Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-04 T-MALOOF WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 4, 2010 BROOKS & WANPHEN MALOOF A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SPP 09-98) was called to order at 9:11 a.m. in the County of HawaiÒi, Aupu Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Norman Hayashi (Planning Program Manager), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono APPLICANT: BROOKS & WANPHEN MALOOF (SPP 09-98) Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial retail and office building, which will include a restaurant, real estate office, an outlet for local farmers, fishermen and businesses t sell products, and related uses on approximately 0.5 acre of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located at the northwest corner of the KeaÒau- Phoa Road (Highway 130) and Orchidland Drive intersection, Orchidland Estates Subdivision, KeaÒau, Puna, HawaiÒi, TMK: 1-6-10: portion of 137. WOODWARD: The first item on the agenda is a special permit. And I want to bring something to everybodyÓs attention. As you may know this is at least nominally a seven-member board. We have six filled positions, five of us are here today. But it seven to take action. So we need to have four votes to take action on any individual matter. And with regard to special permits, thereÓs a provision whereby if w vote, that is four to one or five to zero, then we have not reached a decision. And if we do not reach a decision then according to HRS 91-13.5 the permit will be issued by default 30 days after this meeting with no conditions attached. So I just wanted everybody to be aware of what the implications of our votes are in that particular situation. All right, okay. The first item on the agenda is actually an item that has been continued at the request of the applicant. The applicants are Brooks & Wanphen Maloof, Special Permit to allow the establishment of a commercial retail and office building, which will include a restaurant, real estate office, outlet for local farmers, fishermen and businesses to sell products, and related uses 1 EXHIBIT A on approximately 0.5 acre of land in the State Land Use Agricultural District. And the property is on the northwest corner of Highway 130 and Orchidland Drive in KeaÒau. So, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning. DARROW: How are you doing this morning? I hope everything is going well. Since our last Planning Commission meeting regarding this application there have been several correspondence that have been received. Mainly they are letters of support which have been sent to the Planning Commission. This morning there was a letter dated February 28, an adjoining neighbor that we had received a letter of opposition previously. He has submitted a letter in regards to a meeting that he has had with the applicants and in which theyÓve tried to resolve areas of contention. With that, I will start my presenta If I can direct your attention to the presentation on the wall. Our applicants are Brooks and Wanphen Maloof. The location of this subject application is within the Puna District of HawaiÒi. More specifically weÓre looking in the area of Orchidland Estates Subdivision which is identified mainly in the blue, as well as Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision identified with the light green. The light green indicates Agricultural 1-acre zoning. The blue indicates Agricultural 3-acre zoning. The KeaÒau-Phoa Road runs through the center of the map in an east, like an direction. The subject property is identified with a black outline. This is on the corner Orchidland Drive and the KeaÒau-Phoa Road. ItÓs .92 acre in size. This is an aerial photo. Again we show KeaÒau-Phoa Road running through the right-side of the map. We have the Hawaiian Paradise Park on the far right side of the map, and mainly weÓre showing existing uses in the Orchidland Subdivision. Currently we have the Wiki Wiki Convenience Center identified in this general area. We have the Church of Latter Day Saints, thatÓs on the corner of Orchidland and KeaÒau-Phoa Road across from the subject property. And we have previously the Orchidland Trade Center that was issued a special permit in this general location on the corner of th Orchidland and 34 that has not been constructed as of this time. Again, we show the subject property identified with a red outline. The applicants are requesting a special permit to allow the establishment of a 3900-square foot, approximately 39 by 100 feet in size, commercial retail and office building, and related uses on a .50 acre of land which will include a Thai food restaurant with certified kitchen and restrooms, a real estate office, warehouse space to be partitioned for vendors, including farmers, fishermen and small businesses to sell agricultural products, fish, arts and crafts, and second-hand items. And, lastly, there will be two accesses on Orchidland Drive, including parking and landscaping. This is the site plan that was submitted with the application. The entire property is identified on the site plan; and the subject permit area is identified with a black outline, which is approximately .5 acre in size. On the area of the permit we show proposed parking areas and we show the existing, or the proposed structure. We see the real estate office in the lower portion of the building, as well as the restaurant. Accesses from Orchidland Drive are identified in this general area and in this general area. 2 EXHIBIT A In the letter that was received from Mr. Nagai dated February 28, 2010, there appeared to be a possible change in the location where this mauka entrance might be located. So they may end up moving it further makai. This is a site photo. This is on KeaÒau-Phoa Road looking towards Pahoa. The subject property is to the right. Orchidland Drive is to the right. You can see that KeaÒau-Phoa Road, as well as the right-turn lane that enters into Orchidland Drive. This is KeaÒau-Phoa Road looking towards KeaÒau. Again, we have Orchildand Drive on the left. We have the subject property just beyond Orchidland on the left. We have a left-turn lane, designated left-turn lane, that enters into the property. This is on Orchidland Drive facing makai towards KeaÒau-Phoa Road. The subject property is on the left. At this time the rockwall as well as a chain link fence that has been constructed. Additionally, at the time of the photos there were trees planted along KeaÒau-Phoa Road; and the property had been mainly graded and grubbed. Again, another picture of the subject property showing that itÓs at this time vacant with no uses. LEITHEAD TODD: Jeff, could you go back to the site plan, cause I think you misquoted the representation from Mr. NagaiÓs letter. I think what he was talking about was not moving the access but moving the parking lot from the mauka side abutting Mr. NagaiÓs property to the makai side of the building, with the exception of handicap parking. DARROW: Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. So, as mentioned, apparently the parking will be moved, not the access. Lastly, we have a photo, again, the subject property. This would be the upper mauka entrance. This is identified as Mr. NagaiÓs property thatÓs on the adjacent parcel just mauka of this property. The Planning DepartmentÓs recommendation is that this application should be denied. The reasons for the recommendation are based on several factors. No unsafe conditions at the intersection of Orchidland Drive and KeaÒau-Phoa Road (Highway 130). The project is inconsistent with the General Plan LUPAG Map in this area. And, lastly, in the past the Planning Commission has consistently denied similar requests for properties fronting Highway 130. The first area that we had spoken about regarding the unsafe conditions, just recently in May of 2010, a draft environmental assessment for the KeaÒau-Phoa Road improvements was just released. Within that document one of the primary purposes for the improvements to KeaÒau- Phoa Road is to improve safety for all travelers between KeaÒau-Phoa. This is on page 14. It states within this report that the KeaÒau-Phoa corridor has a very high crash rate, much higher than the StateÓs average. The need to improve safety and reduce the numbers and rates of crashes is a compelling one that has driven much of the publicÓs concern for improvements in this corridor. A major safety issue on KeaÒau-Phoa Road stems from the lack of gaps or openings in traffic to accommodate turning or crossing vehicles. 3 EXHIBIT A On Table 1-3 which is a summary of intersection crashes on KeaÒau-Phoa Road between 2004 and 2007, Orchidland Drive is listed as the sixth most dangerous intersection along that 9.5 mile stretch which will be part of the improvement program. This is from Mile Marker 2 to Mile Marker 11.5. Orchidland Drive has had a total of 21 crashes. These are considered major crashes which include those resulting in death, bodily injury and/or property damage exceeding $3,000 in cost. There were no fatalities, but there were a number of accidents involving injuries. Lastly, the KeaÒau-Phoa Road and Orchidland Drive Intersection has been operating at a Level of Service F for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic for left turns from Orchidland Drive onto the highway since at least 2003. In our files we have a traffic assessment that was done in have a TIAR that was done in 2005. Both listed the LOS at F. Secondly, we had spoken about the inconsistency with the General Plan LUPAG Map. Referring to the map this is the General Plan LUPAG Designation Map for this particular area. We have the KeaÒau-Phoa Road, again, to the right side of the map. We identified the subject property with a black outline. The majority of the photos shows a darker yellow which is identified as Rural on the General Plan. In 2005 for the General Plan Update, there were several nodes that were created. One of them was in Orchidland to establish a Medium Density node to centralize commercial uses in this particular area; and that is identified with these particular properties which are approximately 12 to 13 acres in size for this node. The nodes that were established in Paradise Park were specific to 20 acres in size. Again, this is that General Plan Update. It identifies the Orchidland Estates node as well as the Paradise Park node. In 2006 a General Plan Interim Amendment was introduced by the Planning Director which sought to increase the Medium Density node in this particular area. Again, youÓll notice that it was kept off the highway. That was on purpose by the Planning Director. It did bring it across where the current Medium Density node is to include those special permits that were already valid, and it brought it further into the subdivision. At the Planning, at the County Council meeting on this, the Council voted to postpone this particular interim amendment until after the Puna Community Development Plan was adopted. And as of this time it has not been brought back to the Council yet. This is the Puna Community Development Plan Orchidland Neighborhood Village Center, identifying their village center for Orchidland. The subject property is identified in this particular area right along the corner of KeaÒau-Pahoa Road and Orchidland. It does include the subject property as part of their village center; and it does, the remainder of it includes the Medium Density node as well as coming across the street, which was proposed in the interim amendment. In regards to the General Plan and Community Development Plans, the General Plan states that community development plans will translate broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas. It also states that if there is a direct conflict between the Community Development Plan and the General Plan the General Plan shall be controlling. 4 EXHIBIT A Lastly, we had spoken about the consistency of denials of similar requests along highway. This is a little difficult to see but IÓll point them out. WeÓre looking generally at the Orchidland here, with the subject property identified in this particular area. YouÓll notice some dots with some writing on it, those were previous special permits in the a here was for a commercial center to allow a grocery store, automobile service station, auto parts store; this was in 1981 which was denied. This, in Paradise Park right in this general area was for a preschool; this again was denied. It was, the main reason again was the frontage along the highway and that they wanted to see these particular uses along the highway. More importantly, we had two requests on the corner of Paradise and KeaÒau-Phoa Road. One was for a shopping center from the same applicant; that particular application was denied. Several years later that same applicant came in and requested a community-oriented commercial center; and, again this request was denied. Lastly, in 2005, Gerald Yamada had come in with a commercial retail and office complex on the corner of Alii and KeaÒau-Pahoa Road, and they were going to improve the intersection with a signalized traffic light; and this again was denied. Each of these particular applications were stating that the area that the General Plan has called for commercial uses was to be specific in the Orchidland area. So in this particular time Orchidland as youÓll see has a number of special permits. The main ones that you might be familiar with are the Wiki Wiki Town Cent Trade Center which hasnÓt been constructed at this time. There has been another one recently that was submitted for an administration office for Sure Save; and these are all in the general location of the Medium Density Urban as well as the Interim Amendment to the General Plan area. With that, that concludes our presentation. Are there any questions? WOODWARD: Any questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Jeff, essentially what weÓre looking is a trend, actions taken by the Planning Commission previously with regards to any building alongside Highway 130? DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: And then itÓs a denial whatsoever of any kind of application? DARROW: Yes. It has been consistent in this general area here. And the reasoning was, again, they did not want to establish a land use pattern for commercial uses along the highway, but they wanted to go perpendicular from the highway along Orchidland Dri DOMINGO: If I understand correctly you mentioned that the Community Development Plan designates for this particular area a Village Town Center which goes beyond the established General Plan for the County. DARROW: Correct. 5 EXHIBIT A DOMINGO: Now my question is, and I think this is a concern that I have with regards to any or all of the community development plans about the developing, the community plans not specifically reflecting that which is contained in the General Plan as far LUPAG Map and other developments are concerned. Now this one apparently the County has not caught the insertion of a village town center which goes beyond the boundaries of the General Plan. Is that right? DARROW: Yes. DOMINGO: Because one of the reasons for denial was that it does General Plan -. DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: In the recommendation. So, you know, that being said, I think as a Planning Commissioner from Hamakua and that we are in the process, we are in the process of drafting a community development plan, my concern is that, you know, I hope the County administration is very aware of the fact that we, the community development plan process does not, does not amend the General Plan. And I hope that the administration will look at this clearly. Because if thatÓs overlooked, we will be facing the same situation that weÓre faced today. Now here the applicant is saying, look, itÓs a suggested use under the community development plan. But weÓre saying under the General Plan itÓs not permitted; and thatÓs one of the reasons for denial in todayÓs application. So, you know, it puts the Planning Department, Planning Commissioners in a very tenuous position as to what would be followed. And now w community in support of this issue; and that further complicates the decision-making process for me, at least. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay -. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. I would like to try and keep this, just focused on questions at this point and then when we get to the discussion -. Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: This is just for information for the Commission. You know, I discussed this with staff. And when we realized that there were interim amendments which were deferred at the Council which addressed this area, we were in the process of requesting the County Council to bring those amendments out of limbo and reconsider them -- so that they can move forward on implementing the Puna CDP, to bring the General Plan, at least have that discussion at the Council over this particular proposal and whether the County Council will then amend the General Plan to conform more to what is recommended by the Puna CDP. That has not occurred yet but we are sending that request to the Council to bring those interim amendments back up on their agenda. WOODWARD: Thank you. Commissioner Kern. 6 EXHIBIT A KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeff, if my information serves me correctly, the special permit for the Orchidland Trade Center was originally approved five years ago or so and it had to come through for an extension. Is that right? And it was done within the last year or so? DARROW: Originally the Orchidland Trade Center was approved in May of 1994. So since that time theyÓve consistently come in for time extension requests, as well as amendments to their permit. KERN: And when was the last time extension request? DARROW: The last extension was September of 2008 for a five-year period. KERN: Thank you. WOODWARD: Any other questions? Okay. If we could get the applicant and/or representative up and weÓll hear from you. All right. Good morning, gentlemen. MELROSE: Morning. WOODWARD: If I could get you to raise your right hand, IÓll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? MELROSE: I do. MALOOF: I do. WOODWARD: All right. If you could give us your name and address, and then you may begin your testimony. Mr. Melrose, youÓre going to start? MELROSE: Yeah, Well, let me -. Jeff Melrose, 1405 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo. What IÓd like to do is just take a couple of, I had a couple of other images to this that are in the PowerPoint, just so we see that. And then IÓd like to have, Brooks has prepared thoughts that heÓd like to kind of share with you folks. And then I want to come back and a issues, some of what Taka had already started to raise. But let me just start by looking at a couple of other images, just so we can get, you know, our little bit of that story told as well. So this is that intersection looking directly down Orchidland. You can see the property is on the right. This is the subject property here. So thatÓs the look from the road. This is a picture of Orchidland and the frontage. This is really just to show you the kind of general tending and caring that he took to the property when he got it -- it was quite a mess when he originally acquired it and has cleaned it up and put a nice fence and the like around it -- and, also, to emphasize the importance of the fact that this cleared area is the only area weÓre asking for the special permit. These large lychee trees are probably 40 years old maybe. I mean these are fully matured. ThereÓs a whole orchard of them; and itÓs about 200 feet from the Orchidland intersection to the first entrance into the property. These are mailboxes which I understand serve the Orchidland community and that are being relocated inland. So this, although there are a 7 EXHIBIT A hundred or so people that pick the mail up there every day this, the intention is to move that inland to a new location that has already been installed. So, again, this is the view from this property towards Highway 130. The notion that somehow the special permit is on the highway is a concern for us. We donÓt think thatÓs a fair representation of what it is, has happened here Yes, the TMK gets to that. ThereÓs a deed restriction on the property that prevents any access onto the highway, and the density of that tree shows you that. And he has agreed to keep that kind of tree cover. This is the separation from the highway. So the issue of it being on the highway I think is an interpretive one. This is the location of the commercial area, the gas station, and the Wiki Mart across the street. So this is our proximity to the existing commercial area, and to the left-hand side of that is the church, the Latter Day Saints Church. So just understand that we are maybe not in exactly where the boundary is, but weÓre as approximate as you can get without being there. ThatÓs the location. And this is his entrance into the property. So those are the pictures we had, just to add to your thinking on that. So what IÓd like to do is just let Brooks kind of take you through the thinking process that he had as he acquired and has been working on the property, and share some of his thoughts; and then IÓll get back to you. WOODWARD: All right, sir, if youÓll give us your name and address first and then you may begin. MALOOF: Okay, my name is Brooks Maloof and my wife is Wanphen Maloof, and she chose to sit back there. WeÓre not public speakers so bear with me her th Street which is across the highway on 30 Street in Hawaiian Paradise Park, about a mile from the store. And, you know, IÓve been living in Puna for over 34 years, raised my family there, living and working there for many years. And I have local knowledge of the highway, knowing that, that the highway is a crowded highway. And many people travel from both of these subdivisions to the highway to travel to Hilo, to Pahoa, to KeaÒau to get their, you know, all of the things that are necessary for their life, and work and so on. So we feel, would you folks mind if I read my paper rather than try to -. WOODWARD: ThatÓs fine. MALOOF: Okay. Anyway basically there is a need for services. The need for services is tremendous in the Orchidland and Paradise Park area. The best thing that ever happened to us was the Orchidland Community Center a few years ago, so that we didnÓt need to travel 10 to 30 miles to get the necessities. And so when my wife and I had a chance to purchase the lot on Orchidland Drive, we did our due diligence. We checked things out. And we found out that the association, the Orchidland Association, had designated that area; which included the lot, to be their Village Center. They didnÓt want people having special use permits throughout the subdivision, as were denied many times by the Planning Department. So they wanted to concentrate everything in that one area. And then we took a look at it again; and the Puna Community Development Plan also identified that property as a part of the village center, which would be where the services would be for the local population. 8 EXHIBIT A So having gone through all of that we felt that it would be a good thing to do. So we went ahead and purchased the property in 2008. We spent the next year working on it, improving it. It was basically an eyesore entering into the subdivision. People used to sell their junk cars, put their junk cars there, and people would gather there; and it was a mess. So we fixed the place up, spent some money on it, and put some love and care into it; and now itÓs a nice looking entrance into the subdivision. During the time that we were doing all this, many residents would stop and make compliments and comments to us, and wanting to know whatÓs going on here. E going on here. So weÓd say, ÐWell, what would you like to see going here?Ñ Cause we originally wanted to put a greenhouse there which would have been selling plants that we had grown ourselves in the greenhouse; and I was hoping that we could add the people from the subdivision that come down from the hinterland to also sell their products down where thereÓs a little bit of pavement and access. So I went to the Planning Department, and actually I was referred Jeff Darrow, and Jeff informed me that if we plan to sell our potted plants and anybody elseÓs we need a special use permit. And he gave me a couple of cases to take a look at as a reference, which I thought was very helpful. But what I saw were people that had already set up businesses and were doing things without a permit; and they were approved. So we said, well, we donÓt want to do that. We would like to do this properly, and weÓll submit the special use permit and maybe weÓll do the greenhouse and sell plants for everybody in the subdivision, or let them come down and do it themselves. And after surveying the community, a lot of people were interested in having a little spot for themselves. They couldnÓt go out on the highway any more, itÓs against the ordinances. As you saw in that one photo, people even during the middle of t along Orchidland Drive because they cannot go out on the highway and sell things. People trying to scrape up a living, so theyÓll Î sometimes youÓll see 5 or 10 cars parked there, and trucks, people selling their manapua, selling whatever, and trying to make a living. So the thought was weÓll set up an ag products building, let people rent stalls in there full-time, or part- time, or whatever they want to do, and come out of their places up in Orchidland and have a place to make a living. So that was the idea. Some other people would say or would ask what type of a restaurant are you going to put in here. I said, well, we havenÓt thought of a restaurant but thatÓs a good idea. So the comments were weÓd like a nice sit-down restaurant so we donÓt have to drive to Hilo, we donÓt have to go out on the highway at night. So that was another thing. And then, you know, knowing how difficult it is to go through the special use permitting process, we added a few other things in there, so we wouldnÓt have to do it again, that would be useful to the community. And it looked like a real cumbersome thing to do, which it is. So I asked Jeff Melrose to help us out; and Jeff has been helping me, advising me on this. And this is where weÓre at right now. We have gone to the Board of the Orchidland Community Association, before we actually applied for the permit, and asked them if they had any objections to us using that parcel in the 9 EXHIBIT A village center concept. And everyone seemed to be in favor of it; and they even gave us additional suggestions of whatÓs needed in the community. So weÓve done our due diligence. WeÓve, you know, researched it highway lot. WeÓve got a 220-foot distance from the highway to the entrance of where people, where the building would be. We left the orchard in place. WeÓve planted additional ornamentals to make the entrance to the subdivision look good. WeÓve determined that the village center is a great concept; and if we can concentrate on some services for people that live in the community there so they donÓt have to go out on the highway to work, or to sell their products if they -. It actually would reduce the traffic leaving the subdivision onto the highway. Now a lot of the people coming into Orchidland Village Center are people that are -. ThereÓs quite a bit of traffic in there every day; and these are people that need things coming home from work, or people not wanting to go to Hilo, or Phoa, or KeaÒau. So this idea of people not having to go on the highway, of people having a place to sell their goodies, their products, was appealing to us; and thatÓs why weÓve requested this permit. And moving in the direction away from agriculture and letting the people that are doing agriculture in the back parts of the subdivision, come down to the front of the subdivision and be able to make a living was foremost in our thoughts on this project. So we dealt with the neighbors quite a bit. No one has really been in opposition. Walter, Walter Nagai who is the neighbor next door, he and I have shared different things. He was a little upset that I didnÓt tell him that we were going to apply for the special use permit. So we discussed what was going on and worked out something that was favorable to him, his privacy, and so on. And he has actually written a letter, which I think Jeff mentioned, that supports the project and wishes us well. The folks that live on the north side that run the full length of the boundary, Didas Udani, I spoke to her last night. I asked her if she was coming to testify, cause sheÓs in favor of the project, she said she was busy today and had to be at work. But theyÓre in favor of the project as well. So we have the two nearest neighbors, theyÓre in favor of the project as long as we cooperate with them and donÓt disturb them; and we donÓt plan to do that. All the other lots in that village section, the church has three lots that have been approved a special permit. TheyÓre right across the street on the corner, and so on. The Orchidland Trade Center was reapproved a year ago which is five times larger than this little project that we have planned. And weÓre hoping that because of the size of the project we will be considered for it, and also the fact that weÓre not a highway, directly on the highway, weÓre a couple hundred feet back. The actual exit from the project is almost 400 feet back up by the Wiki Wiki Store. So our intent is to provide the residents with more options that subdivision, rather than leave the subdivision by way of the K-P Highway to shop or a place to market their goods and services that they manufacture or grow within the subdivision. As far as the traffic is concerned, we acknowledge it. But we feel that weÓll actually not add significantly to it and actually alleviate the people from having to go out that live in the subdivision. So at this point IÓd like to say I hope that -- the neighbors are supportive -- we hope 10 EXHIBIT A that you folks will give us consideration of our small use and b superior project that serves the Orchidland community and the people of Puna. WOODWARD: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Melrose or Mr. Maloof? WeÓll get to your other questions, your other points in a minute, Jeff. Are there any questions to this point? No? Okay, Mr. Melrose, you had something further? MELROSE: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. You know, before I get started, this is a historic moment here today that I just want to recognize. Norman Hayashi has been doing these Planning Commission meetings for 41 years. This is his last one, he said to me this morning; and I just want to acknowledge that. Because I think as a planner he may well end up on this side of the table in front of you guys at some point in the future. I donÓt know that would say that. But I do think that Norman has taught us all a great deal over the years, and certainly has carried the ball for planning for a long time. So before I start our pitch I really want to acknowledge Norman for his efforts. So there you go, Norman. Thank you for that. HAYASHI: Thank you. MELROSE: You know, Mr. Maloof, is a, I found a very responsible client. You want to kind of understand kind of where Norman, I mean, Brooks is at. HeÓs currently renovating the old Kalakaua Cleaners for this first kind of restaurant operation, just above the Kress Store. And I think his sense of detail and sense of doing the right thing and trying to make a right thing happen is really apparent in that circumstance. I think youÓll see the same thing in the way he carries himself in this circumstance if heÓs approved. I want to say that this is a very modest use. This is not a major traffic generator. ItÓs really intended to serve the community thatÓs already coming and going from that intersection, and the Orchidland Community in general. And in the process of preparing the permit, we had to go back and forth several times. We were very clear about a very narrow slice of uses that we would be allowed to have. This is a special permit. This is not a rezoning, this does not enable a large body of types of uses. ItÓs a special permit. Special permits can and do live outside of General Plan designations. They do all over the place. There are four, there are four special permits in this node. Only one of them is in the General Plan designation. So carrying this sense of the importance of that General Plan line, all youÓve got to do is look at whatÓs already done to know that that is a variable circumstance; and thatÓs quite appropriate to me. The designation of a General Plan is to give you a general feel for where this location should be. 0 So I want to talk about two issues. These are really kind of the two key ones that are here. One is that CDP/GP issue; and one is traffic. The County Planning Department is putting a lot of emphasis on the exact boundary of the GP line. And as I said history already shows you that approvals hav of that. This is simply another effort in close proximity. The last effort, Jeff referred to the last effort of the prior Planning Director to go to the Council at the time of the planning when the General Plan was being adopted, I think this was 2006. They were trying to, he was trying to create a little broadening of this designation, basically to enhance it inland; and I think it went up 11 EXHIBIT A th to 34 Street. The communityÓs response at that point in time, at the Council, was uncomfortable with that decision. One it was kind of in a, you know, initiated from the Planning DirectorÓs chair, it didnÓt come out of a broad community conversation. And the community testimony from the President of the Association at that time said, you know, one, going inland only, I mean there are already houses on those streets that already residential; and now weÓre turning them into kind of, you know, putting commercial on them. It also said that a buffer off the highway doesnÓt need to be a 400-foot buffer, it just needs to be a buffer, just needs to be a place that you can create that distinction. And they said, you know, to do this right, let the community get involved in the process of defining where this boundary should be, and letÓs defer to the CDP process just to say where that is. So the Council in their wisdom at that time said, thatÓs all right, weÓll take that one off of the table. It did not go through with some of the other amendments to the General Plan at the time. But it was based on a request that, one, the community take a look at that and try to come up with their own answers. Since that time the CDP process, you know, went its course. The community had that conversation; and you saw on the map what the community thinks as a reasonable identified location for a CDP. It includes the church, which is a special permit outside the GP, and it includes the area that is in the special permit, the Trade Center, which is not in the GP but has a special permit, and the one thatÓs right above ours which is some small office operation, and this property. So to say today that this, you know, to get that kind of clarity coming out of the community and then go back to say, well, this line is more important than any of these other lines that are drawn, to me, is a challenge; and itÓs going to create a series of challenges. This whole plan does. It creates sort of on-going challenges for the Commission to try and balance, you know, are these lines fixed or are they general lines, and how do we deal with that. YouÓre going to wrestle for years with this concept of new commercial nodes in Puna. TheyÓre identified in the Puna CDP. But it really is a retrofit to what was a whole body of decisions made in the 1960s about residential development. The reason the plan identified these locations is not really to, is to try and create services within these residential communities so that they donÓt have to get out on the highway, they donÓt have to go out and travel. And this is an unchartered territory, really, for Planning. It says here weÓre going to create a bunch of little lots that are owned by individuals and weÓre going to make it a commercial circumstance. So youÓre going to be faced with a who who wants to take steps and who isnÓt ready to take steps to make those kinds of commercial courses happen. ItÓs certainly going to happen in all throughout Puna and in Kau as well. Hawaiian Ocean View has similar kinds of issues as to where are the boundaries of this commercial center. So hard lines and preconceived notions of those may get in the way, not only here but in other of these commercial centers that are going to come up. And youÓre going to have to make decisions. ThatÓs, you know, thatÓs the process that this Commission is intended to do. So I think what I see as a planner is that flexibility of simply going to be part of the need; and you going to have to look at how each one of those things work out, decision making. ThatÓs part of what I think weÓre asking for in this consideration from you folks. 12 EXHIBIT A The other issue is traffic. And thereÓs no doubt that Highway 130 is a traffic issue, and particularly at peak times of the day. But it was created over a 50-year process; and solving that problem is going to take a great amount of time. Two points, the neighborhood center concept is actually part of the solution, not part of the problem. ItÓs intended to be a way to keep traffic generating, and self-generating within the Puna area, rather than coming and going from it. All, to my view, all of the neighborhood centers and small commercial centers that are identified in the Puna CDP are served by intersections on Highway 130 that are currently at the F level of service at peak morning and afternoon, all of them, including the KeaÒau Transfer Station which is a, you know, a growing kind of public community green business thatÓs right at that intersection. So using the Level F issue, and IÓm not trying to discount that or the traffic accidents that are involved in that process but to saying that that is your reason for not allowing these things to happen is taking one of the solutions out of play, and that is the growth and expansion of these small commercial nodes providing services. So if you want to wait for traffic to be solved before those kinds of centers exists or allowed to grow and provide services, weÓre going to wait a long time behind the wide load, that is DOT, that it takes to make them move those things along. The second point is that Highway 130 improvements are real active conversations today. We asked this Commission for sixty days additional time. We were originally scheduled sixty days ago. And what we wanted to do was to get as good and current a look at the on-going work that the Department of Transportation has done along Highway 130. Just a week or so ago they did submit their draft Environmental Assessment for the entire corridor. So thatÓs 120 megabytes of report. ItÓs a lot to dig into. After I finished reading it, there was a cartoon in the Tribune Herald on Sunday about a guy with a blindfold on and a dart standing in front of a wheel that was, you know, four-lane, three-lane, two-lane options for the Puna and they were kind of throwing darts at it. And itÓs kind of like what I felt after I read it. It defines a lot of potential solutions, but actually what happens will depend on availability of funds, on what the next, you know, kind of, a whole series of issues. But what we do know is that the final Environmental Assessment has been completed for the first step of the improvements, maybe the first major step of improvements on Highway 130 in, I guess since the Phoa Bypass Road, no, the KeaÒau Bypass Road. And that is the shoulder widening and the light at Shower. Our understanding is, from conversations with the project managers at DOT, is that they will put the, theyÓre doing the last bit of a plan prep, theyÓll go out to bid in October. They expect 15 to 18 months of construction period of time, and would expect that the highway improvements, the widening of that shoulder and putting a light at the Pohaku and Shower intersection, would be completed by about the middle of 2012. What we see, what we think that will do is platoon traffic down the entire corridor. It isnÓt going to solve all of these issues. Nothing will solve all of these issues, but it will begin to do that. And from BrooksÓs perspective, heÓs more than willing to wait until that light gets turned on to take occupancy in this building. ThatÓs not something that heÓs saying, you know, heÓs going to run out and do this and not care about the traffic. If thatÓs an issue, if this issue wants to be addressed, it is being addressed in its first step; and heÓs willing to set that line apart. So thatÓs an important issue. And I think with that I just kind of let it, let you folks throw questions at us. I do appreciate TakaÓs concern about this GP/CDP issue, it is going to be an issue in the 13 EXHIBIT A Community Plans. Certainly itÓs something we need get better at when we do the future community plans. But the fact is this is where we are and we have these kinds of inconsistencies. And we can either follow what the community has said theyÓd like to see happen, or we can say nah, nah, nah, weÓre going to wait and weÓre, you know -. So small things have to stop; and this is in fact a very modest use. And IÓll leave it at that. WOODWARD: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Melrose or Mr. Maloof? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just needed to, probably IÓm being repetitious, but I agree with you as you indicated that there will be inconsistencies with regards to that which is contained in the Community Development Plan and the General Plan. And it will continue, it will continue because what IÓm finding out is that there has bee Community Development Plan and the goals and aims of the Community Development Plan, as you compare them with that which is contained in the General Plan. And that is because the development plan does not reflect what the General Plan is. And thatÓs why as the Planning Director stated the Steering Committee of the KeaÒau Community h recommended amendments to the plan, which in essence would probably bring everything in step; and then as we look at applications then we can really determine that that is in actuality a reflection of the General Plan. And, again, you know, one of the primary reasons for recommendation for denial is that it is not consistent with the General Plan. And what weÓre going to find, what weÓre going to find and what IÓm finding is that in this particular case the Community Development Plan is driving the Council, is driving the Council, to start implementing changes to the General Plan. And that shouldnÓt be it. The General Plan should be just there. ItÓs a document that is rigid and it is policies and aims and goals, and that the Community Development Plan should structure their planning around that which is contained in the General Plan. And IÓm going to find this probably common to be with other applications that may come from Puna, or eventually in the long term from Hamakua. And I caution staff that, you know, personally I donÓt feel that the development plan should contain or force the Council to amend the General Plan. And if it is so, let it be done in a constructive way, in a systematic way, as prescribed by the process as outlined in the Zoning Code. And here weÓre finding, you know, the Council in the past has adopted a concurrency bill. Now how well the Council is adhering to the provisions of the concurrency bill, you know, is something that is of my concern too, because weÓre going along with these kinds of applications. And then here weÓre confronted with statements from the DOT with regards to its highways. Are going to keep on developing and developing to cause more congestion on the highways without the State ever having to develop their highways to accommodate the increased growth in any particular area? That alone itself is my concern, you know. And I think it should be the concern of the Council, too. Because eventually at the end the finger is going to be pointing to the Council when they have to explain the congestions and the lack of roadways, water developments, and environmental problems, issues. I just needed to vent off, Mr. Chairman. MELROSE: I appreciate it, Taka. And let me just, I think thereÓs partly a semantical issue here. Because I think consistency and inconsistency with the General Plan -. The General Plan you know is a LUPAG map done at a 135, 125,000 feet per inch. I mean itÓs a large, the LUPAG 14 EXHIBIT A Map is a very general map. This is not inconsistent in that there is an area identified for commercial growth along the Orchidland issue -. The inconsistency is that the line is being interpreted as a very specific lot to boundary line. Now you know that in many cases that interpretation is done loosely, that itÓs an indicator, not a hard line. In most cases, LUPAG Map is interpreted as an indicator rather than as a hard tax map property boundary line. So inconsistent with the General Plan? No, IÓd say this is consistent with the General Plan in that they say that there should be a growth, a commercial node, at the Orchidland area. Now how do you get that to happen, how do you make that, where do you locate them specifically, the community has simply been more articulate than the GP was about where that can be. And thatÓs, I think, what the role of the CDP is, is to be more specific and to be more engaged in, you know, community dialogue to define whereÓs that area is. And thatÓs the difference. Is it inconsistent? Only because I think in this case theyÓre interpreting that boundary as being a fixed hard boundary. The details of why that came through, Plann better. But this one apparently is, been perceived as a fixed boundary as opposed to indicator of potential area for use, which is what the rest of the LUPAG Map is. WOODWARD: Thank you. Any further questions? Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, you know, Commissioner Domingo has brought up a question that we did not analyze it. And I think what staff is going to have to look at in the future when we look at special use permits, is that if this had been an application for a rezoning we would have had to look at the concurrency issue; and the main, one of the principle issues on concurrency is the level of service on the roads in that area. On the one hand a special permit gives you an opportunity to allow something and put limitations on it that could perhaps mitigate -. But I am uncertain as to whether if this were an actual application to rezone the property to commercial, whether it would pass the County Council because of those provisions of concurrency, which is going to be an on-going problem throughout Puna, is that if the main corridor that services a community here is, you know, looking at the KeaÒau-Phoa Corridor. You do, do we look at the Level of Service at those intersections? Do we look at the level of service at the exit to, letÓs say, Mr. MaloofÓs property, or some other, you know, property thatÓs interior in, letÓs say, Hawaiian Paradise Park? And IÓm uncertain as to what the answer would be on those. But it also means that weÓre going to be caught in a situation in which if the infrastructure has not, which you were talking, if the infrastructure has not caught up can you approve anything? And if you donÓt approve anything, then you failed to implement what the vision of the plan is. And I donÓt know what the answer is. IÓm just saying that there are all these constraints here. When staff looked at this they were concerned about the fact that they felt that most of the traffic that was going to come to the development was going to be coming off of the KeaÒauhoa; and they viewed that as the main access. And they looked at that Level of Service; and thatÓs what theyÓre concerned with. And, you know, you talked about having a condition to wait for the light. But, you know, thereÓs no guarantee that that light is going to be in place in 2012. So that condition if you were to implement such a condition could be substantially further down the road than 2012. MELROSE: You know, in our conversation about that, we understood thatÓs true. And the only way we, thatÓs why we spoke to the project manager, you know, this week several times on it to 15 EXHIBIT A try and understand what their schedule is so that we didnÓt just kind of say generally that weÓll take it until whenever that light comes up. But the truth is this is a funded project. Yes, it could go through bidding and like Queen K Highway could go through three rounds of legal disputes between contractors. But thatÓs as it is, I mean, whatever that is. If that was -. But given a reasonable progression of what they say they will go out to bid in October, to say that itÓs a 15- to 18- month construction period that that would, and weÓve added some months on to that just to say, you know, in our own thinking that probably in the middle of the summer of 2012 that will happen. In any event it isnÓt the summer, weÓre saying summer of 2012, (inaudible). So whenever that happens thatÓs, or -. WhatÓs important to the applicant is to understand that he bought a piece of property with the idea that the community had said this is a good place, the neighbors have said, theyÓve worked it out so that was a reasonable location, that clearly he was, you know, wasnÓt on the highway, at least from his perception, and there was a good buffer there, and that the use is a small one. ItÓs limited. It was kind of trying to serve community activities. ItÓs a small restaurant and a little place for him to have, you know, an office. But it wasnÓt, you know, he has done that due diligence to try and do a responsible thing. And he doesnÓt want to, you know, heÓs not trying, he didnÓt really want the big battle about it, but thought it was a simple thing to do. And he doesnÓt want the lot to somehow be defined by this decision-making as being absolutely not part, forget it, you know, then heÓs going to go back and do a nursery operation on the corner or let it grow back or something, whatever he chooses to do with it. But he has done a good job of making an entryway to that subdivision, clean it up; and he would like to be able to find a way to come up with a potential to use that lot. Even if he doesnÓt start it right away, he has got a couple of other irons in the fire that heÓd be working on. So that, you know, gives him a little bit of time to catch some breath. But he doesnÓt want the property and his investment in it to be determined at this point to be of no other use than a residence or an agricultural use. ThatÓs what, thatÓs really the key to his concern. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. We have any further questions? Okay, thank you. Gentlemen, you may be seated. We do have three people from the, make that four, from the public signed up to testify. And IÓll call your names, and if we can get you to come up to the table here and have a seat - Jon Olson, Rod Tucker, Roger Hawney, and Councilwoman Emily Naeole-Beason. All right, good morning. If I can get you to raise your right hand. IÓll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFERS: I do. WOODWARD: Very good, thank you. Mr. Olson, you were signed up first, so if youÓll give us your name and address, and then you may begin your testimony. OLSON: Yes, my name is Jon Olson and IÓm a resident of Leilani Estates, 13-631 Leilani Boulevard. I am here to speak in support of BrooksÓs application for a special use permit. Just so you, this is a little character for me and to understand that IÓm not simply sitting here blowing smoke up your shirts, I will tell you what it is that leads me to believe that I have something to add to this. IÓve been a member to the Puna Traffic Safety Committee for 21 years. I have been chosen by that organization on a number of occasions to represent them at the Community 16 EXHIBIT A Advisory Committee for the planning of the KeaÒau Bypass, the planning for the widening of Highway 130 in the early nineties for the, representing them on the Long Range Surface Transportation Plan for the State in the mid nineties. And I am on the current community advisory committee for the present plan for widening Highway 130. I know an awful lot about traffic in Puna. I have read the objections of the Planning Department; and a little bit of information is a dangerous thing. I will grant you that Highway 130 is a mess. And the Traffic Committee, in fact, told the State that it was going to be a mess when they did it, weÓre on record. And, in fact, we filed on the Long Range Surface Transportation Plan a civil rights complaint over that, a successful civil rights complaint over that. More relevant to this, in the work on the current widening process, one of the understandings that we came to very early on in that process was that no amount of work on Highway 130 is going to fix it. That is not possible at this time in any future that anybody in this room can foresee, including her. ThereÓs 40,000 plus vacant lots in Puna. In March of this year Puna led the State in home sales. ThatÓs over Oahu that has 11 times the population. It was agreed in our planning process on the State Highway issue and on the Puna CDP, which I chaired, I think most of you know that, that no amount of road building was going to fix the process. The only thing we could do was to designate commercial areas and bring the jobs and the services into the communities. I hear what Taka says, but that boat has sailed. T methodology that applies anymore. In a normal system you would approve the lots based on the infrastructure. Well, thatÓs not going to happen. The lots are already out there, theyÓre in private hands. So we put those commercial centers and those other services into the subdivisions with the advice and consent of the subdivisions, in this case Orchidland. ItÓs there because thatÓs what they asked for. And what they asked for was reasonable in terms of the size, the number of lots in the subdivision; and itÓs not intended to serve all of Puna, just as has been pointed out. The intention of that is to serve the people in Orchidland. Now the fact of the matter is that the majority of the accidents that occur on Highway 130 are people turning left out of Orchidland headed toward Hilo. Now guess why theyÓre headed toward Hilo ? Go ahead, take a wild guess. Cause they canÓt get a job in Puna, they canÓt get the services they need in Puna. We need that. We needed it a decade ago. ItÓs real clear. As to the Special Use Permits, the history on this special use permit -. Within a mile of this and in recent times some of you may recall you approved a special use permit for the Water Works. They have no access to Highway 130. TheyÓre actually within Hawaiian Paradise Park. You approved a special use permit for Drain Pipe Plumbing and for tw the same situation, you canÓt let them out on the highway. We all understand that. HeÓs not asking for that. So this is not, this is not asking for anything that hasnÓt already been done and been done recently. I canÓt let this go without, you know, the issue of whether or not the General Plan supersedes the CDPs. The CDP, our CDP was adopted by ordinance. It is a law. It is under County law. Now the argument as to whether or not that law supersedes the General Plan law is going to be 17 EXHIBIT A something, yes, itÓs going to have to be solved. And my guess iitÓs going to take some civil rights action to solve it, because I donÓt think the County is going to be able to resolve it. ThatÓs just an opinion. But we need this, we needed it yesterday. And the traffic light, there is a quick fix. I donÓt know whether you got to see that but on the KeaÒau-Phoa Road quick fix list which the CAC received, Item No. 3, left-turn pocket acceleration lanes for Orchidland Drive; and therein lies the problem. It is that left turn out of Orchidland that is killing people, because you have no line of sight to on-coming traffic. And theyÓre working on it now, traffic light or no traffic light. So do not hold this up. This needs to move forward as quickly as possible. People are dying because they canÓt get the services they need. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Olson? Okay, seeing none, Mr. Tucker, youÓd be next. If you can give us your name and address and then begin. TUCKER: Yes, Commissioners. My name is Robert Tucker. I live in Pahoa Village, Box 644 Pahoa 96778. And IÓm here as President of Friends of PunaÓs Future. Our membership and our Board of Directors have authorized me to speak to this issue. And I also have background as having been the coordinator for the Land Use Working Group on the CDP as it proceeded for a couple of years. So I have some background on that. When this first appeared on my desk, it appeared in the form of a notice from the Planning Commission for a hearing on the subject. I glanced at it, I looked for things that affect, you know, that have meaning in Puna for us to pay attention to. And I looked at it. My immediate reaction was, Oh, God, hereÓs another development on the highway, commercialization on the highway, and the kind of sprawl we want to try and avoid. And weÓve been successful up to date. And I had to take some further look into this subject and get the paperwork on it to understand that there was more going on there than that. And that within our appreciation of the Puna Community Development Plan and within our appreciation of the village center theory of developing jobs and services for our neighborhoods, that any place we create these village centers or have intentions to create these village centers, there are going to be properties that are the edge of that intention and on the edge of some other intention. And in this case we have a property, a TMK, which is right on that moment. Whereas itÓs within the intention of a village center area and itÓs within the intention of not, preventing commercial sprawl on our highway and the traffic implication of driveways coming in and out of the highway. But I did and we did develop an appreciation for the fact that the applicant really did take a look at these intentions and these moments and, you know, on this property and its implications, and that they made more than a simple accommodation. They made an actually well thought-out plan and they had the intention of preserving the grove of trees at the highway, visually keeping that sprawl and distraction from the drivers on the highway. They moved their intentions for this special use permit to have the property mauka of the road, they had their driveways sufficiently distanced from the intersection we felt to be well within the intentions of the village center for Orchidland. And as I started to appreciate that and discussed it with our board, we said, well, you know, this isnÓt simply a knee-jerk reaction to, you know, as it might have appeared to be at first. Despite the fact that the TMK is on the highway we think that the applicants made enough thoughtful consideration of the implications of their proposal and the needs of the highway and the needs of the village center to have found that fine line that would be successful in that moment. 18 EXHIBIT A Now we have taken the time and the effort to go out and oppose some developments and applications and rezonings in this district in the past where we thought they would contribute to sprawl or inappropriate growth and inappropriate development around the district. We had to become cognizant of the fact that if weÓre going to be in opposition to some things we have to be in support of others. In our future, in our endorsed future of having a village center plan of design for our district, with all due respect to Bobby Jean, the Planning Department is not going to build any of these village centers. These village centers will only occur from the sweat and the time and the money and the investment of the citizens that will step forward to take these risks, because all of these ventures are business ventures, and they have inherent risks. So weÓre going here with a family who is wanting to make a sensible investment of their time and money into the community and theyÓre looking for a place where they can do that. And theyÓre looking to determine that place with the guidance, the wisdom of the community, and the County that has been taking place to, and to give them some assurance that the time and the energy that theyÓre investing in their family venture, you know, will have some chance of success. And so for the purposes of a successful village center meeting the needs of its local community, we think that this applicant has made that moment, has made that effort, and deserves to have approval of this application because it does not infringe upon the concerns of the highway in any measurable way that we can find as a negative. We think it has separated itself sufficiently from the highway visually and practically, and it is located close enough and approximate enough to within the village center CDP intentions to be well within the prospect of a farmers market availability, or little real estate office and a Tai restaurant, and that these are things that this community will appreciate and make good and full use of. We also did not approach this applicant and heard testimony on it without talking with the Orchidland Community Association. Friends of PunaÓs Future has about 17 or 18 different community associations as members in our group, and we do not step farther down the line, you know, stepping on the toes of the subdivisions without consulting with them on it, cause we want their thinking, too. So we are here -. WeÓre not really to take the lead in affirmative testimony for this, but to be supportive of the applicant. We want to be supportive of the testimony from the community association, we want to be supportive of the intentions of the Puna Community Development Plan. And we think that this applicant has made, has done their due diligence and has found that moment, and that will contribute well to the community and with minimum to little impact on the highway issues. Regarding the General PlanÓs relationship to the CDP, as I was elected Chair of the Land Use Working Group and we proceeded with two years worth of studies of the land use issues within our district, at no time were we told everything you have to do has to conform to the General Plan. We were not told that we were there to endorse the General Plan. We were there to take the community input and shape it into a plan for the future that And that was what we did our best effort to do. And we really have a lot of strong faith in the village center theory. We think the doom for the Puna district will be commercial sprawl. From traffic light to traffic light, with liquor stores and gas stations and convenience stores stretched up and down the highway is the direction the community does not want to go. The village center is the direction that we want to go. And they 19 EXHIBIT A will only occur and they will only accede with the sweat, and the blood, and the money of our residents who are willing to invest in them. So we are here to support this and the applicant; and we would hope that you will do so favorably. Thank you very muc WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Tucker? No? Seeing none, okay. Mr. Hawney. HAWNEY: Good morning. My name is Roger Hawney. I am a current resident of Orchidland Estates, HCR 1, Box 4053, KeaÒau. And IÓm here as president of the Orchidland Community Association. And in that capacity I am representing our Board of Directors and our entire community, actually. And I have the benefit of following all these rather eloquent speakers who have said pretty much everything IÓve had to say and more. I agree with every one of them. Mr. and Mrs. Maloof came to our board meetings; and they asked for community input, we gave it to them, they listened. The big issue I see beyond the General Plan, the big issue is the traffic safety and, yes, IÓm concerned for the residents of our subdivis Estates for nearly 30 years; and up until about five to ten years ago I was strongly opposed to any development in Orchidland, commercial development. But the time had a huge influx of people in all of Puna residents, and theyÓre still coming, and there is no moratorium on them coming. And every time I can get what I need or our residents can get what they need without leaving the subdivision and without risking their lives going onto Highway 130, itÓs a bonus, itÓs a blessing. And I just want to say that IÓm strongly in favor of this particular development; and our board of directors is in favor o- year tenure as a resident in Orchidland I know the people pretty well, and I think we all will benefit from this project in allowing us to not have to enter Highway 130 to get our goods and services, or to sell our goods and services. And I donÓt want to take too much more of your time because it has all been said, and it has been said very well. Thank you very much. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hawney. Any questions? Commissioner Au. AU: I have a quick question regarding those mail boxes. Mr. Darrow from staff said or mentioned that you guys are in dialogue or the association is going to possibly move it, and Mr. Melrose also mentioned that. In your testimony you did not mention it and this letter that you wrote to us on January 29, 2010 does not say anything about those mail boxes. So, you know, these mail boxes are Federal mail boxes, so what kind of dialogue did you have with the Feds on moving it? HAWNEY: We have been working with the Post Office and there actually is a new, back of post boxes, that has been, basically those have been relocated to up within the subdivision next to the Orchidland Community lot, which is an undeveloped lot at this point. But the new mail boxes are in, and I believe that the U.S. Postal Service is in the process of making the transition so that those old boxes can be removed. The whole idea of this, they wanted to, initially they wanted to just change the boxes right there, and we were the ones who sugg Because theyÓre basically in the roadway easement and as with more and more people and more and more traffic, yes, theyÓre a hazard; and so that is being addressed. ItÓs not a whole lot that 20 EXHIBIT A we can do about it. It is, as you say itÓs a Federal issue. But we have complied and cooperated in every way we can. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Hawney? Okay, Councilwoman Emily Naeole-Beason. NAEOLE-BEASON: Aloha, good morning. WOODWARD: Aloha. NAEOLE-BEASON: You know, this is very rare for me. I think this is the first time IÓve come before you and, because I heard about the issue and what was coming down today. I just wanted to thank the applicant, you know, for getting input from their community and to making right with the neighbor. ThatÓs very important. And so I just have some like, you know, one through ten or something. IÓve been writing since IÓve been sitting back there and listening. And my second manaÒo if, you know, if one people can then I think the others can. I donÓt like this manaÒo when some people can, others cannot. Yeah? And what IÓm referring to is the church is right across the street. And you know on Sundays, whoa, they have a fleet of people there; and IÓm glad theyÓre all going to church. But, so thatÓs right across, you know, the road going up Orchidland, Latter Day Saints, the Mormon Church is rig theyÓre loaded, packed. And so I just wanted to say, you know, if one can, the other no can, I have an issue. And so, you know, in our District, Orchidland is actually JÓs district; and itÓs not mine. IÓm across the street in Paradise Park. But Highway 30 (sic) kind of separates us over there. But, you know, so in our area in that Puna we donÓt have much. So no more commercial, very little. So, you know, like in my area, thereÓs Malama Market, now weÓre having Longs, and then Kentucky Fry, Burger King coming up on that side. So, you know, sometimes for us itÓs so happening because when no more jobs you really want jobs, I want as a Council Lady, you know. Because why Highway 130 is so deadly is because everybody gotta as a Council Lady I think for year and 11 months I drove to Hilo. And when I got my office at Phoa I was so happy because I donÓt have to be shooting out with everybody else. You know, for me itÓs like, yes, IÓve got to go 5minutes towards Pahoa and my office is right over there. So I just wanted to put that out, you know, because I was dealing with it as I was driving to Hilo. So my lady when we were working in Hilo and our office was at Ben Franklin, Aunty Gwen, my secretary, was shooting into Hilo 5:30 every morning so she never have to deal with the problem of Highway 130. I came in about 7 because I had to drop off my son at Nawahi Laniopuu. So 7 oÓclock was deadly. So thatÓs why some of these things need to happen. I just need to say that, again, I wrote it down, you know, the jobs in our district and thereÓs just, we need -. Highway 30 (sic) is our problem, yeah. Highway 30 (sic) is our problem. ItÓs so dangerous. 21 EXHIBIT A No. 5 is the State needs to take care of the kuleana by putting (sic). You know, IÓm 53 years old. I donÓt see nothing happen. How come? And so, you know, I need to say, thereÓs one manaÒo, I said, I look at Kona. You know, from Sheraton Keauhou when I come home, I go on the hill and I run down to Walmart. ThereÓs light at every intersection. How come those guys can get lights and we -? I, 53 years old, Puna never get lights. And, so you know, the KeaÒau Bypass, all those other roads was there before KeaÒau Bypass came. And so we have a light on the corner when you turn, then you have a light over there by CU HawaiÒi, then you have a light over there by the school. Three lights came along when the rest of the road never had nothing for 53 years. So I see thereÓs a problem. So, you know, I just had to write these things down. IÓm sorry, but, you know what, when youÓre passionate about something, you have to say. I could be out cruising today doing many other things. But I thought this was so serious that I better come over here today and speak out, yeah. So I just wanted to say, let me just read over here. So thatÓs why IÓm here. You know, this Highway 130 has been a bondage to our people in Puna. And so, and again I say everybody is shooting out every morning they going this way, every afternoon. If you live in Puna you understand the manaÒo. Yeah? And so, again, like I said, you know what, J Yoshimoto is, you know, heÓs the chairman of the Council, IÓm his vice-chairman. And I just said, you know, I want to makaÒala this area because itÓs a -. You know, I really respect J, heÓs a, I really love him as a leader. And so to me being IÓm a neighbor across at Paradise Park, we share 130; and so I need to makaÒala and make sure we take care for the people, yeah So this morning I wanted to say Jon Olson brought an issue about, you know, MakuÒu, and you guys gave the special permit to the people with all the big trucks. This morning I was coming down the road and just before MakuÒu one big truck came out and he when swing, take two lanes; and good thing we never cause one accident. And so normal MakuÒu you supposed to stay on one side and then the main road get the right-of-way. Blala when pull out, he took the double two lanes and went down. And if I when crash into him, he would have had one problem. Yeah, so I see an issue that happened just this morning. I said, okay, I saw one red truck with a Matson box in the back, this blala going get into trouble. Because if I see something not pono wherever I am I make sure that I call him on it, yeah. So I just wanted to say that I know this applicant. He said he was in my town for 30 years. IÓve seen him since he arrived, because IÓm 53 years old. I must have been in my 20s the, 20 years old. And so heÓs always shown me that he was a real decent person. You know, IÓve seen him -. I know heÓs a realtor; and so IÓve seen him in Phoa all these years. And I just wanted to say I support this project because I rather have our people stay in the area. And, you know, this whole town thing, itÓd be good. LetÓs not have to -. WeÓre actually supplying Hilo town because weÓre coming over here dropping all our money. I was here yesterday p over the creation. But thatÓs whatÓs happening. We are, weÓre called the bedroom community because we only sleep. Then when we go out weÓve got to work or weÓve got to pay the bills, or weÓve got to do something, weÓve got to come to Hilo. So I think what really IÓm trying to say is we need something at home. And, you know, what, in the Council this is my fourth year. I see all kinds of people coming up for this, that, this, that, this, that; and weÓre giving them. Oh, yes, yes, give Òum, give Óum, give Òum. But, so, now I have to say w people that stay in, you know, we call them rural areas, we need to give our people some chance 22 EXHIBIT A too, because weÓve got to survive also. So thank you for hearing sometimes I get a little bit passionate and say things how I say, but I need to. Thank you very much. Mahalo. WOODWARD: Thank you, Emily. Do we have questions for Councilwoman? NAEOLE-BEASON: Thank you. WOODWARD: Okay, seeing none, thank you very much. And weÓll take a recess for about 10 minutes and then weÓll have discussion. RECESSED Î The Chair called a short recess at 10:41 a.m. RECONVENED Î The meeting reconvened at 10:51 a.m. WOODWARD: All right, if the Windward Planning Commission will please come back to order. Mr. Melrose, I believe the Planning Director would like t MELROSE: Yes. I was asked to try and put some words around a condition that might address some of the issues related to the traffic concern. And that condition would read that the applicant will not seek a certificate of occupancy permit for the commerci until the traffic light at Pohaku, Shower and Highway 130 is complete, and that no building permit for any portions of the proposed commercial retail office the, until contract is awarded for the installation. So essentially they will not, wonÓt move forward on the building permit until the contracts are awarded to begin the process of the light and the shoulder building, which we presume to be somewhere at the end of this year, and that they wonÓt take occupancy in the building until the light is operational. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Madam Director, did you have something to say? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. I have to admit I feel like IÓm caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand the General Plan has not been amended, and the General Plan has also been adopted by Ordinance and clearly said that the Community Development Plans, if and when created and adopted, would not trump the General Plan. On the other hand you have the spirit, I think, of the existing interim amendment which was to Orchidland. You have the CDP which the sprit is to expand it beyond what the current General Plan has. And then the hard place for me is the concurrency provisions of the County Code which, frankly, if this were a rezoning I donÓt think it could be approved by the County Council. But I also recognize, and I think staff is over there cringing as I say some of this, that if I rigidly apply the GP as well as the concurrency provisions of the County Code then itÓs going to be very problematic to approve anything in Puna, and anything particularly in this Orchidland Village Center. Because every TIAR, which is basically how many trips are generated by any development in this area, once you hit 50 trips generated, youÓre going to have to look at the impact on Highway 130. And when you look at Highway 130 and the level of service, then 23 EXHIBIT A under the concurrency provisions you canÓt do the rezoning. The flip side of that is the community is arguing that without the new uses in the communities you really donÓt have an opportunity to try and reduce some of the need for the traffic to go onto Highway 130. And IÓm also concerned that if I donÓt have four votes to either approve the permit or four votes to deny the permit then the permit becomes approved with no conditions, which is not a result that I would like to see. So with the additional language as read by Mr. Melrose I feel I can support this application. But I am definitely going to urge the County Council to take those interim amendments out of limbo and put them back on the agenda so that you can address thof the fact that the General Plan and the CDP do not match up with each other. And I done expeditiously so that that can be in place before this development is actually constructed and opened; and then I would feel more comfortable that the CDP and the GP line up. The other thing IÓm going to be asking I think the County Council is to take a good hard look at is those concurrency provisions on infrastructure as they apply to areas that are highly unlikely to get the necessary infrastructure in place. You have a unique situation in Puna I think where you need to have some development occur in order to reduce the need for people in the community to hit Highway 130 and drive to Hilo for services. But if you wait for the infrastructure to come first before you approve the rezonings and the development, youÓre never going to get the rezonings and development you need to implement the community centers. So IÓm going to push that. The other thing is, I think this is highlighted, some things that we need to do. And so IÓm going to be asking the Puna CDP Action Committee to please identify any proposed amendments to the GP that are necessary in order to implement the CDP. IÓm going to ask them to take that up as their next mission so that they can identify that. So with Mr., the language from Mr. Melrose I can support his application. And in part of this, because this is my concern, that if I donÓt have four votes one way or another then this gets approved without any conditions; and I donÓt want to see that happen. WOODWARD: Thank you, Madam Director. Do we have any questions for the Director? Were there other conditions? I assume there are other standard conditions that youÓre going to put on the -. Jeff? LEITHEAD TODD: You have the other standard conditions? DARROW: I have copies of the conditions that were placed on Orchidland Trade Center as well as Wiki-Wiki Supermarket if you would like to, because there are several unique conditions relative to this particular area, as well as standardized conditions. WOODWARD: I think it might be a good idea to read those, and weÓll make sure that the applicant and their representative are in agreement. 24 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Okay. Condition No. 1 would read ÐThe applicants, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval.Ñ Condition No. 2 would state ÐConstruction of the proposed development shall be completed within five years from the effective date of this permit. This time period shall include securing Final Plan Approval from the Planning Director in accordance wit identify proposed structures, fire protection measures, access, stalls. Landscaping shall be indicated on the plans for the purp adverse noise or visual impacts to adjoining parcels. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Planning DepartmentÓs Ru requirements, standards for CV zones adjoining an RS zone or residential zone.Ñ No. 3, ÐThe applicants shall comply with the design guidelines in the development ofÑ the proposed development or the proposed, excuse me, Ðthe proposed commercial and retail office building as detailed by the Orchidland Estates Community Association in the Orchidland Estates Design Plan 2007.Ñ No. 4 ÐAccess to the subject property from Orchidland Drive shall be designed and engineered to substantially conform to the Department of Public Works specification for commercial driveways, without sidewalks, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed development.Ñ No. 6, no this one our No. 5, this one, or, there are two conditions here. TheyÓre both different. So IÓm going to read two No. 5 conditions and so you get a choice. No. 1 is ÐChannelization, signalization and street lighting improvements to the intersection of Highway 130 and Orchidland Drive shall be provided by the applicants if required by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the proposed development.Ñ No. 2 for Condition No. 5 is ÐThe applicant shall pay their reasonable fair share for infrastructure improvements that may be required of other commercial developments in the immediate area.Ñ Okay, No. 6 would be ÐA solid waste management plan shall be sub Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.Ñ No.7, this is questionable if you want to consider it, ÐThe applicant shall extend the existing 12- inch waterline from the KeaÒau-Pahoa Road to the subject propertyÑ; and this is for fireflow requirements for the commercial building. No. 7, or No. 8 would be ÐThe applicants shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of the affected agencies, including those of the Department of Health and the Fire Department.Ñ No. 9, ÐAn annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of the approval of the permit. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the status of the development and the extent to which the conditions of approval are being complied. 25 EXHIBIT A This condition shall remain in effect until all the conditions of approval have been complied with and the Planning Director acknowledges that no further reports are required.Ñ And then our last one would be our administrative time condition. LEITHEAD TODD: We also need to add conditions regarding the 6-foot high 90-foot rockwall along the adjoining lot line with Mr. NagaiÓs, which is my understanding youÓve reached an agreement with Mr. Nagai, as well as the 6-foot high chain-link fence along the north border line which abuts Didas UdaniÓs property, cause I, itÓs my understanding that youÓve reached an agreement for that. And, also, as part of the landscaping, you had agreed to plant a line of thick hedge podocarpus trees that would partially block the view of Mr. NagaiÓs home. And IÓd like some flexibility in terms of whether itÓs podocarpus or something else, cause weÓve found in other places when weÓve had conditions like that that sometimes the podocarpus dies and so, but something that would effectively give the same type of thick hedge planting that would obstruct view of his home. DARROW: Additionally, we would be adding the condition drafted by Mr. Melrose. We do have a condition thatÓs similar to what the Director was referring to that was in the Orchidland Trade Center. And what I can do is supplement the correct TMKs for the wall and the fence. WOODWARD: Okay. I might ask a question of the Director. Since this is going to be triggered by when they have a permit for signalizing that intersection, should the time, the 5-year time also be triggered by that same event? In other words, they canÓt do anything until that is in effect. LEITHEAD TODD: I think thatÓs a reasonable condition, that the 5-year trigger doesnÓt occur until the contract is awarded for construction of that intersection, the traffic lights. MELROSE: Thank you, Commissioner Woodward. That would have bee well. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, is there anything else, Mr. Melrose? There was an option, two option fives. MELROSE: And I think that, you know, the issue for the commercial center generally was in the event that there is an effort to try and spread the cost of improvements at that intersection, that it needs to be something that is carried by everybody along that line, including the church and other people who have commercial uses in there that bring people in and out. And that if we are a part of that, thatÓs fine. And so thatÓs -. MALOOF: It should be proportional, too. MELROSE: Yes, you know, proportional use. And I think, IÓm not exactly sure how you go about proportioning that. We donÓt need to kind of nail that to the ground today. But thatÓs, the nature of that is a proportional question. 26 EXHIBIT A There is water already to the property adequate to serve this. So that the 12-inch waterline was an issue for the Trade Center, but not an issue in this circumstance. So there is adequate water as the Water DepartmentÓs letter indicated. So I would just take the 12-inch waterline out of that picture. And we wanted to just to confirm, I think that you said that the 6-foot fence runs along the back boundary of the property and the stone fence along Mr. NagaiÓs boundary? I think thatÓs what I heard; and I just want to confirm that, because we donÓt want a 6-foot fence along the frontage of Orchidland necessarily. LEITHEAD TODD: No, it was the intent that it would be along the border with Mr. NagaiÓs property. MELROSE: ThatÓs the stonewall that he agreed to construct and that -. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, the stonewall. And then the 6-foot chain link is the north borderline which abuts Didas UdaniÓs property. MELROSE: Right. And the selection of a hedge is something that I think we have agreed to. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. MELROSE: Was there a plan approval requirement in that list of things? LEITHEAD TODD: Yes, there was. DARROW: Yes. MELROSE: Which one was that? DARROW: Condition No. 2. MELROSE: Okay, five years. All right. DARROW: If I could make, request a clarification. The Fire Department comment letter does request that the applicant meet fireflow requirements. Now it doesnÓt state extend the 12-inch line, but that basically was, usually itÓs their means of meeting that requirement. There is the possibility that we can put in a general condition that says that the applicant shall meet with fireflow requirements meeting with the Department, I mean, meeting with the Fire Department; and then they can try to work out whatever requirements they may have. It may be a storage tank or something. WOODWARD: All right. Is that agreeable to everybody? MELROSE: Yes. LEITHEAD TODD: Yes. 27 EXHIBIT A WOODWARD: Okay, we agree then with all of the conditions. I think, Commissioner Domingo -. DOMINGO: I wonÓt discuss those conditions now but IÓm ready to make a motion. WOODWARD: All right, I think we are in order to make a motion, so you may proceed. DOMINGO: Okay. To involve additional discussion, I move that we deny the application as based on the original recommendation submitted by the Planning D WOODWARD: Do we have a second? That motion dies for lack of a second. Do we have another motion? Commissioner Kern? KERN: Yeah, I have a motion. Sorry, Taka, IÓm going in the opposite direction, born and raised Puna boy. I move that Special Permit Application No. 09-98 regarding Brooks and Wanphen Maloof, the special permit allowing a .5 acre of land for a rest outlet for local farmers, fishermen and businesses to sell products and related uses on TMK 1-6-10:137, I move that this application be approved with conditions. ISHIBASHI: Second. WOODWARD: All right. Now we can have discussion. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a principle here involved -- and that is the actions of any individual, even with respect with those on the Commission or with individuals we deal with every day -- and that is the principle of trust and confidence that we place over those who give us advice and lead us in the direction which is appropriate to the laws that are being set forth by those who sit in those places. The condition as suggested by Mr. Melrose may only address a concern that has been accepted, that has been amplified by the Planning Director to her recommendation, thatÓs only one. What about the zoning, the zoning issue with regards to the General Plan? What about the other issues she has reiterated in her entire document justifying a recommendation for denial? I have not heard anything specific or in depth as to what addresses the other conditions for denial as stated by here. Nothing has been said. And the fact that, I would beliethat Mr. Melrose came up here with that proposed amendment as suggested by the staff of the Planning Department -. And I think suggestions, if that, if that amendment was submitted, then perhaps it would be a little bit more acceptable, and that this application may be acceptable by the Commissioners. I for one refuse to be led by actions of others. And I say that because how many times we have had recommendations for denial or even, for denial, and how many times at the abrupt moment, even before taking official formal action to the application, the positions of the staff or the department have changed. I cannot accept that. I go through the document throughout the whole week trying to analyze and trying to justify whether or not any recommendation made is proper or correct to the, correct, and in concert with the laws and ordinances that we have. 28 EXHIBIT A You know, today we have the document that says itÓs against the General Plan. And, you know, Mr. Olson said it very clearly, he said no matter what we do to Highway 130 it will never solve the problem because of the amount of subdivided lands already in the Puna district. So what I mean is as time goes by people will build, build, build and the traffic will increase, the density of all that we have there will increase. And then who will be there to address the problem? The Council, the State Legislators, the County Administration? And then some of these, one of these days weÓll look back and say, wow, we had laws in place and no effort had been made to address this kind of situation. Had this application been sent to the Council for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning, it will never happen because the Council will have to be concerned with the laws providing for infrastructures, and to comply with the laws that they themselve know, so, rightfully, I cannot, I cannot in principle say yes to this very document that we have before us. ItÓs just, itÓs just a shibai, a fraud, on my part to say yes when I feel differently. And I, you know, I just hope the rest of the Commissioners will feel that way because, you know, integrity and, integrity and confidence in your peers and your staff does come into the picture. And the staff in the past have said, okay, this is the position weÓll be taking. TheyÓve gone at lengths and tried to draft a document that would make clear the reasons why this application should be denied. And at the spur of the moment theyÓve been told, okay, letÓs think of how we can, how we can see our way through this and give a favorable recommendation. One of the most important things that IÓm appalled by is the fact that me as a Commissioner has been led around to think, to think otherwise, and action taken would be the other way. ItÓs absurd. I speak against the motion, Mr. Chairman. WOODWARD: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Do we have any other discussion? Commissioner Kern. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your thoughts on that, Commissioner Domingo. I was born on this island. I moved to Puna when I was two and lived in Puna the majority of my whole life. And every, we lived deep in Puna. And every week I drove to town with my mom to shop, every week. And it was a strain, especially when the economic times were tough. You know, we couldnÓt find enough money to get the gas and get enough food, or it was a combination of do we have enough gas to get there and what do we have to not buy. And so that, therein lies the challenge of Puna. And as I grew up, IÓve gotten to learn the deeper issues of Puna, and that we have a ton of lots there. The bottom line, theyÓre going to be built out. They wil certain period of time. What we donÓt have there is, we have very little commercial infrastructure. We have very little opportunity for the small guy to do something commercial based so he can actually get ahead, generate jobs, do something out there. Because right now youÓre sitting down there wanting to do something, youÓve pretty much got to look in Hilo, because thatÓs the spot where you can actually buy a small piece of commercial land and do something on it. And I would venture to say that the good majority in Puna getting into their car to drive to Hilo donÓt want to drive to Hilo. Hilo is a nice place, itÓs a beautiful place. But theyÓre driving there to work or shop. And if we can keep people at home, closer to home, so 29 EXHIBIT A that they can work and shop in their own community, weÓd be ahead of the game. And thatÓs really what weÓre trying to do here. So, I mean, from the beginning IÓve, in my mind -. IÓve look over this and IÓve supported this application in my mind from the beginning, because this is exactly what Puna needs. And, to begin, it needs a lot more planning and it needs the infrastructure. Yes, itÓs lacking in many ways. But if we donÓt ever start, it wonÓt start. If we just keep denying, itÓs going to be like even doing anything in Puna, weÓll go to Hilo. Meanwhile, you know, get a building permit, no problem at the Building Department, and more people are building houses, more people are building houses. And where are they all going? Hilo. Why? Cause theyÓve got to work and they need to eat. So this small, itÓs not like weÓre talking about, you know, a massive store there or anything thatÓs going to serve all the needs. But I think itÓs a right step in the right direction. And I also think itÓs in the right area because there is already a tremendous amount of existing area. I drive in there. I drive in Orchidland Center. I use the gas station. I go to WikiWiki. I go to True Value. IÓm in and out of there. I mean traffic is bad at times; but for the most part itÓs not too bad, itÓs reasonable. And if youÓre a safe driver you get in and out. And thereÓs enough traffic there just going to those other places that I donÓt think this project is going to necessarily generate a massive amount of traffic volume thatÓs going to change how it is. And, I mean, the Pahoa intersection is worse than this spot. IÓve actually had somebody, a friend of mine died there, and yet we got a huge LongÓs going in there. I think thatÓs a good thing. I think there needs to be some traffic issues addressed there; and thatÓs generally more on the State side of things on that highway anyways. But having a LongÓs there in Pahoa will be good because people wonÓt need to drive as far. My family when I was growing up wouldnÓt be able to go Malama Mart, wouldnÓt be able to go to LongÓs, and save a lot of time, money and hardship. So I will support this; and I would support most any good development coming into Puna thatÓs going to help out our families in the future generations, period. WOODWARD: Thank you, Commissioner Kern. Any further discussion? Commissioner Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: Mahalo, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all the testifiers for coming out. ItÓs so important that we hear your concerns coming from the community. So thatÓs the important thing. And I understand what Commissioner Domingo is saying and he is protecting the rights, so, under the law. But thatÓs what it is when you give the opportunity to the community, feedback, and theyÓre coming out and change the mind of the Commission. ThatÓs what itÓs all about, doing the right thing for the right reasons. My main concern was the traffic. And now when you look at the whole thing, it looks like we were going to come right out on the highway originally. But, no, itÓs not, itÓs not. So the traffic is being addressed. And this will help alleviate the traffic from going out. So thatÓs one plus; and thatÓs why IÓm supporting the project, based on your feedback and based on the traffic staying in Orchidland and not going out. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you, Commissioner Ishibashi. Any further discussion? 30 EXHIBIT A DARROW: If I could interject, Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Yes, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you. Just before we make a motion, if I could ask one or two things. No. 1, because this type of special permit has multiple uses, in this particular situation that we come across in the past, what weÓve done is add a condition that states that ÐThe applicant shall comply substantially with the representations and uses identified within the background or in their application.Ñ And, therefore, we donÓt have a problem later for enforcement when all of a sudden we have different uses start popping up in that particular area. If that would be okay, if we could consider that in the motion. WOODWARD: Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Melrose? MALOOF: That was, that has been our original intent. NOMURA: Microphone, please. MALOOF: That has been out intention right along, is to follow the plan that we gave you. WOODWARD: Okay. What weÓre dealing with specifically is you said a realty office and a restaurant and so on and so forth, the things youÓve listed. MALOOF: Well, we, yeah, we were asked whatÓs going to be in the Ag products building, and I think we answered those questions. WOODWARD: Okay. MALOOF: And thatÓs what our intentions are. WOODWARD: All right, very good. MELROSE: And I donÓt think we were specific about a Thai restaurant in the application, although it was represented in -. DARROW: You were Î. MELROSE: This conversation, as was -. Did I specifically say T DARROW: Correct. MELROSE: I guess my concern would be a restaurant, would be a restaurant. And if itÓs not Thai and it becomes a steak house or it becomes something else then thatÓs not an issue for enforcement, right? 31 EXHIBIT A WOODWARD: Yes. MELROSE: Thank you. WOODWARD: I think that would substantially be the same. Okay. If thereÓs no objections, then thatÓs -. You had some other point? DARROW: Yes, thank you. Just for, I have two other points. Just for clarification, we do have multiple conditions that will probably be renumbered a little differently than what we stated. But just, the condition requiring either channelization or the applicant pay their reasonable fair share for infrastructure, itÓs my understanding that that condition is more appropriate than the channelization, correct? WOODWARD: Fair share was what you were talking about? MELROSE: Yes. WOODWARD: Right. Okay. DARROW: And then, lastly, in a situation such as this, the staff tries to generate a recommendation with conditions, and we rely on information provided through this process. So at this point there has been information brought. If thereÓs other matters that you would want to see in the recommendation in regards to your reasons for approval, that would be very helpful for us in drafting the approval, such as the General Plan consistency, the traffic issue that we talked about, any other issues that you feel would be pertinent for the reasons for approval. WOODWARD: Okay. DARROW: Thank you. WOODWARD: All right. And I think if itÓs all right with Mr. Melrose, IÓll leave that up to the Planning Director to come up with the specifics for you as far as the change in recommendation. Is that agreeable to the person who made the motion and the seconder? KERN: Yes. ISHIBASHI: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay, any further discussion? Okay, letÓs vote. DARROW: Okay, the motion before us is to approve with the stated conditions as stated by the Planning Director as well as the applicant, along with the reasons for that approval. With that IÓll take the roll. Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. 32 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to one. WOODWARD: All right, thank you very much. YouÓll be notified in writing. MALOOF: Thank you, sir. MELROSE: Thank all of you, thank you. Thank you, Taka, I appreciate your thoughts. Mahalo. The discussion ended at 11:34 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary A T T E S T: Rell Woodward, Chairman Windward Planning Commission 33 EXHIBIT A