Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-05 TSUPERSTORES PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 5, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL AND PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25 RELATING TO SUPERSTORESwas called to order at 11:19 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham (left at 12:07 p.m.) ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo C. Kimo Alameda Alvin Rho Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 33 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL 5. Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to Retail Establishments. The proposed amendment would not permit “superstores” in any zoning district. “superstore” means a business exceeding 90,000 gross square feet, offering for sale more than 25,000 different stock keeping units, and dedicating more than 20,000 gross square feet of floor area to the sale of groceries. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR 5a. Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, to create a “superstore” zoning district, which would be the only zoning district where a “superstore” would be allowed. GRAHAM: Norman, our next item on the agenda, and I think you spoke to me a little bit before, is the, maybe I’ll call it the superstore related ordinances; and we have a 5 and a 5a. How should I handle these at this time? Should I start with the 5 and then do the 5a, or join them together, or -? HAYASHI: Well, you can take it together I would assume. GRAHAM: Okay. EXHIBIT D 1 HAYASHI: Just for your information, as far as both bills, we are proposing or recommending that the Commission continue it again to the Kona meeting and take up action at that time. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. So our next agenda item on our regular agenda is shown as No. 5, the initiator is the County Council; and we have an addendum to our agenda which has a 5a which is a related item initiated by the Planning Director. They are both amendments to Chapter 25 of the Zoning Code in Hawaii County and they both relate to what’s called superstores. Item 5 is an amendment to the Zoning Code whereby superstores would not be permitted in any zoning district. And superstores are defined as a business exceeding 90,000 gross square feet, offering for sale more than 25,000 different stock keeping units, and dedicating more than 20,000 gross square feet of floor area to the sale of groceries. Agenda Item 5a initiated by the Planning Director in response to this would create a new zoning district called the superstore zoning district, which would be the only zoning district where a superstore is allowed. And I believe the Planning Director gave us a rather thoughtful write-up on this explaining his reasons for making this additional 5a item that he initiates; and just paraphrasing briefly I think he’s taking the position that if we are going to remove this superstore capability through the zoning districts on the island it would be appropriate to create a new zoning district such that if the County wished to have superstores somewhere the County Council would have to effectively zone an area specifically for that purpose. And so without the County Council taking that action it would not be allowed. But by doing this he has at least left a legal opportunity for such a zoning district to be created if the County’s representatives in the County Council and the Mayor chose to do that. So does that meet your approval as a representation? YUEN: Yes. SIRACUSA: Question, please. GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Since No. 5 was brought already before the public in Kona and is coming here now to this side, it seems to me that we can vote on No. 5. However, 5a did not have a public hearing on the Kona side; and so it seems to me that to lump them together when we can vote on one but not on the other until we get to Kona, that may be confusing not only for the Commissioners but for members of the public who are here. So it seems to me that we should be taking 5 first and dealing with that and taking our vote on it; and then take the public hearing on 5a which we will still then have to go back to Kona and have a hearing on that side of the island. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. I’m going to ask Mr. Torigoe in a second here about this. But my understanding is that we did have them both in our possession as Commissioners in Kona, but only the No. 5 was agendized, as you say. And so we got to hear that in two places but we only heard the one in Kona. So that technically now that we’re hearing that one also here in Hilo we could vote on it today. But I think our intention and my intention is that we will not take a vote on 5 today, the one initiated by the Council, but we’ll take the Commission’s vote on the both of them when we return for another Kona hearing. Is that something that we just administratively can do, Mr. Torigoe, or is that a proper way to handle this? EXHIBIT D 2 TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s within your discretion to handle it either way. You know, as you noted there have been two hearings on Item 5; and actually even that is more just a matter of policy. It’s not something that’s required by law that you do that. But your policy and the practice has been to have two hearings on something like this. That has been done for No. 5. It has not been done for 5a at this point. But if the Commission feels like it would be clearer for everybody, you know, one way or the other, I think it’s within your discretion to either vote on 5 today and then vote on 5a the next time, or you could put off 5 today also, you know, to the next Kona meeting. GRAHAM: Okay. That’s certainly my, my intention is to put off our actual voting on 5 today until the next Kona meeting. But, Commissioner Iwashita, you have any comment on that? IWASHITA: My feeling is that we ought to vote on 5 today; and then we can have the additional hearing on 5a in Kona at our next Kona meeting and vote on 5a at the time. My, it’s a procedural -. My feeling is basically just procedurally because we have two separate proposals. And to me to put them together is not procedurally correct to try and vote on them together. Because, you know, if one supports one measure and then opposes another, then you’re going to have a convoluted motion that says we move to approve the ban and we vote to disapprove the added addition of another area. So it becomes convoluted and I think procedurally incorrect. So I think they need to be voted on separately. And so my choice would be to vote on the agendized matter that has been heard, the ban which had been heard already in Kona and we’ll hear today. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I don’t think we’re really deciding whether we’re going to combine the voting on 5 and 5a. We’re just deciding as to whether we’re going to vote on 5 during this meeting. Certainly if the Commission decides to forego on the vote this meeting on No. 5 then we could vote separately on both issues in the subsequent Kona meeting. And so I don’t think it’s an issue of whether we combining both proposals into one decision. And I have no real problem with continuing to the Kona meeting since it’s more of a practice as opposed to a rule with regard to, you know, whether we vote after the second meeting or not. And, also, because the two proposals are very, very similar, and I think I also want a little more information too. GRAHAM: Okay. Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yes. Let me just give more information about why we’re recommending that the Commission not vote on the ban today and wait until the Kona meeting. Clearly you will take separate votes on the two items. Somebody might say well I support the ban and I oppose the other, but you have two proposals and you would take separate votes on them. We would not recommend voting on the zoning district bill today simply because it hasn’t formally been agendized on both sides of the island. It was available, it was in the materials as an option but it wasn’t actually on the agenda. So just as a matter of practice when we have an island-wide item we want to have it agendized on both sides of the island. So that leads to our EXHIBIT D 3 recommendation to not vote on the ban today simply because your role here is to make a recommendation to the County Council, and there are two alternatives now really on the same subject, and simply to try to get both alternatives to the Council at the same time, rather than have one go up to the Council after this meeting and the other go up after the next meeting. That’s the only reason. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. We have a lot of people here today. I’d kind of like to get as much public testimony today as we can before we break for lunch since you all have been very patient; and then maybe we can address the formality of what we vote or don’t vote on after the lunch. For your information, I have some work I need to do in Hilo today so I will not be chairing the meeting in the afternoon but Commissioner Alameda will; and I’m sure he can deal with that issue at the time. So if it’s okay with the Commissioners, I’d like to move to the public testimony now. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: As a matter of record though I think we should proceed on both matters separately as far as taking the testimony because they will be voted on separately. So I don’t think we should confuse the record or I have a concern that maybe it’s not a, you know, significant one. But I feel like, you know, if we mix it up, the record, then it’s going to be mixed up. GRAHAM: If I might ask, in that case if there’s someone here in the audience or many people who have thoughts about both of these do you feel we need to call them up in two separate instances or could they just speak to the general topic and indicate which of the two they are referring to as they refer? Would that be all right with you? IWASHITA: Sure. GRAHAM: Okay, thanks. So let’s go what way. If you would then, I have a list of people here now. I have nine people signed up to give public testimony. And there may be more of you who would like to; and if you want to please go over and register with Sharon. And I’ll call the first three public testifiers up right now. We have three chairs up there. I have Paul Campbell, Melvin Yasutake and Donna Leong. Could the three of you come forward at this time. Thank you. Could you each raise your right hand so I can swear you in please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today? TESTIFIERS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. Since we do have a number of testifiers, we may or may not get through by lunch break; but I would appreciate it if you would hold your testimony to like three minutes or something and just be concise on what you think you’d bring to the table on this. Maybe I’ll start with Paul Campbell; and could you just, as you begin your testimony, give your name and address so it’s on our record and then speak into the microphone. EXHIBIT D 4 CAMPBELL: I am Paul Campbell. I live at 13-1342 Malama in Leilani Estates. I am the current chair of the Sierra Club, Moku Loa group, representing about 950 people. We stand with our Hawaiian brothers and sisters in groups Hoomalu Hawaii and Aupuni O Hawaii. We stand in support of their desire for self determination. And since this involves DHH land, and there are some issues around that, I’d like to address that a little bit. Where is the social justice in this when people have been waiting for generations to get this DHHL land? In conjunction with that, I’m referring to the original Act, the United States Act, that formed the backdrop for the -. GRAHAM: Sir, are you addressing yourself to this particular agenda item we have before us today? CAMPBELL: Yes, I am. We stand, let me state firmly that we stand in favor of the big box store ban. We stand opposed to 5a which is the amendment to the General Plan. GRAHAM: Thank you for the clarification. CAMPBELL: That’s a clarification. The original agreement between the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the County of Hawaii circles around the original Act which is known as the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, amended in July 1921. It states firmly in Title 1(a), the purpose, “The Congress of the United States and the State of Hawaii declare that the policy of this Act is to enable native Hawaiians to return to their lands in order to fully support self-sufficiency for native Hawaiians and the self-determination of native Hawaiians in the administration of this Act, and the preservation of the values, traditions, and culture of native Hawaiians.” How did we get embroiled by putting these mega stores on Hawaiian Home lands? What would happen if we put up some kupuna housing or student housing for the university? If elderly housing were put there and a better transportation system evolves, it would be a perfect use for that land; and it could go to native Hawaiians in that way. These superstore creators did an end run last time and they’re trying to do it this time. The Council and probably this Commission is under the opinion that the County has no jurisdiction over DHHL land. We believe that is in error. We believe it can be challenged, but that’s a long- term vision. In the meantime we have, the Sierra Club is doing an educational campaign showing the video, the frontline, it’s not a frontline, it’s a documentary called “The High Cost of Low Price.” There is an excellent article by Dave Smith in this paper. I don’t have to reiterate what these superstores do to a local community once they come in. I’ve talked to the managers and owners of several retail grocery stores and such. They’re all pulling their hairs out, concerned about this. And at this point -. GRAHAM: Could you kind of finish up so we can -? CAMPBELL: I’ll summarize here. GRAHAM: Thank you. CAMPBELL: Kauai just recently passed, last week passed, a big box store ban; and we would like this Council to take it up and also support this big box store ban. It’s not appropriate EXHIBIT D 5 for this island, for this culture, and it would be a travesty to have these big box stores here. Mahalo. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Any questions from the Commissioners? SIRACUSA: Yes. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yeah, one of the members in the audience showed me a green, bright green paper, I see one there also, that has been circulating. And I don’t know if the other Commissioners have seen it but it seems to me that people are under the understanding that this body will make decisions for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. And so that question about whether the County has control over what happens, I would like to hear a legal opinion on that here. GRAHAM: If I may, Commissioner Siracusa, I don’t believe this body has any jurisdiction or any decision making in that regard right now. Would you just like it as a piece of information from the Planning Director? SIRACUSA: Well, what I mean is if the decision to put up a big box store, a superstore, on Hawaiian Home lands is not in our purview, if we have nothing to say about it, then a lot of people are sitting here and wasting their time. It’s only if their big box stores can be banned elsewhere on the island besides Hawaiian Home lands that it becomes relevant. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, may I address that real succinctly? GRAHAM: Hold on a second, please. Mr. Yuen, would you like to speak to that at all? YUEN: Well, the question of County zoning jurisdiction over Hawaiian Home lands is one that actually goes back quite a long ways. The first controversy over that actually was in 1970-1971. And it’s a matter that has actually never been definitively litigated. But there have been a number of Corporation Counsel and State Attorney General opinions on the subject. It’s clear that the counties have no jurisdiction to prevent the use of Hawaiian Home lands for residential or pastoral purposes, and agricultural purposes, as decided by the Hawaiian Homes Commission. The situation with respect to the Commercial and Industrial leases is not absolutely clear; but there were Corporation Counsel and Attorney General opinions indicating that the County zoning did not apply to those sites. So for that reason the County did not take legal action and interfere with the building of the Wal-Mart Store that is currently in Hilo on Hawaiian Home’s site, even though it was not appropriately zoned for that site. In 2002 the County based upon this understanding entered into an MOA with the Department of Hawaiian Home that essentially said that with respect to County zoning that the Hawaiian Home could develop as it wished. Hawaiian Home is supposed to follow their own master plan but that the County would not hold Hawaiian Home to County zoning with respect to all sites, including these Commercial and Industrial sites. So the long and short of it is that to take, for example, the area that’s immediately behind Wal-Mart, that’s still in ML zone. And actually the Wal-Mart EXHIBIT D 6 Center if you look on the maps of the County it’s in the ML zone. But the County is, if the Hawaiian Homes Commission makes a decision to lease that for a Commercial site, which is not as I mentioned before Retail/Commercial, is not allowed by the zoning, the County will say, yes, you can do that; and the County will then process, for example, building permits, plan approvals and the like for that site. Now Hawaiian Home will according to the MOA follow normal requirements not related to the use of the land. But what I mean is they would follow something like the height limit, the number of parking spaces, handicap stalls, landscaping, and those kinds of requirements that go with the development of the site. That’s part of the MOA. But the County would allow Hawaiian Home to make the decision as far as the basic use of the site. That’s the gist of the MOA. GRAHAM: Thank you. SIRACUSA: Follow-up please? GRAHAM: I’d like to go forward as much as I can with public testimony. SIRACUSA: Okay, just quickly for clarification. GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: So the people who are here because they oppose a superstore on Hawaiian Home lands specifically are taking their concerns to the wrong body then. They should be taking those concerns to DHHL. But people who are against or for superstores in general that’s what this hearing is about. Is that correct? YUEN: Right. The Hawaiian Home Department based on the decision by the Commission, just to give you an example, has put the site that’s right behind the current Wal- Mart up for lease, and Wal-Mart was the bidder and is currently negotiating with Hawaiian Home to put a store on that site. But that’s a decision of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, not by any County authority. SIRACUSA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you for bringing all this up, Commissioner Siracusa. I do think it’s quite relevant. SIRACUSA: I thought that some of the people out in the audience needed to understand that distinction. GRAHAM: Yes. Let me move on to our next testifier, please. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to invite you all to the showing of the documentary at the Keaau Community Center Thursday at 7 p.m. Mahalo. GRAHAM: That was Paul Campbell speaking again. Melvin Yasutake, please. Could you start with your name and address and give your testimony. EXHIBIT D 7 YASUTAKE: Hi. My name is Melvin Yasutake and I live in Kurtistown. I’m representing myself, and my concern was about the traffic around that area. Because I go to the gym in the back by Bacon Universal and some days the traffic is horrendous over there in trying to get out or get in. And if Wal-Mart builds a superstore there it’s going to be, I mean, to me it’s going to be worse, and you’ve got Home Depot. And I believe that area is not going to be able to handle the crowd around that area. Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you for your testimony, sir. Any questions? SIRACUSA: Yes. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. You oppose the superstore on that site. Do you oppose superstores in general or do you, you know, does it matter to you? Depends on the site specific, your concerns? YASUTAKE: I oppose any superstores. ‘Cause I travel to the mainland and I see some of them; and the communities, they look devastated to me. SIRACUSA: Thank you for making that clearer. GRAHAM: Thank you, sir. Donna Leong, please. Give your name and address first and then your testimony. LEONG: Aloha kakou. My name is Donna Leong. I live at 60 Komohane Street in Keaukaha. When I take a look at this, the number 5 on your agenda, I am in favor of this proposed amendment which would not permit superstores in any zoning. Now I’m looking at your wording of “in any zoning district.” So if we have districts on our island that are already designated, that means in none of the districts? Am I reading this correctly that there would be no superstores? GRAHAM: I believe you are. LEONG: And so I am in favor of it for three reasons. Number one, you know, our mom and pop stores which have really cemented our lifestyle here in Hawaii are gone. When we have a superstore come in, do you have a choice of what to buy as we did with mom and pop stores? You know, you could go to the best crackseed shops and get crackseeds. Can you do that today? Or does it come out of a package that is displayed in 40 other stores or in just the superstores? And so that particular lifestyle is gone. The second also when you talk about economics and you talk about if, you know, we’ll be making money or there will be more jobs or that people can climb the economic ladder, when we take a look at that, how far up the ladder do we want to go, or can we be satisfied with the easy living that we have today? If we take a look at superstores, are they to save us money? Are they EXHIBIT D 8 to give us jobs? Because if it does save us money, where does that money go? Now large superstores say that, you know, they’ll take care of the local district that they will be in, they’ll take care of the environment that they’ll be in, and they’ll take care of the people. But when you take a look at it as I’ve seen in other superstores, and the one that we have here is Wal-Mart, it’s that a lot of the entry level jobs are for locals. But when you graduate to the higher levels in that job capacity, they’re not. And so how much of that will be benefit our children? The third reason, taking a look at superstores, is that when we see superstores, we’re going to see nothing else. And I think that takes away from where we are able to make choices. Choices are gone for us with superstores for that. And superstores, you know, if we had a million and a half people as Honolulu does, it makes lots and tremendous money. Yeah, but why does Costco sit in Kona instead of Hilo? Cause I consider that a superstore too. Okay, so when you define here exceeding 90,000 gross square feet, you know, that’s quite a large store if we want to do that. The other thing I wanted to address is I did not know that there was a 5a that they would be attaching where you, I know that the Planning Department had come up with let’s pick a zone then for superstores for that. And I am concerned about that portion because, one, this particular amendment here bans superstores while your 5a creates, creates a situation where they can have superstores. And that’s where it concerns me. Because I live on Hawaiian Home lands, and believe it or not I’m building a house after 25 years after I have gotten a handed-down lease from my grandmother, only now building. So, you know, you can see the time span that it takes to work with Hawaiian Home in order to get someone on there to live. When you take a look at how much property or how much land, I kind of visualize selling land, but we do it all the time and it’s just the way of American life for there. But I can see the caring of land which I’ve been brought up to do. When you take a look at that, then lands that are specifically going or is stated in other laws to rehabilitate an indigenous people, where there’s a cloud that we have verses who has jurisdiction over whom or where’s the governance -. You know, we talk about County planning, we talk about Hawaiian Home’s jurisdiction. And yet even though if you say no superstores you’re going to do it in new zoning, Hawaiian Home can just say, well, we’re going to build there anyway. So how much jurisdiction does the County have? And if they do then I as a Hawaiian Homesteader would like the Planning Commission to come in favor with us and say no superstores on Hawaiian Home lands. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Leong. Any comments, questions from the Commissioners? All right, I’ll take the next three testifiers.Thank you for yours. I have James Kim, Terry Crowley and John Yates, III, if you folks would come forward. Could you all raise your right hand, please. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today on this matter? TESTIFIERS: Yes. I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. Keep in mind, again, we’re looking at the two agenda items. Item 5 was initiated by the Council which would effectively ban superstores and Item 5a was initiated by the Planning Director which would give the opportunity for the Council to create a district where they could be allowed if the Council so chose. So you might just be clear in those regards with your testimony. Mr. James Kim, if you would go first, and I’ll ask you to give your name and address, and then go ahead with your testimony. EXHIBIT D 9 KIM: My name is James Kim. I live at in 1184 Puhau Street. I’m against all superstores cause if they were to build a superstore where they want to, have you ever seen the traffic there? I know you guys pass out there. Have you ever tried crossing the street with your kids? It’s impossible. So I’m looking at traffic congestion, you know, maybe some accidents happening. So I’m against all superstores. Even somewhere else in another district, I don’t think so. That’s all I have to say. GRAHAM: Thank you very much for your concise and clear testimony. Terry Crowley next, please. CROWLEY: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Name and address, please. CROWLEY: My name is Terry Crowley and my address is 227 East Palai Street. Chairman Graham and Commissioners, good morning. My name is Terry Crowley and I’m the store manager for the Hilo Wal-Mart. Thank you for the opportunity to testify against Resolution 21-07 which is Item 5 on the agenda. I helped open the Hilo store as a manager in the mid-1990s, but first came to the islands in 1971 when I began a 24-year in the US Navy as a Naval Officer in the submarine force. My wife is a native Hawaiian. She was born and raised in Keaukaha. We currently live on Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. We have a farm lot down on East Palai. Actually my mother-in-law and my father-in-law, the late John and Mani-, I’m sorry, John and Lani Manuia were one of the original farmers there in Panaewa. All of us want to see the island thrive with smart growth and planning. Unfortunately that’s something that this legislation does not do. Strong community involvement also is important to us. We were pleased to honor Pahoa High and Intermediate School Cynthia McAnish as our store’s teacher of the year last year. And we’re proud to say that she went on to be named Wal- Mart’s 2006 Teacher of the Year for the State of Hawaii. In all Pahoa High School received $11,000 in educational grants from that program. More recently we’ve tried to help our neighbors, specifically around the Panaewa Park, where they recently had a fire. We’ve tried to direct work parties to go and help, with our associates; and we’ve started fund raising activities also to help raise funds to repair the park facilities. We also work with many local suppliers and vendors. The Keaukaha-Panaewa Farmers Association also holds farmers markets there daily; and we’ve had that ever since the store first opened. This bill would keep us from expanding our local supplier-base with additional farmers and local businesses. So when it comes down to it, we are against this resolution and urge you to vote against it. Thank you for your time. GRAHAM: Thank you, sir. I’ll have John Yates, please. YATES: Okay. Morning Chairman Graham and Commissioners. My name is John Yates. I am a local resident of Kailua-Kona, 73-4400 Holoholo Street. My family has been here in Hawaii for several generations. Some of you might even be familiar with my late great grandfather, Julian R. Yates who was a senator at one time for the island. EXHIBIT D 10 I just want to make mention that I am a Konawaena graduate. I won’t tell you the year, but I am a Konawaenan and am proud to be a Konawaena High School grad. I’m here today to testify against Resolution 21-07. For the past three years I’ve served as the store manager for the Kailua-Kona Wal-Mart. I want you to know that I enjoy running a store for a company that truly cares about the community that it operates in. Each year we’re able to provide thousands of dollars in grants in in-kind donations to various nonprofits across the island.Last year our grants in donations totaled more than $100,000 for our Big Island Community, and that’s between the Hilo and Kailua-Kona stores. Among those efforts, you might recall the immediate disaster relief with the Hawaii chapter of the American Red Cross following last October’s earthquake where we were helping with local police and also the Red Cross issues. Just this last week we th wanted to be the lead store in Hawaii to celebrate the 20 anniversary of the partnership between the Children’s Miracle Network and Wal-Mart. My company also encourages me for community involvement. I’m proud to be considered among the Friends of the Drug Court. I’ve also coached numerous youth and adult leagues for both football, basketball and soccer. This legislation does not help our community. It stifles competition and is unfair. Please think of our residents, think of our community, and please vote against this resolution. Thank you for your time. GRAHAM: Thank you for your testimony. Okay, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I am aware of some of the philanthropic things that the Wal-Mart company has done. Are you by mentioning this, and the previous testifier also I noticed made a special point of mentioning these donations that you have made, would you continue if this Resolution passed, would you continue to make donations to the community, or are you trying to hint to us that you would cease to do so? KIM: I can’t speak for the corporation, but I can just tell you the store that I run would continue and I would feel that they would actually get larger going forward. GRAHAM: Thank you, sir. SIRACUSA: Thank you. GRAHAM: All right. I appreciate your testimony? OGATA: Mr. Chair? I’m sorry, I have a question. GRAHAM: Oh, excuse me. Go ahead, Shelly. OGATA: And this perhaps may be addressed to Mr. Crowley as well. Both of you have spoken very highly of some of the benefits of a so-called supercenter to the community. But I would like to hear from both of you what perhaps some of the risks and perhaps some of the adverse effects that could happen to our community as well. GRAHAM: Mr. Yates, you want to address that first? EXHIBIT D 11 YATES: Well, I’ll try the best I can on that one as far as -. We’ve got a lot more positives obviously, especially being from the islands and seeing it developed. I remember specifically when I left the islands to go to college thinking what a world there is out there when I finally got there.I said, wow, you can actually buy milk for $3 a gallon or whatever it was back then instead of what the price was when I was growing up. So actually I have a lot more benefits. I can tell you that if we didn’t have that I believe grocery prices would not be what they should be today on the island, which, you know, the savings to each household, including to myself with a household of five, is something that I would look forward to personally. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Crowley, do you have any comment on that, too? CROWLEY: I can’t give you any specifics as far as risks that are involved; but as we’ve talked about before, we live in this community and our families grew up in this community. And as I stated my wife was born and raised here, our families are here. So if there are risks that are involved, we are going to address any of the risks, we’ll try to address them as best we can and try and fix whatever is brought to our attention. GRAHAM: My understanding of Commissioner Ogata’s question for you was just to give you an opportunity to speak to the issues that other people have testified that are problems for them, that’s all. YATES: Well, I’d like to make one comment on something that was just brought up. One, again, I am the general store manager again so I’m born and raised as local as you can get. So as far as opportunities for locals, it’s unlimited. I also want to make mention that I have 13 upper managers where 9 of them are local. So the majority of my staff is from the island here locally and they have a great opportunity to advance as far as they’d like to. GRAHAM: Thank you, sir. CROWLEY: And I would say the same thing. I have 13 and 9 of my 13 are locals from Hawaii, graduated from Hawaii schools. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any follow-up, Commissioner Ogata? No? OGATA: No. GRAHAM: Thank you both. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for the record, I’m a Hilo High School graduate. My recollection, we used to bust up Kona a lot at football. YATES: Oh, that’s not true. EXHIBIT D 12 IWASHITA: I have a couple, I guess I’d ask for your comment. Part of our material includes articles that talk about, you know, sort of obvious thing to me, that superstores would require a super parking lot, yeah, in order to accommodate the people that you expect to come. And so the claim is that that adversely affects traffic, not just in the area but in the surrounding areas. So do you have any comments about that? That would be one of the, in my mind, an adverse impact of having a superstore that would have a super parking lot and super traffic problems. CROWLEY: I can’t speak personally of it. GRAHAM: Mr. Crowley, go ahead, yes. CROWLEY: Yes, I’m sorry. I can’t speak personally of it, other than the fact I visited the mainland too and I’ve been to some of the supercenters that they have there, and their parking lots are not any much bigger than the one that we currently have in Hilo. It depends, you know, obviously on the size of the store. But just for the ones that I’ve seen they’re not much bigger than the parking lots that we have. GRAHAM: Thank you. YATES: Can I also make a comment to that, Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Yates. YATES: Okay. If you look at the demographics of our Kona store, right next door is the Safeway. The way I look at it is the traffic, if you go into a supermarket plus the general store that exists today, it benefits if you have one location. In fact, I think there will be less traffic by having to just go to one location. We’re right next to each other, we’re neighbors, everybody goes to the same location. The rest I can’t really speak for. Our market manager had to step out so that would be my comment to that. IWASHITA: The other question I had for both of you is that, you know, one of the things that the Council resolution talks about is that, you know, state-wide we’re trying to promote what’s called smart growth or, you know, making our communities more pedestrian friendly and so forth. And, I guess, this superstore, super parking lot image that I have doesn’t really promote developing more towns like Hilo, and, you know, those developed in a time when there were less cars, obviously.But that’s basically the idea that the resolution talks about. How do you see a superstore, you know, adding to? ‘Cause I don’t really see how it can add to the development of a more pedestrian-oriented town. GRAHAM: Mr. Yates? YATES: I have not -. IWASHITA: More simply put, how many people are going to walk to your store and walk away with bags in their hands and go home? EXHIBIT D 13 YATES: I have not seen any plans for any type of blueprint for what might be coming or hoping to come. I can just tell you that even based on a statement here that our market manager was going to read Wal-Mart stands ready and willing to sit down at the table with our County leaders and discuss community problems, traffic. I’ve personally sat down with the Mayor and talked about homeless, drug problems, things that really aren’t you know, a direct concern but we do have an impact on that on how we can help. So myself even traffic is a major concern there in Kona. So I don’t know if that answers your question but I’m really not prepared to discuss or have any blueprints. I have not seen or been involved in any conversations with that. IWASHITA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, sir. Anything else from the Commissioners? All right, thank you all for your extended testimony and response to the Commissioners’ questions. We’re past 12 o’clock and I’m going to need to leave. But would the Commission like to try to finish this agenda before lunch or take a, I guess we’re going to take a lunch break. IWASHITA: How many more testifiers? ALAMEDA: We only have five more. IWASHITA: Five more testifiers. GRAHAM: We have five more testifiers, if we want to just take the testimony then break for lunch and, you know -. ALAMEDA: Yeah. IWASHITA: Yeah. PUBLIC: Yeah. GRAHAM: All right. Maybe I can pass this over to Commissioner Alameda and he can do that. (Commissioner Graham left the meeting at this time, 12:07 p.m.) ALAMEDA: Hi, ladies and gentlemen, aloha. PUBLIC: Aloha. ALAMEDA: My name is Kimo Alameda. I’ll be the facilitator in this meeting. I’m the first vice-chair. And so if I drop dead then Rodney Watanabe will take my place. All right, okay. Okay, let me call up the next testifiers. So we have a Samuel Kaleleiki, all right, Cory Harden, Kale Gumapac. Let me swear you in. If you can please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? EXHIBIT D 14 TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you very much. We can start on my far right. So if you could please state your name and address for the record. You can speak into the mike. That way we can get everything recorded. GUMAPAC: My name is Kale Gumapac and I live in Puna, Paradise Park. ALAMEDA: Go ahead, Kale. You may share your testimony with us. GUMAPAC: You know, this reminds me of an interesting song that was written back in, a few years ago. You know, they paved paradise and put up one parking lot, they paved paradise and they put up one parking lot. Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot. Your responsibility, oh, I forget, I represent the Kanaka Council; and the Kanaka Council is made up of all of the leaders from the different Hawaiian organizations throughout this island. It’s your responsibility as a Commissioner, Planning Commissioner, to also respect the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. And it’s our responsibility to remind you about that responsibility. And the responsibility that I’m talking about is in regards to Article 12, Section 7, “The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua‘a tenants who are descendents of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands.” The Kanaka Council takes the position that all superstores must and should be banned from Hawaii. The superstores are not in keeping with our cultural traditional rights here in Hawaii. The superstores are a threat to the very fabric that we are here today. Let’s not kid ourselves. The superstores and Wal-Mart guys make it a practice to find locations where they can usurp all of the existing laws that are now existing to make it easier for the superstores to be built. They have done that on the mainland. They have done it when they have been shut down. And so where do they go? They go to the Indians to have the Indians to go and buy land so that the Indians when they buy the land now they can put it under the reservation and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the County and other bodies. The Wal-Mart attorneys, and E kala mai for the managers here because those are local boys, they’re not back in the main office planning out and understanding how they can make all of these things happen. All of their attorneys, they knew long time ago when they built this Wal-Mart that the superstore was going to be planned. And it was no accident that they went on Hawaiian Home lands, because they knew that the County doesn’t have jurisdiction over Hawaiian Home lands. And the issues that you guys are talking about right now as to whether or not you have the jurisdiction or not, they already know that. This is, you guys are just going through a formality to do this kind of stuff. And the Wal-Mart guys back at their home office, they know you guys cannot make the decision. So this is why they come onto Hawaiian Home lands. And I oppose that. And I also oppose the superstores because it’s a threat to people like us in Puna. Because why? We’re going to be forced to drive all the way into Hilo and pay all of that expense and gas in order to just go shopping in Hilo. For what? They’re going to save us 10 to 15 cent per item when we pay $3 or $4 per gallon on gas? It’s also a threat in the fabric that we make up of the ahupuaa concept that we’re trying to push that we have district shopping centers so that each of the districts will be able to sustain the district of Puna, the district of Kau, the district of Hilo, the district of Kona. When you approve these superstores, you guys are forcing all of the people to EXHIBIT D 15 drive all this way and you’re helping to make Wal-Mart more money. They don’t care about what’s happening. The donations that they’re making to the people over here, that’s not even a drop in the bucket. Because Wal-Mart is the biggest corporation in the entire world. And what is a $100,000 to them because they’re going to donate? So the Kanaka Council opposes, opposes any development and approval of the superstores, and we will do whatever is necessary to continue to oppose it. . ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Gumapac Any questions? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I just wanted to assure the testifier that the reason I asked that question about that donations was because I wanted to find out if he was sort of threatening us with withdrawal of donations, not just because I wanted to say oh, whoopee, Wal-Mart, thank you for all those donations. And I was glad that he was not threatening us with that. But that doesn’t mean that I, you know, support that. GUMAPAC: Well, if they decide to add more to the pot, that’s good. So that will help our local people even more. But let’s keep it small as far as the stores go. IWASHITA: I just, are you taking action with Hawaiian Home lands, too? GUMAPAC: Absolutely. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Ma’am, could you please state your name and address for the record. HARDEN: Cory Harden, 18-4033 Kanahele Place in Mt. View. I urge you to keep superstores off Hawaii Island. I urge you to vote for the amendment to ban superstores and against the amendment for a superstore zoning district. As you know Kauai bans superstores and bans are also proposed on Oahu and Maui. Superstores may cause Wal-Mart affects even if they’re not Wal-Marts. I brought some data from the high cost of low prices website which has citations for every point that it makes. It seems fairly credible. I do have two comments based on what the Wal-Mart managers just said. I am real disturbed when you were asked about problems and risks that there might be that you didn’t come up with any until we thought about it a while. That makes me concern of whether you’re looking at the effects on the community realistically. And it could raise questions in some people’s minds about how forthcoming Wal-Mart is about, you know, some of the downsides. Everything has an upside and a downside. So that was my reaction to what they said. ALAMEDA: Ma’am, if you can just direct your comments to us. EXHIBIT D 16 HARDEN: Oh, sorry. When I’m insulting someone I like to address them directly. Okay. Also this website said that Wal-Mart does give many donations, but they’re apt to be small donations. So you’ll see a large number of donations and not realize they’re not very big. When Wal-Mart opens sales nearby businesses go down 17 to 61 percent. The effect is worse in rural areas. It takes some time but it does happen. In Hilo we still have lots of downtown businesses opened. They seem to be catering to cruise ship passengers. Is that the kind of town that we want? Average hourly Wal-Mart employee earns about $4,000 less than the Federal annual poverty level for a family of four. Almost half of Wal-Mart Associates children are on Medicaid or not under any health insurance program at all. Wal-Mart has been sued in several states for wage and hour abuses, such as having employees work off the clock and deleting time from payroll records. And if these folks here take issue with anything I say, I’d be happy to hear from them. Wal-Mart is being sued for discrimination against 1.6 million former and current female employees. Wal-Mart instructs its managers to increase numbers of part time employees to keep their costs down. When Wal-Mart comes to an area the wages are apt to go down. WATANABE: Mr. Chair, you know, she’s addressing a lot of stuff to Wal-Mart and etc., but it’s really a generic type of definition. So I for myself I’d appreciate it if you’d referred to superstores as opposed to Wal-Mart. It’s not us against Wal-Mart kind of issue. HARDEN: I’m citing the statistics because Wal-Mart is a very likely candidate. They’re planning to, they’re thinking seriously of the Hilo site; and the superstore effects, as I said, could be similar to the Wal-Mart. I’m not assuming that it would all be Wal-Mart. So -. ALAMEDA: Could you summarized. HARDEN: But I’ll finish quickly. Wages tend to go down not, around the Wal-Mart in general. Wal-Mart’s environmental record is outstanding for violations, $1 million in violations (2005), 22 stores; $3 million for storm water violations in nine states (2004); $1 million for violations (2001), 17 locations. In Pennsylvania they halted all the Wal-Mart construction after water quality violations. And Wal-Mart is apt to leave behind large vacant stores, which is what they’re talking about also doing in Hilo. They’re going to move to the next one so they’re apt to leave these eyesores behind. So basically if you’re looking at Wal-Mart effects also in the superstores, I don’t think it’s something we can afford. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Ms. Harden. Any questions for Cory? Seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you for your testimony. Yes, sir, Samuel. EXHIBIT D 17 KALELEIKI: Aloka Ka Kou. ALAMEDA: Aloha. KALELEIKI: My name is Samuel Kaleleiki. I live in Puna, 15-2727 Hinalea Street. I am here because of this ad, this ad here. It caught my eye. Thirty thousand plus Hawaiians are still on the list. I was on the list for 25 years. In 2005 just received my parcel. I speak directly to the kanaka maolis here; and I think there’s only about 5 or 7 of us here. The rest, look at this picture, look at this total picture of what’s going on. This entire room here is going to plan for the kanaka maolis, going to plan all of this happenings on this moku. I am a member of the Kanaka Council. It also states the iwi on this flyer here, when any time you do development you have to dig up the terrain. In that terrain there are iwis of kanaka maoli’s.The iwi shows ownership of that property, but it’s irrelevant.Wal-Mart in Honolulu took all the iwi of my kupuna in the aina there and put them in containers. They’re still in containers. So kanaka maolis I speak to you directly. You need to demand and command and have everyone here who’s a citizen of the State of Hawaii read Article 12, especially Section 7 of Article 12. It will tell you as planners what you must do, our officials what you must do. It states there firmly. It states that right there. And this flyer is what brought me here today. I could hardly wait to get here to speak. You may just be planners; but like I said I speak directly to the kanaka maolis which probably this room of 20 people is only about 7 or 8 kanaka maolis. Kanaka maolis, you need to demand and command. Also, I urge kanaka maolis also to learn Article 12 and especially Section 7. You’ll be surprised. All the happenings, all the yao yao that’s going on, this dog and pony show that’s being produced, any time the Council sits and they see a kanaka maoli, you see a smirk. That’s the way they grade it, that’s the way they’re raised. We are the only ones that really know the meaning of aloha. Really know what the meaning of aloha means; and that’s love, love for your fellow man. All those others here they spell aloha m-o-n-e-y. We’ve got the super ferry that’s coming here.All those guys in Honolulu going to put their, especially the fishermen, going to fill up their coolers with ice, they’re going to come out to our shorelines here, and fish it, go back to the ferry that evening, go back and sell it. So, again, thank you for listening to me. And I hope I can get one kanaka maoli to research or go find Article 12, Section 7, and if you follow me I have a bunch of it in my automobile; and I’ll be glad to share it with you, also the planners. So, any questions? Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Questions? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. I had an opportunity to look at that green paper but I believe that the other Commissioners have not. Would you mind passing, would it be okay to pass it along? KALELEIKI: I can read it. Yeah, I can read it or I can pass, leave it here. SIRACUSA: Just pass it along, that would be okay, yeah. EXHIBIT D 18 ALAMEDA: Staff, Jeff. We’ll take a look at it. SIRACUSA: If you have other copies. Thank you so much. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Uncle, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it. Mahalo. Okay, well, we’re moving right along. I know our Commissioners are getting hungry but you guys must be more hungry. So we’ve got two more testifiers. Patrick and Donald, please come forward. You’ve already heard some of the testimony; and may I ask that you bring something new to the table, or you could say “ditto”. But I’ve got to swear you in first. Uncle Pat, you’re already sworn in already, yeah? KAHAWAIOLA‘A: Yes. ALAMEDA: Maybe raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you, sir. I’ll start on my far right. If you can state your name and address, again, I guess for the record, then you may proceed. KAHAWAIOLA‘A: Yes. My name is Patrick Kahawaiola‘a. I live in Panaewa now. I do and I want to preface this by saying I think the former chairman before he left mentioned when he started this part of the agenda was you had 5 and 5a, but I think he said the Wal-Mart amendment; and I think that’s what predicated the fact that everybody else started to talk about the superstore as being the Wal-Mart. But it is by no fact, no stretch of the imagination every news article that I have read, it only details about this superstore and who that individual is going to be. The Wal-Mart was the only bidder for the area of land and, therefore, I think it’s not inappropriate for all of us to continue to believe that Wal-Mart is the superstore that may be here. Both of your amendments, I would like anyone to correct me if I am wrong, I look at 5 as being a ban and 5a as to create, I mean there’s an amendment here to the County Council, excuse me, to the County Zoning Code to ban superstores and the other is to create a special zoning to allow superstores. So, please bear with me, I don’t have anything written but I do have this based on the fact that I am an advocate for Hawaiian Home lands. So if this is going to be built on Hawaiian Home lands, if that’s what we’re talking about, I just need to give some clarification to all of you that the reason that I am here is to let you know that before you, Wal-Mart or anyone else, this is not an anti Wal-Mart thing, this is anti use of Hawaiian Home lands. They’re coming before this County Council to ask your permission to rezone the land or zone lands. I think the Director made a statement when was asked by one of the Commissioners is this legal to, if we don’t have the jurisdiction why are we talking about it. He gave a long, I thought Mr. Torigoe would answer the question but they gave it to Mr. Yuen or he volunteered. Well, Mr. Yuen is an attorney so he can give his legal opinion, too, but I thought he doesn’t represent this Commission. And I think Commissioner Siracusa’s request was for a legal opinion and I EXHIBIT D 19 would loved to have heard it from Mr. Torigoe cause he represents this Commission, not Mr. Yuen. Mr. Yuen is an attorney but he doesn’t represent this Commission. And if Mr. Torigoe agrees with Mr.Yuen’s assessment of the jurisdiction of the County that they have on these lands, then I would entertain to all of you then why would this County need an MOA? Why do they need an MOA with the Department of Hawaiian Home to say that their zoning does apply or don’t apply. If you don’t have the right to it then you don’t belong. The Department of Hawaiian Home has no business even to come in here and ask you. They have responsibilities to the beneficiaries, and maybe, as Uncle Sam mentioned there’s about 5 or 7 of us who are beneficiaries of the Act. So they have an obligation to the beneficiaries, not to the County of Hawaii. And the reason I raise that question is just that. When, in this case it was Waiakea Center who built the Wal-Mart in that area. When they got the lease they had an obligation under the HRS because the public was going to use that place. It was not built just for Hawaiians. It was for the public to use. So when they have an obligation that the public was going to use the area or use Hawaiian Home lands then they have an obligation to comply with everything that the County says needs to be put in place, everything. That’s getting permits, that’s going through every zoning requirement. Whatever they needed to do they needed to comply. But what has happened is they failed to or the County closed their eyes and allowed it to happen without having to get a permit for grubbing or whatever they needed, electrical and all of that. They didn’t need to do that. But the beneficiaries have got to come before this. If I wanted to rezone some Hawaiian Home lands I’d have to come before you, I’d have to get a zoning permit, I’d have to get a plan designed, I’ve got to go get a building permit, electrical permit. As a beneficiary I’ve got to go do it. I believe you don’t have the right to tell me that. But you do have a right to tell the Department of Hawaiian Home how they use their lands when they invite the general public onto the land. The Act was set aside to make lands available for us to use. We needed to be 50 percent the blood. I’m not going to dispute the blood. That’s another great contention among us Hawaiians. But that’s what the Act was made to do. Prince Kuhio set that aside, not to be used for Commercial. But when they bring Commercial, I think you have all the rights to argue that; and this is the conflicting reports that we’re getting as Hawaiians. When they say even if we have the ban it doesn’t apply on Hawaiian Home’s. Even if we do have, it doesn’t apply on Hawaiian Home. I can go to the Planning Department right now and put in a request to have my home, to build my home, and they will hit it with a stamp that says “Not Applicable.” That’s all you need to do. Just go there. They’ll stamp it “Not Applicable” because it’s on Hawaiian Home lands. They don’t do that if Mr. Rodillas or somebody up in Kaumana did it. They don’t go in there where it says “Not applicable.” But in this County the message is “Not Applicable.” So that’s what I need for all of you to understand. I think the County has an obligation under HRS 171 to look at these lands. I am opposed to this, excuse me, I’m opposed to the amendment that would allow big box stores. So I’m in favor of the ban here. I would be against the creation of a specific area that you’re talking because nothing in here addresses Hawaiian Home. So I think maybe you were right, Commissioner Siracusa, about saying that we should go to Hawaiian Home to argue that. But we can’t, we can’t go to Hawaiian Home when they come to you. They came to you. It’s Hawaiian Home who’s going to continue to come to you because they have an MOA with you, with this County. So I do say I’m against the ban here; and I’m against anything that would create a new zoning on Hawaiian Home lands because you don’t have that authority to do that; EXHIBIT D 20 and you may all want to seek a legal opinion from your legal representation, not Mr. Yuen. Mr. Yuen is the Planning Director, he’s not the guy that gives you legal opinions. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any questions? Yes, go ahead. SIRACUSA: Just one for clarification. You say you support the ban and you are opposed to the amendment 5a on our agenda item. You’re opposed to superstores on any Hawaiian Home lands. Are you also then also opposed to superstores, period, not on Hawaiian Home lands? KAHAWAIOLA‘A: I would be because, and that’s only based on what I’ve read in the newspaper, because that’s the only way we get information anyway, how we get any information. And they only suggested two places that you could have a superstore: One was on Hawaiian Home lands and the other was at Shipman Industrial Park, that’s the only two places. And I doubt if Shipman is going to allow a, but they may and the guys in Puna may be happy; I don’t know. But anything to deal with Hawaiian Home lands, no, because Hawaiian Home lands should be for pastoral, agricultural and residential. It should not be used for commercial. They have over 60 acres of our land being used there and everybody in Hilo benefits from it. Everybody in Hilo benefits from 60 acres of Hawaiian Home lands being used while our list of waiting applicants grow every day. So yes if they build something for the general public on our lands you should have oversight. For the general public you should have the oversight because I think you, you are the people that should care for the general public. But if it’s for me, nah, stay away. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you Uncle Pat. Mahalo. All right last but not least, Donald, can you please state your name and address for the record. WESSELS: Donald Wessels. I’m from Pepeekeo. ALAMEDA: All right, go ahead. WESSELS: I’ve got a statement here. ALAMEDA: Sure. WESSELS: In my research of Wal-Mart I discovered that they are not a monopoly but a monopsony. A monopsony produces the same economic problems as does a monopoly. While monopoly allows overcharging of customers, a monopsony can dictate underpaying suppliers. SIRACUSA: Would you bring your mike closer to your mouth, please. WESSELS: I’m sorry. This eventually forces the suppliers to cut corners, produce lower wages, poorer working conditions, and outsourcing of production and off-shoring to corporate tax havens. What this means locally is many of the so-called Hawaiian products sold in Wal-Mart are made in such places as Nicaragua or China. And they don’t use Hawaiian suppliers because they can’t EXHIBIT D 21 keep afloat with the low wholesale prices that Wal-Mart dictates. On top of forcing suppliers to move to countries that allow sweatshop labor or close down, they are forcing our small local mom and pop shops out of business, because they can’t compete with Wal-Mart’s low prices. On Hawaii Island we have local grocery stores, such as KTA, that will be threatened by Wal- Mart’s Hilo and Kona superstores. I have been a faithful customer of KTA in Hilo for most of my 18 years of living in Hawaii, Hawaii County. I noticed that many of their employees are working for them for much of the time that I have been their patron. I’m assuming that the reason the employees stay with KTA, for so long, is that they provide descent wages and benefits. The Wal-Mart supercenters will begin to undercut the prices of local grocery stores forcing them to narrow their profit margins. This will economically pressure local grocers to lower wages and minimize benefits or be forced out of business. As low wages will result -. ALAMEDA: Donald, sorry to interrupt. Are you going to read the – cause we’ve got the letter I believe. Fellow Commissioners, did you get -? WESSELS: I’ve never sent this. ALAMEDA: That sounds familiar to me. Could you summarize it or is it long? WESSELS: I was about half way. ALAMEDA: Okay, go ahead. WESSELS: What Wal-Mart is doing is, what Wal-Mart is doing and it should be, got me off-line -. What Wal-Mart is doing is legal, it should not be. I’m here to say that we must end this monopsony process and protect our profits, our wages and our way of life here on the Island of Hawaii. These kinds of economic pressures are degrading the ability of Hawaii citizens to demand a living wage and local retailers and supplies from maintaining a decent profit. In summary, I support the Big Box Ban set forth by the Hawaii County Council. In fact, it doesn’t go far enough to right this inherently undemocratic situation. We have a right to demand that companies who do business here be accountable to the citizens of this County. We need to make a living too. I leave you with these questions. How far will the economic squeeze go and who or what will stop it? Will our businesses be pressured to pay us 15 cents per hour to remain profitable while will Hawaii’s labor force have to compete for slave wages around the world to have any employment at all? Mahalo. ALAMEDA: All right. Donald, thank you for keeping it concise. Any questions for our testifier? Okey, dokey, seeing none you may be seated. Thank you for coming today. And thank you to the public for coming. That’s what these hearings are for, you know, it’s for the public to share with us your opinions, your perspectives, and then for us to think about it, and for us to kind of make a decision. So we appreciate you all coming. We will break for lunch and then we will talk about it more as Fellow Commissioners, but we won’t vote on it today or we will talk a little bit about whether or not we’re going to vote on part of it. But we’ll definitely be EXHIBIT D 22 taking it up, or half of it, again in Kona. So seeing no, Fellow Commissioners, if there’s no objections for us breaking for lunch, I’d like to do that at this time, and come back probably at, let’s see, about 1:45. Yeah? Okay. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 12:35 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 1:54 p.m. ALAMEDA: The Hawaii County Planning Commission now returns to order. Welcome back. We’re ready to talk a little bit about how we’re going to proceed with this Agenda Item Nos. 5 and 5a. So I would like to turn it over to Norman to give us some lead. Go ahead. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for the Commissioners’ information, just some minor problem that we may have is that we had put the County Council’s amendment on the superstores as well as the Planning Director’s proposed amendment at the next Kona meeting ndnd on June 22, and this was advertised in the papers on June 2. So there may be some problems if the Commission were to act on the County Council’s initiation seeing that we had advertised another hearing out in Kona, or an opportunity for the Kona people to discuss this particular request. But, you know, that’s something as far as we’re concerned we can, you know, have the newspapers cross that item out. That’s not a problem. But just maybe a slight technicality. ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe, do you see that as a slight technicality or a big technicality? TORIGOE: Well, once it has been published then you have the problem with like if there’s somebody in Kona who looks at the ad and says, okay, it’s coming to Kona, before the Commission votes on it they’re going to come back over to Kona and I’ll have a chance to testify on it. So in that sense, you know, you probably, since it has been advertised you probably don’t want to lull people -. You know, people who wanted to testify from Kona might have come today if they thought today was the last meeting on Item 5, is what I’m saying. ALAMEDA: Mr. Hayashi, you have anything to respond to what Mr. -? HAYASHI: No. I’ll leave it up to the Commission to decide. ALAMEDA: Okay, I’ll go with Commissioner Iwashita and then I’ll go with Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Given that, you know, I’m always, I would like to think of myself as the great protector of the right to be able to, you know, come out and express your views before this body. So with that disclosure, if it’s appropriate I’ll move to, you know, continue further hearing on this matter till the next Kona meeting. ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Let’s hear from Commissioner Siracusa first. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, I’ll cancel that. Well, I was hoping that, you know, like that we could just vote on one and get it out of the way. Because it’s not the last chance because it will EXHIBIT D 23 go back up to the Council and people will have a chance to testify at the Council, and probably on both sides of the island as well. ALAMEDA: That’s true. That’s correct. How about on this side? WATANABE: I’m all for just rehearing it at the Kona meeting as publicized. ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: I agree. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Agree. ALAMEDA: Okay. Maybe a motion might be the next best step. IWASHITA: I move that we continue this matter to be, both Items 5 and 5a for further hearing at the next Kona meeting as noticed in the paper. WATANABE: Second. ALAMEDA: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Iwashita to continue this to the next hearing in Kona, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Discussion? I guess we’ll save the discussion for our Kona meeting. Okay. SIRACUSA: I had a question for the Director. And once we vote on this then I don’t think I’ll be able to ask him, right, because the matter will be closed -. ALAMEDA: Go ahead. SIRACUSA: Till the next Kona meeting. So, okay, we’re talking about a definition of a superstore as a business exceeding 90,000 gross square feet, offering for sale more than 25,000 different stock keeping units, and dedicating more than 20,000 gross square feet of floor area. What if someone decides to build something that is just a tinny bit under? Then it will -? I mean you could go just two feet under, two stock items under, you know, and then suddenly they will not meet the definition and so they could build it. I mean, I’m concerned about how tight do we want to hold these definitions. ALAMEDA: Okay, hold that question. We’re going to get back to that. Commissioner Watanabe, you have something to add? WATANABE: Yeah, comment to Ms. Siracusa’s question there. I believe you’ll be able to discuss that even if we move, you know, to approve hearing this again in the Kona meeting because that’s part of the stuff I expected to discuss today. You know, so I don’t think whether we agree to hear it again at the Kona meeting that that precludes you from discussing that when we actually get into the subject. EXHIBIT D 24 ALAMEDA: So you’re saying rather than discuss it now we should just wait till the Kona meeting? WATANABE: I’m suggesting that we call for the vote, yeah, as far as whether we’re going to -. Cause all we had was a motion and a second but no vote. ALAMEDA: Right, right. Commissioner Siracusa, are you okay with calling for the vote and then -. SIRACUSA: If we can discuss then after that vote, yes. ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Well, you know, if you move to continue and it passes then you’re going to basically continue it at that point. So -. WATANABE: Do I have that wrong then? TORIGOE: What’s that? No, I mean, you’re saying that when we go to Kona then you can discuss that again, is that what you’re saying, or -? WATANABE: Oh, okay, maybe I had that wrong then. My understanding was we’re just agreeing to hear it in Kona again, not that we’re going to close this hearing today on that subject. Now maybe I interpreted that wrong. TORIGOE: Well, you know, if you want to entertain more discussion then maybe you can just lay aside this motion for the time being and, you know, entertain a little more discussion. IWASHITA: Without objection. TORIGOE: If there’s no objection by anybody. ALAMEDA: Well, we have a motion on the table already, and seconded. So we could either -. WATANABE: I would withraw my second then. IWASHITA: Without objection. ALAMEDA: Is there any objection to withdrawing the motion so that we could have a “q and a” real quick on this? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I believe legal counsel’s suggestion was that we lay on the table the motion to continue the matter, and then we could have the discussion and bring it off the table, and then vote on it later. And that’s, I have no objection to that. EXHIBIT D 25 ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe, was that the -? TORIGOE: Yeah, that’s fine. And if there’s no objection by the Commission then you can just do that and have your discussion, and then, you know, bring it up again when you’re done. ALAMEDA: Okay, then how do I retrack? IWASHITA: You don’t have to. Multi-level, we’re doing multi-track. ALAMEDA: Okay. TORIGOE: Yeah, at this point if none of the Commissioners have any objections to laying the pending motion to continue on the table, then just lay it on the table right now and go ahead with your discussion; and then when you’re done with your discussion then call up the motion again. ALAMEDA: All right. So we’re in discussion mode. Director? YUEN: Well, okay, so that’s done. I was going to answer a question. ALAMEDA: Okay, go ahead. YUEN: The definition, all those numbers in the definition came from the Council bill and, yes, if you are 89,999 square feet you are not a supercenter or superstore, so yes. And this is not, I mean, in zoning and in other areas you do draw certain lines. You have a 55 mile an hour speed limit and you do 55 you’re okay; and if you do 56 you’re speeding. But it is true, and as I said these numbers did come from the Council bill and if you do not fit under all the criteria, then you’re not considered a superstore and are not specially regulated under either bill. SIRACUSA: So just to clarify it, all three sets of criteria have to be met? YUEN: That’s right. SIRACUSA: And so someone who wants basically a superstore but is willing to fudge a little bit on the numbers, like subtracting one from each set of numbers, then it would not fit the superstore criteria and they could go ahead and -? YUEN: Right, right. To take the ban bill, for example, actually you wouldn’t have to fudge three sets, you just fudge one. If you do not exceed one of those criteria, any one of those criteria, then you’re not a superstore under the definition, yes. SIRACUSA: Then I sort of fail to see how any of these, you know, the Council generated bill or your version, would, you know, address the definition of a superstore if all someone has to do is subtract one from any of those dimensions. EXHIBIT D 26 YUEN: Well, it does apply. There are types of stores that, the Wal-Mart supercenter being one, that typically do exceed all these three classifications. If the bill were passed, say the ban bill were passed, and they came in with a modified version of their store that either devoted less square footage to groceries or had fewer overall the number of stock items or was smaller in the overall size it would not be a superstore, yes. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Okay, I had another question for the Director. And that is in the event that, in the case of the Director generated version which would set aside a certain zoning category that wouldn’t come out of Ag land, for example, would come out of something that’s already say Limited Industrial or whatever it is, would Rule 17 still apply or would we have to look at modifying Rule 17 specifically for superstores? YUEN: Good point. You would have to create a modification; or, actually that is a good point and we could in the course of this bill change it so that it said landscaping should be the same as, for example, MCX landscaping requirements. SIRACUSA: Well, one of my concerns is that, you know, like you look at the KTA or Wal-Mart or by Macy’s there, all of those parking lots are just, it reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia when they’re standing at the edge of the desert and they say “This is the devil’s anvil” and you can see the heat waves arising, you know. We really don’t have any kind of, the landscaping, if those parking lots are in conformance then they’re not really doing their job in terms of shading and preventing, you know, like that heat escape. Or certainly in terms of they pave so much that there’s no opportunity really for rainwater to enter a permeable surface, because there is no permeable surface and none of that water ends up in the aquifer. And it seems like, I mean, it’s so hot. There’s nothing from the edges of the parcel going through to the entrance of the store. It seems to me like if we’re going to have something that’s such a huge store which would generate a huge parking lot that we ought to be looking at amending Rule 17 also to put a lot more plantings, tree shading types of plantings in the body of the parking area. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: I think the question you brought up about definition is the biggest drawback to this bill. Because from what we’ve heard and from what I’ve read you can build a 200,000 square foot store and only have 19,000 square feet in groceries and have as many stock keeping items you wanted, you’re still not qualified as a superstore. In any one criteria as long as you fall below that guideline you’re not a superstore, even if it’s 200,000 square feet or pick a number. So, you know, I think bill is, I don’t know -. I know what they’re trying to achieve but I don’t think it will do it. ALAMEDA: Other discussion or opinions? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Yeah. At the last meeting I voiced some concern about whether we were too narrowly defining the superstore. But that said I think I want to go back to the beginning portions of this and -. I agree with the Director and I agree with his arguments and I agree with what he’s trying to do. Now whether any one of these bills has the potential to have the teeth to EXHIBIT D 27 really accomplish what we’re hoping we can accomplish is debatable, and I’m not sure I got the answer for that. But in light of all that’s, and inclusive of what has been submitted today, because we just got one from Cades and Schutte that indicated that, well, now what is the difference between a 91,000 square foot superstore versus a 75,000 square foot K-Mart and a 20,000 square foot KTA Supermarket that’s right next door? And I think, you know, as long as we approach it from a land use issue where we’re looking at the concerns about infrastructure and traffic flow, then I think we’re in pretty good shape. But I think if we try to regulate commerce with land use laws then I think we’re headed down the wrong road. And that’s why I’m really opposed to the Council’s version of it. And I think overall the Director has done a pretty good job with whatever is available to him. ALAMEDA: All right. Any more discussion items before we sign off and revisit this agenda again? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I’ve got one more agenda item and it’s in keeping with this traffic deal. And earlier I had wondered whether there’s a difference between say a 90,000-square foot single purpose store versus a 90,000-square foot multi-purpose store, if the traffic differs there, and if we can regulate it just by size rather than regulating it by how many items they keep, and whether there’s 20,000 square feet of grocery store space or not, or if that’s even a good idea. And I was hoping that maybe the staff could provide us something in the interim before we discuss this again in the Kona meeting. And that’s what I was hoping to get. YUEN: We’ll look for that. I know that in one of the nationally recognized traffic engineering studies that there is an estimated trip generation for a supercenter, specifically. And we can look at that and see if that’s significantly different than other kinds of retail establishments. They are based at least to some extent on actual studies and experiences. So we’ll see if we can find that. ALAMEDA: All right. Seeing no further discussion, we have a motion on the table made by Commissioner Iwashita, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe, on continuing this matter to our next meeting in Kona. No discussion? Very good. Staff? HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. EXHIBIT D 28 HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. HAYASHI: And Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Motion carries. All right, thank you. Thank you, Fellow Citizens, for showing up today. The discussion ended at 2:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT D 29