvement as detailed in their plan. And these improvements are to be completed and installed and operational at least 90 days prior to occupancy of the project. We have seen in the past where the project is complete and the infrastructure is not; and, therefore, we€re asking the developer to do what they have agree to do so. That developer agreed to pay the fees as promised in their letter to us dated th April 26 to it, 4 cents per square foot, a common area maintenance in the amount of approximately $1400 per month. In addition, a traffic impact mitigation fee of $10 per day should they decide to put in a fast food or drive-through restaurant, which were perceived as creating excessive trash. And the other caveat is, two caveats are that the lot is to be used as stated in their modified proposal and modified map that they€re showing today; and that is for a primary tenant to be a full-serviced grocery store with one smaller building only. And that is the project that we are willing to withdraw the contested case hearing, if it is kept to that plan, and not coming back for a change. Should the applicant come back to this body for a change in use, we would want to, again, contest that. The fourth caveat would be that they have asked for exemptions as items in their reason for approval, 14, they have A, B, C, D, E. We would like to add caveat E, and that is any extension of any of the conditions should not be contrary to the promises made by the developertoOrchidlandCommunityAssociation.Inotherwordswewouldnotwantthem coming back and saying they want an extension of time to provide because it wasn€t possible, etc. We want that to be, they want that to be kind of clear with no loopholes. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr.Pawu. Is that the conclusion of your comments? PAWU:Well, the other comments are, that were made, we did, the motion to drop the contested case hearing was made by a motion at our meeting of 4/27. It was voted five for, one opposed, and one abstained, there are commentaries involved in that. One of the officers supported development if the light, with the light because he believes that€s critical at this point that we have some traffic control along that highway. He also commented that we gain as a community by working with developers that are willing to work with us. We have another developer who has a special use permit granted by this body who was in gross violation of that permit; and not only are they violating their verbal promises and written promises that were made outside of this room, but they are threatening legal action against us if we try to enforce our rights to collect the maintenance fees from them. And, therefore, our body has decided that it€s in our interest to work with developers who are collaborative rather than confrontational. Another Board Member who happens to live on Orchidland Drive commented that if the development were to be solely along that corridor, Orchidland Drive would look like exactly 3 EXHIBIT A what the Planning Director and Commission have asked Highway 130 not to look like. We don€t want our main thoroughfare with our name looking like a strip mall either, especially because it is bringing people forth into our community. The further up Orchidland Drive they go, the more impact we have, compared with them coming off of the highway to a lot that is basically on the highway where there€s minimal impact on our community. There will be some impact from neighboring subdivisions coming through our private roadways without going on the highway to that development; and we are aware of that. However we feel that would be the same if it was on Orchidland Drive, which is the designated corridor under the General Plan. A long-time resident and former president of our Association also pointed out that our residents are having a tough time, unlike Paradise Park, in the morning when the traffic is most acute on the Keaau- Pahoa Highway. Aulii, Orchidland Drive, Pohaku Circle, Pohaku Place and Pohaku Drive have intense problems and backups turning left onto the highway. There are no gaps in the traffic or very small gaps. The people in Paradise Park are making a right turn. It€s much easier for them. They do not face the same life-threatening situations that my members do. And the testimony of BarbaraArthurswhowasaBoardMemberandherhusbandwhois,asIsay,apastpresident,is that Aulii is a great place for the first light in the area, and that would create break for all of the other streets in the morning traffic allowing people to enter and egress our subdivision safety. We have contacted the State and petition for a light on more than one occasion at Orchidland Drive or other such locations and been told it is not in their plan for the next five or more years. And we are noting that there are fatalities occurring annually on this stretch of highway; and we believe that this is the only way our community can effect traffic control to save life and property. And had the State agreed to put in a traffic light at Orchidland Drive, we would be more inclined to stick with the General Plan. We do not give testimony or go contrary to the Planning Commission, we have great respect for the work of our Planning Commission, I mean, our Planning Department and Mr. Yuen. Particular, we don€t go against them lightly. But we do feel that in this time the interest of our community may be separate from the interest of the general public in that our members have this distinct problem. We also did a survey in our annual news letter which was preliminary to our annual meeting on April 30th. We asked for an informal request of what our community members wanted. They wanted paving, a grocery store and park. Those were the three top things in an informal survey. We did not ask them with a multiple choice. We asked them with a black line what three things, what things do you want; and those were the top answers. So this would be in keeping with the voice of our people who may not be residents or who may not be present, because this goes out to all 2,400 plus lot owners; and it€s their ability to give input to our Board of Directors and our organization as to what they want to see in their community. And I am here to represent them and not for my personal beliefs. If necessary, I will rejoin. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioners. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Thank you for your testimony to us. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the testifier? SIRACUSA:Yes. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa. 4 EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:Atsome point in all this voluminous reading I read that recently the applicant has decided to not put in the gas station. Is that correct? FUKE:That€s correct. SIRACUSA:Okay, because it hadn€t been stated when Chairman Springer was reading the original thing. She mentioned gas station. And so I just wanted to make sure that that is going to be deleted. YAMADA:That is deleted. After working with the Association and reading their letters when we first came through, a lot of their concerns were traffic. And a lot of the homeowners, we also walked the area, talked to the surrounding property owners, and we found that a lot of them, you know, they really didn€t care of a gas station. There was one on Wiki Wiki alreadyaboutacoupleofblocksdown.Andwhatthe,wewentthroughtheiroldsurveys;and then the old surveys showed a grocery store as their number one item. So we started thinking about it that, you know, how can we make this a win-win situation for the community and for us. I met with Mya€s Board quite a few times, whenever they met, to discuss it; and then we thought about it. The only way we could bring then a traffic light which is a really expensive item for just a 3-acre parcel to be developed, and also help them with a grocery store, was to bring in a bigger-sized grocery store. So what we did was we changed our whole plan to just include a larger-sized grocery store. You know, we brought it up to 30,000 square feet; and once we did that, you know, all they would allow us on site was another smaller building. The rest of the area, in order to make the parking requirements, we need the whole area for parking. So that€s how we came about with this plan, was through working with Mya and his Board. And then, you know, we also talked to him about other aspects, you know, the traffic which we brought up about the traffic signal. We decided to widen the road fronting Aulii, and also somehow we could help them with their, they had some trash problems and insurance, paying for the insurance, which is how we came about adding in the 4 cents per square foot charge within the Association. We have talked to a major grocery store. They don€t want to release their name and they€re verbally saying they want to come in at this time, but they don€t want to come in unless the community really wants them to come in. SIRACUSA:I have another question. Everybody seems to be talking, well, a lot of the people seem to be talking about the need for a grocery store; and a market just opened up right outside Pahoa on the Keaau end, and there€s a grocery store in Keaau. Could you tell us, does anybody here know what are the miles between your site and the Pahoa Market, and your site and the Keaau market? What kind of mileage are we looking at it saving potentially here? PAWU:I don€t have the exact mileage, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Eyeball, close enough. 5 EXHIBIT A PAWU:However, it€s approximately 5 ž miles, I believe, from Keaau to Aulii, it€s four miles to Pohaku Place and, that is Orchidland and Aulii. So I would estimate it€s about 5 ž miles and it€s probably about 5 miles further on to the new Malama Market and the new shopping center at the entrance to Pahoa. So there€ll be about 4 to 5 miles either way. The advantage to the community is they wouldn€t have to go out on the highway, the Orchidland community members. They could access it through their private roadways. But, for instance, if you€re going from Hilo back to where most of our subdivision owners live, the Keaau location is somewhat out of our way with the bypass. And if you€re going, the Aulii location is toward the end of the subdivision, so it€s in the middle of the area, and then going all the way out to Pahoa is quite a long trip. It would be about ten miles round trip either way for a member to go from our subdivision to the existing stores, about ten miles round trip. SIRCACUSA:Thank you. YAMADA:Oneoftheitemsthatwetalkedaboutalsothatwasalotofconcernwith the Board Members and others walking around the community was there€s already a convenience store nearby, and then there€s a new grocery store which is like a half-sized store in Pahoa. But what they wanted was, a lot of the complaints were they wanted competitively- priced groceries, you know, some place where they could -. A lot of them were found driving to town out into Hilo to get these competitive-priced groceries also; and they wanted competitive, you know, something that they wouldn€t hesitate to go daily and buy from. So that€s how we came about with the full-scale market also, was the only way we could provide them that was to come in with a full-scale market. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Yamada. YAMADA:Thank you. SPRINGER:I€d like to remind the Commissioners that the point in discussion that we€re at now is a discussion of the proposed withdrawal of the contested case and, while Mr. Pawu certainly mentioned the scale or full service market as one of their recommended conditions. Thank you for that, Commissioner Siracusa. Are there any more questions of the testifier based on this testimony regarding the withdrawal of the contested case? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I guess, just a clarification. Did I understand that there was a split vote of the Board on whether to withdraw the contested case request? PAWU:Yes, sir, the vote was five for withdrawal, one against the withdrawal, and one abstention; and as Chair of that meeting I did not vote. SPRINGER:Commissioners, given today€s discussion I would like to ask if Mr. Torigoe can give us some guidance regarding where we are. We have approved the Community Association€s standing in a contested case, we€re now presented with a possibility of 6 EXHIBIT A withdrawal if certain conditionsare met. I, for one, would like the Deputy Corporation Counsel€s clarification on how we are proceeding according to form. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may just ask Mr. Pawu just to verify that the vote, it was a split vote you report, but it was a sufficient affirmative vote to allow you to come here and represent that it is the official action of the Association to offer this withdrawal with conditions? PAWU:Yes, sir, it is. It was specifically, let me get my motions logged here. The movement was to drop the contested case hearing against GW Construction provided that the conditions are included in the special permit, the traffic, the fees, the lot would be used as stated, and that the infrastructure would be in place beforehand. The vote was seconded. The motion was passed by a vote of five for, one opposed, one abstained. TORIGOE:Okay,Ijustwantto,Iguess,verifythatunderyourby-lawsthatfive-four vote would be valid? PAWU:Yes, it would be, the five. There was a quorum present and that was a majority of the vote. And under our bylaws that does give me the authority to be here and testify. And it is the official position of the Board, not necessarily of myself. YUEN:I just want to make sure I heard something correctly. Was it a five to one vote in favor? You€ve been saying five for; and I think Mr. Torigoe heard it has five to four. It€s five in favor? PAWU:No, I€m sorry. Five in favor, one against, one abstention. I€m sorry for that lack of clarification. I understand how that could be mistaken there. Five for the project, five in favor of the project, one opposed to the project, and one abstention, oh, the withdrawal I€m sorry, not the project but of the withdrawal of the contested case hearing, be precise here. TORIGOE:Okay, thank you. Yes, that€s very important. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Director. Mr. Torigoe? SIRACUSA:Madam? SPRINGER:Just a moment, Commissioner Siracusa. If you could continue Mr. Torigoe. You were going to walk us through the process that we might engage at this point -. TORIGOE:Right. SPRINGER:Perhaps a modification of procedure? 7 EXHIBIT A TORIGOE:Yeah, I€ll justmaybe make a couple of possible suggestions and certainly I€m open to any other input from the Director or the Commissioners. But it seems at this point what you have is a conditional withdrawal that€s on the table of the contested case hearing. One thing you could do is, you know, normally when you have awarded standing to a party you go ahead and you decide whether to outsource the hearing, and then you go ahead and have the contested case hearing. Today, it€s alittle different in that you have the contested case intervenor basically saying they€re willing to withdraw if certain conditions are included in any approval. So, at this point, what you might do is ask the parties if they are willing to modify the contested case procedure. Your Rule 4-1 allows that any procedure in a contested case may be modified or waived by stipulation of the parties. So the parties are willing to agree, basically, that they will allow the Commission to engage in a deliberative discussion about whether there should be an approval of this application with the conditions in it; and if the Commission comes to that decision to grant the permit with the conditions, then that motion could also include an acceptance of the withdrawal of the contested case intervention. If that motion passes, then that essentiallywoulddisposeofthematter.Ifthemotiondoesnotpass,well,thenwewouldhaveto consider whether to go on with the contested case hearing, I guess, with the understanding that there is still this idea in the background that if these conditions are at some point included that the intervenor may still want to withdraw. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Torigoe on the procedure that he has fleshed out for us? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah, if the motion that you describe does not passed, wouldn€t that mean it€s sort of moot as far as the contested case hearing is concerned, because that would imply that we didn€t approve the project anyway, the special permit? TORIGOE:Well, it may and may not, you know, because what you would have that point is that you have not approved the permit with the suggested conditions. Now, at that point, I guess, we would have to ask the parties how they would like to proceed, whether they€d like to just from that point go on to a formal contested case so that all the evidence can be presented and you can make a formal decision on the full record of the contested case, or whether they would like to just ask the Commission to allow them to present whatever testimony and whatever evidence they want to present to date, and ask you to make a decision. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. I would like to know, well, two things. One is I€d like to know if we could do just sort of like the way you do friendly amendments, you know, to a motion. If we could approve, if we could move to insert those conditions in the permit before we decide to vote on whether or not we€re going to approve the permit? And then the second question would be I noticed that the Board did not vote on the question of the service station, and Mr. Yamada has said he has withdrawn that. But because these things run with the land and Mr. Yamada, anything can happen, he might decide that he doesn€t really want to run a mall or complex like that in the future, and sell it off to somebody else, and they might decide to put the service station in -? So we might want to consider adding another condition regarding a service station. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe? 8 EXHIBIT A TORIGOE:Yeah, it€sa little bit, I don€t know, out of order, I suppose to try and work up a package of conditions before you actually vote on the matter. I think that would be something that you could do informally just by way of deliberation, you know, as you€re discussing this matter on the record, to discuss among yourselves what kinds of conditions you think would be appropriate. Bear in mind also in all of this that at this point the Planning Director is a party also and will be a party, and if there€s a formal contested case will be down functioning as a party at the party table; and the Planning Director will have some input along the way as well. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe, should we treat Mr. Yuen as a party at this point? TORIGOE:Well, again, this is a matter of, it€s a little bit strange because we have a conditional withdrawal on the table. The parties, basically, I think, should be consulted as to howtheywouldliketohavethishandledfortoday. SPRINGER:Okay.Let€sdothatnext.Ifwecouldhearfromthepartiesthen,starting with the applicant, and followed by the Planning Director, and then the Community Association, please. Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Yes, sure. Madam Chair, on behalf of the applicant we would not mind having the Commission go through like a modified contested case hearing as suggested by your legal counsel. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:The request here for modification, withdrawal if certain conditions are met, the Commission can only go so far with that. The applicant can withdraw their request for certain parts of their permit. If the applicant says we no longer are requesting a gas station under the special permit, then the Commission can€t give them a gas station. So that part is under the applicant€s control. When people come in for special permit, they€re asking for a particular use. So that part is under their control, and they can sit here and they can say we€re withdrawing the gas station. Or if they come in with a video rental store, they could say, well, we€re withdrawing the video rental store. And so we can do that right now. The request that the Commission agree in advance that they will put certain conditions on like payment of fees to the Orchidland Community Association, the Commission can€t do that now. The Commission can€t do that until it€s about to vote on the permit. And at that point, and they can€t be about to vote on the permit until it has, it hears all the testimony, it asks all the questions, it closes the hearing, and it starts to make its deliberations. So it can€t sit here and say, well, we agree that if we do approve this permit, we will put these conditions on it. That puts the Community Association in a little bit of a dilemma about what to do at this point. Now the applicant can contractually agree with the Community Association that they will do certain things. They can make a private contract to do that. But the Commission sitting here 9 EXHIBIT A cannot, at this point, say we€re going to put certain kinds of conditions on if we do approve. It has to wait on that. Mr. Torigoe added what I think is a good suggestion, and that is that intervenor, the Community Association, agree to conduct this as an informal hearing in the way we normally have our decision-making. And that means that rather than a formal contested case hearing we would go into the normal public hearing that we have, we would hear testimony, the Commission would come to a point of decision making and deliberation. If the Commission went ahead and, say the Commission approved the permit without the conditions that the Community Association wanted. The Community Association would retain the right to appeal that to Circuit Court. That is a right that they would otherwise lose by simply withdrawing the contested case at this point. That, and I think that allows, that point would allow the Commission to go ahead and make a decision today, or have a hearing today and try to make a decision today through the normal procedures that we have, rather than going into a formal contested case. But that€s really asfarastheCommissioncangoatthispointinmeetingwhattheCommunityAssociationwould like to see. SPRINGER:Thank you. If I may ask a question of Mr. Torigoe. Given Mr. Yuen€s comments, is there anything procedurally that the Commission needs to do in order to proceed along this course of action? TORIGOE:Again, I think we just need to have an agreement on the record between all of the parties, including the Planning Director as to what the procedure will be. I€m wondering if, as the Director has just stated, you know, the Commission can go through an informal contested case proceeding up to the point where there is a motion made. I€m wondering though if it becomes clear in the course of this that there is not going to be a decision that would grant the permit with the conditions that have been stipulated by the Association, at that point, couldn€t the Commission then determine that clearly there is a need to allow the Association to go forward with whatever formal contested case they feel is necessary and then switch mode? YUEN:I have no problem with that. TORIGOE:Okay. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke? FUKE:We have no problem. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pawu for waiting. Your comments, please. PAWU:No problem. This is a very important matter for the entire community and we cannot rush something that needs to be done properly. My humble suggestion would be would it be possible for the applicant to include these conditions right now and modify their application and therefore it would be included, just like their withdrawal of the gas station, that all of the conditions we request be in their proposal. So therefore it would obviate the need for a 10 EXHIBIT A contested case because the contested portions would have been modified in the application; and, therefore, we would feel we€d have adequate protection, and that would be to what was approved as part of the permit, because that was what is in the application. Would that possibly, Mr. Torigoe, Madam Chair and Mr.Yuen, be a more, a way to facilitate this matter? SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Sure. In that regard, Madam Chair, on behalf of the applicant, you know, we would stipulate that the recommended conditions that the Association put forth this morning th are acceptable to the applicant. I would also like to note that in the letter dated April 14, you know, from my office to the Planning Department, I did officially acknowledge that the fast food component, the gas station and the automobile repair and service components would be deleted from this application. You know, they€re not a consideration, but -. So this is just to kind of formalize what the understanding with the Association was. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. FUKE:So with those understandings, you know, we have no objection in proceeding on aquasi-contested case manner. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Torigoe, do you gave a response for this -? TORIGOE:Well, I thinkthat the applicant could agree to accept those conditions and incorporate them in his request. But that doesn€t guarantee that the Commission is going to adopt them. And, so, you know if you relinquish your contested casestanding at this point, then as Mr., as the Director has stated, you know, that hurts your ability; and our position would be it would remove your ability to take an appeal to court after that. So you need to keep that in mind. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe, if the applicant agreed to amending their conditions to reflect the discussion that we€ve had so far, could not the Community Association stay in the discussion asaparty? TORIGOE:Sure.Theycouldstayinthediscussionasapartyatthispoint,and preserve their right to appeal, if necessary. SPRINGER:Do any other of the parties have comments on the proposed procedure at this time? Commissioners, do you have any questions for any of the parties or Mr. Torigoe? And as I understand it, we€re going to proceed with an informal, yet contested case. It€s an informal proceeding but we are still in a contested case? TORIGOE:That€s correct. And, technically, all of these applications in which you make final decisions would be considered contested cases anyway 11 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. At this point then, do we proceed with receiving public comment? TORIGOE:Just to clarify the record then, all of the parties are okay with going ahead with an informal contested case procedure to allow the Commission to see if they would like to make a decision approving the application with the conditions presented and agreed to by the parties. And if such a motion passes, then that essentially should take care of the matter. Again, not prejudging the matter and bearing in mind that the Planning Director is also a party and has a position that is contrary. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUKE:Yes, again,forthe record, we would agree to a modified contested case proceeding on this matter. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. PAWU:I believe our organization would also agree to thattype of quasi contested casehearing.Thankyou. SPRINGER:Thankyou,Mr.Pawu.Mr.Yuen? YUEN:Yes, we agree to modify the hearing procedures. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Torigoe, I have a question then. May we as Commissioners continue to query of Mr. Yuen as the Planning Director or is there some sort of, a different procedure because he€s a party to the case? TORIGOE:Well, Mr. Yuen is always going to be the Planning Director. I suppose the question is whether the applicant and the intervenor would prefer to have Mr. Yuen come down to the party table at this point or whether you would stipulate to allow Mr. Yuen to retain his seat with the Commission at this point which he normally sits with Commission to advise them during most informal contested cases. FUKE:Well, from the applicant€s perspective, there are no chairs over here so he€s better off over there. So -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Pawu? PAWU:We have no problem with Mr. Yuen remaining where he is. Thank you. SPRINGER:And Mr. Yuen, you€re okay? YUEN:I€d rather sit here. 12 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Okay, thank you. Mr. Torigoe, do we need to memorialize any of these discussions through a motion, or will the record suffice? TORIGOE:I think the record will suffice. Basically, it€s an agreement between the parties as to how it€s going to proceed at this point. SPRINGER:Thank you all for helping us get through this portion of this agenda item. At this time I€d like to ask -. IWASHITA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Sir, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA:I€d just like clarify -. I€ll make a record of what Mr. Torigoe just stated fromtheparties,thattheyagreetoproceedwithouttheCommissionactuallyvotingonamotion to proceed in the informal matter, just make it clear that they understand that a motion is not needed. TORIGOE:Okay, that, you know, that doesn€t hurt. Mr. Iwashita just wants to place on the record the parties are agreeing that we can go forward without a formal vote on this procedure at this point. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner. At this time I would like to ask the applicant -. IWASHITA:Madam Chair, I€m sorry. SPRINGER: I€m sorry, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA:I would like the parties to state on the record that they agree that a motion is not necessary. They€ve agreed to the procedure. The question the Chair raised about the need for a motion has not been addressed yet. SPRINGER:To the parties, you€ve heard the concern of Commissioner Iwashita. FUKE:Correct, yeah. Well, from the applicant€s perspective, I think the record is clear that we all are in consensus and if the Commission doesn€t object, then, you know, we just assume proceed. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Pawu. PAWU:We have no objections to proceeding at this point. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen? 13 EXHIBIT A YUEN:No objection. IWASHITA:Thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. TORIGOE:Bear in mind that Mr. Iwashita is an attorney also. IWASHITA:I don€t know how I should take that. SPRINGER:With grace and dignity. If the parties at the table could step back, please, I€d like to start inviting those members of the community who have signed up to testify to do so. At this time there are 14 of you. I€d like you all to raise your right hands and swear you in at one time, and then call you up in the order that you signed up to testify. Can you please raise your righthandsatthistime.Allpeoplewhosigneduptotestifyorwhohavenotyetsignedupbut wish to testify on this matter, please raise your right hands. Seeing many hands raised, I trust it€s all of you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. I€ll call you up in the order in which you signed up to testify. Gary Safarik, Gaila Vidunas, please come forward, Mr. Safarik, Frederick Blas, Charles Moore, Azalia Moore. Thank you. Let me call the names again ƒ Gary Safarik. SAFARIK:Here. SPRINGER:Gaila Vidunas. VIDUNAS:Yes. SPRINGER:Frederick Blas. BLAS:Here. SPRINGER:Charles Moore. C. MOORE:My name is Charles Moore. SPRINGER:Okay, thank you, sir. Azalia Moore? And we have one more chair, Jeannie Beddow. Would you come forward now, Ma€am. Starting from your left, could you please give, before you begin your testimony, could you please give us your name and your address, and then proceed with the testimony, starting with you, Ma€am. 14 EXHIBIT A VIDUNAS:My name is Gaila Vidunas. My address is HCR 1, Box 5628, Keaau. My street address is 16-562 Alii Street, Orchidland Estates. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ma€am. Your testimony? VIDUNAS:I€m here representing some of the Orchidland residents who strongly disagree with the Board€s decision to drop the contested case hearing. That was done on very short notice when the new idea for a supermarket was presented. One of the many things that has happened in the course in the history of Orchidland is that when the Wiki Wiki Mart was originally put in, we were given, I was on the board of directors at that time, we were given both verbal and written assurances that development would be contained on Orchidland Drive and a traffic light would be put on Orchidland Drive and the Highway intersection. We were concerned at that time, and we are still very concerned at this time, about strip malling of the highway. We very much support Mr. Yuen€s decision not to expand commercial development alongthehighwayuntiltheinfrastructureistheretosupportit.Theimprovedhighwaystopsat Paradise Park Drive. Alii Street is a side road according to the subdivision plans. It€s only 40 feet wide. Orchidland Drive is 60 feet wide, is already zoned for commercial purposes, has a special use permit. And we would just ask that the present commission please adhere to its word about containing the development on Orchidland Drive, not spreading and sprawling us out over the highway and exacerbating the already existing traffic problems. A traffic light at the one place is not going to alleviate the problems of the big development going out of Orchidland Drive and all the traffic that that is creating. The traffic light and further development belongs clustered in the same place instead of spreading it out all along the highway. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Members, any questions for the testifier? SIRACUSA:I just wanted to -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:To verify one thing that, if I heard you correctly. And that is that you say that there is commercial zoning along Orchidland Drive which could accommodate this sort of a development? VIDUNAS:I€m not sure if it would accommodate the full-scale plans for the supermarket. Most people have no problems with the supermarket being built in Puna. The problem is the proposed location for it. If enough land were purchased to have it on Orchidland Drive it would be no problem for the most part since that has been designated the commercial area. Most of us feel, however, that Pahoa and Keaau are the towns that bracket the subdivisions, and that there is no need to create another small little town in the middle of an agriculturally zoned area. SPRINGER:Commissioners? 15 EXHIBIT A YUEN:I just had a question. Who said that there would be a light put in at Orchidland? VIDUNAS:When, at that point it was the developer of the Wiki Wiki Mart had given his written assurances that they would put in a traffic light. They had originally just the Waiki Wiki Mart, the small little store. And then when they went to expand with the gas station and all those other things, the laundromat, and all those other things, that we were told that they would put in a traffic light there, which of course, has not happened. YUEN:Would you have any correspondence to that effect, or do you think the Board has anything? VIDUNAS:Yeah, I€m no longer with the board. I can dig up the dates and see what I can up. I€m not sure of the status of the Orchidland records at this point from that time frame. It hasbeenseveralyearssinceI€vebeenactiveintheBoard.ButIknowwewentoverthisand over this because we did anticipate, especially when Wiki Wiki decided to expand their original plans to include things like the gas station and the laundromat, that we were quite concerned about the traffic, again, trying to make a left-hand turn onto the highway, and that we were given assurances again. I€ll do what I can to dig up that information. YUEN:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners? Thank you, Ma€am. Mr. Safarik, your name and address, please. SAFARIK:My name is Gary Safarik and I reside in the Ainaloa Subdivision. My mailing address is 25 Aupuni, Hilo, 96720. And I€m here as a private citizen; and I have no vested interest, or any other type of stakeholding in GW Construction, or in this particular project. I€m here primarily to voice my observations and, for the most part, my support. SPRINGER:Please proceed. SAFARIK:Thank you. And thank you for allowing me to come and speak to you, Madam Chair and Commission Members. And I did submit a letter of testimony when this first came on the docket, and you probably still have that available so I€ll keep my testimony as short as possible. The one interesting thing that I observed today and in the last few months is the willingness of Mr. Yamada and GW Construction, which is the applicant, and all the parties that have been representing Mr. Yamada, as well as the Orchidland Association Board Members, that they are in the process of trying to iron out their differences. And I want to congratulate them for doing that because that€s some of the things that we all need to do all over this island when it comes to land use issues. 16 EXHIBIT A One thing that I will address very briefly is Director Yuen€s commentary on Special Use Permit Application SPP 04-018. And I think that Mr. Yuen brings up some very interesting and valid points. One of the areas that I would voice my support and ask you to take a look at this issue is that we don€t want, as the previous public testimony here was, that we don€t want strip malls along Highway 130; and that€s absolutely correct. However, with that stated, let me just point out some facts. I live in the Ainaloa Subdivision and I remember that some of the testimony given by Mr., the president of the Ainaloa Association, Mr. Palpa (sic), is that how you pronounce your name? I hope I€m not butchering his name. But the gentleman that represents the Orchidland Association as president indicated their concerns for egress and ingress on Highway 130 coming out and making a left turn to head towards Hilo. And I submit that the people that live in Ainaloa are also having to make that left turn, which is a tremendous hazard not only for the people exiting but the people that are on Highway 130. But with that said, let me point out that within a 2-mile corridor between Ainaloa Boulevard and Shower Drive, which is approximately two miles or a little bit more, there€s approximately 12,000 to 15,000 residents. It€sthemostpopulatedcorridorintheDistrict5area.Sowhatwe€redealingwithisa subdivision called Orchidland, subdivision called Ainaloa, subdivision called Hawaiian Paradise Park, Tiki Gardens within that particular two-mile stretch. And everybody is vying for a position on Highway 130, whether they€re coming from the makai side turning right or coming from the mauka side turning left. To get onto Highway is a hazard, I don€t care how we cut it. So my testimony, Madam Chair, would be primarily to address the idea and the notion that, as Mr. Yuen pointed out, Aulii Street is not on the General Plan that we have just passed a few months ago; however, we have been in discussion with Mr. Yuen and my office as Councilman representing that particular region to address the need for urban expansion at the Ainaloa Boulevard intersection and Highway 130, which is now a County roadway, as well as Orchidland Drive and Highway 130. We were exploring the notion of creating nodes of urban expansion. And I€m sure Mr. Yuen will confirm that those discussions have taken place. One of those discussions, and in some of those discussions, we also indicated that we€d like to see Aulii Street as part of one of those nodes, which would primarily give us three shopping experiences: One at Orchidland Drive, and absolutely we would need a traffic signalized intersection there; one at Ainaloa Boulevard and the Highway, which would also need a traffic signalized intersection; and Aulii Street. And we would designate those as urban expansion areas for now and into the foreseeable future. Because if you look at the, as evidenced by the usership of Malama Market, which is the new market that just opened right outside of Pahoa, the primary draw for that area is the Malama Market, which is a Foodland Store. It€s a high end, well-priced, clean shopping experience. And I€m finding that I€m, instead of turning left out of Ainaloa to go shop in Hilo, I€m turning right to go towards Pahoa. So my testimony would be that if we decide to create these three nodes of shopping, one of the basic requirements of the people in Orchidland, and what I heard today, was that they€re looking for, number one, recreation and access to it, number two, adequate roadway systems so that their people can exit and, egress and ingress, as well as within their own subdivision; and three, reliable and affordable grocery shopping experience. And I think that with that message one of the things not stated, but I think that it was clearly indicated by the people of Orchidland as well as this greater Puna community is the aspect of safety. So if you look at those four issues, recreation, parks availability, roadway systems, 17 EXHIBIT A adequate shopping experience and safety, it€s really what the debate and the testimony is here today. So, you know, in all respect, I would ask that you reconsider the notion that maybe this is going to create a strip mall and, in Mr. Yuen€s view, but yet looking at this as an area of urban expansion for the future insomuch that it€s going to create an ability for people that are in the most congested area and the fastest growing four subdivisions to be serviced adequately, as I say, for now and into the future. So I thank you for that ability to testify. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Thank you, Mr. Safarik. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Good morning. There are already some businesses that are on the highway that are not included in these three nodes or bubbles as you called them last time. For examplethatSunshine,Ithinkit€scalledSunshineNursery,isoneofthem.It€sbyParadise Drive which is a real -. I have, me, the plant lady, you know, I have never dared to drive on into that nursery because the traffic concerns are so hellaciousAnd then just outside of Pahoa there . is that Athena€s huli huli chicken; and supposedly there€s a sign saying that there€s going to be a Blue Rock self storage, which I don€t know about. But, anyway, it seemed to be, there€s bubbles already that are not part of what you€re talking about. If we start developing these three nodes or bubbles it won€t just be three nodes or bubbles. These will be added to what€s already there; and I don€t know when or how those got permitted. But I don€t think they€re a visual advantage to the driving experience. You know, many years ago I read a book by Isabella Byrd entitled Six Months in the Sandwich Islands She€s a Victorian lady who hiked all over the place, and she€s . just very good at descriptions; and she described the road between what was then Olaa and Pahoa, and she said it was one of the most beautiful roads in the island. And I think anyone who has driven that can tell you not, not today it€s not. And I think that, I don€t see how you can reconcile keeping it to the only three nodes when there€s already more than that to begin with. Do you care to address that concern of mine? SAFARIK:Well, I can, yes, I do. Thank you for the question. As far as Sunshine Nursery, they€re operating an agricultural pursuit, didn€t need rezoning, did not need rezoning. Theyareoperatingaccordingtotheirlandusedesignation,whichisAg.TheBlueRock,huli huli, storage, I believe Mr. Yuen need to look into that as far as land use. I don€t think they€re permitted. You€recorrect,someofthenodesthatItalkedabout,orIshouldsaythethreeodesthatItalked about, Commissioner Siracusa, is an area that would be most accessible by off the main Highway 130.Thesubdivisionswouldbeabletoaccessthesethreenodeswithouthavingtogetonto Highway 130. And I think that€s an important component of this decision that you€re going to be making. SIRACUSA:Okay, then my question is these three nodes are very close together, really; and why have three when you can just have one where it has already started, like Wiki Wiki, 18 EXHIBIT A which I understand has? Orchidland Drive has the zoning. People still would be able to go internally and not spend much time on the highway, if any. SAFARIK:I think what we€re talking about here is not so much that we€re trying to control something. What we€re trying to do is provide adequate infrastructure and adequate access for an area that€s already the fastest growing in the State of Hawaii. We are not going to stop thousands of people from moving in. You know, I would submit that right now we€re looking at about 40,000 people in the Puna region. That shift of population is starting to move out into Puna. Why should we limit our shopping experiences to just one location and then totally impact Orchidland? I say that if we look at it from the standpoint of nodes rather than a strip mall concept, that these nodes would service the primary heavily populated corridor of Puna. SPRINGER:Other Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:My main concern right now is the notion that, it€s more than a notion. I thinkit€safactthat,youknow,thisapplicationreallyconstitutesaspotzoningorrezoning. And, you are right on my observation, that there is a lot of growth and development taking place in Puna that really needs to be addressed, the needs of which need to be addressed. I guess my question to you, and I don€t know if this is as a private citizen or in your capacity as a Councilperson. But under the General Plan amendments and the community development plan process that has been initiated, I would feel a lot more comfortable that this project along with, be considered actually within the context of the Community Development Plan, and it would take longer and the needs wouldn€t be addressed as quickly if we were to take action. But it really seems to me that the kind of concerns that you raised are larger community concerns; and that my idea or my perception of community development plans and the process that it would take is intended to engage the community, the local community, in this case Orchidland, Ainaloa, Paradise Park, Tiki Gardens, all of these communities together, come together and hopefully come to an agreement on how -. And I agree that there needs to be more commercial areas, right, to service -. You know, if all of these subdivisions were built out fully, you know, it€s 100,000 people, whatever it€s going to be, those kind of uses are going to be necessary. But I really think that that€s a process that requires not this Commission taking individual action on individual developer€s requests for special use permits. I€d like your response to that. SAFARIK:Well, Mr. Iwashita, I tend to agree on some of the statements that you made. I think this is a broad-based community initiative; and that the community development plans certainly should address some of these concerns that we€re talking about today. Some of that I think would surface in the same discussion that we are sitting around talking today. It€s just that when that surfaces it may be two or three years from now. And two or three years from now at the level that we€re looking at building permits, just in Paradise Park, it€s approximately 1 ž permits per day, just in Paradise Park. We have 8800 lots and there were last year 375 building permits. Ainaloa, Orchidland are right in that area that a Paradise Parks land becomes higher than what the norm can afford, cause right now an acre in Paradise Park is up at $60,000. Ainaloa and Orchidland will become attractive because the pricing is still affordable in that region. 19 EXHIBIT A As the people move in, our community development plan is supposed to address circulation systems, public transportation, public safety, and all the things that we€re talking about, actually, today. What I€m suggesting is that do we have the luxury of waiting two or three years to develop some type of a long-term and long-range plan that€s going to be any better than what we€re actually debating around the table today. And I would submit that we have a lot of talent today and in the near future to discuss some of these issues. Because I think the people in Puna deserve this attention, because in the past they never had this attention. It has always been a situation where we€re underserved, and then the continual population increase has only become focused during Mayor Kim€s administration. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Safarik. Mr. Yuen. YUEN:I€d like to jump in here here cause we€re talking about some of the big pictureissuesconnectedwithallofthis;andsoIwantedtomakemypositiononthisreally explicit and really clear. We, Council Member Safarik and I agree in a lot of respects on this. If you look at the 19 -, if you go back to the County General Plan, if you go back to the 1989 General Plan, Keaau is a commercial area and Pahoa is a commercial area, and nothing in between. In the General Plan revision in 2000-2001, partially, before I was the Director but also when I came on board, there was a recognition that you need to have some commercial opportunity in the area in between that, because actually the population center is situated almost directly between those two towns. Roughly, in the corridor between Shower and Ainaloa Boulevard, you have something like 15,500 lots in those subdivisions that are all served by Highway 130 in the middle. Then on, then you have about a 3-mile gap on one side to Pahoa and you have about a 3-mile gap on the other side to Keaau. So it€s not a question of if there should be designated commercial areas in those subdivisions, or to serve those subdivisions. The question is only where. We start off way behind because especially on the mauka side of the highway none of those subdivision were planned out to have any kind of commercial areas. They consist of even-sized lots. At least in Paradise Park, the Watumulls reserved several 20-acre parcels, and they kept the ownership of those. And those can be commercial areas in the long run, they were probably thinking ahead. There are also some park areas of 20 acres or so, but there are also these commercial areas. I believe in Orchidland and Ainaloa Boulevard, all the lots are the same size. So if anybody wants to come in and do a commercial, the first thing, you have to do this assembly problem, you know, you have to consolidate some lots to do this in the first place; and there was never a place set up that is, where there is any kind of intersection, or there€s any kind of favored spot for the commercial. So naturally, you know, left to its own devices, the commercial wants to gravitate toward the highway. So we recognize that the commercials have to go somewhere near the highway, but we don€t want it to run along the highway. In the 2000-2001 General Plan process and amendments, the Planning Department put forward Orchidland Drive as being one of these commercial areas, because you would already gave the special permits for few uses along Orchidland Drive; and Orchidland Drive is the main, as far as the roads into Orchidland is one of the main roads. It€s a heavily used road at Orchidland. We 20 EXHIBIT A also designated three areas in Paradise Park, three of these 20-acre parcels; and this was simply following what had been proposed by the Paradise Park Community Master Plan. We just took their Master Plan which said these should be the commercial areas. In the course of, and the Council considering the General Plan in mostly 2004, Councilman Safarik and I had discussions about additional commercial areas. The Council Member is in favor of three nodes. At this point, I€m in favor of one additional area; and that would be along Ainaloa Boulevard, actually on the Orchidland side of Ainaloa Boulevard. My reason for that is that the commercial areas ideally should not simply be, should be convenient areas for the various subdivisions. Ainaloa as a subdivision has 3600 lots. To get to the Orchidland commercial area, you have to get back out on the highway; and it€s not really convenient for the Ainaloa people to go to Orchidland. So this provides an area that would be directed more at Ainaloa and be a community area for Ainaloa shopping. As I said, as Council Member said, he€s in favor of three nodes. At the moment I€m preparing a series of interim General Plan AmendmentsthatwouldincludeanareaalongAinaloa. Nowthere€saprocesstothisaswell.Wegotoaworkshop,itgoestothePlanningCommission, and it goes to the County Council. This gentleman is probably walking out here to go buy some land along Ainaloa Boulevard, but -. And that€s part of the game of this whole process, is that if you go by this special permit, of course, you buy the land first, then you come in and apply for the special permit. But, at any rate, there€s a process to that. And, you know, the Council can also initiate General Plan Amendments. The landowner can initiate a General Plan Amendment. But this is where I€m at with this, and this is my view of the big picture here, and what I€m planning to do at the present time. SPRINGER:Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA: Director Yuen, so just to clarify, the nodes would be from a traffic perspective in the Planning Department€s view of providing more convenient access to shopping for the residents in the Orchidland and Ainaloa Subdivisions and, I guess, alleviate the traffic or the ingress of traffic to130 to go to either Pahoa or Keaau? YUEN:That€s the reason for generally being in support of having commercial areas that are closer to these subdivisions, is that for, not that they would replace the regional scale of super -. You wouldn€t have the Sears, you know, that level or the shopping center level of development, but the grocery store, the convenience store, that level of development closer to the subdivisions. Yes, we would support that. SALAVEA:Thank you. SPRINGER: Commissioners, any other questions of the Director? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I guess this would be directed to Mr. Yuen. How many lots are there in Orchidland? 21 EXHIBIT A YUEN:Twenty-four hundred. WATANABE:So about 1,000 or so less than Ainaloa? YUEN:Right. And Paradise Park has close to, has 8800, I believe; and Tiki Gardens has about 500 maukaof the highway, Tiki Gardens is also mauka of the highway. SPRINGER:Director Yuen, the Paradise Park Community Master Plan was cited by you in your discussion to us. What is the date on that Master Plan? YUEN:I think it was 1998. Andthat€s not a County, Jeff, do you know if there was a County resolution supporting that? SAFARIK:Therewas,Icananswerthat. DARROW:Resolution -. SAFARIK:itwaspassedasaresolution. In1997 YUEN:So,asIsaid,that€swherethecommunityinParadiseParksaidtheywould like to see future commercial development. So we put that inthe General Plan as being the supported areas or the favored areas. SPRINGER:Thank you. SAFARIK:MayI beexcused? I have another meeting I have to attend to, unless there are some other questions. And I appreciate Director Yuen€s comments that we do probably see more eye to eye than not. But that€s what makes the world go round. Thank you, Madam Chair. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Thank you for taking your time to be with us. Sir, your name and your address for the record, please. BLAS:My name is Frederick Blas; and I live on 15-121 Kuna Street in Pahoa. SPRINGER:Thank you. You may proceed. BLAS:I am here to support that shopping center that€s going in by Paradise Park. I think the influx of the amount of people moving into the Puna district that we€re overseeing, that we really have difficulty coming into Hilo with going grocery shopping and other facilities that we need to do in town. And I really support this center here to come in very, very much. And it€s for the community itself that I€ve seen that would benefit the whole Puna district area. That€s it. 22 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Thank you for joining us today. Ma€am, your name and address for the record. A. MOORE:I€m Azalia Moore. I live at 15-2819 Coastal Puna Parkway in Pahoa. I€m 69 year old and I€m totally disabled with reference to vision, and hearing, and some things like that. However, I very much appreciate the proposal of the Yamada Corporation to have a traffic light and to give us competitive grocery shopping. I like the new market, it€s great. But I understand capitalistic behavior. And if there is no competition, guess what€s going to happen in about a year? But if we have a traffic light where we can turn to go to an alternative competitively priced market, those of us who are on limited income with almost no ability to fight to get into Hilo and the parking centers around the grocery stores in Hilo would really appreciate your giving us this alternative. I personally think that having the commercial center, Mr. Yuen, is one of the most scholarly things that you could do from the Planning Department. Because once we get ourselves out of the erratic planning as the nursery, which I don€t drive downintoeither,IturnoffthehighwayandgodowntotheothernurserybecauseI€mnotafraid of getting back on -. Our market, our farmers market is a challenge for those of us who are like I am. Having the precedent of asking a commercial enterprise to have the responsibility to create a traffic light to me is a wonderful precedent to have for the Planning Commission and for your leadership in that role. Thank you so much for your time and I appreciate it. SPRINGER:You€re welcome, Ma€am. Any questions for the testifier? I have a question for the Planning Director. Given the emphasis that the testifier placed on the installation of the light, should the applicant make a commitment to fund the installation of the light, does it end there and the light goes in, or is there more study or collaboration with other agencies to install the light? YUEN:Well, we have a letter from Department of Transportation that essentially says that they€re okay with having a light there. And, you know, you have my supplemental recommendation where it says something about before long they€re going to need a light to get out. Actually, I mean, the reality is that you do need lights to get out of the mauka suddivisions now and people are, it€s a very bad situation right now. What the DOT says in their letter is that they can, it€s up to them if they want to remove the light later, too, if there€s other lights or other construction. Just to give an update on what€s actually happening and what€s likely to happen along Highway 130 while we have people here and we€re talking -. We need to talk about all this in the context of things that are happening. As the Council Member has said, I mean, there is a tremendous population growth in the area. And about 70 percent of the new population in the Puna District is moving into the lower Puna stretch from Keaau to Kalapana and mostly between Keaau and Pahoa. Right now there is, the DOT is implementing a change to make that shoulder lane, the morning shoulder lane on Highway 130 permanent. So there will be a 3-lane from the Keaau Bypass to Shower. They are also planning a light at Shower, a signal light at shower. I don€t know why at Shower, to tell you the truth, because that doesn€t help the, it€s not going to help the mauka subdivisions Pahoa side of that and it won€t create the gap in traffic that would enable or help people to get out. It will probably lead a lot of people in Paradise Park to go across Paradise Park and exit off of shower. I mean, I know people are doing that now but that€s one of the consequences of that. 23 EXHIBIT A My own view, we have a Puna regional circulation plan where we€re discussing a number of different concepts, including an alternate route directly from Paradise Park into Panaewa and on into Hilo. My own view is that the growth and traffic before too long will make it absolutely essential that Highway 130 at least to Ainaloa Boulevard be four lanes with a divided highway. The State has, there€s a million and a half appropriated by the State to do the studies for this, but that money hasn€t been released. My understanding is there€s some contractual dispute that€s holding up the released of that defined funds. I think that the public should be really on this because the longer this delays the longer it will be to any kind of solution. The decision on what signals should go in would be part of that, that study long term. Go ahead, yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yeah. Well, you were alluding to the cover letter from the State DOT whichsaysthattheyreservetherighttoremovethetrafficsignalswhenconditionschange,such as highway widening or when other signals are installed. So how would that affect then, if the applicant puts in a traffic light, and then down the line State DOT comes along and says we don€t need this light any more, we have lights on the other two connecting streets. or we widened the highway to 9 lanes now? Does the State then take out the light, does the State reimburse the developer for the light? I mean, how does that play out? I don€t know if you thought about that at all when you were agreeing to put in the traffic light, but -. Mr. Yamada -. YUEN:Well, I believe what the State is saying here is that they would make the applicant pay to take out the light. Removing the light is not a huge expense. Actually putting in a light -. SIRACUSA:And what does he do? He sticks it in his closet? I mean, you know -. YUEN:I€m sure the State would not reimburse them. What, you know, getting to the merits of this, one of my concern is that once you have supermarket there, and if you have a supermarket and a lot of traffic coming in and out of Aulii Street for that reason, then it may be hard not to have a light there, even if you have a light at the other intersections. The supermarket itself may just need to have the light. But, you know, signal light is about a half a million dollar expense. The signal light itself is not a huge expense, if you don€t have to do any other construction on the intersection, like a channel -. A channelized intersection is about a half a million dollar typically, if there are no big obstacles or problems. But removing the signal once it€s there is not that big a deal, from a cost point of view. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Thank you. 24 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, thank you for coming. Ma€am, if we could have your name and address for the record, please. nd BEDDOW:Yes. My name is Jeannie Beddow; and I live in Paradise Park in 32 nd Street. My address is 15-2073 32 Street. I€ve lived in Paradise Park and -. First of all, may I address Madam Chair and Honorable Members. Thank you very much for allowing me to come today and testify. nd I live on 32 Street off Makuu. I€ve been there now 15 years and what changes I€ve seen, fantastic. And I€m so happy to be able to testify infavorof this development because we need it. We needed it 15 years ago. When I first moved into Paradise Park, we needed somethinglike this. And I€m in favor of it 100 percent because of two reasons: Mainly, when I need to buy groceries I have to jump in my car and drive 15 miles into Hilo, 15 miles back. That€s a 30-mile round trip. And gas at$2.50a gallon, and I€m retired on a fixed income, it€s killing, okay. With the influx of people coming into, settling in the District of Lower Puna, a shopping complex in this area to eliminate going onto the highway for a trip into Hilo will definitely cut down on the traffic, and the wear and tear on that road. And, of course, we€re all concerned about that, right? No. 2, to have a traffic light on this stretch of Highway 230 which serves Orchidland and HPP is nd so needed. I live on 32 Street off Makuu Drive and sometimes feel as if I€m at the Indy 500. Cars coming from Pahoa come around that bend at Ainaloa Boulevard doing a pretty good clip (probably 60 to 70 miles an hour) and they don€t slow down till they get to the Keaau by-pass road where Keaau High School is, where the next light is. The last light they left was at Pahoa High School. That€s a long stretch. I mean, people get going down that road. So I say we need traffic lights along that highway. My passion is we have a traffic light at every road in Paradise Park leading down to the ocean. The need is there, it€s there. It has been there for a long time. Anyhow,in1992,agroupofconcernedcitizensofLowerPunasupportedDonaldPascualinhis quest to build what he called the Puna Village Square on the corner of Paradise Drive and Highway130.Idon€tknowhowmanyofyouwereinvolvedingovernmentatthetimethat remembers that. Basically, it was the same two reasons that I am supporting this project now. And we feel that because of the political power that the opponents had at that time this idea was shot down. And we all know it happens, right? Here we are 13 years later discussing the same thing, right? I recently attended a meeting where the need for an alternative road for Lower Puna was the subject being discussed; and the company (Townscape) who is doing the study and Roy Takemoto of your Planning Department talked about this being accomplished somewhere around the year 2025. I encourage planning for the future; however the need for some sort of respite regarding the traffic on Highway 130 is now. I urge you to give thumbs up to this proposal. 25 EXHIBIT A And I respectfully thank you so very much for allowing me to come in and testify. Aloha. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ma€am. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Thank you for coming. At this time, I€m going to call the next five names to come forward ƒ Jerry Gardner, perhaps Garcher? GARDNER:Gardner. SPRINGER:Gardner, thank you, Carol Noel, Sher Glass, Vern Wood. And Mya Pawu, you signed up for this but you€ve already had your time. Would you like -? PAWU:No,thatwillnotbenecessary.Thankyou,MadamChair. SPRINGER:You€rewelcome.DonRobinson. NOEL:Areweinnumericalorder? SPRINGER:Takeyourseatsasyouarrive.Wewillbegintestimonyatyourright, sorry, your left, my right. And if you could please state your name and address for the record. th GARDNER:Yes, Jerry Gardner, 16-1504 39 Street in Orchidland. SPRINGER:Thank you. You may proceed. GARDNER:And I€m a Member of the Board of Directors of the Orchidland, and I was at, a new member, but I was at the meeting when these were discussed. And as you can tell the Board was pretty conflicted over this, voted two different ways at two different meetings, and I think it€s fair to say we still are; and that€s reflected in the testimony here. The biggest reason I voted for it was, to drop the contested case, was the agreement to have a traffic light. If that would, and in thinking that if it€s up to the State or the County we€re talking five or six years, and nothing is going to, you know, and that€s a big problem. And their need is now to do something to improve the traffic. At the same time, I€m conflicted over the thing, I agree with what the Planning Commission has to say too about not wanting, you know, a bunch of stores along130,tryandcontroldevelopmenttospecificareas.ThiswasthefirstIheardofthe Ainaloa bubble thing, although I€ve been looking at the Master Plan stuff on the internet. So that€sallIreallyamsaying,exceptthatMyadidagoodjobofpresentingwhathappenedatthe meetings; and that is really a hard decision. It would be much better to have it part of a whole bigplan.Butifit€smanyyearsawaytogetatrafficlight,wecanreallyuseitsoonerthanthat. SPRINGER:Thankyou,sir.Commissioners,anyquestionsforthetestifier?Seeing none, Ma€am, if you could give us your name and address for the record. 26 EXHIBIT A NOEL:My name is Carol Noel, and my mailing address is PO Box 1359, Keaau, th Hawaii 96749. And I€m sorry I don€t know the number of my address, but I€m at the end of 40 and Aulii. SPRINGER:Thank you for that description. NOEL:We own four lots up mauka, up Aulii, about 2 ž miles. And I€m also a member of the Board of Directors of OCA; and I was the opposing vote. The decision that swayed the Board Members to vote to take away the contested case hearing was based on the fact that a traffic light would be installed, the principal component of the project would be a grocery store from a major chain, that the project not include fast food or liquor establishment, that the same monthly fees would be paid to OCA for road maintenance and trash collections; and that the above conditions be part and parcel of the special use permit and binding. I really don€t think this is about the price of eggs, about grocery stores. I was in Malama Market and the eggs were cheaper in Malama Market than they were in KTA. So all of us shop sales; and I will drive to Malama Market if the meats are going to be cheaper there. We all moved to the part of Hawaii where we€re living in Puna because of the lifestyle, because it€s not Maui, andbecauseit€snotHonolulu,andbecauseit€snotDowntownHilo.Andanything,progressis inevitable but so is death; but I€m not going to throw myself out on the highway and wait to get hit by a truck. I believe that the Planning Commission€s plan for the commercial area at Orchidland should suffice the needs of the community. The market in Keaau, you have a nice little town in Keaau, you have a nice little town in Pahoa; and I think expansion there on those two sides are where it should be. If you want a grocery around the corner, then you should have stayed in Minneapolis. I don€t want this to turn, our neighborhood to turn into one little shopping complex after another. Mr. Wood has a lot on Orchidland in the commercial area, and I think that€s where commercial enterprises should go. I understand businesses wanting the visibility right on the highway, but it€s better that it be off the highway. They€re not going to lose customers because they€re off the highway. People are going to know they€re there and they€re going to drive to it. So without the infrastructure in Puna I don€t see how we can gag down a complex that is not supported by highways, by roads and by the foresight of a traffic control system. Slapping up a traffic light is kind of locking the door before the horse is even in the barn. So that€s my position; and I€ll stick by it. Thank you for letting me testify. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ma€am. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:So basically, let me get this straight, if I€m stating your position accurately. You would not object to this if Mr. Yamada would, say, be able to trade the land he has now with some lots in the commercial area on Orchidland Drive? Then you would agree that that would be a fairly good thing, that it should all stay on Orchidland Drive? NOEL:I do. I€m not against Mr. Yamada building on Aulii and 130. I€m against any building that€s not in compliance with the agricultural/residential component going there. 27 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you. Other Commissioners? Thank you, Ma€am. Sir, your name and address for the record. WOOD:My name is Vern Wood. I€m the owner of Orchidland Trade Center. And can I take this microphone off the stand? SPRINGER:You may. WOOD:I€ll get a sore neck when I try to lean down for too long. SPRINGER:Surely. WOOD:Thank you. Madam Chair and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. I feel like I need to give a little background today, you know, in regards to commercialdevelopmentintheCentral130.Therehavebeensomequestionsthatindicatetome that there are things going on out there that people don€t know about that affect this decision. I€ve lived out there for 25 years as a resident and as a business owner. I had a lot of problems finding commercial property to work from. And so, you know, a long time ago I started getting involved in the special use process in order to address these things. My wife and I got a special permit back in about 1989 to build a school because we didn€t believe that children should be commuting into town. And we ran the school for about 7 years; and then we sold it to Bishop estates. They still run the school out there and they service 40 families. There are 40 families that don€t have to commute their children into town. At the same time I recognize the need for commercial development so people could work out there, so they wouldn€t have to go to Hilo to go to a job and , of course, we wanted service. If, all the stuff you€ve heard today about we need a grocery store, we need a gas station, we need all these sort of things, it€s not new, it didn€t happen with this influx. It has been an issue for a long time. The Planning Department is aware of it, and they€ve made a lot effort towards addressing it, and we€re a long ways along with the process. And my main testimony today revolves around the fact that we need to honor the people in the Planning Department and the people on the Commission, you know, preceding yourselves who have been involved in this issue and have already gone a long ways towards addressing it. When I approached the Planning Department, would have been around 1992, maybe €93, and I expressed that I intended to build a shopping center on Highway 130 in order to address this deficiency that I noticed back then, I was told in no uncertain terms that if I was to fill out an application for a shopping center on Highway 130 I would be denied. I was instructed to locate to another piece of property some place recessed from the highway. Now I was very disappointed because as a businessman I recognized the benefit of highway frontage -- It€s off the charts. The kind of money you make with highway frontage is easily double or triple what you€re going to get -- being recessed 900 feet off of Highway 130, which is where my project is. It€s important to point out that, some people don€t know this, but there€s actually four properties on Orchidland Drive that are currently benefiting from the Planning Department€s efforts in special use process. Four properties are zoned commercial. I have a feeling in the back of my 28 EXHIBIT A mind that there€s a couple, maybe three more, that will be submitting here some time within the next year. As far as Mr. Yamada€s proposal, I think it€s a terrific idea and I endorse his proposal; and I would welcome him as a neighbor on Orchidland Drive. And in doing that, we would be staying with the County General Plan that has taken so many hundreds of people so many years to put in place. I wasn€t the first developer to be instructed to comply with this no development on the highway policy. Tom Okuyama from Sure Save was there way before I was, he was dealing with the Planning Department back in the early eighties and he was instructed to, you know, locate his project on Orchidland Drive, recessed from the highway. What that means is that there€s a piece of property on the corner of Orchidland Drive and the Highway. That does not qualify because it fronts on the highway. If somebody wants to do a commercial project on Orchidland Drive, and asIsayIwelcomeotherstodothis,I€mnotafraidofcompetition,therearepropertiesavailable mauka of the Highway that currently have no buildings on them. They are available to do a project of this nature; and it would comply with all of the works that has been done in regards to designing the Central 130. I€m heavily vested in my property because I€ve had to spend a lot of time and money complying with the mandates of the County and the community; and in that regard I am a little concerned to think that after all of my effort that the policy would be dismissed and that the County or the Planning Commission would change their position as far as development on Highway 130. I think there€s a good planning place and, you know, my desire is I would like to see that we maintain this policy. We€re talking about 20 years here, that€s a lot of people. You know, we had, what, six different mayors in that time, four different planning directors, I don€t know how many people have served on the Commission, and then we talk about Envision HPP‚ and these different community development plans. We€re talking hundreds of people have stuck to this policy; and any commercial project that has been applied for on the highway with the exception of this agricultural one, they€ve all been denied. So in regards to looking at that, we need to recognize that this is called planning, this is what people do here in the Commission and in the Planning Department. Did I run out of time, am I talking too much? SIRACUSA:No. WOOD:Okay, thank you. This is the process that we employ in planning; and, you know, we need to honor the work that these people do and recognize that the future is designed by work that has been done in the past. And what we€re looking at now is something that will violate all of that work and set a precedent whereby any piece of property along Highway 130 could potentially see another shopping center. 29 EXHIBIT A There was previous mention to the Pascual project. That project was turned down twice, not because it was a bad project. It was a great project, a beautiful design; and it was turned down because it was on the highway. And if we change the rules, and we start allowing frontage on the highway, I can think right way of a half dozen other similar properties that will need a traffic light because other developers will be putting shopping centers there as well. At the same time, the viability of this village center that has been designed on Orchidland Drive will be dismissed, you know. The idea is that the Planning Department wanted to create a contiguous commercial center on Orchidland Drive. And, currently, as I say, we have drawn in 45,000 square feet of floor space, we have two grocery tenants that are interested in moving into our project, and we€re talking to them. However, we will not be able to sign anybody until this situation is resolved as to whether or not the policy will change, or whether or not we will stick to this policy of no development on the highway and, you know, honor the Orchidland Drive village center concept. So without going on too long, which is too late already, I appreciate your patience. But I would liketoasktheCommissionerstodothreethings:Andthatistovalidateandendorsethe planning process; and I would like you to respect and honor the work of the predecessors that sat on this Commission; and I would like you to uphold the vision that the community has put together in regards to creating this contiguous village center on Orchidland Drive. Before I close, I just want to explain the economics of this, is that, in case I didn€t make it clear, if commercial development opens up on Highway 230 Orchidland Drive will no longer be a viable place; and whatever plan or, you know, whatever ideas we had about making this center will disappear as fast as the highway starts developing. Thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:Sir, could you elaborate for me and the Commission what the village concept is, maybe give us more information about the encourage -, and some of the planned or proposed commercial uses? WOOD:Sure. I€d like to thank you. My property, as Mr. Yuen said earlier, is actually a consolidation of two properties. We just got a confirmation last week from the Planning Department that the consolidation is complete and it totals 2.31 acres. It€s maybe about 75 percent of the size of the project that we€re talking about on the highway. The Wiki Wiki project across the street is about the same size, and there are several other vacant two-acre properties in the same area that could possibly go the same direction. SALAVEA:Okay, thank you. SPRINGER:Any other questions? Thank you, sir. WATANABE:I -. 30 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Oh, I€m sorry, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:One last question. You refer to two other vacant similar sized parcels. They€re all contiguous? WOOD:Not exactly contiguous. What I was referring to there is that there is not structures, houses or any other particular use on these properties at the present time. WATANABE:Oh, so they would need to consolidated, etc.? WOOD:No, actually, the properties I€m thinking about are already two acres. There are some properties in Orchidland that are different sizes. They start at one acre and some are two. The one that I, I bought two that were 1.5 acres each; and I consolidated those two. SPRINGER:Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I€d just like a clarification from staff, I guess, as far as the zoning of this Orchidland area that we€re talking about. Is it commercially zoned or not? DARROW:This is zoned Agricultural, State Land Use Agricultural and County Agricultural 3 acres. Both of these projects, the Orchidland Convenience Center and the OrchidlandTradeCenter,hadpreviouslycomeinforspecialpermitsthatwereapprovedbythe Planning Commission. IWASHITA:Okay. So those are all special permits. They€re really, there is no commercial zoned property on Orchidland? DARROW:Correct. IWASHITA:Okay. SPRINGER:Thank you. Are there any further questions for the testifier or staff? Thank you. Ma€am, your name and address for the record. GLASS:My name is Sher Glass. My address is Rural Route 3, Box 1025, Pahoa and my physical address is on Woodrose Drive in Ainaloa Subdivision. I€m here, I€m a self- employed computer graphics designer. I work out of my home in Ainaloa. And I am in favor of this development of the business center, this Orchidland Business Center for the following reasons. Number one, property values. The proximity of this business shopping center will be a great asset to the landowners in Orchidland, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Ainaloa and Tiki Gardens. Owners who rent or sell can state how convenient it is to have these shops nearby. In my opinion, Orchidland has always had a poor reputation as a rugged place to live with bad roads 31 EXHIBIT A and limited utilities. What an opportunity to attract prospective buyers or tenants. You will now be able to brag about how modern and people friendly your subdivision is becoming. Number two, well, why not build up the street on Orchildand Drive by the Wiki Wiki Mart you ask. Well, there you lose the advantage of being on a main highway where visitors and potential customers can see you. Some businesses franchises that I€ve looked into personally require that you be on a main highway, otherwise they won€t back you. Number three, if I€m able to open a business in this center, I will not have to commute to Hilo every day. Also, I will celebrate the day that I don€t have to drive all the way to Hilo or Keaau for something I can get in my own neighborhood, be it a sandwich or a zerox copy. And what if I forget to bring my cooler with the blue ice packs into Hilo with me? Well, no ice cream or frozen food tonight because it will all melt by the time I get home. Keaau and Pahoa are both out of my way and I don€t want to stop. Traffic signals, number four, traffic signals. Why would anybody be against them? I am all for moretrafficsignalsontheKeaau-Pahoa,Highway130.Peoplealreadydrivetoofast.How many lives do we have to lose or see change forever due to accidents before these signals go up? Also, people waiting to turn left onto the highway will definitely appreciate the signals when a long line of cars is going by. Oh, if we can€t get the traffic signals, I guess we could always get a policeman out there with the white gloves and help people, show them the way, until we get the traffic signals. Number five, after so many years or stagnant growth, Puna is finally taking off. Growth is inevitable and welcomed. Why not create something pleasant to look at in our neighborhood rather than the metal prefab-looking structures coming up in so many places? The new Pahoa market place center is very tastefully designed and echo the old pioneer days. I believe that this business shopping center being planned by GW Construction on Aulii Drive, or Street, will be just as nice if not better. In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your time and I hope you€ll approve this project. SPRINGER:Thank you, Ma€am. Commissioners, any questions of the testifier? Thank you. Sir, if you could tell us your name and address for the record. ROBINSON:My name is Don Robinson. My mailing address is PO Box 1923, Pahoa. th My physical address is 16-1968 37 Street in Keaau. When I first came to Orchidland in the early nineties, I bought a lot. I came back about five years ago. The roads were impassable to even get to my property. I got involved with the Board, I became a Board Member. I became Road Chair, and I single-handedly started getting involved in the roads, along with the other Board Members. I€m all for development as the development is in the right direction. Just yesterday coming out of Aulii, I use Aulii every single day. There€s probably nobody who puts as many hours on the roads as I do because I€m road manager. I take care of all the roads in Orchidland. Pulling out of Aulii yesterday, there€s a memorial right on the side of the road. My childsaystome,dad,there€ssomebodyburiedthere.AndIsaid,no,whydoyouaskthat?And 32 EXHIBIT A he says, well, it looks like there€s a grave right there. A few months ago a motorcyclist was killed right there on that corner. And as you drive down the highway how many more people have to die? What we need, we need a traffic light. And here€s a gentleman willing to put in a traffic light that€s going to cause a break in the traffic. My wife is a teacher here in Hilo, and she has to come on to that highway every morning, and she has a hard time getting on the road. And I do not want to lose a family member to not having a break in the traffic. I consolidated my lots, it took six months to consolidate two lots. I know what it takes to build and get stuff pushed through as far as permits. It€s a long process. I don€t know how many more lives have to be lost due to putting in a traffic light. Here we have a gentleman willing to put in a traffic light and develop a piece of property. Now a lot of people say, what about Paradise, why don€t they move this operation to Paradise? Well, if you look at it, and I€m a contactor, I€ve done it for 35 years, he has got a piece of propertyonthehighwaythat€sanidealpieceofpropertytodevelop.It€sbigenough.Hehas got a grocery store willing to put in a substantial building that won€t fit on two acres. It€ll fit on this piece of this lot this gentleman is willing to propose for this development. Paradise, if you tried turning into Paradise, you have to go down a hill. Well, to raise that property up to be able to see at eye level and not kill somebody going in and out of there, who could substantially pay for that? I don€t know anybody that could put up the money to raise those lots up high enough, and let alone buy the lots. Now a lot of people say, okay, why not go to Orchidland Drive and buy two lots? Try and buy any lots in Orchidland or Paradise, let alone consolidate them next to each other. The price of those has substantially gone up. We€re the oldest subdivision in Hawaii is what I€m told. All right? And that subdivision is just now starting to take growth. And since I drive the roads every day I see all the new houses. And I do believe there€s a definite need for the people living in Ainaloa and the subdivisions above us. A lot of the people right now go to Wiki Wiki. I was there about a week ago and a gentleman had a little basket. He had $60 worth of food in that little basket. Well, I go outside and I see his license plates were expired. So I know a lot of the people running those back roads aren€t able to drive the main roads because their cars are illegal or they€re illegal, I€m not sure of which. All right? Where having a substantial grocery store close by would give these people, you know, a way of cutting the price, cause I€m sure they€re not rich, if they€re spending $60 in Wiki Wiki for a few items. Whereas I think this development that€s being proposed, and I€ve been in the trenches with these people in the subdivision. I€ve been at these meetings with the Board. I€m no longer a Board Member because I couldn€t be a Board Member because I run the roads, it€s a paid position. But I€m there at these meetings and I see the process they go through. The Board has worked really hard. They represent 2400 lot owners; and their ideas on the Board reflects those 2400 lot owners, and the hours and hours and hours that are spent trying to work out a plan, or even come up with a solution. And the Board, like I say, had approved this; and I very much approve for this development to go on, because we€re getting, Orchidland is getting money for our roads which we really need, cause we€re th trying to pave them. All our roads, 37isourmainroadthroughoursubdivision.Ittiesin Ainaloa, it ties in Pohaku, it ties in all the roads. That€s a mainroad, and it€s freshly going to be th paved.Iliveon37.Andtheseothersubdivisionsrightnowalreadyuseourroads.AndI 33 EXHIBIT A think having this development on Aulii is probably the best thing. Thank you very much for your time. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you all for coming before us today. And if you could stand back now, we have the last three individuals who have signed up. Bob Dean, Connie Cappos, and Margaret James. Thank you. Starting on your left, if you could begin your testimony by giving us your name and address for the record. Beginning with you, sir. DEAN:My name is Bob Dean. I live on Kalapana Highway. My mailing address is 266 Makaala Street in Hilo. Most of what I had to say have been addressed. Thank you for letting me speak to the group. Mr. Safarik pretty much said most of the things I wanted to say. In hearing the testimony up to this point, I did make a mental note that some of the things that have been spoken about as maybe happening at Ainaloa, Mr. Yuen spoke about. And some of theseotherthings,themoreidealsituationsseemtobemanyyearsdowntheroad.AndIthink with the numbers of people that are now moving into both sides of this area we€re discussing needs some of these services a little bit quicker than that. I don€t have a whole lot more to say. I don€t want to spend a lot of your time. Mr. Safarik pretty much said everything I wanted to say. I don€t wish to repeat things. That€s the only other note that I made on what has been spoken. Mr. Wood had some good ideas about the Orchidland development area. Again, it€s off the road, it€s more turning. This development that we€re talking about at Aulii has turn lanes already. I drive that road every day, six days a week, 16 years. And I don€t like to stop at lights, but I see a lot of people taking big chances; and it€s just not good. It needs to be taken care of. The light at Aulii is an excellent idea. Too bad that what wasn€t enforced at Orchidland Drive hadn€t taken place. That would have helped a lot, too. That€s all I have to say. Thank you for letting me address the Board. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the testifier? ALAMEDA:Question. I€m just curious. You said you live in Kalapana. Where do you buy your groceries? DEAN: Safeway. ALAMEDA:Safeway, okay. DEAN:I€m in Hilo every day, so -. SPRINGER:Other Commissioners? Thank you, sir. Ma€am, if you could state your name and address for the record, please. 34 EXHIBIT A th CAPPOS:My name is Connie Cappos. I€m at PO Box 1546, Keaau. I live at 38 and Aulii in Orchidland. SPRINGER:Thank you. CAPPOS:I want to say I do support the Planning Commission and the General Plan -. SIRACUSA:Excuse me, could you bring the mike closer to you. Thank you. CAPPOS:I wantedto state first that I do support the Planning Commission and their General Plan. What I€m hearing here today is a confusion between needing a supermarket and needing a traffic light. Yes, there is a definite needfor a traffic light, but I don€t think Aulii really serves the community. We have a Fire Department on Paradise Drive, they need a traffic light.WehaveallthatdevelopmentgoingonoverinOrchidland,theyneedalight.Ainaloais now the highway, they need a light. I think the fourth place we need the light really is at Aulii. Also these three nodes that were brought up by Mr. Safarik, again, keeps all of the development right there just in the Orchidland area. We€re not serving all of Puna at that point. Puna does go from Volcano to Kalapana and Kapoho, and that€s something to consider as well. And, also, the Orchidland Community Association I don€t really feel represented the community in this. The community was not informed either through their news letter or through the website. It was, the community found out by word of mouth. So the vote was never brought before the community. And the withdrawal was done three days before the annual general membership meeting; and we were told at the meeting that it was withdrawn at that time without telling the community that this was being done. I think that covered everything right there. Thank you. SPRINGER: You€re welcome. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Would you, you say that you believe that Aulii would be the fourth priority -. CAPPOS:As far as the traffic light, yes. SIRACUSA:For a traffic light and not the first. But you do agree that at least one traffic light would be needed on that highway to break up the traffic? CAPPOS:Yes, but I think it really needs to serve the community, not the interest of a supermarket. SIRACUSA:Okay. And how do you feel about, would you be more supportive of a supermarket if it were situated elsewhere? 35 EXHIBIT A CAPPOS:Yes. I think it should go either Orchidland, or there€s another commercial development going in on Pahoa on the other side of the new one. It€s called Woodland Market Place.‚ That€s another place for it to go. We have Keaau and we have Pahoa. SIRACUSA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any other questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you Ma€am. And, finally, if you could give us your name and address. th JAMES:My name is Margaret James and I live 39 and Aulii. My address is HCR 1, Box 5814, Keaau. The reason I came today was because I was not informed of this decision the Community Association made. I was not asked what my opinion was as to whether or not I wanted development, a supermarket, a light, a gas station, any of the above. So the reason I came was to see what decision was being made. A few other people on my street were also not asked, so this is something we€ll deal with our Community Association. Although as I€m sitting here listening to everybody speaking, there€s a few things that were flashing in my mind that were not brought up but I feel are very important. And so I made some notes, and I€ll read them. Okay. All I€m hearing today is really a desire for profit. We moved to Puna in order to remove ourselves from commercialism. The people who are moving here are leaving the mainland to remove themselves from the shopping experience. So far all I have seen or heard today are peoplewhoareinterestedinprofitandwants,notneedsofthepeopleoranyotherconcern whatsoever for the land. Progress and conservation really go hand in hand. We already have lots one to three a day being bulldozed in Orchidland. So why would the County or the community go with the idea of speeding up the death of ohia trees, the native Hawaiian tree? Why are we needing to rely on a construction company to make our driving experience safe? Is it not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation? Personally, I would consider the light option as, I€m not sure if this word is appropriate or legal, but bribery, for the purpose of profit. So I began the statement with profit and I€m ending it with profit; and I don€t see any truth in that whatsoever. So, no, I do not agree with the proposal for shopping malls along the highway. SPRINGER: Thank you for your testimony. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? SIRACUSA:I have a question for the Director. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:I drive that road all the time, too, because I live on the other side of Pahoa; and I have seen people taking tremendous risks, you know, to cut out onto traffic, especially when they have to cut across two lanes of traffic. And there have been a lot of times when I have to slam on the brakes and honk my horn because someone pulled out right in front of me. So I 36 EXHIBIT A do think that there is a need to put a traffic light at some point along that stretch between, say, you know, like somewhere between Aulii and Paradise in order to create breaks in the traffic. The question is whether we need to rely on a developer in order to put in the traffic light or can we just petition the Department of Transportation and say, look, there€s a tremendous need here, please put a traffic light in. Are we going to go ahead and approve this project -? There seems to be two basic issues here. People want shopping closer and then not having to go onto the highway in order to get it and, or maybe just across the highway quickly. And the other need is for a traffic light to slow down traffic. And so is there some way that if these two issues are addressed, you know, possibly we could get some sort of a win-win situation, if we could get the State Department of Transportation to put in a light along that stretch and then say, well, okay, that addresses one of the big problems. Are we looking, are the people out here who are coming to support this project doing it because they want a traffic light or because of all these other benefits that they think they€re going to get with the development? YUEN:Well, definitely you don€t have to wait for a private developer if the State wouldfundasignal.TheHighway130isaStateHighway.Idon€tknowiftheywouldturn down the money if the County came up with the money for a signal, but they have to authorize it. One thing is, I think it€s going to be -. And to do it, you first have to do a study. The study that€s connected with this application, the volumes of traffic, I think, really make it clear that certainly at Orchidland, and I don€t think there are numbers for Ainaloa Boulevard, but I would suspect that both Orchidland and Ainaloa Boulevard would need warrants for traffic signals. So the government, you know, this is a responsibility and function of government and signals have been installed at State expense on other highways. The intersections, I believe the intersection upgrades at Aulii and Ainaloa and Orchidland were paid for by the State as part of improvements to the highway. So it€s just a question of somebody making a decision that they want to do this; and then the money being appropriated for it. SIRACUSA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, are there any other questions for the testifiers? Seeing that there are none, thank you for coming before us this morning. Now if the parties may return -. PAWU:Madam Chair, may I readdress the Board -? SPRINGER:And are you speaking in your capacity as a party or a citizen? PAWU:As a party. SPRINGER:We€ll be calling the other parties forward, too. Thank you, sir. PAWU:Okay, thank you. 37 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:We€ll just let the other testifiers stand back. If at this time we could take a five-minute recess, please, and then we€ll reconvene with the parties at the table. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 11:29 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:36 a.m. SPRINGER:We have another person who just signed up to testify. So if we could take them before you return to the parties table. Mr. Steve Matthews? Mr. Steve Matthews? Mr. Matthews? MATTHEWS:Yes. SPRINGER:We€re ready for your testimony. Were you sworn in previously? MATTHEWS:Yes. SPRINGER:If you could state your name and your address for the record, please. MATTHEWS:I€m Steven Matthews. My mailing address is 7312, Hilo, Box 7312, Hilo; but I live four lots from this proposed development just mauka on 34th on Aulii. I€m opposed to the development. I feel that it€s fragmenting and turning, you know, this corridor into a mini- mall. I believe that the village concept, or bubbles, or nodes, whatever you€re speaking to, is the right way to develop this area of Puna. I am very concerned about the traffic, as everyone is. I do believe that we need a traffic light at Orchidland and we also very much need one at Ainaloa. I€m a realtor, I work for Clark Realty and I also work in remodeling, so I know the area. I travel itconstantly.IturneverydayleftandrightonAulii.Ithinkit€sobvioustherearegoingtobe lights. And I think that this is, just isn€t sensible to put a high traffic use on that corner where it€s going to be dangerous when you also have people having to turn at Orchidland. I also believe, as a realtor and someone who is involved in the environmental movement, that fragmenting up the landscape is just as bad. It€s bad for the development and it€s going to cut down on the value of Puna. If you look at Leilani, Leilani has high values because it€s attractive looking, because people have beautiful gardens, because they have preserved their trees. A lot of people there are very defensive of the landscape. I was very upset when they scraped this lot. I would like to see the County even look at doing something to preserve trees in Puna. My sister just moved to the southeast of the country and they have tree preservation laws there. If you build in South Carolina, you have to preserve the oak trees over a certain age. I€m very worried that we€ll end up looking like Kailua-Kona, or Houston, or Garden Grove, California, places that have done nothing to preserve. They€re just an endless series of strip malls and parking lots; and almost everything seems to be paved. I also wanted to address the fact that this, although it is Orchidland€s community that is faced with the decision about this, this store is really aimed at the market of HPP and Ainaloa. because Orchidland€s population just isn€t that large, whereas HPP is huge. And I feel there€s a nimby issue, not in my back yard people, nimbyism happening here that these people who are testifying 38 EXHIBIT A for it like Gary are really interested in dumping this store on Orchidland. And Orchidland has been very weak in defending itself, obviously with the Wiki Wiki Mart not putting in the light that they had promised. Orchidland just doesn€t defend itself. I€m going to be an activist now. I€ve decided to be much more active in the Orchidland community because apparently it€s not standing up for its rights. I also suggest that I€m not against development, obviously, and I€m not against the owner of the property building something. But I would like to see something that has a smaller traffic impact. Maybe they could put a residential or storage units, or something that is not a market that is going to have a huge traffic impact. And I just think that€s a bad idea. I think really think we should try to stick with the village concept. I think that HPP should develop those 20-acre lots into a village, and Ainaloa can develop one of those larger mauka pieces. I think that€s a brilliant idea that Mr. Yuen had mentioned. Thank you. SPRINGER:You€rewelcome.Thankyou,sir.Arethereanyquestionsforthe testifier? Seeing none, thanks again for coming to us. Now if the parties can return to the table. And, Mr. Pawu, you will have chance to give us your comments following the public testimony, but we€d like to begin with the applicant, please. Mr. Fuke, you€ve heard quite a bit of testimony. Could we have your comments? FUKE:Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You know, I€ve appeared before the Commission a number of times; and I have to admit I€d rather appear before the Commission with the support of the Planning Director and not without his support. But, unfortunately, this is one situation that it has got to be what it has got to be. Much of the discussion to date has focused around the traffic and the land use issue; and I know that in the deliberation by this Commission, you know, one must consider for a special permit all of the other things, you know, the infrastructure aspects and environmental things. And so I€d like to kind of like just, for the record, quickly dismiss, particularly some of those issues; and so that we can dismiss that, and hopefully focus in on some of the more salient or the more obvious type of concerns relating to land use and the traffic issue. Relative to the other infrastructure issue, I think that, you know, water is available to the site, the wastewater system will be through a septic system that€s going to be developed by the applicant in conjunction with Department of Health rule requirements. A solid waste management plan will be develop and implemented in conjunction with the operation of the project if it€s approved. You now, from an agricultural resource standpoint, I think that, the property has already been totally cleared. If one passes that area, you€ll see that it has been totally denuded. An authorized grading permit was issued in the past; and so, as a result, from a flora and fauna and an archaeological perspective, I think that those kind of environmental issues are not present. Not withstanding that, the Land Study Bureau€s classification of the property is Class E, which is very poor from an agricultural resource perspective. But this is not to say that the property cannot be ever used for some sort of an agricultural purpose, as evidenced by some of the 39 EXHIBIT A thriving agricultural activities in the Puna and the Lower Puna area. The site from the Flood Insurance Rate Map perspective is Zone X, so it€s free of flooding. In conjunction with the development of this project if it gets approved, they would have to develop a drainage plan and have it reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works to make sure that all of the on-site water is kind of contained on the site. During the, I think that at the initial hearing and today, you know, there was quite a bit of concerns raised particularly by the neighbors, and that€s the Community Association. And as was evident in the earlier discussions, you know, a lot of effort was taken between the applicant and the Orchidland Community Association Board Members to ameliorate their concerns; and whatever they had suggested have been totally agreed to, you know, by this applicant. So it seems right now that what we€re kind of trying to deal with is like looking at what the Planning Director€s position is and traffic, and from a land use perspective. Andifyoulookatitpurelyfroma,andI€mjustkindofreadingwhatthePlanningDirectoris saying in the initial recommendation for the denial, what I€d like to just kind of point out is that, and I€ll just read this to you, The Planning Director would support a special permit for office spaces, medical, dental, real estate, personal services like hairdressers, etc., financial institutions and other similar uses that are not heavy traffic generators, unlike the proposed gas station/convenience store development.‚ And the Director would be in a position to respond to that at the appropriate time. But from my perspective, again, you know, and when you look at it from a land use perspective, there€s already a concession that some sort of commercial uses in that area would be appropriate. And maybe what may not be appropriate is something that€s more heavy, a heavily traffic generator. If we were to then, just kind of home in on the issue of traffic, I passed out some things earlier to you and I€d like to just, you know, these are all, you know, whatever was contained in the file, but -. First of all, if you look at like the distance between the Orchidland Subdivision and Ainaloa, you€re looking at a stretch of about two miles. And pretty much if you look at the map that was found in the traffic report, it shows you, this one, pretty much that map that€s on the site plan, you know, you€re looking at -. On your far left, you know, that€s the edge of, on your far left on the map, left side, that€s the beginning of the Orchidland Subdivision, and Ainaloa Boulevard is on the far right. So that whole stretch, you know, essentially you have roughly like about two miles. Now on the south side or the Volcano side of the main highway you have like several major subdivisions. And I kind of like tried to pass out, I passed out earlier a map which is identified as Plate No. 17. And this Plate No. 17 is a map that was prepared by some consultants done in conjunction with the first, would you believe, for the first community development plan for Puna, this is back in the 1970s or early 1980s. And this is a map that shows and outlines all of the various subdivision in the Upper Puna area, or this area. And, essentially, that area, that two-mile stretch of area, what you see, and these are all of the facts, you see like Orchidland, the subdivision, they would have 2491 lots; Ainaloa Subdivision has 3,637 lots; Tiki Gardens has 481. So you have a total of about roughly 6500 lots on the Volcano side of the highway that stretches roughly a two-mile area. On the north side you have Hawaiian Paradise Park which consists of 8,043 lots. So between this two-mile section you effectively have like over 15,000 lots that will be feeding into this highway. I think like in a perfect world 40 EXHIBIT A what we really would have wanted is to not have all of these 48,000, 49,000 nonconforming sized lots and infrastructure created in the Puna district; but that€s neither here nor there, I mean, that€s a fact of life. That€s 48,000 lots in this general area that we€d have to deal with. I think also, ideally, you know, what we would want to have seen is that if this area were going to be developed as such that the planners at that time or the developers at that time were kind of wise enough as what the Director had kind of pointed out like in Hawaiian Paradise Park you would set aside areas that would be within the respective subdivisions so that you can have opportunities to create a village or a town center. But when you look at Orchidland, you look at Ainaloa, you look at Tiki Gardens and all that area, for all intents and purpose, to be able to create a meaningful town or village center, you need to assemble the land. And to be able to assemble the land at this point in time is going to be very, very difficult. There was another community plan that was prepared as an update of this one here back in the earlier 90€s; and at that time, you know, although it was never adopted, at that time it kind of suggested that maybe there ought to be like, you know, recognizing that you have all of these splintered lots in this area thatmaybewhatmaybeappropriatewouldbetoconsideranareathatwasnotzonedbutdidnot require land assemblage. Okay. I know it€s difficult to see, but this, if you have a chance to come up to the map, you can see that, in fact, these are all platted lots. I mean, you know, if you go on the ground maybe you might see that, oh, yeah, you have a lot of forested area and all that stuff. And at one point in time, and especially over the last five years, it has really been shown that homes will come popping up, whether we like it or not, because these are all platted lots. But when you look in this district, again, giving you an orientation, this is like heading toward Keaau town and this is heading towards Pahoa. This is your Ainaloa Subdivision. This is your Tiki Gardens, this is Tiki Gardens rather. And your Orchidland Subdivision is all of this area in blue and encompasses a portion of this green area. This is your Hawaiian Paradise Park with your different Open areas. This white area represents like your road network system. You know, whether it€s there or not on paper, these are all of your roadways; and these also are your roadways. What it shows over here along this, and maybe, I was kind of, backing up again. And when you look at this whole region, the only possible area that may be possible for a new town center, when you look at, if you eliminate the possibility of land assembly, is generally in this area. You€ve got like about 200 or 400 acres, 200 of which is being proposed for a golf course. That€s the Ainaloa Golf Course. But that€s neither here nor there. But my point is that in this area, this two-mile stretch, you have like over 15,000 lots that eventually will, at one point in time, give birth. And then you have like about 8 intersections along this point on the Volcano side. You also have like seven intersections on the opposite side, Hawaiian Paradise Park. And at some point in time they will demand some sort of traffic control system. So the question is, I think rightfully so, like what the Director points out, is like where should these traffic controls be? At this point in time, that€s true, Orchidland might be a primary one. But if you look at tomorrow, and that€s all of our responsibility as Commissioners, us guys as citizens, or consultants and Planning Department, if you look at it from this perspective, Orchidland Drive and Aulii Street are basically the same, if you look at it from tomorrow€s perspective. True over here it€s heavier, but Aulii Street also has the potential for becoming a major feeder into this Keaau-Pahoa Highway, because this street connects directly to Ainaloa Subdivision. So the point I was just trying to make was just, I know that you have to look at today, and we also have 41 EXHIBIT A to look at tomorrow; and the reality is, what I was just trying to point out, those are all of the realities, the number of access points you have, the number of lots that eventually will be feeding into this area. So having said that, you know, we had a traffic study done and it was prepared in the initial application. We also had one done for the updated application. And that traffic study essentially concluded that you needed to have a traffic light with the supermarket. And the question, however, is that is the traffic or some sort of signalized light system needed along this general stretch, whether it€s on Aulii or Orchidland or any of the main streets that feed into the highway? We also, if you look at your background report, you know, you€ll find that there were agency -. And I€ll bring the traffic consultant up and then, you know, he can kind of amplify on that point better on the whole traffic issue. But, again, just for the record, I needed to point out that if you look at, what, what did the other agencies say? The Department of Public Works, the Police Department, and the Department of Transportation, basically, they had no objections to the request.Actually,aswaspointedoutearlier,IthinkCommissionerSiracusapointedoutina letter that we received from the State DOT that said, fine, you know, put in a traffic light but be mindful of the fact that at some point if in the evaluation of the overall traffic pattern in that area, that light may have to be removed. And if it gets removed, it will have to be removed by the State; and the applicant understands that there will be no reimbursement as a result of that removal. The criteria for special permit have already been expressed and they€re contained in the background report as well as the application that I filed. What I had also presented to the Commission just to help facilitate it is that in the possible event that the Commission is willing to go along with the permit, then you do need to have written reasons for the approval and with conditions. So what I passed out was the applicant€s positions on a proposed findings of fact and proposed conditions. And the conditions, with the exception of one, reflect what the understanding or agreement with the Community Association was; and that specifically was, the only exception was that the traffic signal lights would have to be in, we said in the report 60 days but I guess the Orchidland Association this morning said that they wanted 90 days. And from that perspective, we indicated earlier that the applicant had no objections. Having said all of that, Madam Chair, I€d like to call Mr. Yamamoto up. Mr. Warren Yamamoto is the traffic engineer that did the TIAR. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, just before we swear in Mr. Yamamoto, the conditions that you€re referring to, is that Condition No. 4 on page 8 of the document which you circulated to us? FUKE:That€s correct. SPRINGER:And that document is the Planning Commission€s reasons for approval submitted by the applicant. Thank you. Sir, before we hear your testimony, thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? 42 EXHIBIT A YAMAMOTO:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. If you could please state your name and address for the record. YAMAMOTO:My name is Warren Yamamoto with M&E Pacific, 841 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii. SPRINGER:Thank you. You may proceed. YAMAMOTO:I€ve been asked to talk about the need for a traffic signal. Before I start, maybe I just want to give a general background on why we traffic signals are put in. And traffic signals are put in to increase traffic safety at a place where intersection, where there is a lot of conflicting traffic. And, generally, many times people will say, oh, we need a traffic signal becausetrafficseemsbad.Buttheyhavewhattheycallwarrantsfortrafficsignalsthatare included in the report that the engineer can use to measure whether or not a traffic signal is warranted or not. And we did that with this study and found that with the project a traffic signal would be warranted at the intersection of Highway 130 and Aulii Street. And without the project, a traffic signal would not be warranted. As Director Chris Yuen stated, although we do not state it in the report, probably traffic coming from the other streets along in that area would probably warrant traffic signals at this time. Traffic volumes, as you know, are very heavy so that traffic improvements are required, but traffic signals would probably be warranted at the other intersections in that area also. But, again, it€s a State Highway and it€s the State€s prerogative to put it in if it€s on their expense. But, so, again, with the proposed project a traffic signal would be warranted at the subject intersection. FUKE:Can I just ask him some other questions so that -? SPRINGER:Please proceed, Mr. Fuke. FUKE:You know, there are like about six or seven intersections that do not necessarily -, you know, on the Kau side or Volcano side, and there are like also same, maybe little less, intersections on the Hilo side of that main highway, and they don€t necessarily match up with the exception of one at the top, you know, near the Keaau -. You know, from a traffic engineering perspective and knowing that there€s that heavy volume of traffic along that highway, what would be your recommended solution in terms of signalization along that highway, knowing that these intersections don€t line up? YAMAMOTO:What you have are T-intersections along both sides of the highway coming from opposing sides. And ideally, not ideally, but what this situation causes is that because you only have traffic coming from one approach, you don€t have side streets having interfering traffic. So you can give more green time to the main street, which is Highway 130 in this particular case. So if you were to install traffic signals along the several intersections along Highway 130, because you have a series of T-intersections you€ll be able to give more green tine to the Highway 130 than if you had full four-way intersections. 43 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Thank you, Mr.Yamamoto. Commissioners, you€ve had the additional traffic report that has been circulated to us all. Do you have any questions of the consultant at this time? SIRACUSA:Yes. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Okay. As I mentioned before, I€ve had occasion to drive this stretch of 130 many times; and in the morning rush hour, the traffic really starts to back up right at about Paradise. And so it seems to me that putting a light at Paradise would be a lot more productive in terms of keeping the flow going than at Aulii, if we were not looking at this project. If we were not considering the Yamada project for Aulii, would you still think that Aulii would be the bestplaceforasignalorwouldyouconsiderParadiseasbeingmoreproductivebecausethat€s where the traffic starts backing up in the morning? YAMAMOTO:You€d actually have to look at a system of traffic signals; and, again, it€s up to the State when to put in the traffic signals as they see fit, and they would do their own warrant study. And for this particular instance, we found that for Aulii it would be warranted with the project. Okay, I don€t want to overstep the State by answering your question in a sense. SIRACUSA:You€re hedging a little bit, though. SPRINGER:Any other questions for Mr. Yamamoto? FUKE:Can I just -? SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Yeah, just following up on the question to Mr. Yamamoto. Then, so, Mr. Yamamoto if the State elects not to have any traffic lights along that area for funding or for other reasons, and then this project provides the traffic light at Aulii Drive, and then there is none, what would be your conclusion or impression on the traffic flow along the main highway? YAMAMOTO:You will have a slight increase in delay to the main street Highway 130 traffic. And when you put a traffic signal in you do create some delay; and our study shows that it€s not going to be a detrimental amount. It€s going to be a small delay; and Director Yuen talked to you about this. And actually it will help the people from Auplii Street to get on the highway easier. We note from the traffic counts that we did take that those intersections from the Orchidland, they seem to be making right turns onto the highway, then they€re making a u-turn somewhere on the highway, probably turning into one of the side streets on the makai side, and then coming back. So at least for the Aulii Street residents they will be able to come out directly, and for those patronizing the proposed project. 44 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:Thank you. FUKE:Thank you. I think that Mr. Yamada, the applicant, has a few comments. ALAMEDA:I€ve got a question, Madam Chair. SPRINGER:Excuse me. Commissioner Alameda before we get to Mr. Yamada. ALAMEDA:Yes, thank you. Just a clarification. So you said that the traffic signal will create delay for those already on the highway, but not a delay for those trying to get on the highway? YAMAMOTO:No. There will be, actually, the delay for those who are on the side streets will probably be reduced from their current unsignalized state. ALAMEDA:Right, right. So it won€t be a further delay for those trying to get on -. YAMAMOTO:No. -. ALAMEDA:But once on, they may experience a delay. YAMAMOTO:Well, if there€s no traffic, they€ll get into the regular traffic flow -. ALAMEDA:Right. YAMAMOTO:And experience the normal delay. ALAMEDA:Gotcha. Thank you. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Yeah, I had just a couple of questions. Did you, I didn€t see anything in your report that talked about the future situation. Often in a TIAR there€s a 5-year, 10-year or 15-year future projection. Is there a future projection in there? YAMAMOTO:We did for the opening of the project in proposed 2006. We did not do a longer term than that. We just normally look at the opening year for our TIARS. YUEN:Okay. Now just to follow up on this question of creating gaps, and this is a positive of having a light, it will create some gaps for people to turn left. At the moment, you know, my biggest concern on the highway is people on the mauka side having to turn left in the morning, because when you make a left turn you have to clear two lanes, you have to get into the flow of traffic. There are more people turning right out of Paradise Park, but a right turn is easier. And then on the afternoon traffic, people going into Paradise Park have to turn left but they€re crossing one lane; and the opposing traffic is not a heavy in the afternoon going toward 45 EXHIBIT A Keaau as it is in the morning. So it€s not a great situation, but it€s not as bad as the mauka side. At the same time, you don€t create a full gap because you have, you stop the traffic on Highway 130 but then you had, the cars come in from Aulii Street. About how much of a gap do you create? YAMAMOTO:Generally speaking, you create, whenever there€s a change in the traffic signals from green to red, you create these 2-, 3-second gaps; and it depends on how many cycles you have in, how long your cycle length. And in my report the estimated cycle length would be about 100 seconds. So they€re, what, 3600 seconds, so you€ll create about 36 gaps within the space of an hour. And the next intersection down at Paradise, you have about 40 left turns in the morning peak hour, so essentially you create a gap for one car at a time to come out from the Paradise Road. So, essentially, you€re waiting for the change in gaps created by the change in signals. So probably about 40 to 60 an hour. YUEN:AndthencomingoutfromOrchidland,turningleft,abouthowmanyan hour in the morning peak? YAMAMOTO:You mean currently? YUEN:Yes, currently. YAMAMOTO:Based on our traffic counts, Orchidland has about 35 left turns coming out, excuse me, 100 left turns in the morning peak and 80 in the, going right. So we believe part of the people that want to turn left are actually going right, as you and I talked about. YUEN:Okay. All right, thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions of the consultant? I€d like to give Mr. Pawu the opportunity to make any inquires of the consultant that he might like to make before we get to Mr. Yamada. PAWU:I don€t think I have any at this time. I think he has done a very good job of addressing our concerns. SPRINGER:Thank you, sir. Mr. Yamada. YAMADA:I just wanted to address some of the items, you know, kind of give some background about how we came about this site. One of the reasons, we found out, you know, as everybody knows Lower Puna is one of the fastest growing areas in the State. And then we started studying the area. And when we actually started looking at the subdivisions maps, you know, that map, but enlarged size, we compared the subdivisions and the amount of lots available that are going to expand in that area, and it was just as big as all of Hilo; and this is all lots, all lots potential for growth. A lot of people we see them starting to move out in the area. Because of land prices in town, they€re all buying out in this area now. We think that this is only the tip of the iceberg right now as far as traffic growth in that area. Then we started looking at 46 EXHIBIT A where can we put this project, because we knew it was a high growth area, that it was going to be in the need of commercial services. We saw Townsend doing their studies, which is posted on the internet, and the community responding that they wanted commercial services within that area. So then it got really interesting. The first place we went to look was Orchidland, Orchidland Drive where Vern folks have their project. Those, if you€re familiar with the area, you know there€s a Mormon Church at the bottom on the left corner, and there€s some houses on the right side coming up. We couldn€t find any lot, enough area where we could consolidate the lots. We could find a two-acre parcel, but nothing that would, we cannot fit a full-sized market on a two-acre parcel. The smallest we could go with a full-sized market is 30,000 square feet, Vern can tell you that. And Chris can tell you that you€ll need required parking per Planning Department requirements, would roughly be about a 20,000 square foot store. If not, they cannot go any bigger, they won€t have enough parking for the site. We also looked at Orchidland Drive because of the, to make Orchidland Drive safe. Orchidland Drive is one of the most dangerous, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous intersections in that whole area. There€s not sufficient rightorleftturnlanescomingintothatarea,theroadistoonarrowiftheprojectisgoingtobe placed up higher in the subdivision. In order to make a safe development for any future development in that area, we would think that the entire roadway coming down to the highway would have to be widened and the whole intersection at Orchidland redone and signalized, which made it a huge cost, you know, not to mention that we couldn€t find enough lots to consolidate anyway in that area. So then we started going down; and then when we drove down the property that we purchased here, it was already bulldozed. It was owned by a veterinarian named Muhammad Yunis, and he had a big sign up there. You know, Chris can tell you, he was trying to lease out the property already and it didn€t have any zoning, I think. So we stopped there and talked to him. And then we decided that this was a good project, a good site, you know. And then I started walking around and talking to the neighbors. I walked door to door around the property, you know, quite a few times already, talking to all of the neighbors. And I got chased by quite a few dogs, in fact, walking around that area. But the neighbors were all for this type of project. So, you know, we had three acres consolidated with the possibility of four and the neighbors, every single neighbor that I talked to around that property was for the project. So I said, hey, you know, to me it looked like one of the best intersections, it had the longest acceleration and deceleration lane from both sides and, I don€t know, Commissioner Siracusa can tell you if you drive by that area it€s widen open. That€s the widest open intersection, in my opinion, versus Ainaloa, Paradise Park, Makuu. From all those intersections this appears to be the safest intersection for me. SIRACUSA:You have a line of sight there, that€s true. YAMADA:Line of sight, you have a big wide open line of sight. That€s how we came about with this site. So this is, I just kind of marked off in pink, you know, those support letters that you folks have, it shows, some of the people listed their TMK numbers, and all of these, every single property touching this site, people have supported the project. They€ve submitted a letter to you. You know, they didn€t want to come down, of course, to get off from work and all that, but they€re all for the project. So I also looked at Ainaloa Boulevard. You know, in fact, we own a lot on the corner of Ainaloa Boulevard right there, but we cannot get it, we have one- acre there and the people all in that area are different owners. They€re all different owners. 47 EXHIBIT A Some, one wants to sell, the other one doesn€t want to sell. It€s going to be really hard to bring in anything of substantial size into that area, you know, without major funding. Some of them, you know, major money; and some of them you have to buy out their homes to get it which, you know, nobody wants to move. So that€s how we ended up with this site. The other item I just wanted to bring up was during our talks with the Orchidland Community Association and the stop light, we went down to talk to DOT. You know, Orchidland Community, Orchidland, Mya he told us, you know, if we really want to get a, if we€re going to put any project in there, especially if we upsize it to a major grocery store we need to get a traffic light. It€ll help the community by breaking up that traffic, allowing the neighboring intersections to pull out and, also, you know, it will allow a major-sized grocery store to come in there, which is their number one item. And I have a study here sent out to the Orchidland Community Association earlier, this is the figures back, 2001-2002 where the number one priority item was a grocery store, which this was sent out to all of the members in that area. Mya has a more recent studywhichtheydidjustacoupleofweeksago.Youknow,whenwecameinwiththisthey wanted to make sure that this was what the community wanted; and they sent out another survey to their members; and then I believe the most wanted item was a grocery store also. We talked to DOT after talking to Mya on the traffic signal. And, you know, Mya said, hey, you know, we€re going to be against this project unless you can get that traffic signal in there to accommodate the traffic that€s going to be going in and out. So we went down to talk to DOT. He said we€d have to get a confirmation from DOT that they€re going to allow us to put a traffic light in there. And that was no easy task, getting a confirmation from DOT. So I spent a lot of hours meeting with their staff there. And then what happened was they said they actually wanted a stop light first, not at Orchidland but at Pohaku; and then number two they wanted Orchidland But the reasoning was because of the number of accidents, this is what they told me. And, but they finally agreed that if we were willing to pay for the light, they know there€s a high need within this area to break traffic up, they will allow it. Because, at this point, you saw in the papers where they were going to put out a study, SSFM came out with a low bid to do the study. They don€t even have a study done on this area so far, correct me if I€m wrong, Warren, to say where traffic lights are needed and why it€s needed at which intersection. All they have so far is pretty much they€re going by the accident count. So this study would have to be done first; and then after that they€d have to develop plans, and after that bid it out and put in the improvements. So they are a long ways off. Because of that, they said they€d agree, they know we can do it much faster and much sooner. That€s how they came about agreeing to let us put one in in this area. SPRINGER:Thank you. SIRACUSA:I have one -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. You mentioned Pohaku, but Pohaku Circle alone debauchesin two places onto the highway, and then there€s Pohaku Place. Which one were you referring to? 48 EXHIBIT A YAMADA:I€m not sure. I think they€re, I€m not positive but I think they€re talking about where there€s Shower across the street. And the reason why they wanted a stop light there was because there€s a bad turn there and cars -. SIRACUSA:It€s Pohaku Circle on the Keaau then. YAMADA:Keaau end, yes. SIRACUSA:No, Mya? PAWU:I believe he€s addressing Pohaku Drive and -. SIRACUSA:Oh, Pohaku Drive. PAWU:Shower Drive where they meet the highway. . SIRACUSA:That€s right. There€s Circle, Place and Drive. PAWU:Right. And that€s very bad to egress from because the road has a turn so youcannotsee.It€sablindwaytogetout.Andmostofourresidentswhohavetoexiton Shower actually go down to Pohaku Place. SIRACUSA:Right, I recall that now. Thank you. I did have a question. Mr. Yamada, I do appreciate your telling us about the history of how you were looking for a place. And yet as I look at the map and I think, well, you know, like Paradise Park, for example, has more lots than Ainaloa and Orchidland and Tiki Gardens put together. So if you were looking to keep traffic off the highway and give people a way within the subdivisions to have a place where they could shop, Paradise Park already has lots that are set aside. Had you considered trying to negotiate with the Watumulls for one of their big commercial zoned areas that are like 20 acres? YAMADA:We didn€t look at Paradise Park. We know the Watumulls, well, we know JD because we€re building that other shopping complex on Orchidland Drive. But we didn€t consider that area. And one of the biggest reasons was that we couldn€t, at this time, we couldn€t find any tenants that were willing to go up above in that area. And it€s hard to get tenants to move up, you know, four or five blocks up within the subdivision. Not only that, but it€s also costly to develop the road. I think Vern€s project, you know, was approved of, if you look at the records, it had been approved quite a ways back. And then I think that€s the reason why it hasn€t been developed yet. SIRACUSA:It just strikes me that, you know, being in the center of the largest subdivision and, I guess, I think it€s the largest subdivision in Puna, they would be so centrally located to so many potential customers that not being on the highway would not be a disadvantage. They could become a hub. 49 EXHIBIT A YAMADA:I think that€s a good idea if they€re, you know, for a larger subdivision like Paradise Park. However, when I did walk up further on Orchidland and talked to them about placing some type of project further up the road, what I got back from a lot of the residents said, you know, they pretty much said not in my backyard, you€re going to have a cars flying down these unimproved roads cutting in between them. They€re rather, a lot of them actually rather have us on the highway where they come out and they turn in right off the highway and get into our project. SIRACUSA:Well, the way I look at it here and Sidney mentioned that there was a way, th you know, just going up from your project site to 34 and turning over to, went right through to Ainaloa Boulevard. So it looks like then people might very well be from Ainaloa, certainly be accessing it, your shopping center, that way rather than going all the way out onto the highway trying to pull out across two lanes of traffic, and then trying to do it again to turn back into Aulii. So I could see where people might start doing that number on Ainaloa Boulevard, which has a lot of blind hills. And so that would be, you can€t really speed like that on Aulii because it€s just, it doesn€t lend itself to that. It has got too many potholes and stuff, yeah. SPRINGER:Mr. Yamada, when was the lot acquired? YAMADA:It was acquired about a month ago. SPRINGER:I see. And you had been looking for a site to locate a commercial development in this area for a while? YAMADA: We€ve been looking because when we first started doing the construction for Watumull over on the Orchidland site, you know, there was a real high demand. And a lot of people were putting in a, they have a Blaine€s Drive-In going in there; and their Wiki Wki Mart is packed. It is bumper to bumper with all kinds of people, and a lot of people were coming by; andtherewasahighdemandforcommercialservicesinthearea,wethought. SPRINGER:Mr.Yamada,theDirectordrawsourattentiontothefactthattheHawaii County General Plan was just passed a few months ago. As you were looking for commercial property, I thought I heard you say that there were inadequacies and difficulties finding suitably- sized or situated lots. Was any testimony made into the General Plan that there was not adequate citing or size for developments such as you€re proposing? YAMADA:Not that I know of. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Yamada, Mr. Fuke or Mr. Yamamoto? Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Just one, I just wanted to make the record a little bit clearer and one additional question of Mr. Yamamoto if I could. SPRINGER:Surely. 50 EXHIBIT A FUKE:One is that Mr. Yamamoto, knowing what you know about the situation, do you think that having a traffic light at Aulii Drive would help the overall situation? YAMAMOTO:Yes. FUKE:So that€s with or without the project? YAMAMOTO:With the project. FUKE:Let me ask you a future question then. Knowing what you know, although in response to Director Yuen you said that you didn€t look beyond the projected opening date of this project, but knowing what you know and what was shared and the number of lots that will eventually feed into the Keaau-Pahoa Highway, do you see like a need for a number of traffic signalsinthisareaand,ifso,wouldAuliiDrivebeoneofthem? YAMAMOTO:Probablyyes. SPRINGER:Thankyou,gentlemen.Doyouhaveanythingmoretoofferthe Commissioners before we go into our deliberations? IWASHITA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you. Mr. Fuke, I just wanted to clarify in my mind what I think you said earlier. And, basically, the gist of what I understand you were saying is that Highway 130 pretty much is the defacto area that should be commercialized. Is that correct? FUKE:Well, in this application, we€re saying that at this particular location it would be appropriate. I know that there€s this issue about trying to create like a strip mall kind of concern. And if you look at like one of the handouts, for example, like, this is what I just passed out which is already contained in the application. You will see that there are like, you know, between Orchidland Drive and the subject site there€s like about 30 plus lots in that area that all have direct frontage onto the main highway. And, likewise, between Aulii Drive and the next drive, it€s Ilima Drive, you have like a little more than 40 lots in that area. And I think that, you know, to have like each of these individual lots mid-block, for example, to have commercial development, I think you would then begin to create the beginnings of like the strip type of atmosphere. And I think there is that kind of potential. And I think it would be up to the, you know, you guys are the guardians for the land use, as well as the Planning Department, to try to, if that becomes the policy, then to try to avoid it. I think the distinction over here is the fact that this is a corner lot as opposed to being a mid-block; and if it were a mid-block situation then its effort to try and help alleviate an existing traffic situation would be greater because of its location as opposed to being a mid-block type of development. 51 EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen, I have a question regarding Mr. Yamada€s testimony that there were inadequacies or you found difficulties in finding alternate lots that were suitable in size, situation, setting and suitability. Do you believe that the General Plan has anticipated the needs for this community and has adequately addressed the need for commercial space? YUEN:I think there should be more, and that€s why I€m looking at an interim amendment along Ainaloa. I don€t know the willingness of various, and the desires of the various landowners in the area. I haven€t done that. In looking at possible corner type intersections or, and the idea would be, you know, you would have commercial not right at, right along this highway, but close to the highway and then going up one of the side streets. I can tell you I€ve looked at where houses are, because this becomes a complication. You, if you have a lot of houses, first of all, you know you€re going to have a lot of trouble getting that piece of property,it€sgoingtobeexpensivetogetthewhole-,it€sgoingtobemuchmoreexpensivethan a vacant lot to get the homeowner off of that. It will also have, the homeowner will generally not want it if they€re not going to be bought out. It is, you€re probably better off as a homeowner in the area without a supermarket across the street from you or right next to you. It€s not, there are ways of making it not the end of the world, but it€s better. So, but I can tell you that if you go further up Orchidland then, where the existing special permits are, there are some vacant two- acre lots. I don€t have it with me, I have a map of that. Whether these people are, what they have planned, I don€t know. But there are vacant two-acre lots up immediately mauka on Orchidland Drive from where we have these existing special permits. On Ainaloa Boulevard, on the left-hand side of Ainaloa Boulevard going up is the Ainaloa Subdivision which has 9,000-10,000 square foot lots and is heavily built up on the corner there. On the Keaau side is Orchidland; and, again, there are a number, most of the lots are vacant now. There€s one area along one of the streets where I think there are three houses in a row on one of the side streets, but there are quite a number of vacant lots. I can€t remember if there, what the lot sizes are; but I believe they€re two- or three-acre lots. So at least as far as the availability of vacant land, I can say that. SPRINGER:Thank you. Do you have, are there any questions for the Director? WATANABE:I have a question. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:In light of Mr. Yamada€s testimony that once you get off the main road it€s very difficult to get anyone to invest or sign a lease, it is, does that affect the General Plan and the general direction that we€ve been headed in? I mean, you know, ideally we€re saying we don€t want the strip malls and we don€t want that look. But is it even feasible if people are not going to put venture capital into our vision? 52 EXHIBIT A YUEN:There it€s, I think part of this is psychological; and it€s whether the merchants are convinced that the Planning Department will hold to this position of not wanting the commercial right on the highway, but close to the highway. The commercial developer, they do want to be right on the highway, that€s true. What has held back commercial development in Puna, there are a number of factors to this. It€s partially, it€s a little bit mysterious to me, I think, if you look at the number of people there and the fact that there are actually zoned sites that are very good sites that haven€t gotten off the ground. I think the very good sites from a commercial point of view, Gateway which was zoned now three-plus years ago hasn€t gotten off the ground. There€s a site in Keaau along the by-pass road at the corner of Milo Street and the Keaau by-pass Highway, that€s the MCully MCX zoning, that hasn€t gotten off the ground. The Orchidland Trade Center that Mr. Wood has, that has not gotten off the ground. And the areas that have just been developed at the corner of Pahoa and the main highway were zoned quite some time ago and are just starting to get developed now. We actually, and then to give another example, at the corner of the Pahoa triangle where the old Pahoa Road goes into town and the by-pass road goes intoKalapana,therewasactuallyzoningforasupermarketthere;andthatlandownercametothe Planning Commission and County Council and converted it to a gas station/convenience store because there were conditions of the road improvements to do the supermarket. That, they could not cover that to do the supermarket. So what are the reasons for this? One of the biggest reasons is that many people in Puna do come into Hilo every day; and so they shop in Hilo and the go on -. Anyway, so I think that has held it back. Another has been just probably the merchants haven€t had the degree of faith in the market to be the first one to go out there. But as for your question on, if somebody develops a supermarket and it€s 300 feet in from the corner, I think that everybody in the area will know that it€s there. The merchant may not, that may not be the ideal location from the supermarket point of view but in the long term it will do the business. And from the standpoint of the look of things along the highway, it would be better to have it, you know, some distance in from the highway. If you€re talking just strictly a gas station, perhaps a fast food outlet, then snagging people off the highway is really important. But something like a grocery store in the long run should be able to do business without being right on the highway. WATANABE:I have another question. SPRINGER:Commissioner -. WATANABE:Yeah. Realistically, how much longer would it take to include the nodes that we€re talking about or envisioning within the General Plan? Cause they€re not there right now, right? They€re not designated -. You refer to like Orchidland and also Ainaloa, but they€re not designated at this point. YUEN:The process would be, we would, we€ll publish this pretty soon, probably in the next month or two, and I would have a workshop on a group of proposed interim amendments. Then they would come to the Planning Commission, then they would go to the Council. Some of the time frames are not in my control, so it could be, the least time would be 6 or 7 months to pass the Council. More realistically, and a lot depends on both how long the 53 EXHIBIT A Council and the Planning Commission took considering these. Six months, 8 months, a year would be a pretty realistic time frame. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any follow up? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: No, thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Commissioners, are there any other questions of the applicant, or the intervenor, or of the Planning Director? WATANABE:I have one question. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Mr.Yamada,youconsolidated,Iguess,threelots,right-? YAMADA:Threelots,yes. WATANABE:Tomakeroughlythreeacresthatweredirectlyfrontingthehighway. YAMADA:Yeah. WATANABE:I€m just curious, is there like another lot contiguous with those three that is further from the highway that you could purchase so that you wouldn€t be directly on the highway? YAMADA:There is another lot, it€s a bookaneg (phonetic) lot. It€s right above our lot that we€ve been actually talking to him, you know. But we€re not, you know, to see if, and, of course, we€d have to talk to you folks too to see. Well, we€re just kind of talking to see what he€s, he€s open to selling his lots, but, you know, we€re not sure if we can afford it or if this project would even go through, yeah. So -. SIRACUSA:Is that the one that that fronts on Aulii, the first one above you that fronts on, that runs in the opposite direction? YAMADA:Yeah, it runs mauka of our project. It€s this lot right here. SIRACUSA:Quite frankly I would feel better about this whole thing if something like that could happen and bring your whole thing in from the highway with landscaping. That would give us the win-win, you know, of having something there for people and keeping off the highway and not having a trip mall look. YAMADA:We talked to, that was one of the concerns with the Association also; so what we did was we pushed the whole supermarket building all the way up as far as we could on the upper end. Of course, we had to leave a lane on the upper side for loading and things like 54 EXHIBIT A that; that was also a concern. And then we have a 35-foot landscaped buffer in the front which when we talked to Chris, you know, he said he would probably want some type of, and the Association, some type of natural ohia landscaping or, you know, something like that to blend in to the environment. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I guess, where I€m concerned is trying to be consistent with decisions that have been made in the past and not, you know, like all of a sudden changing directions and -. So if there is potential because there isn€t a home on it, it might make it easier, although I€m not sure how that fits into the General Plan yet since it€s not quite there. SPRINGER:Director Yuen, would you care to respond to the Commissioner€s query whether or not it fits into the General Plan or might make it more attractive as a special permit? YUEN:Well, right now it does not fit into the General Plan. WATANABE:Period? YUEN:The site is not. You have sites that are designated neighborhood commercial-typesitesforthesubdivisionarea;andthisisnotoneofthem. WATANABE:Which would be strictly on Ainaloa and Orchidland? YUEN:Right now the General Plan designates Orchidland Drive and three sites within Paradise Park as neighborhood, it€s -. What it shows on the General Plan Maps is Medium Density Urban, but that would translate to commercial type areas. So that€s the General Plan right now. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Any follow-up, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Can I ask one question of Mr. Torigoe? SPRINGER:Please do. WATANABE:You know, assuming the Commission were to go ahead and approve this particular special permit, how precedent setting is it? I mean, so now, as Mr. Yuen stated it€s not on the General Plan, and we went ahead and approved it as a special permit without boundary amendments, how precedent setting is that? I mean now if somebody that comes forward with another proposal, you know, that is similar quality, except for, are you kind of obliged in -? TORIGOE:Well, each of these applications you have to take on its own merits. So, obviously, to the extent that there is pattern of approving similar types of applications under similar circumstances there will be, you know, arguments that one should continue to do so. At the same time, when you have a certain number of these things going on on a highway and if this 55 EXHIBIT A thing generates, you know, pressure from both a traffic standpoint as well as a visual or aesthetic standpoint, or in any of the other dimensions that you have to take into account, then there may come a point where as a matter of planning you may say, well, we€ve done enough of this. So it€s really hard to say, in a general way, you know, that it€s going to require you to approve the next one. But, of course, to the extent that one has been approving applications in similar circumstances, that argument will come up. YUEN:Yeah, I can answer that -. SPRINGER:Director Yuen. YUEN:As far as I€m concerned as the Director, you know, we€re opposing this site. But if the Commission approved the site and nothing was built there, we might keep opposing in the area. But if they build over here, then that becomes a reality. It€s a reality on the groundthere.Wewouldthenwanttohave,youwanttohavecommercialtendtobeinacertain area, because then the person goes, they go to the supermarket. Then say the Long€s wants to be there, too, then, yeah, instead of having the supermarket on Aulii Street and the Long€s on Ainaloa Boulevard, you know, you would want to put it all more or less in one area. So if you take, now this is on the Keaau side of Aulii Street. If you were to drive by there you would see that there€s two acres on the Pahoa side of Aulii Street that somebody, I don€t know who owns it, but they€ve bulldozed it flat, and I would imagine that if we approve this that they would come in and apply. And, as I say, if you, that€s why this is a big decision. If you approve three acres for one project here, then, and this comes into fruition, then I have to re-evaluate. You know, I can€t just say, well, I was against that one and I€m going to be against the next one, and I€m going to be against the next one. You have you recognize what€s happening in the area and once you, and especially with the signal light. Okay, now you have, it€s a reality. You have the signal light there. So then that becomes a good place to have more commercial once that€s done. Now on the question of the trip along the highway, the corner is different, the corners are different. We would, if you approve this and somebody tried to have a commercial, say they bought three lots right on the highway that are not on a corner, I mean, we would, the Department, we would fight that forever, because we definitely don€t want to have a commercial strip a mile or so long, number one; and number two, you don€t want to have these constant movements on and off the highway, even if you had it as a right-in and right-out, which would be the only possible way even to do it. We would fight that and fight that. But, yes, I mean, from my standpoint, if the Commission approved this at this site, it does, it would definitely change the viewpoint on looking at further commercial on Aulii. WATANABE:So, follow-up questions? SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:So let me see if I€m understanding you clearly, then. As far as strip malls are concerned, you€re more concerned about strip malls between corners, between intersections 56 EXHIBIT A as opposed, you would right that forever, right? But you wouldn€t consider it an issue if it€s directly on a corner, even though it fronts 130? YUEN:Well, we would like to see some setback and buffer from Highway 130. WATANABE:But not necessarilya lot as a buffer? YUEN:Not necessarily a full lot. Youknow, it depends on how it€s landscaped and, because it€s more of a visual issue. But we would definitelyprefernot to see it right on the highway and to see the development take place in a direction that goes in on a street, rather than along the highway. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Onemorequestionthen.Therewasanearliertestimonywherethe individual had, I€d forgotten his name, had indicated that he was not allowed to create a commercial entity right fronting the highway. And I€m wondering whether that was on a corner. I€m not saying it€s your fault. It might have been a prior -. You know, that was, I think, 13 years ago or something. SIRACUSA:He€s here, you can ask him. YUEN:I think what has happened in the past is that there are a couple of applications, there have been commercial applications that have been recommended for denial by the Planning Department on the basis of not wanting it right on the highway. And the Pascual application would be one of these. I€m not sure what happened, you know. I€m not sure the specifics of Mr. Wood€s situation or application. I think that when, by the time, I know, there€s history on some of these in the background and, but I can€t answer to what people were told, you know, on a level of coming in and discussing it. But as far as, your background report does talk about at least a couple of applications where the Department did take this consistent position of staying off of the highway itself. And by the time the Wiki Wiki came, I think the Wiki Wiki came in after the Mormon Church, it was supported on the basis of it being in, not on the highway and coming in behind the church. And then the other applications were supported on that basis, the Orchidland applications. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes. When we receive our background report there€s always a part in there that describes the project site and talks about surrounding land uses. And I€ve always assumed that they€re in there because we€re supposed to take them into consideration to some extent in our deliberations. So in terms of setting precedence, you know, if each one of those surrounding land uses supports -? For example, it€s urban and we€re looking at an agriculturally zoned area, wouldn€t that say, well, it€s already zoned urban around it anyway so why not? That€s not my personal opinion, you know. But I€m wondering if it does set a precedent, 57 EXHIBIT A because otherwise why would we have it in the background report like that? I mean, we€re supposed to take it into consideration, are we not, Director Yuen? SPRINGER:And, yes, and -. YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:And we€re, sorry. Director Yuen, I think I was -. YUEN:The answer is yes. You need to take into consideration what has been done before. I don€t know, it doesn€t, as Mr. Torigoe said, it doesn€t bind you to act in the same way; but it€s, generally we want to be, consistently you want to see what has been done before and to try to understand the reasons for it; and if they€re still valid to continue to follow them. SIRACUSA:Soweshouldn€tfeelpressuredbythat.Thankyou. SPRINGER:Andintermsofprecedence-. YUEN:Youshouldn€tfeelpressuredbyanything. SPRINGER:Intermsofprecedenceweseethediscussionexclusivelyregardingspecial permits and their history, so it€s this particular location. But, Mr. Yuen, do you have any comments for us on zoning by special permit as compared to boundary designations? YUEN:Well, this becomes a question of scale. Ideally you, for something like a town or even a village center, you would say it should be General Planned, you say, okay, put it in the General Plan. And after that you have zoning, and this is what zoning is for. The special permit is an exception to zoning. The special permit is, and it is in the State Land Use Law and it€s available, and there€s no hard and fast line for what is too much to go by special permit and when you should step out of the special permit and go to zoning. There€s one Hawaii Supreme Court Case, the Waianae Neighborhood Board case, that involved a really big amusement park, it was granted by a special permit. And the Hawaii Supreme Court said, well, that€s definitely, that€s way over the line; a decision of this size should go via zoning, State Land Use Boundary Amendment to Urban, and should not be put into agriculture using the special permit. The special permit is very different from the zoning. And the zoning, General Plan, and State Land Use Boundary Amendment all go to the County Council; and all the special permits comes here. On, it€s unfortunate, on this island the reality is we have these very large areas that are still in the agricultural district that were never really planned out as urban areas. The reality is they€re turning into major residential areas; but they€re still in the agricultural district. So I don€t want to criticize what has been done in the past because in an attempt to accommodate, we have special permits for some good sized commercial area in neighborhoods like this. We have, for example, special permits in Ocean View, Pohue Plaza which is, you know, there€s a pretty big supermarket in there and a restaurant and a gas station. It€s a pretty big commercial area. That€s all by special permit. The Orchidland Wiki Wki was done by special permit. Again, ideally, you don€t want to do things, you don€t want to have these relatively large or relatively significant 58 EXHIBIT A commercial uses go by special permits. The right uses for a special permit would be the bed and breakfast, the fruit stand, maybe a restaurant in a country area, something that doesn€t really tie in with any other kind of commercial use or commercial area. So there€s definitely a place for it. You can€t plan everything out in advance. But what we tried to do in the General Plan process was to try to, well, okay, let€s look at some of these areas and where are we going to general plan the commercial areas. So in Ocean View, for example now, the General Plan has an urban expansion area where the special permits have been, you know, there is an area. So if somebody were to come to us now and say commercial Ocean View where should I go, we could say, and we would say, general planned urban expansion area in Ocean View; and we€d do the same thing in this area along the Highway 130, you know, where it€s a signal. You know, it€s a signal to everybody as to where the Planning Department thinks you should go; and it goes through this process. And it€s not just the Planning Department, the County Council has enacted these areas. And so now at least we do have some areas designated in the General Plan in these subdivisions that are the signal for commercial use. And whether you go by zoning or special permit, the idea wouldbetofollowthelocationintheGeneralPlan. SPRINGER:Thankyou.Commissionersandpartymembers,it€s10to1now.We€d like to take a break at 1 o€clock for lunch; but certainly we won€t interrupt our deliberations if we€re at the point where we€re ready to make a motion. So we€ll work through, if we€re ready to make a motion at this time. To the Planning Commission Members, do we feel that we€re ready for a motion? PAWU:I€d like to -. SPRINGER:Sorry, Mr. Pawu. PAWU:I believe we haven€t given the rest of our testimony yet. SPRINGER:I€m sorry. PAWU:Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the things I€d like to point out is that one of the other residents of Orchidland said that we, that the Board does not represent all members. In any representative of government your representative will not represent the viewpoint of each and every constituent. We have taken several surveys, we have asked our members, we have discussed it at meetings which all members are invited to, they€re public open meetings. We have also put it on our agenda, which was on the website, so that the residents have had ample opportunity to comment to the Board. So any testimony to the not should be considered in that light. The realtor who testified, I€m sorry I don€t have his name, suggested that the Board was negligent in not pursuing the traffic light situation that had been written in by Mr. Okuyama and Sure Save. He€s probably a newcomer to the area and may not know that Sure Save no longer controls that and in bankruptcy all of their promises were obliterated, as is normal in bankruptcy. And it is not due to any negligence of Orchidland Community Association. In fact, the Association has gone so far to petition and work with the Department of Transportation on 59 EXHIBIT A several levels to try and achieve a traffic light at Orchidland Drive. We have been rebuffed and told it is still in the study process and don€t expect anything for many years. As we all know there are probably about 5 to 8 deaths per year in this stretch, traffic deaths. I don€t have the exact statistics. I have personally not been, I€m obviously not dead, but I have been the victim of a head-on collision between Makuu and Aulii. Had there been a traffic light at that particular, the person who hit me probably would not have been going as fast and possibly been not on my side of the road. So I do know personally the dangers of that road. I€m still suffering impacts of it. The Board also has produced several surveys over the years asking our members what they want and, again, it€s a grocery store, not a convenience store, they€ve been consistent in that. And any store, you€ll notice that, for instance, Malama market, as been brought out, is owned by Foodland, one of the largest chains in the State. What happens is when a store is not of economic size for a grocery chain they have to change the name, so that they don€t have to honor theirads.Inotherwords,becausethepricesatMalamaMarketvaryfromtheFoodlandStores and Sack N Save Stores, they changed the name and they use a subterfuge, so to speak, so as to charge a higher price and no stores, because they€re smaller and less sufficient by nature. In the grocery business, they work on a very small volume, very small profit margin; and they work on a big volume. They require a certain size to make that volume cost-effective. Without that, the necessity is that they charge higher prices and, in effect, not give the same advantage to the shopper, which is why people still would come into town, many of them, rather than shop at Malama Market. Sure Save has a similar disadvantage now that they€re Puna Fresh Foods, in that they are a single store. They have a second store with a separate name but they do not have the buying power of a chain. They do not offer the same prices as the chain stores do, which means they are not serving the public in the same manner. While it may give the appearance that there are two grocery stores, they are two smaller grocery stores, or it€s not a full-sized full- serviced grocery store in all of Puna. Okay, there is one proposed for the Gateway Center, but as it was mentioned earlier, the Gateway Center is still a piece of paper. There€s nothing beyond that for that particular center. One of the considerations also when this project was first proposed, it was proposed for many smaller services. Smaller services, convenience store, gas stations create huge amount of traffic that are in and out. A grocery store, people tend to go to a grocery store, especially a full- serviced grocery store, and shop for half and hour, 45 minutes, an hour. They€re not in and out, so that the traffic pattern for the same square footage is actually less for a grocery store than it would probably be for many small services where they€d be having in and out traffic, especially should it be a convenience store and gas station. We have done informal traffic counts at Wiki Wiki and seen over a hundred vehicles per hour easily. That is a lot of traffic on a private roadway. Another consideration that we would like this body to consider is that on Orchidland Drive, the further up Orchidland Drive you develop, the more intrusion into the Orchidland Community is incurred by prospective customers from Paradise Park and other subdivisions. And there are some resistance from members in our community to inviting traffic, trash, and liability further and further into the community. Had the County purchased Orchidland Drive similarly to 60 EXHIBIT A Ainaloa, we would not face that problem. But now should there be an accident on that roadway we would be named in any possible litigation. We€d incur liability. The further up it goes, the more trash goes up into the community and, of course, traffic, which impacts those lots in between that may be residential and may have children and pets, etc. The other consideration is how the projects are done. This project being somewhat visible would probably be not a problem. The Orchidland Trade Center that Mr. Wood has proposed would probably not be a problem because he has proposed to put in a police substation there. The unmonitored Wiki Wiki development is basically a drug supermarket. If one were to stand there and look, you can watch the people who do not go into that store or patronize the store or the gas station. They simply go there to the pay phone to wait for their contact to arrive or to make calls. I have witnessed this on many occasions. A few weeks ago we had our Orchidland attorney down from Honolulu who observed this because we are having a problem with the developer Watumull, Orchidland Gulsons of Wiki Wiki not wanting to pay their fair share of fees. And so shecamedowntoinspecttheproject;andshewasappalledbythe,notonlytheamountoftraffic that we were faced with, but by the low caliber of the traffic. We feel a full-serviced grocery store would bring into our community a higher grade of traffic that we€re not getting from the stores that are existing in our community. One of our Board Members did point out, and it is pertinent because I too want it to be balanced, I am representing an organization and not my own feelings, that the people in pink in Mr. Yamada€s map that have said that they support the project that are contiguous to it, most of them are not resident/owners and therefore may have different viewpoints from people who actually were to be residing next to the project. So this Board should also take that, this Commission rather should take that into consideration, please. As to the zoning, frankly, 95 percent of the existing development in Orchidland by zoning purposes would be illegal because they are not agricultural dwellings, there is not agricultural use. So the whole zoning issue is most of the lots in Puna that are developed, whether they be commercial or residential, are nonconforming in one way or the other to our plans; and I think that€s a pertinent fact that this Commission should also look at. And I think that€s probably the essence of what I should say at this point. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Pawu. WATANABE:I have one question -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:That I€d like to direct to the Director Chris. You know, like you had stated earlier the General Plan will probably be published within the next few months and the process is for that plan then to go before the County Council. During that process I assume that the Council and the public would have input and possibly the areas of urbanization or urban expansion may expand. Assuming that during that process Aulii Drive were indicated as a urban expansion area, would your view then change as far as approval by a special permit? 61 EXHIBIT A YUEN:Well, for it to change, see if I initiated that change then, if my mind were changed and then I put in Aulii Street as a commercial area then, yes, I would support it afterwards. And if the Council, for example, the Council can initiate a General Plan change. If the Council initiated it and said, and they passed the General Plan amendment that said this is supposed to be a commercial area, I follow the General Plan. In the end the Council enacts the General Plan. If they say an area should be a commercial area and I don€t like it, and somebody comes in with an application, I follow the General Plan. If the General Plan says it€s commercial then I support it as a commercial area. You still are going to have site specific kinds of issues that come in. You might say you need an extra turn lane, or you€re going to have conditions. But if it€s in the General Plan as a commercial area and they come in with an application, then my mindset is completely different, my mindset is that this is a General Plan commercial area, and so the principal of having commercial uses in there is settled; and I€m just dealing with very site specific kinds of questions at that point. WATANABE:And at that point even though, well, would the General Plan then be consideredlikeaboundarychange?Becauseitreallydoesn€tchange.It€sonlyattheCounty level. It€s not a State, you see what I€m saying, LUC issue? YUEN:Yeah. WATANABE:And so you still would be supportive with a special permit? It would still require, yeah, a special permit? YUEN:Well, this is a tough question and I can€t answer that right now as to what level of thing we would say, well, okay, it€s in the General Plan but you should go the route of zoning and a boundary amendment rather than the special permit route. There€s a gray area there as to -. WATANABEYeah, but because it€s less than 15 acres you would feel more comfortable with the SP if it were in the General Plan? I guess, that€s what I€m trying to -. YUEN:Well, yes, either way it would be more comfortable, whether a special permit or a rezoning, if it€s in the General Plan, yes. WATANABE:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions of the intervenor? Mr. Fuke, any questions? FUKE:Yes, sure. Can I just summarize or position then? SPRINGER:Sure. 62 EXHIBIT A FUKE:I think that a lot has been said. And in response to some of the kind of comments that have been made, I agree that, first of all, I don€t necessarily believe that you need to have a special permit to be consistent with the General Plan, on the face of it. What the Director is saying is that, you know, he wants to show like where the future roads are going to be. But, because if you look at, for example, like where the original special permits were approved for this area, none of them reflected any General Plan, you know, for medium density, or whatever have you. The other point is that, you know, the question is like whether this particular intersection is or is not, you know, appropriate for some sort of a commercial use. And I think that we used, we being the applicant, you know, used the Planning Director€s initial denial recommendation as a guide to determine like how best to approach this issue. And, again, as I mentioned in the beginning, there was a statement in the background report noting that the Director would support some sort of an office space use. And office space uses, you know, no matter how you cut it is stillacommercialuse.It€snotresidentialoragriculture. Theotherthing,too,is,Ikindofwantedtopointoutisthat,andwhichwasalsopointedout earlier, was that the, the whole thing about like the precedence. And I think your legal counsel explained it very well. Because if one were to use precedence as a basis to, you know, guide all future decisions, then if you have a property that€s rezoned Resort then conceivably at the end hour all properties on this island would be zoned Resort, because they eventually will be contiguous. And I think at some point in time you would have to provide some kind of planning framework to say like this is generally like the kind of areas that you€d want to have certain types of uses; and that€s where having your planning documents or your development plan documents would help. So precedence, I think, are important but they€re not necessarily the panacea or the, I guess, the card that would trump everything else in terms of the decision making. As it relates to, just to give you some of like my thoughts relative to the land use in this particular area, I mean, if you look at like Orchidland, you know, Orchidland has over 2500 lots and Ainaloa, the Ainaloa has over 3600. I mean, when you think about the magnitude of this area, which we really have only, you know, we think that we€re feeling some of the effects now, but this is really just a small effect. When you can consider like 2500 lots, 2500 lots is larger than the size of like towns of Pahala or Naalehu together or even Honokaa. And when you look at those kinds of areas, like a lot of the rural communities you find centralized communities, you know, you find like an area where you have like commercial development, or you can call like a town center or your village center. But when you look at these areas, they€re all platted, you know, unlike Hawaiian Paradise Park where you have like a potential to create like a future, you know, future village center and, you know, try to implement the concept or the principals of smart growth. But when you come to over here like Ainaloa, Orchidland and a lot of these other subdivisions, you know, there€s no centralized area, you know. And so the question, the fundamental question, I think, that we would all need to ask is that, okay, knowing that at some point in time there€s going to be a demand, you know, there€s going to be demand for services, so where do you put these services? You know, so obviously there is a demand for the kind of use that Mr. Yamada is proposing. There is a demand. So the question is like where do you put it? Do you necessarily put it way in the back in Ainaloa or way in the back in Orchidland in the 63 EXHIBIT A hopes of trying to create a village of some sort? I think probably not. You know, I think it€s going to be very difficult to achieve that, because of the land assemblage problem. So then given that alternative then maybe along the highway because of, in this particular situation the land is there, you have high visibility, you have an area that you can capture not necessarily only one subdivision but possibly something that can service a broader region. You know, I think to try to create small communities in this area, whether it€s Ainaloa or Orchidland and all that stuff, I think it€s going to be very difficult because it€s all fractured. So, you know, we may have to initially look at trying to create, you know, a regional perspective. And if you€re trying to create a regional perspective, perhaps like having it right near the highway would be one area; but having it near the highway also comes with some infrastructural liability; and that might compromise the utility of the highway, you know, the efficiency of the highway. But, you know, another reality is that you€ve got about like 7 or 8 intersection points along one side and another 7 or 8 points also on the other side. They€re all going to be feeding intothehighway.Andsothequestionislike,well,giventhatsituation,canwemakelemonade out of lemon? And this is a situation where possibly with this proposed traffic mitigation, you know, putting in a traffic light, it will help out in the short term and possibly in the long term, that overall traffic movement in that area. Cause at some point in time you€re going to have four or five traffic lights in that area, and then the efficiency of that highway will already be compromised. And it€s not necessarily today, but to some extent today, but it€ll definitely be tomorrow. So that€s the other issue, I think, you know, you look at. But in terms of not wanting to have too much development along the highway is like, one, as I mentioned earlier, you know, it might compromise the efficiency of the highway. I tried to answer that. The other one is about trying to minimize the visual impact. Whether you go back one lot or like, you know, straight to the highway, if you have like appropriate mitigation you can control some amount of the issues associated with this the strip mall appearance.‚ I think it€s going to be highly unlikely to find like other developments, you know, with the Commission, well, maybe not in the future, but, you know, to find developments intervening these two major intersections. You have like about 30 some odd lots, 30, 35 lots between these two major intersections all with direct access off the highway. I think that if you have a mid-block type of development, I think that would be, and where they contribute nothing, you know, in terms of the infrastructure, I think that becomes a liability. This is a different situation because it comes in at an intersection where you know people will be, not people, you know you will definitely have traffic coming in through that area; and so you try to, as best as you can, to mitigate it by making all of these improvements. What kind of improvements he€s proposing to have, as we€ve kind of like suggested in these conditions, one is that Aulii Drive will be widened and so that you would have a dedicated left turn and a dedicated right turn lane moving out from Aulii onto the highway. You put in the channelized, well the channelized intersection is there, but you put in the traffic lights. And, hopefully, if the State Highway grants the approval to allow for a one-way in movement from the highway, you know, directly into the property, but no exit out and everything, all exits coming off of that one controlled intersection, you know, these would be all of the things that Mr. Yamada is prepared to do. And I think that all things considered, you know, you have 64 EXHIBIT A traffic, you know, it€s a traffic mitigation project; and it€s something that will service the needs. And I think in a perfect world we probably would want to have Puna replant with zero. But this is a little bit different. So, that€s about all. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you. Mr., well, I don€t know if my comments really directly addresses your comments, Mr. Fuke, but I wanted to note that in terms of what we have on the ground and on paper in Puna it obviously provides all the challenges that you describe. How we as a County and our community deal with that I think, the arguments you make basically talk abut this one project trying to be a, what I would for lack of thinking of anything better right now, the tip of the iceberg in terms of trying to mitigate some of, you know, the challenges that are presented by all of these substandard subdivisions that we have in Puna. As I sort of referred to earlier, I would much rather that these issues be dealt with on not a special permit and special permit basis, and that we look at it from the perspective of the community as a whole. And if -, I think you make a good point that if you take the totality of the number of potential dwellings that can arise from these, and I would venture to say will arise, from the substandard subdivision lots, thatyouwillhavedefactocommunitiestherethataregoingtobelargerthanHonokaathat,you know, obviously right now as far as I€m concerned they€re larger than Naalehu or Pahala, in fact, on the ground. And what we really should be looking at is developing a plan where there will be a town center. And I€m not going to say where it should be, all right? But I think the process needs to be either through the community development plan or some other community visioning process that the communities get together and say in a central area. And what can be done is once the plan is developed it should include a town center, some place where you can have a police station that€s going to service a population of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60,000 people You€re going to have additional school sites. I mean those things, you€re right, are not there. Those things have to be there; otherwise, you€re going to have, well, they have to be there, right? I mean if you€re going to have 50,000 people living in an area and, you know, 10,000-15,000 children, you need to have school sites. And they€re not going to be, you know, the preference is, to me, should be, they should be in a centralized area where a lot of the kids can walk to school and you have these, those sites have to be condemned. We have to do, you know, those kinds of things in order have a reasonable growth, I think what we€re calling, sustainable, or smart growth, or whatever label you want to put on it. We cannot really look at this and say, well, this is the best we can do on a special permit basis. I really think that it has to be done on a more community- wide scale; and I really commend, I want to go on the record, I want to commend the Yamadas for taking a real interest in looking at this and providing these services. I want to encourage them to continue to do so. But I really think that it needs to be on a grandeur scale in the sense of getting more of the community involved and doing it at that level; and then we have, you know, there will be a lot of business opportunities at that point that would, you know, that the entire community have an input, having had input, you know, can get behind all of these developments. Thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Thank you, Commissioner. Other Commissioners, any further discussion? 65 EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA:I have a comment. It sounds like with the Commissioner here issuing those comments that we€re moving more into the deliberations rather than having questions for the applicants. So I€m wondering if we can, sounds like since we€re moving that way what are your thoughts on either moving there now or maybe taking a lunch break? SPRINGER:Commissioners, I ask your pleasure. It€s 1:15 now. I think we€ve asked all the questions that we have to ask, apparently, of each other and of the applicants and of the Director and of the intervenor as well. What is your pleasure? SIRACUSA:Are we ready to entertain a motion? ALAMEDA:I have -. SPRINGER:Mr.Torigoe,let€shearfromourDeputyCorporationCounsel. ALAMEDA:Okay. TORIGOE:Yes,justtoclarify,Ithinkweembarkeduponthishavinganinformal contested case procedure by agreeing to allow the parties to basically put on the table what they€d like to and allow the Commissioners to see if they were approaching a point where they might be able to have a motion that would dispose of this matter, particularly in light of the fact that there is a conditional withdrawal on the table. And so, you know, that€s, I guess, the primary reason we went down this road is to see if there was enough of an agreement on the Commission to entertain approving the application with the conditional withdrawal involved. SIRACUSAExcuse me, do we need to do a motion first to close contested case? TORIGOE:Well, this is part of what I€m getting to, is that we should probably make sure before we go any further that the parties have put everything on the record that they want to put on for the purpose of reaching this question of whether the Commission, you know, at this point has enough of a consensus to do what the parties or what the applicant and the intervenor would like to see happen. If there clearly isn€t that kind of support for what the parties there want to see happen, then we€d have to consider whether, you know, what to do next, whether there is further evidence that the parties would like to put on the record either by way of further informal proceedings or whether they would like to proceed on to more formal contested case proceedings in order to make a full record. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:So, counsel, step one then would be to decide whether or not we can come to consensus on, could you just tell us what is the step one before we move to step two? TORIGOE:Yeah, I think the, well, first of all, to make sure that for purposes of determining, I guess, for purposes of seeing what the next step would be, first of all, to make sure 66 EXHIBIT A that the parties have put everything on record that they want to put on, you know, to ask the Commission to entertain a motion to approve with the conditions that they have proposed. IWASHITA:You€re going to ask them the question or does the Chair need to ask? TORIGOE:Well, the Chairperson could ask them that. SPRINGER:And step two? TORIGOE:And if they€re done putting everything on record that they want to in the form of this informal contested case hearing, then the Commissioners can go ahead and start deliberating that. And, you know, if it€s clear that there are, and you have to have five votes, of course, so if that, what do you have, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Commissioners here, so if more than two of you -. WATANABE:Dissent? TORIGOE:Yeah, dissent from what is being proposed, then you might as well look at thenextstep,youknow,whatdothepartieswanttodoafterthat. SPRINGER:Andwe€lldeterminethatafterthedeliberations? TORIGOE:Well, in the course of deliberations. You know, Mr. Iwashita has sort of intimated his views on this matter and I€m not sure if any of the other commissioners would -. IWASHITA:Not intentionally. Madam Chair, may I suggest, if I€m speaking out of line please tell me. But given what Mr. Torigoe has counseled, I would suggest that maybe the parties would want to think about it rather than being sort of making a decision right now as to whether or not they want to really have the opportunity to present more evidence or, you know, more to the Commission. And that€ll give us an opportunity to go have lunch. ALAMEDA:I think -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:It seems to me they thought about it. It seems to me that they€ve put a lot of thought to it already. To ask them to think about it even more is just belaboring the whole process. IWASHITA:I didn€t mean their opinions on the project. I just meant on whether or not the, you know, what I understand what counsel has told us is that the parties now have a decision to make as to whether or not they want us to just proceed on what is being presented or whether or not the applicant or the intervenor wants to have an opportunity to present, to go and develop more evidence or whatever you want to call it, and bring it back and ask for a further hearing. That€s the only issue, right? 67 EXHIBIT A SPRINGER:So we query of them. Mr. Fuke, do you have any desire to present any more information? FUKE:No, I think that what we€ve shared with the Commission this morning and this afternoon is pretty much it. I know that Mr. Yamada as the applicant would want to have one final say; and that€s about it. SPRINGER:Okay. Mr. Yamada? YAMADA:Thank you. You know, I thought about what Andrew just said about the planning, the community. I just wanted to respond to that real quick, is that€s the best scenarios as Chris will say, design the whole area, pull out a plot of land and say the schools are going to be here. But, you know, it hasn€t been done for this area. And to wait, the community, you know,Ithinkyou€veheardallofthetestimony,thecommunitywantstheproject,the Association wants it, the survey shows that they want it. We have one of these rare pieces of property where we can do it right, that the community is in definite need of a traffic light in that area soon. They€re not going to get it any time soon waiting for the DOT. We can do it much faster and we can save lives on that intersection. I hate to use it as an excuse for this project but that€s true. I think Commissioner Siracusa can tell you there€s a lot of accidents in that area if the traffic isn€t broken up soon. The prime way is the way Andrew said, that€s the correct way, that€s the best way. But to do it in this instance it will take years. I mean, well, Chris can better answer that, but it will take, it€ll be very, very hard and it€ll take very, very long. This is a chance to give the community, we have a win-win. We talked about it a lot. We can give them a project that they all want it, their survey showed they want it. We can make the intersection safer, we can make the roadway safer. And it€s one of these very few areas where we have these lot consolidations on a corner which we can bring in the tenants and which the surrounding neighbors want. They want it right now. You see it in your letter, look at the TMK numbers. These are the neighboring property owners of this. We have a lot more of the people around the area who support it, but I just listed these guys right here who are right bordering this project. It€s going to be very hard to find this again. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Pawu? PAWU:I€d also like to add, I agree with Commissioner Iwashita€s idea that, and Mr. Yuen€s idea, that a General Plan would have been better. However, at this point, we even had to go and buy a lot for Orchidland to produce our own community center on. It was very poorly planned many, many decades ago. And now this body and the County is faced with the reality of what we have, not what we€d like to have. And our Community Association€s position has been that this particular project, even though it does not fit our planning or the General Plan, might be appropriate; and it certainly would be appropriate for this body to consider. SPRINGER:I have a question. Your recent vote, was that vote to withdraw from the contested case if certain conditions were met? 68 EXHIBIT A PAWU:That was the vote of a Board, that was a Board vote, yes. SPRINGER:I see. And has there been a Board vote in support of this application? PAWU:It was, so speak, in support of it. The contested case was produced because we were objectionable to the application at the inception of the project because of the nature of it. But the developer has come before our Board on more than one occasion and has addressed all of the community concerns that were voiced as a community. SPRINGER:So has the Association taken a vote on support of the proposal? PAWU:Not a direct vote on it. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Just one clarification. So, actually, what we€re trying to deliberate on is whethertoapproveornotapprovethisspecialpermit;andithasnothingtodowithwhetherto continue their contested case. Upon that conclusion then they would be able to make the correct assessment, right? Am I not right? Otherwise, isn€t it the cart before the horse? SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:Yeah, this is a rather unusual situation. But I think you€re essentially right, that is because the intervenor and the applicant both are in agreement on a particularly proposal and they€re willing to put this to a vote at this point based on what they put on the record, and then if it€s clear that there is not support for their proposal, then they may want to consider whether, you know, they want to put more evidence on the record. So if there is someone who would like to make a motion to that effect, then that would allow you the vehicle for, you know, explicit deliberation and get clear what will happen next. SPRINGER:Is anyone prepared to make a motion? IWASHITA:What is the motion? I€m sort of lost. SPRINGER:You may move, any of you, may move to approve and the motion to approve would fold in these Planning Commission reasons for approval which take into consideration the Community Association€s concerns, including an amendment to Condition 4 on page 8 where 60 days is replaced with 90 days. Does everybody have a copy of this that we€re referring to? Is that correct, Mr. Fuke? FUKE:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. And a no vote would be that, would be a no vote; and these do not -. 69 EXHIBIT A SALAVEA:On a special permit itself, right? WATANABE:Yeah, on the special permit. Clarification though, the motion could be to deny also, right? Am I right, which would be in agreement with the Planning Director€s recommendation? SPRINGER:That€s correct. But the motion to deny would be a straight forward motion to deny. TORIGOE:Right, although I think, and this is kind of the strange situation, again, because the intervenor and the applicant have, basically, agreed to a proposal to put before you on the basis of a limited informal contested case. So, up till this point, I would suggest that based on the reasons why we went this route today that you start with, if there€s someone who wants to make that motion to approve the proposal that has been put on the table by the intervenor and the applicant,thenthatwouldbethefairwaytogo,sothatwecanseewhethertherewouldbea need for the parties to consider whether they have to go through a more formal contested case procedure, whether they would like to ask for other opportunity to put further evidence on the record by formal or informal procedure. Watanabe:May I comment? SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:If the motion is to approve, yeah, with the amendments and it gets voted down, then it doesn€t ell you that the project is denied either, which means that they€re forced to then continue with the contested case, and we still have to deliberate then on the special permit anyway. TORIGOE:Right. Normally if we failed to get five votes one way or the other, then we put it off for at least one more meeting to allow for perhaps more Commissioners to be on board. In this particular case, though, again, because there was a proposal that the intervenor and the applicant agreed on, and they basically agreed to go through an informal contested case proceeding to see if that would fly, that€s where we are now, to see if that will work or not. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe, could another motion be to continue? TORIGOE:That could be. SPRINGER:So there are three possibilities. Mr. Yamada? YAMADA:Sorry. Would it be possible for the intervenor to just withdraw his contested case hearing and then we promise we€re going to amend our application to his terms right after, and then go for a -? SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe, do you have a -? 70 EXHIBIT A TORIGOE:Well, I think we mentioned that earlier, it€s possible for him to do that. It€s possible for the applicant to agree to amend the proposed conditions, but it doesn€t tell you what is ultimately going to be done by the Commission, cause the Commission for whatever reason might change conditions. And then if, once the contested case standing is given up then the Association has given up the right, basically, to appeal this to court. SPRINGER:Commissioners, I€m wondering if we might go back to Commissioner Alameda€s earlier question that we take our lunch break at this time and return after that and continue this discussion. It seems as though there are a number of questions arising. I don€t know if all the questions that can be asked have been asked. So I would ask your pleasure what it is. IWASHITA:Madam Chair, I guess, I have questions, more questions for counsel which Ithinkmightbemoreappropriatelydealtinexecutivesessionandmysuggestions,ormy preference is we break for lunch and we come back, we have an executive session with counsel, and then get back on the record. SPRINGER:Immediately upon our return? IWASHITA:Yes. SPRINGER:Are there any objections from the other Commissioners? SIRACUSA:No objection. WATANABE:No objection. SPRINGER:Mr. Director? YUEN:It€s at the Commission€s pleasure. SPRINGER:Okay. And to the parties, do you have any objections to taking a lunch break at this time and then returning and continuing our deliberations? FUKE:No. PAWU:No. SPRINGER:Mr. Torigoe, is that sufficient? TORIGOE:Well, that€s fine. If you want to go into executive session later, you know, you need to have a formal motion on that and voice vote. 71 EXHIBIT A YUEN:Yeah, you should do that before the break so then we don€t have to reconvene, do that, and then break. SPRINGER:Good idea. Commissioner Iwashita, are you prepared to make a motion? IWASHITA:Yes, Madam Chair. I move that the Planning Commission enter into executive session so we may consult with counsel on legal issues. SPRINGER:Is there a second? SIRACUSA:I second. SPRINGER:Thank you. It has been moved and seconded that we go into executive session for the purposes of conferring with our attorney on the legal issues that are before us today.Isthereanydiscussion?Jeff,canyoutaketherollcallvote. DARROW:Thankyou,MadamChair.CommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:The motion passes five to one. SPRINGER:Thank you. This Commission will go into executive session. When we come out of executive session we€ll adjourn for lunch and we€ll return at quarter to three from lunch. 72 EXHIBIT A TORIGOE:Oh, you€re going to have executive session first. No? YUEN:Excuse me, I thought you were going to go to lunch and then come into executive session. SIRACUSA:I thought we were going to go to lunch first. SPRINGER:Oh, okay. I€m sorry. YUEN: Yeah. What I meant was that you didn€t want to take this vote after lunch and then go into the break. SPRINGER:Okay. We€ll go to lunch, well return, go into executive session, and then, atanyrate,we€llbereconveningat,let€ssay,quartertothree.ThisCommissionisinrecess. RECESSEDTheChaircalledalunchrecessat1:37p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 2:50 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSIONThe Commission went into executive session at 3:00 p.m. and came out of executive session at 3:16 p.m. by a motion made by Commissioner Alameda, seconded by Commissioner Salavea, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. SPRINGER:Thank you to the parties, the Commissioners and the audience. We€re ready to resume our discussion on Agenda Item No. 1, Gerald and Wendy Yamada. It€s a Special Permit 04-018. Mr. Torigoe, could you, at this time, give us some clarifications as to our options on how we might proceed at this time? TORIGOE:Thank you, Madam Chair. I€ve talked to the applicant and they have indicated that they have basically put everything on record that they want to, except they may wanttomakeafinalclosingstatement,andthatthey€rereadytohaveafinalupordownvoteon this matter. So, with that, I guess, I€ll just leave it to you, Madam Chairman. SPRINGER:Thank you. At this time, we€ll then invite the applicants to make any concludingstatementsforus. FUKE:Thankyou,MadamChair.Youknow,wedon€twanttobelaborthisissue because I think all that we wanted to have stated were stated earlier for the record. I think the onlyothercommentthatIwouldliketoadd,whichwasnotstatedthen,but,youknow,overa lunch, I guess you kind of think about different things. As I was just thinking about like if you look at this area and then you look at Hawaiian Ocean View, you know, that Kau area, both of those areas, have had like special permits being issued for different types of commercial uses and both of those areas all fall within the State Land Use Agricultural District with no really clear 73 EXHIBIT A pattern of land use. But I think that the distinction is that in the Hawaiian Ocean View area the location of the commercial facilities, which were allowed through special permits, were right adjacent to the Highway, you know, the Pohue Bay complex, there€s another one, Ken Arble, in that area. They all kind of fall right in that area. And I think that was designed to kind of capture the number of subdivisions within that area, not only Hawaiian Ocean view but Ocean View Ranchos, and there€s I think a few other subdivisions adjoining that area. You have 12,000 lots in the general area. When it comes down to like this area, the commercial uses for the most part was taken like on a, which were issued through a special permit, were issued through, with a different kind of thought in mind. And then it was issued like with the idea that maybe you€re trying to introduce like a village concept.‚ You know, within the Ainaloa Subdivision you€re trying to have some special permits, or like Orchidland Subdivision or Hawaiian Paradise Park. You know, you try to push it off the road so that you, hopefully, try to create a village, you know, within that area. So that wastheapproachtaken.Thequestionislikewhetherthatkindofconceptcanworkinthisarea. And in really thinking about it, you know, not only from applicant/client perspective but from a planning perspective, I was just kind of doing a lot of soul searching in terms of like which would be the better alternative. And I think that if Hawaiian Ocean View, if all the special permits that were issued at Hawaiian Ocean View were all like set aside two or three blocks inwards from the main highway, I don€t think that you would have Hawaiian Ocean View in a way that it€s developing right now. You know, so that the regional focus of a commercial area is right adjacent to the highway. And I think what we€re trying to do like along this corridor, we€re trying to kind of push it off the highway and in the hopes that they would develop their own identity. And I think it has been long passing -. You know, I think it€s going to take a much, much longer time before that so-called identity can be developed, if at all, you know, given the proliferation of lots in that area and, perhaps, maybe a much better land use alternative is to consider the Hawaiian Ocean View approach. SPRINGER:Commissioners, any questions of the applicant regarding his concluding comments? I have a question for the Planning Director given the concluding comments of Mr. Fuke. Can you compare the past practice using the special permit and what you€re trying to accomplish? YUEN:We are trying to have these commercial areas more established through General Plan and zoning rather than simply by special permits. And so as a general rule, not just in talking about this here, but, and so, we€re trying to find realistic areas in the General Plan to have them, and then hopefully people will come in for zoning or for special permits within those areas. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Director. Commissioners, is there any further discussion? Any deliberations that we want to make? It€s now time then that we may have a motion to close this contested case hearing. SIRACUSA:I€ll move. 74 EXHIBIT A IWASHITA:Second. SPRINGER: It has been moved by Commissioner Siracusa and seconded by Commissioner Iwashita that we close this contested case hearing. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Darrow, roll call vote, please. DARRROW:I€m sorry, Madam Chair, it€s seconded by -? SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. DARROW:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerAlameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:The motion passes six to zero. SPRINGER:Thank you. Members, we€re now into the decision-making phase for this agenda item. Is anyone prepared to make a motion? SIRACUSA:I€ll make a motion. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa. 75 EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:I move that with regard to Special Permit Application (SPP 04-018) of Gerald and Wendy Yamada that that the Planning Commission deny the application for the reasons stated by the Planning Director. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there a second? WATANABE:I€ll second. SPRINGER:Thank you. The motion has been made by Commissioner Siracusa and seconded by Commissioner Watanabe to deny SPP 04-018. Discussion? Mr. Darrow, we€re ready for the roll call vote. DARROW:Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerAlameda? ALAMEDA:Nay. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:The motion passes to deny, five to one. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUKE:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you for this long day. You€ll be informed in writing of today€s decision. 76 EXHIBIT A The discussion ended at 3:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary 77 EXHIBIT A