Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-06 Hearing Transcript - Autozone Parts REZ 06-052WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 6, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of AUTOZONE PARTS, INC. (REZ 06- 000052) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 8 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: AUTOZONE PARTS, INC. (FORMERLY GINGER PATCH DP, LLC) (AMEND REZ 06-000052) Application for a time extension for Condition C (Time to Complete Construction), amendments to Condition D (Lot Consolidation), Condition E (Traffic Report Timing), Condition F (Access from Kekela Street), Condition G (Access from Puainako Street), Condition H (Parking Requirements) and Condition N (Fair Share Contribution) of Ordinance No. 07-105, which reclassified approximately 88,317 square feet of land from a Single Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) to a Neighborhood Commercial -40,000 square feet (CN -40) zoning district in 2007. The subject property is located along the north side of East Puainako Street between Kilauea Avenue and Kekela Street, across from the KTA Super Stores complex, Waiakea Homestead House Lots, South Hilo District, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-2-039:031. CLARKSON: And, with that, we'll ask staff to give us their presentation on an amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 07-105. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Good morning, Members of the Windward Planning Commission. It's always great to see your faces. Thank you all for coming today. As the Chair mentioned, this is an amendment, or actually in this case, several amendments to conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance 07-105. The Applicant is requesting to amend the following conditions. They're asking for a five-year time extension for Condition C which is time to complete construction. They're asking for the deletion of Condition D, which is a requirement for lot consolidation. They're asking to delete Condition E, which is a requirement that talked about when a TIAR, Traffic Impact Analysis Report, should be conducted. They're asking to modify Condition F to allow full access from EXHIBIT A Kekela Street, and asking to modify Condition H to readjust parking requirements for the project. And, finally, asking to modify Condition N to update the fair share dollar amounts. So, to give you some context on the project, the original Ordinance 07-105 was granted in 2007, and changed the zoning designation for the subject property from a Single -Family Residential — 10,000 square feet to Neighborhood Commercial — 40,000 square feet. The original applicant proposed to develop two pads of commercial real estate or business center ranging in size from 9,600 to 10,132 square feet, and a 130 parking stalls. The current Applicant is proposing a smaller commercial development consisting of an approximately 9,046 -square foot commercial storefront, a minimum of 57 paved parking stalls, landscaping, and related improvements, and the Applicant is requesting these condition amendments to accommodate this new, scaled-down development proposal, and to delete some conditions that have already been complied with. The subject parcel is located in the South Hilo District. It's here outlined in black; more specifically, in the Waiakea area of South Hilo. For reference, we've got Kanoelehua Avenue running generally north -south through the slide. On the other side is Kilauea Avenue, and running east -west is Puainako Street, and also it's bounded on the east here by Kekela Street. For further reference, KTA Super Stores Complex is located here to the south of the subject parcel. The zoning for the subject parcel is Neighborhood Commercial, and the surrounding zoning to the north and east is Single -Family Residential. There's some Open zoning to the west and some General Commercial zoning to the south pardon me, the southeast. Across Kekela Street is also zoned Neighborhood Commercial, and this is the site of the old Ginger Patch Marketplace. The State Land Use designation for the subject parcel and surrounding area is Urban as indicated in the pink color. The General Plan designation for the subject parcel is split --High Density Urban indicated in red and Medium Density Urban indicated in the orange color. Here's an aerial photograph of the subject parcel. Again, for reference, we've got Puainako Street running generally east -west through the slide. Kilauea Avenue north -south, and Kekela Street. As you can see, the subject parcel here outlined in red is currently vacant of all structures and improvements. Again, what you see here to the south is the parking lot for KTA. There are two entrances to their parking lot --the eastern entrance, or makai entrance, and the western entrance, or mauka entrance. The Applicant is proposing to take access from Puainako right across from the mauka entrance to the KTA parking lot and then also taking access off of Kekela Street roughly in this area. Here is the Applicant's proposed site plan for the project area. Again, it's generally this L- shaped parcel here. As we talked about before, access will be coming off of Puainako Street and Kekela Street, and access is limited from Puainako Street to a right -in, right -out access. And, currently, there is a condition limiting access to the project site from Kekela Street to delivery vehicles only, and that's part of the request to amend that condition to allow the general public to access the site from Kekela Street. EXHIBIT A 2 Also indicated on the site plan is this rock wall structure that the Applicant has agreed to build in response to neighbors' concerns over visual and noise impacts from the project, and so, these are the neighbors here who have agreed toagreed to that as part of that mitigation. Also on this pardon me—on this site plan, it's showing proposed restriping of Puainako Street and proposed restriping of Kekela Street. These proposed restriping mitigations come from the TIAR that was submitted as part of your packet. Here's some photographs of the subject parcel. The top photo here is a view of the project area looking north across Puainako Street. Again, we've got Kekela Street generally in this area, and the area for the driveway access is generally here. On the bottom left, again, is a little closer view of the proposed driveway access area from Puainako and then a view of Kekela Street looking north with the access generally in this area adjacent or across from the current Ginger Patch development. Here's some additional views, top left is a view of Kekela Street looking south with the subject parcel on the right-hand side. So, KTA here, and alternately a view of Kekela Street looking north with the subject parcel on the left-hand side. There is full curb, gutter, sidewalk on Kekela Street that's already developed there. Just needs to be mowed a little bit, and you'll be able to see it a little bit better. A view of Puainako Street looking west with the subject parcel on the right-hand side, and, again, the general area for the access will be right about here. And, a view of Puainako Street looking east with the subject parcel on the left-hand side. So, this is a little bit different from your normal presentations. Because there are several requested amendments, I just wanted to lay out that the Director is recommending that we forward a favorable recommendation for five of the six amendments --that's C, D, F, H, and N. And, then forward an unfavorable recommendation on the request for the deletion of Condition E, and I'll get into a little bit more about what those requests are and the reasoning behind it. So, here is the Applicant's suggested language, condition language for Condition C, and ultimately, it's the same condition. All it says is that the construction of the proposed improvements shall be completed within five years from the effective date of this ordinance as amended, and their reasoning is the deadline to complete construction was August 14, 2017, after a granted administrative time extension. However, the original developer abandoned the previous project, and the land was returned to the fee owner. AutoZone entered into a 15 -year ground lease on September 2nd, 2015 with the landowner but realized they would not be able to meet the development deadline, and the Applicant, for those reasons, is requesting that five-year time extension to complete construction of their project. So, the Director is supportive of this proposed amendment, but changed slightly the language to match kind of our standard condition language. So, the Director's suggested language is, "Construction of the proposed project or other use permitted in the zoning district..." Again, because, rezoning doesn't lock them into this proposed project. We just want to make sure that we cover that, and then it says, "shall be completed within five years of the effective date of this amended ordinance." And, then, at the bottom, the very last line at the end, we just changed it to EXHIBIT A 3 say the effective date where it says rezoning, we changed it to match the amended ordinance language. So, moving on to Condition D, the Applicant is requesting deletion of Condition D which required consolidation of four former parcels that make up the current parcel, and those were 31, 57, 68, and 69 into one tmk. This consolidation was granted in 2012; therefore, since it's already been done, the Director is supportive of deletion this condition. Another condition is to amend Condition N, and this was the request to update fair -share contribution dollar amounts to current levels. Although the Applicant is not proposing the construction of any residential units on the subject property, the proposed amendment seeks to update the fair -share contribution amounts based on the current percentage change in the Honolulu Consumer Price Index being utilized by the Planning Department to determine what those amounts would be and updating those from the 2007 levels to current levels. The Director is supportive of this proposed amendment as well. As a standard practice, we will update these when we have time extensions or amendments to ordinances. So, they are just making their requests on something we would have done anyway. So, the next is an amendment to Condition F, and again, the original condition limited project access from Kekela Street to only delivery vehicles. So, the Applicant's proposed language is here. It's now saying that access to the project site from Kekela Street shall be allowed for general public and delivery vehicles, and shall conform with Chapter 22 of the Hawaii County Code. Their reasons for this are the Applicant conducted and submitted a TIAR which assessed the level of service at the Kekela Street/Puainako Street intersection. The current level of service at the intersection is "F" and the projected level of service would continue to be "F" in the future should the project be built. Some of the mitigation—or some additional information that the TIAR found was that trips travelling southbound on Kekela Street, that's toward KTA which are turning left to go toward Kanoelehua on Puainako Street, experience the highest delay at the intersection. They also found that the existing southbound lane on Kekela Street is approximately 24 -feet wide which would be sufficient area to provide two 12 -foot wide lanes if they restriped, and that's what they recommended in terms of mitigation, was to restripe Kekela Street, restripe that southbound lane to provide a left-hand turn lane and a through -lane to improve operations at the intersection to minimize disruption at the southbound right -turn, and to maintain traffic flow. The Director is generally supportive of this amendment as it will provide a secondary full movement access for the general public to the project site and relieve some of the traffic issues that could arise should there only be one limited movement access point to the property from Puainako as is required by current ordinance language. This support also assumes that the Applicant is required to install appropriate traffic mitigation improvements as required by DOT and DPW to ensure traffic safety on the roadways in the vicinity of the project. Oh, sorry—the last thing, and the last reason for this is according to the Applicant, DPW informed them that it did not recommend any access restrictions on Kekela Street during the original rezoning action, and that it would not object to an amendment to remove the limited EXHIBIT A 4 access restriction provided the project ingress, egress on Kekela Street conformed to County standards. So, we handed out this morning a copy that just came in of a plan review comment sheet from Public Works Traffic Division. There was some comment in the first checkbox here from Signs/Markings, and says that channelization of Kekela Street to accommodate peak hour traffic, whichever is greater, would be required. So, that seems consistent with what's being proposed, and I've been accused of living in the past. I apologize. This should be dated 6/6/19, not 5/6/19 on the upper right-hand corner. So, again, yeah, the Director is supportive of this amendment provided that all of the improvements as required by DPW are made. Condition H was the parking condition. At the time of the rezone when it went up to the County Council, the County Council requested and required a pardon me, a parking requirement that was a little bit, a little bit different from what our Zoning Code requires. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of one parking space for each 300 square feet of commercial space. The County Council at the time asked for one parking space per a 160 square feet of gross floor area for commercial uses, and then based on that and what was being proposed at the time, the County Council asked that a 123 parking spaces be kind of the minimum requirement for the project. Since the Applicant is scaling this down, they're asking to keep that ratio of one parking stall to a 160 square feet, but they're just asking to apply it to the lower square footage of the proposed development. So, that's why the 57 spaces. And, then, the Director is supportive of this amendment request as they're keeping with the same ratio that the previous Council required, but they're just applying it to the smaller project. And, then, finally, we've got their request to delete Condition E, and this is a requirement that a Traffic Impact Analysis Report be submitted to the Department of Transportation, Highways Division, through the Hawaii District Office for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. A copy of the TIAR shall also be submitted to the Planning Director. So, the Applicant is asking to delete this because as part of their 2017 Change of Zone amendment application, they submitted a draft TIAR, and their stated reason is as they're not proposing any modification to the right -in, right -out access from Puainako Street and will be required to construct improvements in Puainako Street right-of-way meeting with the approval of the DOT. They're saying, therefore, according to the Applicant, deletion of this condition will not release them from complying with the DOT's construction requirements imposed under Condition G which states that access to the project site from Puainako Street shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only and shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. The Applicant shall construct any improvements on Puainako Street as required by DOT. The Director is not supportive of this condition for a number of reasons, or this proposed deletion for a number of reasons. In their response to the initial request for comments, on the 2017 TIAR, DOT Highways Division objected to the Applicant's request to delete that condition stating that they did not consider the Applicant's justification that Condition G which requires the Applicant to construct improvements on Puainako Street to be sufficient. They further cited several deficiencies in the 2017 draft TIAR submitted with the amendment application. So, EXHIBIT A 5 based on these comments from DOT back in 2017, the Applicant asked us to kind of put the application on hold so that they could conduct another TIAR or amend the TIAR to address DOT's issues. Back in 2018, they submitted to us an updated TIAR which actually at that point we're going to request full -turn access off of Puainako Street. So, on Page 7 of your Background Report, we reference that. So, the TIAR came in along with a letter of approval from DOT, and this is the second document we handed out today, and essentially what this is saying is that they approve of the mitigation as recommended by the Applicant in their 2018 TIAR for full - movement access, and that they would, you know, work with them to implement those mitigation requirements. Subsequent to that, the Applicant came back and asked to remove that amendment request to allow for full -turn access. Based on conversations with KTA across the street, KTA was concerned that a full -turn access off of Puainako would create traffic issues and problems with their customers trying to make a left-hand turn out of their parking lot. So based on those comments, and in consideration of those, the Applicant deleted that request. So, they subsequently submitted another site plan that showed adjusted requirements, and we asked them hey, you know, because you're now deleting this request, the last TIAR we have is about full -turn access movements, can you update your TIAR to address what your current proposal is, and at that point, we would then have to distribute that to DOT and DPW for their comments. So, they updated that and a couple weeks ago, we got a third TIAR which addressed those issues. At this point, DOT and DPW have not had an opportunity to review that TIAR, have not had an opportunity to comment on that TIAR, so that's the second reason that the Director is not in support of deleting this condition. We at the Planning Department rely on agency review to inform appropriate conditions for roadway improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. We've talked about the Applicant recently provided an updated TIAR, and neither agency has had a chance to review or comment on the analysis or the appropriateness of proposed mitigation measures. Finally, as we talked about before, amendments to this Change of Zone do not require the Applicant to develop their project as currently proposed. Should AutoZone choose to expand the size of their store now or in the future, or should any successor Applicant wish to develop a different or larger project, retaining this condition will ensure that any increased traffic impacts would be studied, and proposed mitigation for those impacts would be reviewed and approved by appropriate agencies. So, the Director, again, is not supportive of deleting this requirement for those reasons. And, the other thing that we just added to the condition, and I'll go back topardon me, the language—is the Director is recommending adding that a TIAR will be, shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation, Highways Division through the Hawaii District Office and to the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, for review and shall be approved prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval, a copy of the TIAR shall be submitted to the Planning Director, and then finally, the last sentence that the Director is proposing to add is the Applicant shall construct any improvements required by the State Department of Transportation and County Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. So, what this does is just captures to make sure that appropriate review and adoption of a TIAR is done and that prior to occupancy, all of the required improvements are made to that area, those intersections. EXHIBIT A 6 And, with that, I'll just reiterate that the Planning Director is recommending forwarding a favorable recommendation for amendments to Condition C, D, F, H, and N, and forwarding an unfavorable recommendation for the Applicant's request of deletion of Condition E. That was a lot. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. CLARKSON: Any questions for staff from the Commissioners? RAFFIPIY: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. So, so there are, there are studies out there right now? Or report that are at the agencies right now that they're still reviewing? KAY: The—the TIAR that came in 2019, yes, they're still looking at, yeah, that came in a few weeks ago, they're still looking at RAFFIPIY: Right— KAY: —and reviewing. That's correct. So, what's interesting about that, and I noted it in the report is for the most part, the TIAR that came a couple weeks ago was identical to the TIAR that came back in 2017 using all the same traffic counts and most of the same analysis. The information that was updated was information around the new site plan, and the new proposed striping and everything like that. Because DOT had issues with the first TIAR that came in, and because the TIAR is roughly the same, we wanted to make sure that the agencies had an opportunity to review them and offer appropriate mitigation. With that said, DOT, in the interim on the second TIAR that would have allowed for the greater access off from Puainako, approved that one as well. We just want to make sure that they have an opportunity to approve of this one, the most recent one, and provide appropriate mitigation measures that we make sure are installed prior to occupancy of the new development. RAFFIPIY: So, basically the Director will not change his recommendation after, basically, you know, after the review, the agencies were able to review the latest TIAR. KAY: Yeah, I'm not, I'm not sure how long they'll take to review it, and I'm not sure if there is going to be any more back and forth, so we're, we just conditioned it such that prior to, prior to Plan Approval that review and recommendation period was taking place and then prior to occupancy, all of the mitigation measures that were approved were installed. Again, based on that last point of, you know, in the future, too, this is a commercially -zoned property. AutoZone could want to expand or they could sell it to another buyer, and they could want to expand or add another structure on the property and things like that. If we delete this condition right now, then it's not there for any of these subsequent possibilities in the future. So, we just want to cover all bases, and that's why we feel it's important to keep this condition. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. KAY: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Appreciate it. EXHIBIT A 7 AU: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Christian, so you mentioned there is two reports, right? Two TIARs? KAY: Three. AU: Three. KAY: Correct. AU: So, 2017, 2018, and there's 2019. KAY: Correct. AU: Okay. KAY: Yeah, I didn't add the full report in 2019 again because most of it was the same, and I wanted to save paper, so—but, the important pages and the pages that were different, I did add for your review. CLARKSON: I have a question. KAY: Yes, sir. CLARKSON: So, if the plans for the property change, and there were no requirement for additional TIARs, wouldn't they still have to comply with, I think it was Chapter 22? KAY: That's from the Kekela side CLARKSON: —Yeah, okay KAY: so Chapter 2 is County Streets, correct, uh huh. CLARKSON: For the County side, and when they still have to comply with whatever conditions would be set by the DOT? KAY: Yes. CLARKSON: Which could easily include a new TIAR. KAY: Correct. CLARKSON: But, if DOT decided that whatever this new project would be, they wouldn't require a TIAR, would the Planning Department require it? In other words, you kind of indicated that you're relying on the agencies to review the TIAR and to make their recommendations for mitigation, but you don't want to rely on them to ask for the TIAR. We EXHIBIT A 8 KAY: Again, back to—thank you for the question. Back to kind of covering bases, we have the opportunity right now through conditioning this amendment request to from our side ensure that it takes place. It's likely that DOT, well, certainly, any work that DOT requires would need to be done in, on their facility, right? So, it's likely that they would require it in the future, but we just want to make sure that we're covering our bases, and again, it's an existing condition that was placed on this ordinance originally, and we want to maintain it because that was the intention of the Department and the Commission pardon me, the Department, Commission, and Council at the time. CLARKSON: I understand that, but there's already been three of them. KAY: Yeah. CLARKSON: I can understand why the Applicant might be KAY: —Well, so CLARKSON: —tired of KAY: —yeah— CLARKSON: producing them. KAY: Yeah, I understand. So, the second part of this condition not only says that they need to produce it and submit it. It also says that and shall be approved prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval. So far, we don't have an approved TIAR yet, except for the second one which was in support of full -turn access, and so the mitigation requirements that were recommended in that second TIAR are different than those that were recommended in the third and first TIAR. So, I just want to make sure that those agencies had the opportunity to appropriately comment and require those mitigations and that they're installed. I did, and I'm sorry, I said my presentation was done. There were a few more things if I may or if there are other questions, I can take those first and then CLARKSON: I actually had a couple other— KAY: Okay CLARKSON: —minor questions. KAY: Sure. CLARKSON: I didn't notice, can this property be resubdivided into two since its zoned 40,000 square feet and it's actually 88 or was that prohibited as part of the original consolidation? KAY: There was no prohibition that I'm aware of. EXHIBIT A 9 CLARKSON: Okay. KAY: Of subdividing. That said, DOT has required that there only be a single access to the property from Puainako, and part of their comment letter that came back in 2008 also talked about no access coming off of Kilauea as well. So, that it's possible that that would eliminate the ability to do so although we would look at that at subdivision as well. CLARKSON: And, then I have one—thank you. KAY: Yes. CLARKSON: I have one more question about Condition F. KAY: Mm-hmm? CLARKSON: If you could post that. KAY: Yeah. CLARKSON: There is a lot of discussion of the reasons for the amendment to the condition, but, you know, the right -turn lane on Kekela Street, the right -in, right -out only off Puainako Street, but none of that, as far as this Kekela part, none of those mitigation measures are in the condition, and I'm just curious as to, I mean, it just says conform to Chapter 22, but it doesn't say shall restripe these streets. KAY: Yeah, so, another reason to keep Condition E, because Condition E says that not only does DOT get a chance to review and make recommendations on the TIAR, but so does DPW, and so DPW would be making those recommendations based on Kekela Street in that case. So, it's kind of captured in that condition, pardon me, Condition E as well. So, I didn't want to restate all of that. And, the reason is what is being recommended right now in terms of mitigation has not been reviewed and approved yet by these agencies, so I didn't want to prescribe anything there until the agencies have had an opportunity to review the most up-to-date TIAR. CLARKSON: Okay, well, the mitigation proposals make a lot of sense to me personally. KAY: Mm-hmm. CLARKSON: But, if they're not in the amended condition and DPW doesn't require them, then they disappear. How do you make sure that they are actually done? KAY: So, we've had conversations with DPW. So, initially when the application came in, in 2017, DPW provided a no comment—DPW Traffic provided a no comment. After kind of the additional TIARs came in and there was now recommendations to restripe Kekela Street, DPW EXHIBIT A 10 did communicate with us that they had some requirements that would need to be met in terms of length of, of the through -lane and the left-hand turn lane, and things like that. So, it appears as though the letter that came in this morning from them talks about channelization of Kekela Street to accommodate peak hour traffic, whichever is greater. Again, I haven't had a chance to speak with Aaron at Public Works to really fully understand what this means, but at least we have a comment now on what would need to be done. So, I understand your quandary. If it's not here, and it's not captured on what they need to do, then how do we make sure it happens? It's on their radar screen now, and when they come into do that, so that will all need to be done prior to PA so as part of our PA, Plan Approval, process, there will need to be some discussion done prior to that with DPW to ensure that plans that get submitted for Plan Approval include all of the information to meet that condition. CLARKSON: So, one last question then. So, and shall conform to Chapter 22 includes Chapter 22 requires the Applicant to do whatever DPW tells them is necessary as far as channelization or restriping or not. KAY: Mostly Chapter 22 deals with the intersection to County streets do driveway requirementsso, again, that condition, the TIAR condition would capture that, the additional requirements for striping. CLARKSON: Oh, it'sit would be in there? KAY: Yeah, yeah, that's right. The Condition E would require DP—so it would require DPW to review and to approve the recommendations in the TIAR so that's, that's the requirement. CLARKSON: Okay. KAY: They have to review and approve. If their approval says we're fine with them or we have no comment, then they've done what they need to do, but I suspect based on the comments that we've gotten back and forth from this last TIAR that is on their radar screen now and that they'll be requiring appropriate mitigation, and it seems like they agree with the striping, but I just want to give them an opportunity to formally approve it. CLARKSON: Thank you. AGUINALDO: I have a question, Mr. Chair. Christian, you know on the slide you have pertaining to restriping, DPW, Kekela Street, Puainako, where the developer has to do the egress, ingress, I noticed there is an existing driveway right by the pocket on the top when you, right by the intersection. Can you go to that one? It's kind of like way in the beginning. There's an existing driveway. You see that—right there. Okay, can you bring it up closer? If not, go to your left. KAY: Okay. EXHIBIT A 11 AGUINALDO: Oh, right there. Now, how you going constitute that? Are you guys keeping that driveway when you guys indicated as one point of entry in and out? KAY: So, again, thank you for the question. Based on DOT's comments back in 2008 and then their comments in 2017 and their initial response, they said we want to limit access to Puainako to a single access. So, this is just an existing concrete asphalt driveway that I believe either serviced an old dwelling that was there or the ginger farm. So, that will be eliminated as part of this, and the only access would be the right -in, right -out access from Puainako here if this development is built. AGUINALDO: So, is that going to be indicated as, you know, a condition that it's not going to be showing that? KAY: Yeah, I think, I think what they were trying to do here is just show kind of current conditions on the ground as well as what's being proposed. It's our understanding that that will go away once the development is built. AGUINALDO: Okay, I just was checking because it's close, yeah? KAY: Yeah, no, I understand, yeah. AGUINALDO: Okay. CLARKSON: Anymore questions? AGUINALDO: Nope, we're good. KAY: So, I did have just a few more points, and I'm sorry. So, in addition to the Director's recommendations on the requested amendments, the Director is also recommending some changes to additional conditions. Condition B which required payment of a water commitment, the Applicant has done that, so we have standard language that talks about maintaining valid water commitments. So, we just added that in there. We had a puka in Condition D since the Director is recommending deletion of that. And, so, we recommended a new Condition D that spoke to requirements to, from DOT, to set aside additional right-of-way for a DOT Puainako Street widening project in the future. So, this was that 2008 letter that came in from DOT. It had 11 conditions, the first of which was the Applicant was required to subdivide and dedicate zero to ten feet of additional right-of-way to accommodate this project. That wasn't done, and so, I spoke with DOT. DOT is fine with kind of putting that as a set aside strip for future dedication. And, so that's just the language here that in the future when DOT is ready to construct that project, the Applicant will subdivide and dedicate that additional right-of-way out at no cost to the State. And, then we just updated Condition L which is our standard condition around inadvertent archaeological finds, and it's just a new condition language that SHPD requested that we add to conditions. EXHIBIT A 12 And, then, finally, we updated Condition R which allowed for an administrative time extension as is our standard practice after the Applicant comes back for a time extension. Any additional time extensions would require coming back to the Planning Commission and the County Council. So, those are the changes to the conditions in addition to the changes that we talked about before. I'd be happy to answer any questions on those you have. CLARKSON: Any further questions? If not, thank you. KAY: Thank you. CLARKSON: Will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? LIM/RASHID/CHASTAIN/QUINTERO: I do/yes. CLARKSON: Thank you. Please introduce yourself and proceed. LIM: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Steven Lim from Carlsmith Ball. With me today immediately to my left is Mr. Sohrab Rashid the author of those many Traffic Impact Analysis Reports. To his left is AutoZone's Michael Chastain, who is the real estate manager for the company, and to his left is Jose Quintero, who is the former Kona store manager, now the newly appointed district manager. So, thank you very much for hearing us. We have received and agree with the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation Report. As a practical matter, we, I think we are all in agreement with the Director in terms of the—you know, our initial request was to waive the TIAR, but because of the events that came about after that where the, KTA had their issue, we, we just haven't formally withdrawn that, but essentially, we agree with the Director's recommendation. The latest TIAR is May 20, 2019. That was after the KTA issue came up, so we revised it, because how it came down was right -in, right -out, a little bit restrictive on the 2017 report. The 2018 report was a full -access driveway which would have been better for us, but because KTA raised an issue, we went back, essentially back to the 2017 TIAR and updated the report to the May 20th, 2019 report. So, that report has already been submitted to you and to the Department and to DOT. I'll have Sohrab discuss, you know, where that is, and how we expect that to come down. We'll also have Michael speak to you about, a little bit about AutoZone, who they are and where they are in Hawaii. So, I'll turn that over to Sohrab first. RASHID: So, yeah, I don't want to—we've talked a lot about TIARs today. I don't think I need to go over this a lot. I do want to just talk a little bit about the material differences between the TIARs, and there really isn't much between the May 20th, 2019 report that Steve just mentioned and the previous version. We actually did the analysis assuming a right -in, right -out and then worked with DOT to get full access approved. So, the only "mitigation" or change in the EXHIBIT A 13 Puainako Street configuration would essentially be to allow a left -turn so you'd be travelling from Kilauea towards Kanoelehua, and be able to turn left into the site at that point with the right -turn, right -out configuration that is currently proposed. That goes away, and then there is actually sort of a formalized merge lane for the KTA traffic. So, that's, that's really the only fundamental difference. I know we talked a lot about the multiple versions of the TIAR, but that's really it. So, it's a very simple striping difference. It's either right -in, right -out or would allow a left turn into the AutoZone site. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody has. LIM: Maybe, Sohrab, could you describe to the Commission the actual traffic impact from this relatively modest project and the mitigation conditions? RASHID: Yeah, I'd be happy to. So, so the project is estimated to generate about 574 daily peak hour trips, so spread out over the course of the day, which really more kind of important is the peak hour trip numbers. And, so in the morning, it's on the order of about 20 peak hour trips, and that's sort of combined inbound and outbound. I believe it's 15 in and 5 out. And, then in the afternoon peak hour, which tends to be a little bit more congested at that location, we were talking about 56 peak hour trips, and it's about evenly split. So, between the two driveways, you're going to see on the order again of about 10 to 11 trips. So, and just to put it in perspective because sometimes we talk about traffic and -56 might sound like a big number to somebody, but it's an average of about one vehicle a minute total. So, if you just imagine standing there, there's a vehicle. About a minute later, there's another vehicle. Now we know it doesn't happen exactly that way, but just to give you the perspective. That's kind of the traffic we're talking about. So, as to Steve's point, it is fairly modest in terms of trip generation. LIM: And, so the mitigation measures regarding the striping and additional turn lane onto Kekela, does or going to make the traffic conditions better in the area? RASHID: Yeah, and the reason we suggested mitigation, it was really two -fold. One is to better delineate the left turns and the through movements to KTA from the neighborhood as well as traffic from the project site, and then providing that separate right, really just better sort of designates to the driver where to be. If somebody who is turning left has kind of drifted over a little bit, it prevents somebody from turning right which affects again both project traffic as well as the neighborhood traffic. And, there's a lot obviously that doesn't go into the TIAR, but we worked very diligently with DOT to try and come up with a potential solution, and I know the last time this project was considered back in the 2008 timeframe, there was a lot of discussion about how to improve it. It's just a very challenging situation because of the proximity of the signals in that area, and we think the proposed improvements here on Kekela Street as well as what's proposed at the Puainako access for the project is basically, we've done everything we can to sort of mitigate the traffic impacts. CHASTAIN: Hey, goodI'm not excellent with a microphone, so good morning to each of you, and thank you for your time this morning. I work at AutoZone. I've been there for over 25 years, about 15 years in store development. First, I'd like to publicly praise Clarice and Brian Shiroma and their mother. We met a little over three years ago. We as a company decided five EXHIBIT A 14 years ago to develop the 50th State, Hawaii. As you guys all know, for a retailer to come here, it requires a substantial commitment and [inaudible] in order to support the stores and be relevant to the community. We had a 12 strategy roll out. Hilo was up in the top five. We currently have 11 stores open, so if you approve this project and we get through the rezoning at city council, and we are able to construct this, this would be our 12th store. Subsequent to that, we decided that we would like to increase our roll out, and so, there will be future stores you'll see beyond our 12 if Hilo comes to be. But, when a family like Brian and Clarice, I mean, they took a big commitment with AutoZone. My first couple pass-throughs Hilo, there were other properties we could have selected which were way easier to develop, but I've learned in my time and position that it's not always the easy sites, but it's the right sites, and you really hope you find the right people. So, I just really want to thank, thank the family, because it's—they don't know what they're getting when the sign up and tie up their property for this long, but I just want to let everyone know that we have committed to this project and appreciate the comments and then learning about the property over the time. And, so my role here is just to answer any store development questions. Q, as we all know him by, is aone thing about AutoZone is we work from the inside up. There's not a whole lot of people that are brought in from the outside into the organization and positions of management or higher, and Q is an example of this, and just an example of our EVPs in different departments back in Memphis. Q was a store employee. He is from Rialto. He managed a very high-volume store through a promotion, and he was selected to come to Kona, because at the time, this was a, one of our first outer -islands that we opened a store on, and it's a little bit different when you don't have the support staff every day in presence. So, Q was selected to be the store manager in Kona. He's proved his worth, and he was recently promoted to district manager, so now he's responsible for all the 12 or 11 stores currently with all the, all the issues that come with running a retail business. So, Q will be able to answer any specific issues to running a store, communities, how it impacts the communities, etc. So, again, thank you for your time. QUINTERO: So, just real quick, good morning. So, like he said, four years ago, I came here to Kona by myself, no family, no nothing, and four years later, I actually married a girl from Hilo. So, she's from here, and actually we have a 1-1/2 year old, and I keep on hearing DWP, DWP and that's actually her uncle so I'm going to call him, you know? Hey, what's, what's going over here, you know? But, like I said, it's a great opportunity. You know, like it's an impact to the community. A lot of, the only people that were brought out from [inaudible] would be like myself, just to kind of train the people that we hired here, but from that point forward, everybody that we have in our stores is all from, from the islands, you know. So, whether it's a store manager, whether it's a whatever position there are, they're all from here. We don't bring anybody else out from the mainland, `cause I know to a lot of people, that's their concern, you know, like oh, where do you guys hire people from. You know, where do you guys bring them from, and it's all taking away from the local community. So, luckily—or not luckily, I mean with hard work and the type of company that AutoZone is, you know, the community has been very receptive to all the kind of programs and deals that we offer for customers, you know. And, being such a big corporation and all, I know a lot of them sometimes have like questions. They, EXHIBIT A 15 you know, how do you guys take care of the local community, you know? You know, your corporation is in Memphis. But, luckily, they've given us the power to take care of a lot of that in-house, you know. Take care of that, and take care of that here on the island, and that's kind of a great thing about, about the company. So, like I said, if any of you guys have a questions on operational -wise, I'd be more than happy to answer that. And, when it comes to streets and stuff like that, I'm way—that's way above me, you know. But, other than that, whatever you guys need, just let me know. Thank you. Thank you for your time. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. Commissioners, any questions for the Applicant? AU: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Mr. Lim, I have a question for you. This is regarding letters dated back in 2017. Can you just talk about that? That concrete wall that the Applicant is going to build, because that's out and beyond of what there, of what the Applicant's required to do, so can you just talk about that? LIM: That's correct. We worked with the Shiromas very carefully. They're—you know, they are good stewards of their property, good stewards of the neighborhood, and they live in the neighborhood. So, one of the things that came up was the impacts on the adjoining neighbors to the north, and so the letters that Commissioner Au is speaking about are the letters from the adjoining three northern property owners where AutoZone offered to build a 6 -foot high boundary CMU or rock wall along the entire boundary of the northern portion of the property to mitigate against damages and noise and things, and so, the homeowners on the north boundary were kind enough to sign letters that you've got in your file supporting the project. So, we do appreciate them. We do appreciate the Shiroma family's work. We did conduct a community meeting before we filed the actual request for extension, and we had a couple of people I think including Mr. Miyashiro, who is in the back here with us, who came out and were kind enough to give us their thoughts on the project. Thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions? AGUINALDO: I have one, Mr. Chair. For the two AutoZone gentlemen, how big is the store going to be roughly? CHASTAIN: Roughly 9,000 square feet. AGUINALDO: Wow, and how many employees are you guys planning to employ? CHASTAIN: Typically at, at—will be around 20, with the expected volumes. AGUINALDO: You know, that is something, you know, as a Commissioner, I always emphasize is how you going stable your community, your state, is creating jobs. And, you know, and that's something that I personally would, was wanting to know, and, yeah, that is really good. QUINTERO: Yeah, so it'll be about 20 employees. Like I said, they'll all be from here from the local community, and when we had the community meeting, they even asked us about who is EXHIBIT A 16 going to take care of the landscaping, you know. It's going to be—and somebody from here, you know, so it's all, and we know how Hilo is. I actually lived in Hilo for a year, so I know how hard it is everybody commuting to Kona. I was actually commuting from Hilo to Kona. You know, so, I know how hard it is out here, so yeah, all the 20 even—depending on, you know, obviously sales and all that, but it'll vary from 15 to 20 employees, so. AGUINALDO: And, are you guys going to have, you know, products like for, you know, you have body shops, yeah? QUINTERO: Yeah. AGUINALDO: The reason why I say that, that I'm deeply involved with our university. Believe it or not, Big Island, University of Hawaii/HCC is the only college where you can get your associate for auto body. There's—Kauai, Maui, and I think Honolulu is prettyI don't know if they still yet have. It's something that's it's a dying breed, and, you know, for that kind of stuff, as like AutoZone yeah parts, you know, I travelled the mainland. I see you guys in Arizona or wherever I go, but that's something to really think and consider is always step outside of the box. Really look at it. What do the community really need? Do you guys go to the University check, you know, the diesel shop, you know, auto mechanic. You may have graduates that know the technicality of what kind part they going need, right? So, that's kind of like from now on as a commissioner, I would like to see entrepreneurship that you guys do go to the universities or what not or to HCC and kind of seek what this, the challenges because it doesn't make sense you got good talented graduates and nobody go out there and reach out and help them out, because you know it's kind of poho. When we say poho, it's what a waste. That they leave, because nothing is offered to them. And, I'm an advocate for that because it's creating jobs, yeah? Something to just think about, you know, things that you guys should. QUINTERO: And, just to touch up a little around that, so, all AutoZones basically look the same, but the inside of each AutoZone kind of cater to the community. So, that's the kind of cool thing. If they see its more agriculture, they'll give us more agricultural products, and if they see that what's this, they'll give us more, so they all look the same, but the inside, every store is a little bit different. They carry different things. So, like you say, like the auto body shop thing, that's something I can control myself, right? I go back to my team, I'd say, he, this is the need, this is what we need here. You know, what can we do? What can we carry? And, the AutoZone being so, such a big company, we have a lot of purchasing power, so a lot of vendors want to sell to us, you know? So, it's usually, it's not hard, but it's fairly simply to try to get something on the island, so we can control that. AGUINALDO: Mm-hmm, good. AU: Mr. Chair, I have one more question. The question is for Mr. Rashid. So, based off the comments from the Traffic Division for Public Works, that comment they made about channelization of Kekela Street to accommodate peak -hour traffic. Is that, is there a concern? Do you have any concerns with that? EXHIBIT A 17 RASHID: No, no I think, I think everything is consistent. I think, like I said, we worked, took whatever comments we got from DPW previously and worked with DOT, and I don't see any conflict with anything that's being proposed, and I mean that, to be perfectly honest, that's an improvement that can actually be done separate from this project, and would still benefit the existing commercial uses in the neighborhood there. So, we don't see an issue with that whatsoever. YEE: I don't need an answer to this. Just a comment since you brought up working with the community. Say, give some thought to where you water spigot is and drainage for all the car washes that will occur there. CLARKSON: Are there any further questions? If not, gentlemen, thank you. At this time, we'll take public testimony on this application. Would Brian Shiroma and Dwight Vicente please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Commission today? SHIROMA: I do. VICENTE: [No response.] CLARKSON: Please let the record show that Mr. Vicente is unsworn. Please introduce yourself and testify. SHIROMA: Okay, good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members. Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Brian Shiroma. I am president of H. Shiroma, Inc., the owners of the AutoZone project property. My grandfather, Hiroshi Shiroma, started the—started this property off as an agricultural development from the early 1960's. My grandfather and grandmother were very diligent in their combined efforts to make this business grow, and they were very—they had profited fruitfully and had been, humbly been started—from the start. We are a small family owned business that supports this AutoZone project. Based on the project's location amidst the surrounding commercial properties, and increased South Hilo and Puna District population, this would be a great opportunity for our community to have a, to have in close proximity, a national brand auto specialty parts dealership that is also an environmental leader in recycling and energy management. This is relevant today in Hawaii to have a leader within our community to bring in quality manufacturing parts and to have an added value partner for recycling and energy efficiencies. We believe AutoZone brings to our community quality parts and competitive pricing. All this and value to our community roads, making it safer and keeping our environment cleaner. We would like to reconfirm positively that we give our fullest support to this project and commitment to AutoZone. We humbly ask for your support also. Thank you. CLARKSON: Mr. Vicente? VICENTE: Good morning—is it on? Good morning, my name is Dwight Vicente representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. Unless you know the history here of the Hawaiian Kingdom, you'll be lost. There will be a lot of fraudulent claims that people own lands. If you go back to the late 1800's, under King Kalakaua, these lands were leased out as agricultural lands. They bumped it EXHIBIT A 18 up from three to five years to 25 years. Now, the plantation used most of those lands and the pastural ones was leased out to the guys who raise cattle. Now, these lands are still under the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom because the leases ended in 1915. And, the only reason why it was not ceded in 1898 by the banana republic of Hawaii was the fact that there was contracts on those lands. The lands that, the Crown and Government lands that did not have a contract was 1,750,000 acres that was illegally ceded to the United States and incorporated under Article IV, Section II, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, no amendment, Marbury vs. Madison. Now, these lands today, the County and the State of Hawaii and the Federal Government is taking control of this, leased lands that were not ceded to the U.S. In 1920, the lands that were illegally ceded was rebranded. The Crown and Government lands were rebranded as Hawaiian Home Lands, and those lands you don't have fee simple. Well, there's no fee simple, and now [inaudible] million acres also. And, those lands still fall under the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, anyone claiming to own the land is fraudulent, and the County and the State of Hawaii does not have jurisdiction over these lands that were not ceded. Their limits are the Hawaiian Homes Lands. That is the County of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii. So, they cannot be claiming, even like this Commission here, there's no jurisdiction over thelands, only the lands only rebranded as Hawaiian Home lands. So, the development becomes illegal, and you cannot be facilitating an illegal act. We're looking forward to bringing in an injunction against the County and the State and the Federal, if need be, against the illegal development of these 2 million plus acres of Crown and Government lands that were not ceded to the United States in 1898. The courts has jurisdiction to stop the County and the State from going beyond its limits which is Hawaiian Home lands. The other lands is still Hawaiian Kingdom and has native tenant rights to every inch of land that was not ceded. And, my job here is to make sure you guys don't go beyond the limits. And, even the limits of Hawaiian Home lands is even questionable because there's no amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is no State of Hawaii because the Article I, Section II, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, there's only 13 states. There's no Article V amendment to have any more than 13 states. So, with that, I'll end with the reservation of the rights of this Kingdom under the Queen's Protest of January 17, 1893, against U. S. Minister Stevens that has yet to make its way to U.S. Supreme Court, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, original but limited jurisdiction. And, the other one is the constitutionality of 1898 joint resolution. And, the other one is the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty which King Kalakaua and the U.S. President CLARKSON: Please wrap it up VICENTE: —did not sign. And, the other one is the 1820President Munroe appointed John C. Jones as the agent for the U.S., and he was in charge of the missionary family and the U.S. Navy that was sent [inaudible] without constitutional amendment or authority [inaudible]. Thank you. CLARKSON: Any questions for either of these testifiers from the Commission? EXHIBIT A 19 RAFFIPIY: I just want to make a comment. Several years ago when I was still in college, I just got to say that I had a lot of friends that were attending the UH. A lot of them were migrants, legal migrants, that they were employed by the Shiroma family in the ginger patch, and I just want to comment and thank you for continuing to support the local economy, the local people, and the migrants as well to help them make lives easier for them, and make to—so, with that I just want to say that I'm going to support this proposal. CLARKSON: Thank you. You may be seated. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to testify on this application? If not, Commissioners, I need a motion to close public testimony. RAFFIPIY: So moved. AGUINALDO: I second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. Public testimony is closed. At this time, we'll have to discuss how a motion for action will include—maybe I should look at the proposed motion for action. Are we going to be voting all of them simultaneously? The Applicant has agreed with the Director's recommendations on every amendment. Unless the Commission wants to amend any of the proposed amendments—we could do it HALL: I know you can. It's just, there's a fly KAY: Mr. Chair, I haven't seen the draft language for the motions, so I'm not sure if that covers everything. HALL: It doesn't cover the unfavorable, the unfavorable recommendation. CLARKSON: It just has the word "conditions." All the conditions. KAY: I believe if your craft your motion in such a way where you say you recommend to forward the favorable recommendation for the five and the unfavorable recommendation for the one that would be sufficient if that's what the motion is. HALL: But there's also the rest of the ones that he's also changing, right? Isn't there like three or four more that are also being changed, so I think if you go with the recommendation, right, it encompasses KAY: Correct HALL: everything. EXHIBIT A 20 KAY: Yeah. Yeah—yes, you can go with the Planning Director's Recommendation which will cover everything. HALL: Yeah. CLARKSON: Do we have a motion to that effect? REPLOGLE: I'll make a motion. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application to amend the conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 07-105 based on the Planning Director's recommendation which shall be adopted. CLARKSON: Is there a second? RAFFIPIY: I second. CLARKSON: Any discussion? Further discussion? AU: Yes, I'd just like to make a comment, Mr. Chair. I think this is a great project for the community, great family. From what I'm hearing, it's going to be a great developer. Just hopefully, you know, you follow through. I like that that CRM wall. You know, you're going out and beyond of what you're required to do. So, again, it's a great project for the community, and the only people that's going to be bummed about this project are the politicians. CLARKSON: At this time, if there is no further discussion, or comments, please call the roll, the vote. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. EXHIBIT A 21 KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries five, zero. CLARKSON: You'll be notified in writing of the action of the Commission today. LIM: On behalf of the Applicant and the Shiroma family, we thank you very much. The discussion ended at 10:11 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 22